Jump to content
Dutchman

How does Solar Inertial Motion affect our climate

Recommended Posts

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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dutchman said:

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.

The effect is not linear. The intensity drops as 1/r^2, so moving closer gives a larger change. You can look at a more extreme example to show this.

if r is 1, the baseline is 1. r changing to 0.9 gives a value of 1.235. Changing to 1.1, it’s 0.826.

The increase is 0.235, but the drop is 0.174

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Not just those that have high confidence that global warming can be explained by atmospheric Greenhouse gases but astronomers and astrophysicists are disputing Zharkova's assertions. It appears that astrophysicists think what Zharkova is claiming violates some pretty basic orbital dynamics, which is then used to suggest that most of our warming is natural, in an over-simplistic as well as false manner.

The main astrophysical problem appears to be the claim that the solar system barycentre - around which planets and sun orbit - moves as much as 0.2 AU (true) and that means the distance between the sun and Earth changes by that amount as a result, which is not true; the combined Sun-Earth orbit moves together by that amount, without altering the distance between Sun and Earth.

It brings up an issue in common with all manner of proposed alternate explanations for global warming - they do not explain how raised CO2 levels DO NOT cause climate change. The "null hypothesis" idea gets thrown around a lot, without much examination but I suggest that, given what we know about this with high levels of confidence, CO2 rise resulting in warming has become the null hypothesis. ie you have to show how changes to GHG concentrations are not changing the heat balance of the atmosphere before any alternative explanation can be considered better.

Edited by Ken Fabian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/11/2019 at 11:27 PM, swansont said:

The effect is not linear. The intensity drops as 1/r^2, so moving closer gives a larger change. You can look at a more extreme example to show this.

if r is 1, the baseline is 1. r changing to 0.9 gives a value of 1.235. Changing to 1.1, it’s 0.826.

The increase is 0.235, but the drop is 0.174

 

 

 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/12/2019 at 3:37 AM, Ken Fabian said:

Not just those that have high confidence that global warming can be explained by atmospheric Greenhouse gases but astronomers and astrophysicists are disputing Zharkova's assertions. It appears that astrophysicists think what Zharkova is claiming violates some pretty basic orbital dynamics, which is then used to suggest that most of our warming is natural, in an over-simplistic as well as false manner.

The main astrophysical problem appears to be the claim that the solar system barycentre - around which planets and sun orbit - moves as much as 0.2 AU (true) and that means the distance between the sun and Earth changes by that amount as a result, which is not true; the combined Sun-Earth orbit moves together by that amount, without altering the distance between Sun and Earth.

It brings up an issue in common with all manner of proposed alternate explanations for global warming - they do not explain how raised CO2 levels DO NOT cause climate change. The "null hypothesis" idea gets thrown around a lot, without much examination but I suggest that, given what we know about this with high levels of confidence, CO2 rise resulting in warming has become the null hypothesis. ie you have to show how changes to GHG concentrations are not changing the heat balance of the atmosphere before any alternative explanation can be considered better.

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dutchman said:

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.

TSI is at its lowest when the earth is at the largest distance, r.

1 hour ago, Dutchman said:

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.

It is the opposite. The earth moves fastest when it's at the closest approach. The area swept out by the orbit is the same for equal time periods. It takes less time to get from the autumnal equinox to the spring equinox, because perihelion happens in early January, and the earth moves faster in its orbit than in the other half of the year.

3 minutes ago, Dutchman said:

 

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.

"Too high" depends on the parameters you have not defined. What it was 150 mya doesn't have much relevance to what it is today; there were no humans and no civlizations back then.

3 minutes ago, Dutchman said:

Besides, NASA shows that during the last 40 years, earth became greener, comparable with the surface of the USA.

Do you have a citation for this claim? A link?

3 minutes ago, Dutchman said:

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.

Rome isn't the whole globe. It's possible for one area to be warmer or cooler than the average.

3 minutes ago, Dutchman said:

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.

You can show that this is the result of increased heat from the sun? Please provide the evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, swansont said:

TSI is at its lowest when the earth is at the largest distance, r.

It is the opposite. The earth moves fastest when it's at the closest approach. The area swept out by the orbit is the same for equal time periods. It takes less time to get from the autumnal equinox to the spring equinox, because perihelion happens in early January, and the earth moves faster in its orbit than in the other half of the year.

"Too high" depends on the parameters you have not defined. What it was 150 mya doesn't have much relevance to what it is today; there were no humans and no civlizations back then.

Do you have a citation for this claim? A link?

Rome isn't the whole globe. It's possible for one area to be warmer or cooler than the average.

You can show that this is the result of increased heat from the sun? Please provide the evidence.

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: 

 
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. 
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
 
 
 

CO2 levels.png

Lose of CO2.png

Human influence.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I was keeping it simple, but yes, there is some small variation in sun-earth distances due to orbital motions being altered by other planets - but the principle point is the overall solar system barycentre most closely follows the Sun-Jupiter barycentre but the Earth most closely orbits the sun and that combined orbit moves around that Solar system barycentre (very close to Sun-Jupiter barycentre) without change to distances from Sun to Earth. However I am not an astrophysicist and and deferring to the expertise of others

This paper got some discussion at https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/07/07/nature-scientific-reports/  and I will lift a comment from the host (who is an astronomer) there -

 

Quote

 

A colleague in astronomy sent me an email with the following comment, which I think nicely explains the motion of the Earth around the Sun and the motion of the Earth-Sun system around the Solar System barycentre.

The Earth orbits the Sun-Earth two-body barycentre, which is close to the centre of the Sun because of the enormous mass ratio. The Sun-Earth system orbits the SS barycentre, mostly affected by Jupiter with a period of 12 years – effectively a three-body system. The Sun-Earth system has an orbital period of 1 year, the (Sun-Earth) – Jupiter system has an orbital period of 12 years, and since the Sun-Jupiter mass ratio is about 1000 it is only a perturbation on the Sun-Earth two-body system. So the Earth’s distance from the Sun does not change with an orbital period of 12 years, as your Mercury6 calculation showed correctly. It is incorrect for that paper to claim that since the Earth orbits the SS barycentre, whilst the Sun also does so, and then claim that because the Sun’s motion exhibits changes in position of up to 0.02 AU relative to the SS barycentre, this must lead to changes in solar radiation received at Earth. The Earth travels around the SS barycentre with the Sun, not independently of the Sun.

 


 

3 hours ago, Dutchman said:

the mediëval warm and roman warm are devestating for the AGW hypothesis.

 
No they are not. The Medieval Warm Period (or Roman or Little Ice Age) doesn't really present any problem for current best understanding of why our climate is currently warming - no matter that you and a small minority of pseudo experts may think otherwise; we've already far exceeded the temperatures during the MWP.
 
image.png.2feb22ae490a148c3c589282c4733803.png

Some "greening" does indeed appear a consequence of raised CO2 levels but so does raised temperatures - and depending on circumstances it will be other factors besides CO2 levels, including especially changes to rainfall and evaporation; I can assure you higher temperatures in places where dry conditions dominate (like where I live) mean less greening. No matter what conditions were like in the distant past it is the conditions that are recent, current and near future that matter - ie the period affecting people, agriculture, infrastructure and remnant ecosystems in the lifetimes of people now living.

The claim that, without human emissions from fossil fuel burning atmospheric CO2 levels will drop to below that required for plant growth has no foundation; like everything else in this, it is the physical processes that matter - not blindly eyeing a graph and presuming a trend continues without physical processes that will make it continue. Do you think it is even possible keep burning fossil fuels for (going by the graph of declining CO2 provided) for the purpose of saving plant life for the next 5 million years? Utter nonsense! No, the Carbon Cycle will still be around and so will plants and CO2.

I suggest you look to more reputable and non-partisan sources of information about climate change - such as the US National Academy of Sciences and UK's Royal Society. They draw on the world's most accomplished and respected scientists to review and make sense of complex science. I continue to urge politicians and governments to treat such advice seriously and not fall for the illusion that the current understanding of climate and how it changes is inconsistent or uncertain or in serious doubt.

 

 

Edited by Ken Fabian
clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Dutchman said:

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?

I'm not sure what the "focus of the barycenter" is.

But the answer is probably no, since I don't think that tells you the distance to the earth. 

Quote

 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.

Where did that come from? Because it's not consistent with graphs I have seen from credible sources, and it's also a crude extrapolation based on unknown information.

Quote

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.

You need to provide sources for your claims without prompting. It's the proper protocol, and will save time.

 

Quote

However, the mediëval warm and roman warm are devestating for the AGW hypothesis. That's why there is so much resistance against these findings.

I'm not sure why you think it's "devastating"

 

Quote

 

D: Warming of the last decennia on other planets/moons

 

 

From the very first paragraph of your link:

"It appears a slight change in the planet’s surface luster has caused its temperature to rise." 

And then they provide an albedo map. It's also only over the last ~30 years, since we don't have data from before that, so it's irresponsible to pretend that you can draw conclusions similar to what we know about the earth. There is no reasonable way that you can conclude that this has any impact at all on the discussion of AGW.

 

 

Quote

That's not a credible source.

Marc Morano (born 1968)[1] is a former Republican political aide who founded and runs the website ClimateDepot.com.[2] ClimateDepot is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), a non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C. that promotes climate change denial,[3].[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Morano

The author, Lorne Gunter, is also not a scientist, and is oft-criticized for getting the science wrong. It's also a bad article, as it cites no actual research. Just some snippets of "scientists say" and then quotes from known climate-denialists

 

Quote

 

 
 

CO2 levels.png

Lose of CO2.png

Human influence.png

Where did you get these? Legitimate science sources, or from hacks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, swansont said:

I'm not sure what the "focus of the barycenter" is.

But the answer is probably no, since I don't think that tells you the distance to the earth. 

Where did that come from? Because it's not consistent with graphs I have seen from credible sources, and it's also a crude extrapolation based on unknown information.

You need to provide sources for your claims without prompting. It's the proper protocol, and will save time.

 

I'm not sure why you think it's "devastating"

 

 

From the very first paragraph of your link:

"It appears a slight change in the planet’s surface luster has caused its temperature to rise." 

And then they provide an albedo map. It's also only over the last ~30 years, since we don't have data from before that, so it's irresponsible to pretend that you can draw conclusions similar to what we know about the earth. There is no reasonable way that you can conclude that this has any impact at all on the discussion of AGW.

 

 

 

Where did you get these? Legitimate science sources, or from hacks?

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
 

Quote

 

Over the following millennia more CO2 is sequestered in the oceans and atmospheric  concentrations eventually reach a critical minima of about 200 ppm, which combined with 
arid conditions, causes a die-back of temperate and boreal forests and grasslands, especially at high altitude. The ensuing soil erosion generates dust storms, 
resulting in increased dust deposition and lower albedo on the northern ice sheets.

 

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.

 

 Geological_Timescale.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Dutchman said:

And without humans, nature is not preventing it automatically that it will decreases to below 150ppm,

There are misguided people saying the CO2 we are adding now is preventing a return of Glacial Maximum conditions in 10,000 - 40,000 years time. They actually look almost reasonable in comparison to this! Of course burning all the fossil fuels (a few hundred years worth?) will barely be a blip in the distant past by then - but here we are with the highest CO2 levels for 3 million years but we are supposed to keep burning fossil fuels (that won't last a thousand years of continuing use) for the next 5 million years and all plant life will die if we stop? And not worry about the global warming occurring because of the raised CO2 in the present? Sorry Dutchman - the only interesting question here is how anyone could think that could possibly be true. We get some bizarre notions popping up here but truly you have exceeded my expectations.

Edited by Ken Fabian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Dutchman said:

 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

Moore isn't a climate expert. Where did he get it? I'm betting you don't know that.

Quote

I think everybody agreed that CO2 was much higher 150 millon years ago

Yes. That's not in contention.

Quote

and decreases due to conversion CO2 by life into fossils,

No, I seriously doubt that. Fossilization as a carbon sink? How does that work, changing bone into minerals capturing carbon?

Quote

 

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. 

 

And the graph you posted showed 150 ppm, going to zero in the future (15 million years in the future, but still). How does any of this support that claim?

Quote

The purple line is CO2. As you can see, it has become warmer, but not uniquely warm.

 Geological_Timescale.jpg

Here the graph flattens out at about ~2 mya. I don't see how this can be claimed to support the graph in question.

Quote

 

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

 

 

You seem to be missing the point: the only data we have from planets is, at best, several decades old. We don't have a handle on longer-term cycles that might be present.  If it was the sun, we should see warming everywhere, in a predictable fashion based on distance from the sun.

Triton, for example. You can calculate how much further away it is, and how much energy it gets compared to us. The temperature rise should be related to that. If Triton's temperature went up 7 ºF in a certain window of time, what should have happened on earth in the same time frame? Did that happen? Do some science! (I have to think we would have seen a larger rise in temperature than Triton would)

Note that the moon rise in temperature (which you dismiss as silly with no actual scientific analysis) does not happen in the same time window. Again, if the moon's temperature went up in the 70s, why didn't that happen on earth? (the temperature was pretty flat https://phys.org/news/2017-01-earth-global-temperature.html) We are exposed to the same sun, after all.

This any-port-in-a-storm attempt at rebuttal lacks any scientific merit whatsoever. It's crap. It might fool some of the people some of the time, but it really doesn't stand up to scrutiny and is devoid of intellectual honesty.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, swansont said:

Fossilization as a carbon sink? How does that work, changing bone into minerals capturing carbon?

Most limestones do get formed that way - corals, shelled and carbonate skeleton organisms becoming sedimentary rock - and they have taken up a lot of carbon. But whilst atmospheric CO2 levels have changed a lot over geological time the idea that it is on it's unstoppable way to below what plants need to survive has no basis at all - and in any case is irrelevant to the exceptional, mostly emissions driven climate change we facing now.

We do know how and why the current global warming is happening with high levels of confidence and it doesn't include Solar Inertial Motion. The idea that there has been any serious science based doubt about the fundamental physical mechanisms since the 1980's has no basis. Whilst ordinarily people can believe or disbelieve what they like my own view is people holding positions of trust and responsibility turning aside from consistent top level expert advice are being negligent.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

There are misguided people saying the CO2 we are adding now is preventing a return of Glacial Maximum conditions in 10,000 - 40,000 years time. They actually look almost reasonable in comparison to this! Of course burning all the fossil fuels (a few hundred years worth?) will barely be a blip in the distant past by then - but here we are with the highest CO2 levels for 3 million years but we are supposed to keep burning fossil fuels (that won't last a thousand years of continuing use) for the next 5 million years and all plant life will die if we stop? And not worry about the global warming occurring because of the raised CO2 in the present? Sorry Dutchman - the only interesting question here is how anyone could think that could possibly be true. We get some bizarre notions popping up here but truly you have exceeded my expectations.

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

Quote

 

00 years

How did the Romans grow grapes in northern England? Perhaps because it was warmer than we thought. A study suggests the Britain of 2,000 years ago experienced a lengthy period of hotter summers than today.German researchers used data from tree rings – a key indicator of past climate – to claim the world has been on a ‘long-term cooling trend’ for two millennia until the global warming of the twentieth century. This cooling was punctuated by a couple of warm spells.These are the Medieval Warm Period, which is well known, but also a period during the toga-wearing Roman times when temperatures were apparently 1 deg C warmer than now.They say the very warm period during the years 21 to 50AD has been underestimated by climate scientists.Lead author Professor Dr Jan Esper of Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz said: ‘We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low.

 

 

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

Quote

 

A reconstruction drawing showing how the Roman fort at Pevensey may have looked in about AD 300. Although the sea is now a mile away, at this time it came right up to the walls in some places

 

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.

Pevensey Castle.JPG

Testimony.JPG

Michael Mann.JPG

IPCC report 1990.JPG

Open zee 1969.JPG

California NYT 1975.JPG

@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

Quote


the phytoplankton use the CO2 and sunlight to photosynthesize. In the process, they produce oxygen and help to remove bout one-third of the atmospheric CO2. The CO2 is absorbed into the phytoplankton shells, and ultimately sinks to the bottom of the sea as the plankton die off.

 

 

Edited by Dutchman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dutchman said:

 

@swansont

I am surprised you do not know that plants and animals subtracted CO2 from atmosphere on a very large scale.

I don’t know how you got the impression that I didn’t 

3 hours ago, Dutchman said:

To produce corals and shelfs and other fossils you need CO2.

But is the Carbon already there, in the organism, or does the process of fossilization remove carbon from the environment? I was under the impression it was the former. Can you provide a reference to it being the latter?

e.g. a shell made of calcium carbonate already has carbon in it. Your claim was that fossilization is the sink, not the formation of the shell. 

3 hours ago, Dutchman said:

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

Where does that article mention fossilization?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dutchman - The mainstream science conclusions are sound; much more competent people than you or I have been all over climate science and again and again confirm the CO2 and warming connection. No matter whether called for by governments leaning Left or those leaning Right, no matter which nation's science institutions, the conclusion remains that we face a serious climate problem of immense proportions - due mostly to excessive fossil fuel burning. That is based on a good understanding of the underlying processes.

We continue to learn more all the time, around the edges of understanding, that the Anything-But-CO2 crowd keep trying to nibble at in lieu of having any sound basis for rejecting the CO2 and climate connection. That includes recently establishing a link between mass mortality in the 1500's across the Americas, massive regrowth of forests and a drop in global CO2 levels of around 7ppm, contributing to the Little Ice Age. As did major volcanic eruptions in close succession, making a feedback loop from increased snow cover that lasted several decades. The closer we look at these kinds of past climate variations the more confirmation of the mainstream science view we get, not less. Which is consistent with that view being correct.

I am not going to waste much more time on this - I will continue to trust those decades of top level expert advice and advocate for governments to make that advice the bottom line - and urge them to reject rather than encourage the kinds of pseudo expertise you espouse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just became aware that the "greening" that had been observed prior to 1990 has reversed and plant growth decline, which is attributed to Vapour Pressure Deficit - the difference between the water vapor pressure at saturation and the actual water vapor pressure for a given temperature. Because the given temperature has risen. From the Yuan et al science paper -

Quote

Terrestrial gross primary production derived from two satellite-based models (revised EC-LUE and MODIS) exhibits persistent and widespread decreases after the late 1990s due to increased VPD, which offset the positive CO2 fertilization effect.

It does sound like the CO2 greening effect cannot be counted upon to provide beneficial outcomes for terrestrial plants.

Share this post


Link to post
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.