Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-1 Poor

About Dutchman

  • Rank
  1. I'm not a supporter of fossil fuels. You are right that we have enough CO2 in the atmosphere for a very long time. May be in the far future, humans must release CO2 in the atmosphere again, in order to keep the CO2 level high enough for plants. I think in the near future there are better alternatives for fossil fuels then yet. My government wants to build thousands wind mills in north seas which will never be a solid alternative and in the best scenario could only provide 15 to 20% energy max, because you need relapse capacity, and it is also very expensive, as already noted in Germany. There are more plans, like using heat pumps instead of gass in order to warm houses and produce hydrogen energie with alternative energy, which is not an efficient way to produce energy. All plans together will cost 1 trillion Euro, according to some scientists. If we wait 20 years, science have better solutions. UK is intended to build micro nuclear centrales . That is already a solid solution, however you have radio active waste. If you do not want that, you can better wait for better solutions, like thorium energy centers. So spent billions Euro's in developing good alternatives instead of wasting money in bad inefficient energy. Back to the discussion. You present the Hockey stick of Michaël Mann. He erased the anomaly of the heat in the 30's, and he also mentioned this, because he knew that the media would present the hockey stick, without telling the people that the heat of the 30's where erased. As a matter of fact, many country's coppied the hockey stick, like my country. They erased 16 of 25 heat waves before 1950, and my country was not the only one. They say that the measures were incorrect. Some scientist disagree, some stated even that the temperatures before 1950 were higher then measured, and demanded that an independent group of scientists would look again to the figures. But KNMI (our NOAA) disagree and the MSM swallows everything and making jokes of people who disagree. I have my doubts, and I am not the only one. You said that it is warmer todady then in the mediëval period and in the Roman period. Here an interesting article: Tree-rings prove climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now - and world has been cooling for 2,0 In the roman time you had a castle, called pevensey castle in south England. It is now 1 mile away from sea, but during the roman period, the castle was in the see The Roman Fort You see the picture below as it was during Roman time. In a testimony for the congress, it is admitted that people of the AGW community wanted to get rid of the mediëval period. See below. You can see the testimony here at 5.20 No Evidence That Climate Scientists Or Journalists Have Any Integrity And a year later, Michael Mann had erased the mediëval warm period (picture 3) . The mediëval warm period was often admitted in the press, but the press will never do that again. See below. In 1990 IPCC admitted that mediëval warm period was warmer then today. And the New york Times admitted that in California, scientist discoverd a medieaval warm period either. @swansont I am surprised you do not know that plants and animals subtracted CO2 from atmosphere on a very large scale. To produce corals and shelfs and other fossils you need CO2. Approximately 100 million billion ton of CO2 is bounded by sea animals. Here an example how plankton is doing this, and plankton is not the only animal wich suck out the CO2. How Plankton Blooms Absorb CO2
  2. I agree with you that the barycentre is not the place where sun is at the farest position. What I read is that the sun has to move in the direction of aphelion, to make the sun closer to the earth. I think because the orbit is decreasing a little bit. I got this pictues from this YouTube after minute 57 and I also checked this out via scientific papers:Climate Change & The Great CO2 Myth - Patrick Moore - Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout I think everybody agreed that CO2 was much higher 150 millon years ago and decreases due to conversion CO2 by life into fossils, which will continue. We know how high CO2 was in past because we can measure CO2 levels in ice sheets from milennia. I think it is no secret that at the end of an ice age, temperature rice, due to sun cycles (milankovitch cycle), CO2 is at its lowest because in cold times, much CO2 is absorbed by sea, and released when it become warmer. Opposite to the proposed AGW warming. During the last ICE age, CO2 was very low as also stated by this article. presenting an hypothesis what stopped the ice age: Modulation of ice ages via precession and dust-albedo feedbacks 200ppm is claimed by this article, which is also close to 180ppm claimed by other, and very low also, resulting is deserts. And without humans, nature is not preventing it automatically that it will decreases to below 150ppm, I do not believe in an invisible hand who is protecting live. AGW promoters (until a half year ago, I believed also that the role of CO2 was very big instead of probably a small factor what I believe now, regarding temperature) always present a graphic of only the last million years, instead of a graph presenting hundreds of million years Here an old scientific report about global warming in 10 years on the largest moon of Neptunus MIT researcher finds evidence of global warming on Neptune's largest moon A study also measure higher temperture on our moon with a silly explanation: Astronauts' movement increased subsurface temperatures on the moon, study finds The purple line is CO2. As you can see, it has become warmer, but not uniquely warm.
  3. First about the TSI. You are right that TSI is lowest when the earth is at the most far distance of the sun. What I mean is the mean TSI in a whole year. Do you agree that if the sun is at the position of the focus of the barycentre (what hapens some time) that the mean TSI of a whole year is at its lowest point? Because when the sun is not on the focus, it will be closer to earth somewhere on the orbit, and that will count more then a further distance in the opposite position of the orbit. Off course, with the assumption that all other parameters (precession, tile of the earth orbits of the planets) remain the same. Because the SIM is one of the several parameters regarding the climate. Tile does have an effect on the (very) long term. I intend to make an article about the SIM and also about the warm periods, during the mediëval- and the roman warm period. This subject is new to me, I wrote articles about other subjects,. but climate is a relative new subject. A: Too high or too low CO2 When plants grow with only 150ppm, they will probably die. Below you see in first picture what would happened if humans did not exist. CO2 would be certainly too low at certain moment. The reason is mainly because of see animals. Approximately 100 million billion ton of carbon has ben extracted from atmosphere by sea animals. It is presented in picture 2. In the last picture you see that humans prevented that scenario. Now, we have enough CO2 for the coming ice age, when it will drop again to its lowes level, but probably well above 150. However, the moment will come that humans must produce CO2 again to protect live. B: NASA shows greening because of CO2 THis is a link: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth C: Warming besides Rome You are right that it is complicated to show warm periods on a global scale. You have to research more area's on earth, also figure out the sea levels in history, make analysis on ICE etcetera. There are many studies which confirms the warm. I must admit that I have to do more research. Here an article: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618218308322 Here an other article: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22040-tree-rings-suggest-roman-world-was-warmer-than-thought/ But there are many more which I have to investigate. These data are in line with the SIM influence of Zharkova. However, the mediëval warm and roman warm are devestating for the AGW hypothesis. That's why there is so much resistance against these findings. D: Warming of the last decennia on other planets/moons Mars warming: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/2007/marswarming.html https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases-all?ID=469DD8F9-802A-23AD-4459-CC5C23C24651
  4. I think Zharkova's theory is an interesting theory and I doubt if her findings are as controversial as you suggested. The sun does not make a fluent orbit, but the sun wobbles around the barycentre. If the distance between the sun remains the same, it would mean that the orbits of the planets would wobbles, which is not probable. The orbit of the sun around the barycentre is a result of newton laws (as a result of the gravity of other planets), in opposite of the planets which is a kepler motion. At the site of NASA we read: https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/barycenter/en/ 'We say that planets orbit stars, but that’s not the whole truth. Planets and stars actually orbit around their common center of mass. This common center of mass is called the barycenter. Barycenters also help astronomers search for planets beyond our solar system!' Regarding the finding that the sun moves closer to the earth is calculated by a simulation program (JPL ephemeris ). This simulation programm is not perfect, because it not include all planets. I cite: Fifth point: We discovered that even for the JPL ephemeris of the Earth+Moon motion about the Sun with the effect of Jupiter (and some smaller planets) we managed to show that the distance between the Earth and Sun keeps decreasing from 1700 to 2600 by about 0.004 AU (induced only by the gravitation from Jupiter). So if you are right, you suggested that the programmers who programmed JPL, made errors as well. You can read her respons here: https://thegrandsolarminimum.com/valentina-zharkovas-critics-should-be-embarrassed/ Regarding the AGW hypothesis, I have three problems with this theory. Problem 1 CO2 is now to high Around 150 million years ago, CO2 was approximately 2500PPM and made a linear line to below. After the last iceage CO2 was dropped to 180ppm, mainly because 100 million billion ton of CO2 was bound in sea by living creatures, like plankton, corals and shelf animals. If CO2 would come below 150ppm, all plants would die. At the end of the last ice time, we saw formations of desserts. When temperature rose, CO2 came for a part back from sea. Because humans produce more CO2 (now 400ppm as a result), live will survive the coming ICE ages. So yes, CO2 rose, but it is far from too high. Besides, NASA shows that during the last 40 years, earth became greener, comparable with the surface of the USA. Problem 2: Climate deny Because the mediëval warm and Roman warm period does not fit in the CO2 AGW hypothesis, we now have to believe that this warm periods did not exist, same for the little ice times. However, the forensic and historical proofs are well enough to state that these warm periods, and also cold periods (little ice times), did exist. And the SIM of Zharkova explains the Warm periods during the last 2400 years very well. Problem 3: Increas warm at other planets during the last decennia There are observations which showed that during the warm period of the last decennia, also the moon, mars and Jupiter had an increase heat of the sun, which is not explained by AGW hypothesis.
  5. Thanks Swansont, Finaly I have time to review the answers, and I am very glad with your answer. Thank you!. So the formular of the intensity (some kind of multiplier for TSI when r=1 I suppose) is 1/r**2 . So that means that if the earth is closer to the sun, the earth gets more heat then it will lose when the earth is in the opposite position of its orbit. I suppose that r is the distance of the earth to the sun. If the earth is in the middle then the TSI is on its lowest point. Is that correct? If that is so, then I have my anser. At my work I had a discussion with a college. I suggested that if the earth is closer to the sun, the earth will slow down a little bit, because I read this somewhere on internet. I thought that may be the reason for more TSI when sun moves away from center of barycentre. My college said that it is the opposite. If the earth is close to the sun, it accelerate a little bit on its orbit. But the formula makes it easy.
  6. Hi, I am new on this forum, and English is also not my home language. But I think I can explain my questions in English. I read an article of Valentina Zharkova in nature Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3 (is'nt it possible to create an hyperlink?) That article claimed (among other things) that the earth is in a cycle of 2000 years, started around 1600. In that cycle the global temperature will rice until 2600 (+2.5 C), after that it will decrease for 1000 years. Similar cycles were responsible for the roman warm period and the medieval warm period (between 900 and 1100). There are also other cycles, which are even larger in time, related to precession and tile of the planet earth, but that is not the subject of this topic. This is how it works, according to Zharkova. And also how I interpreted it, because it is also possible that I misunderstood the theorie. The plantes in the solar system makes their orbits, not around the sun but around the barycentre. The barycentre is the magnetic middle of the solar system. The sun is almost never situated on the focus of the barycentre but wobble around the barycentre. It can move from the centre away but also to the centre of the barycentre. In the current cycle, it moves away from the centre. If the sun is closer to the earth, the terrestrial temperature will increase, what is very logic. If the sun was on the focus of the bary centre, In aphelion ( then summer in northern hemisphere) the sun is at a distance of 1.53 * 108 and in perihelion 1.47 * 108 (closer in winter in northern hemisphere). However, the sun is not at the focus. If the sun moves to perihelion, the earth wil be shortest to sun 1.44 *108. while at aphelion it will increase to 1.55 × 108 km. This was the case during millennium prior the maunder minimum (until around 1600). If the Sun moves in its SIM closer to Earth’s aphelion decreasing the Earth orbit eccentricity (which mean orbit is more simular to a circle) as it is happening in the current millennium starting from Maunder Minimum (around 1600), then the distance between Sun and Earth at the aphelion will become shorter approaching 1.49 × 108 km during the summer in the Northern and winter in the Southern hemispheres, and longer at the perihelion approaching 1.50 × 108, or during a winter in the Northern and summer in the Southern hemispheres.Hence, at this SIM position of the Sun, the Earth in aphelion should receive higher solar irradiance (and temperature) during the Northern hemisphere summers and Southern hemisphere winters. When the Earth moves to its perihelion, the distance to the Sun will become longer and thus, the solar irradiance will become lower leading to colder winters in the Northern hemisphere and colder summers in the Southern one. This is what happening in the terrestrial temperature in the current millennium starting since Maunder minimum and lasting until ≈2600. My question is WHY DOES THIS MEAN THAT TSI (solar warmth per square metre) INCREASE OVER ONE YEAR UNTIL 2600, SO TERRESTRIAL TEMPERATURE PER YEAR INCREASE? So the SUN is moving away from its center, in the direction of the aphelion, resulting in higher total TSI per year. Why? If the sun is closer to earth in Aphelion, it will be less closer to earth in prehilion. So isn't that mean, more TSI in aphelion and less TSI in prehelium equeals zero?? Or Is TSI increase over one year because the orbit is less exentric, so earth catch more TSI ??????? I hope somebode can explain this to me. Zharkova received a lot of critics (in particularly from AGW supporters) so she explained in more detail. https://thegrandsolarminimum.com/valentina-zharkovas-critics-should-be-embarrassed/ Some critic said that the theory is against the laws of Kepler. Zharkova explained that the wobbling orbit of the sun around the barycentre is not a Kepler motion but is triggered by the gravity laws of Newton and caused by the gravity of the planets. The sun wobbles, and if the planets remain the same distance to the sun, its orbits would wobble also, but that is not the case, because the orbits are not around the sun, but around the barycenter. They do not chaotic wobbles like the sun does around the barycentre. Besides the sun, the gravity of the planets also influence the position of the barycentre. The sun makes a circle of max 4.3 solar radii (696,000 km) around its barycentre.
  • 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.