|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 7, 2017 16:16:41 GMT
MIS-11
|
|
|
|
Post by flearider on May 7, 2017 21:05:30 GMT
great .. lets look at old news ie: the last 400k yrs .. does this mean it's going to be the same .. no
chaos theory is what we live in .. and the cold does not come from the north .. it comes from the south ..
when we get a really big build up of ice in the south and it melts the north goes cool ..
as we have seen over the last 3-4 yrs ..
|
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Aug 16, 2018 13:38:38 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 16, 2018 14:21:12 GMT
So a drop into a glacial state is not possible with CO2 at over 300ppm? But the Earth has dropped into glaciation with CO2 that high. Therefore, can the reassurance that a glacial state is millenia in the future cannot be trusted either. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 16, 2018 15:38:48 GMT
So a drop into a glacial state is not possible with CO2 at over 300ppm? But the Earth has dropped into glaciation with CO2 that high. Therefore, can the reassurance that a glacial state is millenia in the future cannot be trusted either. I find this a little difficult to take at face value: "No alternative hypothesis has successfully explained why CO2levels would oscillate at Milankovitch frequencies. But since temperature and CO2levels follow Milankovitch oscillations, an unresolved question is how much of the temperature change is caused by the CO2change. "
I put forward Henry's Law as the oceans warm they outgas CO2 and vice versa, hence the lag of CO2 with temperature. I cannot believe that the authors are ignorant of the Gas Laws. They also average a chaotic output looking for patterns which I feel is a non-scientific thing to do especially as we have had so few oscillations to witness. Pushing them to ft saying what's a few tens of thousands of years - it's good enough for climate 'science'.
"Black curve is summer energy at 65°N with a 275 W/m2threshold (Huybers, 2006), lagged by 6000 years to compensate the delay between forcing and effect."Considering how rapidly the seasons warm or cool the earth - 6000years seems an awfully long time for cyclical forcing to have an effect. I am not wildly impressed. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 16, 2018 22:01:24 GMT
So a drop into a glacial state is not possible with CO2 at over 300ppm? But the Earth has dropped into glaciation with CO2 that high. Therefore, can the reassurance that a glacial state is millenia in the future cannot be trusted either. I find this a little difficult to take at face value: "No alternative hypothesis has successfully explained why CO2levels would oscillate at Milankovitch frequencies. But since temperature and CO2levels follow Milankovitch oscillations, an unresolved question is how much of the temperature change is caused by the CO2change. "
I put forward Henry's Law as the oceans warm they outgas CO2 and vice versa, hence the lag of CO2 with temperature. I cannot believe that the authors are ignorant of the Gas Laws. They also average a chaotic output looking for patterns which I feel is a non-scientific thing to do especially as we have had so few oscillations to witness. Pushing them to ft saying what's a few tens of thousands of years - it's good enough for climate 'science'.
"Black curve is summer energy at 65°N with a 275 W/m2threshold (Huybers, 2006), lagged by 6000 years to compensate the delay between forcing and effect."Considering how rapidly the seasons warm or cool the earth - 6000years seems an awfully long time for cyclical forcing to have an effect. I am not wildly impressed. Naut I think you are misreading it. I agree this section could be better composed, but it appears to me what he is saying is CO2 does oscillate at Milankovich cycles and no other explanation, prior to human emissions, has ever explained it occurring another way. He is writing that in a section of how the orbital theory became known as an exception over the existing theory of climate by Tyndall and Arrhenius who claimed CO2 was the sole driver of climate forcing where the oscillations were believed to result from geological catastrophism like volcanoes and meteor/comet impacts. So when he says no alternative theory has been developed he was talking in support of the Milankovich cycles controlling CO2 and goes on later to suggest "why not still" playing off an idea of natural variation (including Milankovich) making up still a large portion of observed warming during times that warming is accelerated. I think he goes on to link the likelihood of a new ice age starting with high CO2 levels to ECS that if low as suggested by Lewis and Curry yes, and maybe no only if ECS is exceptionally high for which clearly events are suggesting its not. |
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Sept 9, 2018 0:06:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Sept 9, 2018 1:00:00 GMT
|
|
