Is global warming even real?

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Ilikeponies579, Dec 16, 2014.

  1. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,843
    Perhaps, you ain't looking in the right places?

    Here's one from 2000

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence support a solar-output model for climate change
    1. Charles A. Perry* and
    2. Kenneth J. Hsu
    Here is some of the pithy part:
    The concept of a slowdown in warming or sight cooling was not a new concept for the solar physicists of the time.

    Whither hence?
     
    milkweed likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    It has become that, but in the early 1960s, the ACCEPTED understanding of turbulence theory, published in pier reviewed journal(s?) at least indicated a bumble bee would not be able to fly. I'm not stating there was no more accurate theory and most probably the author of the paper I read was pointing out the need for revision of the theory - that is how sciences progresses!

    I was directed towards this paper by my college physics professor with his point being that accepted theory is not always correct. May work in most cases but not all. Ergo, is not correct.

    Again I mentioned this as the currently accepted theory about small (due to the high pressure they are under and the way they form) CH4 bubbles with low terminal velocity, can not reach the surface of the Arctic Ocean, except from relatively shallow depths, is WRONG. *

    Just like bumble bees are flying these bubbles are doing so! See photo of them doing so at end of post 417. Ergo, the theory the ICCP uses to not worry about CH4 bubbles reaching the surface needs to be revised - perhaps along the line I introduced in my math model about the acceleration of a fluid with lower density than the surrounding fluid (water or air) being ACCELERATED up by buoyance forces acting on the water column, not just the bubbles themselves.

    * Even the article I quote at start of post 417, which was published April 2011, (Vol38 No.8) in the Geophysical Research Letters, was assuming under the false theory that at most half the bubbles (and then only from the shallow Siberian shelf) would reach the surface - I. e. not only could I not find any acknowledgement that they do reach the surface from deeper AO bottoms, but also as I quoted part of his text (which is just below the Fig 4 that will not copy here) that the main concern would be that these dissolving bubbles would both more rapidly than CO2 dissolving from the air into the AO but and also nearly double the pH changes. **

    ** To some extent his ignorance can be excessed as Russia tightly controls research near Siberia and even on that shelf, the bubbling up to the surface of CH4 bubbles has only been observed for a little more than a decade. However, if memory serves me correctly the photo at end of post 417 as taken by US (NASA?) researchers. Just below the photo is link to its source.

    I just checked: my memory was only partly correct - photo comes from a three nation joint research effort: Here is quote from the link given under 417's end photo:

    "Since these methane hydrate deposits were discovered, scientists have been doing what they can to monitor and study them, and now a team from SWERUS-C3 - the Swedish–Russian–US Arctic Ocean Investigation of Climate-Cryosphere-Carbon Interactions program - have actually spotted methane bubbling up through the water, while measuring a concentration of methane dissolved in the water that's 10-50
    times higher than background levels."

    I'm pretty sure they were not in Russian Siberian air space when photo was taken. Also note that at the altitude (lower than when photo was taken?) the plane could safely fly, the water diluted CH4 concentration were 10 to 50 times higher than background when above the area where the bubbles were rising!

    BTW that air space of Russian control now (after Russian sub planted their flag in the North Pole AO floor) is a triangular wedge with apex at the North Pole and curved base along the Siberian cost line. All but a very tiny fraction of the AO is now zones of national economic exclusion and safety control by one of the five nations that border it, with some disputes (including one between US and Canada). In case you can only name 4, not five, Denmark owns Greenland and has a claim too.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 17, 2015
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,144
    Again, no, that's a myth. There was never a paper saying that bumblebees should not be able to fly. People were puzzled by its very high wing loadings, but at no time was "the bumblebee should be unable to fly" accepted by science.

    From RationalWiki:
    ====================
    The "bumblebee argument", in pseudoscience, states that the laws of aerodynamics prove that the bumblebee can't fly, as it does not have the required capacity (in terms of wing area or flapping speed). Consequently, therefore, science can be shown to be in error, providing a loophole for pseudoscientific "explanations". Arguments like these are occasionally used by creationists to claim that it's impossible for bees to be a product of evolution, though they're quite common in more general anti-science circles that like to cry "look at science, it knows nothing!"
    Unfortunately (for the pseudoscientists), the laws of physics do not in any way forbid bumblebee flight; there are no papers that deny bumblebee flight, and no scientist has done so in a lecture, except, perhaps, ironically. To put it simply, it is possible to "prove" that a bumblebee cannot fly if you perform an extremely crude calculation (like forgetting to take into account things like the rate of flapping, the rotation of the wing, or the action of vortices), but a full aerodynamic calculation (to say nothing of getting all empirical and watching a bumblebee fly) will show that the bumblebee's flight works perfectly fine.
    =====================

    Again, it is like saying that science proves that a 747 cannot fly, because there's no way it could move down the runway fast enough to get off the ground.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Edit time limit for post 422 expired so here is more:

    Another sad fact for us concerned with AGW -Greenland wants to be an independent nation and will be when they can afford to pay back Denmark for funds invested there. Thus Greenland has granted dozen of licenses to mining companies covering most of their shore line - One of the world's richest deposits of Rare Earth Metals is on small part of the western shore. The REs are always co-deposited with radioactive thorium - where do you think it will be dumped? Norway had some mines on AO islands and closed them as heavy metal release was the native mother's milk more than 10 times more toxic than allowed - To strengthen its claims they have been reopened as active use of territory greatly strengthens your claim!
     
  8. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    In post 418, Trippy gave link to that text and in post 419 I said:

    " Bumble bees do fly so of course the laws of physics do permit bumbees to fly. Point is that man may not fully understand them (the laws of nature describing them) or may have over simplified them for calculations."

    There is, or at least can be, a huge difference between the "laws of nature" some times mistakenly called the "laws of physic." The law of physics, a science man has perfected with theories trying to describe the laws of nature, are quite good now, but not always accurate descriptions of the laws of nature, usually failing under extreme conditions only now. You and perhaps Trippy were not recognizing this difference.

    I was pointing out that when theories are only "usually correct" they are WRONG. This is the case with the widely accepted (including by the ICCP) theory that the tiny bubbles of CH4 released slowly by decomposing methane hydrate ice under high pressure can not reach the surface except in shallow water is WRONG - needs to be revised like many mainly correct theories have needed revision before.

    I can not after 54 years tell the reference to the journal article I read at my college physic professor's suggestion, which did note that one part of widely accepted aerodynamics concerned with turbulence was not always correct. He was encouraging us to doubt even widely accepted theories as sometime they only work most of the time, but fail in exceptional cases.

    I know ignorant people do to twist the normal process by which our theories / understanding of the laws of nature progresses, and then they tend to throw the baby out with the wash, especially in the case of AGW. Yes, ICCP has made predictions that have not been proven correct, but that is no reason to claim AGW is not a problem. That just shows the theories used may not have been fully correct (or observations were not). I have been pointing out that the ICCP's (and many other's) accepted theory about tiny bubbles not being able to rise from the deep ocean bottom is not fully correct - in fact they do - see them doing so in post 417 photo near end of post.

    I now regret I illustrated this need to revise theory on turbulence with the bumble bee's excessive (by then accepted theory) turbulence. Perhaps I should have used the small errors in Newton's theory of gravitation for my illustration that man's theories are NOT laws of nature. The paper I read 54 or so years ago was pointing out that the turbulence theory then needed revision - not claiming that laws of nature say bumble bee can not fly.
     
  9. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Yes. That is a sand storm coming to Chinese town. Not just in US & EU is weather getting more extreme.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 19, 2015
  10. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,843
    Name of town?
    latitude and longitude?
    When?
     
  11. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Here is link to 10 sand storm photos: http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2015-04/17/content_20454594.htm
    That photo is # 7 and from Phoenix AZ on 21 July 2012 according to the caption. Possibly really smaller town or suburb, by name of Haboob, if Phoenix does not have a significant river flowing thru it. Several others* are in China.
    * # 2 is Budapest, Hungary only 18 days ago; # 3 is Phoenix on 6 Sept 2014; # 4 is Jammu, India; #7 is Madagascar 17 Aug 2012; # 10 is Baghdad 1 July 2008
    This is a global problem - man has destroyed more than half the soil in last hundred years
    Watch "The Soil" video (and other <2 minute videos) here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/climate-gate.97892/page-116#post-3292829
    Here is # 9 in Golmud city, Qinghuai, province:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 19, 2015
  12. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,843
    or:
    1. A haboob (Arabic: هَبوب‎ habūb "blasting/drafting") is a type of intense dust storm carried on an atmospheric gravity current. Haboobs occur regularly in arid regions throughout the world.
    ...........
    meanwhile
    warmer and wetter
    or
    colder and dryer
    .......
    't'was the dust in the glaciers which led to concept that dust = dryer= colder
    and from the above quoted:
    ............
    and one more "draft" as/re the other thread
     
  13. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Thanks. I have posted more - please read again post 428. At least 3 sand storm photos are from China. One is from Erb Cherbbi Desert - I don't know where that is. In my now edited post 428, I tell locations and date as asked. Two come from Phoenix, AZ.

    This soil destruction is a global problem - man has destroyed more than half the soil in last hundred years*
    Watch "The Soil" video (and other <2 minute videos) here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/climate-gate.97892/page-116#post-3292829

    * There was once much more than twice our current fertile soil - back when most of the Sahara Desert was a forest. Man's goats, eating the new tree shoots are thought by some "experts" to have been the means man did that by. Others, just blame "climate change" that shifted rain fall patterns - much like what seem to be in progress now for conversion of the Amazon to desert. In 2005 (and some more recent year, probably) the dying and slow growth of the Amazon trees, made it a net source, not sink, for CO2.

    When sea levels rise, even only a few meters, very productive food producing land will be lost. In Asia, rice is often grown on river deltas and flood plains, where rich soil was deposited, that will be covered with salt water.

    I'm not religious, but if I were, I would fear the "Wrath of God." He charged man with responsibility for taking care of the Earth and its creatures - Perhaps He only works via "natural processes" and AGW is His way of firing us for doing such a poor job of it lately.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 19, 2015
  14. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,843
    amen
     
  15. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    This is positive feed back number 39, I think. I. e. the AGW drought reduced hydroelectric power generation so more CO2 is being released to fill in the generation gap.
    The big, and unanswered, question is: Are we already past the "tipping point"? (Positive feed backs grow and there is nothing man can do to stop it.)
     
  16. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,843
    maybe
    there is no "tipping point" in nature
    maybe, that concept is just a mathematical construct?
     
  17. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    No there are many exaples in nature of tipping points. Here are two:
    (1) Very clean water will supper cool, About to -25C as I recall, then flash into considerable ice.
    (2) Venus was once like Earth, in its lower temperature stable state then tipped to the high temperature one with very IR thick atmosphere (Lead is liquid now on the surface but was solid, way below its melting point, in the earlier state). Sun is slowing growing hotter - most think Earth can not tip to the hotter stable state for few million years, at least.
    This video discusses tipping points:
    At ~ 16 minutes into it the video notes that usually there is greatly increased volatility as the tipping point is approached. As now with many temperature records being broken as the jet stream wanders much more N/S now.
    (3) Stock markets tend to rise slowly, then crash - in the last few year the volatility has been exceptionally high - may be we are near a sharp "correction" or worse?
    (4) The price of oil recently when thru a greater than 50% down tipping point.
    I.e. man as well a nature has tipping points - if you don't believe that: yell "Fire" in a large crowded room.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2015
  18. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,843
    By which time we will have evolved beyond our comprehension.

    ....................
    meanwhile, it is commonly assumed that it took the Greenland ice well over 10kyrs at 6 degrees higher than today to completely melt during mis 11.
    It seems that even with the warmer temperatures of mis 5, the ice did not completely melt.
     
  19. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    You were questioning or suggesting nature had no "tipping points" It has hundreds. I listed two, one with time scale to complete the "tip" of less than a second and the other's time scale is not precisely known or definable but on the order of 50,000 years and will not begin to tip for millions of years yet.

    I don't think man can evolve fast enough to cope with global warming of 6C degrees, not even in polar regions if the base of the ocean food chain has been destroyed by pH change. So doubt we will have evolved as you suggest.

    I also pointed out that human behavior has many "tip points." A large group can be classified as "heard mentality" but individuals have tipping points like in religious conversions, or the movie whose main character said: "I'm mad as hell and not going to take it any more."

    BTW don't actually yell "fire" at the door of a large crowed room - Even if the "tipped crowd" does not trample you, the injured (or their relatives, if they died in the stampede) will sue you even while you sit in jail.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2015
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,144
    Seems like a poor example. That's been done many times - society did not collapse. It caused a very local panic which caused death and destruction - then stopped. Such events often occur in nature; wildfires, avalanches, earthquakes etc. They do not cause 'tipping points' where the Earth is set on a fundamentally different path.
     
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,276
    Not the way to bet. There is no particular reason to think them absent, plenty of evidence for various kinds being crossed in the past, easy extrapolation from smaller scale tipping points to larger ones (island flora and fauna tipping into different ecosystems, the Yellow River in China or the Mississippi River in the US switching between channels, etc).

    The stakes are very high.
     
  22. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,843
    You are calling a river meandering about in it's floodplain a "tipping point"?
    That is what rivers normally do.
    Maybe you are setting the bar too low , and thereby making the phrase of no import.
     
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,276
    Of course not. And China's Sorrow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_River) was only one example: tipping points abound in geological and natural and evolutionary history, leaving traces everywhere - 17 year locusts, understory layers in forests, carbonate compensation depths in oceans, the great oxygenation event, the 40 below line in northern ecosystems, glaciations, the planet is covered with examples of ecosystems of various sizes flipping from one stable state to another quite different one under pressure from a continuously changing variable as it crosses some threshold.

    The probability that rapidly boosting the CO2 content of the atmosphere will push the heat content of the biosphere across some threshold, and drop the entire climate system of the planet into a stable equilibrium quite different from what we now experience, seems to be fairly high. The salient point is that such changes are generally rapid - the intermediary states are unstable.
     

Share This Page