Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 Next
Comments 9151 to 9200:
-
Philippe Chantreau at 09:02 AM on 11 November 2019SkS Analogy 20 - The Tides of Earth
For the reader wandering here who is interested and willing to read beyond the 5 year old level:
https://www.universetoday.com/39012/milankovitch-cycle/
Venus and Jupiter's effect:
https://www.universetoday.com/139198/jupiter-and-venus-change-earths-orbit-every-405000-years/
Brings to this paper:
https://www.pnas.org/content/115/24/6153
Moderator Response:[DB] Inflammatory snipped.
-
scaddenp at 08:55 AM on 11 November 2019Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
The two strong facts here are:
1/ CO2 concentrations are rising in the atmosphere and the observed increase in surface radiation is precisely as expected from the math.
2/ The decrease in O2 and the changing isotopic concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is consistant with the increase being from FF use.
-
Eclectic at 08:51 AM on 11 November 2019Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Kiwironnie, for convenience we probably should revert to using GigatonsCarbon (GtC) rather than CO2 mass. Particularly so, when discussing the biomass which is absorbing (very roughly!) 25% of the fossil CO2 emissions.
You will find a vast amount of discussion of the topic of atmospheric residual CO2 emissions and of the oceanic absorption of CO2.
Absorption of CO2 by rock weathering is far too slow to contribute to the short term (a century or two) picture.
As you say, that leaves [excuse pun] the increase of plants as the third factor. Can you think of another factor that would absorb or sequester additional carbon?
Land-based plants are the predominant biomass; bacteria/ fungi/ animals are only a small contributor to biomass, relatively. (Note that modern agriculture tends to reduce soil fungal mass.)
Zaichun Zhu et al., 2016 estimates plant biomass in the region of 450~500 GtC . . . which we must compare with 10 Gtc of fossil carbon emissions as an annual output.
I have not seen a quantification of the (satellite-observed) "greening of Earth". Area of leaf (as leaf area index) has increased distinctly over the past 30+ years. But what about plant biomass ~ which would seem beyond the satellites' capabiity? Example case: rainforest clearing is presumably a carbon "negative" compared with the establishment of pastures or palm oil plantings, which have lower biomass.
From all this, it would seem that we should not expect an exponential "absorption feedback" from plant biomass increase. We will be fortunate if there is a linear biomass increase! ( I haven't found the source, but I recall a recent report that the observed "rate of greening" is slowing down ~ so I don't know if that was a reliable observation, despite its plausability, and neither do I know the more important relation to actual biomass.)
Ceiling capacity for plant biomass is a difficult question. There was a huge plant biomass back in the Carboniferous era. However, conditions are vastly different in the modern era, for plant biomass is greatly reduced by the presence of vertebrate herbivores nowadays (plus other human actions . . . including the food consumption by that "megafauna" called humans).
And judging from the long-term upward trend of the Keeling Curve, we cannot expect that a planetary greening will be of major benefit in reducing the CO2 / Global Warming problem.
Moderator Response:[DB] The Earth stopped getting greener 20 years ago.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-stopped-getting-greener-20-years-ago/
-
Philippe Chantreau at 08:48 AM on 11 November 2019SkS Analogy 20 - The Tides of Earth
I suggest you try to read beyond the level of a 5 year old. Then again,m you seem rather refractory to advice, and keep digging...
Moderator Response:[PS] Inflammatory remarks dont help, violate comments policy. Try again (though I know how you feel).
-
scaddenp at 06:32 AM on 11 November 2019SkS Analogy 20 - The Tides of Earth
Multi-body gravitational system are complex and well studied, and the influence of other bodies most certainly affected the orbital parameters of earth when accumulated over billions of years. There is a massive literature of this going back to Poincare if not further. Jupiter and Saturn have no significant effect ocean tides.
See for instance this paper or this one.
The wobbles in earth orbit affect climate through the distribution of sun on continents, not via any direct affect on climate.
-
Alan Lowey at 05:46 AM on 11 November 2019SkS Analogy 20 - The Tides of Earth
Philippe Chantreau
I understand that the SkS policy is to try to debunk claims made by others which contradict what their bloggers have stated in the articles.
The LINZ article states that only the Sun and Moon have significant gravitational effects on the Earth. The OP article above, tries to state that the gravitational effect of Jupiter causes "bulges and wobbles in the Earth's orbit around the Sun". This is an incorrect statement based on the information given by LINZ.
A five year old could tell you that.
Moderator Response:[DB] The LINZ article is clearly dealing with the effects of the various bodies in the solar system on oceanic tides (liquid bodies of water) on Earth and on short timescales only. Try reading the article for actual context.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 04:49 AM on 11 November 2019SkS Analogy 20 - The Tides of Earth
In case anyone is wondering, the LINZ quote cited by Alan in post 23 figures in the section of the LINZ web site titled "The cause and nature of tides"; it treats exclusively of oceanic tides and the comment about gravity of other planets pertains to oceanic tides, not orbital alterations of the Earth.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 04:38 AM on 11 November 2019SkS Analogy 20 - The Tides of Earth
Alan,
These subects indeed are not easy and that's why you should not meddle with them, since it is painfully obvious that you are unable to comprehend any of it.
First of all if you are going to use quotation marks, like you did in post # 23, do not include an imaginary statement in them, especially after you really quoted actual words by others. That is a very suspect way of operating, suggesting an intent to deceive.
Second, you are so obviously out of your depth that not one of your comments is worth bothering with. Your claims about education and training made early in you first comments appear highly dubious in light of all the following: your unability to do even the most basic fact checking before spouting nonsense, comments about gravity that reveal a profound ignorance of the subject, comments about tides shown to be wildly nonsensical, followed by others that do nothing but distract from how inept the original comments were, and an overall lack of scientific literacy, demonstrated by more comments so inane as "water vapor in clouds."
You persist in not educating yourself about tides and invoke "new physics" that are unnecessary and that you do not bother to try to explain.
Third, just because you do not understand something and are unable to reproduce it does not make it impossible. That logical fallacy is called argument from incredulity. Milankovitch cycles are very real, and astonomical calculations are very precise. Back in the 19th century, Urbain le Verrier caculated the existence of Neptune from variations in the orbit of Uranus, even though they are over 10 AUs apart and Uranus has 27 moons, including some fairly massive ones. Neptune is smaller than Jupiter, Uranus a lot larger than Earth, and they are much farther apart than Earth and Jupiter are from each other.
Just as you were shown to be completely off on Dansgaard-Oeschger events, you are now revealing yourself too incompetent on this subject to produce any interesting reflection. Fess up and learn. You have a lot of that to do before you can lecture others.
Your continued persistance in trying to appear as knowing better, combined with comments that can only be possible with a combination of ignorance and incomprehension, make you appear like a complete fool. Every new comment digs your hole deeper. You should stop.
-
kiwironnie at 04:37 AM on 11 November 2019Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
So Eclectic you are describing a compounding, of 750 (in balance) then 30 + 30 + 30 ... and so on per annum. Consequently double the weight in 25 years, less what can be absorbed. The next question(s) then is at what are the absorbtion feedback mechanisms (such as planetary greening), how quickly can they react and what is their ceiling capacity?
-
Alan Lowey at 04:15 AM on 11 November 2019SkS Analogy 20 - The Tides of Earth
Correction: in post#20, I should have said "Spring tide" instead of "King tide".
-
Tom Dayton at 03:07 AM on 11 November 2019It's the ocean
Alexb: How oceans are warmed by atmospheric greenhouse gasses is explained in this post
-
Alan Lowey at 00:36 AM on 11 November 2019SkS Analogy 20 - The Tides of Earth
Eclectic
I have read the OP article thoroughly, many times. It isn't just about reading, it's also about taking time and deep thinking. These subjects aren't easy.
Could please read my post #23 in the same manner.
The gravitational influence of Jupiter is 0.00054% of the effect of the Moon. It therefore cannot alter the Earth's orbital dynamics, as claimed.
-
Eclectic at 23:41 PM on 10 November 2019SkS Analogy 20 - The Tides of Earth
Alan , it is there in the OP article, and in the footnotes. In plain English. Please read through again, with understanding, about the planetary gravities and "glacial tides" connection.
-
Eclectic at 23:35 PM on 10 November 2019It's the ocean
Alexb @51 ,
why are you suggesting that the 15um wavelength is "the only relevant band" for oceanic heating?
Rather, the ocean gains heat variously by that old triad: conduction/ convection/ and radiation.
Admittedly it is only my own personal anecdotal evidence ~ but I can assure you that every time I have swum beneath the ocean surface, or scuba-dived into the depths . . . it was not pitch black, and I could see all around me. Radiation, presumably, in the 0.4~0.7um band. From above.
-
John Mason at 23:19 PM on 10 November 2019Ynyslas, western Wales – a place made by climate change
Re #4 - yes another hint at a once-different geographical arrangement!
-
Alexb18675 at 22:21 PM on 10 November 2019It's the ocean
Just one or two problems.. The oceans are warmer than the atmosphere and therefore cannot be heated in this way. The atmospheric Arctic temperatures are always sub zero which prohibits melting. Secondly, the mechanism described for oceanic heating relies on down welling IR. It must be remembered that the only relevant band here is 15μm, which can only penetrate up to 3mm of the ocean surface. The beer analogy is wrong as the beer is cooler than the surrounding environment. This is not the case with oceans.
-
Alan Lowey at 20:10 PM on 10 November 2019SkS Analogy 20 - The Tides of Earth
The author states:
"Jupiter and Saturn affect Earth's orbital dynamics"
This is in complete contrast to the professional article "The Cause and Nature of the Tides" by the Land Information of New Zealand (LINZ). This states quite clearly:
"What about the planets? Venus exerts the greatest gravitational pull on the Earth of all the planets but, at just 0.0054% of the effect of the Moon, makes no real impression. Despite being the largest planet, Jupiter's greater distance means that it's influence is ten times smaller than Venus. So the Moon and Sun are the only celestial bodies that have any significant gravitational impact on the Earth."
I'm guessing that your reply will be something like:
"Jupiter's gravity, despite being just 0.00054% of the effect of the Moon, has feedback loops which amplifies this near invisible influence, to create sea level changes of 120m."
The numbers just don't stack up. Even if they were anyway near close, there's still another logical error. Jupiter's gravitational influence would be acting all the time, not just on a 100,000yr cycle.
-
Eclectic at 19:29 PM on 10 November 2019SkS Analogy 20 - The Tides of Earth
Correction : that should be Alan @19
-
Eclectic at 19:28 PM on 10 November 2019SkS Analogy 20 - The Tides of Earth
Alan @20 ,
the "glacial tides" being influenced by the gravity of Jupiter & Saturn . . . is explained within the text of the OP article.
It is also explained a second time, in Footnote 1.
And explained again in Footnote 2. And also explained in Footnote 6.
-
Eclectic at 19:19 PM on 10 November 2019Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Kiwironnie @334 , adding a new 30 thousand million tons of CO2 quickly and repetitively (= annually) would seem quite a lot, to many people ! With or without knife edges.
-
kiwironnie at 18:58 PM on 10 November 2019Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
'.. our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons .. it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed.'
That CO2 natural sources and sinks are on such a knife edge balance that an additional 4% created by man cannot be fully absorbed strikes me as being either an amazing coincidence, incorrect, or there is some other mechanism creating such a balance that is not described here.
-
Alan Lowey at 18:16 PM on 10 November 2019SkS Analogy 20 - The Tides of Earth
The new physics explanation is that a strong gravitational attraction exists between the inner cores of planetary bodies and the Sun, when they are on the same 'plane of angular momentum'.
This new physics scenario can then be applied to the Moon orbiting the Earth. The King tides, referred to in the intro text, would therefore be due to the Earth and Moon aligned on the 'local plane of angular momentum'.
Another way of describing the Glacial tides would be to say that they are caused by King tides due to the alignment of the Earth, Sun and planets on the plane of angular momentum.
The language makes it sound much more complicated than it really is. A visual simulation model would convey this new physics idea without any problem at all.
-
Alan Lowey at 16:55 PM on 10 November 2019SkS Analogy 20 - The Tides of Earth
There's a logical error given in the intro text of this topic. The author states that 'Glacial tides', referring to the advance and retreat of glaciation on the 100,000yr cycle, is due to the 'orbital influence' of Jupiter and Saturn.
The explanation given in the LINZ The Cause and Nature of Tides, states that Jupiter and Saturn have a negligible influence on the tides (with respect to 'the standard version of' gravity).
How can these two opposing views be reconciled without the new physics I'm suggesting?
-
Alan Lowey at 14:54 PM on 10 November 2019SkS Analogy 20 - The Tides of Earth
The Moon orbits in the same direction as the Earth rotates, prograde. Because the Earth rotates at a faster rate than the Moon's orbit, the tidal bulge appears to be ahead.
I'm saying that if the Earth didn't rotate, the Moon would be ahead of the tidal bulge.
The image I have in my head is a strong gravitational interaction between the innermost cores of the two bodies. In this scenario, there is a delay for the initial inner bulge to reach the surface.
Because every single schoolchild is taught that "the Moon pulls on the oceans" it's extremely difficult for the average person to comprehend any alternative explanation.
Incidentally, in a book about the science within the Koran, they say that the tides are "Waves upon Waves upon Waves". This just happens to fit the alternative suggestion I'm trying to explain.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 14:38 PM on 10 November 2019SkS Analogy 20 - The Tides of Earth
Word salad in the "not even wrong" category. The basics of gravity are laughing.
-
Alan Lowey at 14:23 PM on 10 November 2019SkS Analogy 20 - The Tides of Earth
The point I'm making is that we don't easily observe the supposed direct gravitational effect upon the clouds as we do the oceans. There's no real reason why the effect shouldn't be observed with the naked eye.
The fact that the Moon orbits ahead of the ocean tide and not directly in-line lends itself to the notion of new physics.
See: Land Info NZ, The Nature and Cause Of The Tides.
The atmospheric tides are even more delayed. This kind of detail which contradicts the basics of gravity gets harder and harder to find using a web search.
-
barry17781 at 08:55 AM on 10 November 2019Ynyslas, western Wales – a place made by climate change
"Bendigeidfran, and the aforementioned hosting sailed towards Ireland. The ocean was not extensive [back] then: he went by wading. There used to be nothing except two rivers called the Lli and the Archen. And after that the ocean spread out, and the sea flooded the kingdoms. Then he advanced, carrying all the string-minstrels on his back, making for the land of Ireland[
— Branwen Ferch Llyr
-
nigelj at 06:19 AM on 10 November 2019Video: California Wildfires & Climate Change
Australia's state of New South Wales is currently experiencing an unusually intense and early bush fire season here.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 06:07 AM on 10 November 2019It's a 1500 year cycle
Since this whole pile of nonsense relies on a very exact timing and Rahmstorf's interpretation in the paper above of a rigid cyclicity with a 1470 years period, let's consider the state of the science following the Rahmstorf (2003) paper.
The timing of D.O. events has been in fact the subject of considerable debate. Obrochta, Miyahara, Yokoyama & Crowley (2012) injected much doubt as to the true cyclic nature of the events and the duration of the period. They have some pretty strong language:
"Our new results suggest that the “1500-year cycle” may be a transient phenomenon whose origin could be due, for example, to ice sheet boundary conditions for the interval in which it is observed. We therefore question whether it is necessary to invoke such exotic explanations as heterodyne frequencies or combination tones to explain a phenomenon of such fleeting occurrence that is potentially an artifact of arithmetic averaging."In addition, solar cycles are pretty good candidates to figure as the initial forcings in the events: "Results from the most well-dated, younger interval suggest that the original 1500 ± 500 year cycle may actually be an admixture of the ∼1000 and ∼2000 cycles that are observed within the Holocene at multiple locations. In Holocene sections these variations are coherent with 14C and 10Be estimates of solar variability."
Another European team 5 years earlier came to even stronger conclusions about the timing and cyclicty of the events. P. D. Ditlevsen, K. K. Andersen, and A. Svensson (2007) state:
"Here we present statistical significance tests of this periodicity. The detection of a periodicity relies strongly on the accuracy of the dating of the DO events. Here we use both the new NGRIP GICC05 time scale based on multi-parameter annual layer counting and the GISP2 time scale where the periodicity is most pronounced. For the NGRIP dating the recurrence times are indistinguishable from a random occurrence." So, in other words, when dating is refined in the ice core, the periodicity evaporates.
It should be furthermore noted that D.O. events belong in a rather ancient past, as there has not been any since the last one observable in the GRIP/GISP cores, about 25,000 years ago.
The Holocene shows another cycle of Bond events, of much smaller magnitude, most of them without a clear climate signal. The periodicity of the Bond events is closer to 1,000 years. Perhaps Alan's creative gravity maths can take us from 1800 to 1500 to 1000. All this can be found through a quick search of D.O. events, Heinrich events and Bond events.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 05:17 AM on 10 November 2019It's a 1500 year cycle
You do not expose anything like a "thought experiment" in your ramblings. You stated this in post 35 above:
"The obvious choice of a lunar origin was derided by his contemporaries,..."
This was a complete fabrication, as was clearly exposed by Rahmstorf himself in the paper you couldn't bother to read despite using it for your argument. The last 2 lines of the paper are not relevant to any thought experiment. You seem to confuse thought experiment with hypothesis. You're trying to make it look like we are somehow in agreement and that you kind of knew what Rahmstorf said, when in fact it is clear you had no clue whatsoever.
The fundamentals of how we think about gravity is called General Relativity, it has withstood every test thrown at it for the past 100 years. Just like Newton's theory, when it is shown not to be the best explanation, it will still remain valid for all practical purposes within a given domain of application. You are making a bold assertion, and contradicting Rahmstorf himself. It is incumbent to you to support such assertion. A YouTube video does not cut it. You're claiming all the scientists at NASA, NOAA and elsewhere have it wrong, show your work. Without that, you've got nothing but hot air. I can't wait to see how you reduce 1800 years to 1470.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 04:47 AM on 10 November 2019SkS Analogy 20 - The Tides of Earth
Alan Lowey at 14,
This is the most inept thing I have heard in quite a while, and we see some pretty heavy ones on this site. Considering how eager you were to lecture others on the history of tidal science, you should have bothered to read the wiki that I linked.
Let's first clarify that clouds are not made of water vapor, but of liquid or solid water. Then we can clarify your question/thought experiment and even generalize it under the following form: "if the combined gravitational pull of the Sun and Moon makes the Oceans move, should we not also observe a similar movement in the atmosphere (where, by the way, water vapor is a well mixed gas)?
Well, it is painfully obvious that you have zero familiarity with the very stuff you lectured everyone about, and if you had bothered to read the wiki article I linked earlier, you would have found this other one about atmospheric tides:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_tide
So the answer to you ill formulated thought experiment is that, indeed, there are tidal movement of the atmosphere. They include other infuences than Sun and Moon, but they exist nonetheless, and you would have known that if you had done the least bit of digging on the subject. You should stop pontificating on matters you don't know anything about.
-
william5331 at 04:25 AM on 10 November 2019Video: California Wildfires & Climate Change
Actually, climate change will hit the rich and comfortable pretty hard. Take, for instance, the rich Americans, many of them responsible in big and little ways for climate change, who have retired to Florida and, of course, had to have beach front properties. In fact, more beach was created in many cases by building berms on which their houses sit with canals beside their houses for their boats. One good hurricane and presto' no more houses or boats. All of Florida sits on permeable lime stone so there is no way to stop the incursion of the sea due to sea level rise. Perhaps they will all raise their houses on stilts.
-
cpske at 03:08 AM on 10 November 2019Video: California Wildfires & Climate Change
Good job with the video. Can you share how many hits you are getting?
And for those who need a stronger dose of the message, see https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/opinion/sunday/science-climate-change.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
-
DSinBG at 03:06 AM on 10 November 2019Video: California Wildfires & Climate Change
So important to remember that the least able to adapt are and will be the most seriously affected. Nicely done.
-
maxwicen at 00:15 AM on 10 November 2019Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
Yes, of course, it contributes to the CO2 in the atmosphere.
And no in the big scheme of things it is not all accounted for by the carbon cycle. It almost feels like some people are trying to answer this question so that their children won't feel bad about breathing.
Ask yourself this question:
What type of machinery plows the fields where the crops grow? What does that machine run on?
-
Alan Lowey at 19:11 PM on 9 November 2019Video: California Wildfires & Climate Change
I was more than happy to contribute a monthly amount and become a patron. Keep up the good work.
-
Alan Lowey at 17:56 PM on 9 November 2019CSLDF: Here’s How Science Has Suffered During the First 1,000 Days of Trump
See National Geographic 'Why the Amazon doesn't really produce 20% of the world's oxygen", 29 Aug 2019.
Wow, I've just discovered how big an issue this is. Amazing.
-
Alan Lowey at 17:29 PM on 9 November 2019CSLDF: Here’s How Science Has Suffered During the First 1,000 Days of Trump
This is an interesting subject which triggered a recent event. I was watching a 'nature documentary' narrated quite annoyingly by Will Smith. He was over enthusiastically announcing that new research had shown that the Amazon rainforest didn't produce any net increase in oxygen to the atmosphere. The general idea of a forest 'being the lungs of the Earth' seemed to be put in doubt. Vegetation absorbs CO2 and via photosynthesis, produces Oxygen.
I resolved this issue myself by considering that because the Amazon rainforest is so ancient, the fauna has managed to occupy every available niche. Therefore the oxygen released via photosynthesis is immediately consumed by the animals within the forest before it reaches the atmosphere.
I then considered the evidence of giant mammal remains found in Tar Brae. Think about this thought experiment. If the animals evolve to absorb all the available oxygen that they can, then they would increase in size but the atmospheric oxygen levels in proxy data of our past would show that the "oxygen levels haven't changed". This concept does take some thinking about.
I was therefore able to re-establish the concept of "the forests are the lungs of the Earth" by considering the great Arboreal Forest in the Northern hemisphere, the hypothetical one that crosses Siberia and Canada. Because it will be a NEW forest, the fauna hasn't had time to fill the niches, so oxygen is released into the atmosphere.
I'll try and find some links for the next post.
-
Alan Lowey at 16:01 PM on 9 November 2019SkS Analogy 20 - The Tides of Earth
Phillip Chantreau
Please consider this thought experiment:
The only easily observed gravitational effect of the Moon is the regular ebb and flow of the ocean tides. If the commonly held belief that the Moon acts directly on the water itself, why don't we observe the water vapour of the clouds being influenced by the Moon?
-
Eclectic at 15:52 PM on 9 November 2019SkS Analogy 20 - The Tides of Earth
Alan , the regular readers of this website often encounter "unorthodox" ideas (to put it politely).
The readers must then decide whether such ideas come under the category of Troll or Crackpot (of course, those categories are not mutually exclusive).
You are now suggesting that [peace, O Archimedes!] the atmospheric H2O is treated very differently from the non-H2O portion of the atmosphere, regarding its susceptibility to the gravitic connection with the Moon. And I dare not ask about the Solar tides ;-)
-
Alan Lowey at 15:52 PM on 9 November 2019It's a 1500 year cycle
Philippe Chantreau
Thank you for the link. The last two lines of the paper, as you've quoted, are the most relevant to my thought experiment.
Rahmstorf didn't consider combining the 'problem with gravity' with the 'problem of fitting a lunar cause'. There's some wonderful YouTube explanations of The Problem With Gravity. If the fundamentals of how we think gravity works is wrong, then it's possible to assign the Moon as the cause of the 1,470 year cycle.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 15:36 PM on 9 November 2019It's a 1500 year cycle
The DOI link above doesn't seem to work. Paper is accessible here:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2003GL017115
-
Philippe Chantreau at 11:36 AM on 9 November 2019SkS Analogy 20 - The Tides of Earth
Alan Lowey at 10,your post suggests that the combined gravitational pull of the Moon and Sun could pull the lithosphere but not the ocean on top of it. That makes no sense. There is plenty of info here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide
No mention whatsoever of the lithosphere pushing the oceans anywhere.
The lithospere does move but that is not what makes the oceans move, they both move due to the same causes.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 11:29 AM on 9 November 2019It's a 1500 year cycle
The "obvious choice of a lunar origin" is discussed by Rahmstorf himself in the paper that you mentioned without referencing it, and apparently did not read because it does not support your hypothesis at all. From the conclusion section:
"The closest cycle known so far is a lunar cycle of 1,800 years [De Rop, 1971], which cannot be reconciled with the 1,470‐year pacing found in the Greenland data. The origin of this regular pacing thus remains a mystery."
Copied from: Rahmstorf (2003). Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock. Geophysical research Letters, 30 (10).
https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GL017115|
The Rahmstorf (2003) paper and others that I linked earlier explore why the weak forcing associated with this cycle fails to produce D.O. events in the Holocene. The climate effects are entirely owed to ocean circulation, especially salinity changes. There is other litterature suggesting that the cycle is still present but has not produced any noticeable climate effect since the last DO event. I am not impressed with how much you have explored the subject. This stuff is not hard to find.
-
Alan Lowey at 09:56 AM on 9 November 2019It's a 1500 year cycle
Your term "sloganeering" and deleting of my posts, not just ruling them through, is against the very foundations of science-based intellectualism, namely, natural philosophy.
Moderator Response:[TD] Moderation complaints deleted.
-
Alan Lowey at 09:46 AM on 9 November 2019It's a 1500 year cycle
Stefan Rahmstorf, the originator of the 1,470 year cycle, noticed that the data was like 'clockwork', indicating an orbital origin. The obvious choice of a lunar origin was derided by his contemporaries, although none of them had the foresight to envisage new physics to fit the data.
Moderator Response:[DB] You are certainly welcome to your own opinions, but this venue is science-based and to be taken seriously here you will need to up your game and start providing citations to the peer-reviewed published evidence that you feel supports your contentions. Otherwise it will be assumed that you are simply making things up, AKA, sloganeering.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit off-topic posts or make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
Sloganeering snipped. -
indy222 at 09:39 AM on 9 November 2019Modelling the permafrost carbon feedback
It's too bad this important work has not gotten any more commentary. I am using the MacDougall et al work as a starting point to estimate atmospheric CO2 and temperatures for public presentations and for my climate science students.
The new CMIP6 models are have half their models above ECS=5C, and the work of Friedrich et al 2016 also shows interglacials have ECS=4.9C. And, a nice review paper by von der Heydt in 2016 also shows convincingly that researchers see that ECS is higher in hotter background climates. This all spells a very bad situation of ECS=5C should be our base case and 3C a tail-on-the-optimistic side now. With 2.3% of permafrost carbon emerging as methane and a ~doubling of GWP that results, then the CO2e that then ends up on the MacDougall plots go up to 800 ppm by 2300, and more if the new radiative forcings calculated for methane (better short wavelength calcs) are to be accepted. This all suggests that even if we shut off all human emissions in 2050, we still cook ourselves at over 8C, sooner rather than later in the next two centuries. An 8C world is not survivable except for a minority of today's population, and most of today's other species too. GeoEngineering on a massive scale seems absolutely required, regardless of the moral hazard. Is there something more hopeful that I'm missing??
-
Philippe Chantreau at 08:24 AM on 9 November 2019It's a 1500 year cycle
A.L "1,470 year lunar induced climate cycle."The chief hypotheses on D.O. events and Bond events involve long term ocean currents and deep mixing events, or fresh water injections, not the moon. Whereas I found a wealth of papers involving oceanic processes, I could not find one mentioning a lunar component.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI3437.1
https://authors.library.caltech.edu/16947/1/Eisenman2009p6441Paleoceanography.pdf
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379117310351
-
michael sweet at 04:19 AM on 9 November 2019SkS Analogy 20 - The Tides of Earth
Alao Liwry
Are you suggesting that the floor of the ocean flexes several feet every day? How come no one else has noticed this movement? Please provide a citation for this astonishung claim.
-
Alan Lowey at 04:04 AM on 9 November 2019SkS Analogy 20 - The Tides of Earth
I can't stand sloppy unscientific sentences such as "The sun and moon pull on the oceans" as described in the beginning of this topic. They do NOT! It's their gravitational interaction across the entire body of Mother Earth which changes the shape of the planet. It's this bulge which flexes the lithosphere. The bulge of the ocean floor pushes the ocean from beneath to create our daily tides. The person who wrote the intro doesn't understand the very basic nature of how our tides work.
Moderator Response:[DB] You are certainly welcome to your own opinions, but this venue is science-based and to be taken seriously here you will need to up your game and start providing citations to the peer-reviewed published evidence that you feel supports your contentions. Otherwise it will be assumed that you are simply making things up, AKA, sloganeering.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit off-topic posts or make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
Prev 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 Next
