Calif. Burning...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote:
Umm..we know in the last 500 million years ago there have been several temperature spikes because of high carbon dioxide levels. These were caused by volcanic activity and or comet events. The last spike was 56 million years ago. The temperatures spiked as high or higher than today but subsided in orders of 10's of thousands of years.

The other issue was that before say 300, million years ago the sun was hotter because of the sun is gradually giving off less heat. It was hotter then by several percent.

We have a cooler sun today, and no comets or major major earthquakes that produce large amounts of CO2.

CO2 levels were always generally below 300ppm before 56 million years ago (comets and volcanoes were exceptions). But in the last 56 million years ago C02 has not risen above 300 ppm CO2. 3 Guesses who/what caused the 400 ppm from 300 ppm in the last 70 years. And of course a direct correlation between CO2 and temperature rises on earth.

Not expecting you to understand or believe this. Some may be interested.



So the Sun was hotter, CO2 was 7000ppm, and the temps were about the same as today?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: bvance554
..... the university had unwittingly taught me that climate change was at best a hypothesis based on a political agenda and a vendetta on the fossil fuel industry. ....


I know the feeling. I took a junior level course in biochem just for fun as an elective, and it wound up completely changing my views on the origin of life.


It's scary how much evidence some people need to form an opinion. Learning is a lifelong endeavor not an elective.

Looks like my distrust of the "professions" gains more and more validity every day.
 
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: hatt
Have you ever looked at the long term CO2 levels? Not over thousands of years but millions? If you had you'd see CO2 varies wildly. Today's "dangerous devastating Earth destroying" CO2 level can only be described as very low. Maybe even dangerously low.

Umm..we know in the last 500 million years ago there have been several temperature spikes because of high carbon dioxide levels. These were caused by volcanic activity and or comet events. The last spike was 56 million years ago. The temperatures spiked as high or higher than today but subsided in orders of 10's of thousands of years.

The other issue was that before say 300, million years ago the sun was hotter because of the sun is gradually giving off less heat. It was hotter then by several percent.

We have a cooler sun today, and no comets or major major earthquakes that produce large amounts of CO2.

CO2 levels were always generally below 300ppm before 56 million years ago (comets and volcanoes were exceptions). But in the last 56 million years ago C02 has not risen above 300 ppm CO2. 3 Guesses who/what caused the 400 ppm from 300 ppm in the last 70 years. And of course a direct correlation between CO2 and temperature rises on earth.

Not expecting you to understand or believe this. Some may be interested.

Yo Al. Despite my repeated requests to abstain from trolling here about AGW, you persist...to just PI$$ people off, no doubt, eh Al? You're not showing much compassion AT ALL for these people who have been not only burned out of their homes, but burned OUT OF THEIR VERY LIVES!

This Isn't an AGW thread, nor was it meant to be!

Life, as they know it, will never be the same. This is a momumental event. Go Troll for Attention somewhere else, Al. Time to back away from the keyboard and go do something else with your retirement years.
 
Originally Posted By: sleddriver

This Isn't an AGW thread, nor was it meant to be!


It wasn't an AGW thread until someone made it one, and it wasn't Al.
 
Originally Posted By: Kiwi_ME
.... but there is plenty of research on this subject indicating that CC has influenced the current drought by 15-20%. e.g, Link


The actual paper ( not papers ) is here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064924/full. The abstract contains this shocker: " Precipitation is the primary driver of drought variability ". Just looking at the abstract, my opinion is the NYT misrepresented it.
 
Originally Posted By: hatt

So the Sun was hotter, CO2 was 7000ppm, and the temps were about the same as today?

The data seems to show that the temp spiked higher than today's records. Its difficult to tell bc direct temperature measurement of temp's "then" is not possible "now"
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Kiwi_ME
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
... modeling and simulation, upon which CC is based, is real science.

Well, the basics are simple classical physics with data collection and analysis. The metrics of where we stand today are scary enough for any sensible person to pay attention without even needing to predict the future with modeling.

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
And most of the so-called internet sources are propaganda, not science.

That's your opinion and your loss.


Which metrics? Realistic metrics based on physics or simulation metrics based on political agendas??


You might want to take a look at:

AMS, December 2011, Climate Science and The Uncertainty Monster,

AMS, November 2005, The Gap between Simulation and
Understanding in Climate Modeling.


Here are some "metrics:"

In an attempt to remove "Heat Island" bias in surface temperature measurements, temperature trends of radiosonde measurements from 63 upper-air stations between 90°N and 90°S latitude from 1958 to 1996 and measurements of a satellite microwave sounding unit between 83°N and 83°S latitude from 1979 to 1997 of global lower tropospheric temperatures were studied.

Both of these systems show a slight decline in temperature since 1979.

Recommendations by the IPCC are based primarily on the results of global climate models which still do not include an adequate treatment of many physical mechanisms like cloud cover or, cosmic ray interactions wrt cloud nucleation.

In March of 2001 a significant paper by Richard Lindzen of MIT was published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society which addresses the cloud cover feedback mechanism. Dr. Lindzen has been a long-time critic of the IPCC and a highly respected researcher in the atmospheric sciences. His paper reports that clouds in the tropics respond to warmer sea-surface temperatures (SST) by permitting long-wave radiation to space to increase, causing greater cooling of the atmosphere. This negative feedback mechanism would more than cancel all the positive feedbacks included in the more sensitive current climate models.

Dr. Lindzen calculated the average SST as a function of cloud cover and found a strong negative relationship. His explanation for the negative relationship is that warmer SSTs lead to higher humidities and greater convective activity. This greater convective activity is more efficient in creating rainfall, leaving less moisture to form cirrus anvils which prevent long-wave radiation from escaping to space. Consequently, warmer SSTs lead to more rapid cooling of the atmosphere and stabilization of the earth’s temperature.

That my friend is atmospheric physics.

What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.
—Werner Karl Heisenberg
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: Kiwi_ME
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
... modeling and simulation, upon which CC is based, is real science.

Well, the basics are simple classical physics with data collection and analysis. The metrics of where we stand today are scary enough for any sensible person to pay attention without even needing to predict the future with modeling.

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
And most of the so-called internet sources are propaganda, not science.

That's your opinion and your loss.


Which metrics? Realistic metrics based on physics or simulation metrics based on political agendas??


You might want to take a look at:

AMS, December 2011, Climate Science and The Uncertainty Monster,

AMS, November 2005, The Gap between Simulation and
Understanding in Climate Modeling.
Here are some "metrics:"

In an attempt to remove "Heat Island" bias in surface temperature measurements, temperature trends of radiosonde measurements from 63 upper-air stations between 90°N and 90°S latitude from 1958 to 1996 and measurements of a satellite microwave sounding unit between 83°N and 83°S latitude from 1979 to 1997 of global lower tropospheric temperatures were studied.

So you deny that improved temperature measurements and specifically location refinement since the 90's has shown all of the 15 hottest GLOBAL years occurred since 1997??

And you deny that the increase of 100 ppm CO2 has anything to do with increased temperatures. Do you understand the theory of polar gas molecules absorbing/scattering infrared light and passing UV light?? And do you understand the concept of heat sinks of (Oceans) delaying the onset of GW?
http://www.decodedscience.com/global-warming-ocean-heat-sink/49728
 
Last edited:
Quote:
So you deny that improved temperature measurements and specifically location refinement since the 90's has shown all of the 15 hottest GLOBAL years occurred since 1997??


Over the last 135 years the Global Average Temperature has increased 0.0104 F/year according to GISS/NASA.

The decade from 2000 to 2010 showed an increase of 0.036°F per year during that decade.

Quote:
And you deny that the increase of 100 ppm CO2 has anything to do with increased temperatures.


I am not convinced that there is a direct correlation between the rise in CO2 and increased temps. I would like to see unequivocal data that shows there are not other causes, such as what I mentioned above in a previous post, wrt to cloud physics. Our understanding of cloud physics is in it's infantile stage and is a very interesting and important piece of the puzzle.

A large part of the variability in Global Climate models is due to methods in which cloud responses are modeled.

And how do we know the radioactivity in the mantle hasn't increased during this same time frame? Increased radioactivity within the mantle could heat the oceans as well.

Quote:
Do you understand the theory of polar gas molecules absorbing/scattering infrared light and passing UV light??


grin2.gif


Quote:
And do you understand the concept of heat sinks of (Oceans) delaying the onset of GW?


I understand completely the concepts and equations of Thermodynamics and your inference to "thermal inertia."

Question for you: Do you understand how the CMAS concept links cosmic rays with the amount of charge on aerosols and droplets within the clouds?

BTW, the ambiguous description "climate change" could refer to Global heating, Global cooling, or any kind of change. Since it is ambiguous, this makes quantifying it difficult, and makes the description difficult to validate or to falsify.
 
Last edited:
Yo Al...you've proven my point, repeatadly, with little comment. You simply are unable to control yourself. The alure is too powerfull, too stong, the pull too great. You simply are unable to resist the allure, the pull, the urge, to engage, to comment, to troll.

The compassion and urgency and chaos of those who have lost everything: Their homes, possessions, way of life, the very shelter over their own heads must take a back seat to defending AGW. The true definition of a fanatic: The Cause must Progress. Sacrificies Must Be Made. The Movement MUST Move Forward, Regardless of The Cost.

Wow....indeed. Lightning has been going on since the dawn of forests. Spruce & Pines both are loaded with flammable sap and will indeed burst into flames when dry and exposed to sufficient heat. Eventually all will succumb...if it's hot enough.

While there are ways around this, it seems inappropriate in the face of such devasting loss and destruction. That time perhaps will come later.

For now, I continue to advise you to cease & desist of your ridiculous AGW & CO2 ranting. Particularly in the face of such life-changing devastion. Have you no Heart, man?
 
Originally Posted By: Al


The other issue was that before say 300, million years ago the sun was hotter because of the sun is gradually giving off less heat. It was hotter then by several percent.

Not expecting you to understand or believe this. Some may be interested.


No, that is exactly opposite of what his happening.
Quote:
The Sun is gradually becoming hotter during its time on the main sequence, because the helium atoms in the core occupy less volume than the hydrogen atoms that were fused. The core is therefore shrinking, allowing the outer layers of the Sun to move closer to the centre and experience a stronger gravitational force, according to the inverse-square law. This stronger force increases the pressure on the core, which is resisted by a gradual increase in the rate at which fusion occurs. This process speeds up as the core gradually becomes denser. It is estimated that the Sun has become 30% brighter in the last 4.5 billion years.[115] At present, it is increasing in brightness by about 1% every 100 million years.[116]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun



Why would you expect us to believe pure bull?

Ed
 
Originally Posted By: AdRock
I CA would just slide off into the ocean already it would put the fires out. Problem solved.



Some would say the same thing about West Texas. Talk about a wasteland......
 
Originally Posted By: MolaKule

Question for you: Do you understand how the CMAS concept links cosmic rays with the amount of charge on aerosols and droplets within the clouds?

Mostly negative feedback.
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/215/

You have run out of arguments and are throwing everything except the kitchen sink to deflect the real issue....You deny that polar gasses are the main contributor to GW even though the Science is clear..not much more to say. And I won't.
cheers3.gif
 
Last edited:
My cousin is a retired forest fire fighter. He used to work in SoCal. I've heard stories, and seen pictures, and they are nothing like the fires California is experiencing right now. Hopefully some rain is on the way.
 
Originally Posted By: rshaw125
Yesterday's USA Today article, 1 in 3 houses in CA are now in a wild fire prone area. And they're building more.

Yikes!!!!
 
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: MolaKule

Question for you: Do you understand how the CMAS concept links cosmic rays with the amount of charge on aerosols and droplets within the clouds?

Mostly negative feedback.
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/215/

You have run out of arguments and are throwing everything except the kitchen sink to deflect the real issue....You deny that polar gasses are the main contributor to GW even though the Science is clear..not much more to say. And I won't.
cheers3.gif



No, you completely missed the topic at hand, which was CMAS, or Charge Modulation of Aerosol Scavenging.


I strongly suggest you start studying real technical papers and forget the Internet propaganda:

Journal of Geophysical Research, 96((D12):22283-22296, 1991,

Journal of Geophysical Research, 101((D23):29689-29699, 1996,

Journal of Geophysical Research, 113((D15):112, 2008,

Journal of Geophysical Research, 114((D18):201, 2009,

Review of Geophysics, Solar Influences on Climate, 48:RG4001, 2010


Since you have highjacked this thread with useless references and Internet propaganda, instead of starting a new thread, you now want to run and hide and pretend you now have empathy.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: hatt
What caused the regular wildfires during the billions of years before humans screwed up the climate?

Duuuhhhh..Forests do burn. And have always burned. No one knows the extent to which they burned then? Do you know? But thanks for acknowledging the change in climate and the way man has screwed it up in especially the last 25 years due to Carbon Dioxide ppm changing from 300ppm to 400 ppm which are causing the droughts now.
How's the koolaid today? Do you preface all your weighty remarks with "duhhhhh"?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: Kiwi_ME
.... but there is plenty of research on this subject indicating that CC has influenced the current drought by 15-20%. e.g, Link


The actual paper ( not papers ) is here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064924/full. The abstract contains this shocker: " Precipitation is the primary driver of drought variability ". Just looking at the abstract, my opinion is the NYT misrepresented it.

+1
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom