Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [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)
 
Old 08-12-2022, 11:01 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,134 posts, read 4,971,954 times
Reputation: 17481

Advertisements

Walt- we've been over this before. No sense in repeating things...Just look at the last graph you posted-- co2 levels were already increasing from 1750 while fossil fuel related co2 didn't start going up until 1850.--> the planet was naturally warming after the LIA causing more outgassing of ocean co2.

The explanation for temps going up and down, sometimes out of synch with solar activity or co2 levels is because temps are a sum of several cyclic phenomena-- the sum at any given time being a function of which cycles are at their peaks or troughs in relation to the other cycles....

The "Perfect Storm" is an example of this trigonometric effect-- when everything that can go wrong does go wrong at the same time results in disaster..... To those readers who are numerate-- try graphing out

y = sin x+ sin 2x + sin 3x You'll get the point immediately.

BTW- there's a very high positive correlation between world temps and the number of home runs hit in the American League each year. Do home runs cause warming?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-12-2022, 11:15 AM
Status: "A solution in search of a problem" (set 17 days ago)
 
Location: New York Area
34,494 posts, read 16,576,998 times
Reputation: 29655
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
Walt- we've been over this before. No sense in repeating things...Just look at the last graph you posted-- co2 levels were already increasing from 1750 while fossil fuel related co2 didn't start going up until 1850.--> the planet was naturally warming after the LIA causing more outgassing of ocean co2.

The explanation for temps going up and down, sometimes out of synch with solar activity or co2 levels is because temps are a sum of several cyclic phenomena-- the sum at any given time being a function of which cycles are at their peaks or troughs in relation to the other cycles....

The "Perfect Storm" is an example of this trigonometric effect-- when everything that can go wrong does go wrong at the same time results in disaster..... To those readers who are numerate-- try graphing out

y = sin x+ sin 2x + sin 3x You'll get the point immediately.

BTW- there's a very high positive correlation between world temps and the number of home runs hit in the American League each year. Do home runs cause warming?
Don't confuse us with the facts; the speculation and panic is too much fun.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2022, 11:22 AM
 
1,077 posts, read 1,223,309 times
Reputation: 1689
GLM, I see you wrote a bunch of stuff again.

Dont you think that if you were correct about what you are making up, you would be able to find a credible reference that agrees with you?

No reference, I just have to assume you are making up stuff again.

FYI, that graph definitely looks like emissions are responsible for what is going on. As anything else, there are feedbacks involved that are temperature dependent. I would absolutely read a reference you can find.. Even the one you pulled up one time from some crackpot who came up with some way too simple model that didnt explain what was happening so he came to the concision that it was natural causes even though he had no idea what those causes were - but his clown model must be right. Easy for even an amateur like myself to find glaring errors.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2022, 12:07 PM
 
1,077 posts, read 1,223,309 times
Reputation: 1689
For anyone following this who doesnt mind something a little more complicated than its the government trying to control you.. And, as always, a reference to back up what is said.

This is a link on how the rise and fall of CO2 levels influenced the glacial and interglacial periods in the last 800K years. https://www.carbonbrief.org/explaine...-the-ice-ages/

There is an interesting discussion on how the Milankovitch cycles (long term orbital variations) have caused these periods of cold and warm. We are currently in the Holocene warm period which so far has lasted about 12K years.

There is a graph in this link that shows the temperature vs CO2 level during this time. Temperature certainly does influence CO2 levels by a feedback mechanism.

Around 130K years ago was the previous warm period and the planet temperatures were actually HOTTER than they are now. Like a peak of 3.2C vs the about 1C we have now. Ie, it got considerably hotter 130K years go than now because of the sun power.

But.. take a look at the CO2 level 130K years ago. CO2 level only got up to a little over 280PPM. Take a look at that whole time period. There were warmer times than now but CO2 levels never got much above 280PPM.

But all of a sudden now the laws of physics changed and our temperature increase of 1C caused the CO2 levels to shoot up over 40 percent higher than they have been in the last 800K years. Never in the last 800K years did higher temps cause this high of CO2 but all of a sudden they do now???

And to believe its the temperature causing CO2 to rise like has happened, you have to ignore a very clear correlation of our emissions directly into the atmosphere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2022, 04:49 PM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,134 posts, read 4,971,954 times
Reputation: 17481
Quote:
Originally Posted by waltcolorado View Post
GLM, I see you wrote a bunch of stuff again.

Dont you think that if you were correct about what you are making up, you would be able to find a credible reference that agrees with you?

No reference, I just have to assume you are making up stuff again.

.
??? I used YOUR graph and gave an example of basic trigonometric computation.

Digest these, then get back to us:

NCL: Fourier Analysis
http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~sws02h..._2_student.pdf
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...953104.fmatter
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pd...03GL019196.pdf
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01931784

Once you've got a handle on Fourier Analysis as it applies to climate data, we can start in on the math of complexity/chaos and dynamical systems with their propensity for showing self-similarity on different scaling levels.

The sheepish simplicity of "co2 causes warming" is simply not appropriate, particularly when futile attempts to alter the climate will cost QUADrillions of dollars and substantially depress the standard of living around the world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2022, 05:53 PM
 
1,077 posts, read 1,223,309 times
Reputation: 1689
I thought we were talking about how CO2 in the atmosphere could not have come from the ocean because the ocean is actually absorbing CO2 and becoming more acidic. In order for CO2 to come from the ocean, we would measure just the opposite of what is actually happening. (reference in post 119)

Or that in the last 800K years, there have been times when its warmer than now but CO2 levels even when its been warmer never got much above 280 PPM. We are not as warm as its been in the last 800K years yet CO2 level is now at 414 PPM. Temperature has never in the past 800K years caused CO2 to go over 280 PPM and since the laws of physics have not changed, temperature is also not causing what we are seeing now (post 127)

And that the sun can not be causing the current warming as the sun power and the planets temperature are moving in opposite directions. The sun cant be causing the warming. Post 116

When you eliminate everything else, what is obvious.. becomes more obvious. Our population is burning fossil fuel and we are injecting it directly into the atmosphere. Good greif. If you look at that plot, just in 2020 it was like 38 Billion tons of CO2 got injected directly into the atmosphere..

It seems to me you were making some sort of argument based on the plot in post 120 that about a 4 percent variation in the CO2 plot before the late 1800's means something.. Im not even sure what point you were trying to make about that? If the plot is accurate, that could simply be from burning forests to clear the land as population grows during that time period. The CO2 number change is only a small fraction of what has happened once we started burning fossil fuel.

And very quickly, the CO2 levels do in fact correlate with our dumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

fourier analysis or those other links. please tell us what they have to do with this thread. Just a diversion?

Last edited by waltcolorado; 08-12-2022 at 07:16 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2022, 04:31 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,134 posts, read 4,971,954 times
Reputation: 17481
"Ocean acidification" is another one of those non-problems voiced to impress the naive....The measured decrease in pH is on the order of 0.1 units (and the ocean is alkaline, not acidic) while the diurnal variation in pH is on the order of 1Ph unit +. What does a change in 0.1 units mean?-- Nothing. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...l.pone.0028983

Secondly, ocean pH has to do with the complex balance of [Ca], [co2], algal photosynthetic rate, diatom populations & growth rate (all dependent on ocean temp) & biological decomposition. A perturbation of one factor leads to compensatory changes in the others....and warming oceans also bring more decaying detritus up from below-- more acid. It's not simple "more atm co2, more acid."

The diversion into math is to illustrate why temps vary irregularly over time, up for some periods, down for others, and don't rise monotonically like the [co2]. ..If co2 were a dominant factor, the temps would show a less variable trend...co2 is a minor factor in determining average temps at this point -- [co2] 400+ and temps 288K...and will become even less important as they rise further due to their logarithmic effect (doubling period phenomenon) . https://budbromley.files.wordpress.c...if?w=760?w=537
https://clivebest.com/blog/?p=4697

...and that co2 vs temp thing that has you so worried doesn't look quite as impressive when an honest graph of the data is presented https://climatecite.com/wp-content/uploads/chart.png ...and it would be even less impressive if the if the temp abscissa was scaled to show the 1 deg warming over the last century (1/288 =0.3% change) compared to the 420 - 280/420 = 33% in co2 change-- a difference in the slopes of 330 compared to 3.

Last edited by guidoLaMoto; 08-13-2022 at 05:23 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2022, 09:20 AM
 
14,321 posts, read 14,121,591 times
Reputation: 45519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atari2600 View Post
For the same reason why every "solution" to climate change always results in taking taxpayer money, and giving it to some other country to do with what they please. It's corruption.


I always get a kick out of it when these people tell us that we need to sacrifice and live a more modest life, all while they're buying multiple estates and flying around on private jets.



Do as I say, not as I do...
I'm sorry to hear so many people here pretend that climate change is not real.

I live in the West and for years there has been a drought out here that I guess gets little attention in other regions of this country. For years, I have observed mild winters that do not compare with those that I experienced as a child or young adult. Than there are the forest fires that strike every year. The worst ones are in California, but they occur all over the Intermountain West. Of course, there were fires before global warming became an issue, but they are worse now and they destroy more acres. Living in the mountains next to a forest is now extremely dangerous. Its often like living next to a can of gasoline that is just waiting to ignite during summer months.

All sorts of signs of climate change exist for those who don't bury their heads in the sand. The average temperature in this world has risen by more than a degree since 1900. Glaciers are melting everywhere. I invite people to look at a picture of Alaska's Mendenhall Glacier in 1920 and than look at one today. The glacier is maybe one sixth of its size today. Glacier National Park in Montana will have no glaciers at all within a few years.

Yes, it needs to be dealt with in some fashion and this legislation just passed by Congress will provide incentives to move towards electric cars and to eliminate those awful coal power plants. Even if global warming were not an issue these measures would still be good in the sense that they would result in less air pollution.

There's nothing like putting your head in the sand though and pretending its not a problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2022, 09:24 AM
 
1,077 posts, read 1,223,309 times
Reputation: 1689
Quote:
"Ocean acidification" is another one of those non-problems voiced to impress the naive....The measured decrease in pH is on the order of 0.1 units (and the ocean is alkaline, not acidic) while the diurnal variation in pH is on the order of 1Ph unit +. What does a change in 0.1 units mean?-- Nothing. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...l.pone.0028983
Thanks for the links, makes the discussion better.

First, I want to point out that all the response and references were not about if the ocean is absorbing CO2, they confirm that the ocean is absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere. Likely fossil fuel industry funded deception video tries to convince people who just watch videos just the opposite which is false. The discussion here is how much is absorbed CO2 changing things.

First, I had to fact check your comment that the diurnal variation of PH is on the order of 1 pH unit.

From this link https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....ystem%20models.

Quote:
At coastal sites and near coral reefs, extremes in diurnal amplitudes reach 187 ± 85 and 149 ± 106 μatm for pCO2, 0.21 ± 0.08 and 0.11 ± 0.07 for pH, and 1.2 ± 0.5 and 0.8 ± 0.4 for Ωarag, respectively. Extreme diurnal variability is weaker in the open ocean, but still reaches 47 ± 18 μatm for pCO2, 0.04 ± 0.01 for pH, and 0.25 ± 0.11 for Ωarag. Diurnal variability of the ocean CO2 system is considerable and likely to respond to increasing CO2. Therefore, it should be represented in Earth system models.
Looks like you were only incorrect for diurnal variation in pH by a factor of 9 for coral reefs and incorrect by a factor of 25 for the open ocean. Kind of large inaccuracies in what was posted but it still is educational to note that there are small diurnal variations.

The other stuff about small numbers... Uhm.. sure. Already addressed over and over and even in this thread post 77. Not real scientific.. Maybe try and post something about the scientific method used in climate change being wrong.. with references of course.

Your article was interesting https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...l.pone.0028983

Nothing to argue about, just some interesting snips. FYI, the open ocean pH has become more acidic by .1 pH and as noted below, has a fairly small variation. At local spots near upwellings or where rivers might empty into ocean, monthly variations can be much higher.

Quote:
Quote:
In distinct contrast to the stability of the open ocean and Antarctic sites, sensors at the other five site classifications (upwelling, estuarine/near-shore, coral reef, kelp forest, and extreme) captured much greater variability (pH fluctuations ranging between 0.121 to 1.430) and may provide insight towards ecosystem-specific patterns.
Maybe a topic for another thread.. how much is the ocean pH becoming more acidic actually affecting life in the ocean and what is projected in the future.

Not much of an argument... thanks for posting the links, interesting to read.

Last edited by waltcolorado; 08-13-2022 at 09:41 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2022, 09:39 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,134 posts, read 4,971,954 times
Reputation: 17481
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
The worst ones are in California, but they occur all over the Intermountain West. Of course, there were fires before global warming became an issue, but they are worse now and they destroy more acres.


Absolutely false. Start with false assumptions and you're doomed to form false conclusions...

Only 1/5th the number of fires and acreage burned as a century ago. See the graph in the article-- https://fee.org/articles/forest-fire...ot-even-close/

From the article--
"California’s megafires stem largely from decades-long mismanagement of its forests....

Texas actually has more forest and higher temperatures than California, but the Lone Star state rarely struggles with fires, perhaps because 95 percent of its land mass is privately owned and these owners act as responsible stewards of the land.
"
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
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

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 > Green Living

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top