Always.
Sorry for the OT guys. When someone asks, I like to deliver.
1. He was bad so I put him in jail
2. Sleepy under my desk
3. Ready for our visit to the hospital (aka Bingo in a bag)
4. Strutting his stuff at the beach (he's a log hog)
5. Scratches from mommy
6. Brush time with mommy (enough wool for a pair of mittens)
7. Not quite understanding a snowman. This was a lot funnier than a picture can tell
8. Shopping with M&D
Enuff 4 now. Back to our regularly scheduled program.
Attachments
Last edited:
About 800 years of trail is a significant difference in human scale. Earth warms up by solar activity / Milankovitch cycles, oceans warm up, then CO2 that was once dissolved in colder water gets released in the atmosphere, thus the level of CO2 increases. When the solar activity / Milankovitch cycles changes back and the earth cools, the oceans cool as well, then CO2 that was once in the atmosphere gets dissolved (ask chemists if you don't believe me) in colder water in contact. Besides, there are photosynthesis action by plants but it's not as significant as oceans. This trailing of CO2 by 800 +- years is in the Vostok ice core data chart.
Please tell me which 2 of the 3 charts below have resemblance to each other.
What about CO2 lag time? | Climate Change Connection
The time difference is 800 years (nothing in geological perspective). However this time around there is virtually no difference.
PDO does nor correlate with a 40 % increase in CO2 or the fastest change in temperature for 10 k years. It’s a short term effect riding on the back of a much larger shift in temperature and CO2 emissions
Current CO2 levels are the highest they have been for 650 k years
The time difference is 800 years (nothing in geological perspective). However this time around there is virtually no difference.
PDO does nor correlate with a 40 % increase in CO2 or the fastest change in temperature for 10 k years. It’s a short term effect riding on the back of a much larger shift in temperature and CO2 emissions
Current CO2 levels are the highest they have been for 650 k years
Andrew, that is a very expressive graph, but I have a comment: during that long ago past, there may have been short-term large deviations that are not visible as they have been averaged out.
There is still a chance (although I do not believe it) that our experienced rise may be averaged out and no longer be visible over a period of say 500 years.
It's an uncertainty.
Jan
That’s true Jan, you could well be right.
But, we do know from the ice core records, tree ring data etc that CO2 levels are the highest they have been for 650 k years and the rate of temperature change (last 50 years) is unprecedented over the last 20k years. WRT the Milankovitch cycles, these are well documented and well understood and we are not due for another ice age for 20k plus years, although current climate change effects may well change that dramatically.
For another view on this thing, see Ewing Donn Hypothesis.
If we strip out the man-made CO2 from the atmosphere in the data, we can find no other direct source for the recent dramatic temperature rises.
But, we do know from the ice core records, tree ring data etc that CO2 levels are the highest they have been for 650 k years and the rate of temperature change (last 50 years) is unprecedented over the last 20k years. WRT the Milankovitch cycles, these are well documented and well understood and we are not due for another ice age for 20k plus years, although current climate change effects may well change that dramatically.
For another view on this thing, see Ewing Donn Hypothesis.
If we strip out the man-made CO2 from the atmosphere in the data, we can find no other direct source for the recent dramatic temperature rises.
Last edited:
On a totally separate note, if any of you are interested in physics and astrophysics, I can highly recommend Ethan Siegel’s superb blog here
Starts With A Bang! – Medium
Starts With A Bang! – Medium
Always.
Sorry for the OT guys. When someone asks, I like to deliver.
2. Sleepy under my desk
When my Otis (RIP) was not getting enough attention he would go under my desk and pull on all the cords until stuff started to fall on the floor.
I didn't say PDO is responsible for CO2 increase. I posted the charts to show you the sync between global temperature fluctuation since late 19th century with PDO fluctuation, not the CO2 increase since late 19th century.
And yet, the global temperature was higher back in iron age. If CO2 is a driving factor of global warming, the temperature should have stayed up when CO2 increased in the past as shown on Vostok ice core data. Why didn't it?
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-announcement-jul-29-12.pdf
From 7 years ago. note how the scientist, Richard Muller, indicates how the finding of the science have changed his mind. I suggest one do a little research on him. Some of his original funding was from the Koch brothers.
From 7 years ago. note how the scientist, Richard Muller, indicates how the finding of the science have changed his mind. I suggest one do a little research on him. Some of his original funding was from the Koch brothers.
Last edited:
Investigation re the effect of CO2 on human behavior suggests there will be some problems above 600 ppm:
Carbon Dioxide Concentration - Comfort Levels
Carbon Dioxide Concentration - Comfort Levels
No one is saying temperatures won’t go down, or that CO2 levels will not decline again in the far future. However, current concentrations of CO2 are the highest they have been for 650k years. The problem is we do not know how the earth’s climate system will fully respond, or where the new control point will settle. Climate scientists are getting pilloried for daring to ask the tough questions, while deniers seem not to care, or construct conspiracy theories as to why governments would concoct a monstrous story about it. To what end?
CO2 levels fluctuate but for about 30 million years the general trend has been down (we don’t quite know why) and life has adapted to it. Injecting 40% more CO2 into atmosphere by mass in 150 years (an instant in geological timescales) of a greenhouse gase is a massive shock to the system. As was pointed out a few posts back, volcanic activity accounts for only 10% to 15% of the CO2 getting pumped into the atmosphere every year - the rest is human activity.
CO2 levels will take 250 k years (low estimate) to >400k years (high estimate) to be sequestered back into the mantle through weathering to their pre-industrial levels of c. 300 ppm. Most projections put it peaking at > 500 ppm where it has not been for nearly 30 million years.
Re why were temperatures higher in the Iron Age (not sure I’ve seen that) and lower now despite CO2 increasing - back to thermal lags again but these are the questions that are being asked by climate scientists- but claiming because that was the case then therefore there is no danger of global warming is to ignore the elephant in the room: CO2 levels and the rate of temperature change currently underway.
Attachments
Last edited:
I don't know who denied that the climate is changing. Perhaps more accurate term would be skeptics of predictions (by doomsday alarmists).
And this massive shock has been manifested in what way? Some predicted in early 2000's that by 2016, Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa would be snow-free (didn't happen) and that weather would worsen, with stronger, more frequent hurricanes (didn't happen), Arctic's summer ice could completely disappear by 2013 (didn't happen)... etc. At some point observers need to sit back, put their skepticism hat on and reexamine who / what those people are.
How long is the thermal lag of CO2?
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Here in North America when I was a kid in the 70's all the worry was about the coming Ice Age, Killer Bee's, and The Bermuda Triangle, etc etc. The not so doomsday stuff was lots of Sasquatch/Bigfoot sightings, UFO's, The Lochness Monster etc. The cool stuff was climbing trees, building forts, playing army, baseball, riding your bike with no helmets, Bruce Lee, The Fonz, Evil Kenevil, John Wayne etc etc.
If the Earth is warming then bring on the heat, I'll be looking for Bigfoot and staring at the sky for things unknown when I'm not watching The Duke in a war movie or Bruce Lee kicking some butt.
Y'all worry too much.... Get China,India,Malaysia,etc etc to stop polluting, and I'll then drive my car less and quit farting so much.....
If the Earth is warming then bring on the heat, I'll be looking for Bigfoot and staring at the sky for things unknown when I'm not watching The Duke in a war movie or Bruce Lee kicking some butt.
Y'all worry too much.... Get China,India,Malaysia,etc etc to stop polluting, and I'll then drive my car less and quit farting so much.....
If you cannot discern the changes taking place in the weather then clearly trying to convince you that something is abnormal is not going to help you get the the big picture is it?
‘Massive shock’ is injecting huge amounts of a GH gas into a system that has evolved to deal with more gradual changes at CO2 levels on average over the last few million years 25% below current levels. You seem to really struggle to get to grips with the fact that we’ve fiddled with the system and are starting to see it respond quite profoundly and that it will continue to move in the wrong direction for decades because of the sheer momentum of the system (massive additional effective energy inputs and a huge mass that is heating up).
On one side you have the alarmists and early models where pessimistic- but as the modeling has improved over the last 20 years, so have the predictions vs reality. The NW passage has opened up, we had a partially ice free arctic, Antarctica is losing ice, Greenland etc. These are all the effects of a global (ie everywhere) increase in temperature.
“How long is the thermal lag of CO2?”
?????
The thermal lag has nothing to do directly with the CO2 - it’s to do with the amount of time it takes to heat up the ecosphere which weighs 4 x 10^15 tons. The CO2 is simply acting as a ‘thermal blanket’ trapping more of the Sun’s energy due to the GH effect and that’s heating up the ecosphere.
The additional CO2 in the atmosphere is effectively increasing the Sun’s luminosity as perceived on Earth by 0.2% or about 2 watts per square meter. Doesn’t sound like a lot, but do that over a few million square kilometers and you have a huge amount of additional energy going into the system. Unlike water vapor or volcanic ash, excess CO2 will be around for 100’s of thousands of years.
NB the Sun’s luminosity varies by about 0.1% over an 11 year cycle - the additional effective increase of c. 0.2% due to CO2 is over and above this.
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
- Status
- Not open for further replies.