Remember me
▼ Content

Climate Data 800,000 years



Page 1 of 5123>>>
Climate Data 800,000 years11-08-2017 13:03
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(482)
This Graph Shows the Insolation [Heat from the Sun] Over the Last 800,000 years. Note that this graph is using the Insolation values that were obtained from Gerber et. al. and then conditioned to account for individual zone influence. The next graph posted will show the Insolation as Gerber calculated it.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

Attached image:


Edited on 11-08-2017 13:32
RE: Insolation 800,000 years11-08-2017 13:15
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(482)
This Chart shows the Insolation variation over the last 800,000 years. The data is yearly averages of that presented by Gerber et. al.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

Attached image:

RE: EPICA Dome C CO2 800kyrs11-08-2017 13:36
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(482)
This graph shows what the gas locked in ice cores retrieved from EPICA Dome C indicate the CO2 levels were over the last 800,000 years.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

Attached image:


Edited on 11-08-2017 13:39
RE: CH4 800 kyrs11-08-2017 14:15
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(482)
Methane present in EPICA Dome C Ice Core, 800,000 years.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

Attached image:

RE: N20 800kyrs11-08-2017 14:27
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(482)
This graph shows N2O concentrations for some periods of time, taken from EPICA Dome C ice cores. Note that a complete set of data was not available at the time [and probably still not available], so quite a lot of gaps were filled in by interpolation.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

Attached image:

RE: Dust 800kyr11-08-2017 14:36
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(482)
800,000 years of Dust from EPICA Dome C ice cores. Note that the Dust axis on the chart is inverted. This is done so that it's easier to see how dust influences the Earth's average temperature.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

Attached image:

RE: Climate Model 800kyrs11-08-2017 14:41
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(482)
The Climate Model's Calculations are shown in this graph, which makes it easy to see the accuracy of the model.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

Attached image:

11-08-2017 15:07
Wake
★★★★★
(2226)
GreenMan wrote:
The Climate Model's Calculations are shown in this graph, which makes it easy to see the accuracy of the model.


You haven't looked at these charts to see how implausible they are have you?
11-08-2017 16:51
litesong
★★★★☆
(1505)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed: .... how implausible....

We already know how implausible the mathematics of "wake-me-up" are. "wake-me-up" can't even get exponents right.
11-08-2017 18:55
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
The Climate Model's Calculations are shown in this graph, which makes it easy to see the accuracy of the model.


You haven't looked at these charts to see how implausible they are have you?


He still thinks a computer is somehow data.


The Parrot Killer
11-08-2017 23:34
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(482)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
The Climate Model's Calculations are shown in this graph, which makes it easy to see the accuracy of the model.


You haven't looked at these charts to see how implausible they are have you?


That's right, my sleepy friend, I haven't looked at them to "see how implausible they are." How did you guess that?

No, I looked at them to see if there was any chance that could enlighten me on how our Planetary Climate Control System worked.

So why don't you go ahead and tell us what you think is implausible about any of the graphs.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
11-08-2017 23:38
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(482)
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed: .... how implausible....

We already know how implausible the mathematics of "wake-me-up" are. "wake-me-up" can't even get exponents right.


His obvious lack of talent in understanding mathematics makes me wonder why he is in the forum, because understanding Climate requires a LOT of mathematical skills. But he is good to have around, since he provides quite a lot of opportunity to laugh.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
11-08-2017 23:42
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(482)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
The Climate Model's Calculations are shown in this graph, which makes it easy to see the accuracy of the model.


You haven't looked at these charts to see how implausible they are have you?


He still thinks a computer is somehow data.


Hello Parrot Face. Figured you would chime your silly ass in. Are you trying, in a roundabout way to say that a computer ain't data? Do you mean to tell me that something that can hold as much data as my computer can, ain't data? My stupid cousin would be able to come up with something even stupider than what you said, to top you, but I think I'll just let you have one up on me.

Hey, have you stoned any of those Global Warming Church missionaries today?


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
12-08-2017 14:22
Wake
★★★★★
(2226)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
The Climate Model's Calculations are shown in this graph, which makes it easy to see the accuracy of the model.


You haven't looked at these charts to see how implausible they are have you?


He still thinks a computer is somehow data.


Hello Parrot Face. Figured you would chime your silly ass in. Are you trying, in a roundabout way to say that a computer ain't data? Do you mean to tell me that something that can hold as much data as my computer can, ain't data? My stupid cousin would be able to come up with something even stupider than what you said, to top you, but I think I'll just let you have one up on me.

Hey, have you stoned any of those Global Warming Church missionaries today?
12-08-2017 14:29
Wake
★★★★★
(2226)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
The Climate Model's Calculations are shown in this graph, which makes it easy to see the accuracy of the model.


You haven't looked at these charts to see how implausible they are have you?


He still thinks a computer is somehow data.


Hello Parrot Face. Figured you would chime your silly ass in. Are you trying, in a roundabout way to say that a computer ain't data? Do you mean to tell me that something that can hold as much data as my computer can, ain't data? My stupid cousin would be able to come up with something even stupider than what you said, to top you, but I think I'll just let you have one up on me.

Hey, have you stoned any of those Global Warming Church missionaries today?


Tell you what - give me your name and address and I'd be perfectly happy to come over and let you explain all this to me. And in the process I would strongly urge you not to talk to me in that manner. I really do not take kindly to some mindless janitor telling me I don't know what I'm talking about. Especially one using information that is self generated by data from NASA and NOAA that is now being shown in Congressional hearings to have been counterfeited.
12-08-2017 16:20
James_
★★★☆☆
(590)
GreenMan wrote:
This graph shows what the gas locked in ice cores retrieved from EPICA Dome C indicate the CO2 levels were over the last 800,000 years.


In a sense there is nothing surprising about this. It is known that depending on the temperatures of our oceans whether CO2 will be absorbed or released. This is why I think more research should be done to verify CO2's role in our atmosphere.
Ice core researchers are now saying that an increase in CO2 in our atmosphere follows warming by 800 years. The primary argument being made by scientists is that CO2 increases or intensifies natural warming. At the moment they have stated what the primary cause of warming is.
One thing I do consider is that our planet rotates more quickly during an Ice Age. If so this would allow it to move closer to the Sun because it's orbit would be less elliptical.


Jim
12-08-2017 18:47
Tim the plumber
★★★☆☆
(941)
GreenMan wrote:
The Climate Model's Calculations are shown in this graph, which makes it easy to see the accuracy of the model.


So what are the variables you are using to cause the variatuion?
12-08-2017 19:29
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
The Climate Model's Calculations are shown in this graph, which makes it easy to see the accuracy of the model.


You haven't looked at these charts to see how implausible they are have you?


That's right, my sleepy friend, I haven't looked at them to "see how implausible they are." How did you guess that?

No, I looked at them to see if there was any chance that could enlighten me on how our Planetary Climate Control System worked.

So why don't you go ahead and tell us what you think is implausible about any of the graphs.


They are manufactured data. They don't mean anything.


The Parrot Killer
12-08-2017 19:30
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
GreenMan wrote:
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed: .... how implausible....

We already know how implausible the mathematics of "wake-me-up" are. "wake-me-up" can't even get exponents right.


His obvious lack of talent in understanding mathematics makes me wonder why he is in the forum, because understanding Climate requires a LOT of mathematical skills. But he is good to have around, since he provides quite a lot of opportunity to laugh.


Climate is weather 'over a long time'. What mathematical skills are there in climate???


The Parrot Killer
12-08-2017 19:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
The Climate Model's Calculations are shown in this graph, which makes it easy to see the accuracy of the model.


You haven't looked at these charts to see how implausible they are have you?


He still thinks a computer is somehow data.


Hello Parrot Face. Figured you would chime your silly ass in. Are you trying, in a roundabout way to say that a computer ain't data?

A computer isn't data. A computer is a sequencer, coupled with a pocket calculator, a telegraph code, and a memory system.
GreenMan wrote:
Do you mean to tell me that something that can hold as much data as my computer can, ain't data?

That's exactly what I am telling you.


The Parrot Killer
12-08-2017 19:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
James_ wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
This graph shows what the gas locked in ice cores retrieved from EPICA Dome C indicate the CO2 levels were over the last 800,000 years.


In a sense there is nothing surprising about this. It is known that depending on the temperatures of our oceans whether CO2 will be absorbed or released. This is why I think more research should be done to verify CO2's role in our atmosphere.
Ice core researchers are now saying that an increase in CO2 in our atmosphere follows warming by 800 years. The primary argument being made by scientists is that CO2 increases or intensifies natural warming. At the moment they have stated what the primary cause of warming is.

Event A, if it follows event B, is not the cause of event B.
James_ wrote:
One thing I do consider is that our planet rotates more quickly during an Ice Age. If so this would allow it to move closer to the Sun because it's orbit would be less elliptical.

There is no reason our planet would change it's spin rate due to any ice age.

Spin rate does not affect orbital path.


The Parrot Killer
12-08-2017 20:43
Wake
★★★★★
(2226)
James_ wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
This graph shows what the gas locked in ice cores retrieved from EPICA Dome C indicate the CO2 levels were over the last 800,000 years.


In a sense there is nothing surprising about this. It is known that depending on the temperatures of our oceans whether CO2 will be absorbed or released. This is why I think more research should be done to verify CO2's role in our atmosphere.
Ice core researchers are now saying that an increase in CO2 in our atmosphere follows warming by 800 years. The primary argument being made by scientists is that CO2 increases or intensifies natural warming. At the moment they have stated what the primary cause of warming is.
One thing I do consider is that our planet rotates more quickly during an Ice Age. If so this would allow it to move closer to the Sun because it's orbit would be less elliptical. Jim


Jim, among Greenman's other errors is his completely ignoring the results of continental drift on the climate. Using records of temperatures from a time when Central America and the connections between Asia and Africa didn't exist tells you next to nothing.
12-08-2017 20:45
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
This graph shows what the gas locked in ice cores retrieved from EPICA Dome C indicate the CO2 levels were over the last 800,000 years.


In a sense there is nothing surprising about this. It is known that depending on the temperatures of our oceans whether CO2 will be absorbed or released. This is why I think more research should be done to verify CO2's role in our atmosphere.
Ice core researchers are now saying that an increase in CO2 in our atmosphere follows warming by 800 years. The primary argument being made by scientists is that CO2 increases or intensifies natural warming. At the moment they have stated what the primary cause of warming is.
One thing I do consider is that our planet rotates more quickly during an Ice Age. If so this would allow it to move closer to the Sun because it's orbit would be less elliptical. Jim


Jim, among Greenman's other errors is his completely ignoring the results of continental drift on the climate. Using records of temperatures from a time when Central America and the connections between Asia and Africa didn't exist tells you next to nothing.

While a valid point, why would an ice form in warmer climates in the first place? What are you getting your core from?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 12-08-2017 20:47
12-08-2017 23:06
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(482)
The Greenhouse Effect is explained by the Church's most notable contributors, NOAA.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/infodata/lesson_plans/The%20Greenhouse%20Effect-%20Fact%20of%20Theory.pdf


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

Attached image:


Edited on 12-08-2017 23:07
12-08-2017 23:27
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(482)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
The Climate Model's Calculations are shown in this graph, which makes it easy to see the accuracy of the model.


You haven't looked at these charts to see how implausible they are have you?


He still thinks a computer is somehow data.


Hello Parrot Face. Figured you would chime your silly ass in. Are you trying, in a roundabout way to say that a computer ain't data? Do you mean to tell me that something that can hold as much data as my computer can, ain't data? My stupid cousin would be able to come up with something even stupider than what you said, to top you, but I think I'll just let you have one up on me.

Hey, have you stoned any of those Global Warming Church missionaries today?


Tell you what - give me your name and address and I'd be perfectly happy to come over and let you explain all this to me. And in the process I would strongly urge you not to talk to me in that manner. I really do not take kindly to some mindless janitor telling me I don't know what I'm talking about. Especially one using information that is self generated by data from NASA and NOAA that is now being shown in Congressional hearings to have been counterfeited.


My, my, my, aren't you a tough cyber bully. But you know what, I ain't skeered a you. You're just a dirtbag loudmouth who goes around with cops and throws people out of houses. You gonna need those cops if you ever come sniffing round my house, boy. By the way, it's payed for, so you don't get to bring no cops.

Neither NASA nor NOAA had anything to do with compiling the data which my model is built on, except for maybe the Insolation data, which was compiled by a man named Berger, who might have worked for one of them. I'm not sure. But EPICA Dome C data was compiled by some European group, which is what the E is for.

And just because some bunch of Satan's cronies are trying to make a case against someone for counterfeiting data, it doesn't mean that all climate data is counterfeit, you dimwit. Ew.....I'm so skeered.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
12-08-2017 23:39
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(482)
Tim the plumber wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
The Climate Model's Calculations are shown in this graph, which makes it easy to see the accuracy of the model.


So what are the variables you are using to cause the variatuion?


The variables are insolation, dust, CO2, CH4, N2O.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
12-08-2017 23:41
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(482)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
The Climate Model's Calculations are shown in this graph, which makes it easy to see the accuracy of the model.


You haven't looked at these charts to see how implausible they are have you?


That's right, my sleepy friend, I haven't looked at them to "see how implausible they are." How did you guess that?

No, I looked at them to see if there was any chance that could enlighten me on how our Planetary Climate Control System worked.

So why don't you go ahead and tell us what you think is implausible about any of the graphs.


They are manufactured data. They don't mean anything.


In a way they are manufactured data, because I didn't use any raw data. I had to average the raw data so it would line up in time with other data, which was also averaged. But if you are saying that the raw data from the ice was manufactured then I think you are in error.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
12-08-2017 23:54
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(482)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed: .... how implausible....

We already know how implausible the mathematics of "wake-me-up" are. "wake-me-up" can't even get exponents right.


His obvious lack of talent in understanding mathematics makes me wonder why he is in the forum, because understanding Climate requires a LOT of mathematical skills. But he is good to have around, since he provides quite a lot of opportunity to laugh.


Climate is weather 'over a long time'. What mathematical skills are there in climate???


You left out a word, Professor. You need to ask, "What mathematical skills are there in understanding climate?". Then I can answer your question. But you don't need the answer now, do you? Ok, just in case you are that dim. You have to understand math [just very basic stuff, like exponents, addition, and division] to mentally visualize how several components act together, each with his own little piece, to force a particular outcome, which can be calculated with math and proven with comparison to actual results. For example, warming of our planet starts with warmth from the sun. You have to subtract a certain amount of warmth from the average output of the sun though to account for how much dust is in the air, because it blocks some of that warmth. So you have to figure out how much warmth is blocked because of the dust. Then you have to add a little warmth to that result to account for the amount of greenhouse gases are present, because greenhouse gases absorb heat radiation from earth and reradiate back. Determining both the greenhouse gas and the dust forcing requires that you understand how exponents work, and how division works. So I'm thinking you can finally get there, if you open your mind to the possibility that you could have been mistaken about some things. But people like Wake will never be able to really comprehend how such a minute amount of something can do anything [except keep the whole world alive].


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
13-08-2017 00:05
litesong
★★★★☆
(1505)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: What mathematical skills are there in climate???

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" agrees it has no mathematical skills.
13-08-2017 00:06
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(482)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
This graph shows what the gas locked in ice cores retrieved from EPICA Dome C indicate the CO2 levels were over the last 800,000 years.


In a sense there is nothing surprising about this. It is known that depending on the temperatures of our oceans whether CO2 will be absorbed or released. This is why I think more research should be done to verify CO2's role in our atmosphere.
Ice core researchers are now saying that an increase in CO2 in our atmosphere follows warming by 800 years. The primary argument being made by scientists is that CO2 increases or intensifies natural warming. At the moment they have stated what the primary cause of warming is.
One thing I do consider is that our planet rotates more quickly during an Ice Age. If so this would allow it to move closer to the Sun because it's orbit would be less elliptical. Jim


Jim, among Greenman's other errors is his completely ignoring the results of continental drift on the climate. Using records of temperatures from a time when Central America and the connections between Asia and Africa didn't exist tells you next to nothing.


Don't you mean continental shift? Because you got the continents moving a little to fast for the kid, lol. My model only goes back about 1 million years. Your time frame has California sitting next to Oregon in just a few years.

NaNaNaNaPooPoo, you moron.

And besides that, I'm not trying to calculate the climate for North America, or for anywhere specifically. I'm merely calculating the climate for the planet. So the ocean currents shouldn't affect it, because the oceans are merely moving heat around, not adding to it or subtracting from it.

You really are a loser aren't you? Is that why you chose the profession you are in? Do you like seeing other people who are bigger losers than you? Does that make you feel better about yourself, when you are throwing some poor smuck out of your bosses new home?

No wonder you threaten people. You are too stupid to win any other way. Do you still beat your wife, or did she finally get out of there?


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
13-08-2017 00:16
Wake
★★★★★
(2226)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
This graph shows what the gas locked in ice cores retrieved from EPICA Dome C indicate the CO2 levels were over the last 800,000 years.


In a sense there is nothing surprising about this. It is known that depending on the temperatures of our oceans whether CO2 will be absorbed or released. This is why I think more research should be done to verify CO2's role in our atmosphere.
Ice core researchers are now saying that an increase in CO2 in our atmosphere follows warming by 800 years. The primary argument being made by scientists is that CO2 increases or intensifies natural warming. At the moment they have stated what the primary cause of warming is.
One thing I do consider is that our planet rotates more quickly during an Ice Age. If so this would allow it to move closer to the Sun because it's orbit would be less elliptical. Jim


Jim, among Greenman's other errors is his completely ignoring the results of continental drift on the climate. Using records of temperatures from a time when Central America and the connections between Asia and Africa didn't exist tells you next to nothing.


Don't you mean continental shift? Because you got the continents moving a little to fast for the kid, lol. My model only goes back about 1 million years. Your time frame has California sitting next to Oregon in just a few years.

NaNaNaNaPooPoo, you moron.

And besides that, I'm not trying to calculate the climate for North America, or for anywhere specifically. I'm merely calculating the climate for the planet. So the ocean currents shouldn't affect it, because the oceans are merely moving heat around, not adding to it or subtracting from it.

You really are a loser aren't you? Is that why you chose the profession you are in? Do you like seeing other people who are bigger losers than you? Does that make you feel better about yourself, when you are throwing some poor smuck out of your bosses new home?

No wonder you threaten people. You are too stupid to win any other way. Do you still beat your wife, or did she finally get out of there?


It isn't in the least bit surprising that you don't even catch the faintest idea what I'm talking about.

I especially like you "continental shift". Did they teach you that in grade school?
13-08-2017 00:24
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(482)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
This graph shows what the gas locked in ice cores retrieved from EPICA Dome C indicate the CO2 levels were over the last 800,000 years.


In a sense there is nothing surprising about this. It is known that depending on the temperatures of our oceans whether CO2 will be absorbed or released. This is why I think more research should be done to verify CO2's role in our atmosphere.
Ice core researchers are now saying that an increase in CO2 in our atmosphere follows warming by 800 years. The primary argument being made by scientists is that CO2 increases or intensifies natural warming. At the moment they have stated what the primary cause of warming is.
One thing I do consider is that our planet rotates more quickly during an Ice Age. If so this would allow it to move closer to the Sun because it's orbit would be less elliptical. Jim


Jim, among Greenman's other errors is his completely ignoring the results of continental drift on the climate. Using records of temperatures from a time when Central America and the connections between Asia and Africa didn't exist tells you next to nothing.

While a valid point, why would an ice form in warmer climates in the first place? What are you getting your core from?


Not really sure if you are asking the idiot or me. I think he gets his ice from the fridge. I got mine from Antarctica, because I like the special kind. It adds flavor to my drinks that is out of this world. I think it might be the dinosaur piss.

Ice if forming down there now, even as we speak, because it's in the southern hemisphere and is enjoying Winter now. Next spring, the Church of AGW will be all out in force talking about how much more ice there is down there now, compared to last year. It's so cold down there that you still need a jacket on, even in the middle of Summer. But the record only goes back to about a million years, so we know that at some time in the past, there was no ice there. Musta been hotter than hell then. And that's where all the Dinosaur piss came from. It was so hot that dinosaurs ran around on Antarctica. If we are lucky, people will survive long enough to run around on Antarctica, without jackets on in the Summer.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
13-08-2017 00:30
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(482)
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: What mathematical skills are there in climate???

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" agrees it has no mathematical skills.


ROFLMAO

Thank you litesong. I needed a good laugh.

And you are probably right. If a person doesn't have math skills then they aren't what is considered "intelligent," because intelligence requires problem solving skills. These parrots we play with are just walking talking textbooks, spouting out whatever their masters have told them to spout.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
13-08-2017 01:17
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(482)
James_ wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
This graph shows what the gas locked in ice cores retrieved from EPICA Dome C indicate the CO2 levels were over the last 800,000 years.


In a sense there is nothing surprising about this. It is known that depending on the temperatures of our oceans whether CO2 will be absorbed or released. This is why I think more research should be done to verify CO2's role in our atmosphere.
Ice core researchers are now saying that an increase in CO2 in our atmosphere follows warming by 800 years. The primary argument being made by scientists is that CO2 increases or intensifies natural warming. At the moment they have stated what the primary cause of warming is.
One thing I do consider is that our planet rotates more quickly during an Ice Age. If so this would allow it to move closer to the Sun because it's orbit would be less elliptical.


Jim


Jim, they do know what the primary cause of warming is. I don't mean to sound like a smart ass, but it's the Sun. Our orbit does vary over time, as you suggest, but not necessarily because of ice build up. I'm not saying that it doesn't affect it, just saying that it doesn't really matter, because the orbital variation is already there. The Milankovitch Affect is an accepted theory by most people now [anyone hollar if the don't agree that the earth's orbit varies], and we know with certainty that we go through periods of more and less warmth from the sun, as shown in this graph.

You can see that the varying heat from the sun does influence the earth's climate. But you can also see that there must be something else going on, because the earth's climate doesn't track insolation [heat from the sun] very well. It should, if insolation were the only variable in driving the earth's climate.
Those researchers you mention are correct, there is more to the driving forces behind our climate, and CO2 does lag behind a natural warming period by about 800 years. That IMO is being caused by a proliferation of animal life, due to the warming. The animals produce CO2, which adds to the additional warming from the sun. The CO2 then aids the sun in warming the planet, so it gets even warmer. And the animals just love it. They go crazy eating grass and leaves, and each other. And everyone is just having a big party because it isn't ass kicking cold no more. And that ****fest they have make it even warmer, so to speak. So the ****fest just gets to go on and on and on, until it finally gets to hot, and the party is over. We don't really know what happens during the orgasm part of the ****fest, because the last one occurred about 135,000 years ago, and no one had an iPhone, but I think there was a major die off, because the CO2 levels start dropping. But there is no evidence that I know of that supports that thought.
I did a little research that you think needs doing, because I thought it needed doing too. And I'm glad I did, because I know without a doubt that the greenhouse gas levels do control the planet's average temperature. I know that without having to take anyone's word for it, because I worked out the mathematical equation that determines what the climate of the planet should be, based on insolation, dust, and greenhouse gases. You can see from the graph below, that the model I built closely follows the actual climate of the planet. The maximum deviation from actual is about 3C, and there are some repeating cases of when the earth cooled quicker than the model calculates. So I know that there is some other variable that if also influencing the climate. I suspect it has to do with water vapor, but have no way of determining what changes water vapor might be going through.



~*~ GreenMan ~*~
13-08-2017 02:13
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(482)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
This graph shows what the gas locked in ice cores retrieved from EPICA Dome C indicate the CO2 levels were over the last 800,000 years.


In a sense there is nothing surprising about this. It is known that depending on the temperatures of our oceans whether CO2 will be absorbed or released. This is why I think more research should be done to verify CO2's role in our atmosphere.
Ice core researchers are now saying that an increase in CO2 in our atmosphere follows warming by 800 years. The primary argument being made by scientists is that CO2 increases or intensifies natural warming. At the moment they have stated what the primary cause of warming is.
One thing I do consider is that our planet rotates more quickly during an Ice Age. If so this would allow it to move closer to the Sun because it's orbit would be less elliptical. Jim


Jim, among Greenman's other errors is his completely ignoring the results of continental drift on the climate. Using records of temperatures from a time when Central America and the connections between Asia and Africa didn't exist tells you next to nothing.


Don't you mean continental shift? Because you got the continents moving a little to fast for the kid, lol. My model only goes back about 1 million years. Your time frame has California sitting next to Oregon in just a few years.

NaNaNaNaPooPoo, you moron.

And besides that, I'm not trying to calculate the climate for North America, or for anywhere specifically. I'm merely calculating the climate for the planet. So the ocean currents shouldn't affect it, because the oceans are merely moving heat around, not adding to it or subtracting from it.

You really are a loser aren't you? Is that why you chose the profession you are in? Do you like seeing other people who are bigger losers than you? Does that make you feel better about yourself, when you are throwing some poor smuck out of your bosses new home?

No wonder you threaten people. You are too stupid to win any other way. Do you still beat your wife, or did she finally get out of there?


It isn't in the least bit surprising that you don't even catch the faintest idea what I'm talking about.

I especially like you "continental shift". Did they teach you that in grade school?


No, you Bimbo, they taught me Continental Drift in grade school, just like everybody else. I called it shift for a reason, and it went right over your fat head. As you mention, continents don't shift, they drift. It's a slo-o-o-o-o-w process. A million years ago, they would have been just a few miles from where they are now. So their placement means nada. zilch. nothing.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
13-08-2017 04:03
Wake
★★★★★
(2226)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
This graph shows what the gas locked in ice cores retrieved from EPICA Dome C indicate the CO2 levels were over the last 800,000 years.


In a sense there is nothing surprising about this. It is known that depending on the temperatures of our oceans whether CO2 will be absorbed or released. This is why I think more research should be done to verify CO2's role in our atmosphere.
Ice core researchers are now saying that an increase in CO2 in our atmosphere follows warming by 800 years. The primary argument being made by scientists is that CO2 increases or intensifies natural warming. At the moment they have stated what the primary cause of warming is.
One thing I do consider is that our planet rotates more quickly during an Ice Age. If so this would allow it to move closer to the Sun because it's orbit would be less elliptical. Jim


Jim, among Greenman's other errors is his completely ignoring the results of continental drift on the climate. Using records of temperatures from a time when Central America and the connections between Asia and Africa didn't exist tells you next to nothing.


Don't you mean continental shift? Because you got the continents moving a little to fast for the kid, lol. My model only goes back about 1 million years. Your time frame has California sitting next to Oregon in just a few years.

NaNaNaNaPooPoo, you moron.

And besides that, I'm not trying to calculate the climate for North America, or for anywhere specifically. I'm merely calculating the climate for the planet. So the ocean currents shouldn't affect it, because the oceans are merely moving heat around, not adding to it or subtracting from it.

You really are a loser aren't you? Is that why you chose the profession you are in? Do you like seeing other people who are bigger losers than you? Does that make you feel better about yourself, when you are throwing some poor smuck out of your bosses new home?

No wonder you threaten people. You are too stupid to win any other way. Do you still beat your wife, or did she finally get out of there?


It isn't in the least bit surprising that you don't even catch the faintest idea what I'm talking about.

I especially like you "continental shift". Did they teach you that in grade school?


No, you Bimbo, they taught me Continental Drift in grade school, just like everybody else. I called it shift for a reason, and it went right over your fat head. As you mention, continents don't shift, they drift. It's a slo-o-o-o-o-w process. A million years ago, they would have been just a few miles from where they are now. So their placement means nada. zilch. nothing.


I didn't expect you to be capable of reading what I wrote so I'm not surprised that you don't understand it.
13-08-2017 06:08
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(482)
Wake wrote:
I didn't expect you to be capable of reading what I wrote so I'm not surprised that you don't understand it.


I don't understand what? The Continental Drift theory? I'm aware of it, and I understand it. What I am saying is that it is such a slow movement that there has been little change in the last million years. Some, but not much. So whatever changes there have been are irrelevant.

Or am I supposed to just ignore reasoning, for the sake of getting along with a total idiot?


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
13-08-2017 10:06
Tim the plumber
★★★☆☆
(941)
GreenMan wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
The Climate Model's Calculations are shown in this graph, which makes it easy to see the accuracy of the model.


So what are the variables you are using to cause the variatuion?


The variables are insolation, dust, CO2, CH4, N2O.


Nothing to do with vegitation coverage, urbanisation, land position (continental drift), albedo, vulcanism.

If you have done such a model wich does not need to account for these things and still makes such good hindcasts then you should send it to nature to consider for publication.

This forum is not the place to get such a detailed and informed review of it.
13-08-2017 15:28
Wake
★★★★★
(2226)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
I didn't expect you to be capable of reading what I wrote so I'm not surprised that you don't understand it.


I don't understand what? The Continental Drift theory? I'm aware of it, and I understand it. What I am saying is that it is such a slow movement that there has been little change in the last million years. Some, but not much. So whatever changes there have been are irrelevant.

Or am I supposed to just ignore reasoning, for the sake of getting along with a total idiot?


What you're saying is that you think that the continental drift occurred millions of years ago and then seized up and never moved in the last 800,000 years because you're a fool.
13-08-2017 19:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
GreenMan wrote:
The Greenhouse Effect is explained by the Church's most notable contributors, NOAA.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/infodata/lesson_plans/The%20Greenhouse%20Effect-%20Fact%20of%20Theory.pdf


Yup. The old Magick Bouncing Photon theory again. Too bad it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


The Parrot Killer
Page 1 of 5123>>>





Join the debate Climate Data 800,000 years:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Possible the IPCC corrupted data ?4207-10-2017 00:09
major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-19982104-07-2017 19:33
The Strange Case of the Wandering Data312-06-2017 19:41
The Data Mine22624-05-2017 20:41
NASA Data Analysis proves that modern temperature rate of increase is NOT unusual2013-05-2017 23:13
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Will Arctic summers be ice-free in this century?

Yes

No

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact