Remember me
▼ Content

Far right-winger here that acknowledges climate change, what can we do?



Page 2 of 2<12
17-01-2017 06:02
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1325)
How old are you talking about? Like distributor cap and rotor days? Knock or a ping? If that old (I think most automakers started phasing out distributor timing around 95-2000) then probably a timing issue. I will say I hear a brief minor knock on cold start for about 20 seconds, but I flipped 333,000 today so that could be anything.
17-01-2017 08:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
GasGuzzler wrote:
How old are you talking about? Like distributor cap and rotor days? Knock or a ping? If that old (I think most automakers started phasing out distributor timing around 95-2000) then probably a timing issue. I will say I hear a brief minor knock on cold start for about 20 seconds, but I flipped 333,000 today so that could be anything.


It's quite probable that your car (I assume a multipoint fuel injected FADEC system, the same since about 2000) is detecting the ping and backing off on its settings to eliminate it. Ping is quite destructive to engines.


The Parrot Killer
17-01-2017 08:55
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
GasGuzzler wrote:
How old are you talking about? Like distributor cap and rotor days? Knock or a ping? If that old (I think most automakers started phasing out distributor timing around 95-2000) then probably a timing issue. I will say I hear a brief minor knock on cold start for about 20 seconds...

My 1988 carburetor (became fuel injected the next year) car has electronic ignition. But as stated, 87 octane E0 works wonderfully smooth & even in it, giving as much as 57 mpg & averages 46mpg through the years. 87 octane E10 was OK, but it had slight knock on rare occasions, very slight roughness, & 8% less mpg. I'm sure the E10 with 84 octane knocking gasoline molecules was corrected by the 87 octane E0 with 87 octane gasoline molecules. I was very curious if your vehicle didn't like 87 octane E10 (knocking?), & that is why you use 89 octane E10. In truth, 87 octane E0 has 87 octane gasoline molecules, similar to 87 octane gasoline molecules that would be in 89 octane E10.
One note: was thinking about converting from the carburetor to fuel injection to stop the slight knocking & roughness. But the use of 87 octane E0 solved all my problems.
Yeah, just curious.
Edited on 17-01-2017 09:09
17-01-2017 11:15
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
And what about this? Seems pretty normal if you buy the chart.
[img][/img]


You neglected to include the corresponding CO2 graph for that chart. I wonder why?




Note how the CO2 concentration and temperature have varied almost in lock step over the past 800,000 years.


What I find interesting about the chart is that CO2 clearly keeps rising in the last segment, but temps rise in lock step and then actually kind of go flat! Shouldn't we be MUCH warmer by now?


What an observer without an agenda would probably find interesting is the remarkable correlation between the graphs. It is very obvious that CO2 concentration and temperature are closely related. Not that that should surprise us, given that the ability of CO2 to absorb infrared radiation has been known since the 1800s. It is indeed true that the graphs are not exactly identical. This is because, as I mentioned previously, CO2 is not the only factor influencing global temperature. It is, however, quite obviously the primary driver.

If you care to look at the graph, you will find CO2 is lagging temperature, not leading it. It can't be the primary driver if it's lagging. It can't be a driver at all.

That's assuming the graph is accurate. After all, we can't measure anything like a global temperature (or even anything like global CO2 concentration).

Surface Detail wrote:
Now consider that humans have now raised the CO2 level to 400 ppm, a level that was last seen some 15 million years ago. At that time, global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today. This is what we have coming even if were were to stop CO2 emissions now. Goodbye London. Goodbye New York. If we keep on as we are, heaven only knows what our descendants will have to deal with.

...deleted link...

Take your 'world is about to end' Religion and stuff it.

Everyone is fully aware that the CO2 graph lags slightly behind the temperature graph. It's exactly what you'd expect, given that there weren't any SUVs and power stations to pump out CO2 in prehistoric times (as some are only too happy to point out).

In pre-industrial times, climate shifts are thought to have been initiated by small temperature changes arising from periodic cycles in the Earth's orbit and inclination, known as Milankovitch cycles. A small increase in temperature caused CO2 to be emitted from the oceans, which then caused further warming, and so on. This is a classic positive feedback cycle, with temperature leading CO2.

It is simply impossible to explain how the prehistoric Earth's average temperature can have varied by up to 10 degrees C without greenhouse feedback effects. And the evidence is there in the changing CO2 concentration.

It's a mystery to me why you are referring to knowledge gained from experiment and observation as religion. It is your refusal to acknowledge observations of reality that is most akin to religion.
17-01-2017 19:55
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
And what about this? Seems pretty normal if you buy the chart.
[img][/img]


You neglected to include the corresponding CO2 graph for that chart. I wonder why?




Note how the CO2 concentration and temperature have varied almost in lock step over the past 800,000 years.


What I find interesting about the chart is that CO2 clearly keeps rising in the last segment, but temps rise in lock step and then actually kind of go flat! Shouldn't we be MUCH warmer by now?


What an observer without an agenda would probably find interesting is the remarkable correlation between the graphs. It is very obvious that CO2 concentration and temperature are closely related. Not that that should surprise us, given that the ability of CO2 to absorb infrared radiation has been known since the 1800s. It is indeed true that the graphs are not exactly identical. This is because, as I mentioned previously, CO2 is not the only factor influencing global temperature. It is, however, quite obviously the primary driver.

If you care to look at the graph, you will find CO2 is lagging temperature, not leading it. It can't be the primary driver if it's lagging. It can't be a driver at all.

That's assuming the graph is accurate. After all, we can't measure anything like a global temperature (or even anything like global CO2 concentration).

Surface Detail wrote:
Now consider that humans have now raised the CO2 level to 400 ppm, a level that was last seen some 15 million years ago. At that time, global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today. This is what we have coming even if were were to stop CO2 emissions now. Goodbye London. Goodbye New York. If we keep on as we are, heaven only knows what our descendants will have to deal with.

...deleted link...

Take your 'world is about to end' Religion and stuff it.

Everyone is fully aware that the CO2 graph lags slightly behind the temperature graph. It's exactly what you'd expect, given that there weren't any SUVs and power stations to pump out CO2 in prehistoric times (as some are only too happy to point out).

In pre-industrial times, climate shifts are thought to have been initiated by small temperature changes arising from periodic cycles in the Earth's orbit and inclination, known as Milankovitch cycles. A small increase in temperature caused CO2 to be emitted from the oceans, which then caused further warming, and so on. This is a classic positive feedback cycle, with temperature leading CO2.

It is simply impossible to explain how the prehistoric Earth's average temperature can have varied by up to 10 degrees C without greenhouse feedback effects. And the evidence is there in the changing CO2 concentration.

It's a mystery to me why you are referring to knowledge gained from experiment and observation as religion. It is your refusal to acknowledge observations of reality that is most akin to religion.


And there was me thinking that the primary feedback mechanism was the increased albedo when the land was covered by reflecting snow and ice.
17-01-2017 20:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
And what about this? Seems pretty normal if you buy the chart.
[img][/img]


You neglected to include the corresponding CO2 graph for that chart. I wonder why?




Note how the CO2 concentration and temperature have varied almost in lock step over the past 800,000 years.


What I find interesting about the chart is that CO2 clearly keeps rising in the last segment, but temps rise in lock step and then actually kind of go flat! Shouldn't we be MUCH warmer by now?


What an observer without an agenda would probably find interesting is the remarkable correlation between the graphs. It is very obvious that CO2 concentration and temperature are closely related. Not that that should surprise us, given that the ability of CO2 to absorb infrared radiation has been known since the 1800s. It is indeed true that the graphs are not exactly identical. This is because, as I mentioned previously, CO2 is not the only factor influencing global temperature. It is, however, quite obviously the primary driver.

If you care to look at the graph, you will find CO2 is lagging temperature, not leading it. It can't be the primary driver if it's lagging. It can't be a driver at all.

That's assuming the graph is accurate. After all, we can't measure anything like a global temperature (or even anything like global CO2 concentration).

Surface Detail wrote:
Now consider that humans have now raised the CO2 level to 400 ppm, a level that was last seen some 15 million years ago. At that time, global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today. This is what we have coming even if were were to stop CO2 emissions now. Goodbye London. Goodbye New York. If we keep on as we are, heaven only knows what our descendants will have to deal with.

...deleted link...

Take your 'world is about to end' Religion and stuff it.

Everyone is fully aware that the CO2 graph lags slightly behind the temperature graph. It's exactly what you'd expect, given that there weren't any SUVs and power stations to pump out CO2 in prehistoric times (as some are only too happy to point out).

In pre-industrial times, climate shifts are thought to have been initiated by small temperature changes arising from periodic cycles in the Earth's orbit and inclination, known as Milankovitch cycles. A small increase in temperature caused CO2 to be emitted from the oceans, which then caused further warming, and so on. This is a classic positive feedback cycle, with temperature leading CO2.

It is simply impossible to explain how the prehistoric Earth's average temperature can have varied by up to 10 degrees C without greenhouse feedback effects. And the evidence is there in the changing CO2 concentration.

It's a mystery to me why you are referring to knowledge gained from experiment and observation as religion. It is your refusal to acknowledge observations of reality that is most akin to religion.


It is a mystery to me why you continue to confuse observation with science, especially when you confuse observations that haven't even been made. It is not possible to measure anything like a global temperature. We haven't made ANY measurements of CO2 until 1960. There is no way to measure or calculate a global CO2. I have serious doubts about this graph.

Now, since you have redefined science as observation, do you want to try to redefine 'reality'?


The Parrot Killer
18-01-2017 01:32
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed : ...you continue to confuse observation with science...

litesong wrote: The Present High Arctic Berserker, PHAB or FAB
is 9degC over average....present Arctic sea ice is 10,000+ cubic kilometers less than to date average of the 1980's.
From another thread:
litesong wrote: Presently, 2017 Arctic sea ice extent is 2.06 million square kilometers LESS than the average to date sea ice extent of 1980's decade. The Present High Arctic Berserker, PHAB or FAB

is 10degC over average High Arctic temperature.
//////
litesong continues:
Oh, oh! the Present High Arctic Berserker, PHAB or FAB
, just jumped up to 14degC over its "average" temperature AND has been over-temperature for 127 to 140 straight days. At ~ 65 straight days, I said it could reach 150 straight days & weeks ago, said it could go to 200 straight days.
Graph showing heating in the High Arctic AND Canada.
http://pamola.um.maine.edu/fcst_frames/GFS-025deg/5-day/GFS-025deg_ARC-LEA_T2_anom_5-day.png
02-02-2017 02:35
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
litesong wrote:
ylevental wrote: seeing how warm this winter is, I believe that we need immediate action. Is this the largest forum on climate change on the internet?

This site started with AGW denier liar whiners, who are proud NOT to have science chemistry astronomy physics algebra & pre-calc in unearned hi skule DEE-plooomaas, so they can brag they aren't influenced by eddy-kation. They pump the Heartland (in truth, heartless) AGW denier liar whiner propaganda poop "sigh-ants" directly from oil, energy, coal, business & re-pubic-lick-un boardroom PR programs.
True AGW science posted here, toxic AGW denier liar whiners immediately attack as non-science.
Without doing true science about AGW because they CAN'T do true science, conservative propaganda powder rooms use all their money & power to invade internet AGW forums, spreading their egotistical diverting strategies.


For someone that has never shown the slightest area of scientific expertise I must say it is admirable of you to be so inventive of derogatory terms. Is that you science specialty?

Since we are presently in the coldest period on this planet for the last million years I would think that warming would be considered a God send. But apparently you want it colder yet.
02-02-2017 02:39
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
[Since we are presently in the coldest period on this planet for the last million years I would think that warming would be considered a God send. But apparently you want it colder yet.

Do the words "ice age" mean anything to you? If you bother to do any research at all, you'll find that the world was a lot colder 20,000 years ago than it is now.
02-02-2017 03:24
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Do the words "ice age" mean anything to you? If you bother to do any research at all, you'll find that the world was a lot colder 20,000 years ago than it is now.


Well. I'm wondering if you understand what going on myself. We are in an interglacial period of an ice age right now. Do you want it to get warmer and drive out of that ice age or do you want to fall back into the next part of this ice age with ice packs down to 30 degrees latitude?
02-02-2017 04:43
Pariga
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
Ok I have a perspective that I don't know if it has been represented before. We can't perform experiments on changing the global system to identify the roles of contributors or detractors from the global warming effect so...
Atmospheric Masses
Total Atmospheric Mass. 5.15e+18 kg
N2 = 3.886705e+18 kg
O2= 1.1948e+18 kg
CO2= 2.369e+1k5 kg
Specific Heat Capacity (kJ/kg K)
N2 = 1.039
O2 = .915
CO2 = .819
using Q = cp * m * dT
to change temp + .01 K
N2. Q = 4.038645e+16 kJ
O2 Q = 1.093242e+16 kJ
therefore to raise 98.67% of atmospheric mass would
require 5.131887e+16 kJ to raise their temperature
0.01 degree K (1 degree K = 1 degree Celsius )
again using Q = cp * m * dT
we can calculate conditions required to raise that much
potential energy
5.131887e+16 = .819 * 2.369e+15 kg * dT
dT = 26.450149 K
okay then change the mass
5.131887e+16 = .819 * m * .01
m = 6.26604e+18 kg
Remember from above ththe total mass of the atmosphere
at present is 5.15e+18 kg
I believe this indicates the lack of significant potential for CO2 to contribute to
global warming by the present theory of Greenhouse Gas infrared activation
of dipole moments to generate enough energy.
02-02-2017 20:00
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Pariga wrote:
Ok I have a perspective that I don't know if it has been represented before. We can't perform experiments on changing the global system to identify the roles of contributors or detractors from the global warming effect so...
Atmospheric Masses
Total Atmospheric Mass. 5.15e+18 kg
N2 = 3.886705e+18 kg
O2= 1.1948e+18 kg
CO2= 2.369e+1k5 kg
Specific Heat Capacity (kJ/kg K)
N2 = 1.039
O2 = .915
CO2 = .819
using Q = cp * m * dT
to change temp + .01 K
N2. Q = 4.038645e+16 kJ
O2 Q = 1.093242e+16 kJ
therefore to raise 98.67% of atmospheric mass would
require 5.131887e+16 kJ to raise their temperature
0.01 degree K (1 degree K = 1 degree Celsius )
again using Q = cp * m * dT
we can calculate conditions required to raise that much
potential energy
5.131887e+16 = .819 * 2.369e+15 kg * dT
dT = 26.450149 K
okay then change the mass
5.131887e+16 = .819 * m * .01
m = 6.26604e+18 kg
Remember from above that the total mass of the atmosphere
at present is 5.15e+18 kg
I believe this indicates the lack of significant potential for CO2 to contribute to
global warming by the present theory of Greenhouse Gas infrared activation
of dipole moments to generate enough energy.


You can turn on your local news and watch the students of UC Berkeley showing their disdain for science. Proof of their supreme ignorance embarasses them so that they must silence any free speech. This is the total mindset of the political left.

If I had any children in college presently and they were in the UC system I would remove them and send them to a school where education and not indoctrination is the primary purpose.

None of the warmies have the slightest real knowledge. When they would accept ANYTHING said about 97% of "scientists agreeing" about anything that told the entire story. I have NEVER been in a meeting where you could get 10 scientists to agree on the exactly frequency of the color red.
02-02-2017 20:05
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Do the words "ice age" mean anything to you? If you bother to do any research at all, you'll find that the world was a lot colder 20,000 years ago than it is now.


Well. I'm wondering if you understand what going on myself. We are in an interglacial period of an ice age right now. Do you want it to get warmer and drive out of that ice age or do you want to fall back into the next part of this ice age with ice packs down to 30 degrees latitude?

So you admit you were bullshitting when you claimed that it's colder now than at any time in the last million years?
03-02-2017 23:33
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
[b]Surface Detail wrote:
Everyone is fully aware that the CO2 graph lags slightly behind the temperature graph. It's exactly what you'd expect, given that there weren't any SUVs and power stations to pump out CO2 in prehistoric times (as some are only too happy to point out).

In pre-industrial times, climate shifts are thought to have been initiated by small temperature changes arising from periodic cycles in the Earth's orbit and inclination, known as Milankovitch cycles. A small increase in temperature caused CO2 to be emitted from the oceans, which then caused further warming, and so on. This is a classic positive feedback cycle, with temperature leading CO2.

It is simply impossible to explain how the prehistoric Earth's average temperature can have varied by up to 10 degrees C without greenhouse feedback effects. And the evidence is there in the changing CO2 concentration.

It's a mystery to me why you are referring to knowledge gained from experiment and observation as religion. It is your refusal to acknowledge observations of reality that is most akin to religion.


Do you understand that it was about 800 years from the last warm period when this CO2 rise started? Are you aware that the method they use for measuring geologic time periods is deeply flawed and at best can only give rough approximations of past CO2 levels?

The claim that CO2 has never been higher on the very surface of it is flawed since their Earth started out with an atmosphere that was 40% CO2.

http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg

If you look closely you can see a slight bump up recently. BFD.
03-02-2017 23:47
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
[b]Surface Detail wrote:
Everyone is fully aware that the CO2 graph lags slightly behind the temperature graph. It's exactly what you'd expect, given that there weren't any SUVs and power stations to pump out CO2 in prehistoric times (as some are only too happy to point out).

In pre-industrial times, climate shifts are thought to have been initiated by small temperature changes arising from periodic cycles in the Earth's orbit and inclination, known as Milankovitch cycles. A small increase in temperature caused CO2 to be emitted from the oceans, which then caused further warming, and so on. This is a classic positive feedback cycle, with temperature leading CO2.

It is simply impossible to explain how the prehistoric Earth's average temperature can have varied by up to 10 degrees C without greenhouse feedback effects. And the evidence is there in the changing CO2 concentration.

It's a mystery to me why you are referring to knowledge gained from experiment and observation as religion. It is your refusal to acknowledge observations of reality that is most akin to religion.


Do you understand that it was about 800 years from the last warm period when this CO2 rise started? Are you aware that the method they use for measuring geologic time periods is deeply flawed and at best can only give rough approximations of past CO2 levels?

The claim that CO2 has never been higher on the very surface of it is flawed since their Earth started out with an atmosphere that was 40% CO2.

http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg

If you look closely you can see a slight bump up recently. BFD.

I don't think that graph is actually based on real data. It has no scale for the CO2 concentration and doesn't show the variations in CO2 that have been measured over the past 800,000 years. It looks more like a rough sketch than a graph. I'd treat it with some scepticism.

Also, nobody is claiming that CO2 has never been higher. That's a strawman. In fact, scientists are sure that CO2 levels must have been much higher in the distant past in order to have maintained the Earth's temperature when the sun was dimmer than it is now.
04-02-2017 00:15
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
litesong wrote:
ylevental wrote: seeing how warm this winter is, I believe that we need immediate action. Is this the largest forum on climate change on the internet?

This site started with AGW denier liar whiners, who are proud NOT to have science chemistry astronomy physics algebra & pre-calc in unearned hi skule DEE-plooomaas, so they can brag they aren't influenced by eddy-kation. They pump the Heartland (in truth, heartless) AGW denier liar whiner propaganda poop "sigh-ants" directly from oil, energy, coal, business & re-pubic-lick-un boardroom PR programs.
True AGW science posted here, toxic AGW denier liar whiners immediately attack as non-science.
Without doing true science about AGW because they CAN'T do true science, conservative propaganda powder rooms use all their money & power to invade internet AGW forums, spreading their egotistical diverting strategies.


And yet for all of the names you cry you have never once given us your own credentials. Mine speak for themselves but I have never heard yours utter a single word.
04-02-2017 00:25
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
[b]Surface Detail wrote:
Everyone is fully aware that the CO2 graph lags slightly behind the temperature graph. It's exactly what you'd expect, given that there weren't any SUVs and power stations to pump out CO2 in prehistoric times (as some are only too happy to point out).

In pre-industrial times, climate shifts are thought to have been initiated by small temperature changes arising from periodic cycles in the Earth's orbit and inclination, known as Milankovitch cycles. A small increase in temperature caused CO2 to be emitted from the oceans, which then caused further warming, and so on. This is a classic positive feedback cycle, with temperature leading CO2.

It is simply impossible to explain how the prehistoric Earth's average temperature can have varied by up to 10 degrees C without greenhouse feedback effects. And the evidence is there in the changing CO2 concentration.

It's a mystery to me why you are referring to knowledge gained from experiment and observation as religion. It is your refusal to acknowledge observations of reality that is most akin to religion.


Do you understand that it was about 800 years from the last warm period when this CO2 rise started? Are you aware that the method they use for measuring geologic time periods is deeply flawed and at best can only give rough approximations of past CO2 levels?

The claim that CO2 has never been higher on the very surface of it is flawed since their Earth started out with an atmosphere that was 40% CO2.

http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg

If you look closely you can see a slight bump up recently. BFD.

I don't think that graph is actually based on real data. It has no scale for the CO2 concentration and doesn't show the variations in CO2 that have been measured over the past 800,000 years. It looks more like a rough sketch than a graph. I'd treat it with some scepticism.

Also, nobody is claiming that CO2 has never been higher. That's a strawman. In fact, scientists are sure that CO2 levels must have been much higher in the distant past in order to have maintained the Earth's temperature when the sun was dimmer than it is now.


God, I love you people. Hearing such impertinent ignorance really makes my day.

Main sequence starts indeed sputter to life but by the time that Earth had life on it, it had been a long time in hydrostatic equilibrium. For the uneducated, that means that over the majority of the Earth's life the emissions from the Sun have remained THE SAME. Before life was formed on the Earth this equilibrium had formed.

Do you have any other inventions? I am very amused.
04-02-2017 00:27
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
GasGuzzler wrote:
given that the rise in CO2 started at the same time as the industrial revolution, it seems pretty obvious that human emissions are responsible for the rise in CO2 levels.[/quote]

The current uptick in temps started around 1911. Global fossil fuel usage spiked hard in 1950. I don't buy it. If you do buy the 800,000 year temp graph, then what we are experiencing today is nothing out of the ordinary....we'll probably go a notch or two higher before we go on a century cooling period. Whatever. Then there is all the questions about if we're even accurately measuring the temperature correctly. We don't have the satellite network, we don't have the weather balloon, network, and ground thermometers can be be altered by placement or programming, and don't think this hasn't been done by certain gov officials with an agenda. I just don't trust anything from either side really. I'm not about to change my life or pay stupid tax because of some theory that is making a lot of people very wealthy.[/quote]

Your chart is a little unreliable since it doesn't have a long term average on it. The warming actually started in 1886. The increases in CO2 began around the end of the civil war.

It must have been all that CO2 generated by muzzle loaders.
04-02-2017 02:19
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
[b]Surface Detail wrote:
Everyone is fully aware that the CO2 graph lags slightly behind the temperature graph. It's exactly what you'd expect, given that there weren't any SUVs and power stations to pump out CO2 in prehistoric times (as some are only too happy to point out).

In pre-industrial times, climate shifts are thought to have been initiated by small temperature changes arising from periodic cycles in the Earth's orbit and inclination, known as Milankovitch cycles. A small increase in temperature caused CO2 to be emitted from the oceans, which then caused further warming, and so on. This is a classic positive feedback cycle, with temperature leading CO2.

It is simply impossible to explain how the prehistoric Earth's average temperature can have varied by up to 10 degrees C without greenhouse feedback effects. And the evidence is there in the changing CO2 concentration.

It's a mystery to me why you are referring to knowledge gained from experiment and observation as religion. It is your refusal to acknowledge observations of reality that is most akin to religion.


Do you understand that it was about 800 years from the last warm period when this CO2 rise started? Are you aware that the method they use for measuring geologic time periods is deeply flawed and at best can only give rough approximations of past CO2 levels?

The claim that CO2 has never been higher on the very surface of it is flawed since their Earth started out with an atmosphere that was 40% CO2.

http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg

If you look closely you can see a slight bump up recently. BFD.

I don't think that graph is actually based on real data. It has no scale for the CO2 concentration and doesn't show the variations in CO2 that have been measured over the past 800,000 years. It looks more like a rough sketch than a graph. I'd treat it with some scepticism.

Also, nobody is claiming that CO2 has never been higher. That's a strawman. In fact, scientists are sure that CO2 levels must have been much higher in the distant past in order to have maintained the Earth's temperature when the sun was dimmer than it is now.


God, I love you people. Hearing such impertinent ignorance really makes my day.

Main sequence starts indeed sputter to life but by the time that Earth had life on it, it had been a long time in hydrostatic equilibrium. For the uneducated, that means that over the majority of the Earth's life the emissions from the Sun have remained THE SAME. Before life was formed on the Earth this equilibrium had formed.

Do you have any other inventions? I am very amused.

Wrong again. Main sequence stars like the sun gradually increase in luminosity throughout most of their lifetime (while remaining in hydrostatic equilibrium). This graph shows normalized solar luminosity vs. solar age for the standard solar model (the black line):



Now, life first appeared on Earth about 3.8 billion years ago, i.e. about 0.8 billion years after the formation of the Earth. You can see from the graph above that the luminosity of the sun at that time was only about 75% of its current value and has steadily increased ever since then. See also Faint young Sun paradox

You really should do a little research before you mouth off. It's very obvious to those of us who have actually studied these subjects (astrophysics was part of my degree course) that you have no real understanding. You're just stringing together stuff you googled.
Edited on 04-02-2017 02:34
04-02-2017 04:52
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
[b]Surface Detail wrote:Main sequence stars like the sun gradually increase in luminosity throughout most of their lifetime (while remaining in hydrostatic equilibrium). This graph shows normalized solar luminosity vs. solar age for the standard solar model (the black line):



Ya got that right. AGW denier liar whiners keep trying to get astronomy & astronomers on their side, but astronomers will have nuthin' ta do with AGW denier liar whiners.
26-02-2017 01:21
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofs: I have NEVER been in a meeting where you could get 10 scientists to agree on the exactly frequency of the color red.

But 10 kids have fun adding green to red to get yellow.
Edited on 26-02-2017 01:23
01-04-2017 17:59
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
18-01-2017 00:32
litesong wrote:
Oh, oh! the Present High Arctic Berserker, PHAB or FAB
, just jumped up to 14degC over its "average" temperature AND has been over-temperature for 127 to 140 straight days. At ~ 65 straight days, I said it could reach 150 straight days & weeks ago, said it could go to 200 straight days.
Graph showing heating in the High Arctic AND Canada.
http://pamola.um.maine.edu/fcst_frames/GFS-025deg/5-day/GFS-025deg_ARC-LEA_T2_anom_5-day.png


Oh, oh! the Present High Arctic Berserker, PHAB or FAB
, is 7degC over its "average" temperature AND has been over-temperature for 195+ to 210 straight days. At ~ 65 straight days, I said it could reach 150 straight days & weeks ago, said it could go to 200 straight days. Later, I said 200+ days could be in the future.
Presently, solar energy is flooding into the Arctic & directly so, which easily overwhelms & can disguise the FAB
.
The future has arrived.....
Edited on 01-04-2017 18:08
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Far right-winger here that acknowledges climate change, what can we do?:

Remember me

▲ 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