Operation Ice Age

page: 3
31
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 07:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: ArchPlayer
And here I heard Greenland was going back to being Green when the ice melted a few years ago.

What was the Chicago July record BTW?

Great post OP. Chicago has had relatively mild winters since the blizzard of 1999. Actually, its been seasonably warm since then. No one can actually say Chicago had a crushing winter like 20 years ago because it hasn't happen. Keep in mind the summers have also been exceptionally cooler in the last 15 years as well. Nothing like the sweltering heat of the early 90s. Back in the 1980s man, those were some COLD ASS Winters. Windchill would be 80 below zero easily in December. We use to keep food on the back porch it was so cold and it would keep quite nicely.

Chicago has always had 8 months of winter and 4 months of summer. No spring or fall really as fast as the temps plummet. But it has been cool summers though.


Thanks for your great reply .
Here's a link for the chilly July temps.
www.usatoday.com...




posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: UnderKingsPeak

Interesting: It (the map) shows Texas to be near average, and yet Dallas set new multiple daily records for low lows and low highs. Not to mention that there were far fewer 100+ days.

All in all, this summer and last summer have been pretty mild here comparatively speaking.

I read an interesting piece by an Australian physicist who claims he can show how atmospheric co2 does not, indeed, behave as claimed (greenhouse gas) which would explain a lack of correlation between rise in co2 and temperatures historically.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677
Yes this year in Austin Tx has been much more mild than
the recent norm of 60+ days over 100.
Maybe 2 or 3 this year. Right now it's 90.
Unheard of for early Sept.
Thanks again bbracken, you have been incredibly helpful
with this thread.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
I read an interesting piece by an Australian physicist who claims he can show how atmospheric co2 does not, indeed, behave as claimed (greenhouse gas) which would explain a lack of correlation between rise in co2 and temperatures historically.

Just what are you talking about here?



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

This is but a small part of the argument: (from a physicist, I might add)




The average sea level pressure is around 1013 mbar. If you live at a higher altitude the pressure will be less. Your barometer at 100 m above sea level will read about 12 mbar less. Pressure is a direct measurement of how much atmospheric mass there is above your head per square meter. The ideal gas law can be written PV = RT where P is the pressure (Pascal), V is the volume (m3), R is the gas constant (Joule/K) and T is the average temperature (over some days). Let us now calculate the temperature in a 1 m3 volume at any height. Hence T = P/R, T is proportional to P and P is known from observation to decrease with increasing altitude. It follows that the average T has to decrease with altitude. This decrease from the surface to the average infrared emission altitude around 4000 m is 33oC. It will be about the same even if we increase greenhouse gases by 100%. This is a consequence of the ideal gas law, a natural law which politicians cannot change, but unscrupulous scientists can twist.


I am still reading and digesting. I will be starting a thread based on this soon. There is much, much more. His explanations, using basic science, explains why there is no direct correlation in history for temperatures and co2 levels, going back as far as you wish to go back. So far I have found no cracks in his logic.

I had been taught since way back (mainly from media sources) that co2 is a greenhouse gas (as is water vapor and methane) and have never questioned the "fact". Now I am questioning it...



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

Historically implies you know... written history. That limits our dates a bit.

Prehistorically, the Northern Hemisphere definitively warmed following an increase in atmospheric CO2. This is something even skeptics acknowledge. It is thought by some that CO2 served to transfer heat between the two hemispheres. What skeptics like to point to is the Southern Hemisphere, which warmed prior to the increase in atmospheric CO2 - though that gap is narrowing with further research.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Sorry, I am a geologist so I look at history a bit differently, but yes, prehistorically. I sometimes forget that little tidbit.

That is not always been the case. (your remark about temp rising after co2 levels increase)



Over the last 400,000 years the natural upper limit of atmospheric CO2 concentrations is assumed from the ice core data to be about 300 ppm. Other studies using proxy such as plant stomata, however, indicate this may closer to the average value, at least over the last 15,000 years. Today, CO2 concentrations worldwide average about 380 ppm. Compared to former geologic periods, concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere are still very small and may not have a statistically measurable effect on global temperatures. For example, during the Ordovician Period 460 million years ago CO2 concentrations were 4400 ppm while temperatures then were about the same as they are today.
Do rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations cause increasing global temperatures, or could it be the other way around? This is one of the questions being debated today. Interestingly, CO2 lags an average of about 800 years behind the temperature changes-- confirming that CO2 is not the cause of the temperature increases. One thing is certain-- earth's climate has been warming and cooling on it's own for at least the last 400,000 years, as the data below show. At year 18,000 and counting in our current interglacial vacation from the Ice Age, we may be due-- some say overdue-- for return to another icehouse climate!


Source



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 04:17 PM
link   


"Twentieth century global warming did not start until 1910. By that time CO2 emissions had already risen from the expanded use of coal that had powered the industrial revolution, and emissions only increased slowly from 3.5gigatonnes in 1910 to under 4gigatonnes by the end of the Second World War. It was the post war industrialization that caused the rapid rise in global CO2 emissions, but by 1945 when this began, the Earth was already in a cooling phase that started around 1942 and continued until 1975. With 32 years of rapidly increasing global temperatures and only a minor increase in global CO2 emissions, followed by 33 years of slowly cooling global temperatures with rapid increases in global CO2 emissions, it was deceitful for the IPCC to make any claim that CO2 emissions were primarily responsible for observed 20th century global warming." (Norm Kalmanovitch).



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

Yes. Ice cores in the Southern Hemisphere have CO2 lagging temperature

Not so in the Northern Hemisphere. There is a difference.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Graph

In the above graphs, there are notable anomalies.

And...consider this:



There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today. The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

Because the argument ignores other factors, like the distance from the Sun to the Earth - which has changed at times - and things like supervolcanoes/asteroid impacts/etc.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Gee, I didn't think about that.

Just wait for the thread. I will have a lot more information, rather than dumping chunks. It may be a week before I can devote the time to it.

Or...if I find some fallacy to the guys assertions (which I have not yet found) I will not start it at all lol

Regarding "argument ignores other factors" tell that to IPCC who fail to include any other factors in their climate model. No sun activity, no strength of the magnetosphere...nuttin. It is no wonder their model cannot predict accurately. They violate the scientific method with every pronouncement.

By that I mean that their hypothesis (the climate model) when subjected to testing, does not accurately predict climate change. See...the simplest test is to input data from the past and see how closely the "prediction" follows what happened in the past. If the model does not predict with some accuracy, they need to go back to the drawing board, instead of making the claims they do. That is the scientific method in a nutshell: experiment, then test the results against observed data.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Here is another factor, near and dear to my heart: (LOL)




Throughout the Carboniferous Period, continental drift was rearranging most (but not all) of the Earth's landmasses into a single supercontinent stretching from the south polar region to the north polar region. Although the precise mechanisms involved are still a matter of debate this appears to cause regional humidity changes and redistribution of ocean currents which in turn promote ice accumulation and glacier formation over the earth's polar continents. These glacial ice caps grow larger during periods of reduced solar input, and because ice caps are very good solar reflectors this tended to accelerate and perpetuate cyclical relapses to global cooling. Basically, Earth undergoes alternating periods of ice ages and warming whenever a continuous continental landmass extends from one polar region to the other while at the same time there exists a large polar continent capable of supporting thick ice accumulations. These conditions existed 300 million years ago during the Carboniferous Period as they do for the Earth today. However for most of geologic history the distribution of the continents across the globe did not satisfy this criteria. Continental drift continually rearranges the continents, moving at rates of only a few centimeters per year.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 07:41 PM
link   


Recent discussion of the Shakun et al. (Nature 2012) paper has illuminated issues in its presentation of the history of CO2 versus temperature (commentaries here, here, here, and here). In addition to those investigations, another helpful approach may be to take a step back and cross-check with other sources.

In general, does CO2 correlate with temperature in climate history?

The answer is often yes on “medium” timescales, but no on “short” timescales and also no on the very longest timescales of all. If one looks at all three timescales, overall observations are consistent with temperature rise causing the oceans to release part of their dissolved CO2 after substantial lag time, yet not consistent with CO2 being the primary driver of climate. Over the past few hundred thousand years of ice core data, a “medium” time scale in this sense, CO2 superficially appears to change in step with temperature if a graph is so zoomed out as to not show sub-millennial time scales well:



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 09:05 PM
link   
I just read about the large number of cold temperature records
already for Sept by NOAA. And thought I should include them.

www.nws.noaa.gov...



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: mcChoodles

the northern ice cap ice has been growing
Nope.
nsidc.org...
Notice a similar "increase" in 1996.


I think antarctica is like 18% greater ice coverage than a few years ago.
That would be sea ice and attributeable to wind patterns, not cooling. How's the land ice holding up?
www.wunderground.com...



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I have referred to a single year increase in North Pole ice coverage several times, and that is a yep. Over the last year ice coverage did increase. No doubt due to the 4 year global temp drop trend.

Do not get me wrong. A one year growth of arctic ice does not a trend make, nor does a 4 year trend of falling global temps mean anything beyond temps dropped over a 4 year period. The 17 year pause is only important in that it illustrates the inability to tie in a correlation of GHG and temps in short range periods.




Here is the arctic ice information. The truth is, there has been an increase in ice. The truth also is, it likely means absolutely nothing whatsoever. One year does not a trend make. The word anomaly is used in weather pretty often and is common.

Arctic Ice


Sea ice vs land ice. What I find important about Antarctica sea and land ice is that although land ice is melting, sea ice is growing which increases albedo. The albedo effect in the souther polar region is less important than the northern, of course, but any increase in albedo is important. Add the increase in ice extent in the south with the single year increase in the north and perhaps, only perhaps, we may be seeing something important happening.

In past interglacials the change between increasing heat and the cooling phase leading to glacial growth was immediate. This particular interglacial that we are in seems to have hit a plateau. We have not come close to the higher temps that existed in previous interglacials so the plateau may not mean much, or it may be signaling a change from heat increase to heat loss. Time will tell.





edit on 15-9-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-9-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 08:18 AM
link   
But no not doomed.
Maybe we'll have to accommodate some Canadians
and move the bread basket a bit south, but no doom.
Now if we were about to have 2 mile high melt water
headed on our way I'd say DOOOOM!
But that was 10,000 years ago.


By welcoming us with open arms, you will find your culture improves significantly and we look forward to assimilating you into a wider world!




posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Cynic

Resistance is futile! You will be assimilated!





new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join