Posted on 08/20/2022 11:00:35 AM PDT by Enlightened1
So what’s your point?
>So what’s your point?
Well then Fido got up off the floor, and he rolled over
and he looked me straight in the eye,
And you know what he said?
“Once upon a time, somebody say to me”
This is the dog talkin’ now,
“What is your, conceptual, continuity?”
“Well I told ‘em right then,” Fido said,
“It should be easy to see,”
“the crux of the biscuit is the apostrophe.”
Well you know, the man that was talking to the dog
looked at the dog, and he said, sort of staring in disbelief,
“You can’t say that,” he said.
“It doesn’t, and you can’t, I won’t, and it don’t,
it hasn’t, it isn’t, it even ain’t, and it shouldn’t, it couldn’t.”
He told him, “No, no, no”
I told him, “Yes, yes, yes”
I said, “I do it all the time,
Ain’t this boogie a mess?”
The poodle bites, the poodle chews it …
First, you should never use Wikipedia as a reference.
Second, the difference between Venus and the Earth is the oceans. 1,000 meters below the surface, ocean water is very cold, near freezing. It’s like a natural refrigerator, accumulated from several ice ages over the past one million years, each lasting over 100,000 years.
Third, If climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling was as high as you claim, the earth would have suffered from a run away greenhouse effect a long time ago. The fact that we are still here bears witness to the long-term stability of our climate system (see anthropic principle).
Addendum, if you are a troll, never mind.
Re: sources of greenhouse gases …
Cite please.
YES
Given that our climate system is nonlinear and dynamic, and given the sheer volume of water vapor in the atmosphere, 100x more than carbon dioxide, plus the wide variability of water vapor in the atmosphere from 0.4% to 5%, you would think that water vapor could be the key factor in climate change.
Aerosols are a factor in cloud formation, too, in addition to cyclic Sun activity.
It is time to shift focus from carbon dioxide to water vapor and other factors in climate change. We have accomplished next to nothing except spending a lot of research dollars on the obsession with carbon dioxide.
The whole world seems bent on self-destruction chasing a false premise that we are all going to die if we do not control a trace gas that is needed for plant life.
Yes, water vapor, aerosols and solar changes play an important role in our climate system but all of the “research” goes towards CO2, which is a trace gas and plant food. NASA launched probes to measure aerosols and greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere but they crashed into the ocean; See OCO (2009), Glory (2011) and TROPICS CubeSats (2022).
TROPICS or Time-Resolved Observations of Precipitation structure and storm Intensity CubeSats, would have mapped high resolution precipitation structure in the tropics (temporal and spatial). We know that precipitation changes in the tropics drive measurable changes in global temperature, ENSO, MJO etc. Contributions from water vapor in the Arctic are negligible because warm air has a much higher capacity to hold water than cold air. But research concerning the role of water vapor (or aerosols) in climate does not get the funding that CO2 does. It’s sad to see politics driving the science.
Experiments at CERN have confirmed that cosmic rays induce the formation of condensation nuclei (more cosmic rays during low solar). Cosmic rays may be responsible for the annual Antarctic ozone hole. So much for the 1987 Montreal Protocol. I’m expecting this year’s September ozone hole over Antarctica to be as large as ever.
The sun contains a double dynamo of convective flow beneath the surface and there is evidence that these structures move in (high solar) and out of phase (low solar). See Zharkova (2015). We are entering a period of out-of-phase flow which should bring cooling through the 2020s.
These studies and data about aerosols, solar and water vapor are being systematically removed from the Internet. NOAA and NASA websites used to provide easy access to graphs and plots but, not any more. I have difficulty finding updates to solar activity (used to be everywhere). It’s a deliberate attempt by the powers-that-be to hide the science and flood the Internet with everything CO2. Scientists seeking the truth must remain objective and diligent in the face of overwhelming opposition.
Um, gases not gasses, darn autocorrect. Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked. Help, I’m being repressed! Bloody peasant!
Good point about the oceans. Would explain why that the CO2 in the atmosphere has risen by one third since 1958 and the average global temp has only risen by about one degree Centigrade in that same time period.
BTW, prior to the industrial revolution the CO2 in the atmosphere was around 250 ppm for thousands of years based on ice core samples from Greenland and Antarctica where ancient atmosphere was trapped and analyzed from the cores. It really took off in the last half of the 20th Century and is now 422 ppm, a huge rapid increase.
The Wikipedia graph is widely accepted and is used as a barometer of CO2 in the atmosphere. Read the article if you dare. Educate yourself.
Wikipedia!? On second thought let’s not go there, it’s a silly place.
Yes, the oceans are very cool. I studied the GISP2 and Vostok ice core data, learned a lot about them, very illuminating. Where is that famous plot? Scrubbed from the Internet, I see. Here ‘tis, See Fig 1, [1].
The ancient Minoans experienced warming (3,500 ybp), and the Romans (2,000 ybp). Then there was cooling ~650 AD. The fall of Rome occurred about that time followed by the Medieval Warming Period (MWP, 1,000 AD) where it was warmer than today. The Vikings grew crops in Greenland and grapes were grown in York, England. The MWP was global in scope because temperatures rose in the Southern Hemisphere too.
Then came another cool period (1300 - 1800) bringing sickness and suffering (the Great Famine of 1315 and Black Plague of 1348, again in the 1500s). This period was known as the Little Ice Age (LIA) and overlapped with a period of extreme solar inactivity known as the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715). The River Thames froze over in the winter with regularity.
Finally in the 1800s there was warming again after coming out of the LIA. This period is known as the Modern Warming Period (MWP) and is not exceptional, one degree C increase in average global temperature. Global sea-level level rise has been a steady eight inches per century as oceans warm up, releasing large caches of CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 rise always lags behind temperature rise with warming events.
Notice that atmospheric CO2 increase from ~250 ppm in 1825 to 418 ppm (average) in 2022 (+168 ppm) represents 67% of a doubling of CO2, which suggests a climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 of 1.5 degrees C, 0.67*(1.5 C) = 1 C. Actually, atmospheric CO2 concentration was ~280 ppm in the early 1800s but what is 30 ppm between friends. CO2 reached its minimum of ~260 ppm during the Holocene Optimum, 8,000 ybp, a period of flooding because global sea-levels rose 120 meters over the previous 10,000 years.
1. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/31/a-warm-period-by-any-other-name-the-climatic-optimum/
Of course CO2 was much lower during that last ice age (<200 ppm) which lasted 100,000 years and officially ended 10,700 ybp. Wouldn’t want to go back there, very cold, low crop yields, hunger, sickness and suffering, etc.
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V24/oct/a1.php
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.