|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 30, 2015 16:34:20 GMT
Hi there, I am new to this site, but find this fascinating. Can you give me more information about how the thought that man caused global warming goes against physics? Why don't more people know this?! Thank you, Tracee 2nd the welcome There are links to papers if you take this board as a whole. I am planting soybeans and stopped for dinner but have to get back at it. Lots of really smart folks participate here. Share the link with your friends. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 31, 2015 16:08:00 GMT
Salvatore Del Prete made a long post on WUWT on his ideas on what will happen next that seem to fit with this thread. It was picked up and 'noted' by Chiefio E.M.Smith on his Musings blog where he repeats the posting in full then adds his own views. It makes very interesting reading and definitely fits with an Astrometeorology thread. a taster.... " Note that none of this nit harvesting about what is, or is not, related to Milancovitch has any real effect on what Salvatore Del Prete is saying. He refers to Milankovitch only as preamble, and as a sort of lever to say “there’s more here that can change faster”. Which there is, and which it does. And, given our lower W/m^2 than needed to exit a glacial, the next time we start the ice over, it is likely to stay as we enter the unstable ocean oscillator phase. Yes, it is possible that the next Bond Event will be recoverable and that we end up with 1500 more years to Ice Down, but it is entirely a crap shoot. I really really do hope that CO2 is a “greenhouse gas” and I’m dead wrong. At least then we might have a way to avoid frozen. But everything I’ve seen so far looks much more like a “one and done” and the next Bond Event dumps us in Ice City." Edit: As with all of E.M.Smith's threads it is important to read to the end of the comments as some of his responses say as much as the original posting. |
|
|
|
Post by traceec on May 31, 2015 16:31:35 GMT
Hi there, I am new to this site, but find this fascinating. Can you give me more information about how the thought that man caused global warming goes against physics? Why don't more people know this?! Thank you, Tracee 2nd the welcome There are links to papers if you take this board as a whole. I am planting soybeans and stopped for dinner but have to get back at it. Lots of really smart folks participate here. Share the link with your friends. |
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on May 31, 2015 16:52:10 GMT
Wow....bookmarked!
|
|
|
|
Post by traceec on May 31, 2015 17:05:38 GMT
Thank you for the replies! Yes, I already got a bit of a cold shoulder from a friend when I brought this information up.
It reminds me of when my family quit consuming cow's milk. I was so brainwashed that I was afraid my kid's bones would crumble! My friends thought I was nuts, but now many have joined suit and feel much better for doing so.
As far as people hanging onto the idea of man caused global warming, I think it comes down to a completely distorted view of our place in the ecosystem. Many think that they are in control of the earth. I can see why this conception comes to be, kind of. When we see polluted rivers, clear cutted land, and trash wrapped around ocean creatures, it seems pretty plausible that we are destroying the whole earth. Letting go of that thought seems calloused and irresponsible at first.
However, I firmly believe the information here that I have read, and I would call myself an environmentalist. The earth has got it under control despite us. It's ok the release the burden that we, the "all powerful" are causing complete destruction. Maybe we should be watching our backs instead, because if we get in the way of the earth's self regulation, we will just be done away with ourselves! Actually, we aren't even capable of getting "in the way"...I should have said, "if we don't find ways to adapt".
I teach 6th graders and would love to lead an investigation into this issue with them. Things like the air bubbles in the core ice samples would make sense to them.
Thanks again, I will continue reading and learning more!
P.S. I am thinking of purchasing a nice big greenhouse for use in spring 2017:)
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on May 31, 2015 19:52:39 GMT
Salvatore Del Prete made a long post on WUWT on his ideas on what will happen next that seem to fit with this thread. It was picked up and 'noted' by Chiefio E.M.Smith on his Musings blog where he repeats the posting in full then adds his own views. It makes very interesting reading and definitely fits with an Astrometeorology thread. a taster.... " Note that none of this nit harvesting about what is, or is not, related to Milancovitch has any real effect on what Salvatore Del Prete is saying. He refers to Milankovitch only as preamble, and as a sort of lever to say “there’s more here that can change faster”. Which there is, and which it does. And, given our lower W/m^2 than needed to exit a glacial, the next time we start the ice over, it is likely to stay as we enter the unstable ocean oscillator phase. Yes, it is possible that the next Bond Event will be recoverable and that we end up with 1500 more years to Ice Down, but it is entirely a crap shoot. I really really do hope that CO2 is a “greenhouse gas” and I’m dead wrong. At least then we might have a way to avoid frozen. But everything I’ve seen so far looks much more like a “one and done” and the next Bond Event dumps us in Ice City." Edit: As with all of E.M.Smith's threads it is important to read to the end of the comments as some of his responses say as much as the original posting. Thanks Nautonnier, What is going on ere with Salvatore Del Prete when he asks these questions and makes these comments, "Why is it when ever the climate changes the climate does not stray indefinitely from it’s mean in either a positive or negative direction? Why or rather what ALWAYS brings the climate back toward it’s mean value ? Why does the climate never go in the same direction once it heads in that direction?
Along those lines ,why is it that when the ice sheets expand the higher albedo /lower temperature more ice expansion positive feedback cycle does not keep going on once it is set into motion? What causes it not only to stop but reverse?
Vice Versa why is it when the Paleocene – Eocene Thermal Maximum once set into motion, that being an increase in CO2/higher temperature positive feedback cycle did not feed upon itself? Again it did not only stop but reversed?
My conclusion is the climate system is always in a general gradual trend toward a warmer or cooler climate in a semi cyclic fashion which at times brings the climate system toward thresholds which make it subject to dramatic change with the slightest change of force superimposed upon the general trend and applied to it.
While at other times the climate is subject to randomness being brought about from terrestrial /extra terrestrial events which can set up a rapid counter trend within the general slow moving climatic trend.
Despite this,if enough time goes by (much time) the same factors that drive the climate toward a general gradual warming trend or cooling trend will prevail bringing the climate away from glacial/inter-glacial threshold conditions it had once brought the climate toward ending abrupt climatic change periods eventually, or reversing over time dramatic climate changes from randomness."As I explained in my Global Cooling forecast, and basics of astrometeorology, is that to understand cycles like Milankovitch people need to clearly understand the basic formation of a sine wave, or what is also known as a 'sinusoid.' Essentially, it is a mathematical curve that describes a smooth repetitive oscillation – which is a cycle. It is named after the function 'sine.' The wave occurs most often in pure applied mathematics, but also in engineering, physics, in signal processing and many other applied fields. Its most basic form as a function of time (t):  A = the amplitude, is the peak deviation of the function from zero. f = the ordinary frequency, is the number of oscillations (cycles) that occur each second of time. ?= 2?f, the angular frequency, is the rate of change of the function argument in units of radians per second ?=the phase, specifies (in radians) where in its cycle the oscillation is at t = 0 When ? is non-zero, the entire waveform appears to shift in time by the amount ?/? seconds. A negative value shows a delay, and a positive value represents an advance.  For instance, the oscillation of an un-damped spring mass system around equilibrium is a sine wave. Now, at the same time we have a longitudinal wave that possesses complex patterns. There are numerous variations of cyclical formations which combine to produce a wide spectrum of views of the natural world all around us. The sine wave is very important in physics, because it retains its wave shape whenever added to another sine wave of the same frequency, arbitrary phase and magnitude. That is why there is so much confusion in climate circles when it comes to understanding the cyclic nature of climate change because as the complexity arrives each instrument possesses its own unique frequency. This explains what Salvatore Del Prete was trying to surmise when he says, "The climatic back ground factors (those factors being previously mentioned) driving the climate gradually toward or away from the climate intersection or threshold of glacial versus interglacial, however when the climate is at the intersection the climate gets wild and abrupt, while once away from that intersection the climate is more stable.
"Although random terrestrial events and extra terrestrial events could be involved some times to account for some of the dramatic swings in the climatic history of the earth( perhaps to the tune of 10% ) at any time; while solar variability and the associated secondary effects are superimposed upon the otherwise gradual climatic trend (resulting in counter climatic trends) no matter where the initial state of the climate is (although the further from the glacial/inter-glacial threshold) the climate is the less dramatic the overall climatic change should be, all other items being equal."We are nearing the next next Bond Event, which is the next global cooling era I have been forecasting for years. It will be an abrupt climatic event, as most cold ones are. We will see the first transition into global cooling by late 2017 to 2023 (the first six years) which will include a major ENSO, of the La Nina oscillation, as I have forecasted to take place. Officially, the new climate era of global cooling will begin in mid-December 2017 and last 36 years (to 2053) with the worst cold and wet climatic & weather events taking place during the 2020s, 2030s and early 2040s, before we begin to gradually warm up (causing excessive floods worldwide) coming out of the neo-boreal age by the mid-2040s and into the 2050s. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 31, 2015 20:01:10 GMT
Theodore: I hope you are wrong. I know we are due for a Bond Event, but for my children's sake I hope it skips a cycle.
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on May 31, 2015 20:03:10 GMT
Theodore: I hope you are wrong. I know we are due for a Bond Event, but for my children's sake I hope it skips a cycle. Wish I was wrong Sigurdur, but I did this work a long time ago and warned of it for years, as you know. The fact of the matter is that most of us (including you my friend) will live to see global cooling and the wisest thing to do is to prepare for it. |
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on May 31, 2015 20:43:30 GMT
you talk of a sine wave and that sounds logical damped or otherwise, but how does abrupt change happen in such a system Astro?
|
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on May 31, 2015 21:25:56 GMT
"We are nearing the next next Bond Event" Please help me out, anyone. What is a Bond Event? I"m familiar with financial bonds and James Bond but weather bond? I have no clue. Basically, cold...named after a scientist called.....wait for it.... |
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on May 31, 2015 21:28:21 GMT
you talk of a sine wave and that sounds logical damped or otherwise, but how does abrupt change happen in such a system Astro? I think it's when more then one effect combine, eg, negative PDO and low solar activity etc. The downward leg of several sine waves combining. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 31, 2015 21:38:58 GMT
"We are nearing the next next Bond Event" Please help me out, anyone. What is a Bond Event? I"m familiar with financial bonds and James Bond but weather bond? I have no clue. Code: It was claimed that a Bond event was only a Northern Hemispheric event. Recently, there have been papers published showing that it is fact a world wide event. Just as the MWP was a world wide event. There are many that will deny what I wrote, because it doesn't fit the AGW narrative. However, it is as it is. No one really knows why a Bond Event occurs, but they most certainly do occur. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 1, 2015 0:29:12 GMT
There are temperature excursions usually a rapid rise into a warm phase followed by a drop into significant cooling. These happen approximately every 1500 years (1470 by some estimates). During the interglacials they are known as 'Bond Events' after the geologist that discovered the proxies showing the events. During the glacials they are known as Dansgaard–Oeschger events (more normally D-O events) again after the two scientists who discovered them in Greenland Ice Cores - although evidence has now been found showing they were global events.
As with all events the sampling of the ice cores is significantly coarser than the events so the actual rapidity of the temperature changes and their actual high and low temperatures can be masked by the low sampling rate of the proxies.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 1, 2015 0:47:40 GMT
There are temperature excursions usually a rapid rise into a warm phase followed by a drop into significant cooling. These happen approximately every 1500 years (1470 by some estimates). During the interglacials they are known as 'Bond Events' after the geologist that discovered the proxies showing the events. During the glacials they are known as Dansgaard–Oeschger events (more normally D-O events) again after the two scientists who discovered them in Greenland Ice Cores - although evidence has now been found showing they were global events. As with all events the sampling of the ice cores is significantly coarser than the events so the actual rapidity of the temperature changes and their actual high and low temperatures can be masked by the low sampling rate of the proxies. Nautonnier: There have been shell proxies of late that have brought the resolution of temp to 1 year intervals. One paper I read used shells near Greenland, the other paper shells near Spain. Also, a Swedish Scientist has somehow been able to get resolution of the ice cores to annual. And there most certainly are Bond Events recorded in both Greenland Ice cores and Antarctic Ice cores. The shells show water temperature, which can be extrapolated to air temps. As we both know, for water temps to show a sudden change a dramatic atmospheric event has to occur. Ice core samples from Antarctica confirm that the MWP and Bond events are world wide in scope. As I said before, I most certainly hope we are not going to see one anytime soon. My kids and grandkids will suffer if a Bond Event does in fact happen. I know odds most certainly favor one whether I like it or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jun 1, 2015 1:31:26 GMT
Hi there, I am new to this site, but find this fascinating. Can you give me more information about how the thought that man caused global warming goes against physics? Why don't more people know this?! Thank you, Tracee Belated welcome Traceec. I think I'm one of the reprobates Acidohm referred to. I'm an ex-teacher, air force officer (and gentleman?), ran a service station for many years and branched out into computer programming, writing database software for the repair trades. I've always been a sceptic .... of everything. A wise man - probably on this forum - once said " When your government tries to scare you, it's time to start asking questions." Looking forward to your contributions.  |
|
