Jump to content

Hijack Split from Fresh doubt of global warming 'pause'


RiceAWay

Recommended Posts

 

A controversial study that found there has been no slowdown in global warming has been supported by new research.
Many researchers had accepted that the rate of global warming had slowed in the first 15 years of this century.
But new analysis in the journal Science Advances replicates findings that scientists have underestimated ocean temperatures over the past two decades.
With the revised data the apparent pause in temperature rises between 1998 and 2014 disappears.
The idea of a pause had gained support in recent years with even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reporting in 2013 that the global surface temperature "has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years".
But that consensus was brought into question by a number of studies, of which a report by the the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) published in Science last year was the most significant.
Researchers from Noaa suggested that the temperatures of the oceans were being consistently underestimated by the main global climate models.
The authors showed that the ocean buoys used to measure sea temperatures tend to report slightly cooler temperatures than the older ship-based systems. Read more (BBC news) >>

 

 

 

 

 

 

The warming started circa 1886 - long before man had the capacity to effect the climate. What's more, the heat characteristics of CO2, 0.04% atmosphere, is almost identical to O2 at 21%. If you look at the spectrum absorption of CO2 you can see that it is almost perfectly between the emission spectrum of the Sun and the radiation spectrum of the Earth. In other words it neither absorbs as much heat as O2 but it receives a great deal less to begin with.

 

All of the charts showing the effects of O2 and CO2 have been massively out of scale.

 

And neither gas is of much importance. Earth is a water planet. 70% of the surface of the Earth is made up of liquid water or ice. Another 4% composes the atmosphere in the form of gas or water droplets. And this absorbs virtually the entire spectrum of emission of the Sun. There are but two manners in which the Sun's emissions are lost. The major manner is the clouds which reflect the greater part, And the blue spectrum line. This is why blue is the color of the Earth from space.

 

Warm periods are recorded in several manners including written histories and geological evidence. We know of the Mycenaean, the Roman, the Medieval and our present period. (Roughly every thousand years) They appear to be connected to solar cycles and the orbital cycles caused by the positions of the Earth, the Moon. Mars, Jupiter and to some extent Saturn (Milankovitch cycles).

 

There is also a direct connection to atmospheric humidity.

 

We have watched as 0,01% of one minor component of the atmosphere has been claimed to have an effect on climate entirely out of proportion to the rest of this planet Earth.

 

It could be noted that the atmosphere is an extremely large place and the growth and diminishment of humidity is likely the major component in climate change that would more accurately be described as situation normal. And that is most strongly connect to the Milankovitch cycles.

 

In place of science we have entire portions of the science population inventing improbable scenarios because scientists have to eat too. And the government in yet another grasp for power would only offer grants to studies that are presented as proving man-made climate change. This has engendered a large shift in the non-scientific part of this population to distrust science. Do not cut your own throat.

Edited by RiceAWay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The warming started circa 1886 - long before man had the capacity to effect the climate. What's more, the heat characteristics of CO2, 0.04% atmosphere, is almost identical to O2 at 21%. If you look at the spectrum absorption of CO2 you can see that it is almost perfectly between the emission spectrum of the Sun and the radiation spectrum of the Earth. In other words it neither absorbs as much heat as O2 but it receives a great deal less to begin with.

 

All of the charts showing the effects of O2 and CO2 have been massively out of scale.

 

And neither gas is of much importance. Earth is a water planet. 70% of the surface of the Earth is made up of liquid water or ice. Another 4% composes the atmosphere in the form of gas or water droplets. And this absorbs virtually the entire spectrum of emission of the Sun. There are but two manners in which the Sun's emissions are lost. The major manner is the clouds which reflect the greater part, And the blue spectrum line. This is why blue is the color of the Earth from space.

 

Warm periods are recorded in several manners including written histories and geological evidence. We know of the Mycenaean, the Roman, the Medieval and our present period. (Roughly every thousand years) They appear to be connected to solar cycles and the orbital cycles caused by the positions of the Earth, the Moon. Mars, Jupiter and to some extent Saturn (Milankovitch cycles).

 

There is also a direct connection to atmospheric humidity.

 

We have watched as 0,01% of one minor component of the atmosphere has been claimed to have an effect on climate entirely out of proportion to the rest of this planet Earth.

 

It could be noted that the atmosphere is an extremely large place and the growth and diminishment of humidity is likely the major component in climate change that would more accurately be described as situation normal. And that is most strongly connect to the Milankovitch cycles.

 

In place of science we have entire portions of the science population inventing improbable scenarios because scientists have to eat too. And the government in yet another grasp for power would only offer grants to studies that are presented as proving man-made climate change. This has engendered a large shift in the non-scientific part of this population to distrust science. Do not cut your own throat.

I'll just pick one:

 

 

And the blue spectrum line. This is why blue is the color of the Earth from space.

Wrong, it's caused by Rayleigh scattering. Learn some basic science before you start arguing against it.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll just pick one:

 

Wrong, it's caused by Rayleigh scattering. Learn some basic science before you start arguing against it.

Perhaps I'm mistaken but the visible blue light has a wavelength of about 475 nm. Because the blue wavelengths are shorter in the visible spectrum, they are scattered more efficiently by the molecules in the atmosphere. What do you suppose that "scattering" is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps I'm mistaken but the visible blue light has a wavelength of about 475 nm. Because the blue wavelengths are shorter in the visible spectrum, they are scattered more efficiently by the molecules in the atmosphere. What do you suppose that "scattering" is?

I'm looking at this:

 

 

The major manner is the clouds which reflect the greater part, And the blue spectrum line. This is why blue is the color of the Earth from space.

On reflection, you've made a mess of this. I interpreted this as you saying the clouds reflect blue and this is the why the Earth is blue, which is wrong because clouds are white or greyish from a distance and they reflect all colours. In the absence of clouds - which are water vapour - the Earth looks blue because the short wavelengths are reflected off the air molecules

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm looking at this:

 

On reflection, you've made a mess of this. I interpreted this as you saying the clouds reflect blue and this is the why the Earth is blue, which is wrong because clouds are white or greyish from a distance and they reflect all colours. In the absence of clouds - which are water vapour - the Earth looks blue because the short wavelengths are reflected off the air molecules

 

It is beginning to look to me as if we're arguing around in circles. I think that perhaps I could have done a better job of explaining my position and perhaps you could have started from a position in which you would be trying to understand rather than criticize which would have given you an easier time understanding me.

 

The atmosphere in general has almost perfect conductance of visible light. The one problem is clouds in the upper atmosphere that reflect the greater portion of the light back out into space. The OTHER case is the Rayleigh scattering which is EFFECTIVELY a block on blue light of a specific frequency. This not only gives the sky it's sky-blue hue but reflects a portion of this light out into space. So to us, the sky looks blue and from outer space it has exactly the same color where stratospheric clouds do not reflect the entire wave band of visible light. So Earth receives only a portion of blue light despite the atmosphere not absorbing any of it. Remember that Rayleigh scattering either eventually allows half of that light to get to the ground or to be reflected back out into space.

 

Regarding these stratospheric clouds (my theory) - in all probability that is what leads to Ice Ages. These warm periods gradually melt off the ice and expand the oceans. This in turn does two things: it allows the mountains to WARM so that the airflow over them from the trade winds, which forms gradually more and more Stratospheric clouds.

 

The Earth's atmosphere is one HELL of a large place and building up enough humidity to form large amounts of high cloud layers takes a long time - on the order of 120,000 years. During this time the warm periods continue to melt off the ices despite the fact that the average mean temperature of the globe is dropping. As the humidity gets high enough because the ice has melted off and the enlarging oceans give enough water surface area, the clouds form an almost impenetrable barrier. Most of the Sun's energy is reflected back out into space and nearer the surface the humidity changes to practically nothing cutting off future cloud formation. Eventually this completely clears the skies of clouds. And then the Earth's humidity has to reform. Though his happens relatively rapidly - on the order of 20,000 years - to begin the cycle all over again.

 

There is NO point in this cycle that's been occurring for at least 400,000 years that the Earth's climate is anything faintly "normal" or unmoving.

 

The panic stricken headlines designed to do one thing - to hand ever increasing power to governments - accomplishes nothing whatsoever. As I point out - warming CANNOT continue unabated because it is self defeating.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Regarding these stratospheric clouds (my theory) - ... - to begin the cycle all over again.

 

 

There is NO point in this cycle that's been occurring for at least 400,000 years

that the Earth's climate is anything faintly "normal" or unmoving.

===

 

The panic stricken headlines designed to do one thing - to hand ever increasing power to governments - accomplishes nothing whatsoever. As I point out -

warming CANNOT continue unabated because it is self defeating.

...just to set the record straight:

Runaway greenhouse heating is NOT in the headlines, or bylines, of climate science.

 

The idea that warming would “continue unabated” is not what any climate scientists are worried about.

 

It is only the rise of a few degrees (or a few more) that would be significantly catastrophic enough for scientists

as well as informed policy makers—to be significantly concerned about.

===

 

 

There is ONE major exception to this statement about how:

“There is NO point …for at least 400,000 years that the Earth's climate is anything faintly ‘normal’ or unmoving.”

 

There is no point....

Except for the past 10,000 years, where we have only varied (around a fairly level average of 15C) by about +/- one degree.

HoloceneTemperatures.png

For ten thousand years now, our climate has not varied globally more than a few degrees, fairly slowly over hundreds or thousands of years; from the mid-Holocene climate optimum or Roman warm period or the Medieval Warm Period to the various intervening “dark ages” or cooling periods such as the Little Ice Age.

 

Over more than 500 years, between the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, the average temperature change was only about one degree C. And now we’re facing several degrees or more, over just decades, which also includes unprecedented* ocean acidification, all of which will persist or get worse for centuries to follow!

That is why there are some “panic stricken headlines” around to see.

 

*unprecedented…since before we first walked upright.

===

 

 

Now....

We're headed off into warmer territory, above our long "level average," into temperatures seen only briefly during the last Eemian interglacial

...or more likely temperatures higher than those.

150yearsgraph.gif

...or for a longer view:

Variable_Tc400kyr.png

...fairly level, relatively, but now

...we will be heading up steeply to levels not seen for millions of years!

 

 

To quote the National Academies Press:

"At current carbon emission rates, Earth will experience atmospheric CO2 levels within this century

that have not occurred since the warm “greenhouse” climates of more than 34 million years ago."

 

...which would look sort of like:

Last%20100%20million%20years.gif

...relative to previous interglacials.

 

This would be back to a climate that hosted a vastly different flora and fauna;

back to a climate that existed before agriculture or honeybees or even primates had evolved ...or could evolve to survive.

 

~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.