Remember me
▼ Content

It's Only Natural?


It's Only Natural?16-03-2019 16:55
James___
★★★☆☆
(963)
From 1880 to 1910 CO2 levels rose from 290.8 to 300.1. A rise of 9.3 ppm.
The global annual temperature went from 56.8º. F to 56.1º F. Then from 1910 to 1945, CO2 levels rose from 300.1 ppm to 310.3 ppm.
A rise of 10.2 ppm. The annual global temperature rose from 56.1º F. to 57.5º F. This contradicts itself doesn't it if CO2 is causing global warming?
What's also interesting is that from 1946 to 1976 CO2 levels rose from 310.3 ppm to 331.92 ppm. A rise of 21.62 ppm. And the global annual
temperature rose from, well, all years between 1946 and 1978 were cooler than either 1946 or 1978. There just wasn't anything happening with
a rising or lowering of the global annual temperature. That's basically a 100 year period in which CO2 levels rose by 40.12 ppm and the global
annual temperature rose by only by, well, we can say eventually by 0.5º F.
One thing I am mindful of is that the last ice age ended because of the Earth's orbit around the Sun and not CO2.
Icecore researcher Jørgen Peder Steffensen, Ph.D. Center for Ice and Climate, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen answers:
Ice cores from both Antarctica and Greenland show that the last ice age started to become milder 19.000 years ago, completely in accordance with increased solar radiation from the earth's favourable orientation in its orbit around the sun.
What caused the end of the ice age?

https://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ghgases/Fig1A.ext.txt

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

With the Medieval Warm Period and The Little Ice Age, the Earth's orbit might've changed slightly.
If ice core samples could be taken from the side of a glacier then it might be found that what is melting is relatively new ice. If so then that would suggest that the Earth's orbit around the Sun does vary somewhat because of it's and the Moon's wobble might cause their orbit around the Sun to have slight variations. I don't think scientists have considered if something like this can happen.
Edited on 16-03-2019 16:56
16-03-2019 17:15
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3313)
James__, how would your argument change if you were to learn that neither atmospheric CO2 level nor the average global temperature are known to any useful accuracy?
16-03-2019 18:03
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7003)
James___ wrote:
From 1880 to 1910 CO2 levels rose from 290.8 to 300.1. A rise of 9.3 ppm.
No one was measuring atmospheric CO2 in 1880 or 1910.
James___ wrote:
The global annual temperature went from 56.8º. F to 56.1º F. Then from 1910 to 1945,

No one was measuring Earth's temperature in 1910 or 1945, or in any of the years between.
James___ wrote:
CO2 levels rose from 300.1 ppm to 310.3 ppm.
No one was measuring atmospheric CO2 in 1910 or 1945.
James___ wrote:
A rise of 10.2 ppm. The annual global temperature rose from 56.1º F. to 57.5º F. This contradicts itself doesn't it if CO2 is causing global warming?

Hey...you generate random numbers and treat them as 'data', you get a random conclusion.
James___ wrote:
With the Medieval Warm Period and The Little Ice Age, the Earth's orbit might've changed slightly.

Not significantly. Earth is currently moving towards a more circular orbit. We should be there in about 2000 years.
James___ wrote:
If ice core samples could be taken from the side of a glacier then it might be found that what is melting is relatively new ice. If so then that would suggest that the Earth's orbit around the Sun does vary somewhat because of it's and the Moon's wobble might cause their orbit around the Sun to have slight variations.

Planets don't orbit the center of the Sun and the Moon doesn't orbit the center of the Earth. They orbit around a central point between them. This is called a barycenter. There is one for the Earth-Moon system, and one for the Earth-Sun system. There is one for each of the planets in the solar system and one for each of the moons of those planets.

The barycenter that both the Earth 'orbits' around and the moon orbits around is inside the Earth, but not at Earth's center. Likewise, the barycenter that the Earth and the Sun orbit around (between us) is located deep inside the Sun (about 60 miles from the center of the Sun).

The barycenter between the Sun and Jupiter is just outside the surface of the Sun.

So the Sun is getting yanked around by each of its planets. This affects the eccentricity of orbits for each of those planets over time.

Earth moves from an almost circular orbit to one with a slight eccentricity over a period of about 100,000 years. Currently, we are moving towards a more circular orbit.

This is but one of the three cycles known as the Milankovish cycles. The other two have a period of 41,000 years and 23,000 years.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 16-03-2019 18:05
16-03-2019 19:22
James___
★★★☆☆
(963)
IBdaMann wrote:
James__, how would your argument change if you were to learn that neither atmospheric CO2 level nor the average global temperature are known to any useful accuracy?



I don't share yours and isn't's faith.
16-03-2019 19:38
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7003)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James__, how would your argument change if you were to learn that neither atmospheric CO2 level nor the average global temperature are known to any useful accuracy?



I don't share yours and isn't's faith.


Not a case of faith. YOU have to show how you can measure the temperature of the Earth or the atmospheric level of CO2. Neither I nor IBdaMann have to do anything. We are not required to prove a negative, and we are not required to just accept your faith.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 16-03-2019 19:40
16-03-2019 20:03
James___
★★★☆☆
(963)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James__, how would your argument change if you were to learn that neither atmospheric CO2 level nor the average global temperature are known to any useful accuracy?



I don't share yours and isn't's faith.


Not a case of faith. YOU have to show how you can measure the temperature of the Earth or the atmospheric level of CO2. Neither I nor IBdaMann have to do anything. We are not required to prove a negative, and we are not required to just accept your faith.



So you are communists. I'm not.
16-03-2019 22:09
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7003)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James__, how would your argument change if you were to learn that neither atmospheric CO2 level nor the average global temperature are known to any useful accuracy?



I don't share yours and isn't's faith.


Not a case of faith. YOU have to show how you can measure the temperature of the Earth or the atmospheric level of CO2. Neither I nor IBdaMann have to do anything. We are not required to prove a negative, and we are not required to just accept your faith.



So you are communists. I'm not.


??


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate It's Only Natural?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Natural Crude Oil Seepage123-03-2019 23:36
Natural Climate Variation1113-03-2019 01:08
Is the CO2 increase natural or man-made?4006-09-2018 20:07
Can we build an efficient hybrid solar-natural gas engine that emits no CO2?305-10-2017 04:36
Does the Earth Have a Natural Greenhouse Effect?6208-05-2017 00:25
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact