The Next Thing.....

walt

.
Jun 1, 2007
3,511
Macgregor 26S Hobie TI Ridgway Colorado
Ok.. if you respond to my post that something is incorrect, you must fact check yourself and give the reference. Ie, you have to find a link that agrees with you and post it (that was two sentences.. you got an extra one).

If you were looking for something else, I would prefer to leave my post as is.
 
Jul 27, 2011
5,002
Bavaria 38E Alamitos Bay
Ok.. if you respond to my post that something is incorrect, you must fact check yourself and give the reference. Ie, you have to find a link that agrees with you and post it (that was two sentences.. you got an extra one).

If you were looking for something else, I would prefer to leave my post as is.
I do not follow what point you are trying to make re: climate change.:doh: Greenland ice cores do, or do not, support pre-industrial episodes of climate change?
 
  • Like
Likes: Will Gilmore

walt

.
Jun 1, 2007
3,511
Macgregor 26S Hobie TI Ridgway Colorado
I dont want to be the only one posting. I think your question is a good one, would you mind addressing that but you must find some reference that agrees with you. I will read your response and the reference. That will be a good start for the discussion you want to have. Please.. on the reference link or links.

If you dont like BS being posted, you will like the reference requirement. If you are used to posting all sorts of BS without backing anything up, you will find the reference requirement puts you at a disadvantage.
 
Jul 27, 2011
5,002
Bavaria 38E Alamitos Bay
I dont want to be the only one posting. I think your question is a good one, would you mind addressing that but you must find some reference that agrees with you. I will read your response and the reference. That will be a good start for the discussion you want to have. Please.. on the reference link or links.

If you dont like BS being posted, you will like the reference requirement. If you are used to posting all sorts of BS without backing anything up, you will find the reference requirement puts you at a disadvantage.
I’m asking you what you are saying about your graphs—the graphs you posted. Do you have an answer? What is YOUR interpretation of the data that you have presented? Nobody can post a reply without knowing what it is that is being replied to. Surely one does not need a reference to ask a question.
 
Oct 22, 2014
21,084
CAL 35 Cruiser #21 moored EVERETT WA
I’ll play.
The primary driver of climate on the planet is the sun. Over the past couple of years sun spot activity has declined. This would mean less radiation to warm the planet. Leading to Climate Change beyond control of man.
upload_2019-7-3_18-56-57.jpeg


Today.
upload_2019-7-3_18-57-58.jpeg

Ref: @JamesG161 and NASA Imaging.
 

walt

.
Jun 1, 2007
3,511
Macgregor 26S Hobie TI Ridgway Colorado
While we are waiting for something with a reference (Im guessing we wont see any from KG at this point??), here is some interesting stuff from this link
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factche...res-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change

This plot is the same Greenland ice sheet data from multiple cores but only goes back 2000 years. It has 20 year averaging (average is 1% of the time scale). The last temp data is not from ice cores but from Berkely Earth.

We are not into this discussion enough to make a conclusion about human caused global warming. However, (and this is my opinion at the moment), it looks to me that there could be some correlation with the big temp spike in the last two hundred years and the industrial revolution.

greenlandicecore2.jpg


The Greenland ice sheet contains a significant amount of water. This link makes some prediction and I will quote a few more notable things.

Greenland ice cores provide a high-quality high-resolution estimate of past changes in temperatures, allowing more precise comparisons with observed temperature records than most other climate proxies. While current temperatures are likely still below the highs in the early Holocene around 7,000 years ago, they are clearly higher than any temperatures experienced in Greenland over the past 2,000 years.
Climate models show faster warming in the Arctic than the rest of the world – a phenomenon known as arctic amplification – and similar to what has been observed over the past few decades.
 
Last edited:

walt

.
Jun 1, 2007
3,511
Macgregor 26S Hobie TI Ridgway Colorado
I’ll play.
Except that you didnt fact check yourself and post a reference. Pretty easy, if there is something you "know", try researching it with whatever search engine you like (google works for me).

From this link https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/news-articles/solar-minimum-is-coming
There is an 11 year solar sunspot cycle and interesting that

The sun is heading toward solar minimum now. Sunspot counts were relatively high in 2014, and now they are sliding toward a low point expected in 2019-2020.
Some speculation that we could be heading towards another solar grand minium https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=448
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010GL042710
 
Feb 14, 2014
7,418
Hunter 430 Waveland, MS
Since I got tagged by @jssailem to play the reference game...
Reference of the images in his post came from..
https://soho.nascom.nasa.gov
I downloaded them from that link.
You can get today's SUN image from them too.
It is a well know FACT that we have Sunspot cycles and measured them since the late 1700's

We now know why...
Our SUN has magnetic poles too. Every ≈11 years the Sun's poles SWITCH. At the bottom of the low Sunspot cycle the Sun's poles are in "neutral" or no poles. We are ending cycle 24 now. Reference is the same.
I will show the same graph that John showed from 1998 to 2017...
But I added the notations...
SunSpotEnergy2018.png

Since Global Warming premise was Arctic Temperatures rising, that hypothesis has failed.
Jim...
 
  • Like
Likes: Will Gilmore

walt

.
Jun 1, 2007
3,511
Macgregor 26S Hobie TI Ridgway Colorado
Since Global Warming premise was Arctic Temperatures rising, that hypothesis has failed.
You should have pointed out that this is your conclusion and Im guessing that you can not find a reference that agrees with you? Please give it a shot.. I couldn't really follow what lead to that conclusion but if its scientific, you can easily find a reference.

FYI, I think the poles have seen more temperature rise that other places on the planet. Maybe someone has a reference that shows otherwise and since I dont have a reference, that makes this suspect info.
 
Last edited:

walt

.
Jun 1, 2007
3,511
Macgregor 26S Hobie TI Ridgway Colorado
Please.. please provide references. (even if its as goofy as something to do with Al Gore)
 
Oct 19, 2017
7,744
O'Day 19 Littleton, NH
Oct 22, 2014
21,084
CAL 35 Cruiser #21 moored EVERETT WA
Will, you were up at 0:00 dark thirty finding that obscure reference in a 1982 Government report on computer security?
Dedication.
 
  • Like
Likes: jon hansen
Oct 19, 2017
7,744
O'Day 19 Littleton, NH
Will, you were up at 0:00 dark thirty finding that obscure reference in a 1982 Government report on computer security?
Dedication.
Yeah, waiting for a bear that has been eating my turkeys. I'm down to two from 12 plus five new babies who were eaten along with their mom. One survived because she was late hatching and I was taking care of her instead of her mother taking her.
The bear didn't show. Fish and Game tried twice with a tap, but I sat and watched him inspect the trap and decide something was more fishy than the bait. Electric fencing doesn't seem to bother this bear very much. I'll try again tomorrow.

To get back on track here. It never seemed like a difficult conclusion to draw, without the need for concrete references, that the shear volume of industrial and personal exhaust we humans dump into the atmosphere should have a significant effect to the composition of the atmosphere. I would be surprised if there was anyone who didn't agree that human activity is changing the structure of our environment in measurable ways. Just look on any map of the globe to get an idea of the scale of our impact on the planet, then consider the amount of time this has been going on. The actual results and future movement of our weather because of this is, of course, in debate. It's not that we are not causing changes that most of us have a problem with, it's what those changes actually mean and how dire is our future survival.
I can't, looking at a map, imagine there is enough ice that if melted, will flood the oceans enough to cause a ten foot rise. The north pole is actually part of the ocean, frozen or otherwise. The south pole doesn't seem like it contains enough volume above the continent to add more than inches. A warmer planet also means much more moisture captured as water vapor and that, without actually knowing more than common knowledge and some basic logical conjunctions, seems like more of a reservoir for melted polar caps than the oceans.

Sorry, no references, just uninformed opinion. But, you all should expect that from me by now. ;)

-Will (Dragonfly)
 
  • Like
Likes: jon hansen

walt

.
Jun 1, 2007
3,511
Macgregor 26S Hobie TI Ridgway Colorado
If this gets opened to opinions, it will turn into a mess.. You should try and find a reference that agrees with your opinion next post.. If you cant find a reference, good chance its not science or not true.
 
Last edited:
Feb 14, 2014
7,418
Hunter 430 Waveland, MS
waiting for a bear
You need a slight adjustment to my Anti-Elephant whistle for a Anti-Bear. My patent is pending.:pimp:
_____
Reference...
http://saber.gats-inc.com
wn_0816_1.png

Power of the Sun.
wn_0118-2.png

Total Solar Irradiance [TSI] has been measured since Sky Lab.
It is just a Heat Balance. Heat IN - Heat Out = Heat Retained.
irrad031202.gif

Looks like it follows the Sunspot Cycles to everyone.
References...
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/solar/solarirrad.html#composite
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/

So...
I am going to Reduce some Sun's power input and help save the planet.:rolleyes:

We are going to harness some Solar Power this holiday weekend to push my 14 ton boat.:pimp:
Jim...

PS: https://www.swpc.noaa.gov
 
Last edited:

walt

.
Jun 1, 2007
3,511
Macgregor 26S Hobie TI Ridgway Colorado
Im not sure if someone needs proof that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.. pretty basic physics with lots of references if needed.

A very interesting question is: Does a temperature increase cause an increase in CO2 or does an increase in CO2 cause a temperature increase?

You have to understand a little about feedback and forcing functions. Per the rules hopefully we can follow, here is a reference on the subject https://www.yaleclimateconnections....a-feedback-and-forcing-in-the-climate-system/

CO2 is a feedback mechanism because as temperature rises, the ocean temperature also rises releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. Since CO2 is a greenhouse gas, this is positive feedback because the initial temperature rise caused more greenhouse gas which in turn causes more temperature rise. For CO2 as feedback, the concentration of CO2 will have a time delay compared to the driving temperature change. Ie, CO2 concentration will lag temperature change when its acting as positive feedback.

CO2 can also be a forcing function. If you simply add CO2 to the atmosphere so that its concentration increases, it will cause temperature to rise because it is a greenhouse and traps more energy. When CO2 is a forcing function, the concentration of CO2 will precede the rise in temperature. Ie, as a forcing function, CO2 concentrations leads temperature rise.

Note.. CO2 as a forcing functions seems like a very simple basic concept and I can find many references on this. But you will find conservative blogs that deny this. PLEASE provide a reference if someone does not agree with the simple idea that if you add CO2 to the atmosphere, it will increase the greenhouse effect and cause an increase in temperature. Pretty much the basic definition of what a greenhouse gas does.

Before we came along, CO2 mainly acted as a feedback mechanism and reacted to and amplified temperature change. There is ice core data going back about 800 thousand years that shows a series of glacier and interglacier periods. caused by Milancovitch cycles (reference http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=8656 ). We are currently in a interglacier warm period (a good thing, ice sheets cover a lot of the planet in the cold periods). The ice core data provides both temperature and CO2 concentrations and the temperature always rises first and then the CO2 concentration rises. Temperature falls, then the CO2 concentration falls. CO2 in this case is acting as feedback and it tends to amplify the response to the solar input changes.

But.. something completely different happened when we came along. Unlike in the past where CO2 concentrations were governed by plants and temperature, we started burning fossil fuel which by itself, increased the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. This is the forcing function of CO2 (do I need more references on this - easy to find) . Very simple green house gas concept. If you increase the green house gas concentration, it will trap energy resulting in a temperature increase. In this case CO2 concentration will LEAD temperature rise.
 
Last edited:
Feb 14, 2014
7,418
Hunter 430 Waveland, MS
Global CO2 Power is shown above from SABER.
CO2 concentration means nothing to Solar Heat Retained.

It is POWER or HEAT...
Reference...
POWER
 
Last edited:
Oct 22, 2014
21,084
CAL 35 Cruiser #21 moored EVERETT WA
If you cant find a reference, good chance its not science or not true.
What? Perhaps it is innovative and new theory that has not yet had empirical review by folks stuck in their own thinking.
 
  • Like
Likes: JamesG161