U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-21-2018, 10:35 PM
 
Location: Ohio
17,986 posts, read 13,233,625 times
Reputation: 13765

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by waltcolorado View Post
Mircea, you posted a couple graphs that I would appreciate knowing where they came from. All I can tell is that they are linked from another CD discussion in the politics section.
I made those graphs using Excel from EPICA Dome C ice core data.

People yakking about "global warming" should already have the data, but for those who don't, you can find it here:

800,000-year Ice-Core Records of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

here:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pal...ec/edc-co2.txt

and here:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...jx7TG3vRubiZHz


Quote:
Originally Posted by waltcolorado View Post
The reason I would like to see where this came from is that in the last at least 600K years or so (also happens to be in the Dome C data time frame), there have been somewhat periodic (every 100K years) glacier to interglacier periods and I want to see if that source also gives the same detail for the interglacial period about 400 thousand years ago as the sun forcing functions of Obliquity and Ecentricity were somewhat similar to the present.
There haven't been any period 100,000 year glacier to inter-glacier periods.

Glacial Periods lasted about 40,000 years, and Inter-Glacial Periods about 12,000 to 15,000 years until the Mid-Pleistocene Transition.

The Mid-Pleistocene Transition took place 600,000 years ago for reasons scientists cannot explain.

From that point on, Glacial Periods lasted 80,000 to 120,000 years, and Inter-Glacial Periods from 12,000 to 30,000 years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by waltcolorado View Post
I could not tell what point you were making from posting these but lets examine them a little closer.
The point is that there is no relationship between CO2 and Temperature.

Climate fanatics ignore data that doesn't conform to their Religion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by waltcolorado View Post
First of all, the CO2 levels do what they typically do, rise somewhat in the warm periods, then fall in the cold periods.
That's largely due to the oceans.

It's just Boyle's Law.

There are a variety of living organisms in the oceans, as well as geophysical processes that take place on the ocean floor, ocean ridges and underwater seamounts. As part of the life-cycle processes, these organism release gasses as by-products, such as O2, CO2, N2, Methane and others, as do the geophysical processes.

Those gasses are dissolved in sea-water, and as the temperature increases, they are liberated into the atmosphere.

That is exactly what happened during the Great Oxygenation Event.

For the first 2.5 Billion years of its existence, Earth's atmosphere was solely N2 and CO2. Methane and Ammonium Hydrides existed, too, but they were absorbed or precipitated out during the first couple 100 Million years.

Note that there was no "runaway greenhouse gas effect" like Hansen claims will happen now.

Plankton-like organisms produced O2 through photosynthesis. The O2 bonded with reactive metals dissolved in the ocean -- and there was only one ocean at the time -- like iron. Iron oxide precipitated out falling to the sea floor in sediment deposits reaching several meters thick. You can still see those deposits in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, parts of Canada, Australia and South Africa.

After all of the reactive metals bonded with O2 and precipitated out, O2 existed in a dissolved state until the ocean became saturated and could hold no more. Then O2 leached into the atmosphere where it quickly bonded with exposed reactive metals on the Earth's only land mass, and then finally in started accumulating in the atmosphere en masse, until it more or less reached current levels.

Very obviously, that altered the course of Evolution. O2 is poison to anaerobic bacteria, but some mutated to be able to tolerate O2, and then those mutated into aerobic bacteria and were able to use O2.

Quote:
Originally Posted by waltcolorado View Post
Please note the two different scales for CO2 between the two plots.
The scale is irrelevant.

There is no law in science that says all graphs have to be on the same scale.

The scale in no way alters the underlying data.

If you use Excel to graph the same data, Excel will produce for you two graphs that are exactly identical to my two graphs in every way, shape and form, save the graph title and axis labels, which you'll have to add yourself.

I did not select the scale, Excel did, and Excel adjusts the scale relative to the two datasets.

If you notice, the temperature range and change in one graph is greater than the other, which is why Excel used different scales.

Quote:
Originally Posted by waltcolorado View Post
Instead, we have this enormous peak to over 400 PPM now which is NOT at all normal at least in the last 600K years
The graphs show that temperature drives CO2, not CO2 drives temperatures. While CO2 levels may be higher, and that can be attributed to man-made activities, it does not cause the Earth to warm.

This Inter-Glacial Period could easily last another 5,000 years or another 12,000 years, and there is nothing unusual or abnormal or unprecedented about that, because it would fall in natural range of Inter-Glacial Periods.

The temperatures could easily rise another 7.8F to 15.3F and there is nothing unusual, abnormal or unprecedented about that, either, since it falls in the natural range of temperatures during Inter-Glacial Periods.

There is nothing abnormal, unusual or unprecedented about the recent temperature increase, which is not "rapid" despite the ravings and rantings of others.

As your government proves, truly rapid temperature changes of 14.4F to 20F over mere years or decades have occurred 24 times in the last 100,000 years, and scientists cannot explain why.

Climate shifts up to half as large as the entire difference between ice age and modern conditions occurred over hemispheric or broader regions in mere years to decades.

[emphasis mine]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC34297/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-21-2018, 10:56 PM
 
Location: Ohio
17,986 posts, read 13,233,625 times
Reputation: 13765
Quote:
Originally Posted by waltcolorado View Post
That whole link is worth reading so I wont pick much stuff out... ice ages last millions of years but within those ice ages and in a much shorter time frame are periods of warm and cold (glacier and interglacier) and the driver for these warm and cold periods are likely solar power changes due to the Milankovitch cycles.
I don't believe they are.

Part of the problem is the disingenuous scientists claiming Glacial Periods last 100,000 years when they do not.

As I pointed out previously, the Glacial Periods during the current Ice Age lasted 40,000 years and Inter-Glacial periods about 12,000 to 15,000 years.

After the Mid-Pleistocene Transition 600,000 years ago, Glacial Periods started lasting 80,000 to 120,000 years, and Inter-Glacial Periods as long as 30,000 years.

That defies the Milankovitch Cycle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by waltcolorado View Post
Im an amateur on this stuff but it sure looks to me like we are NOT in a time period where we would expect some rapid temp increase without knowing at all what the driver was (that is.. if you completely ignore that CO2 has risen dramatically and unnaturally).
This Inter-Glacial Period is anomalous.

Something cause extensive melting of the Western Antarctice Ice Sheet to the point it was nearly destroyed.

Since the Eastern Antarctic Ice Sheet was unaffected, it could not have been a weather or climate-induced phenomenon.

That anomalous event skews any interpretation of data.

So, you have an anomalous event, and the Earth returns to its regularly scheduled Inter-Glacial Period.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2018, 07:59 AM
 
334 posts, read 503,436 times
Reputation: 485
Micrea, you are dishing out lots of information without references. You need to either be an expert or provide references. So many points I think are incorrect but I think I would just be arguing with some guy on the internet who I is think is an Economics and English major or something like that. If I were to argue, I would just post exactly what I did already.

The conclusion on CO2 that you (as an Economics and English major) made up by yourself without any reference to back up are not worth re-posting so I wont. But you did say one thing that I think is accurate

Quote:
As I pointed out previously, the Glacial Periods during the current Ice Age lasted 40,000 years and Inter-Glacial periods about 12,000 to 15,000 years.
Some points that were apparently missed and I will use the plot of our current Holocene again. In these glacier to interglacier periods, there is a rapid temperature rise proceeding the relatively stable plateau.

Several time frames at 12800 and 11500 years ago were noted when there have been rapid temperature changes and these are in that time period of the rapid warming proceeding the plateau. Duh..so there were recorded large temperature warmings in the period when there are normally large temperature warmings. Uh.. Ok.. but that is sort of like saying it will naturally get warm in the summer.

We have these interglacial periods that last about 12000 to 15000 years and then it starts to COOL. Currently we are into this interglacial periods about 10500 years. Ie, we are nearing the end of it and the planet would start to cool.

What would be convincing for your argument that a random temperature rise in just a blip of time (like 120 years) has occurred in any of the past interglacial periods in the time frame of when they were about to end and the planet would normally start to cool.

Our current warming actually does have a very good explanation for the very short time frame warming. Human caused green house gas and primarily CO2. These threads have links over and over from real experts on this stuff.. maybe this thread could take a diversion on the physics of CO2 and how it can be either a driver or feedback with respect to global temperature.

This isnt the stock market.. doesnt behave the same way.


Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2018, 11:51 AM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 N, 🌄W
9,994 posts, read 4,140,412 times
Reputation: 6334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Part of the problem is the disingenuous scientists claiming Glacial Periods last 100,000 years when they do not.
This is not the problem.

The problem is you really don't know what you're talking about.

A glacial period (alternatively glacial or glaciation) is an interval of time (thousands of years) within an ice age that is marked by colder temperatures and glacier advances. Interglacials, on the other hand, are periods of warmer climate between glacial periods. The last glacial period ended about 15,000 years ago.

Ice ages last millions of years however a glacial period occurs within the ice age at intervals at approximately 100,000 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2018, 01:33 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 N, 🌄W
9,994 posts, read 4,140,412 times
Reputation: 6334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
I made those graphs using Excel from EPICA Dome C ice core data.

People yakking about "global warming" should already have the data, but for those who don't, you can find it here:
800,000-year Ice-Core Records of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
Those who are denying global warming should actually read the and understand the data in the links they post.

Did you miss reading the Trends section in the link you provided?
Quote:
Trends
Over the last 800,000 years atmospheric CO2 levels as indicated by the ice-core data have fluctuated between 170 and 300 parts per million by volume (ppmv), corresponding with conditions of glacial and interglacial periods.

The Vostok core indicates very similar trends. Prior to about 450,000 years before present time (BP) atmospheric CO2 levels were always at or below 260 ppmv and reached lowest values, approaching 170 ppmv, between 660,000 and 670,000 years ago.

The highest pre-industrial value recorded in 800,000 years of ice-core record was 298.6 ppmv, in the Vostok core, around 330,000 years ago.

Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased markedly in industrial times; measurements in year 2010 at Cape Grim Tasmania and the South Pole both indicated values of 386 ppmv, and are currently increasing at about 2 ppmv/year.
How much more clear does the data have to be to see the current rapid global warming trend? This information come right out of the link you posted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
There haven't been any period 100,000 year glacier to inter-glacier periods.
The data that's from multiple independent climate research institutions does not align with this claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Glacial Periods lasted about 40,000 years, and Inter-Glacial Periods about 12,000 to 15,000 years until the Mid-Pleistocene Transition.

The Mid-Pleistocene Transition took place 600,000 years ago for reasons scientists cannot explain.
Well look here! Our planet's ice ages used to occur at intervals of every 40,000 years, which made sense to scientists as the Earth's seasons vary in a predictable way, with colder summers occurring at these intervals.

In 2006 experts from Cardiff University have offered up an explanation as to why our planet began to move in and out of ice ages every 100,000 years. By studying the chemical make-up of tiny fossils on the ocean floor, the team discovered that there was more CO2 stored in the deep ocean during the ice age periods at regular intervals every 100,000 years.

New research published research in the journal Geology has suggested the oceans may be responsible for this change, specifically in the way that they suck carbon dioxide (CO2) out of the atmosphere.

The 100,000 year problem

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
The point is that there is no relationship between CO2 and Temperature.
Your graphs don't even support this claim. LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
That's largely due to the oceans.

It's just Boyle's Law.
Merely tossing out a one line sentence and then tossing out "it's just Boyle's Law" is not accurate nor is it how you hold a discussion.

It's not Boyles Law occurring in the ocean since this law states that the volume of a fixed amount of gas at a constant temperature is inversely proportional to the gas pressure. It's an experimental gas law that describes how the pressure of a gas tends to increase as the volume of the container decreases.

Read the actual research article as its not "just Boyle's Law".

Breathing more deeply: Deep ocean carbon storage during the mid-Pleistocene climate transition
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
That is exactly what happened during the Great Oxygenation Event.
Great Oxygenation Event

I read the research article (Breathing more deeply: Deep ocean carbon storage during the mid-Pleistocene climate transition), I see no relation to The Great Oxygenation Event. Exactly what relation are you seeing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
The graphs show that temperature drives CO2, not CO2 drives temperatures.
No that's not at all what the graph demonstrates.

I'm puzzled that you fail to see that CO2 was relatively stable from 151423 up until 131455 where it starts to rise. The temperature up until that point was fairly stable with a few blips here and there as expected but nothing too alarming until the 20% increase in CO2 where the Temperate spikes on the graph at the same time the CO2 is rising.

You can clearly see a 20% increase in CO2 (at the same time the Temp spikes) as shown in the graph where the CO2 level was about 200 PPM and slowly rises to 245 PPM by 131455...what do you see the temperature doing? It's SPIKES with the increase in CO2!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2018, 01:55 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 N, 🌄W
9,994 posts, read 4,140,412 times
Reputation: 6334
We are starting to see the new normal here on earth due to human produced CO2.

Cape Town's hottest day in a century

Quote:
CAPE TOWN - Cape Town Weather Services, on Tuesday reported that it was the hottest day the Mother City has seen in a century.

eNCA meteorologist Luis Fernandez said that the Cape Point reached 39.3 degrees and the last time the temperature was this high was in 1917.

"Cape Town international Airport broke its all-time record since 1932, reaching 42.3 degrees while Stellenbosch also broke its all-time record getting to 42.3 degrees.”
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top