| Arctic sea ice loss, negative or positive feedback?31-12-2016 12:45 |
MattS☆☆☆☆☆
(12) |
Albedo: Water has the same albedo as old sea ice at 10 degrees angle of incidence (0,35) So at shallow angles its more reflective, at steeper angles less so. How do waves affect this? Watching a setting sun over a ripply sea demonstrates that waves cause more light to be reflected at steeper angles. Reflectence is therefore higher during early morning and dusk.
Thus the albedo is a mixed picture, and not as simple as the 'dark ocean albedo of 0.07' often stated by the media and poor science.
Emissivity: Ice has an emissivity slightly less than water, however the temperature of ice is obviously lower, perhaps 5 to 10 degrees lower than the arctic ocean. SB tells us the difference is about 20 wm^-2
Latent and sensible: About 80 wm^-2 loss.
The big difference is that the increase in energy absorbed by the oceans due to the albedo effect only takes place during the day when the sun is higher in a cloudless sky. The increase in energy loss by the oceans due to emissivity, latent and sensible happens every hour, 24 hours a day, regardless.
I therefore think that loss of arctic sea ice is a net negative feedback. |
| 31-12-2016 13:29 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
Perhaps, but I don't think so.
A bigger difference would happen due to the increased cloud formation and snowfall over the Northeren lands.
Edited on 31-12-2016 13:30 |
| 31-12-2016 13:51 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
MattS wrote:
Albedo: Water has the same albedo as old sea ice at 10 degrees angle of incidence (0,35) So at shallow angles its more reflective, at steeper angles less so. How do waves affect this? Watching a setting sun over a ripply sea demonstrates that waves cause more light to be reflected at steeper angles. Reflectence is therefore higher during early morning and dusk.
Thus the albedo is a mixed picture, and not as simple as the 'dark ocean albedo of 0.07' often stated by the media and poor science.
Emissivity: Ice has an emissivity slightly less than water, however the temperature of ice is obviously lower, perhaps 5 to 10 degrees lower than the arctic ocean. SB tells us the difference is about 20 wm^-2
Latent and sensible: About 80 wm^-2 loss.
The big difference is that the increase in energy absorbed by the oceans due to the albedo effect only takes place during the day when the sun is higher in a cloudless sky. The increase in energy loss by the oceans due to emissivity, latent and sensible happens every hour, 24 hours a day, regardless.
I therefore think that loss of arctic sea ice is a net negative feedback.
Seems to be forgott that in the arctic summer the sun is out 24 hours a day for a start.
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. |
| 31-12-2016 13:55 |
MattS☆☆☆☆☆
(12) |
@Spot Sea ice minimum doesn't occur in the summer, it occurs in autumn so thats when the albedo change is most relevant. |
| 31-12-2016 17:18 |
litesong★★★★★
(2297) |
MattS muffed: Sea ice minimum....occurs in autumn so thats when the albedo change is most relevant.
Sea ice minimum (by definition, neither gaining or losing) occurs when the sun is on or below the horizon at the North Pole & below 10arcdeg at the 80th parallel, & albedo effects are minimal. Maximum albedo effects occur with the sun highest in the sky & as you mentioned with 24 hours of sun above the horizon. The last two years, sea ice levels have been 500,000 to 1 million square kilometers below ALL other years in the satellite record, during all of May to mid(?)- June, with the sun near its highest elevations in the early melt season sky, really assisting the early season ice VOLUME drop. Despite weather conditions that did NOT flush much Arctic sea ice to the south, east of Greenland (like the year 2012 did), 2015 & 2016 still came in 2nd & 3rd in sea ice minimums....due to great early season albedo effects.
Edited on 31-12-2016 17:21 |
|
| 01-01-2017 10:48 |
MattS☆☆☆☆☆
(12) |
Put some figures on it and prove your point. |
| 01-01-2017 15:18 |
MattS☆☆☆☆☆
(12) |
litesong wrote:
Sea ice minimum....occurs in autumn so thats when the albedo change is most relevant.
Not so. Sea ice minimum occurs before the solstice, mid september, http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/gallery/mohippo/media/image/i/sea-ice_fig3_seasonal-cycle_arctic.png, so the sun is above the horizon during the day.
And at night of course, the sun is below the horizon, and the sea is clear to lose its ~100 wm^2 unimpeded by ice. |
| 01-01-2017 19:31 |
litesong★★★★★
(2297) |
MattS wrote: Sea ice minimum occurs before the solstice, mid september...
Normally you are right. A few sea ice minimums have occurred as late as Fall AND most assessments of sea ice minimums normally wait a bit before declaring minimums, in case a quick late melt occurs, dropping a few more square kilometers of sea ice. IF EARLY MELTS OCCUR & skies clear, strongest albedo effects occur when the sun is at the highest elevation in the sky (beginning of summer). Strong albedo effects can occur (mid-May thru mid-July?). Good albedo effects can be had, (late April thru early August?).
IF 2017 maximum sea ice extent stays below 14 million square kilometers (good possibility), AND early melt occurs, then 3 years running will have very good early season albedo effects. |
| 01-01-2017 19:52 |
MattS☆☆☆☆☆
(12) |
litesong wrote:
MattS wrote: Sea ice minimum occurs before the solstice, mid september...
IF EARLY MELTS OCCUR & skies clear, strongest albedo effects occur when the sun is at the highest elevation in the sky
When has melt in the early summer exceeded that in mid september?
Oh, and still waiting for you to put some figures together. Whats the average insolation at the surface for each month in the average of the arctic ocean for the entire year compared to the loss of energy by the methods I have given you, with figures? |
| 01-01-2017 20:40 |
litesong★★★★★
(2297) |
MattS wrote: When has melt in the early summer exceeded that in mid september?
Never said early summer melt exceeded September. I said greatest albedo effects (with sub-14 million square kilometer sea ice maximum AND strong early season melts), occur on the beginning of summer. 2015 & 2016 already had spectacular open water early melt seasons, with 2017 having an inside track to sub-14 million square kilometers of sea ice maximum, too. The early season melt season has the strongest effect on Arctic water solar energy absorption. Recent studies have determined, when the sun is at its highest elevations, Arctic waters can absorb an increasing amount of solar energy through ever thinning ices.
Strong albedo effects around the beginning of summer determine final sea ice extent minimum, far more than albedo effects in very late summer. |
| 02-01-2017 10:22 |
MattS☆☆☆☆☆
(12) |
I said greatest albedo effects occur on the beginning of summer.
Which implies that you think the increased insolation in early summer makes up for the larger ice cover compared to mid september. When are you going to put figures on this?
Its entirely possible, I havent said otherwise by the way, what I have said is the albedo picture is very much more complex because water is actually quite reflective at the angles of incidence found in the arctic and that the absence of an ice cap allows ~100wm^-2 of heat loss 24/7
Recent studies have determined, when the sun is at its highest elevations, Arctic waters can absorb an increasing amount of solar energy through ever thinning ices.
You need a study to tell you this? Perhaps you can link to this revelation. |
| 02-01-2017 19:09 |
litesong★★★★★
(2297) |
litesong wrote:
Recent studies have determined, when the sun is at its highest elevations, Arctic waters can absorb an increasing amount of solar energy through ever thinning ices.
///////
MattS muffed:
You need a study to tell you this?
/////
litesong wrote:
Arctic waters solar absorption through ever thinning ice has dramatically increased, compared to the past decades where thick multi-year ices existed in large percentages. Not only do AGW denier liar whiners love to deny strong effects of solar absorption in clear waters, no AGW denier liar whiners (on this site or other sites) have mentioned increasing effects of solar absorption through the wildly increasing amounts of thin ices.
http://www.nature.com/news/incredibly-thin-arctic-sea-ice-shocks-researchers-1.21163
Edited on 02-01-2017 19:24 |
| 02-01-2017 19:20 |
MattS☆☆☆☆☆
(12) |
@litesong
I say again, you need a study to tell you that decreasing albedo means more SW absorption?
Its obvious, but that isnt the point. THe point is that the loss of ice cap, in allowing ~100 wm^-2 to escape to space, 24/7 outweighs that albedo driven increase.
Now, where are your figures. |
| 02-02-2017 02:43 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
MattS wrote:
Albedo: Water has the same albedo as old sea ice at 10 degrees angle of incidence (0,35) So at shallow angles its more reflective, at steeper angles less so. How do waves affect this? Watching a setting sun over a ripply sea demonstrates that waves cause more light to be reflected at steeper angles. Reflectence is therefore higher during early morning and dusk.
Thus the albedo is a mixed picture, and not as simple as the 'dark ocean albedo of 0.07' often stated by the media and poor science.
Emissivity: Ice has an emissivity slightly less than water, however the temperature of ice is obviously lower, perhaps 5 to 10 degrees lower than the arctic ocean. SB tells us the difference is about 20 wm^-2
Latent and sensible: About 80 wm^-2 loss.
The big difference is that the increase in energy absorbed by the oceans due to the albedo effect only takes place during the day when the sun is higher in a cloudless sky. The increase in energy loss by the oceans due to emissivity, latent and sensible happens every hour, 24 hours a day, regardless.
I therefore think that loss of arctic sea ice is a net negative feedback.
On a wartime mission circa '65 we were forced to land on the Arctic Circle in the winter. Reflection or not the sun never rises. And depending on the Milankovitch cycles it never gets appreciably high in the summer.
So your comments about the Sun having little to no effect on the melting of the ice floes is no doubt correct.
So this would probably lean more to the weather patterns and not to some warmer atmosphere in the tropics. |
| 02-02-2017 02:45 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
spot wrote:
MattS wrote:
Albedo: Water has the same albedo as old sea ice at 10 degrees angle of incidence (0,35) So at shallow angles its more reflective, at steeper angles less so. How do waves affect this? Watching a setting sun over a ripply sea demonstrates that waves cause more light to be reflected at steeper angles. Reflectence is therefore higher during early morning and dusk.
Thus the albedo is a mixed picture, and not as simple as the 'dark ocean albedo of 0.07' often stated by the media and poor science.
Emissivity: Ice has an emissivity slightly less than water, however the temperature of ice is obviously lower, perhaps 5 to 10 degrees lower than the arctic ocean. SB tells us the difference is about 20 wm^-2
Latent and sensible: About 80 wm^-2 loss.
The big difference is that the increase in energy absorbed by the oceans due to the albedo effect only takes place during the day when the sun is higher in a cloudless sky. The increase in energy loss by the oceans due to emissivity, latent and sensible happens every hour, 24 hours a day, regardless.
I therefore think that loss of arctic sea ice is a net negative feedback.
Seems to be forgott that in the arctic summer the sun is out 24 hours a day for a start.
When were you last above the Arctic Circle? |
|
| 02-02-2017 02:47 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
litesong wrote:
MattS muffed: Sea ice minimum....occurs in autumn so thats when the albedo change is most relevant.
Sea ice minimum (by definition, neither gaining or losing) occurs when the sun is on or below the horizon at the North Pole & below 10arcdeg at the 80th parallel, & albedo effects are minimal. Maximum albedo effects occur with the sun highest in the sky & as you mentioned with 24 hours of sun above the horizon. The last two years, sea ice levels have been 500,000 to 1 million square kilometers below ALL other years in the satellite record, during all of May to mid(?)- June, with the sun near its highest elevations in the early melt season sky, really assisting the early season ice VOLUME drop. Despite weather conditions that did NOT flush much Arctic sea ice to the south, east of Greenland (like the year 2012 did), 2015 & 2016 still came in 2nd & 3rd in sea ice minimums....due to great early season albedo effects.
Let me guess - you are using measurements from a two or three year period as an average from this point on?
Edited on 02-02-2017 02:52 |
| 08-02-2017 00:06 |
litesong★★★★★
(2297) |
"old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofs:
litesong wrote: Despite weather conditions that did NOT flush much Arctic sea ice to the south, east of Greenland (like the year 2012 did), 2015 & 2016 still came in 2nd & 3rd in sea ice minimums....due to great early season albedo effects.
Let me guess - you are using measurements from a two or three year period as an average from this point on?
Of course, not you silly goose (part of your name). Present Arctic sea ice VOLUME is 10,000 cubic kilometers less than the average of the 1980's. Recent Arctic sea ice extent is often 2 million square kilometers less than that of the average of the the 1980's.
Edited on 08-02-2017 00:07 |
| 08-02-2017 20:37 |
litesong★★★★★
(2297) |
litesong wrote: Present Arctic sea ice VOLUME is 10,000 cubic kilometers less than the average of the 1980's. Recent Arctic sea ice extent is often 2 million square kilometers less than that of the average of the the 1980's.
Update, as of February 1, 2017:
Average Arctic sea ice VOLUME for February 1, for the period 1980-89, was ~ 26,700 cubic kilometers. February 1, 2017 Arctic sea ice VOLUME is ~ 16,100 cubic kilometers, ~ 10,600 cubic kilometers LESS than the 1980-89 average for February 1. The energy to melt such an amount of to date sea ice is ~ 33 times the annual power consumption of the U.S. |
| 08-02-2017 21:14 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2932) |
litesong wrote: The energy to melt such an amount of to date sea ice is ~ 33 times the annual power consumption of the U.S.
Keep it coming! You are absolutely destroying any argument for man made warming!
Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan |
| 08-02-2017 21:37 |
litesong★★★★★
(2297) |
"old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter": You are absolutely destroying any argument for man made warming...
.... says "old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter". |
| 08-02-2017 22:08 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofs:
litesong wrote: Despite weather conditions that did NOT flush much Arctic sea ice to the south, east of Greenland (like the year 2012 did), 2015 & 2016 still came in 2nd & 3rd in sea ice minimums....due to great early season albedo effects.
Let me guess - you are using measurements from a two or three year period as an average from this point on?
Of course, not you silly goose (part of your name). Present Arctic sea ice VOLUME is 10,000 cubic kilometers less than the average of the 1980's. Recent Arctic sea ice extent is often 2 million square kilometers less than that of the average of the the 1980's.
1, That would be because it is warmer now than then.
2, So? |
| 09-02-2017 10:31 |
litesong★★★★★
(2297) |
"old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner tipped the leaky plunger" plummeted:
[b]litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofs:
litesong wrote: Despite weather conditions that did NOT flush much Arctic sea ice to the south, east of Greenland (like the year 2012 did), 2015 & 2016 still came in 2nd & 3rd in sea ice minimums....due to great early season albedo effects.
Let me guess - you are using measurements from a two or three year period as an average from this point on?
Of course, not you silly goose (part of your name). Present Arctic sea ice VOLUME is 10,000 cubic kilometers less than the average of the 1980's. Recent Arctic sea ice extent is often 2 million square kilometers less than that of the average of the the 1980's.
1, That would be because it is warmer now than then.
2, So?
So.... the solar TSI has been languid for many decades. The solar TSI has been low for a decade (including a 3+ year period setting a 100 year record low). The solar TSI has been below the 20th century average for 386+ straight months. The solar TSI has been so depressed that AGW denier liar whiners have predicted an ice age for 10+ years & keep doubling down. So far, the first decade of the 21 century has been the warmest ever recorded. The last five years have been the warmest ever recorded. 2014, 2015, & 2016 have been the warmest consecutive years ever recorded. |
| 09-02-2017 21:14 |
litesong★★★★★
(2297) |
litesong wrote:The solar TSI has been below the 20th century average for 386+ straight months.
From the post above, is this correction:
The solar TSI hasn't been below its 20th century average for 386+ straight months, but IS as I have described in its other facets, posted above.
What is true, is that Earth global TEMPERATURES have been OVER Earth's 20th century average for 386+ straight months.
Edited on 09-02-2017 21:19 |
| 09-02-2017 23:25 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21588) |
litesong wrote:
litesong wrote:The solar TSI has been below the 20th century average for 386+ straight months.
From the post above, is this correction:
The solar TSI hasn't been below its 20th century average for 386+ straight months, but IS as I have described in its other facets, posted above.
What is true, is that Earth global TEMPERATURES have been OVER Earth's 20th century average for 386+ straight months.
You don't know Earth's global temperature. You can't even define it, much less calculate it.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 10-02-2017 16:54 |
litesong★★★★★
(2297) |
Into the Night wrote: You don't know Earth's global temperature. You can't even define it, much less calculate it.
Meanwhile:
Earth global TEMPERATURES have been OVER Earth's 20th century average for 386+ straight months.
Edited on 10-02-2017 16:55 |
| 10-02-2017 19:04 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner tipped the leaky plunger" plummeted:
[b]litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofs:
litesong wrote: Despite weather conditions that did NOT flush much Arctic sea ice to the south, east of Greenland (like the year 2012 did), 2015 & 2016 still came in 2nd & 3rd in sea ice minimums....due to great early season albedo effects.
Let me guess - you are using measurements from a two or three year period as an average from this point on?
Of course, not you silly goose (part of your name). Present Arctic sea ice VOLUME is 10,000 cubic kilometers less than the average of the 1980's. Recent Arctic sea ice extent is often 2 million square kilometers less than that of the average of the the 1980's.
1, That would be because it is warmer now than then.
2, So?
So.... the solar TSI has been languid for many decades. The solar TSI has been low for a decade (including a 3+ year period setting a 100 year record low). The solar TSI has been below the 20th century average for 386+ straight months. The solar TSI has been so depressed that AGW denier liar whiners have predicted an ice age for 10+ years & keep doubling down. So far, the first decade of the 21 century has been the warmest ever recorded. The last five years have been the warmest ever recorded. 2014, 2015, & 2016 have been the warmest consecutive years ever recorded.
As I said, yes it is warmer now than in 1970.
So what is bad about the loss of some sea ice? |
| 10-02-2017 20:45 |
litesong★★★★★
(2297) |
Tim the plumber wrote:So what is bad about the loss of some sea ice?
.....along with Greenland land ice loss at 400Gigatons per year, Antarctic land ice loss at 150Gigatons per year, general mountain glacier retreat & loss per year, & lots of indications that 10,000 Gigaton losses (more?) are being wound up in the climate change spring-loaded ice disappearances.
But AGW denier lair whiners never care about changes in the Earth, when they pretend to protect head honcho $100 million bonus, stock option, retirement packages & multi-billion dollar hedge fund schemes. |
| 21-02-2017 18:24 |
litesong★★★★★
(2297) |
Here's a sweet Arctic sea ice VOLUME presentation, showing decade by decade VOLUME decline, including 2016 & beginnings of 2017 VOLUME:
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=95V9E%2bjf&id=4FC0BEEDAF541FE3EDF1A01694FDEE4CCC8A3E34&q=Arctic+Sea+Ice+Volume+Graph+feb+2017&simid=608038143506452087&selectedIndex=9&ajaxhist=0
Lets hear "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofs. |
| 04-08-2017 18:33 |
litesong★★★★★
(2297) |
Arctic sea ice VOLUME continues to decrease. https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=95V9E%2bjf&id=4FC0BEEDAF541FE3EDF1A01694FDEE4CCC8A3E34&q=Arctic+Sea+Ice+Volume+Graph+feb+2017&simid=608038143506452087&selectedIndex=9&ajaxhist=0
Average 1980's Arctic sea ice average for August 1, was ~ 17,000 cubic kilometers. Present 2017 to date August 1 Arctic sea ice is ~6800 cubic kilometers, about 40% of the 1980's VOLUME. |
| 04-08-2017 21:04 |
James_★★★★★
(2230) |
litesong wrote:
Arctic sea ice VOLUME continues to decrease. https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=95V9E%2bjf&id=4FC0BEEDAF541FE3EDF1A01694FDEE4CCC8A3E34&q=Arctic+Sea+Ice+Volume+Graph+feb+2017&simid=608038143506452087&selectedIndex=9&ajaxhist=0
Average 1980's Arctic sea ice average for August 1, was ~ 17,000 cubic kilometers. Present 2017 to date August 1 Arctic sea ice is ~6800 cubic kilometers, about 40% of the 1980's VOLUME.
This is one area where we need more research. If waste heat and CO2 are helping to warm the northern hemisphere then this is something that could release more heat. And as everyone knows warm waters release CO2.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/11/1129_icebreaker.html
Edited on 04-08-2017 21:06 |
|
| 04-08-2017 23:20 |
litesong★★★★★
(2297) |
[b]James_ wrote:...more research.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/11/1129_icebreaker.html
Quotin' 16 year old "e-vee-dense" to back-up AGW denier liar whiner PR propaganda poop, is norm fer da AGW denier liar whiner course. |
| 05-08-2017 19:19 |
James_★★★★★
(2230) |
litesong wrote:
[b]James_ wrote:...more research.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/11/1129_icebreaker.html
Quotin' 16 year old "e-vee-dense" to back-up AGW denier liar whiner PR propaganda poop, is norm fer da AGW denier liar whiner course.
I guess what you miss is if AGW increases the warmth of southerly winds and ocean currents then how much of the glaciers on Greenland will melt ? And how much more spreading of the Gakkel and North Atlantic ridges will occur ?
With me I think that what cycles us between being in the deepest parts of an ice age and in an inter-glacial period like now. If you ever check the graphs after peek warming we start slowly cooling into the next ice age.
The best part ? When it cools in the Arctic it warms in the Antarctic. And yet you don't like me because I won't say that CO2 is causing all of the warming but there are other factors such as what I've mentioned just now. And I even left out the ozone layer and it's recovery :-) |
| 06-08-2017 15:36 |
GreenMan★★★☆☆
(661) |
James_ wrote:
I guess what you miss is if AGW increases the warmth of southerly winds and ocean currents then how much of the glaciers on Greenland will melt ? And how much more spreading of the Gakkel and North Atlantic ridges will occur ?
With me I think that what cycles us between being in the deepest parts of an ice age and in an inter-glacial period like now. If you ever check the graphs after peek warming we start slowly cooling into the next ice age.
The best part ? When it cools in the Arctic it warms in the Antarctic. And yet you don't like me because I won't say that CO2 is causing all of the warming but there are other factors such as what I've mentioned just now. And I even left out the ozone layer and it's recovery :-)
James, to answer your question simply; all of the glaciers on Greenland will melt eventually. That's because the planet's temperature will continue to creep up with each passing year, until long after the glaciers are gone. And that is because of the amount of CO2 and CH4 that are currently in the air.
I have no idea what will happen to Gakkel or the North Atlantic ridges, because of the redistribution of weight, but it will be interesting to find out. Too bad most of us will be in another life by then, since we're talking about a very slow process. But who knows, we might get lucky and see a major tectonic plate shift in our lifetime. Or a Caldera eruption would be cool to witness, wouldn't it? I mean if you are a couple thousand miles away from it. That would be a world changer, in the blink of an eye.
I think that you are correct about what happens following a peak warming event. I've studied the charts that show the earth's past climate, and they all show basically the same thing. The planets gets to a peak temperature, and then begins sliding down into a full blown glacial event. I don't agree that CO2 was not the driving factor though, because I did my own independent study the Greenhouse Affect, and found that CO2 is very much a driving force behind our planet's warmth.
In fact, if you would take a look at what happens to CO2 during each Glacial Cycle, you would see that it peaks out just ahead of the temperature peak. Then it flattens out a bit, as the temperature starts to drop. After a few thousand years, the CO2 level starts to drop more rapidly as the temperature continues downward. The temperature stays down until the planet moves into an orbit that is warmer, due to the Milankovitch affect. After about 500 years, the CO2 levels begin to increase as the mammal population begins to thrive in the warmer environment. The CO2 then becomes a driving force behind more warming, now coupled with the sun's increased heat [due to the Milankovitch Affect]. Eventually, the planet's orbit changes, and the heat from the sun begins to decrease each year, but the temperature continues to rise because of the CO2 in the air. Take a look at the previous interglacial periods, and you will see that pattern repeat itself. It's also interesting to look at what happens to CH4 just before each peak event. It goes from a good steady climb to a blast off, as the earth gives up its frozen stores of CH4, which pushes the temperature of the planet up quite rapidly [called runaway greenhouse affect].
I built a climate model, using the green house gas levels of each 1000 year period for the last 800,000 years. The model includes how much heat we get from the sun, deducts for dust in the atmosphere, and adds an amount of insulation based on the greenhouse gas levels. With that model, I was able to calculate the planet's temperature quite accurately. So accurately that anyone who studied the model would agree that CO2, CH4, insolation [heat from the sun] and dust are all primary drivers in our climate. I can provide a copy of that Climate Model for your review, if you are interested. It's in an Excel Spreadsheet, which you can interact with, and do your own experimentation if you are so inclined.
I'm not sure if it will display, but I attached a chart that I produced with my Climate Model.
Attached image:
 |
| 06-08-2017 20:22 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
GreenMan wrote:
James_ wrote:
I guess what you miss is if AGW increases the warmth of southerly winds and ocean currents then how much of the glaciers on Greenland will melt ? And how much more spreading of the Gakkel and North Atlantic ridges will occur ?
With me I think that what cycles us between being in the deepest parts of an ice age and in an inter-glacial period like now. If you ever check the graphs after peek warming we start slowly cooling into the next ice age.
The best part ? When it cools in the Arctic it warms in the Antarctic. And yet you don't like me because I won't say that CO2 is causing all of the warming but there are other factors such as what I've mentioned just now. And I even left out the ozone layer and it's recovery :-)
James, to answer your question simply; all of the glaciers on Greenland will melt eventually.
That's because the planet's temperature will continue to creep up with each passing year, until long after the glaciers are gone. And that is because of the amount of CO2 and CH4 that are currently in the air.
Neither CO2 nor CH4 have the ability to warm the planet. Only an change in our energy source (the Sun) can do that.
GreenMan wrote:
I have no idea what will happen to Gakkel or the North Atlantic ridges, because of the redistribution of weight, but it will be interesting to find out. Too bad most of us will be in another life by then, since we're talking about a very slow process. But who knows, we might get lucky and see a major tectonic plate shift in our lifetime. Or a Caldera eruption would be cool to witness, wouldn't it? I mean if you are a couple thousand miles away from it. That would be a world changer, in the blink of an eye.
Things like calderas or major changes in plate movements are quite noticeable. We know where the claderas are and what tends to drive them. I don't see any reason to suspect the plates would undergo major directional changes anytime soon.
GreenMan wrote:
I think that you are correct about what happens following a peak warming event. I've studied the charts that show the earth's past climate, and they all show basically the same thing.
There are no charts showing Earth's past climate. Earth doesn't have a 'climate'. No one knows the temperature of the Earth, even today. It is not possible to measure it to any useful degree of accuracy. All such past 'climate' charts are is just speculations.
GreenMan wrote:
The planets gets to a peak temperature, and then begins sliding down into a full blown glacial event. I don't agree that CO2 was not the driving factor though, because I did my own independent study the Greenhouse Affect, and found that CO2 is very much a driving force behind our planet's warmth.
CO2 is not a driving force. It is not a force at all. It is not an energy source. It's ability to absorb infrared light only helps to cool the surface, just like conduction and convection does.
GreenMan wrote:
In fact, if you would take a look at what happens to CO2 during each Glacial Cycle, you would see that it peaks out just ahead of the temperature peak. Then it flattens out a bit, as the temperature starts to drop. After a few thousand years, the CO2 level starts to drop more rapidly as the temperature continues downward. The temperature stays down until the planet moves into an orbit that is warmer, due to the Milankovitch affect. After about 500 years, the CO2 levels begin to increase as the mammal population begins to thrive in the warmer environment. The CO2 then becomes a driving force behind more warming, now coupled with the sun's increased heat [due to the Milankovitch Affect]. Eventually, the planet's orbit changes, and the heat from the sun begins to decrease each year, but the temperature continues to rise because of the CO2 in the air.
CO2 does not warm the planet. It can't.
GreenMan wrote:
Take a look at the previous interglacial periods, and you will see that pattern repeat itself. It's also interesting to look at what happens to CH4 just before each peak event. It goes from a good steady climb to a blast off, as the earth gives up its frozen stores of CH4, which pushes the temperature of the planet up quite rapidly [called runaway greenhouse affect].
CH4 does not warm the planet. It can't.
GreenMan wrote:
I built a climate model, using the green house gas levels of each 1000 year period for the last 800,000 years. The model includes how much heat we get from the sun, deducts for dust in the atmosphere, and adds an amount of insulation based on the greenhouse gas levels. With that model, I was able to calculate the planet's temperature quite accurately. So accurately that anyone who studied the model would agree that CO2, CH4, insolation [heat from the sun] and dust are all primary drivers in our climate. I can provide a copy of that Climate Model for your review, if you are interested. It's in an Excel Spreadsheet, which you can interact with, and do your own experimentation if you are so inclined.
Models are not data. Don't use them as such.
GreenMan wrote:
I'm not sure if it will display, but I attached a chart that I produced with my Climate Model.
Models are not data.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 06-08-2017 21:04 |
James_★★★★★
(2230) |
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
James_ wrote:
I guess what you miss is if AGW increases the warmth of southerly winds and ocean currents then how much of the glaciers on Greenland will melt ? And how much more spreading of the Gakkel and North Atlantic ridges will occur ?
With me I think that what cycles us between being in the deepest parts of an ice age and in an inter-glacial period like now. If you ever check the graphs after peek warming we start slowly cooling into the next ice age.
The best part ? When it cools in the Arctic it warms in the Antarctic. And yet you don't like me because I won't say that CO2 is causing all of the warming but there are other factors such as what I've mentioned just now. And I even left out the ozone layer and it's recovery :-)
James, to answer your question simply; all of the glaciers on Greenland will melt eventually.
That's because the planet's temperature will continue to creep up with each passing year, until long after the glaciers are gone. And that is because of the amount of CO2 and CH4 that are currently in the air.
Neither CO2 nor CH4 have the ability to warm the planet. Only an change in our energy source (the Sun) can do that.
GreenMan wrote:
I have no idea what will happen to Gakkel or the North Atlantic ridges, because of the redistribution of weight, but it will be interesting to find out. Too bad most of us will be in another life by then, since we're talking about a very slow process. But who knows, we might get lucky and see a major tectonic plate shift in our lifetime. Or a Caldera eruption would be cool to witness, wouldn't it? I mean if you are a couple thousand miles away from it. That would be a world changer, in the blink of an eye.
Things like calderas or major changes in plate movements are quite noticeable. We know where the claderas are and what tends to drive them. I don't see any reason to suspect the plates would undergo major directional changes anytime soon.
GreenMan wrote:
I think that you are correct about what happens following a peak warming event. I've studied the charts that show the earth's past climate, and they all show basically the same thing.
There are no charts showing Earth's past climate. Earth doesn't have a 'climate'. No one knows the temperature of the Earth, even today. It is not possible to measure it to any useful degree of accuracy. All such past 'climate' charts are is just speculations.
GreenMan wrote:
The planets gets to a peak temperature, and then begins sliding down into a full blown glacial event. I don't agree that CO2 was not the driving factor though, because I did my own independent study the Greenhouse Affect, and found that CO2 is very much a driving force behind our planet's warmth.
CO2 is not a driving force. It is not a force at all. It is not an energy source. It's ability to absorb infrared light only helps to cool the surface, just like conduction and convection does.
GreenMan wrote:
In fact, if you would take a look at what happens to CO2 during each Glacial Cycle, you would see that it peaks out just ahead of the temperature peak. Then it flattens out a bit, as the temperature starts to drop. After a few thousand years, the CO2 level starts to drop more rapidly as the temperature continues downward. The temperature stays down until the planet moves into an orbit that is warmer, due to the Milankovitch affect. After about 500 years, the CO2 levels begin to increase as the mammal population begins to thrive in the warmer environment. The CO2 then becomes a driving force behind more warming, now coupled with the sun's increased heat [due to the Milankovitch Affect]. Eventually, the planet's orbit changes, and the heat from the sun begins to decrease each year, but the temperature continues to rise because of the CO2 in the air.
CO2 does not warm the planet. It can't.
GreenMan wrote:
Take a look at the previous interglacial periods, and you will see that pattern repeat itself. It's also interesting to look at what happens to CH4 just before each peak event. It goes from a good steady climb to a blast off, as the earth gives up its frozen stores of CH4, which pushes the temperature of the planet up quite rapidly [called runaway greenhouse affect].
CH4 does not warm the planet. It can't.
GreenMan wrote:
I built a climate model, using the green house gas levels of each 1000 year period for the last 800,000 years. The model includes how much heat we get from the sun, deducts for dust in the atmosphere, and adds an amount of insulation based on the greenhouse gas levels. With that model, I was able to calculate the planet's temperature quite accurately. So accurately that anyone who studied the model would agree that CO2, CH4, insolation [heat from the sun] and dust are all primary drivers in our climate. I can provide a copy of that Climate Model for your review, if you are interested. It's in an Excel Spreadsheet, which you can interact with, and do your own experimentation if you are so inclined.
Models are not data. Don't use them as such.
GreenMan wrote:
I'm not sure if it will display, but I attached a chart that I produced with my Climate Model.
Models are not data.
it's funny watching a Parrot post. |
| 06-08-2017 21:40 |
litesong★★★★★
(2297) |
James_ wrote: When it cools in the Arctic it warms in the Antarctic. And yet you don't like me....
AGW denier liar whiners love showing the differences between the Arctic & Antarctic. Its very hard to deny the Arctic sea ice is disappearing. So they pretend that part I of a science paper mentioning snow & sea ice accumulation proves that Antarctica is GAINING ice mass. However, AGW denier liar whiners don't mention parts II & part III of the science paper that indicates TOTAL Antarctic land ices, in the balance, are showing LOSSES. AGW denier liar whiners weren't happy that Antarctic land ice mass losses weren't as wildly down trending as on Greenland. AGW denier liar whiners, now have themselves believing that Antarctic ice masses are increasing. I don't care what AGW denier liar whiners believe. I'm glad they believe oil, coal, energy & re-pubic-lick-un propaganda PR poop. |
| 06-08-2017 21:45 |
James_★★★★★
(2230) |
litesong wrote:
James_ wrote: When it cools in the Arctic it warms in the Antarctic. And yet you don't like me....
AGW denier liar whiners love showing the differences between the Arctic & Antarctic. Its very hard to deny the Arctic sea ice is disappearing. So they pretend that part I of a science paper mentioning snow & sea ice accumulation proves that Antarctica is GAINING ice mass. However, AGW denier liar whiners don't mention parts II & part III of the science paper that indicates TOTAL Antarctic land ices, in the balance, are showing LOSSES. AGW denier liar whiners weren't happy that Antarctic land ice mass losses weren't as wildly down trending as on Greenland. AGW denier liar whiners, now have themselves believing that Antarctic ice masses are increasing. I don't care what AGW denier liar whiners believe. I'm glad they believe oil, coal, energy & re-pubic-lick-un propaganda PR poop.
Unfortunately the experiments that I'd like to see tried haven't been done yet.
My greatest concern are the glaciers on Greenland. Specifically how much heat it would take to melt them and to what extent over time.
It seems those glaciers are keeping the Gakkel/North Atlantic Ridges from opening more. Kind of why noting the difference between the Arctic and Antarctica is necessary. Antarctica doesn't have the same temperature swings at the Arctic does. it's about 1/2 as much. |
| 07-08-2017 08:28 |
GreenMan★★★☆☆
(661) |
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
James_ wrote:
I guess what you miss is if AGW increases the warmth of southerly winds and ocean currents then how much of the glaciers on Greenland will melt ? And how much more spreading of the Gakkel and North Atlantic ridges will occur ?
With me I think that what cycles us between being in the deepest parts of an ice age and in an inter-glacial period like now. If you ever check the graphs after peek warming we start slowly cooling into the next ice age.
The best part ? When it cools in the Arctic it warms in the Antarctic. And yet you don't like me because I won't say that CO2 is causing all of the warming but there are other factors such as what I've mentioned just now. And I even left out the ozone layer and it's recovery :-)
James, to answer your question simply; all of the glaciers on Greenland will melt eventually.
That's because the planet's temperature will continue to creep up with each passing year, until long after the glaciers are gone. And that is because of the amount of CO2 and CH4 that are currently in the air.
Neither CO2 nor CH4 have the ability to warm the planet. Only an change in our energy source (the Sun) can do that.
GreenMan wrote:
I have no idea what will happen to Gakkel or the North Atlantic ridges, because of the redistribution of weight, but it will be interesting to find out. Too bad most of us will be in another life by then, since we're talking about a very slow process. But who knows, we might get lucky and see a major tectonic plate shift in our lifetime. Or a Caldera eruption would be cool to witness, wouldn't it? I mean if you are a couple thousand miles away from it. That would be a world changer, in the blink of an eye.
Things like calderas or major changes in plate movements are quite noticeable. We know where the claderas are and what tends to drive them. I don't see any reason to suspect the plates would undergo major directional changes anytime soon.
GreenMan wrote:
I think that you are correct about what happens following a peak warming event. I've studied the charts that show the earth's past climate, and they all show basically the same thing.
There are no charts showing Earth's past climate. Earth doesn't have a 'climate'. No one knows the temperature of the Earth, even today. It is not possible to measure it to any useful degree of accuracy. All such past 'climate' charts are is just speculations.
GreenMan wrote:
The planets gets to a peak temperature, and then begins sliding down into a full blown glacial event. I don't agree that CO2 was not the driving factor though, because I did my own independent study the Greenhouse Affect, and found that CO2 is very much a driving force behind our planet's warmth.
CO2 is not a driving force. It is not a force at all. It is not an energy source. It's ability to absorb infrared light only helps to cool the surface, just like conduction and convection does.
GreenMan wrote:
In fact, if you would take a look at what happens to CO2 during each Glacial Cycle, you would see that it peaks out just ahead of the temperature peak. Then it flattens out a bit, as the temperature starts to drop. After a few thousand years, the CO2 level starts to drop more rapidly as the temperature continues downward. The temperature stays down until the planet moves into an orbit that is warmer, due to the Milankovitch affect. After about 500 years, the CO2 levels begin to increase as the mammal population begins to thrive in the warmer environment. The CO2 then becomes a driving force behind more warming, now coupled with the sun's increased heat [due to the Milankovitch Affect]. Eventually, the planet's orbit changes, and the heat from the sun begins to decrease each year, but the temperature continues to rise because of the CO2 in the air.
CO2 does not warm the planet. It can't.
GreenMan wrote:
Take a look at the previous interglacial periods, and you will see that pattern repeat itself. It's also interesting to look at what happens to CH4 just before each peak event. It goes from a good steady climb to a blast off, as the earth gives up its frozen stores of CH4, which pushes the temperature of the planet up quite rapidly [called runaway greenhouse affect].
CH4 does not warm the planet. It can't.
GreenMan wrote:
I built a climate model, using the green house gas levels of each 1000 year period for the last 800,000 years. The model includes how much heat we get from the sun, deducts for dust in the atmosphere, and adds an amount of insulation based on the greenhouse gas levels. With that model, I was able to calculate the planet's temperature quite accurately. So accurately that anyone who studied the model would agree that CO2, CH4, insolation [heat from the sun] and dust are all primary drivers in our climate. I can provide a copy of that Climate Model for your review, if you are interested. It's in an Excel Spreadsheet, which you can interact with, and do your own experimentation if you are so inclined.
Models are not data. Don't use them as such.
GreenMan wrote:
I'm not sure if it will display, but I attached a chart that I produced with my Climate Model.
Models are not data.
Again you show the simple mindedness of an imbecile, Parrot. Of course there is an average temperature of the planet, which is measurable. Currently we are running just below 15C average for the year. Data from EPICA Dome C shows what the average temperature for the planet was for the previous 800,000 years. From that information, we can tell what the climate was like. If you want to see an example, you can look at the chart I posted. The red line is what the average temperature of the planet was. The white line is what the climate model calculated the temperature should have been.
And I agree that models aren't data. Models are tools used to predict the behavior of things. Their output is compared to actual data to determine the accuracy of the model. If the comparison shows that the past calculations are accurate, then future calculations should also be accurate.
Not sorry that my research offends you. And I understand completely if you want to reject the things I know, because it is your right to ignore whatever you want to, as you wage your personal war on the future of humanity, so that you can continue living the high life. But you do need to stand down, and let your fellow citizens of the earth figure out what to do. We don't really need idiotic people trying to confuse an already confuse public about a complicated subject.
~*~ GreenMan ~*~
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php |
| 07-08-2017 09:35 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
James_ wrote:
I guess what you miss is if AGW increases the warmth of southerly winds and ocean currents then how much of the glaciers on Greenland will melt ? And how much more spreading of the Gakkel and North Atlantic ridges will occur ?
With me I think that what cycles us between being in the deepest parts of an ice age and in an inter-glacial period like now. If you ever check the graphs after peek warming we start slowly cooling into the next ice age.
The best part ? When it cools in the Arctic it warms in the Antarctic. And yet you don't like me because I won't say that CO2 is causing all of the warming but there are other factors such as what I've mentioned just now. And I even left out the ozone layer and it's recovery :-)
James, to answer your question simply; all of the glaciers on Greenland will melt eventually.
That's because the planet's temperature will continue to creep up with each passing year, until long after the glaciers are gone. And that is because of the amount of CO2 and CH4 that are currently in the air.
Neither CO2 nor CH4 have the ability to warm the planet. Only an change in our energy source (the Sun) can do that.
GreenMan wrote:
I have no idea what will happen to Gakkel or the North Atlantic ridges, because of the redistribution of weight, but it will be interesting to find out. Too bad most of us will be in another life by then, since we're talking about a very slow process. But who knows, we might get lucky and see a major tectonic plate shift in our lifetime. Or a Caldera eruption would be cool to witness, wouldn't it? I mean if you are a couple thousand miles away from it. That would be a world changer, in the blink of an eye.
Things like calderas or major changes in plate movements are quite noticeable. We know where the claderas are and what tends to drive them. I don't see any reason to suspect the plates would undergo major directional changes anytime soon.
GreenMan wrote:
I think that you are correct about what happens following a peak warming event. I've studied the charts that show the earth's past climate, and they all show basically the same thing.
There are no charts showing Earth's past climate. Earth doesn't have a 'climate'. No one knows the temperature of the Earth, even today. It is not possible to measure it to any useful degree of accuracy. All such past 'climate' charts are is just speculations.
GreenMan wrote:
The planets gets to a peak temperature, and then begins sliding down into a full blown glacial event. I don't agree that CO2 was not the driving factor though, because I did my own independent study the Greenhouse Affect, and found that CO2 is very much a driving force behind our planet's warmth.
CO2 is not a driving force. It is not a force at all. It is not an energy source. It's ability to absorb infrared light only helps to cool the surface, just like conduction and convection does.
GreenMan wrote:
In fact, if you would take a look at what happens to CO2 during each Glacial Cycle, you would see that it peaks out just ahead of the temperature peak. Then it flattens out a bit, as the temperature starts to drop. After a few thousand years, the CO2 level starts to drop more rapidly as the temperature continues downward. The temperature stays down until the planet moves into an orbit that is warmer, due to the Milankovitch affect. After about 500 years, the CO2 levels begin to increase as the mammal population begins to thrive in the warmer environment. The CO2 then becomes a driving force behind more warming, now coupled with the sun's increased heat [due to the Milankovitch Affect]. Eventually, the planet's orbit changes, and the heat from the sun begins to decrease each year, but the temperature continues to rise because of the CO2 in the air.
CO2 does not warm the planet. It can't.
GreenMan wrote:
Take a look at the previous interglacial periods, and you will see that pattern repeat itself. It's also interesting to look at what happens to CH4 just before each peak event. It goes from a good steady climb to a blast off, as the earth gives up its frozen stores of CH4, which pushes the temperature of the planet up quite rapidly [called runaway greenhouse affect].
CH4 does not warm the planet. It can't.
GreenMan wrote:
I built a climate model, using the green house gas levels of each 1000 year period for the last 800,000 years. The model includes how much heat we get from the sun, deducts for dust in the atmosphere, and adds an amount of insulation based on the greenhouse gas levels. With that model, I was able to calculate the planet's temperature quite accurately. So accurately that anyone who studied the model would agree that CO2, CH4, insolation [heat from the sun] and dust are all primary drivers in our climate. I can provide a copy of that Climate Model for your review, if you are interested. It's in an Excel Spreadsheet, which you can interact with, and do your own experimentation if you are so inclined.
Models are not data. Don't use them as such.
GreenMan wrote:
I'm not sure if it will display, but I attached a chart that I produced with my Climate Model.
Models are not data.
it's funny watching a Parrot post.
You are obviously very confused. I kill parrots for entertainment purposes.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 07-08-2017 09:58 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
James_ wrote:
I guess what you miss is if AGW increases the warmth of southerly winds and ocean currents then how much of the glaciers on Greenland will melt ? And how much more spreading of the Gakkel and North Atlantic ridges will occur ?
With me I think that what cycles us between being in the deepest parts of an ice age and in an inter-glacial period like now. If you ever check the graphs after peek warming we start slowly cooling into the next ice age.
The best part ? When it cools in the Arctic it warms in the Antarctic. And yet you don't like me because I won't say that CO2 is causing all of the warming but there are other factors such as what I've mentioned just now. And I even left out the ozone layer and it's recovery :-)
James, to answer your question simply; all of the glaciers on Greenland will melt eventually.
That's because the planet's temperature will continue to creep up with each passing year, until long after the glaciers are gone. And that is because of the amount of CO2 and CH4 that are currently in the air.
Neither CO2 nor CH4 have the ability to warm the planet. Only an change in our energy source (the Sun) can do that.
GreenMan wrote:
I have no idea what will happen to Gakkel or the North Atlantic ridges, because of the redistribution of weight, but it will be interesting to find out. Too bad most of us will be in another life by then, since we're talking about a very slow process. But who knows, we might get lucky and see a major tectonic plate shift in our lifetime. Or a Caldera eruption would be cool to witness, wouldn't it? I mean if you are a couple thousand miles away from it. That would be a world changer, in the blink of an eye.
Things like calderas or major changes in plate movements are quite noticeable. We know where the claderas are and what tends to drive them. I don't see any reason to suspect the plates would undergo major directional changes anytime soon.
GreenMan wrote:
I think that you are correct about what happens following a peak warming event. I've studied the charts that show the earth's past climate, and they all show basically the same thing.
There are no charts showing Earth's past climate. Earth doesn't have a 'climate'. No one knows the temperature of the Earth, even today. It is not possible to measure it to any useful degree of accuracy. All such past 'climate' charts are is just speculations.
GreenMan wrote:
The planets gets to a peak temperature, and then begins sliding down into a full blown glacial event. I don't agree that CO2 was not the driving factor though, because I did my own independent study the Greenhouse Affect, and found that CO2 is very much a driving force behind our planet's warmth.
CO2 is not a driving force. It is not a force at all. It is not an energy source. It's ability to absorb infrared light only helps to cool the surface, just like conduction and convection does.
GreenMan wrote:
In fact, if you would take a look at what happens to CO2 during each Glacial Cycle, you would see that it peaks out just ahead of the temperature peak. Then it flattens out a bit, as the temperature starts to drop. After a few thousand years, the CO2 level starts to drop more rapidly as the temperature continues downward. The temperature stays down until the planet moves into an orbit that is warmer, due to the Milankovitch affect. After about 500 years, the CO2 levels begin to increase as the mammal population begins to thrive in the warmer environment. The CO2 then becomes a driving force behind more warming, now coupled with the sun's increased heat [due to the Milankovitch Affect]. Eventually, the planet's orbit changes, and the heat from the sun begins to decrease each year, but the temperature continues to rise because of the CO2 in the air.
CO2 does not warm the planet. It can't.
GreenMan wrote:
Take a look at the previous interglacial periods, and you will see that pattern repeat itself. It's also interesting to look at what happens to CH4 just before each peak event. It goes from a good steady climb to a blast off, as the earth gives up its frozen stores of CH4, which pushes the temperature of the planet up quite rapidly [called runaway greenhouse affect].
CH4 does not warm the planet. It can't.
GreenMan wrote:
I built a climate model, using the green house gas levels of each 1000 year period for the last 800,000 years. The model includes how much heat we get from the sun, deducts for dust in the atmosphere, and adds an amount of insulation based on the greenhouse gas levels. With that model, I was able to calculate the planet's temperature quite accurately. So accurately that anyone who studied the model would agree that CO2, CH4, insolation [heat from the sun] and dust are all primary drivers in our climate. I can provide a copy of that Climate Model for your review, if you are interested. It's in an Excel Spreadsheet, which you can interact with, and do your own experimentation if you are so inclined.
Models are not data. Don't use them as such.
GreenMan wrote:
I'm not sure if it will display, but I attached a chart that I produced with my Climate Model.
Models are not data.
Again you show the simple mindedness of an imbecile, Parrot. Of course there is an average temperature of the planet, which is measurable.
Nope. We don't have sufficient instrumentation to determine a global temperature to any useful degree of accuracy. We simply don't have enough thermometers in the world. We are not even close to having enough. What we DO have is not uniformly placed, a requirement for statistical analysis.
GreenMan wrote:
Currently we are running just below 15C average for the year.
Argument from randU. You don't know the temperature of the Earth.
GreenMan wrote:
Data from EPICA Dome C shows what the average temperature for the planet was for the previous 800,000 years.
Speculations like this are not data.
GreenMan wrote:
From that information, we can tell what the climate was like.
No, you can't.
GreenMan wrote:
If you want to see an example, you can look at the chart I posted.
Why? Your chart is constructed of manufactured data.
GreenMan wrote:
The red line is what the average temperature of the planet was. The white line is what the climate model calculated the temperature should have been.
You don't know what the temperature of Earth was. You are speculating.
GreenMan wrote:
And I agree that models aren't data.
Then don't use them as if they are.
GreenMan wrote:
Models are tools used to predict the behavior of things.
Models do not predict. They describe.
GreenMan wrote:
Their output is compared to actual data
You don't have any actual data.
GreenMan wrote:
to determine the accuracy of the model.
You are comparing against a void.
GreenMan wrote:
If the comparison shows that the past calculations are accurate, then future calculations should also be accurate.
There are no calculations that are useful for this purpose.
GreenMan wrote:
Not sorry that my research offends you.
You are not doing any research. You are proselytizing.
GreenMan wrote:
And I understand completely if you want to reject the things I know, because it is your right to ignore whatever you want to,
All you seem to know is what the Church of Global Warming has taught you. I reject that religion.
GreenMan wrote:
as you wage your personal war on the future of humanity,
No, I point out the ignorance and illiteracy of your position.
GreenMan wrote:
so that you can continue living the high life.
You have a problem with my standard of living? Don't you want it to? I argue a position that all are free to achieve the standard of living they desire, if they are willing to work for it.
GreenMan wrote:
But you do need to stand down,
Just another way of telling me to join your religion. No thanks.
GreenMan wrote:
and let your fellow citizens of the earth figure out what to do.
Fortunately, many of my fellow citizens of Earth are beginning to figure out the tripe you are feeding them. They know there is something wrong with it. They may not be able to put their finger on what, but they know.
GreenMan wrote:
We don't really need idiotic people trying to confuse an already confuse public about a complicated subject.
Ah yes...the old "it's too complicated to understand" fallacy. No, the science that your religion is violating is very simple to understand, if one only takes the time to study it for a bit.
Let's start at the beginning:
What exactly IS 'global warming'? Can you define it without resorting to circular definitions or turning to 'greenhouse effect' with just circles back around to the 'global warming' definition?
How about 'climate change'? Can you define it without using circular definitions?
Something you should consider:
What is warming? From when to when? Why are those moments so important, and why are any other moments NOT important?
How do you define the 'climate' of the Earth? There is no prevailing weather for the Earth. How do you describe a 'change' without using starting and ending points in time? Why are those moments important?
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |