3 of 7
3
What caused global temperatures to fall in the past?
Posted: 31 July 2017 12:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1087
Joined  2016-12-24
MikeYohe - 31 July 2017 10:09 AM
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 30 July 2017 10:03 AM

(One of these days gonna have to watch the documentary, I did read the book wink)

Stunning film exposes climate sceptics #MerchantsOfDoubt
Climate State - Published on Aug 30, 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRenGy0cg5s&t=319s

Merchants of Doubt is a 2014 American documentary film directed by Robert Kenner and inspired by the 2010 book of the same name by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway. The film traces the use of public relations tactics that were originally developed by the tobacco industry to protect their business from research indicating health risks from smoking. The most prominent of these tactics is the cultivation of scientists and others who successfully cast doubt on the scientific results. 

Yes, and as Doug pointed out the future exacerbation of our global warming crisis into an even faster growing and more hideously disruption and degradation of our biosphere, that we’ll be able to lay at the Trump Puppet’s feet - though he’s only a figure head for other sinister forces.

There is nothing wrong with saying, “We don’t really know for sure”.

The fuk there isn’t, if you are lying about all that is known,... 
If you are setting impossible expectations, ...

If that “for sure” becomes a justification for doing nothing in the face of overwhelming evidence both physical and theoretical, ...
Then yes that is wrong as hell.

You are all hype. It is more about Trump than science for you.
 
If there is overwhelming physical and theoretical evidence. Then what are you waiting for? Why don’t they just shut down the IPCC? After all, you have all the answers, all world has to do is ask you, and you will tell them.
   
It has been established that the problem is caused by over population.  Something that you never talk about. Trump, yes, every chance your get. Solution to the problem, never.

Oh, oh, Mikie did I strike your funny bone. Careful now temper, temper, blood pressure and all that.

So, I’m all hype - Yeah that’s why I’m the only one who can support his position with real explanations and genuine scientific evidence.
If you took one look at Merchants of Doubt you’d realize how ludicrous it is bringing up Trump in context with it.
Trump is merely the postern child for what we can expected from that gold plated greed driven absolutism.

Trump knows more about science than me - here we have example of your obsessive prejudice blinding you.
I know I understand the science because I can point to specifics that support my positions,
oh but I’m not above being skeptical of my own position so am always willing to put it to the test and continue the learning process.
More than can be said for your tunnel visioned approach.

Also here’s an indication of how little you actually pay attention to what I’ve said - if your actually believe I’ve never pinned this (and other current ‘issues’)
on over-population is ridiculous.

Hot air is hot air.  I stand ready for any fact based debate you want to initiate regarding climate science.

[ Edited: 01 August 2017 08:25 AM by Citizenschallenge-v.3 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2017 08:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1087
Joined  2016-12-24

Fixed a couple typos up there, yeah bet I missed a few more.

I came across an interesting recent paper today that underscores the level at which scientists are actually working to understanding distant climate changes, the details and what they can add to our understanding of current dynamics.

This also has implications for helping understand the dynamics that dictated past climate fluctuations and the factors that went into specific fluctuations.

“Glacial weathering, sulfide oxidation, and global carbon cycle feedbacks,” PNAS (2017).
Mark A. Torres el al.,
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/07/25/1702953114

Significance

We compile data showing that, as hypothesized previously, waters draining glaciers have solute chemistry that is distinct from nonglacial rivers and reflects different proportions of mineral weathering reactions. Elevated pyrite oxidation during glacial weathering could generate acidity, releasing carbon to the atmosphere. We show that this effect could contribute to changes in CO2 during glacial cycles of the past million years.

Over the longer, multimillion-year timescales that Earth transitions into and out of glaciated states, sustained addition of pyrite-derived sulfate to the oceans could shift the balance of the global carbon cycle toward increasing CO2 in the ocean–atmosphere, thus providing a negative-feedback mechanism preventing runaway glaciation. This mechanism depends on oxidation and thus sufficient O2.

Abstract
Connections between glaciation, chemical weathering, and the global carbon cycle could steer the evolution of global climate over geologic time, but even the directionality of feedbacks in this system remain to be resolved. Here, we assemble a compilation of hydrochemical data from glacierized catchments, use this data to evaluate the dominant chemical reactions associated with glacial weathering, and explore the implications for long-term geochemical cycles. Weathering yields from catchments in our compilation are higher than the global average, which results, in part, from higher runoff in glaciated catchments.

Our analysis supports the theory that glacial weathering is characterized predominantly by weathering of trace sulfide and carbonate minerals. To evaluate the effects of glacial weathering on atmospheric pCO2, we use a solute mixing model to predict the ratio of alkalinity to dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) generated by weathering reactions. Compared with nonglacial weathering, glacial weathering is more likely to yield alkalinity/DIC ratios less than 1, suggesting that enhanced sulfide oxidation as a result of glaciation may act as a source of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Back-of-the-envelope calculations indicate that oxidative fluxes could change ocean–atmosphere CO2 equilibrium by 25 ppm or more over 10 ky. Over longer timescales, CO2 release could act as a negative feedback, limiting progress of glaciation, dependent on lithology and the concentration of atmospheric O2. Future work on glaciation–weathering–carbon cycle feedbacks should consider weathering of trace sulfide minerals in addition to silicate minerals.

Fascinating, though it doesn’t change anything about the reality of what we have done to our planet with our profligate fossil fuels burning (and general contempt and ignorance towards the planetary processes that made our lives and society possible.).

Carbon Dioxide and Climate
An article from our July 1959 issue examined climate change: “A current theory postulates that carbon dioxide regulates the temperature of the earth. This raises an interesting question: How do Man’s activities influence the climate of the future?”
By Gilbert N. Plass Reprinted in Scientific American on December 4, 2008

The theories that explain worldwide climate change are almost as varied as the weather. The more familiar ones attribute changes of climate to Olympian forces that range from geological upheavals and dust-belching volcanoes to long-term variations in the radiation of the sun and eccentricities in the orbit of the earth. Only the so-called carbon dioxide theory takes account of the possibility that human activities may have some effect on climate. This theory suggests that in the present century man is unwittingly raising the temperature of the earth by his industrial and agricultural activities.

Even the carbon dioxide theory is not new; the basic idea was first precisely stated in 1861 by the noted British physicist John Tyndall. He attributed climatic temperature-changes to variations in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. According to the theory, carbon dioxide controls temperature because the carbon dioxide molecules in the air absorb infrared radiation. The carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere are virtually transparent to the visible radiation that delivers the sun’s energy to the earth. But the earth in turn reradiates much of the energy in the invisible infrared region of the spectrum. This radiation is most intense at wavelengths very close to the principal absorption band (13 to 17 microns) of the carbon dioxide spectrum. When the carbon dioxide concentration is sufficiently high, even its weaker absorption bands become effective, and a greater amount of infrared radiation is absorbed [see chart on page 42]. Because the carbon dioxide blanket prevents its escape into space, the trapped radiation warms up the atmosphere. ...

To summarize, explanations for past fluctuations in global temperatures are available for those with a sincere desire to learn about it.
Prerequisite the intellectual integrity to do the homework required.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2017 08:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1087
Joined  2016-12-24

Fascinating article: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dioxide-and-climate/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2017 09:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1087
Joined  2016-12-24

In review I noticed this

MikeYohe - 26 July 2017 11:28 AM

In one way or another, most of the energy on Earth originates from the sun. Heat from the sun “powers” all of the major processes in the atmosphere. The heat-trapping greenhouse properties of the Earth’s atmosphere and the planet’s tilt also play vital roles in weather dynamics and air circulation. Everything about Earth’s weather, however, comes back to the sun.
http://sciencing.com/nearly-earths-energy-atmosphere-come-from-12391.html

Mike what was your point with all that?

Where do you find me or anyone else who’s serious about climate science denying that the sun is by far Earth’s major source of energy?
Have you ever heard me claim that our atmosphere makes heat?

Or is its just reflexive arm waving?

Remember the slogan: IT’S THE ATMOSPHERIC INSULATION S….

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2017 09:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1087
Joined  2016-12-24

since S.N. insists

Or is it just reflexive arm waving?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2017 04:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  855
Joined  2016-01-24

Feeding climate change denial trolls makes you part of the problem not part of the solution, stop pretending they have any relevance at all.

Would you debate someone over whether or not cigarette smoking kills?

Let them post whatever the hell they want it’s all utter nonsense in the interests of selling a deadly product, trying to “debate” them just gives them a platform to kill even more.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2017 06:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4107
Joined  2014-06-20

Dick the Butcher in Henry the Sixth had the right idea for global warming,


“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”

That should lower the heat substantially.  rolleyes

[ Edited: 01 August 2017 06:06 PM by LoisL ]
 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2017 08:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1087
Joined  2016-12-24
DougC - 01 August 2017 04:46 PM

Feeding climate change denial trolls makes you part of the problem not part of the solution, stop pretending they have any relevance at all.

Yeah that’s why after nearly a half century of knowing better most of Americans are still in denial (or oblivion) about manmade global warming.

Ignoring the trolls only gives them the field.    long face

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 August 2017 07:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2751
Joined  2007-07-05
JohnH - 18 July 2017 07:24 AM

Every 120,000 years global temperatures and carbon dioxide levels fall quite dramatically. About a half million years ago it happened every 40,000 years. What caused it?

What is “quite dramatically”?

One degree per 1,000 years?

In geological time that is fast.  In historical human terms it is not.  The world population did not reach One Billion until 1800 and people probably did not know at the time.

The issue is SEVEN Billion people with ‘high’ technology consuming the sh!t out of the planet.

psik

 Signature 

Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2017 11:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1937
Joined  2013-06-01

Sorry for the delay. Had to go out of town. Thanks for proving my points.

Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 31 July 2017 12:05 PM

So, I’m all hype - Yeah that’s why I’m the only one who can support his position with real explanations and genuine scientific evidence.

That is an opinion from someone who thinks they are the judge and jury. You and President Nicolas Maduro have a lot in common when it comes to your political views and who is to blame for people not following you.

If you took one look at Merchants of Doubt you’d realize how ludicrous it is bringing up Trump in context with it.

Sorry, I try and stay away from the spin. Don’t have time for that kind of bull. That is the same pathway the democrats used in the last election. And using both hands they still can’t find their ass. The working people aren’t buying this type of hype.

Trump is merely the poster child for what we can expected from that gold plated greed driven absolutism.

That’s the problem, your drive is absolutism. And you use science to hide your true intent.

Trump knows more about science than me - here we have example of your obsessive prejudice blinding you.

Do I understand you correctly? You claim to know more about science than the executive branch of our government. I guess you should be the poster child.

I know I understand the science because I can point to specifics that support my positions,
oh but I’m not above being skeptical of my own position so am always willing to put it to the test and continue the learning process.

You were making the same claims about the American political process a few months back. That your culture was good and everything else was evil. You apply the same process to science. You understand your science. Not the science that can be applied while keeping the world operating. 

More than can be said for your tunnel visioned approach.

I do what I can to help back the goals of the IPCC. I don’t always personally agree with the IPCC, but I give them the doubt and still back their goals. The IPCC started in 1988 and in twenty-nine years has not brought up the items you campaign on. Stuff like climate deniers. I back items that the IPCC say will help, like the climate models.

Also here’s an indication of how little you actually pay attention to what I’ve said - if your actually believe I’ve never pinned this (and other current ‘issues’) on over-population is ridiculous.

OK, if you think the problem is caused by over-population. Then what does the tobacco industry and Trump have to do with over population? Why talk about them when you could be talking about the real problems. Personal choice I would guess.

Hot air is hot air.  I stand ready for any fact based debate you want to initiate regarding climate science.

I would like to see you talk about the risks (LAGS and JUMPS). And what is the established normal sea levels and annual global temperature for the earth based upon the Milankovitch cycles. You know, stuff like JohnH asked. You could talk about how we will have to deal with the extinction species do to the effects of over-population. You could talk about how powers are trying to use climate change to push globalization.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2017 04:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1087
Joined  2016-12-24
MikeYohe - 03 August 2017 11:08 AM

Not the science that can be applied while keeping the world operating. 

Please do expound on that thought.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2017 04:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1087
Joined  2016-12-24
MikeYohe - 03 August 2017 11:08 AM

I do what I can to help back the goals of the IPCC.

Then please explain to us, what the goals of the IPCC are, in your estimation.

MikeYohe - 03 August 2017 11:08 AM

I would like to see you talk about the risks (LAGS and JUMPS).

Okay,  stake your position and let’s look at it.

MikeYohe - 03 August 2017 11:08 AM

And what is the established normal sea levels and annual global temperature for the earth based upon the Milankovitch cycles. You know, stuff like JohnH asked.


How would that information help us? 
How do you think it will help understand the challenges coming at us these next five decades any better?

MikeYohe - 03 August 2017 11:08 AM

You were making the same claims about the American political process a few months back.
That your culture was good and everything else was evil.
You apply the same process to science.
You understand your science.

Please do refresh my memory, I haven’t a clue what you might be referring to.

By “my culture” do you mean the culture of Constructive Debates - as opposed to Lawyerly Advocacy Show Debates that abandon honesty and decency towards your opponents?  Where emotionalizing and distracting are the norm, rather than the rarity.

Constructive Debates are where one is expected to support their position with citations and links to serious science?
Where one is expected to represent their opponent’s position honestly, rather than weaving layers of deception and diversions into it?
Where the facts lead the direction of the dialogue?
And constructive learning is everyone’s goal?

[ Edited: 03 August 2017 04:18 PM by Citizenschallenge-v.3 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2017 04:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1087
Joined  2016-12-24
MikeYohe - 03 August 2017 11:08 AM

Trump is merely the poster child for what we can expected from that gold plated greed driven absolutism.

That’s the problem, your drive is absolutism. And you use science to hide your true intent. {please to share, what is my True Intent pray tell?}

Trump knows more about science than me - here we have example of your obsessive prejudice blinding you.

Do I understand you correctly? You claim to know more about science than the executive branch of our government.

Damned straight I know more about climate science and Earth history than the Trump and those clowns currently occupying our government’s Executive Branch.
And I have the science, not my science, to support my opinions precisely because it is the active and evolving science that’s provided me with all I know about it.  Plus, every debate I get into with a contrarian offers up yet more learning opportunities that I take full advantage of, all that adds up after a while.  Mind you getting pretty close to 50 years of ongoing active interest and accumulating understanding of my planet’s history and her geophysical processes (actually 55+ years on that) and (then AGW related topics for pretty near 50 years) - manmade global warming became very important to me since it promises to destroy everything society managed to put together. Not to mention the eventual resetting of Earth’s evolutionary clock.


Such a gish gallop dude, but I think I leave it with a challenge - since you seem to hold a blanket contempt for the positions I stake out and you’ve implied I use bullshit science to make those points.  PLEASE PROVIDE EXAMPLES OF SCIENCE I’VE LINKED TO THAT YOU BELIEVE IS BOGUS.  I stand ready to reexamining it in light of your critique, whatever it may be.  Let the man with integrity be left standing.

[ Edited: 03 August 2017 04:38 PM by Citizenschallenge-v.3 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 August 2017 03:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1937
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 03 August 2017 04:02 PM
MikeYohe - 03 August 2017 11:08 AM

Not the science that can be applied while keeping the world operating. 

Please do expound on that thought.

What is the difference between a law and a regulation?
 
There are over 430 departments, agencies, and sub-agencies in the federal government that create regulations. That number is not exact, because there are secret agencies that exist. At the end of 2016 we had 97,110 pages of regulations in the Federal Register.
 
Now add the State and local laws and regulations.
 
Where is Climate Change laws and regulations going to fit into this system?
 
California is an example of what’s ahead for the Climate Change regulations.
 
Remember what happened when we tried to use geothermal energy back in the 70’s. We were in the court system for the next two decades.
 
We got a lucky break with solar energy. Consumers in California ended up paying the local utility company to be able to use solar energy and also use the local power grid. The laws and regulations for wind power made the costs too high for the individual consumer.
   
Next problem is the liability. With laws and regulations comes the liability. No doubt it’s going to be over a hundred-billion-dollar insurance market.
 
Our best hope is to get the climate models working. Otherwise we will have experts on both sides fighting climate litigation in the court system for the next fifty years. The added costs will show up in every item the consumer pays for. It could end up lowering our standard of living and create the loss of jobs.
 
Right now, the new energy markets are booming and creating jobs and helping the economy. Now is the time to start worrying about climate litigation and liability.
 
//www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-climate-change-laws-around-world

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 August 2017 03:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1937
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 03 August 2017 04:07 PM
MikeYohe - 03 August 2017 11:08 AM

I do what I can to help back the goals of the IPCC.

Then please explain to us, what the goals of the IPCC are, in your estimation.

My personal thoughts about the IPCC. The IPCC is like the clearing house for climate change. It does not set the policies. It collects and has peer reviews of the research being done on climate change around the world. It tries to work without too much political and business interference. Transparency is crucial. Communication with the public is done with the reports. These reports update the public about the risks of climate change and the progress being made and outlines the pathways being worked upon.

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 7
3