Jump to content
arc

Geological activity causing climate change (split from reasons not to worry)

Recommended Posts

the planet has always had its own cooling and warming periods. A planet wide change is usually made by the planet itself. I think the theory has great merit.


like i said, im no expert, just someone who read the thread and found it interesting. Im drawing my conclusions from my degree, i dont have fancy graphs or anything ready for acute scrutiny. it was just my own thoughts and basic general theory. i just like to put things out there, thats how i learn new things. :)


and not everyone with a good idea gets a nobel prize.


especially when its a new not widely accepted theory.


in that, your logic is flawed.


Although reading back through your posts, i do agree with you that it might not be the only cause, but i do think it is a big one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate your input. I understand your perspective. My own position, however, is to take more seriously the proclamations of those who have studied this for decades than those coming from someone who concedes repeatedly that they know very little and haven't spent any serious effort learning more about the topic. Just because it "feels" right doesn't mean it is. Even if there are natural causes, that doesn't negate the fact that the single strongest contributor to the recent changes in climate are human contributions of greenhouse gasses in massive amounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to admit up front that im still a novice in this field, but my general observations on this thread run along this line....

 

I tend to agree with arc.

 

I know it's popular right now to blame people for the warming period at this time in the earth's existence (especially in political circles) But the earth has gone through warming and cooling periods as long as it has existed. For example the "mini Ice Age" during the medieval dark ages. are you saying that their technology had the power to influence the earths temperature then? Then how can you think we have the power to influence it now to that extent? A single volcanic eruption blows more pollution into the air than humans have since we've been on the planet.

 

A warmer period preceded that time, and another and so on back. Just because we don't have as much RECORDED data like we do in this day and age absolutely doesn't mean it never happened. In fact, im pretty sure geological evidence and events in the past support this completely.

 

I think it may be arrogant on our part to assume that the planet really pays that much attention to us in the long run. Think out of the box for a second and look at the big picture.

 

I am of the opinion that nature can take care of itself. We put our current time on the planet and put it under a microscope because it is all we know. The pollution we cause now only hurts us. Even after a nuclear weapon, the planet will heal. Completely. It will not be in our lifetime, but that just reiterates my point that we only hurt ourselves, not the planet.

 

Earth was here long before we developed, and things were a hell of a lot more volatile geographically, atmospherically, etc. (think formation of the planet and the eons after when poisionous gasses, land mass movenet, volcanic super volcanoes, Pangea, etc. were around all the time. Earth will be here long after we are gone (or leave).

 

 

 

Kriss, thank you for your enthusiasm and support. Its important to understand this warming does not coincide with movement of noticeable proportions, it is the byproduct of the strain energy released at the crust/mantle boundary as the mantle is displaced. It is very subtle, very slow, which has made it an unseen contributor to the planets heat flux.

 

Volcanoes can contribute to heat flux in both directions and are a component player in this simply because as I stated earlier they make up the largest continuous mountain range in the world.

 

"world's largest continuous volcanic mountain range stretching 65,000 kilometers (40,400 mile) and occupies every ocean in the world including the Arctic Ocean sea floor. These volcanic structures rise to more than 3657 meters (12,000 ft.) high and are 1931 kilometers (1,200 miles) wide. While the average ocean crust depth is 8km (5 miles thick.) 1/5 as thick as the continents crust, it is just a mere 1 to 2 km (0.62 to 1.2 mi), at the point where the sea floor is continually formed by magma flowing into the fissure created by the opposing movement of the ocean crust. This process changes the ocean's volumetric heat capacity and through it the atmospheric thermal content."

 

Most of the strain energy released moves through this system.

 

 

 

Arc is mistaken. There has not been a corresponding increase in seismic activity that maps to either the rapidity or the magnitude of the temperature changes we are experiencing. If he were not mistaken and he actually had a valid point that were not so easily shot down with even a bit of remedial scrutity, he'd be a very rich and famous man winning Nobel prizes for his idea. I don't expect we'll be seeing him in Norway any time soon.

 

Again you have not read the thesis, you are making false assumptions because of a willful lack of understanding. I explained this already and now you are simply misrepresenting the model. You have been told you need to learn the details of it.

 

"It does require a willingness to explore the model, to discuss the simple mechanisms that produce the results that are observed. You up for it.smile.png"

 

So if you are not interested in understanding the model, there is no point in engaging you in conversation, it is pointless already.

Edited by arc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/recons.html

It's been accounted for by climatologists, which was my point. It's hardly based on one study as you're here now suggesting.

Well, even climatologists admit that more information is needed in order to make a full conclusion on the matter. People like Al Gore seem to over exaggerate the information that is provided. It seems different Universities have different statistics that point to different conclusions(which really confuses everyone in the long run).

 

I took a look at the graph provided by your source:

 

fig614.pngT

The last graph really threw me off. "NH Temperature response to natural and anthropogenic forcings". What? What does that mean? Does that mean they took the increase of the amount of cars and compared to the temprature increase? What data did they take to present that statistic?

 

 

 

Annual mean NH temperature (°C) simulated by three climate models under the forcings shown in (a) to ©, compared with the concentration of overlapping NH temperature reconstructions (shown by grey shading, modified from Figure 6.10c to account for the 1500 to 1899 reference period used here). 'All' (thick lines) used anthropogenic and natural forcings; 'Nat' (thin lines) used only natural forcings.

It just didn't provide enough information on what they specifically did to get the data. It could just be me, in which case I will take the fall.

Edited by Unity+

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate your input. I understand your perspective. My own position, however, is to take more seriously the proclamations of those who have studied this for decades than those coming from someone who concedes repeatedly that they know very little and haven't spent any serious effort learning more about the topic. Just because it "feels" right doesn't mean it is. Even if there are natural causes, that doesn't negate the fact that the single strongest contributor to the recent changes in climate are human contributions of greenhouse gasses in massive amounts.

Thank you! I absolutely agree, i know i do not have the background to speak definitively, and it drives me nuts sometimes :) but thats why i l sought out this forum. I respect and admire your expertise, and hope to get there someday! (im still young, give me time!I joined yesterday, and its the first time ive ever done anything like this, but i love the feedback from everyone and enjoy the things im learning from it. :) Surrounding myself with intelligent people and those with the knowledge to expand on these types of topics are exactly what i was looking for in joining a forum! I also appreciate the fact that you took the time to respond to me, even though I'm still very green. I'm glad that you and the people here want to nurture and expand the quest for knowledge and understanding. I feel like thats what its all about. lol, ok that was long winded im done now! :)

 

Kriss, thank you for your enthusiasm and support. Its important to understand this warming does not coincide with movement of noticeable proportions, it is the byproduct of the strain energy released at the crust/mantle boundary as the mantle is displaced. It is very subtle, very slow, which has made it an unseen contributor to the planets heat flux.

 

Volcanoes can contribute to heat flux in both directions and are a component player in this simply because as I stated earlier they make up the largest continuous mountain range in the world.

 

"world's largest continuous volcanic mountain range stretching 65,000 kilometers (40,400 mile) and occupies every ocean in the world including the Arctic Ocean sea floor. These volcanic structures rise to more than 3657 meters (12,000 ft.) high and are 1931 kilometers (1,200 miles) wide. While the average ocean crust depth is 8km (5 miles thick.) 1/5 as thick as the continents crust, it is just a mere 1 to 2 km (0.62 to 1.2 mi), at the point where the sea floor is continually formed by magma flowing into the fissure created by the opposing movement of the ocean crust. This process changes the ocean's volumetric heat capacity and through it the atmospheric thermal content."

 

Most of the strain energy released moves through this system.

 

 

 

 

Again you have not read the thesis, you are making false assumptions because of a willful lack of understanding. I explained this already and now you are simply misrepresenting the model. You have been told you need to learn the details of it.

 

"It does require a willingness to explore the model, to discuss the simple mechanisms that produce the results that are observed. You up for it.smile.png"

 

So if you are not interested in understanding the model, there is no point in engaging you in conversation, it is pointless already.

I apologize, i did not mean any disrespect :) im still getting through the model, its just taking me more time than i though, but i will make sure my future opinions are better founded and the model completely understood by myself. Thank you for your time, its been a very eye opening experience :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for those that are interested, this model can accurately predict.

 

The plaination that occurs before mountain ranges form

The formation of mountain ranges - both continental margin and the difficult to understand untill now continental interior

The formation of divergent plate boundaries

The formation of convergent plate boundaries

The variation in ridge infill among the worlds divergent plate boundaries

The basin and range area in the SW of N. America

Mariana Trench and why it is the deepest in the world

Continental break-up

Mid-ocean ridge offset faulting.

Island chains such as the Hawaiians and the Emperor sea mounts

Formation of island arcs (not me)

Why some convergent plate boundaries are currently active while some are less and others now dormant

 

This is what this model can deliver in accurate prediction of observations. The historic climate forcing seen in 14C tree ring samples shown earlier (and in even greater detail in the model) provide an answer to the variation through the geologic records of the past climate. A causative mechanism by this model, whether anybody wants to take the time to read and understand this is up to them.

 

But you really need to understand this model. Simply throwing out data related to the current model is pointless. It is based on a incomplete model.

Isn't it clear as to why it is so contentious?, so open to interpretation?, so many unknowns? The current model contends this recent warming stands separate from the preceding climate history. The warming being caused by industrial development. It could be but the model does not explain the preceding climate, the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period and so on into the past.

 

This is accuracy that the current model cannot deliver.


Thank you! I absolutely agree, i know i do not have the background to speak definitively, and it drives me nuts sometimes smile.png but thats why i l sought out this forum. I respect and admire your expertise, and hope to get there someday! (im still young, give me time!I joined yesterday, and its the first time ive ever done anything like this, but i love the feedback from everyone and enjoy the things im learning from it. smile.png Surrounding myself with intelligent people and those with the knowledge to expand on these types of topics are exactly what i was looking for in joining a forum! I also appreciate the fact that you took the time to respond to me, even though I'm still very green. I'm glad that you and the people here want to nurture and expand the quest for knowledge and understanding. I feel like thats what its all about. lol, ok that was long winded im done now! smile.png


I apologize, i did not mean any disrespect smile.png im still getting through the model, its just taking me more time than i though, but i will make sure my future opinions are better founded and the model completely understood by myself. Thank you for your time, its been a very eye opening experience smile.png

 

Kris, no need to apologize that terse response was directed at iNow. You are doing great, Thank you for joining in, keep going!

post-88603-0-52140800-1379273619_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

arc, lol ok good! i thought i had pissed you off through my "greenness". looking back at the post i saw your address to me and feel silly now! ha!


i just love learning new stuff :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for those that are interested, this model can accurately predict.

 

The plaination that occurs before mountain ranges form

The formation of mountain ranges - both continental margin and the difficult to understand untill now continental interior

The formation of divergent plate boundaries

The formation of convergent plate boundaries

The variation in ridge infill among the worlds divergent plate boundaries

The basin and range area in the SW of N. America

Mariana Trench and why it is the deepest in the world

Continental break-up

Mid-ocean ridge offset faulting.

Island chains such as the Hawaiians and the Emperor sea mounts

Formation of island arcs (not me)

Why some convergent plate boundaries are currently active while some are less and others now dormant

 

This is what this model can deliver in accurate prediction of observations. The historic climate forcing seen in 14C tree ring samples shown earlier (and in even greater detail in the model) provide an answer to the variation through the geologic records of the past climate. A causative mechanism by this model, whether anybody wants to take the time to read and understand this is up to them.

 

But you really need to understand this model. Simply throwing out data related to the current model is pointless. It is based on a incomplete model.

Isn't it clear as to why it is so contentious?, so open to interpretation?, so many unknowns? The current model contends this recent warming stands separate from the preceding climate history. The warming being caused by industrial development. It could be but the model does not explain the preceding climate, the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period and so on into the past.

 

This is accuracy that the current model cannot deliver.

 

Kris, no need to apologize that terse response was directed at iNow. You are doing great, Thank you for joining in, keep going!

One note to keep in mind is that some statistical similarities can be misleading. For example, if the amount of sun flares increase similarly to the amount of crime that happened that year, this does not mean that criminal activity is influenced by the amount of sun flares there are occurring. A full scientific study must take place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

arc, lol ok good! i thought i had pissed you off through my "greenness". looking back at the post i saw your address to me and feel silly now! ha!

i just love learning new stuff smile.png

I'm new at this too! I just learned I need to always address the person whom I am talking to.doh.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm new at this too! I just learned I need to always address the person whom I am talking to.doh.gif

hahaha! and i need to pay more attention!

also thank you unity+ :) ive never been surrounded by so many smart ppl/experts at once, its pretty awesome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kris - Here's a site you should reference whenever someone claims something about global climate change: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

 

 

Arc - I have zero interest in engaging you on this topic. I grew tired long ago of having debates about climate science with people who prefer to ignore the obvious. I apologize if I gave you an alternative impression. As I said, if there is any merit in your claims I look forward to seeing your photos of Norway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kris - Here's a site you should reference whenever someone claims something about global climate change: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

 

 

Arc - I have zero interest in engaging you on this topic. I grew tired long ago of having debates about climate science with people who prefer to ignore the obvious. I apologize if I gave you an alternative impression. As I said, if there is any merit in your claims I look forward to seeing your photos of Norway.

Well, the fact that you only look to one source to apprehend your evidence just shows some lack of credibility for statistical information on your part. It would be like only looking at Rational Wikipedia for information, claiming it has all the right un-bias information, and then one would realize that going back to Wikipedia would bring a completely different explanation of the topic, whether with bias or not.

 

And, why even participate in this topic if you just said you aren't interested in engaging in the topic? Seems counter-intuitive to your objective.

 

And what is the relevance of Norway to this discussion? You seem to assert something without even being specific.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/recons.html

It's been accounted for by climatologists, which was my point. It's hardly based on one study as you're here now suggesting.

I never suggested anything of the sort. I stated that it takes much more to make a full conclusion on a controversial area such as climate change. Continuous scientific study is required. In fact, it would take much time to make a full conclusion on the Earth's natural cycle of climate in order to make a full conclusion on Earth natural cycles.

 

Both arguments require more time to analyze. It would be like declaring the existence of a new particle just based on 10 sets of statistical data. It required the existence of the Higgs Boson over 10 years to confirm it's existence and it is still debatable of whether there may be more Higgs Bosons than thought. You must be careful with both arguments.

 

The theorization of the Higgs boson occurred only in 1964, which since it's confirmation in 2012-2013, this would mean it took 48 years to even declare one particle to exist because of the complexity of the particle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

 

While address of global warming occurred in the 1950's, more scientific analysis of it began after 1992. Since it is 2013, this means that it has only been 21 years since the hypothesis of global warming has been analyzed. It will probably take way more years to have a complete understanding of Earth's ecosystem and the effects of humans on the natural environment, though intensive study has been done on small parts of human activity, such as the destruction of habitats and its affect on animals in the wild, which is more of an obvious conclusion, but still requires more analysis.

 

You must think of humans as a species on Earth as well when referring to the scientific changes in the ecosystem related to habitat changes. There are other animals that are invade into other species' habitat, which effects the population of that species.

 

However, we can continue to debate the issue until a full conclusion can be announced(and let us hope it is announced without political bias because then science would be rule by politics rather than through the process of science). Declaring one side over the other fact until then would be to the contrary of scientific declaration.

Edited by Unity+

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the fact that you only look to one source to apprehend your evidence just shows some lack of credibility for statistical information on your part. It would be like only looking at Rational Wikipedia for information, claiming it has all the right un-bias information, and then one would realize that going back to Wikipedia would bring a completely different explanation of the topic, whether with bias or not.

 

And, why even participate in this topic if you just said you aren't interested in engaging in the topic? Seems counter-intuitive to your objective.

 

And what is the relevance of Norway to this discussion? You seem to assert something without even being specific.

I never suggested anything of the sort. I stated that it takes much more to make a full conclusion on a controversial area such as climate change. Continuous scientific study is required. In fact, it would take much time to make a full conclusion on the Earth's natural cycle of climate in order to make a full conclusion on Earth natural cycles.

 

Both arguments require more time to analyze. It would be like declaring the existence of a new particle just based on 10 sets of statistical data. It required the existence of the Higgs Boson over 10 years to confirm it's existence and it is still debatable of whether there may be more Higgs Bosons than thought. You must be careful with both arguments.

 

The theorization of the Higgs boson occurred only in 1964, which since it's confirmation in 2012-2013, this would mean it took 48 years to even declare one particle to exist because of the complexity of the particle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

 

While address of global warming occurred in the 1950's, more scientific analysis of it began after 1992. Since it is 2013, this means that it has only been 21 years since the hypothesis of global warming has been analyzed. It will probably take way more years to have a complete understanding of Earth's ecosystem and the effects of humans on the natural environment, though intensive study has been done on small parts of human activity, such as the destruction of habitats and its affect on animals in the wild, which is more of an obvious conclusion, but still requires more analysis.

 

You must think of humans as a species on Earth as well when referring to the scientific changes in the ecosystem related to habitat changes. There are other animals that are invade into other species' habitat, which effects the population of that species.

 

However, we can continue to debate the issue until a full conclusion can be announced(and let us hope it is announced without political bias because then science would be rule by politics rather than through the process of science). Declaring one side over the other fact until then would be to the contrary of scientific declaration.

i really like your observation about viewing humans as a species on the earth. that was actually a thought that was rolling around in my mind when i made an earlier argument about the entirety of climate change, you helped me put that last piece together on that aspect! you explained it so much better than my attempt earlier, not to mention expanded my own view! nice!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arc - I have zero interest in engaging you on this topic. I grew tired long ago of having debates about climate science with people who prefer to ignore the obvious. I apologize if I gave you an alternative impression. As I said, if there is any merit in your claims I look forward to seeing your photos of Norway.

That has been more than apparent. Yet, here you still are.

 

ARC

Posted 10 September 2013 - 07:36 PM

I see you are still over there in the standard model of earth's geodynamics, that will not work to understand this phenomena. You will need to acquaint yourself to a new model to see what is behind the Earth's climate history and how it relates to the geologic movements of the continents. It's not complex for what it can do in predicting historic and current geology and climate . It does require a willingness to explore the model, to discuss the simple mechanisms that produce the results that are observed. You up for it.smile.png

The offer is still open.smile.png

I think its time to apply this model to some more climate change phenomena.

 

Although this is from Nov. 2008 it is an interesting NASA article on ocean levels and the difficulties that are confounding the researchers.

http://earthobservat...s/OceanCooling/

Quote: The two main causes of sea level rise are melting of Earth’s frozen landscapes—ice sheets, ice caps, and glaciers—and thermal expansion. Water expands when it absorbs heat. If you add the amount of thermal expansion to the amount of melting, it should equal the observed sea level rise, but somehow, it never did.

Here's another,

What we found was that ocean heating was larger than scientists previously thought, and so the contribution of thermal expansion to sea level rise was actually 50 percent larger than previous estimates.”

So they know what these input values are, but the sea level rise is 50% higher than estimates would suggest.

The ocean expansion is what is being observed. It does not equal the rise when added to the melt.

And one more.

“In this analysis, we focused on 1961-2003 because it is the time period highlighted as being an important, unresolved issue in the last IPCC report [intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report],” said Domingues, “but also because the problems with the newest Argo data—the problems that Josh Willis found as well as other problems we have identified—haven’t been totally solved. For the most recent years [2003-2007], the sea level budget once again does not close. Our team is still working on that problem.”

“One thing we found was that climate models that do not include volcanic forcing tend to overestimate the long-term change, and their simulated decadal variability is not in agreement with the observations. On the other hand, the models that include volcanic forcing are more realistic in terms of decadal variability, but they tend to slightly underestimate the long-term warming,” she says. “This kind of result tells us volcanic forcing is important, but that we don’t totally understand it yet.”

"Over estimate" and "is not in agreement" vs "more realistic and slightly underestimates".

Hmmmm. Maybe the deep ocean has another heat source.

The article is worth reading.

Here's something else that is related;

ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat05.pdf Warming of the world ocean, 1955–2003

S. Levitus, J. Antonov, and T. Boyer

National Oceanographic Data Center, NOAA, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA

Received 22 September 2004; revised 24 November 2004; accepted 8 December 2004; published 22 January 2005.

Thus, a mean temperature change of 0.1 C. of the world ocean would correspond roughly to a mean temperature change of 100 C. of the global atmosphere if all the heat associated with this ocean anomaly was instantaneously transferred from the ocean to the atmosphere. This of course will not happen but this computation illustrates the enormous heat capacity of the ocean versus the atmosphere.

Wow, the ocean looks like it is the dominant thermal content around here. Except for that it is 1/22,000 thousandths of the terrestrial mass of the Earth.

So using the NOAA example above, what would a similar 0.1 C mean change in the Earth's volumetric heat capacity (VHC) do to the ocean? Make it phase change into something like Venus?

So this unaccounted 50% expansion in the deep ocean could be a vary vary vary small natural variation in the Earth's VHC manifesting through ocean hydro-thermal and volcanic systems. happy.png

Edited by arc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the fact that you only look to one source to apprehend your evidence just shows some lack of credibility for statistical information on your part.

I do not look only to one source. I said that source is helpful. Please, learn to read and learn to comprehend the difference. That site also has scores of references for every claim made which is part of the reason I find it so useful. It takes common myths against climate change, explains why they are flawed, and then supports their arguments with very solid peer-reviewed research. I recommend you review links prior to making comments about them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not look only to one source. I said that source is helpful. Please, learn to read and learn to comprehend the difference. That site also has scores of references for every claim made which is part of the reason I find it so useful. It takes common myths against climate change, explains why they are flawed, and then supports their arguments with very solid peer-reviewed research. I recommend you review links prior to making comments about them.

 

 

Here's a site you should reference whenever someone claims something about global climate change

But this post suggests on the contrary.

 

Also, I did not see much to review on the site besides clearly biased arguments. I took a look at their references as well, and all I could find is the source that supposedly gave the statistic and then just links the homepage. You can provide the sources those articles presents if you really want to claim such things using a clearly biased site.

Edited by Unity+

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what is the relevance of Norway to this discussion? You seem to assert something without even being specific.

You REALLY need to learn to read. I've already explained this reference earlier in the thread. There's a reasonably well known prize that gets awarded there.

 

While address of global warming occurred in the 1950's, more scientific analysis of it began after 1992. Since it is 2013, this means that it has only been 21 years since the hypothesis of global warming has been analyzed.

Sorry, but wrong again. If you are going to continue making factual statements, you really ought to at least confirm they are facts before making them.

 

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

 

 

However, we can continue to debate the issue until a full conclusion can be announced

Debate all you want. I agree, there is ALWAYS more to learn, but we have a very firm grasp of what's happening here and conclusions CAN be drawn. We don't have a full understanding of quantum mechanics, yet that science is at the heart of the computer you are using to type your responses. Surely, you're not suggesting we cannot conclude that computers work because we lack a COMPLETE understanding?

 

 

 

pie-chart-climate.png.492x0_q85_crop-sma

 

scientific_consensus_global_wa.jpg

 

729px-Climate_science_opinion2.png

But this post suggests on the contrary.

No, it doesn't. Do you have a diagnosed problem with reading comprehension?

 

 

 

Also, I did not see much to review on the site besides clearly biased arguments. I took a look at their references as well, and all I could find is the source that supposedly gave the statistic and then just links the homepage.

 

Oh FFS, try looking into one of the answers to the myths in the "What the Science Says" section. doh.gif

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Edited by iNow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You REALLY need to learn to read. I've already explained this reference earlier in the thread. There's a reasonably well known prize that gets awarded there.

 

Sorry, but wrong again. If you are going to continue making factual statements, you really ought to at least confirm they are facts before making them.

 

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

 

 

Debate all you want. I agree, there is ALWAYS more to learn, but we have a very firm grasp of what's happening here and conclusions CAN be drawn. We don't have a full understanding of quantum mechanics, yet that science is at the heart of the computer you are using to type your responses. Surely, you're not suggesting we cannot conclude that computers work because we lack a COMPLETE understanding?

 

 

 

pie-chart-climate.png.492x0_q85_crop-sma

 

scientific_consensus_global_wa.jpg

 

729px-Climate_science_opinion2.png

No, it doesn't. Do you have a diagnosed problem with reading comprehension?

Sorry, the pictures distracted me because of how large they were. Alright, let us analyze the information you have given from some source that you have not given.

 

First picture: 13,905 articles peer-reviewed and 24 reject global warming. I wonder what the peer-reviewers had to say about the papers themselves.

 

Second picture: Okay...you give a percentage but fail to give the sample size out of the whole population. Also, no source given(for some one who accuses me of not giving sources, which I did).

 

Third picture: Again, no sample size given.

 

I don't know what you tried to gain from presenting unreliable statistics without 1) giving a source 2) giving the sample sizes. The thing that drives me nuts is when people follow the commercial route of saying that 97% of some population do something when they only took a sample of 100 or so people.

 

Also, noticed the small, fine print on the bottom of the homepage of that site:

 

 

 

The statements on this site represent the views of the author and are not positions endorsed by the American Institute of Physics. Two of the Institute's Member Societies have taken positions on climate change

I am guessing that you forgot to read that small, fine print that people tend to leave on the farthest side of the scope just to get a point across that may not be factual.

 

Also,

 

 

 

Additional External Influences 1950-1980

TOP OF PAGE

This is a reference list of miscellaneous significant developments that don't fit into any of the other essays: scientific-technical matters that arose altogether independently of the scientific fields covered, and are not included above in the list of major "milestones," but that did have a significant influence on climate change studies.

Before the 1950s there were practically no global warming studies as such, and all the important discoveries (the ice ages, the infrared absorption of carbon dioxide, etc.) were effectively "external."

1950s:

Research on military applications of radar and infrared radiation promotes advances in radiative transfer theory and measurements =>Radiation math — Studies conducted largely for military applications give accurate values of infrared absorption by gases =>CO2 greenhouse — Nuclear physicists and chemists develop Carbon-14 analysis, useful for dating ancient climate changes=>Carbon dates, for detecting carbon from fossil fuels in the atmosphere, and for measuring the rate of ocean turnover =>CO2 greenhouse — Development of digital computers affects many fields including the calculation of radiation transfer in the atmosphere =>Radiation math, and makes it possible to model weather processes =>Models (GCMs) — Geological studies of polar wandering help provoke Ewing-Donn model of ice ages =>Simple models — Improvements in infrared instrumentation (mainly for industrial processes) allow very precise measurements of atmospheric CO2 =>CO2 greenhouse.

 

1960s:

Analysis of automobile and airplane exhaust pollution brings recognition of complex chemical and light interactions in the atmosphere, especially involving ozone =>Other gases — Research on urban air pollution, and related industrial and military applications,improves knowledge of aerosols and atmospheric turbidity =>Aerosols — Studies of fallout from nuclear weapons tests give improved picture of circulation of aerosols in the stratosphere =>Aerosols— Studies of fallout and pesticides foster worries that human technology can bring world-wide disaster =>Public opinion — Research on small-scale phenomena in various fields of geophysics (cloud formation, soil moisture, etc.) provides information useful for setting crucial parameters in global computer models=>Models (GCMs) — Studies of rice paddies and other biological and agricultural entities show emission of large quantities of methane =>Other gases.

 

1970s:

Neutrino experiments and new astrophysical theories suggest that the Sun could be a variable star=>Solar variation — Models of glacier flow, developed by generations of glaciologists, reveal a possibly catastrophic instability in the Antarctic ice sheet =>Sea rise & ice — Fallout from nuclear weapons tests, slowly penetrating the oceans, reveals deep circulation patterns =>The oceans — Studies of ancient reversals of the Earth's magnetic field, measured in continental rocks and the ocean floor, provide a time-marker for climate changes =>Climate cycles — Ocean geologists find huge deposits of methane-bearing ices in the world’s seabeds =>Other gases — Continued rapid improvement of digital computers and software makes possible fairly realistic models of complex systems like climate =>Models (GCMs) — Nimbus-III and other satellites, designed chiefly for weather prediction, provide global data essential for climate modelling =>Models (GCMs).

After about 1980, efforts that would be relevant to global warming were generally undertaken with an awareness of potential connections.

Research began more mainstream by the 1960's, as I stated in my earlier post.

Edited by Unity+

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You REALLY need to learn to read. I've already explained this reference earlier in the thread. There's a reasonably well known prize that gets awarded there.

 

Sorry, but wrong again. If you are going to continue making factual statements, you really ought to at least confirm they are facts before making them.

 

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

 

 

Debate all you want. I agree, there is ALWAYS more to learn, but we have a very firm grasp of what's happening here and conclusions CAN be drawn. We don't have a full understanding of quantum mechanics, yet that science is at the heart of the computer you are using to type your responses. Surely, you're not suggesting we cannot conclude that computers work because we lack a COMPLETE understanding?

 

 

 

pie-chart-climate.png.492x0_q85_crop-sma

 

scientific_consensus_global_wa.jpg

 

729px-Climate_science_opinion2.png

No, it doesn't. Do you have a diagnosed problem with reading comprehension?

 

WOW, my model has the same warming but it can integrate it into the historical climate history. Making accurate predictions that your model doesn't and that you are going out of your way to avoid.

 

If 100% of the climate scientist were looking at the wrong model, which they are, then they would all be wrong!

 

This is about two different models, one makes accurate predictions of current and past climate and geodynamics, the other can only refer to climate since around 1850 to present and can't explain what is going on anyway. Why is the ocean expansion 50% more than estimated? Oh ya I forgot the old model can't tell me.

Edited by arc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You REALLY need to learn to read. I've already explained this reference earlier in the thread. There's a reasonably well known prize that gets awarded there.

 

Sorry, but wrong again. If you are going to continue making factual statements, you really ought to at least confirm they are facts before making them.

 

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

 

 

Debate all you want. I agree, there is ALWAYS more to learn, but we have a very firm grasp of what's happening here and conclusions CAN be drawn. We don't have a full understanding of quantum mechanics, yet that science is at the heart of the computer you are using to type your responses. Surely, you're not suggesting we cannot conclude that computers work because we lack a COMPLETE understanding?

 

 

 

pie-chart-climate.png.492x0_q85_crop-sma

 

scientific_consensus_global_wa.jpg

 

729px-Climate_science_opinion2.png

No, it doesn't. Do you have a diagnosed problem with reading comprehension?

 

 

 

 

Oh FFS, try looking into one of the answers to the myths in the "What the Science Says" section. doh.gif

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

You are the one who is making your assertions, so it is expected that you give the information so it is easily found.

 

Also, attacking some by asking if they have a disorder makes it seem like you are more insulting than intelligent.

Edited by Unity+

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Debate all you want. I agree, there is ALWAYS more to learn, but we have a very firm grasp of what's happening here and conclusions CAN be drawn.

 

Why is the ocean expansion 50% more than estimated?

 

I anxiously await your model's results.

Edited by arc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, attacking some by asking if they have a disorder makes it seem like you are more insulting than intelligent.

It wasn't an attack, but a sincere question given the responses you were providing.

Why is the ocean expansion 50% more than estimated?

First, please provide a source that demonstrates this is accurate. My guess is that now you are citing one specific study, instead of the consensus view.

 

Second, I would like it noted that you are now merely moving the goal posts. I was clearly referring to our understanding of the forcing agents impacting the increase in global average annual temperatures, not models about ocean expansion. Clever tactic, but I have no need to defend claims I have not made.

Kris - Water expands as it warms. So, we have ice melting which increases sea levels, but we also have warming waters which cause it to expand relative to cooler waters.

It's called thermal expansion, but again... That's entirely irrelevant to any points I've been making and is a bit of a red herring.

http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2010/finalwebsite/background/globalwarming/sealevelrise.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't an attack, but a sincere question given the responses you were providing.

First, please provide a source that demonstrates this is accurate. My guess is that now you are citing one specific study, instead of the consensus view.

 

Second, I would like it noted that you are now merely moving the goal posts. I was clearly referring to our understanding of the forcing agents impacting the increase in global average annual temperatures, not models about ocean expansion. Clever tactic, but I have no need to defend claims I have not made.

Kris - Water expands as it warms. So, we have ice melting which increases sea levels, but we also have warming waters which cause it to expand relative to cooler waters.

It's called thermal expansion, but again... That's entirely irrelevant to any points I've been making and is a bit of a red herring.

http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2010/finalwebsite/background/globalwarming/sealevelrise.html

 

Post #40, here it is again.

 

I think its time to apply this model to some more climate change phenomena.

Although this is from Nov. 2008 it is an interesting NASA article on ocean levels and the difficulties that are confounding the researchers.

http://earthobservat...s/OceanCooling/

Quote: The two main causes of sea level rise are melting of Earth’s frozen landscapes—ice sheets, ice caps, and glaciers—and thermal expansion. Water expands when it absorbs heat. If you add the amount of thermal expansion to the amount of melting, it should equal the observed sea level rise, but somehow, it never did.

Here's another,

What we found was that ocean heating was larger than scientists previously thought, and so the contribution of thermal expansion to sea level rise was actually 50 percent larger than previous estimates.”

So they know what these input values are, but the sea level rise is 50% higher than estimates would suggest.

The ocean expansion is what is being observed. It does not equal the rise when added to the melt.

And one more.

“In this analysis, we focused on 1961-2003 because it is the time period highlighted as being an important, unresolved issue in the last IPCC report [intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report],” said Domingues, “but also because the problems with the newest Argo data—the problems that Josh Willis found as well as other problems we have identified—haven’t been totally solved. For the most recent years [2003-2007], the sea level budget once again does not close. Our team is still working on that problem.”

“One thing we found was that climate models that do not include volcanic forcing tend to overestimate the long-term change, and their simulated decadal variability is not in agreement with the observations. On the other hand, the models that include volcanic forcing are more realistic in terms of decadal variability, but they tend to slightly underestimate the long-term warming,” she says. “This kind of result tells us volcanic forcing is important, but that we don’t totally understand it yet.”

"Over estimate" and "is not in agreement" vs "more realistic and slightly underestimates".

Hmmmm. Maybe the deep ocean has another heat source.

The article is worth reading.

Here's something else that is related;

ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat05.pdf Warming of the world ocean, 1955–2003

S. Levitus, J. Antonov, and T. Boyer

National Oceanographic Data Center, NOAA, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA

Received 22 September 2004; revised 24 November 2004; accepted 8 December 2004; published 22 January 2005.

Thus, a mean temperature change of 0.1 C. of the world ocean would correspond roughly to a mean temperature change of 100 C. of the global atmosphere if all the heat associated with this ocean anomaly was instantaneously transferred from the ocean to the atmosphere. This of course will not happen but this computation illustrates the enormous heat capacity of the ocean versus the atmosphere.

Wow, the ocean looks like it is the dominant thermal content around here. Except for that it is 1/22,000 thousandths of the terrestrial mass of the Earth.

So using the NOAA example above, what would a similar 0.1 C mean change in the Earth's volumetric heat capacity (VHC) do to the ocean? Make it phase change into something like Venus?

So this unaccounted 50% expansion in the deep ocean could be a vary vary vary small natural variation in the Earth's VHC manifesting through ocean hydro-thermal and volcanic systems. happy.png

Or as I like to call it; Strain energy.

Edited by arc

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.