Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When I'm in my greenhouse, I think that the sun is part of the reason for the temperature inside the greenhouse
And the glass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
the planet was NOT cooling for 4000 years
The most recent glaciation began about 125,000 years ago and climaxed about 21,000 years ago. At this time, over 30% of the earth’s surface was covered by ice, and sea level was at least 125 meters lower than present ......we have been warming since....not a smooth sine wave of warming..... but very jagged
Plato (ancient Greece) about 2500 years ago was talking about the warming
The ancient Greek philosopher Plato, who lived in 427-347 BC, wrote about major climate changes known in his day. In the dialogue, "Timaeus," he argued global warming occurs at regular intervals, often leading to great floods. Said Plato, "When... the gods purge the Earth with a deluge of water, the survivors... are herdsmen and shepherds who dwell on the mountains. But those who... live in cities are carried by the rivers into the sea."
In the dialogue, "Critias," Plato wrote about weather-related geological changes. He referred to "formidable deluges" that washed away all the top soil, turning the land into a "skeleton of a body wasted by disease." What were now plains had once been covered with rich soil, Plato said, and barren mountains were once covered with trees. The yearly "water from Zeus" had been lost, he went on, creating deserts where the land was once productive.
Plato's student, Aristotle, who lived from 384 BC to 322 BC, also recorded evidence of global warming in his work, "Meteorologica." He noted that in the time of the Trojan War, the land of Argos was marshy and unarable, while that of Mycenae was temperate and fertile. "But now the opposite is the case," Aristotle wrote. "The land of Mycenae has become completely dry and barren, while the Argive land that was formerly barren, owing to the water has now become fruitful." He observed the same phenomenon elsewhere covering large regions and nations
so just how were we cooling for 4000 years if the last glacial period ended ~20,000 years ago....and 2500 years ago ancient Greeks were talking about warming
In the first century AD, an ancient Roman named Columella wrote an agricultural treatise called, "De re rustica." In it, he discussed global warming that had turned areas once too cold for agriculture into thriving farm communities. Columella cites an authority named Saserna who recorded many such cases. According to Saserna, "regions which formerly, because of the unremitting severity of winter, could not safeguard any shoot of the vine or the olive planted in them, now that the earlier coldness has abated and weather is becoming more clement, produce olive harvests and the vintages of Bacchus [wine] in greatest abundance."
Those are all spot on.
It was so warm you could grow grapes in Britain.
Romans prized the wine made in Britain.
Alas, the problem with such warm temperatures is Malaria.
Britons were plagued by Malaria for centuries, right up the Little Ice Age.
The Little Ice Age killed off all the mosquitoes in the British Isles, and when temperatures warmed back up, there were no more reported cases for centuries.
This information should not be considered an "other controversy", but it is because so many people do not believe in basic science.
What many climate researchers have long sought is a plan to keep levels of carbon dioxide at 350 ppm in the atmosphere, but we've reached a level not seen in millions of years, and it will continue to rise. Instead of working on solutions, we pretend the problem does not exist because of the enormous wealth and influence of the fossil fuel industry. It has corrupted both halls of Congress, while pumping out as much disinformation in the media as it does carbon dioxide.
You keep posting the term AGW. Can you show me any science that uses the term AGW? This is straw man material.
If you have never seen the phrase Anthropogenic Global Warming in any peer-reviewed research, then it's only because you have never read any papers published.
The fact that you would even suggest AGW is a "strawman" proves you're an apologist and destroys your credibility.
AGW was the preferred term by alarmists until alarmists replaced it with "Climate Change", but AGW is still used:
J Zhou, KK Tung - Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 2013 - journals.ametsoc.org
To unmask the anthropogenic global warming trend imbedded in the climate data, multiple
linear regression analysis is often employed to filter out short-term fluctuations caused by El
Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO), volcano aerosols, and solar forcing but A slippery slope: How much global warming constitutes “dangerous anthropogenic interference”?
James Hansen is the Grand Imperial Kleagle Wizard of Global Warming and he had this to say:
In his book Storms of my Grandchildren, noted climate scientist James Hansen issued the following warning: "[i]f we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty."
CO2 levels were 24,000 ppm CO2 for nearly 3 Billion years and there was no runaway greenhouse effect.
CO2 levels were 8,000 ppm CO2 for several Million years and there was no runaway greenhouse effect.
CO2 levels were 2,000 ppm CO2 for several Million years and there was no runaway greenhouse effect.
So, why would 1,200 ppm CO2 over a few centuries cause a runaway greenhouse effect?
It wouldn't. It's just fear-mongering alarmism by a man who makes his money proffering this nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone
Normally, what happens during interglacial periods is Earth begins warming, presumably due to cyclical changes in Earth's position and rotation in the solar system.
Except that's only an unproven hypothesis.
It is true that prior to the Mid-Pleistocene Event, Glacial Periods lasted about 40,000 to 42,000 years and Inter-Glacial Periods about 12,000 to 15,000 years.
That misleads people into falsely believing the Milankovitch Cycle plays a role.
When Earth was clocked by a large celestial body, it did two things. Well, three things, actually, but the two most important things is it left Earth with a 10" of arc wobble and rocking to and fro from about 21° off the vertical to 25° off the vertical.
The 10" wobble is what causes the Precession of the Equinoxes. The precession lasts about 25,500 years, but has no bearing on Earth's climate.
The Earth's axis rocks from 21° to about 24.5° and this cycle takes about 41,000 years.
That's the mistake people make.
But, when you put a Glacial Period followed by an Inter-Glacial then the subsequent Glacial and Inter-Glacial Periods, you can see where it just doesn't line up and the hypothesis falls apart.
The hypothesis is destroyed further still, because after the Mid-Pleistocene Event, Glacial Periods started lasting 80,000 years to 120,000 years and Inter-Glacial Periods from 12,000 to 30,000 years.
The claim that the 100,000-year Cycle matches is just another hoax.
Glacial Periods last 80,000 to 120,000 years, and the average is 100,000 years, which is where the hoax lies.
If Glacial Periods last 95,000 to 105,000 or even 110,000, then perhaps you just might be on to something, but that isn't the case.
So, the 25,500 year and 100,000 year cycles are nothing-burgers.
I don't doubt the 41,000 cycle has some influence, but it's only minor.
It's just physics. When Earth is at its greatest obliquity, Earth receives less energy because of both the albedo of the North and South Polar Regions and the obliquity results in less energy being absorbed in those regions, since more UV-radiation is reflected back into the atmosphere/Space.
The result is minor. It neither causes a Glacial Period nor causes an Inter-Glacial Period.
It is even more telling that you think that this imaginary 'blinkered' scientific thinking is somehow peculiar to climate science, a convenience of politics perhaps?
Nothing "blinkered" about it... under the auspices of the IPCC, climatology is the only physical science to ever go "post-normal".
It is even more telling that you think that this imaginary 'blinkered' scientific thinking is somehow peculiar to climate science, a convenience of politics perhaps?
It is indeed. There is no other aspect of scientific study that is given a "pass" to ignore basic principles of basic science and then propagate such nonsense through the scientific community.
It is an academic embarrassment, which has been exposed many, many times by legitimate physicists in their disappointment with "peers" propagating this hoax by ignoring basic, core principles of science.
If any other scientific discipline was addressed in the manner of AGW, there would have been no advances in chemistry, mathematics, engineering, electronics or manufacturing for the last 200 years. The "anything goes" approach in which the scientific method is ignored in favor of emotional and political goals is a harbinger of the death of objective science and should be exposed and abandoned at the risk of extending this mockery to other areas.
Alas, the problem with such warm temperatures is Malaria.
Britons were plagued by Malaria for centuries, right up the Little Ice Age.
The Little Ice Age killed off all the mosquitoes in the British Isles, and when temperatures warmed back up, there were no more reported cases for centuries.
And yet, carbon dioxide really does absorb infrared radiation.
Anyone remember this?....staring your favorite climate scientists
...making predictions is hard...especially about the future...2015 done come and gone
Once you get past the Heartland Institute's annual jamboree of "climate science", you are at a loss.
How about Prof Scott Denning, Prof Richard Alley, Dr. Ben Santer and Professor Veerabhadran Ramanathan? Kindly enumerate where their "predictions" did not meet your standards.
Secondly, what is your judgment on Dr Roy Spencer's many predictions of imminent cooling, and arctic ice recovery? Does this not suggest his "alternative theory" (if he has one) is falsified? You might care to read some of the slip-ups of climate misinformers.
It is also a strange attitude to say that you don't believe in man-made climate change and invite others to supply you with "evidence". Surely as a scientist you should check the evidence BEFORE you make decisions about your beliefs, especially when it contradicts your assumptions. I expected you to be as familiar with the evidence as anyone else who is competent with respect to the plethora of accessible climate science data.
There is plenty of evidence out there, but few of us are in the business of making up the deficiencies of the intellectually slothful or the closed-minded.
See the cornerstone of the scientific method and legitimate science- refuting the null hypothesis. AGW fails miserably in this regard and is thus not legitimate science.
AGW;
1. fails to refute the null hypothesis
2. compares temp data over time using four different temp measurements
3. fails to have consistent measuring locations over time
4. has intentionally altered or "adjusted" data to meet their hypothesis, rather than realizing the data refutes their hypothesis.
5. uses bogus statistical analysis to create the perception of warming
6. ignores "inconvenient" data points like the "Little Ice Age" and the "Medieval Warming Period" in data analysis.
AGW is bogus, junk science.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
