A place for comments that would otherwise disrupt sensible conversations.
Reader Interactions
2040 Responses to "The Bore Hole"
J Doug Swallowsays
#37 23 Feb 2021 at 6:47 AM Barton Paul Levenson says: “JDS apparently still doesn’t know the difference between weather and climate”. JDS knows from experience with folks like Barton Paul Levenson that if it is cold events such as this; MONSTER ARCTIC FRONT ENGULFS ASIA AND CANADA, AS EUROPE’S LONGEST BRIDGE IS CLOSED DUE TO SNOW
FEBRUARY 24, 2021 CAP ALLON
While parts of the United States and Europe enjoy a brief respite from the frostbite, the majority of Canada, transcontinental Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan continue to suffer from a descended Arctic.
Siberia is suffering one its coldest winters on record, with temperatures in the vast Northern Asian region having regularly dipped below -50C (-58F) since mid-December, 2020. https://electroverse.net/arctic-front-engulfs-asia-and-canada-as-europes-longest-bridge-is-closed/
That is only weather; but, if it is a few hot days in Paris in 2019, then that is for sure a sign of climate change.
MEDIA BIAS ON SHOW DURING EUROPE’S HEATWAVE JUNE 27, 2019 CAP ALLON1 COMMENT I can only assume our popular news outlets will give similar attention to the anomalous cold currently bearing down on the continent, on course to hit early next week… https://electroverse.net/?s=Paris+heat+wave
J Doug Swallowsays
Dr. Henrik Svensmark, who is a great scientist because he does experiments to validate his believes, knows that it is the sun that determines what the Earth’s climate does.
Svensmark: Evidence continues to build that the Sun drives climate, not CO2
In his lecture at the recent EIKE Climate and Energy Conference, Professor Henrik Svensmark explains how the evidence continues to accumulate that solar activity is the primary driver of climate, on timescales ranging from hours to millions of years.” Prof. Dr. Henrik Svensmark http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/svensmark-evidence-continues-to-build.html
#12 Barton Paul Levenson says: “There are mountains of empirical evidence for it. You’ve been pointed to that evidence in the past. Not very honest for you to repeat that charge anyway, is it?” One can wonder why, if “there are mountains of empirical evidence for it” why Barton Paul Levenson doesn’t provide the links that would allow me to see all of this evidence for myself? Now for Barton Paul Levenson’s “mountains of empirical evidence for it” and to ask just who is being dishonest.
“First direct observation of carbon dioxide’s increasing greenhouse effect”
by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
“Scientists have observed an increase in carbon dioxide’s greenhouse effect at the Earth’s surface for the first time. The researchers, led by scientists from the US Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), measured atmospheric carbon dioxide’s increasing capacity to absorb thermal radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface over an eleven-year period at two locations in North America. They attributed this upward trend to rising CO2 levels from fossil fuel emissions”.
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-carbon-dioxide-greenhouse-effect.html?fbclid=IwAR1zYhhQouo1cHcn_ipSz9xgbxjjcpXY7XTq4aL0UxTni5V5CgUDHeHPIyI
The experiment showed the opposite of what they’re wanting folks to believe, that CO₂ causes warming.
“It all goes back to the latest surface radiation measurements recently published in an essay in Nature (details here and here). However no one seems to have noticed that the measurements actually showed the exact opposite of what is claimed to have been proven above, namely nothing other than what serious climate critics have always been saying about anthropogenic greenhouse effect. The number for the increase in CO2-dependent back radiation given by Nature of 0.2 watt/m2 per decade is indeed in reality nothing more than trifle. Why would the earth be shocked when 1367 watts per square meter strikes the surface at noon along the equator? The ever-changing deviations from this so-called solar constant mean value are in fact considerably greater than the above given 0.2 watts/m2.” https://notrickszone.com/2015/03/08/german-physical-chemistry-scientist-on-nature-article-of-proof-of-co2-forcing-measurements-show-exact-opposite/
Once again we see the old, tired “explanation” for the mid-20th century cooling as the masking of an underlying warming trend by industrial aerosol emissions:
“If you assume that all trends are a simple linear ramp, and call everything left-over an “oscillation”, then the simple fact that global warming flattened out from the 1950s through the 1970s driven by the ramp-up in cooling sulphate aerosol pollution masquerades as an apparent “oscillation” on top of a simple linear trend. We’ve published a number of articles over the years (see e.g. here, here, here, here, here, and here) demonstrating that studies that use such an approach to define the AMO end up mis-attributing to a natural “oscillation” what is actually human-caused climate change.”
In other words “climate change” in either direction, warming or cooling, can be attributed to the same cause. When the industrial burning of fossil fuels appears to produce increased warming, that’s evidence of “human-caused climate change” — and when the same burning appears to produce a cooling effect (due to aerosols) that too is evidence of “human-caused climate change.” Heads I win, tails you lose.
Only that won’t work — as I demonstrated some time ago on this very blog, presumably monitored by Professor Mann. When we examine temperature records for regions with little or no industrial activity, lo and behold: the expected warming trend fails to appear. Now I have no idea whether or not the “Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation” is a real phenomenon or an artifact. But using industrial aerosols to explain the very real cooling trend we see from ca. 1940 through ca. 1979 (40 years!) would appear to be a serious error, produced by the failure to invoke the most fundamental scientific controls.
For details, I refer the reader to the following blog post (http://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/2021/03/thoughts-on-climate-change-part-10.html#more ), where I present relevant temperature data for the Arctic, the Antarctic, Africa, Madagascar, Siberia, Afghanistan, Burundi, Haiti, Kyrgistan and New Caledonia. In all cases, the data for the period 1940-1979 fails to reveal any trace of the assumed warming trend, despite the absence of much in the way of industrial activity.
Dan DaSilvasays
“”the now iconic “Hockey Stick” “”, what made it iconic? Not science that is for sure. If any high school student wants to learn how to not chart variables this is indeed “iconic”.
Congratulations for revisiting a notion that everyone takes for granted. If you want to write about additional things which don’t “actually exist”, I’d recommend taking a closer look at ocean acidification, followed by the AMOC and the MJO.
Climate Detectivesays
I think the most intriguing statement in the above post is this:
“I co-authored an article (Mann et al, 1995) in the [journal] Nature demonstrating the apparent persistence of these multidecadal oscillations several centuries back in time based on the analysis of paleoclimate proxy data (our analysis of similar proxy data would ultimately lead, a few years later, to the now well-known “hockey stick” curve that shows the warming of the past century to be anomalous in a long-term context).”
So does this mean sometimes proxy data is wrong and sometimes it isn’t? Discuss…
barn E. rubblesays
My apologies for late reply. Working in the outback of the Kawarthas where the innertubes are sporadic at best and saved for emergencies.
RE: 32 Piotr says:
“No, it does not mean that. It means that slowing/reversing the changes to the climate caused by humans, DOES NOT require the ability of the governments to CONTROL … ”
Perhaps you can tell me how that is even imaginable, let alone remotely achievable without government’s (meaning most of them – and all the big ones) CONTROL.
RE: ” . . . weather every day for the next “30+ years”. It requires though reducing the human GHGs global FORCING that causes the climate changes in the first place.”
Again. Voluntary? Perhaps you can tell me how reducing the human GHGs (to where it would make any difference) is even imaginable, let alone remotely achievable without government’s (meaning most of them – and all the big ones) CONTROL.
RE: “The same way like loosing weight does not require predicting and CONTROLING instantaneous changes in metabolic activity in every cell in your body for many months ahead (since the sum of these would affect whether you gain or lose weight) – I’d suggest first try to eat less and to move more.”
This bit made me laugh. Losing weight means having CONTROL. Complete CONTROL. Full stop. IE: eat less and move more.
RE: “Nobody decides _that – given the high mixing rate – the reductions in emissions of CO2 have global, not regional, targets.”
‘Targets’ is the key word here. Meaning targets have been chosen. Someone(s) has(ve) to decide what those targets are. Who are they and why do they get to decide what those targets are for all of us?
RE: “As for “what is considered a win” – I’d say a win is to slow the warming and then stabilize the climate as close as possible to what we USED TO HAVE . . .”
How south do you live? What makes you think we all want what we used to have? Like, longer colder winters? I’m sure you’ve thought of how much extra fossil fuels that requires? A vicious cycle until reliable energy sources replace them or just a carbon-tax and we’ll pretend it helps.
RE: “. . . The further above that point we are – the bigger the damage to the ecosystems that evolved in colder climates and the higher the risk of instability, positive feedbacks, and runaway climate change, which, by lowering our crops, may end us as a civilization.”
That bit didn’t make any sense to me. Perhaps I misunderstood. Current renewables have a proven, demonstrable, devastating environmental impact with no proven, demonstrable, environmental or climate impact. Crop yields have consistently, almost exponentially, risen over the last 30 years (yes, farming practices and plant/seed engineering also helped). Manitoba didn’t get into corn (as food) until the growing season allowed it. So how far back to what we used to have do we go?
RE: “Compared to that – keeping the Earth warmer than it used to be just so Canadian winters are more comfortable – seem rather self-centered and short-sighted. Not very Canadian, eh?”
Well first, and I’m speaking for many in the northern climes of the US and elsewhere in the world (and I mean this in a nice way, as I’m sure the others do) “Bite me.” Perhaps you can tell me why I (or anyone ‘north’) should be more concerned about Ocean-front properties? Or better, why are you? Longer growing seasons in Canada (and everywhere/elsewhere ‘north’) provides food for the world; need I mention our commitment to providing food to the 3rd world? Protecting Ocean-front property helps who? Al Gore? The worlds population will continue to increase and when it becomes exponential where will the food come from? Will either the East Coast or West Coast (go in as many miles/kilometers as you like) provide that food? So New York City is underwater? They can move. Perhaps you might consider getting into the Gondola business now because they’re not ‘gonna’ move. They’ll adapt but they still have to eat.
And yes, I have become more self-centred as I got older. (I think it’s a rule.) When I was younger, I couldn’t wait for winter. Skiing, skating, sledding, snowmobiling, there was no end to fun. I remember jumping off the porch into almost head-high snow to try and find Dad’s car. Now it’s just cold and I get cranky . . .
barn E. rubblesays
RE: 58
Ray Ladbury says:
14 Mar 2021 at 8:18 AM
“Do better.”
The biggest issue I had with the whole ‘climate-gate’ thing was just what a pathetic shambles the entire weather/climate record was. One guy – and that was made very clear – only one office had ’em all, couldn’t or maybe could find them, or some of them somewhere, or whatever, in one office, depending on who asked . . . but it would have to wait because another conference had to be attended. Pathetic and indefensible.
“Do Better” should have a been a sign posted where all could see.
barn E. rubblesays
RE: 61 Paul Pukite (@whut) says:
” . . . detailed cross-validation of many climate models, . . .”
Here’s the thing Paul; you, I or anyone can do it. Take a cocktail napkin, draw the X and Y axis. Now starting (usually towards the bottom) of the X axis and just draw a wiggly line that goes up as you move to the right above the Y axis. It will look and fit in with all/most other computer models you care to point to or reference.
I know. Seems silly doesn’t it? But that’s how all (sorry most) computer models work. They are specifically programmed to show an increase in heat with an increase of CO2. Period. There is no surprise because we have yet to come up with a ‘God-Code’ that will produce results no one thought of. The results are programmed. Unfortunately results are the intention of computer models. Yes, add whatever else you want into the mix and change the wiggly bits with each run but the trend is as intended. The napkin runs can be repeated under the same conditions, as many times, and will produce the same results just faster and a lot cheaper.
Until ‘other things’ become a main part of the programming will there be any surprises, perhaps even matching observations.
Hello, as a practicing published hydroclimatologist, I submitted a comment to your site. I’m archiving these comment submissions to use at my own site, which just received over 6,000 visits in a day from readers of climate topics around the world. That may pale in comparison to visits at your site but that’s hard to confirm since you don’t transparently display visitor counts. Given that my last comment as a hydrologist was rejected, you also appear to cancel opinions that don’t fit a certain profile, I guess. So I’m not judging your site, just setting up your cancellation facts for my own continuing climate posts. Recently you cancelled the AMO. My earlier cancelled comment recommended you also explore other notions that are not real, including ocean acidification, the AMOC and the MJO. How about it?
Romainsays
Ray Ladbury, 63, responding to Mr KIA.
KIA: “Humans have been collecting large quantities of accurate and global climate data for less than 100 years, probably for only 70 years.”
RL: Utter and complete bullshit. bla bla bla”
Romain: Mr KIA wrote about accurate and global, and you answer with some long local records and extremely long proxy records…maybe it’s not too late to realise the bullshit is on your side?
How accurate are the proxys? Hint: think Tiljander.
Do you have enough of these long local records to be able to reconstruct a global one? Hint: the vast majority of sub-saharian african records are less than 70 years old. How do you reconstruct before that without Africa, and South America, the Indian ocean, etc…(please no bristlecone!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Historical_Climatology_Network
J Doug Swallowsays
Did the authors of this piece, Jim Kossin, Tim Hall, Mike Mann, and Stefan Rahmstorf, mention anything about this fact below; “Prior to this 140-month stretch without a major hurricane strike, the longest major hurricane drought was the 96 months between September 1860 and August 1869.”? I didn’t see any reference to this information and I doubt that this comment by me will be posted on this blog because it has to do with the truth.
(CNSNews.com) — Saturday, June 24 marked the completion of a record 140 straight months since the last major hurricane made landfall in the continental United States, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA).
The last major hurricane to hit the continental U.S. was Hurricane Wilma, which struck Florida on Oct. 24, 2005. According to NOAA, four major hurricanes hit the continental United States that year. They included Wilma, Rita, Katrina, and Dennis.
But since Wilma, no Category 3 or above hurricane has made landfall in the continental United States, making June 24, 2017 the end of a record 140 months without a major hurricane strike.
Prior to this 140-month stretch without a major hurricane strike, the longest major hurricane drought was the 96 months between September 1860 and August 1869. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/gage-cohen/record-140-months-major-hurricane-strike-us
46
Steven, specifically which peer-reviewed paper allegedly provides the most convincing evidence that we are currently experiencing a “climate crisis”?
Why should a rational person believe that most scientists believe that we are currently experiencing a “climate crisis”?
Mr. Know It Allsays
We’ve got AGW on the run now! We are saved! Hallelujah!
It is really hard to believe that since these alarmist only have a slight rise in temperature to feel that it is validating their claim that there is anthropogenic global warming caused by the essential for all life trace gas, CO₂, that they seem to be forgetting that there actually was a Little Ice Age that the Earth began to recover from.
“Average global temps
In the 1880s: 56.7 F.
1920s to 1980s: 57.2 F.
Circa 2000 to 2010: 58.1 F.
These are not ‘hot’ temps. Below 60 degrees most people start putting on sweaters and jackets. At 58⁰F in your living room you’re probably gonna turn up the heat! It is a good temp for longer term wine storage”. https://www.iceagenow.info/temperatures-have-been-falling-for-8000-years/
58.1⁰F – 56.7⁰F = 1.4 ⁰F in 130 years is nothing to wreak a nation’s economy over, unless that is your plan.
J Doug Swallowsays
What you alarmist ignore is this truth. The sun makes up 99.86% of the mass of the solar system. Do you agree with that summation? Carbon dioxide is .03% of the earth’s atmosphere. Do you agree with that summation? Of the two, the Sun or CO₂, which do you believe has the most influence on the earth’s climate? The people associated with the essential for the survival of modern civilization, the fossil fuel industries,
also know the correct answer and will continue to supply the resources that are in demand.
What is the atmosphere of Earth made of? Earth’s atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.9% argon, and 0.03% carbon dioxide with very small percentages of other elements. Our atmosphere also contains water vapor. In addition, Earth’s atmosphere contains traces of dust particles, pollen, plant grains and other solid particles.
How large is the Sun compared to Earth?
Compared to Earth, the Sun is enormous! It contains 99.86% of all of the mass of the entire Solar System. The Sun is 864,400 miles (1,391,000 kilometers) across. This is about 109 times the diameter of Earth. The Sun weighs about 333,000 times as much as Earth. It is so large that about 1,300,000 planet Earths can fit inside of it. Earth is about the size of an average sunspot!
J Doug Swallowsays
For once you are correct about something, to know real climate science takes being able to understand that there is no way that the trace gas, CO₂, is now going to be what drives the Earth’s climate. It never did in the past when during the Roman Warm Period the Earth experienced higher temperature than what are present today. The only thing that you climate science illiterate anthropogenic global warming clowns have to try to validate your hypotheses about how in some magical manner CO₂ is going to cause the planet to be incinerated when it did just fine. Obviously any one so brainwashed regarding this devil in the sky that they have invented, CO₂ would not acknowledge that dinosaurs that roamed the Earth 250 million years ago knew a world with five times more carbon dioxide than is present on Earth today. Let’s see, for those unable to compute that, such as, Piotr, Steven Emmerson & MA Rodger, it is 410 ppm X 5 = 2,050 ppm. The Earth and the dinosaurs lived in harmony with those levels of CO₂ until the asteroid hit the Earth in the Yucatan Peninsula and pretty well changed things and you uneducated people need to know that the 2,050 ppm of CO₂ didn’t have one damn thing to do with the end of the dinosaurs.
This is how we scientifically literate people know that the Roman Warm Period was warmer than what it is today because the sea levels were much higher than what they are today after the end of the Little Ice Age, which neither of you clowns ever heard about happening that caused the Viking settlements that had been on Greenland for 400 years to come to an end. I have been to Rome three different times; but I did not visit this port that demonstrates that your unfounded hypotheses regarding CO₂ causing climate change and a rapidly warming planet has never moved to the level of being a theory.
“Ruins of the old Roman port Ostia Antica, are extremely well preserved – with intact frescoes, maps and plans. Maps from the time show the port located at the mouth of the Tiber River, where it emptied into the Tyrrhenian Sea. The Battle of Ostia in 849, depicted in a painting attributed to Raphael, shows sea level high enough for warships to assemble at the mouth of the Tiber. However, today this modern-day tourist destination is two miles up-river from the mouth of the Tiber. Sea level was significantly higher in the Roman Warm Period than today.”
Ostia Antica, just 30 minutes from the Colosseum, offers ancient thrills to rival Pompeii (which is 4 hours south of Rome). https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/ostia-antica-romes-ancient-port-1363/
J Doug Swallowsays
#91 Steven Emmerson says basically nothing other than he does not believe that the trace gas, CO₂, is between .03-.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere and also that it is 1.6 times more dense than that atmosphere. This below is what Caltech has to say about the Earth’s atmosphere and if Steven Emmerson has an issue with that, he can take it up with Caltech.
“What is the atmosphere of Earth made of? Earth’s atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.9% argon, and 0.03% carbon dioxide with very small percentages of other elements. Our atmosphere also contains water vapor. In addition, Earth’s atmosphere contains traces of dust particles, pollen, plant grains and other solid particles”. http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/64-What-is-the-atmosphere-of-Earth-made-of-
Now for Steven Emmerson not believing that CO₂ is 1.6 times more dense than the atmosphere that it is in, I offer this from the people at Harvard. If Steven Emmerson finds fault in that report, then I suggest that he take that up with the authors who wrote the report at Harvard.
Abstract
The catastrophic event at Lake Nyos in August 1986 has resulted in a major scientific debate concerning its origin and how to prevent new casualties of this nature in future. We have tried, in the present paper, to interrelate the testimonies in time and place, and to interpret them in geological terms. It has been possible to draw a hazard map of the catastrophe and reconstruct the sequence of the events. It began on August 20, 1986 with minor upwelling of hot water. On August 21, 1986, a small explosion occurred in Lake Nyos followed in the evening by an intermittent jet of water topped by a white plume. At 10 p.m. a major detonation occurred in the lake and carbon dioxide invaded the low lying valleys, killing more than 1500 people and 6000 head of cattle. The all scientific community agree: gases have a magmatic origin. Two scenarios have been used to describe the catastrophe: the volcanic origin scenario: a gas jet splitted across the lake water, and the limnic origin scenario: gases were stored in the lake water and an internal or external phenomenon triggered the degassing. In the volcanic origin scenario prevention of degassing is impossible, any volcanic area can present this danger in, or outside lakes; prediction will proceed with usual methods. In the limnic scenario both prediction and prevention are possible: the only dangerous area are located around lakes containing dissolved gases prevention can be obtain by pumping and degassing the deep waters to the surface. In the present paper, testimonies have been used to test both hypotheses. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992JVGR…51..171L
J Doug Swallowsays
#110 Susan Anderson says: “Please just stop arguing endlessly You’re just amplifying the crazy; it doesn’t matter if you are right or wrong, it is removing value, not adding it.” What Susan Anderson says brings clarity to what George Orwell had stated; “Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”. It appears that to Susan Anderson, that amount of freedom should not be applied to ‘Real Climate’.
Does Susan Anderson have a problem with these views that were expressed by some very knowledgeable folks?
“The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement” — Karl Popper
“Skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the unpardonable sin.” Huxley
“As Bertrand Russell said: “The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.”
“Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.” Walter Lippmann
Galileo Galilei well sums up my view of how much influence the trace gas, CO₂, that is between .03-.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere, has on the Earth’s climate, or its temperature, when the results an empirical and repeatable experiment that demonstrates that CO₂ can do all of this have never been presented, as far as I have been able to find.
“I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the Scriptures, but with experiments, and demonstrations.” Galileo Galilei
J Doug Swallowsays
These quotes will not go over well with the owners of this site or the sycophants who follow it.
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
– Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“The models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful.”
– Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University
“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” – Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
Barry E Finchsays
Between 99.99% and 99.999% of the LWR absorbed by “greenhouse gases (GHGs)” in Earth’s atmosphere was manufactured by other GHG molecules and the other 0.01% to 0.001% of the LWR absorbed was radiated up from the ocean/land surface (the 398 w/m**2 you see in the energy flow pictorial in IPCC AR5 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIKgit9mszo&t=944s at 3:00). Likewise, but far more so, some 99.99999999999% to 99.999999999999% of the LWR arriving at Earth’s ocean/land surface shown as 342 w/m**2 in the energy flow pictorial in IPCC AR5 is manufactured by GHG molecules, water and solid molecules in the air colliding (makes them vibrate and they sometimes emit LWR when they vibrate) leaving some 0.000000000005% to 0.0000000000005% of the LWR arriving at Earth’s ocean/land surface complying with the incorrect “analogy-style” cartoon for the public, the unwashed masses, that’s given by the scientists and reproduced in various forms by the “media”, “social” and such types everywhere. This is why I’ve stated for 4 years, since I studied & pondered this, that it’s incorrect science, because it’s between 99.99999999999% and 99.999999999999% incorrect, and in my opinion that’s too incorrect to be considered correct.
J Doug Swallowsays
#170 jgnfld says: “Re. JDS and “…and is 1.6 times more dense than that rest of the atmosphere (CO₂)”
Wow! While it used to be quite common, I haven’t seen this particular denier bromide for a while, now. In any case, thank heavens oxygen is 14% heavier than nitrogen or we’d all be dead!” Nowhere does jgnfld explain how CO₂ reacts in the lower regions of the atmosphere. This is an example of how a trace gas, that is 1.6 times more dense than that rest of the atmosphere, reacts in the real world that evidently jgnfld has no knowledge of. CO₂, being 1.6 times more dense than that rest of the atmosphere, sinks to ground level where it is utilized by the organism that depend on it for their survival, plant life.
August 21, 1986: The Lake Nyos catastrophe
The 21. August 1986 was market day in the village of Lower Nyos (Cameroon), from the surrounding mountains many herdsmen brought their livestock to do business with the local farmers. In the evening, at 21.30 p.m. most of the peasants and their guests were sleeping and didn’t notice the sound of an explosion coming from Lake Nyos, two kilometres distant to the village.
The few survivors report that their family members were eating, in the very next moment suddenly tumbled on the floor, death. A woman awaking the next morning found their five children dead in their hut. In Nyos that evening 1.700 people died. Rescue troops that arrived in the valley some days later reported of a sinisterly scene, villages with huts and gardens untouched, but everywhere bodies of humans and animals, there weren’t even insects on the corpses.The unseen killer was a 50m high cloud composed of 1,6 million tons of carbon dioxide, erupted from Lake Nyos and denser then the surrounding air following the valley for 27 kilometres, killing more then 1.700 people and 3.000 animals. http://historyofgeology.fieldofscience.com/2010/08/august-121986-lake-nyos-catastrophe.html
J Doug Swallowsays
#156 MA Rodger says many things but nowhere does Rodger provide the evidence that I asked for about how the essential for all terrestrial life on Earth trace gas, CO₂, that makes up only between .03-.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere and is 1.6 times more dense than the rest of the atmosphere, has the ability to change the Earth’s climate. MA Rodger maintains that, “CO2 is the big big greenhouse gas can be measured (thus empirically) in a repeatable experiment” & one is left to wonder just what that has to do with answering my request. MA Rodger then wanders off into the weeds with some obscure explanation of measured down-welling long-wave radiation under dry clear skies that proves nothing.
This New York Times site is interesting to show just how much of the earth is cloud covered.
“One Year of Clouds Covering the Earth http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/05/01/science/earth/0501-clouds.html
This recent experiment demonstrate that CO₂ has basically nothing to do with the Earth’s temperature, whatever that is.
#73 Ray Ladbury says: “As I have previously shown why your arguments were specious, you’ve given me nothing to engage”. Ray Ladbury seems to be implying that by one submitting the extreme high temperatures for the 50 states in the United State, that is an argument. That is not an ‘argument’ but a statement of facts. The heading of this discussion is; “Climate adaptation should be based on robust regional climate information”, and to the logical individual, the record high temperatures of the fifty states qualifies as being regional climate information. If NOAA does not believe that the temperature data for the fifty states is of importance, then why has NOAA taken the effort to present it? According to Ray Ladbury, it has no value and I assume that he believes that it should be expunged from the record. The records that we are able access that NOAA provides offer up this interesting set of facts for someone such as Ray Ladbury, who knows all of the answers about the climate and, most of all, statistics.
In 1936, both North and South Dakota set these record temperature extremes.
North Dakota Maximum Temperature 121°F July 6, 1936 Steele 328366 E
North Dakota Minimum Temperature -60°F Feb 15, 1936 Parshall 326867 E
South Dakota Maximum Temperature 120°F July 15, 2006 Fort Pierre 393076 N1
July 5, 1936 Gann Valley 393217 N1
South Dakota Minimum Temperature -58°F Feb 17, 1936 McIntosh 395381 E
I look forward to Ray Ladbury’s comments and see them as an opportunity to learn so many of the unknowns about the Earth’s climate and most of all its temperature. I hope that what follows is not too beneath him to consider what it means.
Alabama, Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin are the 26 states that set the record temperature for cold after the record for high temperature was set. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/records
If Ray Ladbury could set aside the time in his schedule to submit for me a link that would take me to the repeatable empirical experiment that offers the evidence that it is indeed the trace gas, CO₂, that comprises between .03-.04% of the Earth’s total atmosphere, that is causing the Earth’s climate to change and its temperature to increase to perhaps devastating highs, I would appreciate it. There are many people who, obviously because of ignorance and lack of education, that go through life convinced that it is that bright orb in the sky, the Sun, that comprises 99.86% of the total mass of the solar system that cause the climate to change and the Earth to warm, or cool, such as during the last Ice Age.
How large is the Sun compared to Earth?
Compared to Earth, the Sun is enormous! It contains 99.86% of all of the mass of the entire Solar System. The Sun is 864,400 miles (1,391,000 kilometers) across. This is about 109 times the diameter of Earth. The Sun weighs about 333,000 times as much as Earth. It is so large that about 1,300,000 planet Earths can fit inside of it. Earth is about the size of an average sunspot! http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/5-How-large-is-the-Sun-compared-to-Earth-
J Doug Swallowsays
It is very hard to figure out what is so offensive about this comment that the moderator will not allow it to be posted. Is it that I asked for something that does not exist; the repeatable empirical experiment that offers the evidence that it is indeed the trace gas, CO₂, that comprises between .03-.04% of the Earth’s total atmosphere, that is causing the Earth’s climate to change and its temperature to increase to perhaps devastating highs? Some honesty from this site would be appreciated.
#73 Ray Ladbury says: “As I have previously shown why your arguments were specious, you’ve given me nothing to engage”. Ray Ladbury seems to be implying that by one submitting the extreme high temperatures for the 50 states in the United State, that is an argument. That is not an ‘argument’ but a statement of facts. The heading of this discussion is; “Climate adaptation should be based on robust regional climate information”, and to the logical individual, the record high temperatures of the fifty states qualifies as being regional climate information. If NOAA does not believe that the temperature data for the fifty states is of importance, then why has NOAA taken the effort to present it? According to Ray Ladbury, it has no value and I assume that he believes that it should be expunged from the record. The records that we are able access that NOAA provides offer up this interesting set of facts for someone such as Ray Ladbury, who knows all of the answers about the climate and, most of all, statistics.
In 1936, both North and South Dakota set these record temperature extremes.
North Dakota Maximum Temperature 121°F July 6, 1936 Steele 328366 E
North Dakota Minimum Temperature -60°F Feb 15, 1936 Parshall 326867 E
South Dakota Maximum Temperature 120°F July 15, 2006 Fort Pierre 393076 N1
July 5, 1936 Gann Valley 393217 N1
South Dakota Minimum Temperature -58°F Feb 17, 1936 McIntosh 395381 E
I look forward to Ray Ladbury’s comments and see them as an opportunity to learn so many of the unknowns about the Earth’s climate and most of all its temperature. I hope that what follows is not too beneath him to consider what it means.
Alabama, Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin are the 26 states that set the record temperature for cold after the record for high temperature was set. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/records
If Ray Ladbury could set aside the time in his schedule to submit for me a link that would take me to the repeatable empirical experiment that offers the evidence that it is indeed the trace gas, CO₂, that comprises between .03-.04% of the Earth’s total atmosphere, that is causing the Earth’s climate to change and its temperature to increase to perhaps devastating highs, I would appreciate it. There are many people who, obviously because of ignorance and lack of education, that go through life convinced that it is that bright orb in the sky, the Sun, that comprises 99.86% of the total mass of the solar system that cause the climate to change and the Earth to warm, or cool, such as during the last Ice Age.
How large is the Sun compared to Earth?
Compared to Earth, the Sun is enormous! It contains 99.86% of all of the mass of the entire Solar System. The Sun is 864,400 miles (1,391,000 kilometers) across. This is about 109 times the diameter of Earth. The Sun weighs about 333,000 times as much as Earth. It is so large that about 1,300,000 planet Earths can fit inside of it. Earth is about the size of an average sunspot! http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/5-How-large-is-the-Sun-compared-to-Earth-
J Doug Swallowsays
It appears that many irrational and uneducated people fall for this hoax about how a trace gas that is absolutely essential for all life on Earth and that all air breathing animals, including the idiots who believe it is going to cause the planet to be destroyed, exhale with each and every breath & that is CO₂. Those who have the ability to reason well know what causes the Earth’s climate to change and that it is the SUN that does that, as it has done since the beginning of time. Do these foaming at the mouth and quaking with fear fools believe that it was CO₂ that caused the last ice age, or that it was CO₂ that caused the Earth to recover from that deadly time in the Earth’s recent past history?
“How large is the Sun compared to Earth?
Compared to Earth, the Sun is enormous! It contains 99.86% of all of the mass of the entire Solar System. The Sun is 864,400 miles (1,391,000 kilometers) across. This is about 109 times the diameter of Earth. The Sun weighs about 333,000 times as much as Earth. It is so large that about 1,300,000 planet Earths can fit inside of it. Earth is about the size of an average sunspot!” http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/5-How-large-is-the-Sun-compared-to-Earth-
“What is the atmosphere of Earth made of? Earth’s atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.9% argon, and 0.03% carbon dioxide with very small percentages of other elements. Our atmosphere also contains water vapor. In addition, Earth’s atmosphere contains traces of dust particles, pollen, plant grains and other solid particles.” http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/64-What-is-the-atmosphere-of-Earth-made-of-
morfu03says
No that is not how science works (and you are aware that for example S. McIntyre has an opinion about most of these newer articles, he often calls it the “pea under the thimble” for the younger readers here)
If a paper is wrong, it needs to be corrected/withdrawn, this is true for all science fields, but of course this one is political.
-who are just sure the science is wrong
Well, particularly statistics is not a matter of opinion.
Most unadressed for most of those papers is how the selection of proxies affects the uncertainty of the outcome, a critique McShane and Wyner are spot on with.
So, to me it is apparent, that (among other mistakes) Mann used with Bristlecone pines proxies which seem not particularity temperature sensitive and you and others seem to tolerate this mistake.
As a direct result we have Neukon and the Cape Ghir series and McGregors statement “Upwelling-driven SSTs also vary out of phase with millennial-scale changes in Northern Hemisphere temperature anomalies ”
This signal seems not visible in the Cape Ghir (but a strong downward trend in the last century), yet it is flipped and used as warming proxy.
This might be a case of repeating history´s mistakes, because Mann´s paper is still not corrected/withdrawn!
And what is missing in all these reconstructions IMHO, Feyman described perfectly so long ago: “… something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the laymen when you’re talking as a scientist. . . . I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong, [an integrity] that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen…”
I see glaring sins of omission by Mann and Neukon, which would not happen in other fields of science!
J Doug Swallowsays
Barton Paul Levenson says; “You are a dishonest poster, JDS. These points have been answered for you many, many times on this blog, on Facebook, and elsewhere, yet you keep bringing them up. Allow me to remind you that “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” ”; but nowhere do I see an answer to my question; “They hold this believe about the unworldly powers of this essential trace gas for all life on the planet, CO₂, even though the true believers cannot produce even one empirical example that can be tested by experiment that demonstrates that, in fact, CO₂ possess these amazing powers for a trace gas that is 1.6 times heavier than the rest of the atmosphere.” Where is Barton Paul Levenson’s empirical example that can be tested by experiment that demonstrates that, in fact, CO₂ possess these amazing powers for a trace gas that is 1.6 times heavier than the rest of the atmosphere to be able to change the Earth’s climate or make its temperature to increase in a disastrous manners?
The ice core evidence proves empirically that CO₂ does not make these changes in the Earth’s climate because the evidence is that the Earth was 2.5⁰C warmer than today’s temperatures on Earth even before the proven Roman warm period and the evidence is for all to see by observing how limestone that is in, or on the shorelines of, the oceans has been undercut due to the sea level having been higher due to the warm conditions having melted the ice on the planet.
“Ruins of the old Roman port Ostia Antica, are extremely well preserved – with intact frescoes, maps and plans. Maps from the time show the port located at the mouth of the Tiber River, where it emptied into the Tyrrhenian Sea. The Battle of Ostia in 849, depicted in a painting attributed to Raphael, shows sea level high enough for warships to assemble at the mouth of the Tiber. However, today this modern-day tourist destination is two miles up-river from the mouth of the Tiber. Sea level was significantly higher in the Roman Warm Period than today.” Ostia Antica, just 30 minutes from the Colosseum, offers ancient thrills to rival Pompeii (which is 4 hours south of Rome). https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/ostia-antica-romes-ancient-port-1363/
J Doug Swallowsays
nigelj says, using a quote from what Barton Paul Levenson had written; “You have to use all the data, not just the part that supports your views.” and also, on its own, nigelj wrote; “No matter how many times you explain this to JDS and KIA it goes in one ear and out the other. Maybe its deliberate or learned stupidity, but stupidity is still stupidity”.
One would be more likely to pay attention to explanations presented by folks who were confident enough in what they believed, and were explaining, if they were to use their real name instead of an alias, such as nigelj.
This temperature compiled from, in this case, 58,146 stations processed in the last hour shows that there is
-0.23°F/-0.13°C deviation in the 30 year temperature record that this site processes.
The Earth’s Temperature
Currently: 56.97°F/13.87°C
Deviation: -0.23°F/-0.13°C
Stations processed last hour: 58146
Last station processed: Copenhagen, Denmark
Update time: 2021-12-02 03:24:59 UTC http://www.temperature.global/?fbclid=IwAR2mvfvcL0od4e1OnVFh3EcNVd0on-CahKapSN1S7UCs1tnU2fHejTTlePA#twitter
J Doug Swallowsays
Reality Check, I’m sure knows that CO₂ is at this time, 12/2/2021 10:39 AM, “The Keeling Curve is a daily record of global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration maintained by Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego” & it is 416.61 ppm.
CO2 concentration by weight is obtained by the formula below:
0.0383 V% x [44.0095/28.97] = 0.0582 m% CO2
whereby molar mass=44.0095 g/mole
and mean molar mass of air=28.97 g/mole
Any way that you observe the presents of CO₂ in the Earth’s atmosphere, it is a very small percentage of the total atmosphere, 0.0383 V%.
At 416.61 parts per million CO₂ is a minor constituent of earth’s atmosphere– less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth’s current atmosphere is CO₂ impoverished.
Let’s picture this in another way to really get an idea of the scale of CO₂ compared to the total atmosphere. The Eiffel Tower in Paris is 324 meters high (1063ft). If the height of the Eiffel Tower represented the total size of the atmosphere then the natural level of CO₂ would be 8.75 centimeters of that height (3.4 inches) and the amount added by humans up until today would be an extra 3.76 centimeters (1.5 inches)
Thus, the 3.2 trillion tons of CO₂ in today’s 5.5 quadrillion ton atmosphere represents 6.3kg of CO₂ above each square meter of Earth, which perhaps doesn’t sound a lot. If it covered the planet in a film of dry ice, it would be just 3.7mm thick.
I’m positive that Reality Check knows that CO₂ is 1.6 times heavier than the rest of the atmosphere, as this sad incident proves, without any doubt, that it tends to sink out of the atmosphere to ground level where it can be utilized by what must have CO₂ to even exist, plants.
August 21, 1986: The Lake Nyos catastrophe
The 21. August 1986 was market day in the village of Lower Nyos (Cameroon), from the surrounding mountains many herdsmen brought their livestock to do business with the local farmers. In the evening, at 21.30 p.m. most of the peasants and their guests were sleeping and didn’t notice the sound of an explosion coming from Lake Nyos, two kilometres distant to the village.
The few survivors report that their family members were eating, in the very next moment suddenly tumbled on the floor, death. A woman awaking the next morning found their five children dead in their hut. In Nyos that evening 1.700 people died. Rescue troops that arrived in the valley some days later reported of a sinisterly scene, villages with huts and gardens untouched, but everywhere bodies of humans and animals, there weren’t even insects on the corpses. The unseen killer was a 50m high cloud composed of 1,6 million tons of carbon dioxide, erupted from Lake Nyos and denser then the surrounding air following the valley for 27 kilometres, killing more then 1.700 people and 3.000 animals. http://historyofgeology.fieldofscience.com/2010/08/august-121986-lake-nyos-catastrophe.html
J Doug Swallowsays
TheWarOnEntropy says; “Shit, the sun’s huge! I never knew”. I am glad that I was able to inform you of some important facts that should be of use to you in the future. It appears that the one who is not confident enough of ‘its’ views to even supply its real name, TheWarOnEntropy, has much to be worried about.
“By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.” Galileo Galilei
Then TheWarOnEntropy offers up this wonderful compliment; “BTW, I must say, your cut-and-paste form is top notch”, that I must thank ‘it’ for the compliment. Can I get an ‘atta boy’ for this below?
“Atmospheric CO2 is essential to life on earth, since plants use sunlight to combine CO2 molecules from the air with H2O molecules to make carbohydrates (for example, sugar) and other organic compounds. In the process, oxygen molecules (O2) are released to the atmosphere. At CO2 levels less than 150 ppm (parts per million), most plants stop growing. Over most of the history of multicellular life on earth, CO2 levels have been three or four times higher than present levels. Current CO2 levels of 400 ppm are still much less than optimum for most plant growth.
Air also contains water vapor (H2O), from as much as 7% in the humid tropics to less than 1% on a cold winter day. Human exhaled breath typically contains 4% to 5% CO2 and about 6% H2O.Water vapor”
carbon dioxide in American English
“a colorless, odorless, incombustible gas, CO2, somewhat heavier than air, that is a product of respiration and combustion: produced commercially and used widely in fire extinguishers, carbonated beverages, etc.: in photosynthesis, carbon dioxide and water are absorbed by plants, which synthesize certain carbohydrates and release oxygen into the air” https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/carbon-dioxide
J Doug Swallowsays
Barton Paul Levenson writes that; “BPL: Science doesn’t deal in proof, it deals in evidence”.
I would much rather pay attention to how the Nobel laureate Richard Feynman put it, “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” than what a person that seems to believe that it is the trace gas CO₂ that is what causes the Earth’s climate to act as it does. That same person, Barton Paul Levenson, writes this to me; “JDS: will not want to acknowledge that during the Medieval Warm Period it was far warmer than it is now” & then this unsubstantiated nonsense; “BPL: No, because it wasn’t. That’s just flat-out wrong”, while submitting NO evidence of how it was not warmer during the Medieval Warm Period. There is ample scientific evidence that ‘proves’ that I am correct, if only one would open their mind to the facts, such as this study that was done in Russia near where Michael Mann got his tree that he used to construct the hockey stick graph. It will be interesting to see if Barton Paul Levenson will be able understand what this scientific study is telling him.
“However, conifers have not yet recolonized many areas where trees were present during the Medieval Warm period (ca AD 800–1300) or the Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM; ca 10 000–3000 years ago). Reconstruction of tree distributions during the HTM suggests that the future position of the treeline due to global warming may approximate its former Holocene maximum position”
“Climate change and the northern Russian tree line zone
ABSTRACT
The Russian treeline is a dynamic ecotone typified by steep gradients in summer temperature and regionally variable gradients in albedo and heat flux. The location of the treeline is largely controlled by summer temperatures and growing season length. Temperatures have responded strongly to twentieth-century global warming and will display a magnified response to future warming. Dendroecological studies indicate enhanced conifer recruitment during the twentieth century. However, conifers have not yet recolonized many areas where trees were present during the Medieval Warm period (ca AD 800–1300) or the Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM; ca 10 000–3000 years ago). Reconstruction of tree distributions during the HTM suggests that the future position of the treeline due to global warming may approximate its former Holocene maximum position. An increased dominance of evergreen tree species in the northern Siberian forests may be an important difference between past and future conditions. Based on the slow rates of treeline expansion observed during the twentieth century, the presence of steep climatic gradients associated with the current Arctic coastline and the prevalence of organic soils, it is possible that rates of treeline expansion will be regionally variable and transient forest communities with species abundances different from today’s may develop.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2606780/
J Doug Swallowsays
Gavin says; “[Response: Lol. Really? Anthropogenic climate change can’t be real because the sun is big? – gavin]” It appears that all of this depends on the narrative that is being pushed by the ‘climate experts’ at the time, such as during the 1970’s when it was global cooling that was the huge threat to humanity. Educated folks do know that a cold Earth is more of danger to life than a warming Earth or 85% of all life forms would not be found in the tropics of the temperate zones on the planet today.
“Yet not so long ago the news media issued dire warnings about global cooling and a coming Ice Age. Consider these headlines:
• “The Earth’s Cooling Climate,” Science News, November 15, 1969. • “Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age,” Washington Post, January 11, 1970. • “Science: Another Ice Age?” Time Magazine, June 24, 1974. • “The Ice Age Cometh!” Science News, March 1, 1975. • “The Cooling World,” Newsweek, April 28, 1975. • “Scientists Ask Why World Climate is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead,” New York Times, May 21, 1975. • “In the Grip of a New Ice Age?” International Wildlife July-August, 1975. • “A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable,” New York Times, September 14, 1975. • “Variations in the Earth’s Orbit, Pacemaker of the Ice Ages,” Science magazine, December 10, 1976.
Reporters told the public about global cooling in the same confident tone used in today’s coverage about global warming, creating the strong impression that no reasonable person could disagree. Here are some examples:
“The evidence in support of these predictions [global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.” The Cooling World “A study release last month by two NOAA scientists that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.” The Cooling World “Telltale signs are everywhere…the thickness of the pack ice…the southward migration of warmth-loving creatures like the armadillo…” Another Ice Age? “Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7 degrees.” Another Ice Age? “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind,” The Ice Age Cometh!”
Today It’s Global Warming; In the ’70s It was the Coming Ice Age https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/today-its-global-warming-in-the-70s-it-was-the-coming-ice-age?fbclid=IwAR025-h8efPOEBoOyU4NMGIK0u4QWWABpSguwm0Mx6xWfb06vGvyZFuWpoI
Robert David Clarksays
This is my reading of the VOSTOK ICE CORE.
There are three methods of heat transfer. They are conduction, convection, and radiant heat. Heat transfer to or from the earth can only be done by radiant. All material contains heat and is radiating it to cooler surfaces or absorbing it from warmer surfaces. The difference is the heat gain or loss of the material.
The earth gains heat radiated from the sun and losses heat it radiates to outer space, called black sky radiation. Outer space is considered absolute zero.
The amount of radiant heat hitting the earth from the sun daily is relatively constant. The radiant heat lost daily by the earth thru black sky radiation is relatively constant since absolute zero is constant. A 1 to 2 degree rise in 522 degrees is relatively constant. The amount of heat gained by the earth’s surface depends on the surface area of the earth covered by water relative to that covered by land. Land area absorbs a larger percent of the radiant heat relative to the water area since the surface of the water reflects a percentage of the radiant heat back to outer space. The daily access heat, or loss of heat, is transferred to the oceans thru conduction and convection where it works its way to the poles and it freezes water adding to the polar ice caps or melts the polar ice caps thus keeping the surface temperature of the oceans, thus the earth, relatively constant. As the polar ice caps grow or melt, the surface area of the earth covered by land relative to that covered by water changes. This is the definition of global warming. I call it Global Ice making and Global Ice Melting.
That radiant heat absorbed by oceans and land masses is transferred to the atmosphere thru conduction and convection. When it is winter in one hemisphere it is summer in the other and the same with spring and fall. I would think the average temperature of the lower 5,000 feet of the atmosphere changes about 10’F to20’F each day. This takes more heat than man has added to the earth in the last 50 years. That heat man adds to the atmosphere each day is radiated to the black sky and the infinitesimal amount left helps melt the ice during global warming, should be called Global Ice Melting.
Absolute zero is -459.68’F and the average surface temperature of the sun is between 7,300’F and 10,000’F. If we could go back in time 18,000 years, the end of the last ice age, we would probable see that the average daily temperature of the earth was in the mid 60’F as it is today. You must understand the amount of heat gained every 24 hours is almost equal to that lost during the same 24 hours. Angle of the earth’s axis is 23.5’. Radiant heat striking the earth surface every day is larger than that radiated from the surface to the black sky. That retained by the surface is dependent by the surface area of the earth covered by water.
The average surface temperature of the earth surface is about 63.5’f. The difference between the earth’s average surface temperature and absolute zero is 522’F. The heat loss to black sky radiation every 24 hours is constant. The average radiant heat striking the surface of the earth is constant. Because the sun is an active star the average surface temperature will change over centuries. As the surface area of the earth covered by water increases, the more radiant heat is reflected to the black sky increases. When the daily radiant heat gained by the earth from the sun in 24 hours became less than that lost by black sky radiation, we began the making of ice, thus the new ice age. Looking at the ice core from the Antarctic we can see that the earth began the new Ice Age about 18,000 years ago.
The Vostok Ice core shows 4 Ice Ages in the last 4 hundred thousand years. I will assume that during that time the CO2 emitted by the actions of nature is constant. The lowest CO2 level is about 190ppm and frozen during the Ice Making somewhere in the middle of the Ice Making cycle, but the actual end of the Ice Making cycle is much later. The beginning of the rise in CO2 is the beginning of the next Ice Making cycle.
The last Ice Age, from lowest ocean level to lowest ocean level, was about 120,000 years.
The first 8,000 years taking ice from the continents and putting the water in the oceans. RAISING THE LEVEL OF THE OCEANS.
The next about 8,000 years, taking water from the oceans, freezing it, dropping the ice on the frozen parts of the continents. The ocean levels begin to drop. The radiant heat radiated to the black sky is equal to that retained by the earth from the sun.
When the ocean levels began to rise, as it got to the new ice blocks the 28-degree salt water began melting the underside of the ice blocks. WHEN THE HEAT MELTING THE ICE BREAKING OFF THE ICE BLOCKS EQUALED THE HEAT LOST TO THE BLACK SKY THE OCEANS STOPPED GOING DOWN.
THAT IS WHERE WE ARE NOW.
IN ABOUT ANOTHER 100,000 YEARS THE ICE BLOCKS WILL BE COMPLETELY GONE, THE OCEAN WILL DROP FOR ABOUT ANOTHER 8,000 YEARS. AS THE ICE IS PUT BACK ON THE CONTINENTS.
There are two rules of water that control the world.
We all know that fresh water expands as it cools from 39 degrees farenheight to 32 degrees farenheight.
The other is salt water is saturated at 28 degrees farenheight. As nature tries to cool it below that the salt drops out and it is less Dence. As the 28degree touches the bottom edge of the ice block it eats its way under the ice block as the 32degree farenheight, salt free, water, hugs the bottom of the ice block on its way out. This causes the overhang.
This is simple High School Science. If you believe the 28-degree saturated saltwater goes to 38-degree fresh water as it warms to 32-degree, then you accept there is no global warming
Mark Ramsay, P.E.says
Would recommend that you add CO2Coalition.org to your recommended sources. They are staffed by pre-eminent physicists. Their research is recent, and if you believe in “the evolution of physics” (same name as a 1938 book co-authored by A. Einstein), it should be better than research done 10 years ago.
As far as oceans rising, there is plenty of data, starting about 1840, that ocean levels have risen at a steady rate since. This increase doesn’t correlate with [CO2] increase. In fact, ocean levels have decreased in Sitka, Alaska.
The highest count of days over 100 degrees F in the US by far was in the 1920’s and 30s. Since then, the count is 25%-50% less. Trend has been downward since to the end of data that I have which is 2015. In the meantime, [CO2] increased seven-fold.
As far as natural disasters, nothing in my memory comes as close to the Mississippi flood of 1927, when over 80 million acres of land were flooded causing thousands of deaths.
As far as California wildfires, the presence of a new and plentiful annual grass, which turns into 1-hr fuel every April, has contributed to frequency and intensity. Also contributing is the cessation of state forest management, and the inability for CA to resume it due to their excessive regulations. Add to that zoning which has placed houses near woods and shrubs. And reduction of maintenance of electric transmission lines.
It may be ugly , but I cannot resist the temptation..
Da Djevelen fikk det i sinn
at intet skulle skje
Da satte han i verden inn
den første komitte.
SANN!
It is ugly, so one must try Google translate if one cannot read it
“SANN!” is standard traditional AMEN at small poems for the people.
But, on the other hand, if something ought to be done, it often pays out to utilize something that allready is or goes on allready for other reasons..
Like my wife having called and ordered for electrical heating under the pavement for years, and I have said NO-NO-NO-NO!
I had my several reasons for it. But most of all that it was against my “style”. And I was “conservative” there.
I am aquainted to and rather like it icy in the winter and if not, we have a bitty of sand at hand.
Then suddenly the electric prices have 10- doubbled. And maybe that is actually the very best that could happen to the climate in todays situation.
Maybe that old style and habit and folklore of mine from pre- electrical days was appropriale and sustainable after all?, Namely the cheapest and quite practical way to live comfortably with the weather?
How often could I find very good and practical solutions in the museums, even in the stone age museum? And people should be told rather to live with nature and not demand industrial even electric patent wares for any possible use and purpose.
that is “consumerism” We get blunt minded and handed and we do not watch our steps anymore.
J Doug Swallowsays
Why would the world want to zero out their emissions of CO₂? There has never been any empirical evidence submitted anywhere, by any scientific organization, that CO₂ is anything other than a trace gas that is essential for all terrestrial life on the planet. Don’t these climate extremist that say that carbon dioxide emissions MUST be eliminated, realize that if the amount of CO₂ in the Earth’s atmosphere drops to 150 ppm, then plant growth stops and animals die and those are the facts surrounding carbon dioxide.
I see no empirical evidence is presented by any one, or their scientific organizations, that in any way demonstrates that CO₂ has anything to do with the Earth’s climate or its temperature. The reason for that is that the trace gas, CO₂, that all animals exhales with each and every one of their breaths, HAS never in the past 4.5 billion year long history of the Earth’s existence had anything to do with its complex climate & it would take a climate extremist to now believe, with no proof, that at .04% of the Earth’s atmosphere today, that it can determine what the climate, or the temperature, on Earth will be like in the future. These people that allege that CO₂ is causing the Earth’s temperature to rise cannot give any reason why this record is still valid after over 109 years and has not been exceeded even though their hated CO₂ levels have gone up. We went to Death Valley to see where this all-time record was set and it is a National Park to high light the importance of the occasion that happened 109 years ago.
World Meteorological Organization Assessment of the Purported World Record 58°C Temperature Extreme at El Azizia, Libya (13 September 1922)
“On 13 September 1922, a temperature of 58°C (136.4°F) was purportedly recorded at El Azizia (approximately 40 kilometers south-southwest of Tripoli) in what is now modern-day Libya…………. The WMO assessment is that the highest recorded surface temperature of 56.7°C (134°F) was measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch (Death Valley) CA USA.” http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00093.1?af=R&
De Nilessays
nigelj,
I have already covered saturation in other posts included links to source data. Ctrl+F “De Niles” We could theoretically increase CO2 up to 100% of the atmosphere (a.k.a. 1 million parts per million), but of course that’s not going to happen. If all fossil fuels are burned CO2 will go to about 1600ppm (NASA source), so that’s what we should be considering re; saturation. The current rate of warming increase for a doubling of CO2 concentration is a 1% increase in warming effect. So that’s a 2% increase above present for a quadrupling to 1600ppm. IPCC has a huge possible range for this of +1.5-5.7C for every doubling of CO2. In other words, the IPCC “don’t know the answer”. Happer and van Wijngaarden (2020) calculate 0.8C for a doubling of CO2, so 1.6C above present by 2300 for 1600ppm, which could be negated by the response of clouds (and it follows that most of the warming of the past century cannot therefore be due to CO2 increase).
Again, you “trust” the IPCC. Trust should have nothing to do with it. I don’t “trust” the political summaries, due to their misleading language that shifts over the years to obscure past climate events. So you trust an institution that is part of a political body, over any with ties to the fossil fuel industry. Hate to break it to you – political institutions are just as corrupt as industry.
Michael Mann’s hockey stick graph has been shown to have no basis in the proxy data (again Ctrl-f my other posts). Any public figure is going to get threats, Look at all the anger here. BBC radio lunchtime show topic “should climate denial be banned?” – that was a real topic in the last couple of years. Outrageous.
“You provide no references that anthropogenic emissions aren’t the cause of the modern warming period, let alone credible ones. The IPCC find that anthropogenic emissions caused all of the warming after the 1980s. Other potential causes like solar activity cant account for the warming, on the basis of the evidence. You can find good accounts of all this on the skepticalscience.com website. ”
There’s no good evidence anthropogenic emissions are the cause, for the reasons I’ve posted again and again (Ctrl-f). I don’t need to prove a negative. We have no firm idea what has caused the many minor cooling and warming events over the Holocene. It’s a science in its infancy. Maybe the paper that this thread is all about has some answers??? The warming is trivial and in a rational world, would simply be of the concern to a small number of scientists. The average person would not have noticed any warming in their entire lives if they had not been told about it.
“You make wild statements mostly without sources or links to back up your claims. I have given you sources and specifics. Your comments are incorrect and have no credibility.”
I give sources if the information is obscure. Some statements are so obvious that the average person who’s interested in climate should understand their truth. It’s only feels wild because ‘truth feels like a bomb to liars’.
#37 23 Feb 2021 at 6:47 AM Barton Paul Levenson says: “JDS apparently still doesn’t know the difference between weather and climate”. JDS knows from experience with folks like Barton Paul Levenson that if it is cold events such as this; MONSTER ARCTIC FRONT ENGULFS ASIA AND CANADA, AS EUROPE’S LONGEST BRIDGE IS CLOSED DUE TO SNOW
FEBRUARY 24, 2021 CAP ALLON
While parts of the United States and Europe enjoy a brief respite from the frostbite, the majority of Canada, transcontinental Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan continue to suffer from a descended Arctic.
Siberia is suffering one its coldest winters on record, with temperatures in the vast Northern Asian region having regularly dipped below -50C (-58F) since mid-December, 2020.
https://electroverse.net/arctic-front-engulfs-asia-and-canada-as-europes-longest-bridge-is-closed/
That is only weather; but, if it is a few hot days in Paris in 2019, then that is for sure a sign of climate change.
MEDIA BIAS ON SHOW DURING EUROPE’S HEATWAVE JUNE 27, 2019 CAP ALLON1 COMMENT I can only assume our popular news outlets will give similar attention to the anomalous cold currently bearing down on the continent, on course to hit early next week… https://electroverse.net/?s=Paris+heat+wave
Dr. Henrik Svensmark, who is a great scientist because he does experiments to validate his believes, knows that it is the sun that determines what the Earth’s climate does.
Svensmark: Evidence continues to build that the Sun drives climate, not CO2
In his lecture at the recent EIKE Climate and Energy Conference, Professor Henrik Svensmark explains how the evidence continues to accumulate that solar activity is the primary driver of climate, on timescales ranging from hours to millions of years.” Prof. Dr. Henrik Svensmark
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/svensmark-evidence-continues-to-build.html
Ancient trees show turning point in Earth history 42,000yr ago.
27,812 views•Feb 19, 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSig4MyLQ0o&feature=emb_logo
#12 Barton Paul Levenson says: “There are mountains of empirical evidence for it. You’ve been pointed to that evidence in the past. Not very honest for you to repeat that charge anyway, is it?” One can wonder why, if “there are mountains of empirical evidence for it” why Barton Paul Levenson doesn’t provide the links that would allow me to see all of this evidence for myself? Now for Barton Paul Levenson’s “mountains of empirical evidence for it” and to ask just who is being dishonest.
“First direct observation of carbon dioxide’s increasing greenhouse effect”
by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
“Scientists have observed an increase in carbon dioxide’s greenhouse effect at the Earth’s surface for the first time. The researchers, led by scientists from the US Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), measured atmospheric carbon dioxide’s increasing capacity to absorb thermal radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface over an eleven-year period at two locations in North America. They attributed this upward trend to rising CO2 levels from fossil fuel emissions”.
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-carbon-dioxide-greenhouse-effect.html?fbclid=IwAR1zYhhQouo1cHcn_ipSz9xgbxjjcpXY7XTq4aL0UxTni5V5CgUDHeHPIyI
The experiment showed the opposite of what they’re wanting folks to believe, that CO₂ causes warming.
“It all goes back to the latest surface radiation measurements recently published in an essay in Nature (details here and here). However no one seems to have noticed that the measurements actually showed the exact opposite of what is claimed to have been proven above, namely nothing other than what serious climate critics have always been saying about anthropogenic greenhouse effect. The number for the increase in CO2-dependent back radiation given by Nature of 0.2 watt/m2 per decade is indeed in reality nothing more than trifle. Why would the earth be shocked when 1367 watts per square meter strikes the surface at noon along the equator? The ever-changing deviations from this so-called solar constant mean value are in fact considerably greater than the above given 0.2 watts/m2.” https://notrickszone.com/2015/03/08/german-physical-chemistry-scientist-on-nature-article-of-proof-of-co2-forcing-measurements-show-exact-opposite/
Once again we see the old, tired “explanation” for the mid-20th century cooling as the masking of an underlying warming trend by industrial aerosol emissions:
“If you assume that all trends are a simple linear ramp, and call everything left-over an “oscillation”, then the simple fact that global warming flattened out from the 1950s through the 1970s driven by the ramp-up in cooling sulphate aerosol pollution masquerades as an apparent “oscillation” on top of a simple linear trend. We’ve published a number of articles over the years (see e.g. here, here, here, here, here, and here) demonstrating that studies that use such an approach to define the AMO end up mis-attributing to a natural “oscillation” what is actually human-caused climate change.”
In other words “climate change” in either direction, warming or cooling, can be attributed to the same cause. When the industrial burning of fossil fuels appears to produce increased warming, that’s evidence of “human-caused climate change” — and when the same burning appears to produce a cooling effect (due to aerosols) that too is evidence of “human-caused climate change.” Heads I win, tails you lose.
Only that won’t work — as I demonstrated some time ago on this very blog, presumably monitored by Professor Mann. When we examine temperature records for regions with little or no industrial activity, lo and behold: the expected warming trend fails to appear. Now I have no idea whether or not the “Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation” is a real phenomenon or an artifact. But using industrial aerosols to explain the very real cooling trend we see from ca. 1940 through ca. 1979 (40 years!) would appear to be a serious error, produced by the failure to invoke the most fundamental scientific controls.
For details, I refer the reader to the following blog post (http://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/2021/03/thoughts-on-climate-change-part-10.html#more ), where I present relevant temperature data for the Arctic, the Antarctic, Africa, Madagascar, Siberia, Afghanistan, Burundi, Haiti, Kyrgistan and New Caledonia. In all cases, the data for the period 1940-1979 fails to reveal any trace of the assumed warming trend, despite the absence of much in the way of industrial activity.
“”the now iconic “Hockey Stick” “”, what made it iconic? Not science that is for sure. If any high school student wants to learn how to not chart variables this is indeed “iconic”.
Congratulations for revisiting a notion that everyone takes for granted. If you want to write about additional things which don’t “actually exist”, I’d recommend taking a closer look at ocean acidification, followed by the AMOC and the MJO.
I think the most intriguing statement in the above post is this:
So does this mean sometimes proxy data is wrong and sometimes it isn’t? Discuss…
My apologies for late reply. Working in the outback of the Kawarthas where the innertubes are sporadic at best and saved for emergencies.
RE: 32 Piotr says:
“No, it does not mean that. It means that slowing/reversing the changes to the climate caused by humans, DOES NOT require the ability of the governments to CONTROL … ”
Perhaps you can tell me how that is even imaginable, let alone remotely achievable without government’s (meaning most of them – and all the big ones) CONTROL.
RE: ” . . . weather every day for the next “30+ years”. It requires though reducing the human GHGs global FORCING that causes the climate changes in the first place.”
Again. Voluntary? Perhaps you can tell me how reducing the human GHGs (to where it would make any difference) is even imaginable, let alone remotely achievable without government’s (meaning most of them – and all the big ones) CONTROL.
RE: “The same way like loosing weight does not require predicting and CONTROLING instantaneous changes in metabolic activity in every cell in your body for many months ahead (since the sum of these would affect whether you gain or lose weight) – I’d suggest first try to eat less and to move more.”
This bit made me laugh. Losing weight means having CONTROL. Complete CONTROL. Full stop. IE: eat less and move more.
RE: “Nobody decides _that – given the high mixing rate – the reductions in emissions of CO2 have global, not regional, targets.”
‘Targets’ is the key word here. Meaning targets have been chosen. Someone(s) has(ve) to decide what those targets are. Who are they and why do they get to decide what those targets are for all of us?
RE: “As for “what is considered a win” – I’d say a win is to slow the warming and then stabilize the climate as close as possible to what we USED TO HAVE . . .”
How south do you live? What makes you think we all want what we used to have? Like, longer colder winters? I’m sure you’ve thought of how much extra fossil fuels that requires? A vicious cycle until reliable energy sources replace them or just a carbon-tax and we’ll pretend it helps.
RE: “. . . The further above that point we are – the bigger the damage to the ecosystems that evolved in colder climates and the higher the risk of instability, positive feedbacks, and runaway climate change, which, by lowering our crops, may end us as a civilization.”
That bit didn’t make any sense to me. Perhaps I misunderstood. Current renewables have a proven, demonstrable, devastating environmental impact with no proven, demonstrable, environmental or climate impact. Crop yields have consistently, almost exponentially, risen over the last 30 years (yes, farming practices and plant/seed engineering also helped). Manitoba didn’t get into corn (as food) until the growing season allowed it. So how far back to what we used to have do we go?
RE: “Compared to that – keeping the Earth warmer than it used to be just so Canadian winters are more comfortable – seem rather self-centered and short-sighted. Not very Canadian, eh?”
Well first, and I’m speaking for many in the northern climes of the US and elsewhere in the world (and I mean this in a nice way, as I’m sure the others do) “Bite me.” Perhaps you can tell me why I (or anyone ‘north’) should be more concerned about Ocean-front properties? Or better, why are you? Longer growing seasons in Canada (and everywhere/elsewhere ‘north’) provides food for the world; need I mention our commitment to providing food to the 3rd world? Protecting Ocean-front property helps who? Al Gore? The worlds population will continue to increase and when it becomes exponential where will the food come from? Will either the East Coast or West Coast (go in as many miles/kilometers as you like) provide that food? So New York City is underwater? They can move. Perhaps you might consider getting into the Gondola business now because they’re not ‘gonna’ move. They’ll adapt but they still have to eat.
And yes, I have become more self-centred as I got older. (I think it’s a rule.) When I was younger, I couldn’t wait for winter. Skiing, skating, sledding, snowmobiling, there was no end to fun. I remember jumping off the porch into almost head-high snow to try and find Dad’s car. Now it’s just cold and I get cranky . . .
RE: 58
Ray Ladbury says:
14 Mar 2021 at 8:18 AM
“Do better.”
The biggest issue I had with the whole ‘climate-gate’ thing was just what a pathetic shambles the entire weather/climate record was. One guy – and that was made very clear – only one office had ’em all, couldn’t or maybe could find them, or some of them somewhere, or whatever, in one office, depending on who asked . . . but it would have to wait because another conference had to be attended. Pathetic and indefensible.
“Do Better” should have a been a sign posted where all could see.
RE: 61 Paul Pukite (@whut) says:
” . . . detailed cross-validation of many climate models, . . .”
Here’s the thing Paul; you, I or anyone can do it. Take a cocktail napkin, draw the X and Y axis. Now starting (usually towards the bottom) of the X axis and just draw a wiggly line that goes up as you move to the right above the Y axis. It will look and fit in with all/most other computer models you care to point to or reference.
I know. Seems silly doesn’t it? But that’s how all (sorry most) computer models work. They are specifically programmed to show an increase in heat with an increase of CO2. Period. There is no surprise because we have yet to come up with a ‘God-Code’ that will produce results no one thought of. The results are programmed. Unfortunately results are the intention of computer models. Yes, add whatever else you want into the mix and change the wiggly bits with each run but the trend is as intended. The napkin runs can be repeated under the same conditions, as many times, and will produce the same results just faster and a lot cheaper.
Until ‘other things’ become a main part of the programming will there be any surprises, perhaps even matching observations.
Hello, as a practicing published hydroclimatologist, I submitted a comment to your site. I’m archiving these comment submissions to use at my own site, which just received over 6,000 visits in a day from readers of climate topics around the world. That may pale in comparison to visits at your site but that’s hard to confirm since you don’t transparently display visitor counts. Given that my last comment as a hydrologist was rejected, you also appear to cancel opinions that don’t fit a certain profile, I guess. So I’m not judging your site, just setting up your cancellation facts for my own continuing climate posts. Recently you cancelled the AMO. My earlier cancelled comment recommended you also explore other notions that are not real, including ocean acidification, the AMOC and the MJO. How about it?
Ray Ladbury, 63, responding to Mr KIA.
KIA: “Humans have been collecting large quantities of accurate and global climate data for less than 100 years, probably for only 70 years.”
RL: Utter and complete bullshit. bla bla bla”
Romain: Mr KIA wrote about accurate and global, and you answer with some long local records and extremely long proxy records…maybe it’s not too late to realise the bullshit is on your side?
How accurate are the proxys? Hint: think Tiljander.
Do you have enough of these long local records to be able to reconstruct a global one? Hint: the vast majority of sub-saharian african records are less than 70 years old. How do you reconstruct before that without Africa, and South America, the Indian ocean, etc…(please no bristlecone!)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Historical_Climatology_Network
Did the authors of this piece, Jim Kossin, Tim Hall, Mike Mann, and Stefan Rahmstorf, mention anything about this fact below; “Prior to this 140-month stretch without a major hurricane strike, the longest major hurricane drought was the 96 months between September 1860 and August 1869.”? I didn’t see any reference to this information and I doubt that this comment by me will be posted on this blog because it has to do with the truth.
(CNSNews.com) — Saturday, June 24 marked the completion of a record 140 straight months since the last major hurricane made landfall in the continental United States, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA).
The last major hurricane to hit the continental U.S. was Hurricane Wilma, which struck Florida on Oct. 24, 2005. According to NOAA, four major hurricanes hit the continental United States that year. They included Wilma, Rita, Katrina, and Dennis.
But since Wilma, no Category 3 or above hurricane has made landfall in the continental United States, making June 24, 2017 the end of a record 140 months without a major hurricane strike.
Prior to this 140-month stretch without a major hurricane strike, the longest major hurricane drought was the 96 months between September 1860 and August 1869.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/gage-cohen/record-140-months-major-hurricane-strike-us
46
Steven, specifically which peer-reviewed paper allegedly provides the most convincing evidence that we are currently experiencing a “climate crisis”?
Why should a rational person believe that most scientists believe that we are currently experiencing a “climate crisis”?
We’ve got AGW on the run now! We are saved! Hallelujah!
https://bikeportland.org/2021/03/24/portland-bike-shops-sign-onto-climate-change-declaration-329178
:)
It is really hard to believe that since these alarmist only have a slight rise in temperature to feel that it is validating their claim that there is anthropogenic global warming caused by the essential for all life trace gas, CO₂, that they seem to be forgetting that there actually was a Little Ice Age that the Earth began to recover from.
“Average global temps
In the 1880s: 56.7 F.
1920s to 1980s: 57.2 F.
Circa 2000 to 2010: 58.1 F.
These are not ‘hot’ temps. Below 60 degrees most people start putting on sweaters and jackets. At 58⁰F in your living room you’re probably gonna turn up the heat! It is a good temp for longer term wine storage”.
https://www.iceagenow.info/temperatures-have-been-falling-for-8000-years/
58.1⁰F – 56.7⁰F = 1.4 ⁰F in 130 years is nothing to wreak a nation’s economy over, unless that is your plan.
What you alarmist ignore is this truth. The sun makes up 99.86% of the mass of the solar system. Do you agree with that summation? Carbon dioxide is .03% of the earth’s atmosphere. Do you agree with that summation? Of the two, the Sun or CO₂, which do you believe has the most influence on the earth’s climate? The people associated with the essential for the survival of modern civilization, the fossil fuel industries,
also know the correct answer and will continue to supply the resources that are in demand.
What is the atmosphere of Earth made of? Earth’s atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.9% argon, and 0.03% carbon dioxide with very small percentages of other elements. Our atmosphere also contains water vapor. In addition, Earth’s atmosphere contains traces of dust particles, pollen, plant grains and other solid particles.
How large is the Sun compared to Earth?
Compared to Earth, the Sun is enormous! It contains 99.86% of all of the mass of the entire Solar System. The Sun is 864,400 miles (1,391,000 kilometers) across. This is about 109 times the diameter of Earth. The Sun weighs about 333,000 times as much as Earth. It is so large that about 1,300,000 planet Earths can fit inside of it. Earth is about the size of an average sunspot!
For once you are correct about something, to know real climate science takes being able to understand that there is no way that the trace gas, CO₂, is now going to be what drives the Earth’s climate. It never did in the past when during the Roman Warm Period the Earth experienced higher temperature than what are present today. The only thing that you climate science illiterate anthropogenic global warming clowns have to try to validate your hypotheses about how in some magical manner CO₂ is going to cause the planet to be incinerated when it did just fine. Obviously any one so brainwashed regarding this devil in the sky that they have invented, CO₂ would not acknowledge that dinosaurs that roamed the Earth 250 million years ago knew a world with five times more carbon dioxide than is present on Earth today. Let’s see, for those unable to compute that, such as, Piotr, Steven Emmerson & MA Rodger, it is 410 ppm X 5 = 2,050 ppm. The Earth and the dinosaurs lived in harmony with those levels of CO₂ until the asteroid hit the Earth in the Yucatan Peninsula and pretty well changed things and you uneducated people need to know that the 2,050 ppm of CO₂ didn’t have one damn thing to do with the end of the dinosaurs.
This is how we scientifically literate people know that the Roman Warm Period was warmer than what it is today because the sea levels were much higher than what they are today after the end of the Little Ice Age, which neither of you clowns ever heard about happening that caused the Viking settlements that had been on Greenland for 400 years to come to an end. I have been to Rome three different times; but I did not visit this port that demonstrates that your unfounded hypotheses regarding CO₂ causing climate change and a rapidly warming planet has never moved to the level of being a theory.
“Ruins of the old Roman port Ostia Antica, are extremely well preserved – with intact frescoes, maps and plans. Maps from the time show the port located at the mouth of the Tiber River, where it emptied into the Tyrrhenian Sea. The Battle of Ostia in 849, depicted in a painting attributed to Raphael, shows sea level high enough for warships to assemble at the mouth of the Tiber. However, today this modern-day tourist destination is two miles up-river from the mouth of the Tiber. Sea level was significantly higher in the Roman Warm Period than today.”
Ostia Antica, just 30 minutes from the Colosseum, offers ancient thrills to rival Pompeii (which is 4 hours south of Rome).
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/ostia-antica-romes-ancient-port-1363/
#91 Steven Emmerson says basically nothing other than he does not believe that the trace gas, CO₂, is between .03-.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere and also that it is 1.6 times more dense than that atmosphere. This below is what Caltech has to say about the Earth’s atmosphere and if Steven Emmerson has an issue with that, he can take it up with Caltech.
“What is the atmosphere of Earth made of? Earth’s atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.9% argon, and 0.03% carbon dioxide with very small percentages of other elements. Our atmosphere also contains water vapor. In addition, Earth’s atmosphere contains traces of dust particles, pollen, plant grains and other solid particles”. http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/64-What-is-the-atmosphere-of-Earth-made-of-
Now for Steven Emmerson not believing that CO₂ is 1.6 times more dense than the atmosphere that it is in, I offer this from the people at Harvard. If Steven Emmerson finds fault in that report, then I suggest that he take that up with the authors who wrote the report at Harvard.
Abstract
The catastrophic event at Lake Nyos in August 1986 has resulted in a major scientific debate concerning its origin and how to prevent new casualties of this nature in future. We have tried, in the present paper, to interrelate the testimonies in time and place, and to interpret them in geological terms. It has been possible to draw a hazard map of the catastrophe and reconstruct the sequence of the events. It began on August 20, 1986 with minor upwelling of hot water. On August 21, 1986, a small explosion occurred in Lake Nyos followed in the evening by an intermittent jet of water topped by a white plume. At 10 p.m. a major detonation occurred in the lake and carbon dioxide invaded the low lying valleys, killing more than 1500 people and 6000 head of cattle. The all scientific community agree: gases have a magmatic origin. Two scenarios have been used to describe the catastrophe: the volcanic origin scenario: a gas jet splitted across the lake water, and the limnic origin scenario: gases were stored in the lake water and an internal or external phenomenon triggered the degassing. In the volcanic origin scenario prevention of degassing is impossible, any volcanic area can present this danger in, or outside lakes; prediction will proceed with usual methods. In the limnic scenario both prediction and prevention are possible: the only dangerous area are located around lakes containing dissolved gases prevention can be obtain by pumping and degassing the deep waters to the surface. In the present paper, testimonies have been used to test both hypotheses.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992JVGR…51..171L
#110 Susan Anderson says: “Please just stop arguing endlessly You’re just amplifying the crazy; it doesn’t matter if you are right or wrong, it is removing value, not adding it.” What Susan Anderson says brings clarity to what George Orwell had stated; “Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”. It appears that to Susan Anderson, that amount of freedom should not be applied to ‘Real Climate’.
Does Susan Anderson have a problem with these views that were expressed by some very knowledgeable folks?
“The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement” — Karl Popper
“Skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the unpardonable sin.” Huxley
“As Bertrand Russell said: “The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.”
“Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.” Walter Lippmann
Galileo Galilei well sums up my view of how much influence the trace gas, CO₂, that is between .03-.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere, has on the Earth’s climate, or its temperature, when the results an empirical and repeatable experiment that demonstrates that CO₂ can do all of this have never been presented, as far as I have been able to find.
“I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the Scriptures, but with experiments, and demonstrations.” Galileo Galilei
These quotes will not go over well with the owners of this site or the sycophants who follow it.
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
– Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“The models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful.”
– Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University
“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” – Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
Between 99.99% and 99.999% of the LWR absorbed by “greenhouse gases (GHGs)” in Earth’s atmosphere was manufactured by other GHG molecules and the other 0.01% to 0.001% of the LWR absorbed was radiated up from the ocean/land surface (the 398 w/m**2 you see in the energy flow pictorial in IPCC AR5 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIKgit9mszo&t=944s at 3:00). Likewise, but far more so, some 99.99999999999% to 99.999999999999% of the LWR arriving at Earth’s ocean/land surface shown as 342 w/m**2 in the energy flow pictorial in IPCC AR5 is manufactured by GHG molecules, water and solid molecules in the air colliding (makes them vibrate and they sometimes emit LWR when they vibrate) leaving some 0.000000000005% to 0.0000000000005% of the LWR arriving at Earth’s ocean/land surface complying with the incorrect “analogy-style” cartoon for the public, the unwashed masses, that’s given by the scientists and reproduced in various forms by the “media”, “social” and such types everywhere. This is why I’ve stated for 4 years, since I studied & pondered this, that it’s incorrect science, because it’s between 99.99999999999% and 99.999999999999% incorrect, and in my opinion that’s too incorrect to be considered correct.
#170 jgnfld says: “Re. JDS and “…and is 1.6 times more dense than that rest of the atmosphere (CO₂)”
Wow! While it used to be quite common, I haven’t seen this particular denier bromide for a while, now. In any case, thank heavens oxygen is 14% heavier than nitrogen or we’d all be dead!” Nowhere does jgnfld explain how CO₂ reacts in the lower regions of the atmosphere. This is an example of how a trace gas, that is 1.6 times more dense than that rest of the atmosphere, reacts in the real world that evidently jgnfld has no knowledge of. CO₂, being 1.6 times more dense than that rest of the atmosphere, sinks to ground level where it is utilized by the organism that depend on it for their survival, plant life.
August 21, 1986: The Lake Nyos catastrophe
The 21. August 1986 was market day in the village of Lower Nyos (Cameroon), from the surrounding mountains many herdsmen brought their livestock to do business with the local farmers. In the evening, at 21.30 p.m. most of the peasants and their guests were sleeping and didn’t notice the sound of an explosion coming from Lake Nyos, two kilometres distant to the village.
The few survivors report that their family members were eating, in the very next moment suddenly tumbled on the floor, death. A woman awaking the next morning found their five children dead in their hut. In Nyos that evening 1.700 people died. Rescue troops that arrived in the valley some days later reported of a sinisterly scene, villages with huts and gardens untouched, but everywhere bodies of humans and animals, there weren’t even insects on the corpses.The unseen killer was a 50m high cloud composed of 1,6 million tons of carbon dioxide, erupted from Lake Nyos and denser then the surrounding air following the valley for 27 kilometres, killing more then 1.700 people and 3.000 animals.
http://historyofgeology.fieldofscience.com/2010/08/august-121986-lake-nyos-catastrophe.html
#156 MA Rodger says many things but nowhere does Rodger provide the evidence that I asked for about how the essential for all terrestrial life on Earth trace gas, CO₂, that makes up only between .03-.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere and is 1.6 times more dense than the rest of the atmosphere, has the ability to change the Earth’s climate. MA Rodger maintains that, “CO2 is the big big greenhouse gas can be measured (thus empirically) in a repeatable experiment” & one is left to wonder just what that has to do with answering my request. MA Rodger then wanders off into the weeds with some obscure explanation of measured down-welling long-wave radiation under dry clear skies that proves nothing.
This New York Times site is interesting to show just how much of the earth is cloud covered.
“One Year of Clouds Covering the Earth
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/05/01/science/earth/0501-clouds.html
This recent experiment demonstrate that CO₂ has basically nothing to do with the Earth’s temperature, whatever that is.
Physicists’ Lab Experiment Shows A CO2 Increase From 0.04% To 100% Leads To No Observable Warming
https://notrickszone.com/2021/04/01/physicists-lab-experiment-shows-a-co2-increase-from-0-04-to-100-leads-to-no-observable-warming/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=physicists-lab-experiment-shows-a-co2-increase-from-0-04-to-100-leads-to-no-observable-warming
#73 Ray Ladbury says: “As I have previously shown why your arguments were specious, you’ve given me nothing to engage”. Ray Ladbury seems to be implying that by one submitting the extreme high temperatures for the 50 states in the United State, that is an argument. That is not an ‘argument’ but a statement of facts. The heading of this discussion is; “Climate adaptation should be based on robust regional climate information”, and to the logical individual, the record high temperatures of the fifty states qualifies as being regional climate information. If NOAA does not believe that the temperature data for the fifty states is of importance, then why has NOAA taken the effort to present it? According to Ray Ladbury, it has no value and I assume that he believes that it should be expunged from the record. The records that we are able access that NOAA provides offer up this interesting set of facts for someone such as Ray Ladbury, who knows all of the answers about the climate and, most of all, statistics.
In 1936, both North and South Dakota set these record temperature extremes.
North Dakota Maximum Temperature 121°F July 6, 1936 Steele 328366 E
North Dakota Minimum Temperature -60°F Feb 15, 1936 Parshall 326867 E
South Dakota Maximum Temperature 120°F July 15, 2006 Fort Pierre 393076 N1
July 5, 1936 Gann Valley 393217 N1
South Dakota Minimum Temperature -58°F Feb 17, 1936 McIntosh 395381 E
I look forward to Ray Ladbury’s comments and see them as an opportunity to learn so many of the unknowns about the Earth’s climate and most of all its temperature. I hope that what follows is not too beneath him to consider what it means.
Alabama, Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin are the 26 states that set the record temperature for cold after the record for high temperature was set.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/records
If Ray Ladbury could set aside the time in his schedule to submit for me a link that would take me to the repeatable empirical experiment that offers the evidence that it is indeed the trace gas, CO₂, that comprises between .03-.04% of the Earth’s total atmosphere, that is causing the Earth’s climate to change and its temperature to increase to perhaps devastating highs, I would appreciate it. There are many people who, obviously because of ignorance and lack of education, that go through life convinced that it is that bright orb in the sky, the Sun, that comprises 99.86% of the total mass of the solar system that cause the climate to change and the Earth to warm, or cool, such as during the last Ice Age.
How large is the Sun compared to Earth?
Compared to Earth, the Sun is enormous! It contains 99.86% of all of the mass of the entire Solar System. The Sun is 864,400 miles (1,391,000 kilometers) across. This is about 109 times the diameter of Earth. The Sun weighs about 333,000 times as much as Earth. It is so large that about 1,300,000 planet Earths can fit inside of it. Earth is about the size of an average sunspot! http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/5-How-large-is-the-Sun-compared-to-Earth-
It is very hard to figure out what is so offensive about this comment that the moderator will not allow it to be posted. Is it that I asked for something that does not exist; the repeatable empirical experiment that offers the evidence that it is indeed the trace gas, CO₂, that comprises between .03-.04% of the Earth’s total atmosphere, that is causing the Earth’s climate to change and its temperature to increase to perhaps devastating highs? Some honesty from this site would be appreciated.
#73 Ray Ladbury says: “As I have previously shown why your arguments were specious, you’ve given me nothing to engage”. Ray Ladbury seems to be implying that by one submitting the extreme high temperatures for the 50 states in the United State, that is an argument. That is not an ‘argument’ but a statement of facts. The heading of this discussion is; “Climate adaptation should be based on robust regional climate information”, and to the logical individual, the record high temperatures of the fifty states qualifies as being regional climate information. If NOAA does not believe that the temperature data for the fifty states is of importance, then why has NOAA taken the effort to present it? According to Ray Ladbury, it has no value and I assume that he believes that it should be expunged from the record. The records that we are able access that NOAA provides offer up this interesting set of facts for someone such as Ray Ladbury, who knows all of the answers about the climate and, most of all, statistics.
In 1936, both North and South Dakota set these record temperature extremes.
North Dakota Maximum Temperature 121°F July 6, 1936 Steele 328366 E
North Dakota Minimum Temperature -60°F Feb 15, 1936 Parshall 326867 E
South Dakota Maximum Temperature 120°F July 15, 2006 Fort Pierre 393076 N1
July 5, 1936 Gann Valley 393217 N1
South Dakota Minimum Temperature -58°F Feb 17, 1936 McIntosh 395381 E
I look forward to Ray Ladbury’s comments and see them as an opportunity to learn so many of the unknowns about the Earth’s climate and most of all its temperature. I hope that what follows is not too beneath him to consider what it means.
Alabama, Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin are the 26 states that set the record temperature for cold after the record for high temperature was set.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/records
If Ray Ladbury could set aside the time in his schedule to submit for me a link that would take me to the repeatable empirical experiment that offers the evidence that it is indeed the trace gas, CO₂, that comprises between .03-.04% of the Earth’s total atmosphere, that is causing the Earth’s climate to change and its temperature to increase to perhaps devastating highs, I would appreciate it. There are many people who, obviously because of ignorance and lack of education, that go through life convinced that it is that bright orb in the sky, the Sun, that comprises 99.86% of the total mass of the solar system that cause the climate to change and the Earth to warm, or cool, such as during the last Ice Age.
How large is the Sun compared to Earth?
Compared to Earth, the Sun is enormous! It contains 99.86% of all of the mass of the entire Solar System. The Sun is 864,400 miles (1,391,000 kilometers) across. This is about 109 times the diameter of Earth. The Sun weighs about 333,000 times as much as Earth. It is so large that about 1,300,000 planet Earths can fit inside of it. Earth is about the size of an average sunspot! http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/5-How-large-is-the-Sun-compared-to-Earth-
It appears that many irrational and uneducated people fall for this hoax about how a trace gas that is absolutely essential for all life on Earth and that all air breathing animals, including the idiots who believe it is going to cause the planet to be destroyed, exhale with each and every breath & that is CO₂. Those who have the ability to reason well know what causes the Earth’s climate to change and that it is the SUN that does that, as it has done since the beginning of time. Do these foaming at the mouth and quaking with fear fools believe that it was CO₂ that caused the last ice age, or that it was CO₂ that caused the Earth to recover from that deadly time in the Earth’s recent past history?
“How large is the Sun compared to Earth?
Compared to Earth, the Sun is enormous! It contains 99.86% of all of the mass of the entire Solar System. The Sun is 864,400 miles (1,391,000 kilometers) across. This is about 109 times the diameter of Earth. The Sun weighs about 333,000 times as much as Earth. It is so large that about 1,300,000 planet Earths can fit inside of it. Earth is about the size of an average sunspot!” http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/5-How-large-is-the-Sun-compared-to-Earth-
“What is the atmosphere of Earth made of? Earth’s atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.9% argon, and 0.03% carbon dioxide with very small percentages of other elements. Our atmosphere also contains water vapor. In addition, Earth’s atmosphere contains traces of dust particles, pollen, plant grains and other solid particles.” http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/64-What-is-the-atmosphere-of-Earth-made-of-
No that is not how science works (and you are aware that for example S. McIntyre has an opinion about most of these newer articles, he often calls it the “pea under the thimble” for the younger readers here)
If a paper is wrong, it needs to be corrected/withdrawn, this is true for all science fields, but of course this one is political.
-who are just sure the science is wrong
Well, particularly statistics is not a matter of opinion.
Most unadressed for most of those papers is how the selection of proxies affects the uncertainty of the outcome, a critique McShane and Wyner are spot on with.
So, to me it is apparent, that (among other mistakes) Mann used with Bristlecone pines proxies which seem not particularity temperature sensitive and you and others seem to tolerate this mistake.
As a direct result we have Neukon and the Cape Ghir series and McGregors statement “Upwelling-driven SSTs also vary out of phase with millennial-scale changes in Northern Hemisphere temperature anomalies ”
This signal seems not visible in the Cape Ghir (but a strong downward trend in the last century), yet it is flipped and used as warming proxy.
This might be a case of repeating history´s mistakes, because Mann´s paper is still not corrected/withdrawn!
And what is missing in all these reconstructions IMHO, Feyman described perfectly so long ago: “… something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the laymen when you’re talking as a scientist. . . . I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong, [an integrity] that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen…”
I see glaring sins of omission by Mann and Neukon, which would not happen in other fields of science!
Barton Paul Levenson says; “You are a dishonest poster, JDS. These points have been answered for you many, many times on this blog, on Facebook, and elsewhere, yet you keep bringing them up. Allow me to remind you that “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” ”; but nowhere do I see an answer to my question; “They hold this believe about the unworldly powers of this essential trace gas for all life on the planet, CO₂, even though the true believers cannot produce even one empirical example that can be tested by experiment that demonstrates that, in fact, CO₂ possess these amazing powers for a trace gas that is 1.6 times heavier than the rest of the atmosphere.” Where is Barton Paul Levenson’s empirical example that can be tested by experiment that demonstrates that, in fact, CO₂ possess these amazing powers for a trace gas that is 1.6 times heavier than the rest of the atmosphere to be able to change the Earth’s climate or make its temperature to increase in a disastrous manners?
The ice core evidence proves empirically that CO₂ does not make these changes in the Earth’s climate because the evidence is that the Earth was 2.5⁰C warmer than today’s temperatures on Earth even before the proven Roman warm period and the evidence is for all to see by observing how limestone that is in, or on the shorelines of, the oceans has been undercut due to the sea level having been higher due to the warm conditions having melted the ice on the planet.
“Ruins of the old Roman port Ostia Antica, are extremely well preserved – with intact frescoes, maps and plans. Maps from the time show the port located at the mouth of the Tiber River, where it emptied into the Tyrrhenian Sea. The Battle of Ostia in 849, depicted in a painting attributed to Raphael, shows sea level high enough for warships to assemble at the mouth of the Tiber. However, today this modern-day tourist destination is two miles up-river from the mouth of the Tiber. Sea level was significantly higher in the Roman Warm Period than today.” Ostia Antica, just 30 minutes from the Colosseum, offers ancient thrills to rival Pompeii (which is 4 hours south of Rome).
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/ostia-antica-romes-ancient-port-1363/
nigelj says, using a quote from what Barton Paul Levenson had written; “You have to use all the data, not just the part that supports your views.” and also, on its own, nigelj wrote; “No matter how many times you explain this to JDS and KIA it goes in one ear and out the other. Maybe its deliberate or learned stupidity, but stupidity is still stupidity”.
One would be more likely to pay attention to explanations presented by folks who were confident enough in what they believed, and were explaining, if they were to use their real name instead of an alias, such as nigelj.
This temperature compiled from, in this case, 58,146 stations processed in the last hour shows that there is
-0.23°F/-0.13°C deviation in the 30 year temperature record that this site processes.
The Earth’s Temperature
Currently: 56.97°F/13.87°C
Deviation: -0.23°F/-0.13°C
Stations processed last hour: 58146
Last station processed: Copenhagen, Denmark
Update time: 2021-12-02 03:24:59 UTC
http://www.temperature.global/?fbclid=IwAR2mvfvcL0od4e1OnVFh3EcNVd0on-CahKapSN1S7UCs1tnU2fHejTTlePA#twitter
Reality Check, I’m sure knows that CO₂ is at this time, 12/2/2021 10:39 AM, “The Keeling Curve is a daily record of global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration maintained by Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego” & it is 416.61 ppm.
CO2 concentration by weight is obtained by the formula below:
0.0383 V% x [44.0095/28.97] = 0.0582 m% CO2
whereby molar mass=44.0095 g/mole
and mean molar mass of air=28.97 g/mole
Any way that you observe the presents of CO₂ in the Earth’s atmosphere, it is a very small percentage of the total atmosphere, 0.0383 V%.
At 416.61 parts per million CO₂ is a minor constituent of earth’s atmosphere– less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth’s current atmosphere is CO₂ impoverished.
Let’s picture this in another way to really get an idea of the scale of CO₂ compared to the total atmosphere. The Eiffel Tower in Paris is 324 meters high (1063ft). If the height of the Eiffel Tower represented the total size of the atmosphere then the natural level of CO₂ would be 8.75 centimeters of that height (3.4 inches) and the amount added by humans up until today would be an extra 3.76 centimeters (1.5 inches)
Thus, the 3.2 trillion tons of CO₂ in today’s 5.5 quadrillion ton atmosphere represents 6.3kg of CO₂ above each square meter of Earth, which perhaps doesn’t sound a lot. If it covered the planet in a film of dry ice, it would be just 3.7mm thick.
I’m positive that Reality Check knows that CO₂ is 1.6 times heavier than the rest of the atmosphere, as this sad incident proves, without any doubt, that it tends to sink out of the atmosphere to ground level where it can be utilized by what must have CO₂ to even exist, plants.
August 21, 1986: The Lake Nyos catastrophe
The 21. August 1986 was market day in the village of Lower Nyos (Cameroon), from the surrounding mountains many herdsmen brought their livestock to do business with the local farmers. In the evening, at 21.30 p.m. most of the peasants and their guests were sleeping and didn’t notice the sound of an explosion coming from Lake Nyos, two kilometres distant to the village.
The few survivors report that their family members were eating, in the very next moment suddenly tumbled on the floor, death. A woman awaking the next morning found their five children dead in their hut. In Nyos that evening 1.700 people died. Rescue troops that arrived in the valley some days later reported of a sinisterly scene, villages with huts and gardens untouched, but everywhere bodies of humans and animals, there weren’t even insects on the corpses. The unseen killer was a 50m high cloud composed of 1,6 million tons of carbon dioxide, erupted from Lake Nyos and denser then the surrounding air following the valley for 27 kilometres, killing more then 1.700 people and 3.000 animals.
http://historyofgeology.fieldofscience.com/2010/08/august-121986-lake-nyos-catastrophe.html
TheWarOnEntropy says; “Shit, the sun’s huge! I never knew”. I am glad that I was able to inform you of some important facts that should be of use to you in the future. It appears that the one who is not confident enough of ‘its’ views to even supply its real name, TheWarOnEntropy, has much to be worried about.
“By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.” Galileo Galilei
Then TheWarOnEntropy offers up this wonderful compliment; “BTW, I must say, your cut-and-paste form is top notch”, that I must thank ‘it’ for the compliment. Can I get an ‘atta boy’ for this below?
“Atmospheric CO2 is essential to life on earth, since plants use sunlight to combine CO2 molecules from the air with H2O molecules to make carbohydrates (for example, sugar) and other organic compounds. In the process, oxygen molecules (O2) are released to the atmosphere. At CO2 levels less than 150 ppm (parts per million), most plants stop growing. Over most of the history of multicellular life on earth, CO2 levels have been three or four times higher than present levels. Current CO2 levels of 400 ppm are still much less than optimum for most plant growth.
Air also contains water vapor (H2O), from as much as 7% in the humid tropics to less than 1% on a cold winter day. Human exhaled breath typically contains 4% to 5% CO2 and about 6% H2O.Water vapor”
carbon dioxide in American English
“a colorless, odorless, incombustible gas, CO2, somewhat heavier than air, that is a product of respiration and combustion: produced commercially and used widely in fire extinguishers, carbonated beverages, etc.: in photosynthesis, carbon dioxide and water are absorbed by plants, which synthesize certain carbohydrates and release oxygen into the air”
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/carbon-dioxide
Barton Paul Levenson writes that; “BPL: Science doesn’t deal in proof, it deals in evidence”.
I would much rather pay attention to how the Nobel laureate Richard Feynman put it, “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” than what a person that seems to believe that it is the trace gas CO₂ that is what causes the Earth’s climate to act as it does. That same person, Barton Paul Levenson, writes this to me; “JDS: will not want to acknowledge that during the Medieval Warm Period it was far warmer than it is now” & then this unsubstantiated nonsense; “BPL: No, because it wasn’t. That’s just flat-out wrong”, while submitting NO evidence of how it was not warmer during the Medieval Warm Period. There is ample scientific evidence that ‘proves’ that I am correct, if only one would open their mind to the facts, such as this study that was done in Russia near where Michael Mann got his tree that he used to construct the hockey stick graph. It will be interesting to see if Barton Paul Levenson will be able understand what this scientific study is telling him.
“However, conifers have not yet recolonized many areas where trees were present during the Medieval Warm period (ca AD 800–1300) or the Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM; ca 10 000–3000 years ago). Reconstruction of tree distributions during the HTM suggests that the future position of the treeline due to global warming may approximate its former Holocene maximum position”
“Climate change and the northern Russian tree line zone
ABSTRACT
The Russian treeline is a dynamic ecotone typified by steep gradients in summer temperature and regionally variable gradients in albedo and heat flux. The location of the treeline is largely controlled by summer temperatures and growing season length. Temperatures have responded strongly to twentieth-century global warming and will display a magnified response to future warming. Dendroecological studies indicate enhanced conifer recruitment during the twentieth century. However, conifers have not yet recolonized many areas where trees were present during the Medieval Warm period (ca AD 800–1300) or the Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM; ca 10 000–3000 years ago). Reconstruction of tree distributions during the HTM suggests that the future position of the treeline due to global warming may approximate its former Holocene maximum position. An increased dominance of evergreen tree species in the northern Siberian forests may be an important difference between past and future conditions. Based on the slow rates of treeline expansion observed during the twentieth century, the presence of steep climatic gradients associated with the current Arctic coastline and the prevalence of organic soils, it is possible that rates of treeline expansion will be regionally variable and transient forest communities with species abundances different from today’s may develop.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2606780/
Gavin says; “[Response: Lol. Really? Anthropogenic climate change can’t be real because the sun is big? – gavin]” It appears that all of this depends on the narrative that is being pushed by the ‘climate experts’ at the time, such as during the 1970’s when it was global cooling that was the huge threat to humanity. Educated folks do know that a cold Earth is more of danger to life than a warming Earth or 85% of all life forms would not be found in the tropics of the temperate zones on the planet today.
“Yet not so long ago the news media issued dire warnings about global cooling and a coming Ice Age. Consider these headlines:
• “The Earth’s Cooling Climate,” Science News, November 15, 1969. • “Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age,” Washington Post, January 11, 1970. • “Science: Another Ice Age?” Time Magazine, June 24, 1974. • “The Ice Age Cometh!” Science News, March 1, 1975. • “The Cooling World,” Newsweek, April 28, 1975. • “Scientists Ask Why World Climate is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead,” New York Times, May 21, 1975. • “In the Grip of a New Ice Age?” International Wildlife July-August, 1975. • “A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable,” New York Times, September 14, 1975. • “Variations in the Earth’s Orbit, Pacemaker of the Ice Ages,” Science magazine, December 10, 1976.
Reporters told the public about global cooling in the same confident tone used in today’s coverage about global warming, creating the strong impression that no reasonable person could disagree. Here are some examples:
“The evidence in support of these predictions [global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.” The Cooling World “A study release last month by two NOAA scientists that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.” The Cooling World “Telltale signs are everywhere…the thickness of the pack ice…the southward migration of warmth-loving creatures like the armadillo…” Another Ice Age? “Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7 degrees.” Another Ice Age? “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind,” The Ice Age Cometh!”
Today It’s Global Warming; In the ’70s It was the Coming Ice Age
https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/today-its-global-warming-in-the-70s-it-was-the-coming-ice-age?fbclid=IwAR025-h8efPOEBoOyU4NMGIK0u4QWWABpSguwm0Mx6xWfb06vGvyZFuWpoI
This is my reading of the VOSTOK ICE CORE.
There are three methods of heat transfer. They are conduction, convection, and radiant heat. Heat transfer to or from the earth can only be done by radiant. All material contains heat and is radiating it to cooler surfaces or absorbing it from warmer surfaces. The difference is the heat gain or loss of the material.
The earth gains heat radiated from the sun and losses heat it radiates to outer space, called black sky radiation. Outer space is considered absolute zero.
The amount of radiant heat hitting the earth from the sun daily is relatively constant. The radiant heat lost daily by the earth thru black sky radiation is relatively constant since absolute zero is constant. A 1 to 2 degree rise in 522 degrees is relatively constant. The amount of heat gained by the earth’s surface depends on the surface area of the earth covered by water relative to that covered by land. Land area absorbs a larger percent of the radiant heat relative to the water area since the surface of the water reflects a percentage of the radiant heat back to outer space. The daily access heat, or loss of heat, is transferred to the oceans thru conduction and convection where it works its way to the poles and it freezes water adding to the polar ice caps or melts the polar ice caps thus keeping the surface temperature of the oceans, thus the earth, relatively constant. As the polar ice caps grow or melt, the surface area of the earth covered by land relative to that covered by water changes. This is the definition of global warming. I call it Global Ice making and Global Ice Melting.
That radiant heat absorbed by oceans and land masses is transferred to the atmosphere thru conduction and convection. When it is winter in one hemisphere it is summer in the other and the same with spring and fall. I would think the average temperature of the lower 5,000 feet of the atmosphere changes about 10’F to20’F each day. This takes more heat than man has added to the earth in the last 50 years. That heat man adds to the atmosphere each day is radiated to the black sky and the infinitesimal amount left helps melt the ice during global warming, should be called Global Ice Melting.
Absolute zero is -459.68’F and the average surface temperature of the sun is between 7,300’F and 10,000’F. If we could go back in time 18,000 years, the end of the last ice age, we would probable see that the average daily temperature of the earth was in the mid 60’F as it is today. You must understand the amount of heat gained every 24 hours is almost equal to that lost during the same 24 hours. Angle of the earth’s axis is 23.5’. Radiant heat striking the earth surface every day is larger than that radiated from the surface to the black sky. That retained by the surface is dependent by the surface area of the earth covered by water.
The average surface temperature of the earth surface is about 63.5’f. The difference between the earth’s average surface temperature and absolute zero is 522’F. The heat loss to black sky radiation every 24 hours is constant. The average radiant heat striking the surface of the earth is constant. Because the sun is an active star the average surface temperature will change over centuries. As the surface area of the earth covered by water increases, the more radiant heat is reflected to the black sky increases. When the daily radiant heat gained by the earth from the sun in 24 hours became less than that lost by black sky radiation, we began the making of ice, thus the new ice age. Looking at the ice core from the Antarctic we can see that the earth began the new Ice Age about 18,000 years ago.
The Vostok Ice core shows 4 Ice Ages in the last 4 hundred thousand years. I will assume that during that time the CO2 emitted by the actions of nature is constant. The lowest CO2 level is about 190ppm and frozen during the Ice Making somewhere in the middle of the Ice Making cycle, but the actual end of the Ice Making cycle is much later. The beginning of the rise in CO2 is the beginning of the next Ice Making cycle.
The last Ice Age, from lowest ocean level to lowest ocean level, was about 120,000 years.
The first 8,000 years taking ice from the continents and putting the water in the oceans. RAISING THE LEVEL OF THE OCEANS.
The next about 8,000 years, taking water from the oceans, freezing it, dropping the ice on the frozen parts of the continents. The ocean levels begin to drop. The radiant heat radiated to the black sky is equal to that retained by the earth from the sun.
When the ocean levels began to rise, as it got to the new ice blocks the 28-degree salt water began melting the underside of the ice blocks. WHEN THE HEAT MELTING THE ICE BREAKING OFF THE ICE BLOCKS EQUALED THE HEAT LOST TO THE BLACK SKY THE OCEANS STOPPED GOING DOWN.
THAT IS WHERE WE ARE NOW.
IN ABOUT ANOTHER 100,000 YEARS THE ICE BLOCKS WILL BE COMPLETELY GONE, THE OCEAN WILL DROP FOR ABOUT ANOTHER 8,000 YEARS. AS THE ICE IS PUT BACK ON THE CONTINENTS.
There are two rules of water that control the world.
We all know that fresh water expands as it cools from 39 degrees farenheight to 32 degrees farenheight.
The other is salt water is saturated at 28 degrees farenheight. As nature tries to cool it below that the salt drops out and it is less Dence. As the 28degree touches the bottom edge of the ice block it eats its way under the ice block as the 32degree farenheight, salt free, water, hugs the bottom of the ice block on its way out. This causes the overhang.
This is simple High School Science. If you believe the 28-degree saturated saltwater goes to 38-degree fresh water as it warms to 32-degree, then you accept there is no global warming
Would recommend that you add CO2Coalition.org to your recommended sources. They are staffed by pre-eminent physicists. Their research is recent, and if you believe in “the evolution of physics” (same name as a 1938 book co-authored by A. Einstein), it should be better than research done 10 years ago.
As far as oceans rising, there is plenty of data, starting about 1840, that ocean levels have risen at a steady rate since. This increase doesn’t correlate with [CO2] increase. In fact, ocean levels have decreased in Sitka, Alaska.
The highest count of days over 100 degrees F in the US by far was in the 1920’s and 30s. Since then, the count is 25%-50% less. Trend has been downward since to the end of data that I have which is 2015. In the meantime, [CO2] increased seven-fold.
As far as natural disasters, nothing in my memory comes as close to the Mississippi flood of 1927, when over 80 million acres of land were flooded causing thousands of deaths.
As far as California wildfires, the presence of a new and plentiful annual grass, which turns into 1-hr fuel every April, has contributed to frequency and intensity. Also contributing is the cessation of state forest management, and the inability for CA to resume it due to their excessive regulations. Add to that zoning which has placed houses near woods and shrubs. And reduction of maintenance of electric transmission lines.
Benestad
It may be ugly , but I cannot resist the temptation..
Da Djevelen fikk det i sinn
at intet skulle skje
Da satte han i verden inn
den første komitte.
SANN!
It is ugly, so one must try Google translate if one cannot read it
“SANN!” is standard traditional AMEN at small poems for the people.
But, on the other hand, if something ought to be done, it often pays out to utilize something that allready is or goes on allready for other reasons..
Like my wife having called and ordered for electrical heating under the pavement for years, and I have said NO-NO-NO-NO!
I had my several reasons for it. But most of all that it was against my “style”. And I was “conservative” there.
I am aquainted to and rather like it icy in the winter and if not, we have a bitty of sand at hand.
Then suddenly the electric prices have 10- doubbled. And maybe that is actually the very best that could happen to the climate in todays situation.
Maybe that old style and habit and folklore of mine from pre- electrical days was appropriale and sustainable after all?, Namely the cheapest and quite practical way to live comfortably with the weather?
How often could I find very good and practical solutions in the museums, even in the stone age museum? And people should be told rather to live with nature and not demand industrial even electric patent wares for any possible use and purpose.
that is “consumerism” We get blunt minded and handed and we do not watch our steps anymore.
Why would the world want to zero out their emissions of CO₂? There has never been any empirical evidence submitted anywhere, by any scientific organization, that CO₂ is anything other than a trace gas that is essential for all terrestrial life on the planet. Don’t these climate extremist that say that carbon dioxide emissions MUST be eliminated, realize that if the amount of CO₂ in the Earth’s atmosphere drops to 150 ppm, then plant growth stops and animals die and those are the facts surrounding carbon dioxide.
I see no empirical evidence is presented by any one, or their scientific organizations, that in any way demonstrates that CO₂ has anything to do with the Earth’s climate or its temperature. The reason for that is that the trace gas, CO₂, that all animals exhales with each and every one of their breaths, HAS never in the past 4.5 billion year long history of the Earth’s existence had anything to do with its complex climate & it would take a climate extremist to now believe, with no proof, that at .04% of the Earth’s atmosphere today, that it can determine what the climate, or the temperature, on Earth will be like in the future. These people that allege that CO₂ is causing the Earth’s temperature to rise cannot give any reason why this record is still valid after over 109 years and has not been exceeded even though their hated CO₂ levels have gone up. We went to Death Valley to see where this all-time record was set and it is a National Park to high light the importance of the occasion that happened 109 years ago.
World Meteorological Organization Assessment of the Purported World Record 58°C Temperature Extreme at El Azizia, Libya (13 September 1922)
“On 13 September 1922, a temperature of 58°C (136.4°F) was purportedly recorded at El Azizia (approximately 40 kilometers south-southwest of Tripoli) in what is now modern-day Libya…………. The WMO assessment is that the highest recorded surface temperature of 56.7°C (134°F) was measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch (Death Valley) CA USA.”
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00093.1?af=R&
nigelj,
I have already covered saturation in other posts included links to source data. Ctrl+F “De Niles” We could theoretically increase CO2 up to 100% of the atmosphere (a.k.a. 1 million parts per million), but of course that’s not going to happen. If all fossil fuels are burned CO2 will go to about 1600ppm (NASA source), so that’s what we should be considering re; saturation. The current rate of warming increase for a doubling of CO2 concentration is a 1% increase in warming effect. So that’s a 2% increase above present for a quadrupling to 1600ppm. IPCC has a huge possible range for this of +1.5-5.7C for every doubling of CO2. In other words, the IPCC “don’t know the answer”. Happer and van Wijngaarden (2020) calculate 0.8C for a doubling of CO2, so 1.6C above present by 2300 for 1600ppm, which could be negated by the response of clouds (and it follows that most of the warming of the past century cannot therefore be due to CO2 increase).
Again, you “trust” the IPCC. Trust should have nothing to do with it. I don’t “trust” the political summaries, due to their misleading language that shifts over the years to obscure past climate events. So you trust an institution that is part of a political body, over any with ties to the fossil fuel industry. Hate to break it to you – political institutions are just as corrupt as industry.
Michael Mann’s hockey stick graph has been shown to have no basis in the proxy data (again Ctrl-f my other posts). Any public figure is going to get threats, Look at all the anger here. BBC radio lunchtime show topic “should climate denial be banned?” – that was a real topic in the last couple of years. Outrageous.
“You provide no references that anthropogenic emissions aren’t the cause of the modern warming period, let alone credible ones. The IPCC find that anthropogenic emissions caused all of the warming after the 1980s. Other potential causes like solar activity cant account for the warming, on the basis of the evidence. You can find good accounts of all this on the skepticalscience.com website. ”
There’s no good evidence anthropogenic emissions are the cause, for the reasons I’ve posted again and again (Ctrl-f). I don’t need to prove a negative. We have no firm idea what has caused the many minor cooling and warming events over the Holocene. It’s a science in its infancy. Maybe the paper that this thread is all about has some answers??? The warming is trivial and in a rational world, would simply be of the concern to a small number of scientists. The average person would not have noticed any warming in their entire lives if they had not been told about it.
“You make wild statements mostly without sources or links to back up your claims. I have given you sources and specifics. Your comments are incorrect and have no credibility.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-gHWcrCK7w – NASA Engineer Tom Moser Reveals the Truth About Climate Science
I give sources if the information is obscure. Some statements are so obvious that the average person who’s interested in climate should understand their truth. It’s only feels wild because ‘truth feels like a bomb to liars’.