|
Post by nickrr on Jun 14, 2011 14:28:22 GMT 1
The earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Geologically anything within the last few million years is recent.
In addition, as we are talking about the cause of ice ages, it would be logical to imply that your use of the word "recent" included the period of recent ice ages (i.e. the last few million years). Otherwise your comment makes no sense.
I appreciate that you are trying to wriggle out of your latest gaffe but you would make it easier for yourself if you just got your facts correct before making posts.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 14, 2011 16:02:56 GMT 1
As regards the first, the evidence from your many posts says otherwise. As regards the second, factually incorrect, in that given the new legal status of civil partnerships (and given that we were writing our wills before the ceremony in was referred to there as in view of our impending marriage....), I call her my wife because that is who she is. Simple, everyday usage, everyone gets what it means.
O dear, your almost total ignorance of science is showing again.
What is the issue? The interplay of solar variation (you brought that up I think), orbital dynamics, atmospheric composition and so on on CLIMATE. The DATA that we have is the past climate, as far back as we can find detaiked evidence. If we really understoof what determined climate, we would be capable of understanding past climate variation (including ice-ages), as well as current AGW. As you are so fond of saying, CO2 is CO2, irrespective of source (isotopic composition aside), hence what CO2 did to the climate 6.5 (or 65) years ago, in concert with other effects, is directly relevent to today. If we don't understand one, we'll be buggered trying to understand the rest of it.
Well, I'm not a climatologist, or a geologist, or an astrophysicist, or an atmospheric modeller, so I just have to go with the science as I see it, as a fellow scientist of a different speciality.
Ideas are ten a penny, but ones from people who don't understand the science are (usually) totally worthless. questions, yes, anyone however ignorant can asl a good question, but seems very few are prepared to listen to the answers!
If you were really groping towards a better understanding, you'd PAY ATTENTION when I point out glaring errors in what you're trying to learn from. You don't. As with weal students, it is usually those of the poorest ability who most over-estimate their own competence.
Ah, THERE'S yer problem! I prefer to judge them by what they SAY, is what I can check factually correct, NOT by how charming, handsome, or personable they are. A brilliant scientist can be the most rude, obnoxious git you've ever met, with poor personal hygiene, bad grooming, sexually promiscuous and perverted, BUT doesn't matter one whit if the science is good (although their marriage prospects may suffer).
Damn, you've got a REAL problem there girl! I know some people have what they feel is a natural 'yuck' reaction to homosexuals, but one like that to climatolgists? I think you need to think seriously about whether or not this is a good thing, and whether your supposed 'judge the whole person' stance is being fairly applied here!
P.S. Last few million IS recent in terms of geology, plus it is a MISTAKE to limit your view to just the recent past. If we can understand past transitions between glacials and inter-glacials, we should be able to understand ours. Because of course the KEY question is does our current condition accord with past 'natural' variation in some sense, or is it 'different', and ascribable to human intervention. That's the point we really want answered.
Else (big glaring error here!), we'd be basing our science on a SAMPLE of one, which is incredibly stupid.
|
|
|
Post by buckleymanor1 on Jun 14, 2011 17:31:46 GMT 1
When you say orbital dynamics gives you the initial rise do you mean in temperature if so then how can just a rise in CO2 on it's own without any orbital forceing maintain a positive feedback of temperature. It seems clear that one follows the other in a distinct direction is there any proof that this process can work in reverse or without the driveing effects of orbital dynamics.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 14, 2011 18:43:37 GMT 1
In case referred to, we have temp rise (due to orbital dynamics), which then causes CO2 rise. The rising CO2 acts as a positive feedback mechanism, so that even when the incoming from the sun DROPS, the temperature remains warmer. So, orbital dynamics drives the initial temperature rise and CO2 release.
But fact remains that increased levels of CO2 maintain, if you like, the warmth. If CO2 rises for some other reason, then logically this CO2 (whatever the origin) should also have an effect on temperature. The CO2 doesn't KNOW what caused it's release, just acts as a greenhouse gas once it has been released.
There is no 'working in reverse', just a straightforward -- more CO2 tends to promote warming.
The point is that orbital dyanmics ALONE doesn't explain what is seen in the record, you need additonal positive feedback of CO2 to do that.
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 14, 2011 20:08:13 GMT 1
In this .pdf indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=52576 are the slides for the on page 15 the slide says... Galactic modulation of climate? - 500 Myr • Orbital period of Sun/Earth around Milky Way ~550Myr • High GCR flux in spiral arms => 140 Myr period • Same period and phase found in benthic sea temperature (4oC amplitude) and ice age epochs (icehouse/greenhouse) "The point being, it's the same sort of combinations of orbital dynamics, atmospheric conditions that is being considered when it comes to ice-ages, or glacials/interglacials." radio4scienceboards.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=gensci&thread=953&post=12098in that case consider some others, because considing the same sets of data will always give the same outcome, and as we know that is inconclusive. Does anyone agree that the movement of the Solar system within the Milky Way modifies the climate? StuartG
|
|
|
Post by eamonnshute on Jun 14, 2011 20:49:41 GMT 1
As regards the first, the evidence from your many posts says otherwise. As regards the second, factually incorrect, in that given the new legal status of civil partnerships (and given that we were writing our wills before the ceremony in was referred to there as in view of our impending marriage....), .... You made your wills before the ceremony? As I understand it, if you make a will and then marry, the will becomes null and void (for obvious reasons). Dunno if this applies to civil partnerships though.
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 14, 2011 21:17:29 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by buckleymanor1 on Jun 14, 2011 23:00:24 GMT 1
In case referred to, we have temp rise (due to orbital dynamics), which then causes CO2 rise. The rising CO2 acts as a positive feedback mechanism, so that even when the incoming from the sun DROPS, the temperature remains warmer. So, orbital dynamics drives the initial temperature rise and CO2 release. But fact remains that increased levels of CO2 maintain, if you like, the warmth. If CO2 rises for some other reason, then logically this CO2 (whatever the origin) should also have an effect on temperature. The CO2 doesn't KNOW what caused it's release, just acts as a greenhouse gas once it has been released. There is no 'working in reverse', just a straightforward -- more CO2 tends to promote warming. The point is that orbital dyanmics ALONE doesn't explain what is seen in the record, you need additonal positive feedback of CO2 to do that. You should know that this set of events is not possible. The incoming from the sun can not drop when orbital forcing is the main driver. The only possible way is at the end of a warm orbital forcing cycle. Then CO2 release might show a longer period of warming than expected. Though if you take orbital forcing completely out of the picture I would like to see how you can arrive at CO2 being a potential main driver as there is no record of this in the past.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 15, 2011 7:29:18 GMT 1
.
Ah! "Maintain". A very nice, i.e. precise, word to use! A little bit of sanity is in evidence at last from the defender of the faith.
I'll go along with "maintain", as a mere layman. Seems reasonable, given that CO2 merely delays the escape of heat to space that the effect of CO2 is to MAINTAIN a temperature change (up or down) initiated by other "drivers" like the sun, ultimately, via ocean heat release and cloud cover (albedo).
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 15, 2011 13:11:26 GMT 1
Well, the nice solicitor that we paid a wodge of cash to said that:
1) Existing wills became invalid upon marriage/civil partnership
2) Hence new ones needed
3) Doing them on the day (ceremony, speeches, toasts, and signing the new wills?) would cast a bit of a cloud.
Hence you can make them before, and there is some guff added about it being in anticipation of your marriage (even though it was a civil partnership, he did check this!).
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 15, 2011 13:13:08 GMT 1
Why not? Perfectly logical, sun warms stuff, that releases CO2, then CO2 alone can maintain temperature above what would be expected given condition of the sun.
Its very BASIC, to be totally frank.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 15, 2011 13:26:45 GMT 1
And M finally shows her almost TOTAL ignorance of the most BASIC physical processes involved!
NO ONE ever maintained anything other than CO2 'merely' altering heat flow obtained from elsewhere. Delaying is a stupid word anyway, since the point is the equilibrium temperature WITH normal solar heating with and without CO2. If HIGHER in the latter case, then the temp will become higher -- it isn't the CO2 that heats anything, its only ever the sun, but the CO2 can ALTER the equilibrium temperature.
Hence it is the SAME in both cases. If solar heating rises, equilibrium temperature rises. CO2 released as well. Then solar effect falls again, BUT a new, higher temperature can be maintained because the equilibruim now is lower solar heating PLUS CO2, not just lower level of solar heating. Which may or may not be the same as equilbrium temperature for higher solar heating without CO2.
Of course, on this analaysis, CO2 release ALONE should also raise the temperature, if CO2 plus higher then lower solar heating can maintain an elevated temperature, because the equilbrium temperature for a given level of CO2 and given amount of solar heating is the SAME, whatever the history. IF temp already at that level, CO2 'maintains' it, if lower, then because of CO2, sun warms earth until reaches the new equilbrium temperature.
In common parlance, CO2 responsible for warming, not because CO2 is some magic thermodynamic-denying source of heat, but because by altering levels of heat loss, amount of CO2 effects equilibrium temperature.
God, this is page one of any 'what is global warmings: for idiots' text, so gawd knows why M has to spout it now as if it is some major concession from the alarmist side................................
Point is, IF you recognise the effect of CO2 when solar heating is the initial driver, you also (unless you are either illogical or merely totally stupid) have to admit the logical necessity that raising CO2 levels on their own can also initiate warming.
The USUAL response isn't to deny that, but to argue about how big an effect that might be, or that it might be swamped by other processes and so on.
|
|
|
Post by buckleymanor1 on Jun 15, 2011 16:22:41 GMT 1
No they can't not without the driver provided by the sun and orbital forcing.As I said before there is no record of this working in reverse whether you find it logical or not. Orbital forcing, increase in amount of sunshine hitting Earth, release of CO2. Not tuther way round. You seem to be basing your whole argument on something that has never happened before but you believe might "logically" happen.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 15, 2011 16:30:55 GMT 1
Nonsense. IF adding CO2 (which is what happens after CO2 release is obtained via solar heating) establishs a new, higher equilibrium temperature (which it does, since the warmer period persists AFTER the solar forcing is removed), then logically, CO2 can have (and indeed SHOULD have) the same 'raising the equilibrium temperature' effect when introduced in the absence of the initial solar forcing.
Either way, the SUN is still there to warm the earth to the new equilbrium temperature if it wasn't already there, even if solar forcing is turnd off, the sun wasn't!
I think you have failed to understand how CO2 acts, or even how the basic process act.
If CO2 acts as agreenhouse gas when released by solar forcing, then it will act as a greenghouse gas when released by any other means. The physical properties of the gas, and the fact that we're still in the sunshine don't depend on the SOURCE of the gas.
No might about it, whereas you seem to believe in 'magic' CO2 that somehow does something when released in one particular way, but doesn't when released in another way.........
On reflection, more likekly that you've got no bloody idea AT ALL how greenhouse effect works in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by buckleymanor1 on Jun 15, 2011 20:20:02 GMT 1
Yes and the sun was never turned off in the past but the increase in CO2 only occurred after a period of orbital forcing. Now if your logically arrived at conclusion was true and CO2 always behaved in a certain way then how come there is such a small amount of CO2 present today when there has been much more in the past. If CO2 on it's own can cause warming and is not reliant on orbital forcing as well why has it not just run away with itself creating more heat and releasing more CO2 so that we have increadably large amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere today. What has halted this effect it can only be the main driver the Sun and the periods when there was a lack of orbital forcing.
|
|