Articles on this Page
- 01/11/19--07:47: _ Comment on Wee...
- 01/11/19--08:21: _ Comment on Wee...
- 01/11/19--09:03: _ Comment on Wee...
- 01/11/19--09:26: _ Comment on Wee...
- 01/11/19--09:45: _ Comment on Wee...
- 01/11/19--09:46: _ Comment on Wee...
- 01/11/19--10:53: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/11/19--11:29: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/11/19--13:18: _ Comment on Sea...
- 01/11/19--13:21: _ Comment on Sea...
- 01/11/19--13:23: _ Comment on Sea...
- 01/11/19--13:26: _ Comment on Sea...
- 01/11/19--16:45: _ Comment on Sea...
- 01/11/19--17:05: _ Comment on Sea...
- 01/11/19--17:51: _ Comment on Sea...
- 01/11/19--18:12: _ Comment on Sea...
- 01/11/19--18:46: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/11/19--21:31: _ Comment on Sea...
- 01/11/19--21:32: _ Comment on Sea...
- 01/12/19--01:27: _ Comment on Wee...
- 01/11/19--07:47: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Ragnaar
- 01/11/19--08:21: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Javier
- 01/11/19--09:03: Comment on Week in review – science edition by edimbukvarevic
- 01/11/19--09:26: Comment on Week in review – science edition by cerescokid
- 01/11/19--09:45: Comment on Week in review – science edition by cerescokid
- 01/11/19--09:46: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Javier
- 01/12/19--01:27: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Peter Lang
AOC's New Green Deal. Let's go. Run the party as far left as possible.
Take for example: Ram, M. et al. 2009. The terrestrial cosmic ray flux: Its importance for climate. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 90, 44, 397-398.
They show that dust in GISP2 inversely correlates to solar activity and it is strongly modulated at solar frequencies, including the 11 and 22-yr cycles.
Their result is very important because dust arrives to Central Greenland as a result of polar atmospheric circulation, and the relationship between polar atmospheric circulation and solar activity has been highlighted for years by Paul Mayewski, and agrees well with recent research on solar activity effect on the Polar Vortex.
Ram et al., 2009 has been cited 10 times in a decade, according to Google Scholar.
If you dedicate to solar-climate research, your research is largely ignored even if your results are new and important. The "publish or perish" requirement turns into "publish and perish."
Publish paradigm-friendly or perish.
Kept out of IPCC reports
Because I’ve dug up as much research as I could find on geothermal activity affecting the Antarctica and Greenland Ice Sheets, I am waiting to see if future IPCC reports will continue to ignore this potential factor as they have done in the past. At a minimum, they owe it to the ideals of scientific inquiry to at least go through a transparent analysis of why it doesn’t have an effect on SLR.
Ignoring solar and geothermal activity detracts from the integrity of their work.
I’m starstruck. I’ve never seen a freshman suck out the oxygen from the leaders of their party like she has. Usually they are quiet as a mouse in their first term.
Her world view is as naive as you would expect from someone her age, but wow, does she command attention. She is a quotation machine on steroids. I have to admit I catch myself smiling when she is in glittering celebrity mode, dancing and all.
Given the angst she’s creating among the party leaders, some wonder if she’s a Trump double agent, along with the MF woman from Michigan.
IPCC are the gatekeepers of the dogma. Don't expect anything else from them. It is like asking the inquisition to fairly review Galileo's evidence.
It would seem that mosh's <i>cut and paste</i> meme is just another word for <i>data</i>. (is it any surprise, then, that the english lit major would abhor data?)...
From the zombie thread.
So we must conclude that the ocean and atmospheric circulations change with solar activity. You can’t explain that with changes in radiative forcing due to TSI variability. You need a specific climate mechanism that amplifies the signal.
If solar activity recruits internal variability mechanisms into forced change its effect can easily be several times higher than the effect of radiation changes alone." Javier
As I said - but unless there are plausible physical mechanisms and data then it is just another half arsed narrative.
"The top-of-atmosphere (TOA) Earth radiation budget (ERB) is determined from the difference between how much energy is absorbed and emitted by the planet. Climate forcing results in an imbalance in the TOA radiation budget that has direct implications for global climate, but the large natural variability in the Earth’s radiation budget due to fluctuations in atmospheric and ocean dynamics complicates this picture." https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-012-9175-1
I have left enough clues about the place as to the what, how and implications for the future based on ideas and results of hundreds of studies. JCH calls it my Frankenstein theory. Mosh in the zombie thread joins the chorus of those waffling about cutting and pasting.
There is a rational response if they truly believe that I selectively quote. Read the studies if they have any capacity to do so and reveal to the blog the correct interpretation. They can't do that because their belief that science is a monolith wouldn't survive - or because they pretty much have zilch capacity.
That's an idea for an article - none of it original science. I'll call it my Frankenstein climate theory. No pun on Franks ideas and methods that are decades behind the curve.
This is how it works btw - polar annular modes and the gyre hypothesis.
The answer is primarily due to orbital conditions. Interglacials are warmer or cooler depending on orbital configuration.
This totally ignores internal factors. Sequestered ice on land flows and thaws and cools by reflecting and thawing. The orbital conditions repeated the same cycles over and over over during the most recent fifty million years while the bounds of glacials and interglacials got colder and colder. These cycles maxed over the most recent million years and max cycles ended after we came out of the last major cold period twenty thousand years ago. Warming stopped at a lower upper bound and colder cycles have stopped at warmer colder bounds for ten thousand years now.
Understand ice core data and history and you can start to understand climate cycles. Ice extent cycles are causes of and not results of warming and cooling cycles.
Open Arctic Oceans are required to produce evaporation and snowfall to build the ice on Greenland and other cold places in the Northern Hemisphere. Lake effect snow comes from thawed lakes and ocean effect snow comes from thawed oceans.
Continental ice-sheets grow as new snow falls and as sequestered ice advances. Sea levels drop as long as ocean evaporation can produce more snowfall than thawing and flowing back into to the oceans produce. When the oceans are low enough and depleted of thawed water for evaporation in cold places, thawing exceeds accumulation from snowfall and the ocean drop stops. Whenever this happens, it will correlate with some orbital cycle, which will get credit for the lack of evaporation and snowfall.
Ice ages occur because it snows too much when oceans are high and warm and thawed. Ice ages end because it snows too little when oceans are low and cold and frozen. These ice cycles are normal, natural and necessary. Look at ice core data and history.
feedback mechanisms that stop the process at the stated levels. Topography is involved and this appears to relate to evaporation (water vapour) being a main driving force.
When the oceans run out of enough thawed water to produce evaporation and snowfall, the process stops!
water freezes and thaws at the same temperature, CO2 does not change state in this temperature range. Water is abundant, CO2 is not.
Water and ice and water vapor can be thermostats, CO2 cannot.
If the upper troposphere is too hot to permit convection
This never happens. show data to support this.
@ Mike Jonas:
"But the truly stunning number is the amount of carbon that has been sequestered from the atmosphere and turned into carbonaceous rocks. 100,000,000 billion tons, that’s one quadrillion tons of carbon, have been turned into stone by marine species that learned to make armour-plating for themselves by combining calcium and carbon into calcium carbonate."
Minor terminology fix: These are the <b>Carbonate</b> rocks: Limestone, dolomite and the whole family. And yes, they dominate CO2 storage in the crust, just as you say.
“The end of the Eocene was marked by the Eocene–Oligocene extinction event.” It was a cooling event.
--which is common sense (uncommon in RL). Plants (& animals) grow better with warmth & lots of food (or CO2). Doh! For some reason, "Thermageddon" has taken hold of the Climate Alarmists. Weird.
To the generalist, this topic seems amenable to modelling of position shifts of masses of air, water, solids according to observational amounts and directions.
But when I try to imagine a scheme of analysis, some variables seem to be causes of problems. The one that presently worries me most is the viscosity of sub-ocean lithologies and then the geometries of their movements under applied forces.
One can imagine a situation whereby more water put into an ocean does not change the ocean level relative to say an ancient craton shore line, because the ocean floor simply lowers itself in compensation for the added mass above it. Next thought is that to lower the ocean floor might require sideways rock movement and that implies causing an elevation change elsewhere. Such an elevation has one consequence if it happens under land, another if under the oceans. The problem becomes quite complex and its solution needs observational data not yet acquired AFAIK. That is my mind's main problem here.
Alan, what limiting process seems to you to dominate the analysis?
Where should researchers be measuring to get the data to allow a model to work well?
Please excuse me if my words do not meld with your important points in the header, which I found rather thought-provoking. In my student days we simply regarded ocean floors as fixed in place for all intended purposes so it is likely that I have missed some of your important conclusions. Geoff.
The process of most relevance is net biome production - the difference between gross primary production and respiration. NBP is greatest at high altitude and high latitudes. Within reason. Biomass seems likely to be lost with warmer temps of a couple of degrees.
In yr beginning is yr ending.
❶①❶① . . . The Comb of Death . . .
What, you may be wondering, is the “Comb of Death”?
In simple terms, it is a graph that looks like a comb.
But, what has it got to do with Death?
Well, “The Comb of Life” didn’t sound very exciting. But “Death” is a certain winner.
And it is showing “global warming”. That causes a lot of deaths.
Or it will in the future, if the “Comb of Death” is correct.
The “Comb of Death” displays temperature ranges, for more than 24,000 locations on the Earth.
And I am talking about REAL, ACTUAL, ABSOLUTE temperatures. Not those weak, pale, temperature anomaly things. But real, actual, absolute temperatures. The sort that REAL men use (and REAL women too).
The Oil companies offered me a lot of money to “forget” about the “Comb of Death” with +3.0 degrees Celsius of global warming. But I am an artist, and they didn’t offer me enough money.
Because people are not making enough effort to reduce their carbon footprints, the IPCC has asked me to show you a “Comb of Death” based on +3.0 degrees Celsius of global warming.
They expect that this “Comb of Death” will make Alarmists scream in fear, and will make Skeptics repent their evil ways. A word of warning, this last “Comb of Death” is not for the faint-hearted.
1.6 bar surface pressure would in itself explain the escape from the Carbo early Permian glaciation and the extremely high temperatures (accompanied by sea level low stand) at the P/T extinction.
By most accounts high temperatures continued through the early Triassic and the whipsaw biological recovery.
Paul Aubrin, Javier and cerescokid,
Thank you for the reference and the interesting comments.