zaphod
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 210
|
Post by zaphod on Jan 15, 2015 22:20:57 GMT
Although it is some months old now, this is an interesting article: "Peat bog as big as England found in Congo Swamp thought to contain billions of tonnes of peat dating back 10,000 years will offer window on Africa's past, say experts" www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/27/peat-bog-swamp-congo-brazzaville-discoveryespecially in the context of this paper: "The potential peatland extent and carbon sink in Sweden, as related to the Peatland/Ice Age Hypothesis" pixelrauschen.de/wbmp/media/map10/map_10_08.pdfWhat I find fascinating is that in the circumstances considered in the paper, peatland could "potentially cause a net radiative cooling approaching 5 W m?2". Worth a look? |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 15, 2015 23:36:34 GMT
Def worth a look. However, the paper is assuming the GCM's are correct by using that output in their theory.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 16, 2015 19:30:10 GMT
Like when pigs fly!
Settled science is religion and the GCMs are just plain wrong. While everybody scurries around trying to find out why the last thing they want to do is think outside of the box. With climate science so overpopulated by masses of sycophantic bootlickers one has to wonder how one can turn it around.
|
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Jan 17, 2015 12:21:44 GMT
I'm pretty sold on the growth of peat bogs pulling down atmospheric carbon over the past 45 million years being behind the GHG drop that allowed Antarctica to Glaciate?
Seeing as we are on with the wholesale disruption of Peat ( not the new super bog but give that time?) via burning ,draining and gardening, we may be letting that Djin back out of its bottle?
|
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Jan 17, 2015 20:21:49 GMT
In fact there are a number of disruptors like peat namely the ocean photosynthesis issue.
Its a mistake to underestimate the amount of carbon locked in various sinks throughout our planet but its also a mistake to over estimate the volume of CO2 we emit. The anthropogenic release is just several % lift in CO2 flux and without a change in the sinks rate of withdrawal we would be in trouble but realize that a lift in the planets photosynthetic rate of a small amount and its all gone.
Yes its a different equilibrium point but it is self buffering, the whole CAGW fiction depends on positive feedback and that is where all science should be focused.
The very fact that the debate has not progressed past so called doomed polar bears and has not brought any evidence of positive feedback says it all.
The satellite era temperature record is simply not alarming.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 18, 2015 21:59:10 GMT
arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1002/1002.0597.pdfAbstract. The existing understanding of interglacial periods is that they are initiated by Milankovitch cycles enhanced by rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. During interglacials, global temperature is also believed to be primarily controlled by carbon dioxide concentrations, modulated by internal processes such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation. Recent work challenges the fundamental basis of these conceptions.
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 19, 2015 1:29:26 GMT
arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1002/1002.0597.pdfAbstract. The existing understanding of interglacial periods is that they are initiated by Milankovitch cycles enhanced by rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. During interglacials, global temperature is also believed to be primarily controlled by carbon dioxide concentrations, modulated by internal processes such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation. Recent work challenges the fundamental basis of these conceptions. I really hope that some of these 'scientists' live long enough to be embarrassed by what they wrote. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 19, 2015 1:45:28 GMT
arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1002/1002.0597.pdfAbstract. The existing understanding of interglacial periods is that they are initiated by Milankovitch cycles enhanced by rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. During interglacials, global temperature is also believed to be primarily controlled by carbon dioxide concentrations, modulated by internal processes such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation. Recent work challenges the fundamental basis of these conceptions. I really hope that some of these 'scientists' live long enough to be embarrassed by what they wrote. They wrote what they thought they needed to write at the time. Time is not on CO2 induced climate hysteria believers. Even tho 2014 was warm, it was not out of the bounds of the step change started in 1998. I tried to find it, couldn't, but read a paper in regards to step changes in climate that was done by University of Wisconsin a bit ago. The length of this step change has the potential to signal an apex in temperatures. This would be in agreement with Astromet's prediction. Who knows, but thought provoking isn't it? And we do know, from scientific analysis, that CO2 is a minor player, if a player at all in regards to climate. That is based on the divergence between modeled predictions of temperature and actual readings of temperature. Even using HadCrut4 or GISSTEMP, the divergence is wide. Using satellite based measurements the divergence is huge. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 19, 2015 1:48:00 GMT
Those damnable peat bogs are at it again!
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 19, 2015 2:05:10 GMT
arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1002/1002.0597.pdfAbstract. The existing understanding of interglacial periods is that they are initiated by Milankovitch cycles enhanced by rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. During interglacials, global temperature is also believed to be primarily controlled by carbon dioxide concentrations, modulated by internal processes such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation. Recent work challenges the fundamental basis of these conceptions. Clearly the solar cycle has temperature effects. I have posted the following analysis several times that shows a correlation between warming and the solar cycle.  I have also noted that the relationship breaks down as you move back into the 1940's and 50's. The reason might be the "solar grand maximum" has caused periods of a normal cooling trend to meander along a relatively neutral path. The mechanism for such an effect could well be the ocean heat sink and the decades it requires for the ocean to change temperature in relationship to the effects on the atmosphere, in other words the general warming of the "solar grand maximum" is affected by an internal ocean process that roughly equals the effect of the solar grand maximum causing the warming to track both the solar cycle and larger solar variations (such as the solar grand maximum that established the 3 highest active solar cycles during the 2nd half of the 20th century.  Today we ride through the 5th solar maximum that in the past 4 solar maximums produced robust climate warming. But with a big drop in the robustness of that solar maximum instead we have a flat temperature trend. The current solar cycle is now 6 years old, we are half way through and nearing the end of the solar maximum. Global cooling to commence in 2 to 3 years seems completely consistent with the GCR analysis from the Marsh paper above. |
|
