Caeldeth
Noble
It is interesting to me as well, that is why I spent hours looking into the subject. But alas, I am still skeptical of a 0.3 drop really having much, if any effect.
It is interesting to me as well, that is why I spent hours looking into the subject. But alas, I am still skeptical of a 0.3 drop really having much, if any effect.
spacecase0
earth human
the idea of "global weather" averages meaning anything is very questionable.
most people assume an ice age is ice everywhere...
sadly assumptions are rarely correct
real ice age weather does not freeze over the tropics at all, in fact, the tropics might not even notice other than the eventual water level drop
I moved to a place with good weather if there is or is not an ice age.
places like the middle of texas and china just dry up in an ice age (with the occasional flood), yes, you could still live there, but you are not farming there anymore.
some northern places get way nicer in an ice age (like alaska, but yes, they still get winter...)
weather is local to each area.
if you don't look at it that way, you don't get a real picture
if you want real warming data, go read historical reports of the medieval warm period
most people assume an ice age is ice everywhere...
sadly assumptions are rarely correct
real ice age weather does not freeze over the tropics at all, in fact, the tropics might not even notice other than the eventual water level drop
I moved to a place with good weather if there is or is not an ice age.
places like the middle of texas and china just dry up in an ice age (with the occasional flood), yes, you could still live there, but you are not farming there anymore.
some northern places get way nicer in an ice age (like alaska, but yes, they still get winter...)
weather is local to each area.
if you don't look at it that way, you don't get a real picture
if you want real warming data, go read historical reports of the medieval warm period
CasualBystander
Celestial
Well... yes.
But if the temperature drops to where the 20 year trend is zero - global warming is dead as a theory - since the CO2 forcing is much lower than claimed. If record CO2 emissions can't stop massive cooling - they can't have been responsible for much of the warming.
Global warming is all about transferring funds to the third world and creating a food crisis to limit population.
3FEL9
Islander
Is this one of your many CO2 rants ?
CasualBystander
Celestial
That is incorrect.
I only have one CO2 rant.
God and man saved the planet by creating and burning fossil fuel.
If you graph the CO2 level for the last 50 million years - within 50 million we would be at about 50 PPM and there would be nothing but bacteria.
There may be a few tiny creatures that can eat bacteria, but no higher life forms.
3FEL9
Islander
CasualBystander
Celestial
↑
You don't get out much.
Before the current interglacial the CO2 level is said to have gotten below 180 PPM.
Not sure we had 50 million years - could have been a lot less.
CO2 is getting turned into ocean sediment.
The low CO2 level may have been responsible (partly) for the extinction of the large herbivores.
We really want to kick the CO2 level up to 1000 PPM to save life on this planet.
You don't get out much.
Before the current interglacial the CO2 level is said to have gotten below 180 PPM.
Not sure we had 50 million years - could have been a lot less.
CO2 is getting turned into ocean sediment.
The low CO2 level may have been responsible (partly) for the extinction of the large herbivores.
We really want to kick the CO2 level up to 1000 PPM to save life on this planet.
.
Last edited:
Ron67
Ignorance isn’t bliss!
Please tell me this is a wind up!↑
You don't get out much.
Before the current interglacial the CO2 level is said to have gotten below 180 PPM.
Not sure we had 50 million years - could have been a lot less.
CO2 is getting turned into ocean sediment.
The low CO2 level may have been responsible (partly) for the extinction of the large herbivores.
We really want to kick the CO2 level up to 1000 PPM to save life on this planet.
3FEL9
Islander
I'm on it. 
Going to the bottom of this,, once and for all
Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia
Going to the bottom of this,, once and for allCarbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia
3FEL9
Islander
In billion-year timescales, it is predicted that plant, and therefore animal, life on land will die off altogether, since by that time most of the remaining carbon in the atmosphere will be sequestered underground, and natural releases of CO2 by radioactivity-driven tectonic activity will have continued to slow down.
Its billions of years they say
Carbon dioxide is often mentioned in the context of its increased influence as a greenhouse gas since the pre-industrial (1750) era. In the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report the increase in CO2 was estimated to be responsible for 1.82 W·m2 of the 2.63 W·m2 change in radiative forcing on earth (about 70%).
1.82 W / m2 thats ... I dont really know
3FEL9
Islander
Found the IPCC conclusions
Warming of the atmosphere and ocean system is unequivocal. Many of the associated impacts such as sea level change (among other metrics) have occurred since 1950 at rates unprecedented in the historical record. There is a clear human influence on the climate
It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since 1950, with the level of confidence having increased since the fourth report.
IPCC pointed out that the longer we wait to reduce our emissions, the more expensive it will become.[15]
Historical climate metrics
Warming of the atmosphere and ocean system is unequivocal. Many of the associated impacts such as sea level change (among other metrics) have occurred since 1950 at rates unprecedented in the historical record. There is a clear human influence on the climate
It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since 1950, with the level of confidence having increased since the fourth report.
IPCC pointed out that the longer we wait to reduce our emissions, the more expensive it will become.[15]
Historical climate metrics
- It is likely (with medium confidence) that 1983–2013 was the warmest 30-year period for 1400 years.
- It is virtually certain the upper ocean warmed from 1971 to 2010. This ocean warming accounts, with high confidence, for 90% of the energy accumulation between 1971 and 2010.
- It can be said with high confidence that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass in the last two decades and that Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent.
- There is high confidence that the sea level rise since the middle of the 19th century has been larger than the mean sea level rise of the prior two millennia.
- Concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased to levels unprecedented on earth in 800,000 years.
- Total radiative forcing of the earth system, relative to 1750, is positive and the most significant driver is the increase in CO2's atmospheric concentration.
- Trump is nuts
CasualBystander
Celestial
Well...
Here is how the issue plays out.
A UCB 11 year study found that when downwelling IR (the CO2 effect) was measured, that when the CO2 level increased 22 PPM the forcing increased 0.2 W/m2.
The forcing should follow F = CF * ln(C1/C0).
If you drop the data into the equation you get F = 3.46 * ln (C1/Co)
Given that the CO2 rise as of the IPCC statement the forcing was about 1.02-1.1 W/m2
The IPCC converts at the TOA (255K so 3.7 W/m2 = 1°C) for no particular reason.
The forcing is mostly a surface effect (skin layer) in the lowest 100 meters (289K) of the atmosphere so it should be 5.5 W/m2 = 1°C.
Further about 60% of heat loss is through evaporation which only happens at the surface.
The IPCC is effectively claiming half a degree. The real number is a quarter degree or less (the IR study appears to include all sources including methane - which reduces even that quarter degree even further).
The CO2 studies of weapon C14 indicate a halflife of CO2 in the atmosphere of about 9-11 years and a mean lifetime of 16.
That explains why the CO2 increase this year is 1.6 PPM/Y and falling. An exponential CO2 emissions increase will drive a linear CO2 increase, the CO2 level plateaus after a decade in the face of stagnant emissions .
Which is what is happening since emissions are more or less stagnant.
Mauna Loa is only showing 1.67 PPM/Y this week and a volcano is erupting nearby.
Last edited:
3FEL9
Islander
That is significant! Tell me more pls, or give advice where to read more on this.
CasualBystander
Celestial
Radiocarbon dating - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is from ESRL (official US Gov)
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Education and Outreach
The above chart apparently has the 100 PPM background C14 level removed.
You can do your own estimate. They had to track this for Carbon Dating.
And the lifetime for C12/C13 is shorter because lighter isotopes are more reactive (and plants preferentially uptake C12).
Pretty obvious the scientists who claim 100+ year lifetimes for CO2 excess are lying or incompetent.
Last edited:
CasualBystander
Celestial
Sea level dropped 30 mm (min) during the Little Ice Age.
Currently is about 6 inches lower than the Midevil Warming Period (as distinguished from the EarlyEvil and LateEvil periods).
We had 200 years prior to the present when glaciers grew. That is why the sea level will top at about 6 inches + ground water released.
It might rise a foot (we pumped out a lot of ground water) but that is about it.