Sure. You're Looking at rocks and therefore your opinion is superior. *facepalm*Quote:
Originally Posted by JP226
Printable View
Sure. You're Looking at rocks and therefore your opinion is superior. *facepalm*Quote:
Originally Posted by JP226
I know right? It's almost like i'm a heretic for not listening to the church of global warming.Quote:
Originally Posted by swabian
Seriously mate, this is getting ridiculous. Do you even realize the line of your argument?
Do you even ubderstand what science, experiment and scientific method is and how global scientific community functions?
This is like pre-descartes europe all over right now and I struggle to understand how people dont get the role of science and how it works at this day and age in a western country....
Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk
I am from Switzerland. Changes here are quite important, glaciers are shredding, we have far less snow, more often heatwaves and changing precipitation patterns and regimes.Quote:
Beyond other folks telling you to, what changes have you seen in your lifetime to warrant listening to junk science?
Finally, the properties of CO2 to block infrared radiation is something I use regularly to analyze the Total Carbon content of a water. The sample is acidified and burned and the gases are analyzed according to their spectral properties at specific wavelengths.
More extreme wild fires and desertification processes have been become more common in my country. Also weather in seasons has changed from traditional seasoned weather.
Quote:
More extreme wild fires and desertification processes have been become more common in my country. Also weather in seasons has changed from traditional seasoned weather.
However; worthy of *note, C02 is NOT the principle driver of climate change- for example our Sun provides 99.9% of the energy that drives the worlds climate systems & its solar winds shield us from galactic cosmic rays shown to influence global cloud cover & therefore temperature etc...Mars, Triton, Jupiter, Pluto all show global warming, pointing to the Sun as the dominant influence in determining climate throughout the solar system.
Looking at historical records we also know that C02 increases occurred on average 800 years after the temperatures increased. Furthermore, ^ levels of C02 did not inhibit in any way the subsequent fall in temp's that regularly occurred, plunging the world into another ice age.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stario
Scientists have known about the greenhouse effect since 1824, when Joseph Fourier calculated that the Earth would be much colder if it had no atmosphere. This natural greenhouse effect is what keeps the Earth's climate livable. Without it, the Earth's surface would be an average of about 60 degrees Fahrenheit (33 degrees Celsius) cooler.
See the calculations on the website of the American Chemical Society:
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/c...gyfromsun.html
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/c...peratures.html
Here a picture summarizing:
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/c...4177687088.jpg
TP is the average temperature predicted without taking in account the atmosphere. Tobs is the real average temperature observed. See the effect on Earth and Venus.
Here the Earth's energy budget from satellite data:
https://i.ibb.co/GcQ5tbz/image.png
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stario
"Moving on to the particulars, in the cases of Pluto and Triton, Neptune's largest moon, the observed warming is due to their current orientation to and distance from the Sun — technically known as summer.
Pluto was closest to the Sun in 1989 and is now moving away, but it is still relatively close. It's not that surprising for the greatest warmth to come a little after the closest approach, any more than it is for afternoons to be warmer than noons. And Triton's orbit is giving its southern hemisphere a particularly hot summer, boiling off frozen material from the southern pole and thickening the atmosphere, keeping in even more heat.
On Jupiter, things are a little different. The patterns of circulation seem to be changing, such that heat at the equator is stuck there, and higher latitudes are getting a little cooler.
On Mars, the warming seems to be down to dust blowing around and uncovering big patches of black basaltic rock that heat up in the day (see 'Mars hots up'). No change in sunshine required.
To take this disparate hodge-podge of phenomena and try to construct a theory of solar influence from it is the sort of foolishness people get driven to when desperate to support a failed theory, or just for a chance to muddy the waters."
"It is also worth noting that the Sun's radiance is measured from Earth orbit, and these records do not show it increasing over the past few decades, except with the regular rise and fall of the solar cycle. This second fact, you might think, should be enough to scupper the theory about system-wide solar warming on its own; strangely it is notably absent from accounts of the matter."
https://www.nature.com/news/2007/070.../070402-7.html
"Other planets in the solar system are not warming. There is a small amount of evidence of seasonal changes in parts of the solar system, but there is no evidence of global warming anywhere--except on Earth."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.ccb40036faaa
https://static.skepticalscience.com/...TvsTSI_med.jpg
A fundamental misconception about the role that carbon dioxide plays in glacial transitions has helped fuel the argument that the lag time between temperature and CO2 in the paleoclimate record casts doubt on carbon dioxide as an important greenhouse gas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stario
There are many other important interactions between temperature changes and the carbon cycle and many outstanding questions are only beginning to be answered by paleoclimatologists. However, the role of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses as a feedback to Milankovitch forcings during glacial and interglacial transitions provides a compelling explanation for observed changes. Jeff Severinghaus, professor of geosciences at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, succinctly explains:
"The contribution of CO2 to the glacial-interglacial coolings and warmings amounts to about one-third of the full amplitude, about one-half if you include methane and nitrous oxide. So one should not claim that greenhouse gases are the major cause of the ice ages. No credible scientist has argued that position (even though Al Gore implied as much in his movie). The fundamental driver has long been thought, and continues to be thought, to be the distribution of sunshine over the Earth’s surface as it is modified by orbital variations … The greenhouse gases are best regarded as a biogeochemical feedback, initiated by the orbital variations, but then feeding back to amplify the warming once it is already underway."
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.o...limate-system/
For a demonstration, see: https://www.clim-past.net/7/1415/201...-1415-2011.pdf
A little google research shows yore glaciers have been melting since before the industrial revolution began. It was a result of the ending of the little ice age. Don't let the junk science fool you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Genava
I´m know I´m totally nitpicking but there is slight increasing factor in Sun´s luminosity over time :whistlingQuote:
Originally Posted by Genava
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_Earth
This small change over time will for example affect carbon-silicate cycle to the point that in 600/800 millions years it will affect plate tectonics, C4/C3 photosynthesis and other crap slowly grilling Earth into Mercury style rock without water, life and atmosphere.. :laughter: And before anybody will start using my nuclear physics to support global warming via sun or other fun theory, this is very very very very slow change. This is mere note that the Sun will ultimately get us all. We will all burn alive!!! :laughter:Quote:
The energy generation of the Sun is based upon thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium. This occurs in the core region of the star using the proton–proton chain reaction process. Because there is no convection in the solar core, the helium concentration builds up in that region without being distributed throughout the star. The temperature at the core of the Sun is too low for nuclear fusion of helium atoms through the triple-alpha process, so these atoms do not contribute to the net energy generation that is needed to maintain hydrostatic equilibrium of the Sun.[69]
At present, nearly half the hydrogen at the core has been consumed, with the remainder of the atoms consisting primarily of helium. As the number of hydrogen atoms per unit mass decreases, so too does their energy output provided through nuclear fusion. This results in a decrease in pressure support, which causes the core to contract until the increased density and temperature bring the core pressure into equilibrium with the layers above. The higher temperature causes the remaining hydrogen to undergo fusion at a more rapid rate, thereby generating the energy needed to maintain the equilibrium.[69]
The result of this process has been a steady increase in the energy output of the Sun. When the Sun first became a main sequence star, it radiated only 70% of the current luminosity. The luminosity has increased in a nearly linear fashion to the present, rising by 1% every 110 million years.[71] Likewise, in three billion years the Sun is expected to be 33% more luminous. The hydrogen fuel at the core will finally be exhausted in five billion years, when the Sun will be 67% more luminous than at present. Thereafter the Sun will continue to burn hydrogen in a shell surrounding its core, until the luminosity reaches 121% above the present value. This marks the end of the Sun's main sequence lifetime, and thereafter it will pass through the subgiant stage and evolve into a red giant.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeli...the_far_future
This pointing to the Sun/solar activity as the dominant influence in determining climate throughout the solar system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Genava
..."sunshine over Earth surface", again pointing to the Sun/solar activity as the dominant influence in determining climate change.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geneva
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.o...limate-system/
Actually, your link confirmed that C02 concentration lag temperature changes by average of 800 years- "During both the transition in to and out of a glacial period, CO2 concentrations appear to lag temperature changes by an average of between 600 and 1,000 years".
Temperature increased before C02 increased; C02 was more of a byproduct. As temp decreased the C02 would hover for several decades then decrease; detection of radioactive carbon point the blame squarely on volcanic activity. C02 was a by product of the heat causing more carbon to release. The lag in C02 levels was not due to a lag in the ice holding it.
The link you post also attributes the mechanism of temperature change to Milankovitch cycles; this again pointing to the sun/solar activity as the dominant influence in determining climate change.
Nope. Just after the industrial revolution. Not before.Quote:
A little google research shows yore glaciers have been melting since before the industrial revolution began.
Most Swiss glaciers have reached lower extension than the pre-little-ice-age period. Even lower than the small medieval optimum for some and they are showing increasing melting trends.Quote:
It was a result of the ending of the little ice age.
Keep your propaganda and your Dunning-Kruger effect for you.Quote:
Don't let the junk science fool you.
By the way, you were still unable to explain this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genava
Which is related to orbital parameters in this case right? This is not the current situation for the Earth:Quote:
This pointing to the Sun/solar activity as the dominant influence in determining climate throughout the solar system.
http://biocycle.atmos.colostate.edu/shiny/Milankovitch/
How can you explain that Venus is the hottest planet and not Mercury then?
Again, in this case this is due to changes in orbital parameters, which is not the current situation now. Think about the time scale and about the direction of the change.Quote:
..."sunshine over Earth surface", again pointing to the Sun/solar activity as the dominant influence in determining climate change.
https://i.ibb.co/qRfzbd8/image.png
And the link confirmed that greenhouse gases accounted as much as the change in solar forcing by changes in orbital parameters. I.e. "The contribution of CO2 to the glacial-interglacial coolings and warmings amounts to about one-third of the full amplitude, about one-half if you include methane and nitrous oxide"Quote:
Actually, your link confirmed that C02 concentration lag temperatures changes by average of 800 years
Savage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Genava
JP, I didn't know you were such a postmodernist.
To lighten some of the climate depression in this thread, here's some good news for Coral reefs under severe threat from Climate Change (and which are vital for about 25% of marine life and could trigger a an unstoppable collapse if they completely disappear):
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-are-taking-extreme-steps-to-help-corals-survive/
So apparently they've discovered that fragmenting corals, which usually take decades to reach sexual maturity, makes them grow 20-50 times faster. In addition corals from the same parent will not only grow to back to their former size, but upon contact recognize each other and morph into larger corals still. What this means is that in restoration work we can now reach decades of progress in weeks, and large scale rebuilding of damaged and dead colonies is now possible. This method has also collapsed the price of coral restoration, and combined with other methods we can not only breathe new life into the existing reefs, but help promote and spread genetic strands that are more resistant to the effects of warming oceans.
Additionally, scientists have discovered a feedback loop that might actually help stabilise the Ice Sheets in the West Antarctic instead of destroying them further. Won't be much comfort if the temperature rises far above 2 celcius, which it will unless evermore robust action is taken and the fossil fuel industry isn't beaten to pulp in the coming decades. But from experience I'd say much of the denialism and wilful ignorance comes from peoples unability to deal with the bleakness of the most catastrophic climate estimates. I find it important, from time to time, to show some of the reasons why the fight will yield results if we take it seriously.
https://news.osu.edu/bedrock-in-west...ly-rapid-rate/
Here's yet another example of universities being willing to falsify data in order to receive grant money:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...rch_fraud.html
This is the reason why these studies should (and sometimes are) reviewed by other scientists to determine their validity. In the case of AGW there are 31,000 independent scientists that disagree with the 2,100 that are being paid to promote it.
In medical research and cancer risk assessment, is medicine as a whole a corrupted field? No. Actually the university itself and other researchers pointed out the weird data from the technician. No consensus or things like that in this case. You are using an unrelated sole example to discredit any research that trouble your belief?Quote:
Here's yet another example of universities being willing to falsify data in order to receive grant money:
You mean by scientists from different institutions, from different countries, with peer-review processes?Quote:
This is the reason why these studies should (and sometimes are) reviewed by other scientists to determine their validity.
Dozen of US academies:
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Multiple national academies:
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
Dozen of meteorological institutions:
https://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/am...for-earth-day/
Scientists taking their time to review news: https://climatefeedback.org/
https://climatefeedback.org/claimrev...lobal-warming/
Business companies:
Swiss banks https://www.credit-suisse.com/media/...atement-en.pdf + https://www.hsbc.com/-/files/hsbc/ou...ange-oct16.pdf
Exxon https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/...e%20Effect.pdf + http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmob...nhouse-effect/
Shell https://www.shell.com/media/news-and...and-shell.html
General Motors, BP, Boeing, Nestlé, Procter & Gamble, Lockheed Martin and Volkswagen https://climateaction100.wordpress.com/companies/
You mean the petition with a front text from Frederick Seitz, scientist known to have mislead the society about tobacco, and with no process of validation of the signatories ending with fake names like Star Wars characters signing the petition or even Charles Darwin? The petition with more than a third of the signatures from bachelor's degree graduated in fields unrelated to climate science ?Quote:
In the case of AGW there are 31,000 independent scientists that disagree with the 2,100 that are being paid to promote it.
He is playing politics; he just wants to "win" the issue. He will do/say whatever he needs to in order to get there. Hence, the big emphasis on "gotcha" political events that he believes should instantaneously swings the conversation in his favor. He doesn't care about the systems, he just wants the tick in his win column.Quote:
Originally Posted by Genava
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geneva
Actually it confirmed that the temperature increased prior to C02. As temperatures decreased C02 would hover for several decades then decrease; C02 was merely a byproduct. Detection of radioactive carbon pointed the finger squarely due to volcanic activity. Co2 was a byproduct of the heat causing more carbon to release & had no apparent effect on the climate. The lag in C02 levels was not due to a lag in the ice holding it.
Ignoring my point won't make your message pertinent. I will simply repeat and emphasize the point.Quote:
Co2 was a byproduct of the heat causing more carbon to release & had no apparent effect on the climate.
"While the lag between temperature and greenhouse gas changes in the paleoclimate record is important in understanding the function of greenhouse gasses in the Earth’s climate, and has helped in estimating the effects of CO2 concentrations on radiative forcing, it in no way discredits the conventional knowledge that CO2 is forcing recent changes in the Earth’s climate.
As Eric Steig, a geochemist at the University of Washington who works extensively with ice cores, remarks, “the ice core data in no way contradict our understanding of the relationship between CO2 and temperature”."
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.o...limate-system/
"The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century. Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response."
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_res...arbon-dioxide/
Another publication saying the same point, ie that CO2 is a major explanation for past temperatures:
"The correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is a key feature of Quaternary climate cycles. The cycle is characterised by pronounced temporal asymmetry; with rapid increase in both temperature and CO2 at the glacial termination. Here I compare observed climate cycles with results from a simple model which predicts the evolution of global temperature and carbon dioxide over the glacial-interglacial cycle. The model includes a term which parameterises deep ocean release of CO2 in response to warming, and thereby amplifies the glacial cycle. In this model, temperature rises lead CO2 increases at the glacial termination, but it is the feedback between these two quantities that drives the abrupt warming during the transition from glacial to interglacial periods."
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2007GL032071
Let's see the review of the claim made by Ian Plimer, geologist and known denier:Quote:
This is the reason why these studies should (and sometimes are) reviewed by other scientists to determine their validity.
Plimer: "Even in our own lifetimes, there is no relationship between temperature and carbon dioxide emissions by *humans, yet there is a very close relationship between solar activity and temperature.
Since the beginning of time, water vapour has been the main greenhouse gas and carbon dioxide has had a minuscule effect on global climate.
Carbon dioxide is a trace gas in the atmosphere. We are expected to believe that emission of traces of a trace gas into the atmosphere is a major planetary driving force."
Mark Richardson, Postdoctoral scholar, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology:
It’s expected that cumulative human emissions and temperature will correlate1.
They do. Since 1970 the correlation is extremely strong: almost 90% of all temperature change correlates with human emissions. About 0.2% correlates with solar activity, and even that is nonsense because temperatures went up while we measured the Sun getting cooler.
This [claim] is also nonsense because carbon dioxide heating has been directly measured. Satellite data was reported in 20012. And surface data in 2015.
The extra heating we’ve caused through carbon dioxide3 is enough to charge more than 700,000 DeLorean’s flux capacitors every second. Or blowing up about 10 Trinity test nukes every second.
1-Zickfeld et al (2016) On the proportionality between global temperature change and cumulative CO2 emissions during periods of net negative CO2 emissions, Environmental Research Letters
2-Harries et al (2001) Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997, Nature
3-Feldman et al (2015) Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010, Nature
Katrin Meissner, Professor, University of New South Wales:
It is true that water vapour is a main greenhouse gas, but the amount of water vapour is also tightly related to temperatures (and should therefore be seen as an enhancing feedback, not a driver). That is, higher CO2 will increase temperatures, which will increase water vapour, which will increase temperatures… To write that “carbon dioxide has had a minuscule effect on global climate” is of course utter nonsense—see other comments.
Willem Huiskamp, Postdoctoral research fellow, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research:
This is a non-sequitur: “CO2 can’t have a large impact on climate because water vapour is Earth’s primary greenhouse gas”. The reality, of course, is that the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is relatively stable and bound by atmospheric temperature. CO2, on the other hand, can be easily added to the atmosphere in large amounts, altering the Earth’s energy balance and climate in the process.
Victor Venema, Scientist, University of Bonn, Germany:
Naturally also small concentration can matter. Many substances are, for example, poisonous at much smaller concentrations.
What matters is the amount of CO2. That there are also inert molecules in the atmosphere does not change the radiative influence of CO2.
It is pretty amazing that Plimer states in this same article that “Over the past 30 years, planet Earth has greened due to a slight increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.” Suddenly it is no problem that CO2 is a trace gas.
It discredit conventional knowledge that C02 is the cause of global warming, as I said before C02 was the byproduct of the heat causing more carbon to be released & had no apparent effect on climate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geneva
Detection of radioactive carbon point the finger squarely on volcanic activity. The lag in C02 was not due to a lag in the ice holding it.
Geological stratus samples confirm this, & plant carbon has been recorded from fossils, confirming heat came before carbon; typically volcanoes are the cause in 99.9% of the cases.