7 of 7
7
What caused global temperatures to fall in the past?
Posted: 11 August 2017 11:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 91 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2228
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 11 August 2017 09:52 AM

Why an ice age occurs every 100,000 years: Climate and feedback effects explained
Date: August 7, 2013
Source: ETH Zurich

Summary:
Science has struggled to explain fully {Still check it out, they’ve learned the lion’s share, remaining uncertainty comes down to chump change against the backdrop of all they’ve learned}
why an ice age occurs every 100,000 years.
As researchers now demonstrate based on a computer simulation, not only do variations in insolation play a key role, ‘
but also the mutual influence of glaciated continents and climate.

Weak effect with a strong impact ...
Simulating the ice and climate ...
The Milankovitch cycles ...

Journal Reference:

Ayako Abe-Ouchi, Fuyuki Saito, Kenji Kawamura, Maureen E. Raymo, Jun’ichi Okuno, Kunio Takahashi, Heinz Blatter.
Insolation-driven 100,000-year glacial cycles and hysteresis of ice-sheet volume. Nature, 2013; 500 (7461): 190 DOI: 10.1038/nature12374


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170721095446.htm

What is your point CC?
Are you now agreeing that the Ice Core data shows that the CO2 was following the heat cycles in the past?
That would be a big step in the other direction for you.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 August 2017 11:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 92 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  926
Joined  2016-01-24
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 11 August 2017 06:34 AM
MikeYohe - 09 August 2017 09:55 PM
DougC - 09 August 2017 09:57 AM

I also think it’s ridiculous to believe it’s possible to find a consensus position based on the facts with “people” who’s sole focus is to deny there is a consensus position, Mike Yohe is clear evidence of this here.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Stop your lies, or prove what you say.

LOL  LOL  LOL Says the guy who won’t reference his sources. claims and graphs.

Your double standard is amazing.

It’s even worse than that.

If as Mike Yohe keeps demanding, the quantum mechanical effects that precisely describe how and why climate change is happening don’t apply in the real world then those very same quantum mechanical effects that allow modern transistor based electronics to function would not apply.

Mike Yohe is basically using electronics based entirely on quantum effects to claim that those quantum effects don’t exist.

As I’ve already said, it’s not really necessary to point out how completely irrational this position is.

Stop my lies, in a quantum mechanical sense Mike Yohe doesn’t even exist when it comes to a discussion of the science of human forced climate change.

If he wants to keep arguing this based on his own positions to remain consistent he needs to do so without any means that rely on quantum effects that also underlie the science of climate change. As almost the entire universe is determined by quantum chromo-dynamics in the presence of gravity I’m thinking the challenge is going to be a bit more than he can handle.

The highly precise equations that have been developed and do in fact describe how matter behaves to an incredibly small level are proven daily by almost everything we do. Most directly by people using devices that are entirely made possible by the application of those principles. Mike Yohe and all climate change deniers prove the science of climate change constantly even as they try and deny.

Climate change denial is one of the most pointless and destructive activities possible… not to mention one of the most imbecilic.

What other term is there to use for someone who attacks the foundation of what we now understand reality to consist of in ways that are constantly being demonstrated in the real world by a means that is only made possible by those foundational principles.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 August 2017 02:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 93 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1698
Joined  2016-12-24
MikeYohe - 11 August 2017 11:55 AM
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 11 August 2017 09:52 AM

Why an ice age occurs every 100,000 years: Climate and feedback effects explained
Date: August 7, 2013
Source: ETH Zurich

Summary:
Science has struggled to explain fully {Still check it out, they’ve learned the lion’s share, remaining uncertainty comes down to chump change against the backdrop of all they’ve learned}
why an ice age occurs every 100,000 years.
As researchers now demonstrate based on a computer simulation, not only do variations in insolation play a key role, ‘
but also the mutual influence of glaciated continents and climate.

Weak effect with a strong impact ...
Simulating the ice and climate ...
The Milankovitch cycles ...

Journal Reference:

Ayako Abe-Ouchi, Fuyuki Saito, Kenji Kawamura, Maureen E. Raymo, Jun’ichi Okuno, Kunio Takahashi, Heinz Blatter.
Insolation-driven 100,000-year glacial cycles and hysteresis of ice-sheet volume. Nature, 2013; 500 (7461): 190 DOI: 10.1038/nature12374


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170721095446.htm

What is your point CC?
Are you now agreeing that the Ice Core data shows that the CO2 was following the heat cycles in the past?
That would be a big step in the other direction for you.

Can you come up with a detailed line of rationale for that odd comment?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 August 2017 02:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 94 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1698
Joined  2016-12-24
DougC - 11 August 2017 11:59 AM
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 11 August 2017 06:34 AM
MikeYohe - 09 August 2017 09:55 PM
DougC - 09 August 2017 09:57 AM

I also think it’s ridiculous to believe it’s possible to find a consensus position based on the facts with “people” who’s sole focus is to deny there is a consensus position, Mike Yohe is clear evidence of this here.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Stop your lies, or prove what you say.

LOL  LOL  LOL Says the guy who won’t reference his sources. claims and graphs.

Your double standard is amazing.

It’s even worse than that.

If as Mike Yohe keeps demanding, the quantum mechanical effects that precisely describe how and why climate change is happening don’t apply in the real world then those very same quantum mechanical effects that allow modern transistor based electronics to function would not apply.

Mike Yohe is basically using electronics based entirely on quantum effects to claim that those quantum effects don’t exist.

As I’ve already said, it’s not really necessary to point out how completely irrational this position is.

Stop my lies, in a quantum mechanical sense Mike Yohe doesn’t even exist when it comes to a discussion of the science of human forced climate change.

If he wants to keep arguing this based on his own positions to remain consistent he needs to do so without any means that rely on quantum effects that also underlie the science of climate change. As almost the entire universe is determined by quantum chromo-dynamics in the presence of gravity I’m thinking the challenge is going to be a bit more than he can handle.

The highly precise equations that have been developed and do in fact describe how matter behaves to an incredibly small level are proven daily by almost everything we do. Most directly by people using devices that are entirely made possible by the application of those principles. Mike Yohe and all climate change deniers prove the science of climate change constantly even as they try and deny.

Climate change denial is one of the most pointless and destructive activities possible… not to mention one of the most imbecilic.

What other term is there to use for someone who attacks the foundation of what we now understand reality to consist of in ways that are constantly being demonstrated in the real world by a means that is only made possible by those foundational principles.

Perhaps Mike missed this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EJOO3xAjTk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 August 2017 06:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 95 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  926
Joined  2016-01-24
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 11 August 2017 02:23 PM

Perhaps Mike missed this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EJOO3xAjTk

Most likely, as a climate change denier he totally ignores anything that doesn’t confirm his bias.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 August 2017 09:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 96 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  926
Joined  2016-01-24

You just have to look at Venus to see the quantum mechanics behind the greenhouse effect at work.

Venus is about 75% of the distance from the Sun as the Earth and the top of its atmosphere receives about 1.72 times the sunlight of the Earth’s atmosphere. But the dense atmosphere of Venus is almost opaque to sunlight giving the planet an albedo of .75 which means that 75% of the sunlight is reflected off into space. Only about 25% ever makes it down to heat the planetary surface.

The Earth has an albedo of .30 so about 70% of sunlight makes to the surface to heat the Earth. Not accounting for other variables this should make the Earth’s surface a bit less than twice as hot as the surface of Venus. What is the actual surface temperature of both planets.

Earth has an average surface temperature of about 15 C.

Venus has an average surface temperature of about 462 C.

Now what could be the difference?

The atmosphere of Venus is almost entirely made up of carbon dioxide, what little sunlight that is able to make it to the surface of Venus when re-emitted is so efficiently trapped within the atmosphere by all that CO2 that the surface is hot enough to melt lead. And it is the way that infrared radiation is quantized to be absorbed by carbon dioxide but not shorter wavelengths EM that accounts for this effect.

We’re about as sure of this as we are that electrons will transit through certain materials in specific ways that allows transistor based electronics to work. It’s the same science, every time a climate change denier turns on their computer or cell phone they’re demonstrating these quantum effects that can be precisely calculated or their devices wouldn’t work. The same math also describes what happens when a molecule with the structure of CO2 encounters infrared radiation. But amazingly those calculations stop working in that case according to climate change deniers.

According to climate change deniers we can keep adding as much CO2 to the Earth’s atmosphere and it will have no effect at all. Even though the same equations that make their electronics work also describes exactly how much increased heat all the extra CO2 will send back to the Earth’s surface.

And currently the amount of heat being added to the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans on a constant basis is incredible, the equivalent of 4 Hiroshima sized nuclear weapons a second - based on the quantum mechanical effects that are calculated very precisely. That’s the equivalent of adding the heat from 345,600 Hiroshima sized nuclear weapons a day to the Earth due to all the extra CO2 we’ve added to the atmosphere.

That is equal to 2,500,000,000 bombs since 1998 alone.

But according to the deniers who confirm quantum effects every day the Earth isn’t heating up…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2017 10:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 97 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2228
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 11 August 2017 02:22 PM
MikeYohe - 11 August 2017 11:55 AM
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 11 August 2017 09:52 AM

Why an ice age occurs every 100,000 years: Climate and feedback effects explained
Date: August 7, 2013
Source: ETH Zurich

Summary:
Science has struggled to explain fully {Still check it out, they’ve learned the lion’s share, remaining uncertainty comes down to chump change against the backdrop of all they’ve learned}
why an ice age occurs every 100,000 years.
As researchers now demonstrate based on a computer simulation, not only do variations in insolation play a key role, ‘
but also the mutual influence of glaciated continents and climate.

Weak effect with a strong impact ...
Simulating the ice and climate ...
The Milankovitch cycles ...

Journal Reference:

Ayako Abe-Ouchi, Fuyuki Saito, Kenji Kawamura, Maureen E. Raymo, Jun’ichi Okuno, Kunio Takahashi, Heinz Blatter.
Insolation-driven 100,000-year glacial cycles and hysteresis of ice-sheet volume. Nature, 2013; 500 (7461): 190 DOI: 10.1038/nature12374


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170721095446.htm

What is your point CC?
Are you now agreeing that the Ice Core data shows that the CO2 was following the heat cycles in the past?
That would be a big step in the other direction for you.

Can you come up with a detailed line of rationale for that odd comment?

The Ice Core data has been part of the debate here since the beginning of the debates.
 
One of the questions that has always been debated is that the Ice Core charts shows that the CO2 levels follow the heating and cooling of the earth.  Therefore, the heating and cooling is caused by the earth’s in its relationship to the sun and the levels of CO2 is controlled by the level of the earth’s temperature for the most part in the pre-industrial times. 
 
My understanding of your past arguments is that the sun’s cycles are too far away to make much difference. That the CO2 controls the heating of the earth and that they are not really following the heat. That the oceans and other parts of the earth are increasing the CO2 levels and causing the earth to heat.
 
 
I guess the debate is now over how much the CO2 can heat the earth. If the C02 levels went from 400 to let’s say 800. What would be the result? Instead of 110-degree temperature would we have 220-degree temperature or would the rise be much smaller, say 20-degrees? Instead of highs of 110-degrees we would reach highs of 130-degrees.
 
We both agree that the earth is in the ending of the intermediate part of the Milankovitch Cycle. Which is supposed to have lasted 1,000 years. We are now entering the cooling cycle which is to last 10,000 years. Or we are extending the intermediate part of the Milankovitch Cycle. I have heard it explained both ways. It’s six one way or a half dozen the other way.
We both agree that the earth is supposed to be much colder right now. That are warmer weather is caused by the high levels of anthropogenic activity.
 
We both agree that the earth’s climate has entered unchartered waters do to the anthropogenic activity and that the past climate records will not be able to predict useable data of what the future results will be, but can be used as a guide line.

Please respond. I would like to confirm what we agree on before I list what we disagree on.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2017 10:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 98 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  926
Joined  2016-01-24
MikeYohe - 12 August 2017 10:02 AM
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 11 August 2017 02:22 PM
MikeYohe - 11 August 2017 11:55 AM
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 11 August 2017 09:52 AM

Why an ice age occurs every 100,000 years: Climate and feedback effects explained
Date: August 7, 2013
Source: ETH Zurich

Summary:
Science has struggled to explain fully {Still check it out, they’ve learned the lion’s share, remaining uncertainty comes down to chump change against the backdrop of all they’ve learned}
why an ice age occurs every 100,000 years.
As researchers now demonstrate based on a computer simulation, not only do variations in insolation play a key role, ‘
but also the mutual influence of glaciated continents and climate.

Weak effect with a strong impact ...
Simulating the ice and climate ...
The Milankovitch cycles ...

Journal Reference:

Ayako Abe-Ouchi, Fuyuki Saito, Kenji Kawamura, Maureen E. Raymo, Jun’ichi Okuno, Kunio Takahashi, Heinz Blatter.
Insolation-driven 100,000-year glacial cycles and hysteresis of ice-sheet volume. Nature, 2013; 500 (7461): 190 DOI: 10.1038/nature12374


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170721095446.htm

What is your point CC?
Are you now agreeing that the Ice Core data shows that the CO2 was following the heat cycles in the past?
That would be a big step in the other direction for you.

Can you come up with a detailed line of rationale for that odd comment?

The Ice Core data has been part of the debate here since the beginning of the debates.
 
One of the questions that has always been debated is that the Ice Core charts shows that the CO2 levels follow the heating and cooling of the earth.  Therefore, the heating and cooling is caused by the earth’s in its relationship to the sun and the levels of CO2 is controlled by the level of the earth’s temperature for the most part in the pre-industrial times. 
 
My understanding of your past arguments is that the sun’s cycles are too far away to make much difference. That the CO2 controls the heating of the earth and that they are not really following the heat. That the oceans and other parts of the earth are increasing the CO2 levels and causing the earth to heat.
 
 
I guess the debate is now over how much the CO2 can heat the earth. If the C02 levels went from 400 to let’s say 800. What would be the result? Instead of 110-degree temperature would we have 220-degree temperature or would the rise be much smaller, say 20-degrees? Instead of highs of 110-degrees we would reach highs of 130-degrees.
 
We both agree that the earth is in the ending of the intermediate part of the Milankovitch Cycle. Which is supposed to have lasted 1,000 years. We are now entering the cooling cycle which is to last 10,000 years. Or we are extending the intermediate part of the Milankovitch Cycle. I have heard it explained both ways. It’s six one way or a half dozen the other way.
We both agree that the earth is supposed to be much colder right now. That are warmer weather is caused by the high levels of anthropogenic activity.
 
We both agree that the earth’s climate has entered unchartered waters do to the anthropogenic activity and that the past climate records will not be able to predict useable data of what the future results will be, but can be used as a guide line.

Please respond. I would like to confirm what we agree on before I list what we disagree on.

Just confirmed human forced climate change by the use of a device entirely reliant on the same quantum mechanical principles that underlie climate change.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2017 11:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 99 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1698
Joined  2016-12-24

MikeYohe - 12 August 2017 10:02 AM

My understanding of your past arguments is that the sun’s cycles are too far away to make much difference. That the CO2 controls the heating of the earth and that they are not really following the heat.

NO you are not even close.  Can you shut off your own internal dialogue long enough to hear what I’m trying to explain.
A)  we know with exquisite precision how GHGs behave and how much heat they are holding within our global climate system!
B)  the Milankovitch cycles is a number of forcings, it’s as much about the distribution of insolation upon our planet and how that interacts with oceans, land and seasons as it is about actual amount of insolation reaching Earth.
C)  yes, back when CO2 remained roughly between 200/300 ppm the slight forcing was enough to make a big difference over the span of millennia
D)  from around 1850 to today, a little over one and half centuries, we’ve skyrocketed from ~280 to 400 ppm and rising - do the math.
F)  current uncertainties are all about the distribution of heat within the climate system, which includes the oceans don’t you know.

MikeYohe - 12 August 2017 10:02 AM

That the oceans and other parts of the earth are increasing the CO2 levels and causing the earth to heat.

That sentence is so bizarre it’s beyond wrong, it’s a total non sequitur. 
Here we have another example of your refusal to absorb the information you are offered.
In the oceans CO2 is about acidifying the pH balance and thus damaging and transforming historic biology in ways beyond anyone’s ability to predict, on land so far as I know it’s mainly about plant food and all sorts of industrial applications.  In the air it’s about absorbing infrared radiation.

One more time

“How quantum mechanics explains global warming - Lieven Scheire”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EJOO3xAjTk

As for Mike’s gross and I dare say deliberate misunderstanding of what the Milankovitch Cycles are all about - here one more time, from the top:

Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation
Indian University Bloomington
http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm

The episodic nature of the Earth’s glacial and interglacial periods within the present Ice Age (the last couple of million years)
have been caused primarily by cyclical changes in the Earth’s circumnavigation of the Sun.

Variations in the Earth’s eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession comprise the three dominant cycles,
collectively known as the Milankovitch Cycles for Milutin Milankovitch, the Serbian astronomer and mathematician
who is generally credited with calculating their magnitude.

Taken in unison, variations in these three cycles creates alterations in the seasonality of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface.
These times of increased or decreased solar radiation directly influence the Earth’s climate system, thus impacting the advance and retreat of Earth’s glaciers.

It is of primary importance to explain that climate change, and subsequent periods of glaciation,
resulting from the following three variables is not due to the total amount of solar energy reaching Earth.
The three Milankovitch Cycles impact the seasonality and location of solar energy around the Earth,

thus impacting contrasts between the seasons.

Eccentricity ...

Axial Tilt ...

Precession ...

If that isn’t technical enough for you, give this one a try:

Equatorial insolation: from precession harmonics to eccentricity frequencies

Berger, M. F. Loutre, and J. L. Melice
Clim. Past, 2, 131–136, 2006
http://www.clim-past.net/2/131/2006/
© Author(s) 2006. This work is licensed of the Past under a Creative Commons License.
https://www.clim-past.net/2/131/2006/cp-2-131-2006.pdf

3 Conclusions
One of the questions which might be raised is how this result can help paleoclimatologists in their research. It is true that climate changes at the geological time scale cannot be understood by looking at orbital forcing only.

Instead, as already stated by Milankovitch, insolation forcing is only one step in an astronomical theory of paleoclimate. How forcing is transferred to climate (i.e. climate modelling, including climate feedbacks, land-sea distribution and many other processes); how past climates evolved (i.e. data compiling) and how modelled and reconstructed past climates compare each others, are other fundamental steps of paleoclimate studies.

However, in this paper, we wanted to focus only on one of these points, i.e. the insolation forcing. More precisely, we want to insist, once again, that in addition to the well-known daily insolation, many other types of insolation parameters might be candidates for explaining climatic records.

It is hoped that our mathematical demonstration of the existence at the equator and, to a lesser extend, in the whole intertropical region of the eccentricity, precession and some harmonic periods will tempt the modelers to test this hypothesis.

Clearly, the tropics which cover half of the world play a major role in the climate system. The energy gradient between low and high latitudes which fuels the general circulation in the atmosphere and ocean implies that the dynamics of glacial-interglacial cycles cannot be understood without the tropics. But whether the tropics or the high latitudes are the key for triggering the glacials and the interglacials cannot be understood by looking at orbital forcing only. Instead, models of the natural Earth system are needed to understand the climate processes and feedbacks. In particular, … {then comes the math}

Think this through, Milankovitch cycles do not alter the overall insolation of our planet markedly.
Doesn’t this lead us right back to Earth’s atmosphere and all that extra atmospheric insulation?

Here’s a informative short read on what we’ve done to our planet’s energy balance.

How much extra energy are we adding to the earth system?
Professor Steve Easterbrook
11. January 2012 · Update (Aug 15, 2013):

About Steve Easterbrook: I’m a professor of computer science at the University of Toronto. Stuff about my work (bio, publications etc) can be found on my U of T webpages. Stuff I think is worthy of a photo can be found on Flickr.

I’ve been meaning to do this calculation for ages, and finally had an excuse today, as I need it for the first year course I’m teaching on climate change. The question is: how much energy are we currently adding to the earth system due to all those greenhouse gases we’ve added to the atmosphere?

In the literature, the key concept is anthropogenic forcing, by which is meant the extent to which human activities are affecting the energy balance of the earth. When the Earth’s climate is stable, it’s because the planet is in radiative balance, meaning the incoming radiation from the sun and the outgoing radiation from the earth back into space are equal. A planet that’s in radiative balance will generally stay at the same (average) temperature because it’s not gaining or losing energy. If we force it out of balance, then the global average temperature will change.

Physicists express radiative forcing in watts per square meter (W/m2), ...

http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2012/01/how-much-extra-energy-are-we-adding-to-the-earth-system/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2017 11:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 100 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1698
Joined  2016-12-24

oops, sorry, didn’t mean to bold all that.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2017 12:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 101 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1698
Joined  2016-12-24

Additional reading:

Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag
Posted on 10 April 2012 by dana1981
https://skepticalscience.com/skakun-co2-temp-lag.html

Carbon Dioxide and Temperature Levels Are More Tightly Linked
By Bill Sweet
Posted 3 Mar 2013
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/environment/carbon-dioxide-and-temperature-levels-are-more-tightly-linked

good luck

Profile
 
 
   
7 of 7
7