Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Global Warming a Hoax?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
    Plot atmospheric density vs temperature and CO2 vs temperature for Venus, Earth and Mars... See which has a better correlation.
    Because that works out so well for Mercury. Not to mention the fact that Mars' atmosphere is 100 times thinner than Earth's.
    Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/21/2020 (https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message) The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831...fcontents.html)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
      Because that works out so well for Mercury.
      It'll work just as well as CO2... http://www.space.com/18644-mercury-atmosphere.html
      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
        Do you have plant stomata reconstruction data going back for the past 400,000 years like the Vostok Ice Core? Judging by the graph I posted the proxy data shows values are about 20-40 ppm higher than the ice cores. This would put the highest concentration in the past 400,000 years at under 340 ppm, even if you assume it is more accurate than the actual samples of atmosphere that we have collected.
        NOAA doesn't "advertise" the stomata or Greenland ice core CO2 data.

        You have to dig it up from the published papers, as I did...

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/2...plant-stomata/

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/0...cord-breaking/

        CO2 is not hazardous to human health health below 5000 ppmv. C3 plants suffer from carbon starvation at less than 200 ppnv CO2. CO2 has risen from ~280 ppmv to ~400 ppmv since the mid-1800's.

        Only Antarctic ice cores show this rise to be anomalous. Greenland ice cores and plant stomata demonstrate that modern CO2 levels are barely anomalous.Fossil plant stomata data conclusively demonstrate that atmospheric CO2 levels have routinely been 300-350 ppmv and occasionally higher throughout the Holocene. (Older is to the left).



        Wagner et al., 1999. Century-Scale Shifts in Early Holocene Atmospheric CO2 Concentration. Science 18 June 1999: Vol. 284 no. 5422 pp. 1971-1973…
        In contrast to conventional ice core estimates of 270 to 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), the stomatal frequency signal suggests that early Holocene carbon dioxide concentrations were well above 300 ppmv.

        […]

        Most of the Holocene ice core records from Antarctica do not have adequate temporal resolution.

        […]

        Our results falsify the concept of relatively stabilized Holocene CO2 concentrations of 270 to 280 ppmv until the industrial revolution. SI-based CO2 reconstructions may even suggest that, during the early Holocene, atmospheric CO2 concentrations that were .300 ppmv could have been the rule rather than the exception.

        Wagner et al., 2004. Reproducibility of Holocene atmospheric CO2 records based on stomatal frequency. Quaternary Science Reviews. 23 (2004) 1947–1954…
        The majority of the stomatal frequency-based estimates of CO 2 for the Holocene do not support the widely accepted concept of comparably stable CO2 concentrations throughout the past 11,500 years. To address the critique that these stomatal frequency variations result from local environmental change or methodological insufficiencies, multiple stomatal frequency records were compared for three climatic key periods during the Holocene, namely the Preboreal oscillation, the 8.2 kyr cooling event and the Little Ice Age. The highly comparable fluctuations in the paleo-atmospheric CO2 records, which were obtained from different continents and plant species (deciduous angiosperms as well as conifers) using varying calibration approaches, provide strong evidence for the integrity of leaf-based CO2 quantification.

        Van Hoof et al., 2005. Atmospheric CO2 during the 13th century AD: reconciliation of data from ice core measurements and stomatal frequency analysis. Tellus 57B (2005), 4…
        Atmospheric CO2 reconstructions are currently available from direct measurements of air enclosures in Antarctic ice and, alternatively, from stomatal frequency analysis performed on fossil leaves. A period where both methods consistently provide evidence for natural CO2 changes is during the 13th century AD. The results of the two independent methods differ significantly in the amplitude of the estimated CO2 changes (10 ppmv ice versus 34 ppmv stomatal frequency). Here, we compare the stomatal frequency and ice core results by using a firn diffusion model in order to assess the potential influence of smoothing during enclosure on the temporal resolution as well as the amplitude of the CO2 changes. The seemingly large discrepancies between the amplitudes estimated by the contrasting methods diminish when the raw stomatal data are smoothed in an analogous way to the natural smoothing which occurs in the firn.

        The plant stomata data clearly show that preindustrial atmospheric CO2 levels were much higher and far more variable than indicated by Antarctic ice cores. Which means that the rise in atmospheric CO2 since the 1800′s is not particularly anomalous and at least half of it is due to oceanic and biosphere responses to the warm-up from the Little Ice Age. (Older is to the left).



        From 1751-1875, atmospheric CO2 rose at ten time the rate of anthropogenic emissions. This CO2 was out-gassed from warming oceans.



        Atmospheric CO2 actually stopped rising and possibly declined from 1940-1955, despite rising emissions, because cooling oceans were absorbing the CO2.



        The ice core resolution problem was highlighted very well in this paper...
        The stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentration during the 1940s and 1950s is a notable feature in the ice core record. The new high density measurements confirm this result and show that CO2 concentrations stabilized at 310– 312 ppm from 1940–1955. The CH4 and N2O growth rates also decreased during this period, although the N2O variation is comparable to the measurement uncertainty. Smoothing due to enclosure of air in the ice (about 10 years at DE08) removes high frequency variations from the record, so the true atmospheric variation may have been larger than represented in the ice core air record. Even a decrease in the atmospheric CO2 concentration during the mid-1940s is consistent with the Law Dome record and the air enclosure smoothing, suggesting a large additional sink of 3.0 PgC yr 1 [Trudinger et al., 2002a]. The d13CO2 record during this time suggests that this additional sink was mostly oceanic and not caused by lower fossil emissions or the terrestrial biosphere [Etheridge et al., 1996; Trudinger et al., 2002a]. The processes that could cause this response are still unknown.

        MacFarling Meure, C., D. Etheridge, C. Trudinger, P. Steele, R. Langenfelds, T. van Ommen, A. Smith, and J. Elkins. 2006. The Law Dome CO2, CH4 and N2O Ice Core Records Extended to 2000 years BP. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 33, No. 14, L14810 10.1029/2006GL026152.

        CO2 levels could have declined during the mid-20th century cooling and the DE-08 core would not have resolved it.

        Anthropogenic emissions did not "catch up" to the rise in atmospheric CO2 until 1960.



        Atmospheric CO2 was on track to reach 320-345 ppmv by the early 21st century before athropogenic emissions became significant...



        CO2 chronologies constructed from plant stomata indicate that Holocene CO2 levels have routinely reached 320-360 ppmv in response to multi-decadal and millennial scale natural warming cycles.
        Last edited by The Doctor; 16 Feb 15, 19:50.
        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

        Comment


        • Why am I freezing my ass off?

          My worst jump story:
          My 13th jump was on the 13th day of the month, aircraft number 013.
          As recorded on my DA Form 1307 Individual Jump Log.
          No lie.

          ~
          "Everything looks all right. Have a good jump, eh."
          -2 Commando Jumpmaster

          Comment


          • The way I've always understood it, we're heading for another Ice Age in roughly 10,000 to 15,000 years, Global Warming or not. However, the activities of man have negatively influenced the natural temperature fluctuations, and caused immense damage to the natural environment.

            As far as long-term human effects on the climate, the only way to see who is right for sure would be to wait 15,000 years and tell what happens, now wouldn't it?
            Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/21/2020 (https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message) The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831...fcontents.html)

            Comment


            • Originally posted by 101combatvet View Post
              Why am I freezing my ass off?
              One data point does not make a set. Also, rising global temperatures leads to more extreme weather patterns, such as hurricanes (which we've been seeing a lot of).

              Having said this, I used to live in Chicago...









              It was pretty darn cold.
              Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/21/2020 (https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message) The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831...fcontents.html)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
                Yet Mars barely has an atmosphere at all (1% the thickness of Earth's).Compare Mercury and Venus: despite the fact that Venus is on average 31 million miles farther away from the sun than Mercury, it is still hotter.

                Mercury's temperature ranges from about ~430 degrees Celsius during the day to about -170 degrees Celsius at night. Venus' on the other hand, thanks to its thick CO2 atmosphere, maintains a constant average temperature of about 465 degrees Celsius. If Venus had no atmosphere, owing to the fact that it rotates very slowly (a day is longer than a year there), we would expect to see one very hot hemisphere and one very cold hemisphere. This is not the case.
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7kTO6En_kU
                The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                Comment


                • Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
                  The way I've always understood it, we're heading for another Ice Age in roughly 10,000 to 15,000 years, Global Warming or not. However, the activities of man have negatively influenced the natural temperature fluctuations, and caused immense damage to the natural environment.

                  As far as long-term human effects on the climate, the only way to see who is right for sure would be to wait 15,000 years and tell what happens, now wouldn't it?

                  lt is highly unlikely that a slightly elevated atmospheric CO2 will alter the Late Quaternary glacial cycle.

                  Geologically speaking, this is an "ice age"... We've been in an ice age since the beginning of the Oligocene (~30 MYA)...


                  (Older is to the right.)

                  This particular ice age period (the Quaternary) has been particularly cold. Over the most recent ~2 million years, glacial maxima have had periods of ~100,000 years, punctuated by brief (15-40 KY) interglacial stages. The last glacial maximum occurred about 20,000 years ago.



                  We are currently in an interglacial stage known as the Holocene. It began about 10,000 years ago and peaked during the Holocene Climatic Optimum (4,000 to 7,000 years ago). Based on analyses of the Milankovitch cycles, some people think the Holocene will be a long interglacial stage. In which case, we have about 30,000 years of balmy weather remaining. If this is a typical interglacial, we only have about 5,000 years left. Even then, it will take thousands of years for the ice to build up and advance across Canada. Places like Chicago might still have 50,000 years remaining to plan on how to deal with a mile-high sheet of ice bulldozing its way south across the Midwest.

                  Humans aren't accelerants. Although, like all other significant biomass features on Earth, we do affect natural processes. We amplify some processes and attenuate others. Some studies have suggested that AGW has already staved off a decline into the next glacial stage (Ruddiman). Others have suggested that AGW will delay or even prevent the next glacial stage. I think it might delay it by a few centuries, maybe even more than 1,000 years; but it can't prevent it. The greenhouse effect can't trap heat that never arrived from the Sun. Atmospheric CO2 remained elevated long after Sangamonian (Eemian, MIS 5) interglacial stage began cooling toward the last glacial maximum..



                  When insolation declines, less solar energy reaches the Earth and there is less heat for CO2 and other GHG's to trap. Holocene insolation peaked during the Holocene Climatic Optimum...


                  (Older is to the left.)

                  Insolation has been declining since the Holocene Climatic Optimum. While we still can benefit from episodic periods of millennial scale warming, the long-term trend is toward the inevitable next deep freeze.
                  Last edited by The Doctor; 17 Feb 15, 04:22.
                  Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
                    One data point does not make a set. Also, rising global temperatures leads to more extreme weather patterns, such as hurricanes (which we've been seeing a lot of).

                    [...]
                    There are absolutely no obervational data which support this assertion. It is entirely based on model simulations... Model simulations which have failed every time they've been tested since 1988.
                    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                      I think it might delay it by a few centuries, maybe even more than 1,000 years; but it can't prevent it.

                      [...]

                      While we still can benefit from episodic periods of millennial scale warming, the long-term trend is toward the inevitable next deep freeze.
                      I agree.

                      Though I wouldn't exactly say that mankind has 'benefited' from its pollution and greenhouse emissions, and it isn't doing the animals any favor, either.
                      Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/21/2020 (https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message) The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831...fcontents.html)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
                        I agree.

                        Though I wouldn't exactly say that mankind has 'benefited' from its pollution and greenhouse emissions, and it isn't doing the animals any favor, either.
                        Try plotting life expectancy, per capita GDP or just about any other benefit of industrialization against greenhouse gas emissions.

                        As far as the animals go...
                        On the other hand, the IPCC admits that there is no evidence climate change has led to even a single species becoming extinct thus far.

                        http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-960569.html
                        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
                          Because that works out so well for Mercury. Not to mention the fact that Mars' atmosphere is 100 times thinner than Earth's.
                          Speaking of Mars' atmosphere;
                          "Cloud" over Mars leaves scientists baffled ...
                          EXCERPT:
                          Amateur astronomers have spotted two strange, cloud-like plumes high over Mars, deepening the mystery of what constitutes the Red Planet's atmosphere, a study said Monday.

                          The phenomenon was observed on March 12, 2012 over the "terminator", the boundary between day and night on Mars.

                          One of the plumes developed in around 10 hours and lasted for about 11 days, shifting shape from "double blob protrusions" to pillars which merged into a "finger", the study authors wrote.

                          A second was spotted nearby on April 6, 2012, and lasted about 10 days.

                          Their trails were vast, extending between 500 and 1,000 kilometres (300 to 600 miles) in north-to-south and east-to-west directions.

                          The "clouds" -- if that is indeed what they were -- were seen at high altitude, at about 200-250 kilometres, roughly above Terra Cimmeria, which is part of Mars' rugged southern highlands, according to the paper.
                          ....
                          http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/top...led/ar-BBhDPiw


                          Meanwhile - Venus' atmosphere is nearly 100 times (@92+) "thicker" than Earth's, making it also in a different 'league' and not comparable.
                          TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                          “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
                          Present Current Events are the Future's History

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
                            I agree.

                            Though I wouldn't exactly say that mankind has 'benefited' from its pollution and greenhouse emissions, and it isn't doing the animals any favor, either.
                            "Pollution" is separate and not connected~directly related to "greenhouse emmissions". "Greenhouse emmissions" amount to less than 0.005% of dry atmosphere content.

                            Have you asked the Flora, 99.9% of living biomass of the planet, their opinion on the issue regarding an essential life ingredient (CO2) which they need?
                            TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                            “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
                            Present Current Events are the Future's History

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
                              I was aware of Venus' retrograde rotation, and the fact that its day is longer than its year (it's in the post). I posted this because it demonstrates the effect of greenhouse gasses on a planet.

                              With respect to Uranus and Venus, it is more likely that their axial/rotational eccentricities are due to collisions, rather than 'flybys,' because an object on an extreme elliptical orbit would have been detected by now, had it survived. The Solar System formed from a swirling disc of gas and dust, there is a limit to how much orbital eccentricity you can achieve under these circumstances, unless you assume the Sun 'picked up' a wandering 'hitchhiker' world, which, if it had the mass necessary for these perturbations, would have been detected by now.
                              Unless that "hitchhiker" had been ejected, or has a very long period eccentric orbit;
                              Hidden Planets Beyond Pluto? Possible, Says New Study

                              EXCERPT:
                              Our solar system might be hiding two more planets in the icy darkness beyond Pluto, according to a recent study conducted by a team of scientists in Spain and the UK. The scientists, whose work was published in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society Letters, came to the conclusion after studying the orbits of several “Extreme trans-Neptunian Objects (ETNOs),” which are cold, frigid bodies orbiting the sun in large, elliptical paths beyond Neptune.


                              After analyzing 13 of these objects, the researchers found that the orbits of these objects were different from those predicted by the accepted theory of how the solar system formed. According to the known theory, these objects should have an average distance of 150 Astronomical Units (1 AU is the distance from Earth to the sun, which is roughly 93 million miles), but the ETNOs were found to have widely-varying orbits, ranging from 150 AU to 525 AU, the researchers said, in a statement.


                              Based on these observations, the scientists speculated that there could be at least two undiscovered planets whose gravitational pull is affecting the orbits and the distribution of ETNOs.

                              ....
                              http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/techno...udy/ar-AA8hsM8
                              One of a few recent articles on this subject ...
                              TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                              “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
                              Present Current Events are the Future's History

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
                                Because that works out so well for Mercury. Not to mention the fact that Mars' atmosphere is 100 times thinner than Earth's.
                                However, Mar's atmosphere is 95% CO2 which means the column density of CO2 on Mars is actually much greater than Earth.

                                Go study WATER VAPOR. It has about 50,000 times more effect than CO2 for capturing Solar Heat and warming the planet. The absorption spectrum is much greater, it has a higher specific heat, and it exist is much greater densities than CO2. Combustion of Hydrocarbons produce twice the H2O than CO2. Humans dump massive amounts of water into the atmosphere by irrigation. Water makes clouds, clouds do things to the Earth's surface heat flux. What they do and how they are formed is not well understood by science.

                                However, H20 is not listed as a "Green House" gas by the IPCC even though the list contains a large number of irrelevant gases that have no measurable effect on our atmosphere.
                                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_li...eenhouse_gases

                                This is a LIE by omission.


                                Water so dominates our atmosphere's interaction with the Sun that it does more for global temperatures than the combined effects of ALL the rest of the greenhouse gases. Any claims of CO2 having any effect at all are lost in the noise of our measurements of the effects of water vapor! Then to say the tiny bit of CO2 humans contribute is significant is even more ludicrous.

                                However, H2O is officially ignored by the IPCC. THAT is BAD SCIENCE of the highest order!!! In fact it is literally fraud. Especially when these lies are used to manipulate big business.


                                Likewise, if Water Vapor production by humans has no effect on the climate, then CO2 has absolutely no effect on our climate!

                                Go do a little research on the topic above and you will see what is really going on here...
                                Battles are dangerous affairs... Wang Hsi

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X