|
Post by numerouno on Sept 14, 2013 5:49:57 GMT
Icefisher my man, has it occurred to you that there is CO2 in the atmosphere even without us humans, and that can and must be used as a forcing? I hope you can understand what "reconstruction" means for CO2 in the context of past glaciations? You can selectively choose the idea that CO2 levels are not influencing the glaciers. But it senseless. Let's go back a little bit now here. You said "this is a study by a single person who says CO2 has an effect". I said: "the study says specifically the human influence has been excluded in the study". You said: "but look, here is a graph that says CO2 has an effect". (chooses bright colours to bring about his point) I said: "look here, the CO2 considers the past, not the future, therefore the human influence is excluded as if by definition" You said: "damn, now better invent some junk here, which I'm very good at" End of story.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 14, 2013 7:29:11 GMT
You can selectively choose the idea that CO2 levels are not influencing the glaciers. But it senseless. Let's go back a little bit now here. You said "this is a study by a single person who says CO2 has an effect". I said: "the study says specifically the human influence has been excluded in the study". You said: "but look, here is a graph that says CO2 has an effect". (chooses bright colours to bring about his point) I said: "look here, the CO2 considers the past, not the future, therefore the human influence is excluded as if by definition" You said: "damn, now better invent some junk here, which I'm very good at" End of story. I am not letting you off that easy! Ignoring the fact that the study you referenced to did not support your notion of glaciation not occurring anytime soon and you instead cherry picked the only study in the compilation that was an outlier that puts off glaciation for 10's of thousands of years. We can ignore that and pretend for a minute you had correctly referenced support for your assertion and noted the correct study. The study that uses CO2 to determine when glaciation begins and ends. You maintain they excluded anthropogenic effects. But this what they had to say in a more recent publication. Commentary on "The anthropogenic greenhouse era began thousands of years ago" by Michel Crucifix, Marie-France Loutre, André Berger
Bill Ruddiman (Climatic Change, 61, 261-293, 2003) recently suggested that early civilisations could have saved us from an ice age because land management over substantial areas caused an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Ruddiman suggests a decreasing "natural course" of the Holocene greenhouse gases concentrations and sea-level by referring to analogous situations in the past, namely the last three interglacials. An examination of marine isotopic stage 11 would perhaps make Ruddiman's argument even more thought-challenging. Yet, the hypothesis of a natural lowering of CO2 during the Holocene contradicts recent numerical simulations of the Earth carbon cycle during this period. We think that the only way to resolve this conflict is to properly assimilate the palaeoclimate information in numerical climate models. As a general rule, models are insufficiently tested with respect to the wide range of climate situations that succeeded during the Pleistocene. In this comment, we present three definitions of palaeoclimate information assimilation with relevant examples. We also present original results with the Louvain-la-Neuve climate-ice sheet model suggesting that if, indeed, the Holocene atmospheric CO2 increase is anthropogenic, a late Holocene glacial inception is plausible, but not certain, depending on the exact time evolution of the atmospheric CO2 concentration during this period.
so there you have it. they have bought hook line and sinker into the CAGW web. It doesn't matter if they feign ignorance of the source and evolution of CO2, they have quantified its CAGW effect and forestalled the development of glaciation. OK so they don't know if CO2 levels are anthropogenic or not or if our ancestors have already forestalled and ice age.
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Sept 14, 2013 14:23:29 GMT
Icefisher, you can be rude on your own now -- I have concluded this conversation. See above for what I have to say.
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Sept 16, 2013 9:07:36 GMT
Going back to the original thread question, I think we will know that the next Ice Age has started when the COI Arctic Temperature graph fails to rise above freezing all summer.
That means the previous winter's snow and ice accumulation on the surrounding Arctic lands won't melt.
Ice accumulation starts.
I hope this is a long time in the future.
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Sept 16, 2013 9:13:03 GMT
I hope this is a long time in the future. It is. It is thousands of years away. In fact Arctic Sea Ice melted away quite nicely even this summer, when I think you are understanding nothing much melted.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 16, 2013 19:33:54 GMT
Global cooling?
The oceans do not show heat being absorbed deep in the ocean which suggests that is not happening, but we can see more heat leaving the ocean in the arctic influencing the atmosphere temperatures there, or least it appears to be doing that when its not being negatively influenced by ice melt and the absorption of heat via the latent heat of fusion.
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Sept 16, 2013 20:59:27 GMT
Oh, Icefisher, congrats, you have found "the missing heat". It was melting the Arctic all along. Now what?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 16, 2013 23:01:46 GMT
Oh, Icefisher, congrats, you have found "the missing heat". It was melting the Arctic all along. Now what? We will have to see. Actually not a bad point at all. Could be an interesting study. But I tend to think it will lead to more missing heat, not less. Annual average sea ice extent in the arctic has not changed since 2007. So this slowing of melt from the previous decade is a figure you would have to add to the missing heat.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 16, 2013 23:21:21 GMT
The 'missing heat' is more likely to be heat radiated by CO2 molecules after conductive heat transfer (kinetic energy from collisions) from the non-radiating O2 and N2 molecules. This radiative loss of heat from the atmosphere is always conveniently forgotten.
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Sept 17, 2013 9:25:28 GMT
The 'missing heat' is more likely to be heat radiated by CO 2 molecules after conductive heat transfer (kinetic energy from collisions) from the non-radiating O 2 and N 2 molecules. This radiative loss of heat from the atmosphere is always conveniently forgotten. You and Icefisher should team up and write some wonderfully chaotic mock textbooks! Mr Astromet would be the perfet marketing manager.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 17, 2013 9:54:49 GMT
The 'missing heat' is more likely to be heat radiated by CO 2 molecules after conductive heat transfer (kinetic energy from collisions) from the non-radiating O 2 and N 2 molecules. This radiative loss of heat from the atmosphere is always conveniently forgotten. You and Icefisher should team up and write some wonderfully chaotic mock textbooks! Mr Astromet would be the perfet marketing manager. And you could learn some physics
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Sept 17, 2013 10:12:16 GMT
Yes, always a learner but not here. I'm here only for the freakophysics.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 17, 2013 13:23:37 GMT
The 'missing heat' is more likely to be heat radiated by CO 2 molecules after conductive heat transfer (kinetic energy from collisions) from the non-radiating O 2 and N 2 molecules. This radiative loss of heat from the atmosphere is always conveniently forgotten. No doubt in the freakophysics version the simultaneous radiative heating of the earths surface by these C02 molecules is always conveniently forgotten. It must be forgotten, otherwise there would not be people here ranting about heat transport by latent heat from the surface to higher in the atmosphere, where mysteriously and magically this heat just gets sent directly to space by the magic C02 molecules.
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Sept 17, 2013 13:28:48 GMT
Andrew, how about getting into a habit of writing c-big_fat_o-2 instead of c-poor_slim_zero-2?
I think you said you were a chemist by trade? Or was that a freakochemist?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 17, 2013 14:33:29 GMT
Yes, always a learner but not here. I'm here only for the freakophysics. How do you think the atmosphere cools when it is made up of NON-RADIATIVE gases? It is only the addition of the radiative gases colloquially called Green House Gases that allows the atmosphere to radiate heat to space.
|
|