Climate Change - History and Forecasts

kbd512 · 2023-04-24 10:18:50

This video was rather enlightening:

Dr Richard Lindzen exposes climate change as a politicised power play motivated by malice and profit

Void · 2023-04-24 14:36:04

I like to keep a mind open for more information, so thanks.

I do want to mention a feedback relationship which is already obvious, but which might perhaps be described better. I want to suggest some factor which may have a negative feedback nature to help keep the planet from overheating.

For the moment, I am considering the variability of the troposphere. What is the altitude of the Troposphere?
This will do: https://www.bing.com/search?q=What+is+t … 541ff52fe2 Quote:

The average height of the troposphere is 18 km (11 mi; 59,000 ft) in the tropics, 17 km (11 mi; 56,000 ft) in the middle latitudes, and 6 km (3.7 mi; 20,000 ft) in the polar regions in winter. The total average height of the troposphere is 13 km (8.1 mi; 43,000 ft).

Image Quote: th?id=OIP.tPrD5kfhxoTjTNkc14wqMAHaFS&w=242&h=160&c=8&rs=1&qlt=90&o=6&dpr=1.3&pid=3.1&rm=2

What is the altitude of Antarctica? https://antarctic-logistics.com/about-a … 282835m%29.
Quote:

ELEVATION
Antarctica is the highest continent on Earth: average elevation is 8,200ft (2500m). The elevation at the South Pole is 9,300ft (2835m).

So, Antarctica average = 2.5 km, troposphere = 6 km, so that allows an average of 3.5 km that clouds can flow through typically.

So, over Antarctica, the total accumulation of greenhouse gasses that photons can pass through is approximately 41.7 times less than for sea level. This would be true for the whole greenhouse effect(s), except it is also likely that a lot of the water vapor would have been condensed out of the air.

So, if the worldwide greenhouse is warming the atmosphere and the surface of the Earth, proportionally more at the sea level than the elevated continents, then the warming would be stronger at the sea level than at altitude.

If the atmosphere is warmed enough to raise the troposphere by 1 km at Antarctica, then instead of a 3.5 km atmospheric passage you have a 4.5 km passage. Warming at the poles is expected to be greater than at the lower latitudes, so the reaction should be fairly quick. The open seas around Antarctica should warm, but the surface of the ice pack on Antartica should warm by a very approximate 41.7% less, because of altitude. But the ice pack will also have less water vapor as greenhouse gasses, and we haven't even mentioned the differential albedo.

So long as the bulk of the Antarctic Ice Pack is not above the freezing point of fresh water, the seas should give up water to the ice pack. The altitude of the Troposphere over Antarctica and its surroundings should be like an air duct valve. It is not just that the differential temperatures may become larger under an increase in greenhouse effects, it is that the moisture carrying air flow should also increase. From my point of view this should be a very strong negative feedback factor which would resist planetary warming.

I could make this post 10 times as long, by expanding the conversation, but I will simply say that Carl Sagan in reacting to discoveries about Venus, (And I expect others), felt that Venus might have had oceans, that eventually evaporated into the stratosphere, and then into space. And that was not a bad notion to consider, but even in that situation, the troposphere would have simply increased in altitude, and likely the rains would simply find enough cold at altitude to fall as condensations.

If we look at Earth, then the air pressure at the top of the troposphere is much too high to reach the triple point of water. https://www.online-sciences.com/earth-a … 20level%29.
Quote:

0.1 bar
Troposphere thickness is about 8 km above the two poles and 18 km at the equator so, average troposphere thickness = (8+18 / 2) = 13 km. The atmospheric pressure in this layer decreases as we go up until it becomes 100 Mb nearly at its top 100 Mb = 0.1 bar (0.1 of the normal atmospheric pressure at sea level).

The point is, if you raise the altitude of the Troposphere, then moisture flows should better be able to get more inland from the oceans before falling as precipitation.

We could blab about ice ages and stuff, but I think my point is that the Earth seems to have methods to buffer the results of changes. That only makes sense, as it is likely why life and even humans have persisted at all.

I am all for the proper study of climate, and the effects of humans on climate, and I am all for new energy supplies, but I don't think that public, religious, political science is worthy of trust.

There are too many authoritarian oriented types of people on the planet who can see it as a path to power.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-04-24 15:26:08)

kbd512 · 2023-04-25 11:23:09

Void,

Dr. Lindzen's point is that a lot of people think Earth's climate is controlled by a big red button with "CO2" emblazoned on it. The reality is that it's more like the flight deck of a Boeing 747. You could mess with half a dozen different knobs / switches / buttons and have no effect whatsoever on whether or not the plane climbs or descends. The pilots flying the plane have never had their "discovery flight" aboard a Cessna 172, which would be equally bewildering to them because they've never flown any kind of plane. It's no wonder they're so terrified. They can see that they're sitting in the cockpit of a very large and complex aircraft. They can't find the POH or checklists and have no actual knowledge of how any aircraft works, but they believe their plane is headed towards the ground. They're flying through a cloud and can't see the horizon, but they don't know that because it's no different than magic to them.

I can't tell you the number of people I've seen trying to write computer software, who will do random things, with no knowledge of what they're doing or even what they're trying to do. Amongst other people, I watched my own brother do this before he taught himself how to program. I asked him what he was doing one day while watching him, and he said, "I'm trying random things to see if it works". That pretty much sums up what I see surrounding the entire climate change silliness. They're trying random things, hoping physics or something else will be overturned by a magical new discovery. Magic is the correct word to describe what they're after. If they act really busy, or even if they are really busy, physics is not going to change to conform to their beliefs about what should work vs what does work. Anyway, it's increasingly bizarre and dark. I don't like where it's headed because I don't think it's going to help anyone, now or in the future.

Void · 2023-04-25 11:32:46

I tend to align with your thinking so far.

There is another factor as well. If CO2 blocks some infrared from leaving the Earth, there will be a process of loss of effectiveness for this blockage. If you have blocked all the radiation of that wavelength with the CO2 you added, then adding more, will more likely have very little to no effect. In other words if you paint a window black to the point you cannot see though it, then adding more coats of black paint will not make it more opaque.

I think we can hope to be more rational about it. I try to keep my mind open.

Done.

Calliban · 2023-04-25 16:10:14

Remember, CO2 is only one of the many greenhouse gases that humans are releasing into the atmosphere. Whilst CO2 will have saturation limits for its own optical window, the other gases have windows of their own.

Void · 2023-04-25 20:21:24

Fair enough. I do like to repeat for other readers, who may not be aware, that for a greenhouse gas like CO2, the climatic response for amount of CO2 increase in the atmospheric mix, the thermal response is likely to be non-linear. And at least at this time I believe that it takes more and more as content of atmosphere to have a effect to warm the Earth.

As for Hydrocarbons and Hydrogen, it is becoming apparent that organisms in the biosphere will consume it when they can. These provide chemical energy to life, and also water.

I think I will have some further climate blabbing some time later in the terraform section.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-04-25 20:23:44)

Void · 2023-04-26 10:19:59

I have had a look at this: Milankovitch Cycle:
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/r … ORM=VRDGAR

I don't want to dominate this topic, so that is about it for now. I will migrate to the Terraform section eventually, and do some thinking there.
I don't feel I have the answers, rather, I seek more answers.

Done.

Calliban · 2023-04-26 14:40:25

An interesting article from natural resource investors Goehring & Rozencwajg.
https://info.gorozen.com/2022-q4-commentary-peak-oil

Essentially, the approaching peak in US shale oil production, will coincide with a peak in global liquid fuel production. This is because the US shales have been the only significant growth area since 2008. Between 2008 and 2020, the growth of US shale added the equivelent of another Saudi Arabia to global oil production, all of it light, sweet and onshore. Although drilling rates and capital investment per barrel were high, the oil itself is a high quality, low sulphur resource. Growing shale oil production was able to offset declines elsewhere. The Permian still has some growth potential left in it, with about 45% of Tier 1 acrage developed. But over the past year, steady growth in the Permian has been offset by declining production in the Baken, Alaska, GoM. Overall, US production has bounced back slowly since the pandemic.

To be clear, a peak in global oil production does not imply that oil is about to run out. A great deal remains to be discovered in marginal deposits. It marks the point at which the economy can no longer afford to pay the cost of sustaining existing production. We already see this in the North Sea, the GoM, Alaska and many other places. Costs in these areas are gradually creeping upward and production is declining, as the deposits remaining are smaller, deeper and more costly to develop. A rapid decline rate in oil production can be avouded if price can be allowed to rise. However, this would require improvements in efficiency of fuel use, in order to make the economic cost of more expensive fuel sustainable.

One thing is clear. The virtue signalling and economic vandalism being inflicted in the name of 'climate change' is pointless. Peak Oil, demographic population decline and the breakdown of globalisation generally, are going to inflict some steep declines in CO2 emissions whether we plan that outcome or not. It is far more important to maintain agriculture, water supplies and supply lines, than it is to fight a problem that will soon solve itself.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-04-29 14:04:24

The Sun's everage flux has been well monitored since the 60s

GMST the global mean standard temperature an increased at an average rate of 0.14 degrees Fahrenheit ( 0.08 degrees Celsius) per decade

‘Devastating’ melting of Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets found
https://www.digitaljournal.com/tech-sci … nd/article
The Earth’s ice sheets lost enough ice over the last 30 years to create an ice cube 12 miles high

Spain roasts in record-breaking 38C spring heatwave with parts of the country now the 'driest in a thousand years'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … twave.html

Deadly Heat Threatens the Well-Being of 1 Billion People in India
https://www.wired.com/story/extreme-heat-india/

Warming in the Atlantic may be contributing to the extreme heat that’s hitting Spain right now, and it shows the broader problem caused by high ocean temperatures: What happens in the sea doesn’t stay in the sea. The oceans have absorbed something like 90 percent of the excess heat humans have put into the atmosphere, but the oceans are also capable of handing that heat back to the atmosphere, which in turn heats the land. “Both the atmosphere and oceans are becoming warmer and warmer,” says Boyin Huang, a physical scientist and oceanographer at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “If the atmosphere pushes the ocean, then the ocean will push back into the atmosphere.”
https://www.wired.com/story/an-ominous- … oceans/amp
The ocean has been acting as a heat sink all these years and softening the global warming. Oceans have already absorbed 90% of the excess heat. Since the specific heat of water is high, it takes a long time to both heat up and cool down.

kbd512 · 2023-04-30 05:21:30

Mars_B4_Moon,

The Earth’s ice sheets lost enough ice over the last 30 years to create an ice cube 12 miles high, according to new research.

No other dimensions given, huh?

Someone named "Twila Moon", who was not actually involved in the study, described it as "devastating" after someone on TV asked her how she felt about it. It's strange how we can never get a comment from the people who were actually conducting the study, and are now asking uninvolved randos about their feelings vs what they know, how they know it, or what inferences can be drawn from their work.

In other news, cows farted enough to send a rocket to the moon? Said rocket could only carry a hamster, which we conveniently left out for dramatic effect, but it did go to the moon. No word yet on how the hamster is returning since there are no cows on the moon, but the devastating farting continues, according to Sailor Moon, who was not actually involved in the effort to collect enough cow farts to send Skippy the Hamster to the moon.

The loss of ice is having a significant impact on the oceans, pushing up sea levels by 21 millimeters (just less than an inch), according to the report. Ice sheet melting now accounts for a quarter of all sea level rise – a fivefold increase since the 1990s.

What accounts for the other three quarters of sea level rise? Is the land sinking into the ocean?

In the 1990s, ice melting was 1/20th of sea level rise, apparently, so what was causing that other 19/20ths of sea level rise in the 1990s?

Better yet, what's presently causing the other 3/4ths of sea level rise that is not related to ice melting? Is there a giant underground aquifer we're not aware of?

Spain roasts in record-breaking 38C spring heatwave with parts of the country now the 'driest in a thousand years'

What direct measurements of temperature and rainfall do we have from the year 1023, in Spain, to let us know how wet or dry the year 1023 was? Did someone secretly invent a time machine?

Our record keeping was so good during the Middle Ages that we can tell which specific year some specific part of the country was the driest? That would be a neat trick since we didn't have a standardized measurement system in the Middle Ages. If it was so dry in 1023, despite the fact that humans weren't burning any coal, oil, or natural gas, then what was causing "climate change" back then?

I notice a pattern to all these outlandish statements. Wild claims are made by people with no direct involvement in the actual science experiments or data gathering, which cannot be quantified or falsified because they're deliberately vague or devoid of context, nobody was around to do any direct measurement (we have no clue how wet or dry the year 1023 was in some specific part of Spain), and we have no relative way of knowing what's notable vs what is not.

Instead, we have CNN asking "Twila Moon" how she "feels" about the growing Antarctic ice shortage.

SpaceNut · 2023-04-30 13:29:10

Sounds like a hit band Earth Air and Water but in the end the temperatures are showing Spring ocean temperatures are shockingly hot around the globe. Scientists aren’t sure what happens next.

096695c6c6b46db6706a2bbcb8ecf0e6

kbd512 · 2023-04-30 16:30:38

Someone claimed that some specific part of Spain is, in the year 2023, as hot as it's been within the past thousand years, without evidence of any kind, because there were no thermometer records from the Middle Ages. This is a crystal clear case of an objectively false assertion being presented as a scientific fact to an audience of scientifically illiterate people. It was done for the express purpose of making money by frightening the ignorant public to think and behave in ways directly counter to their own interests. Don't step on the crack or you'll break your momma's back. That's how silly these cretins are.

The loss of ice is having a significant impact on the oceans, pushing up sea levels by 21 millimeters (just less than an inch), according to the report. Ice sheet melting now accounts for a quarter of all sea level rise – a fivefold increase since the 1990s.

Again I will ask, what were the contributing factor(s) causing the other 3/4ths of sea level rise, which was not attributed to melting ice, by definition of what this media fear porn article asserted?

Lots of wild claims are being made about the weather, trying to associate extreme weather events with "climate change". Climate is merely weather over time, by definition. It has tremendous variability. We have some unscrupulous people claiming that the weather is becoming more extreme, as opposed to some idealized point in time in the past which they cannot define. All the actual meteorological agencies state that no such thing is happening, and have specifically and repeatedly cautioned against attempting to use extreme weather events as "proof" of climate change. There is no trend in extreme weather events, one way or another, within the exceptionally limited set of data we have to work with. All the people asserting something else lack evidence.

Temperature records are one form of evidence. The records we keep of storms, droughts, and floods are another form of evidence. Any news-worthy article would publish their sources. Sources would be links to actual temperature records, actual precipitation records, etc. Meteorological agencies compile this data. It's not hard to find since an actual news agency will have an actual meteorologist on staff. If there is something noteworthy related to extreme weather, then it should be presented by an actual meteorologist, not some liberal arts major who can't spell meteorology without using a teleprompter. None of those people know the definition of the words they're using. If you think they do, then ask them to provide definitions for the words they're using. Their continued employment is predicated on pushing the agendas of the people who write their paychecks.

When people try to assert that "climate change" is being caused by human activity, specifically burning hydrocarbon fuels, but then "reach back" into the distant past to assert that, "It hasn't been this warm / cold / dry / wet for 100 years / 200 years / 1,000 years." Well, what the heck caused temperatures so warm in Spain 1,000 years ago (the Middle Ages). It clearly wasn't humans burning hydrocarbon fuels. Anyone capable of basic deductive reasoning would know this. A liberal arts major is not capable of basic deductive reasoning, because they're indoctrinated to emote. They asked someone they presented to the public as a scientist (Twila Moon) how she felt about a study some other group of people conducted (not even her own study), rather than what she could infer from the findings. They're actively defeating the purpose of actual meteorological science with their "climate catastrophe" agenda.

When it was as hot and dry in Spain 1,000 years ago as it is today (however it is that we can possibly "know that", without actual meteorological records pertaining to temperature and precipitation), were those now 1,000 year old hotter / dryer than usual temporary weather conditions a harbinger of impending climate doom?

Humanity is still living in Spain 1,000 years later, so I think we all know the answer to that question.

Rather than sensationalized media nonsense, why don't we just post the links to actual scientific studies?

Regardless of what someone in the media thinks about it, we can all jump to our own conclusions without their input. I don't need someone as ignorant as the next person to tell me how they "feel" about some study.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-05-01 08:06:30

kbd512 wrote:

Someone claimed that some specific part of Spain is, in the year 2023, as hot as it's been within the past thousand years, without evidence of any kind, because there were no thermometer records from the Middle Ages. This is a crystal clear case of an objectively false assertion being presented as a scientific fact to an audience of scientifically illiterate people.

Kbd512 not all climate headlines are ridiculous and we do have a memory stick 'of sorts' it is fragmented but there are past thermometers, they are our natural less accurate thermometers layered on our Earth but they provide estimation of weather and climate change. I agree that climate science has way too much politics, ridiculous claims from both left and right. I do not believe trading Carbon credits or taxing the Letter 'N' because Nitrogen is in something to be taxed and some want reality distorted by political agenda, or for more control and lives to be debated politically I do not see its political extremes as a solution either. Politics spins and hides facts, extreme political interference is wrong, however there are some very scientifically skilled people doing climate research without political spin doctoring. I also agree that sensationalist news headlines do not help.

Of the top of my head we have tree growth rings that make a kind of recording of climate records, when something is too cold or in extremes of heat or we have dust and in the past we have events, smoke suspended in the air from fire or volcanoes we can see a change in the tree ring growth. We can see when certain species of plant suffered, we know at what temperatures certain animals die. In the story of old trees we have Patagonian cypress, Giant sequoia or giant Redwoods in Sierra Nevada mountain range of California, Sacred fig, Rocky Mountain juniper, Fortingall Yew, Bald cypress, Methuselah, Qilian juniper call all date back 500 AD some date back 1,000 BC or Before Common Era, the rings can point to extremes of hot or cold that stunt growth depending on the species, natural disaster are recorded in trees. Even dead trees can be preserved in salt or bog swamp or layer of chemical soil allowing us dig up an almost perfectly preserved tree to date even further back again. Spain has land with dead plant and life that has been frozen in time, it has the Atlantic Ocean, the ten small glaciers and six glaciers-glacierets still surviving and remain in the Mountains of the Spanish Pyrenees, there are many 'memory stick' records and natural tapes which recorded our past.

The next you can look at is deposits of rain and ice, this is not an exact 'thermometer' but it allows reasonable estimation, Antarctica for example where you expect it to snow is actually classed as the world's largest desert because in order for it to snow you need a mix of warm air and cold and it is simply too cold to snow. However certain deposits of rain, snow and ice are indications of temperatures, you can see Glaciation effects over time scratched and dug into layers of soil and cliff walls, you can see cooling and warming and melting through time, we know Chemistry well on Earth what point Water boils for example, what point it will freeze, we know when everything freezes and atoms stop moving at Zero Kelvin or -273 Celsius we can make estimations of what Chemistry to expect evaporating or condense or flowing in a certain area at a certain time, we know Monoethanolamine MEA 10°C / 50°F Glacial Acetic Acid16.6°C / 63°F, Dimethylaniline (DMA),2.5°C / 36°F. Looking back in time we can watch solvents freezing or boiling, Lauric acid, Carbon disulfide, we can see oh there is more CL here that must have been Chlorine 239 ? Kelvin? we can see Isobutane carbon straight chain Alkane show up at -10.2 , or Methyl ethyl ether at 10.8, or see 2 Propol Alcohol appearing in recorded layers or we can see Br bromine Br2 332.0 K or 59 °C or 138 °F and know something was happening or see Formaldehyde , -15°C / 5°F or see Octane CH3(CH2)6CH3 show up at –57ºC and know it must because of a reason. Look at layers of past chemistry we see certain deposits also appear at the bottom of Lakes or on our Ocean Floors, the Sea sediments can show what type of life was doing good and what type of creature or chemistry was happening or plant was struggling at a period of layered time.
Inside all these layers of ice and soil you can expect certain chemistry to appear or certain chemicals to out gas or be despoited let's say between minus -5 degrees Celsius or 2 degrees Celsius or 35.6 °Fahrenheit, another type of out gassing, what biochemistry mixed, what was growing or failed or Chemistry may have occured between 15° from Celsius to 22 Celsius or say 59 ° Fahrenheit, these chemistry events can be recorded inside deposited layers.
Inside these deposits and layers and Ice there might also be Pollen Counts, while Pollen itself is not an Exact Record of Temperature it is an indication of how Climate behaved in the past and we know what species of tree or flower struggle at what temperatures. We can see when certain creature planet or animal struggled at what time, when cactus grow in dry deserts and when a bunch of them die togteher or while Bears and Arctic Hare live in cold northern latitudes and we can see when they died and the change in climate that may have caused mass death of a plant or animal species that struggled.

There are other natural climate record we can tap into in our Earth history, they are not exact thermometers but they give good estimation we have cave deposits, you can see layered fire history across planet Earth, you can look back at coral growth bands, you can cross reference the growth of stalagmites across multiple caves in different regions of our planet and then compare them to each other at a known period of time. All of this data can be compared and cross referenced with each other to build up a complex puzzle to solve on our climate history. Through layers of soil left behind on landscape you can see 'Wow those years were very hot' or read 'Wow they were freezing at that time when we expected it to be mild' all of it recorded in the layer of soil left behind, you can literally see the Ice Ages and the Milankovitch cycles layered into our Earth over time like finger print of climate time or a bar-code layered across the rocks and soils of our planet. The next step they can do with all this data is understand we there were extreme heavy rains across the entire planet or local regions or reconstruct drought patterns of the past. The final step is getting samples of air, you can drill down into Glacier Ice, go Deep into the South Pole like the Mars Analogue Research stations do, use borehole data to reconstruct temperature patterns in the Arctic tundra and get little trapped bubbles of air frozen in time, these bubbles of trapped air are literal messages in a bottle over time, you can start looking at the trapped molecules, and look at plankton, look at spores and pollen and look at isotopes of Oxygen the δ18O or delta-O-18 the measure of the ratio of stable isotopes oxygen-18 18O and oxygen-16 or 16O as a measure of the temperature of precipitation, as a measure of groundwater/mineral interactions, and as an indicator of processes that show isotopic fractionation or methanogenesis. Look at the deposited chemistry of isotopes and chemicals we can see the Earth change its spin like clockwork but over a very long period of time. It wobbles and dances a Planet that moves like a Toy the handle of a toy top that wobbles toward you and away from you as the toy winds down, the “handle” of the Earth, the axis, wobbles toward and away from the Sun, changes in eccentricity, axis of rotation obliquity, changes in precession, we can see deposits change as it bow towards the Sun and lean away over long cycles. A Serbian even noticed a repeating pattern Milankovitch predicted that the ice ages would peak every 100,000 and 41,000 years, with hot and cold “blips” every 19,000 to 23,000 years and this info is recorded and confirmed over time as we expected the climate to be a certain way and date confirmed and recorded in the soil. We can look at little bubbles trapped deep inside ice and how much oxygen, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen gas was present in the atmosphere at the time it was buried in the ice. Ice Core samples go back 800,000 years and from these measurements, we can calculate past temperatures using empirical data on how these gases hold heat in the modern atmosphere.

None of this single info dug up individually is an accurate thermometer but all the information can be collected and put into a giant computer model to give responsible Estimation. Each piece of this complex puzzle has a less accurate recording of the Earth's climate history and then must be all examined critically and put together to give us a reasonably accurate picture of Earth’s climate history, one scientific group say from NASA might cross reference and debate results from the US Navy or French Navy or some Asia European group monitoring rain patterns in old trees, or US Geological Survey, a discovered result in ice or soil can go through peer review process and be checked and compared with results by other Weather Stations and other Scientific groups. We can see landslides and huge Volcano Eruptions and Comet and Meteor strikes, we can see when the Sun got angry or cooled, its change in Solar flux in the plant and soil, we can see Extinctions of Animals, we can see changes in Earth Magnetic Field, from Volcanic Ash and Flows we see Sulphur, Carbon, Waters, pumice and compressed with fiamme, we can see the mineral crystals that exploded out of Dormant Volcanic mountains, and volcanic glass and suspended gaseous magma, we can read a record in the layer of earths and soils, dissolved volatiles, silica that is rich in iron (Fe) and magnesium (Mg), hydrogen, sulfur dioxide, we can see when a place got alkaline or suddenly acidic and read fluoride salts of alkali metals, we can see cations Na+, K+, Ca2+ and Mg2+ and the anions Cl−, F− and SO42− We can look at the Moles of a gas or Molar ratios between ions present and simple salts such as NaCl and CaSO4, hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide and hydrogen chloride, sulfurs and halogen gases and metals....maybe even in time Astronauts might go out in space, pick up bits of rocks from Europa, Titan, the Moon, Mars and one day tell us if some Green slime ever grew on Mars and construct a Solar record of climate in our Solar System's history. You on our planet Earth can look back through layers of Ocean Floor, look at what lived in what area, some of the species still alive today and look at Trees and Soil and Ice and atmosphere versus ocean, you can compare gases versus isotopes, temperatures hundreds of years ago versus temperatures millions of years ago, what a plant today likes to thrive and survive and ask why it struggled in the past and compare it to past info. More data from Asia can be compared to North America or Australia or Europe or whatever team is doing their local research, you can see when dry lake beds once had waters or see seasonal versus annual versus time-averaged temperatures - matching them up with one another looking a recorded despoits of chemistry and biology and animal and plant life around the world and what the temperature was with good estimation.

Kbd512 you are a rational person and a critical thinker but you are way off and simply wrong to say all these guys working on this stuff are part of some 'scientifically illiterate' cult.

'Paleoclimatology' is a real science and there are probably some people much smarter than you working at it in NASA and other science groups across the world.

Maybe they could explain the natural thermometer better than I could

if you want to read more

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/featu … y_IceCores

,
I find this website can be ok at times, it has a focus on data and research
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/a … eoclimate/

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2023-05-01 08:23:19)

kbd512 · 2023-05-01 10:11:42

Mars_B4_Moon,

We're not going to get lost in pointless arguments over what a tree growth ring or ice core can actually tell us. Attempt to directly refute the premise of my argument, if not using direct or even indirect measurement, then with logic and reason providing consistent outcomes or general observations. I'm willing to completely overlook both direct and indirect measurement, as well as any inaccuracy or inconsistency of measurement, if basic deductive reasoning can lead us to a logically consistent conclusion. I believe, as do real meteorologists who have explicitly and repeatedly cautioned against using extreme weather events as "the unmistakable fingerprint of climate change", that the entire premise of this line of argumentation is on very shaky ground. I further believe that anyone engaging in this highly questionable behavior, which is not supported by meteorologists, is hurting their own cause.

1. The entire premise of the "Anthropogenic Global Warming" or "Climate Change" argument is that humans are slowly but surely changing global weather patterns (climate is merely weather over extended periods of time), by rapidly burning coal / oil / gas, which has caused an increase in atmospheric CO2, and that the increase in CO2 is trapping excess heat, causing significant weather changes over time (not a year or two, but decades), to include extreme heat / cold / flood / drought. The articles I responded to are asserting that present day weather extremes are caused by Climate Change.

2. There is no evidence whatsoever that humans were burning vast quantities of coal / oil / gas during the Middle Ages. They lacked both the numbers of people, the technical knowledge, and the requisite equipment to do so. They had no cars or trucks powered by internal or external combustion engines, their ships were wind powered, and neither agriculture nor city life was industrialized. Their average lifespans were short as compared to today, they produced just enough food and energy to survive, and many of them didn't live very long.

3. Despite Point #2, which no actual science has ever refuted, namely the notion that nobody on planet Earth was driving around in a gasoline-fueled SUV or flying around in a jet airliner during the Middle Ages, the temperature still managed to get as hot as it is today, despite a considerably lower fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere, according to those same indirect measurements which you devoted so much ink towards to tell me how I'm wrong.

Question #1:
What causes or factors created conditions 1,000 years ago, which made Spain as hot as it is today?

Question #2:
It couldn't be CO2 emissions from billions of people burning coal / oil / gas (Anthropogenic Global Warming), according to the proxy data you spilled so much ink over, so what was it?

Let me tell you ahead of time how I'm going to respond:

1. If you try to argue that the temperature extremes during the Middle Ages was due to natural climatic variability, meaning the temperature extremes in Spain during the Middle Ages were NOT caused by Anthropogenic Global Warming, then I'm going to ask why what we measure / record today, with respect to temperature extremes / flood / drought, cannot also be explained as natural climatic variability. This is obviously the least desirable because it repudiates the argument or world view that absolutely everything is tied back to climate or CO2.

2. If you try to argue that the temperature extremes during the Middle Ages were caused by Anthropogenic Global Warming, then I'm going to point out that we were not burning vast quantities of coal / oil / gas, and that global CO2 levels were significantly lower according to those proxy records you feel are still valid representations of what happened long ago. That seems to indicate that we get climate change with or without coal / oil / gas.

3. If you tell me that what was reported was not the actual science, or that the media either exaggerated or falsified what the actual science stated for dramatic effect, ostensibly to scare people who are ignorant of science and technology (it's all "magic" to them- a frightful and poorly understood kind at that), then we will agree. I object to terrorizing children, regardless of their age, if that's not obvious. If you make this argument, then I will ask why we're providing links to exaggerated or falsified media depictions of science, instead of the scientific research itself.

I'm genuinely curious as to which argument you intend to make here, because all of them have implications for how we approach complex topics like climate change.

kbd512 · 2023-05-01 10:29:15

Mars_B4_Moon,

Is it not painfully obvious that my critique is squarely directed at contorted media depictions of science and what the results from science experiments actually mean?

Humanity is not going to end in the next five years. That's the sort of nonsensical garbage being spewed by our media. It's obvious to me what they're trying to do. They're trying to terrorize people to cause them to think and act in ways contrary to their own interests. I'm not obligated to kowtow to the capricious demands and dictates of terrorists and nihilists.

Calliban · 2023-05-01 11:23:17

Global CO2 emissions will decline dramatically and non-voluntarily over the next 30 years, as the energy dynamic behind economic prosperity declines. I recommend Tim Morgan's Surplus Energy Economics blog for anyone interested in learning about the relationship between energy and economic growth.
https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpres … -part-two/

In short, the past two centuries have witnessed an explosion in human numbers and per capita prosperity, due to the high surplus energy (low energy cost of energy) provided by fossil fuels. The negative effects of CO2 emissions pale into insignificance when compared to the benefits that fossil fuels have provided humanity. But fossil fuels are depleting globally and ECoEs are rising. This has been going on for quite some time, but in 2008 eroding surplus energy reached the point where it pushed two centuries of economic growth into reverse. Real prosperity has been declining in most OECD countries since the early years of this century. Inflation in food, fuel and fixed assets, has outstripped wages since 2000. People on average, are getting poorer. Reducing interest rates to historically low levels, bought the world an extra decade of fake growth at the expense of massive credit expansion. But general inflation has now risen to the point where interest rates and QE can no longer be used to pull future earnings forward.

There isn't really any alternative to fossil fuels that is capable of replacing their high EROI energy. Nuclear fission could in theory. In practice, it is too constrained and too wrapped in red tape to achieve its theoretical EROI. And build times limit the rate at which it can expand. It is looking unlikely that it can scale quickly enough to substitute more than a few percent of the primary energy that we source from fossil fuels by 2040. Renewable energy sources, which require heavy materials and energy investment upfront, are even more problematic. Declining prosperity will feed a self-reinforcing feedback loop, which will force energy and fossil fuel use lower. That will not be a fun thing to watch. There are no passive observers in this game.

Morgan does not even mention the demographic declines that Peter Zeihan spends so much time talking about. Declining demographics will inevitably unwind globalisation over the next two decades and will unwind the industrial revolution in more than a few places. In a world with shrinking population, rising ECoE and unwinding global supply lines, greenhouse gas emissions are a short term problem. I think climate change will be remembered in the same way that the Y2K and 19th century urban horse manure problems are remembered now. A quaint fad that no one will care about a hundred years from now. Over the next few decades, the majority of people are going to struggle to keep food on the table. Climate change will be a cranky theoretical problem that no one at the hard end of things will give a shit about.

Last edited by Calliban (2023-05-01 11:48:32)

SpaceNut · 2023-05-01 20:08:25

Pseudo measurements are just that as they are point of perspective biased viewed. Why a picture can be worth a thousand words and can show many details they are also interpretive in that same sort of measurement.
Fine measurement can also be a bit biased as well but then again that is when scales are not fine enough to say for sure what the measurement is.

So, the question of water comeback to what equation do we have in this gain, just like the one where we try to connect the dots of temperature to co2 levels. The earth warming equation is by and far the most complex as to what parts do what and when as a response to change of the variables that are within it.

Energy Innovation, found that nearly all of America’s coal plants — a whopping 99% — would cost more money to maintain than to simply replace. In this case, the money-saving replacement was either a wind or solar plant. “All but one of the country’s 210 coal plants are more expensive to operate than either new wind or new solar,” the report states.

kbd512 · 2023-05-01 22:15:22

SpaceNut,

If Energy Innovation actually made that claim, then they're a bunch of shameless liars.

99% of America's coal plants might be cheaper to replace if 100% of the following statements were 100% false:

1. 100% of solar panels provide 0% power at night
2. 100% of wind turbines provide 0% power when there is no wind
3. 100% of existing energy grids require supply to match demand at all times, even when the Sun don't shine and the wind don't blow
4. 100% backup was not required for those times that wind an sunlight supply fails to meet demand, which is once per day for solar and 66% of the time for onshore wind turbines
5. 100% of solar panels and wind turbines have service lifespans 1/3rd as long as a typical coal-fired power plant

Unfortunately for us, 100% of those five statements are 100% true, which makes Energy Innovation's baseless assertions 100% false.

SpaceNut · 2023-05-02 18:39:08

The article is without data missing key information to state what study details are required to fill in those blanks as we know them for what broad stroke statements are.

There is a unique solar panel that has the ability to generate power during night, but these are a radiant energy dissipation form and not solar.

One issue is that a single panel or windmill does not mean power from these forms cannot be nearly continuous when you encircle, and grid tie this system to them so that you remove the issue that is as simple as day to night. Which is sort of how a power plant produces power when the single location is shut down.

Of course, service life should start going up as they are made robust but then again cheap produced with the high expense seems to be the only products we ever get.

kbd512 · 2023-05-03 08:47:25

SpaceNut,

I'm tired of unscrupulous and/or ignorant people publishing bright shining lies, asserted as if they are statements of fact, all without evidence of any kind.

Why do we feel the need to reproduce them here?

SpaceNut · 2023-05-03 19:23:45

Well, the same is true of a fuel burning plant as its only giving the appearance of continuous power as its being constantly fed fuel to burn and if it were not for the fusion reaction that produces that power from the panels. I get it that we gloss over to much when comparing apples to oranges.
From what I remember the jet stream never stops moving so we are just building windmills in the wrong locations.

Why are we not doing more with wave power since that appears to be constant.

Of course, fuel burning plants do not require storage in any form based on design of operations where others require such things for load compensating.

I would prefer cheap power, but we have seen that fuel based will only continue to go up so let's do smaller nuclear safe plants for more distributed grid power rather than those giga watt producers and get all together off burning stuff.

Here is those fancy panels these-remarkable-new-solar-panels-can-even-generate-electricity-at-night-here-s-how-they-work

kbd512 · 2023-05-03 21:21:54

SpaceNut,

We can continuously feed gas / coal / Uranium / Deuterium into the over-glorified steam kettle. We cannot continuously feed sunlight into the solar panel. The power source for the solar panel gets turned off by the Earth's rotation once per day, for about half of the day. The wind gets turned off about twice per day, because it's generated by the differential heating of the Earth as the Sun passes overhead. That's not a minor detail. It's a serious operational limitation.

Makani Wind Power tried to put kites into the jet stream using their electric VTOL kites. For whatever reason, Google gave up on the idea. I'm guessing it had significant operational limitations or other serious challenges, such as landing and taking off without crashing the kite in very windy locations.

Waves are relatively constant. Unfortunately, you run into the same power density issues, issues with the longevity of the equipment in a very hostile environment, killing marine life, and damage from storms if part of the system is at or near the surface of the ocean (where it would be much easier and cheaper to monitor and repair). A water turbine in the open ocean is not the same thing as a turbine built into a hydroelectric dam. Is there a technical solution? I don't know. Everyone has stuff they don't know. This is one aspect of generation I don't know a lot about, mostly because I think we've already done about as much as we can reasonably do without artificially created dams or storage ponds. I do know that running power cables under the ocean is neither cheap nor easy. I suspect there are problems with doing this at scale.

Fuel burning plants do require significant fuel storage, but hydrocarbon fuel energy density is more than an order of magnitude greater than that of electro-chemical batteries- at least 40X greater compared to the best batteries money can buy. Coal can be dumped on the ground like dirt. I don't think you can do that with a battery you expect to last for decades.

You will always have to pay for power, but if your power requires 10X to 100X more materials / labor / energy to create, then it's going to cost considerably more, regardless of how much more efficient we can get at producing things.

A photovoltaic panel, aka "solar panel", does not generate electricity when no photons are striking it. I've seen the thing you're linking to. It's not a solar panel. It uses stored thermal power, which it then re-radiates to produce electricity. It's a Peltier device by any other name, regardless of any marketing nonsense to the contrary.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-05-08 09:01:09

Kbd512
This might not be the answer you want but I say you look at the role of the Sun, what Volcanism has done, you also look at Mankind what humans have done to change the look and composition of the land, maybe examine if even all 3 were culprits and then look at variables that are not fully understood. For me and this is just a 'feeling' but I feel the investigation is not concluded and I can look at this logically. I am not a climate scientist I do not live in Spain but people have said to me I can have good logic, some say I can be creative and have an investigative mindset and some say maybe I think like a 'Cop' so perhaps given the chance to 'investigate' I would examine 3 or 4 things, first do we have a local sample which gives some kind of recording of the Sun in Spain, next was something happening locally for example a natural Earth event like series of local Volcano. Then maybe look at human activity mass unrest, war, burning, ecosystem collapse, looting killing of farming etc which might have impacted the local ecosystem and climate and also examine if the baseline measurement is wrong all this time. I see Tahanson complimented me in another thread for providing an over view of climate science 101 but I think he gives me too much credit I failed to mention, 'Albedo' of a region of the planet and the upper atmosphere, 'Albedo' being how dark or bright something is and it can provide measure of how much Solar energy the ground absorbs or how much is reflected back to space. If one group of invaders comes in and burns your forest to ash it will change the Albedo of that region the planet, if like the Dutch they build canals and levee and reclaim land and then plant flowers it will also change the Albedo of aregion of the planet. Humans can change the look and composition of land, the diffuse reflection of solar radiation I may not have answered as you expected but a change in climate of a certain region like Spain it could be a combination of 3 or 4 or more things. We know our Sea's regulate the climate, the Ocean and large seas and Lakes do have big influence on the Climate, the plant and animals in the Lakes and Sea and the Chemistry of Water is a very important factor in climate change. We can measure Solar Flux today, calculate the so-called Solar Constant, it measures the amount of energy received by a given area one astronomical unit away from the Sun. flux density measuring mean solar electromagnetic radiation or total solar irradiance per unit area, it does have a slight change 1.361 kilowatts per square meter (kW/m2) at solar minimum and approximately 1.362 kW/m2 maybe coming into solar maximum.
We do have data and we do have a true level point we measure the overall average mean temperature of Earth from but
First before we begin to describe data I believe the base measurement is slightly off center and I could be wrong here but I remember reading that a lot of good respectable scientists have concluded we are not at 'zero' our baseline for climate readings is slightly off, this over time might lead to more error in assumption I guess a type of analogy could be the 'Tower of Pisa Italy' a leaning but freestanding bell tower of Pisa Cathedral, over time it keeps tipping nearly four-degree lean, the result of an unstable foundation, I might come back to the Pisa Tower Analogy later.

The first thing my gut feeling says we should investigate is the Sun how much it radiated, the next look at some natural big event that changed the air, some large scale natural activity like exploding Mountains of Magma and Gas, how do these events change the Land and Sea and chemistry and then look at what mankind might have done to change the land and look at other factors.

'News' articles posted probably should be taken with a pinch of salt, if I post new articles a lot of them could be taken with a pinch of salt they might not be 100% accurate. I post sometimes news with 'opinion' and with opinion comes politics so I post stuff that is Pro-Biden or Anti-Biden, Pro-Trump or Anti-Trump I might post stuff that is For the Right Conservative of France or Australia or For the Social Left of France or Australia or that agrees with the British Conservatives or agrees with British Labour or articles that are against their policy, I might post articles linked to the Japanese government news or Latin America or Chinese state media, Canadian government, news from EU bureaucratic news organization or whatever partially state funded media. I guess I believe in 'Free Speech' and even silly News Organizations deserve a voice. Also I think it is extreme arrogance as human to think 'We Know Everything'. I agree it is ridiculous to report 13 people died of a heatwave at some Hindu festival in India and then extrapolate and say 1 Billion people are at risk from dying, this seems to me like an over exaggeration. I do agree that Doomsday thinking and Fear is not helpful for people who can solve issues and think of solutions to problems. However I post headlines because it our future is an unknown and it is hard to predict where it will go. However we can see when normality is put under pressures you can see pressure put on world trade and the Taiwan / Japanese owned ship blocking trade during the 2021 Suez Canal obstruction, you can read how the world panics over Covid and the spread of the Covid-19 virus. In media you can read about the plan to defeat Saddam Hussein, they knock the statue, they capture Saddam, he is put on trial and killed but few predicted the Iraq chaos, the Civil War and the rise of Al-Qaeda and ISIS and other conflicts that followed in Iraq. We do know there are historical stories of Civilization Collapse, society go into conflict, famine, they turn on each other for whatever reason, there are folklore and myth like Atlantis which may nor may not be based on a real place. There have been collapse of the Maya of MesoAmerica maybe the New World’s most advanced pre-Columbian civilization, the Easter Island civilization, we see Angkor Wat a temple complex in Cambodia, from digging through the evidence in Earth we see 'Societal Collapse' is generally quick sometimes a Collapse is not the total end and if some kind of farming, language and ecosystem is intact then new societies can be seen that arise from the ashes of the old. I do post papers and pdf and more reputable science based sites and research or websites like Space dot com or news on Biology and Chemisty and AI or sites Universetoday spaceref or Marsdaily or Spacenews but even these science sites can get it wrong, sometimes missions do not go ahead other times previous results are contradicted by new readings from new science instruments. There are gaps in our knowledge, our Soil ground and 'Troposphere' Atmosphere is pretty well understood but the more you go out the less understood the interactions are, from the Stratosphere, Mesosphere, the Thermosphere, Exosphere, the Earth's Magnetosphere, the energetic stuff from the Universe and Sun interacting with Earth's magnetic field and upper atmosphere layers and ionization and excitation of atmospheric constituents, diatomic allotropes, the interaction of Cosmic Rays, the Solar Wind with elements and isotopes and compounds in the upper atmosphere is something we do not understand very well but we are starting to measure this stuff much better than before, it has been suggested by scientists that the radiative forcing of tropospheric ozone is about 25% that of carbon dioxide. Whenever I post 'news' it will often have politics inside it is up to you to use your own logic and filter out 'opinion' from 'science' even when I do post more science based articles from a site like Spacedaily or Universetoday or some AI software site or Chemical Biology Engineering news site sometimes even the scientists themselves get things wrong or have previous 'facts' with error inside corrected by new findings.

During this period we do know that human cultural activity and civilization was disturbed in Spain, it was under invasion and attack by North Africans, Moors, Arabs a culture that would be later know to the United States of America as the 'Barbary Pirates'. Spain is not the biggest country on Earth we do know the State of California is about 79.9% the size of Spain so could humans in Spain have changed its landscape, climate or ecosystem. There are gaps in this period of recorded history, the Humans 'Dark Ages' 800–1100 AD, but the islamic attacks on Spain and the Reconquista, the Inquisition and Age of Exploration and Colonisation of America that followed was pretty well recorded despite its 'Dark Ages'. Not all of it was Arabs or North Africa attacking Spain, different European coutnries and kingdoms fought, the Northern Germanic European tribes also attacked and began to Hit and Loot the leftovers of the Western Roman Empire, we do know parts of Eastern Rome or Western Rome or Spain decayed into constant war, there was even sackings of Rome up until the 1500s, the Papal States, France versus the Mutinous troops of Charles V, Holy Roman Empire Holy Roman Empire, Spain, County of Guastalla. It is recorded there were Germanic speaking Teutonic some wearing Knights Templar synmbol and 14,000 German Landsknechte or Germanic Mercenaries, the Sack of Rome further exacerbated religious hatred and antagonism between Catholics and Lutherans. It started with a big French win and Charles ‘the Hammer’ first smashing the muslim Invasions. The history is a constant Chronology of clashing cultures, Empires killing each other and warfare. The islamic Occupation of Spain and the Spanish Reconquest is described as particularly brutal. While all this war was going on there was massive period of building, military equipment and ships, as islamics were defeated in Spain Florentine astronomer Paolo dal Pozzo Toscanelli suggested to King Afonso V of Portugal quests of exploration, the Turkish or Turkmenistani culture invaded Constantinople and it becomes Istanbul, Italian explorer Christopher Columbus led Spanish transatlantic maritime expeditions, this birth of an age of reconquest and exploration is all happening until 1492 with the fall of the islamist mohammedan kingdom of Granada. Christian views on mohammed seen him as a man possessed by evil demons or a warlord man with a mind possessed by Satan, the Christian views stayed highly negative during the Middle Ages at this time, Christendom largely viewed islamism and jihadi teaching as a Christian heresy and Muhammad as a false prophet who prayed to demon Moongods from Babylon or North Africa or Arabia, the Christian thought al-Lah was Satan. The culture of mohammedanism was recorded before the islamic attacks and invasion of Spain in the anti-Jewish polemic the Teaching of Jacob, a dialogue between a recent Christian convert and several Jews, one participant writes that his brother wrote to saying that a deceiving prophet has appeared amidst "the Saracens". In the Late Middle Ages, the culture of religious islamism was more typically grouped with Demon worship, Paganism, and Muhammad was viewed as an idolater inspired by Lucifer, a creature like the Baphomet, a major demon a daemon Beelzebub or the Devil, they were hordes of invaders from the East, Dante's Inferno casts the so-called prophet Muhammad in Hell. Petrus Alphonsi, a Jew who had converted to Christianity, was another Mozarab source of information on jihad and mohammedanism and during the 12th century Peter the Venerable, who saw Muhammad as the precursor to the Antichrist and a sign of the coming birth of Satan and a coming Doomsday or the Apocalypse. I know that you personally do not like to read 'religion' it is a mix of superstition, culture conquest, lawfare, history, myth and folklore but if you ever do get around to reading the Quran or Koran you will see that Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Sunni Radicals, Shi'a factions, ISIS are actually being Very Good muslims by following the teachings of islamism in the Koran or Quran To The Letter! We also know that back in these old times there was no UN going around pushing human rights, there was no Geneva Conventions, warfare was sometimes total annihilation. We know European counter attack could be brutal and cruel, we know of Vlad the Impaler from Romanian Wallachia. We can see buried evidence of culture attacking culture, this from evidence of siege and rumble from cities, we can see evidence of mass crop burning, graves and slavery and mass executions, we can see when people died in battles or we can see when they were bound and held captive and executed and a sword put through their skull while they were prisoner, this evidence still exists today. We know the canon was a late arrival on the European battlefield, it was mostly first a Chinese mongol thing and arrives in the 12th and 13th century but can see where forests were felled to build ships and Catapults, the types of mangonel, ballista and trebuchet, there were also onager type using three types of motive force: tension, torsion and gravity they could fire large boulders covered in burning oils, entire cities could be burnt to the ground, field and plains where wheat and barley and hill tops where flowers existed could suddenly become scorched burning landscapes. The Trees could no longer provide a sunshade or canopy, homes with roof destroyed would no longer regulate temperature, there would now be large swings of extreme hot and cold in places that previously provided shelter. There would be constant smelting, cutting of trees building of shields and arrows and ships, pike and sword. People were not always genocided and holocausted, within the jihadist teaching of the Quran or Koran there are writings that allow 'People of the Book' to live as second class citizens, a dog can survive if they pay tribute or extra taxes, the Christian can live if they work the land harder and pay mroe tributes. Some would have been allowed survive, while islam has carried out mass executions on Yezidi or Hindu others like Jews or Christians can sometimes survive by the 'jizya tax', the infidel or kuffair or dhimmi can survive by paying more in tribute to this mafia protecting racket, historically has been understood in Islam as a fee for protection provided. The farmer with Sheep or Oranges or Cotton or Polutry would have to work more, perhaps double the production in order to pay tribute, it would have put pressure on the ecosystem. On top of all this war and forced tribute there can be an Arab culture, sluggish commerce, bad farming attitudes that can create a situation similar to the greatly damaged the ecology and agriculture of the American and Canadian prairies, a people who say 'Inshallah' allowing their goats to eat everything as their own Arab North African culture is expected to pray at the Mosque Five Times Per Day! Life may have been short, people might not have been as advanced with 'penicillin' but the period of war was long. Do you think having these cultures clash into total warfare, total seige, totally burning and mass murder, if it could have impact on an eco-system inside an area that is slightly larger than California?
I also find it interesting that islamic attack on Spain and the Reconquest lines up with the 'Dark Ages'.
It was not just Christians that hated the invader islamist culture, the Jewish views are also very negative and said he was not receiving divine revelations from God and label him instead as a false prophet or call him a 'Mad Man' it was common for Jewish writers to describe Muhammad as ha-meshuggah aka "the madman".

Investigating Climate the Solar output must be looked at. We should first look at the evidence left by the Sun and would need to dig into preserved tree and soil and seabed and glacier ice samples to see sample 'recordings' of this time, pockets of air or pollen or nature's natural records giving the most reliable proxies to extent solar activity reconstructions, let's say between the period of 800 and 1400 AD. A warm period on our Planet Earth was at least 1 degree warmer than today, we know this from reading ice core samples and other samples that contain important data of climate on Earth, going back 120 Thousand years and we can go back 800,000 years. We can see what chemistry happens in °C / °F when something froze, or melted or evaporated, some samples can provide accuracy to thousandths of a degree accuracy in computer reconstruction. We know going back and looking at evidence left in time we can see periods when Earth was 2 and a half degrees warmer than today, Carbon 14 data confirming a pattern, data from Europe, North America, China, North Africa matching certain patterns. There has been a natural alteration of the Earth's climate over tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of years. We are in fact leaving an Ice-Age so going back to the first point I made and the Analogy of 'Tower of Pisa Italy' we have probably started measurement from the wrong baseline but started from a point that is slightly lower than Earth's mean average temperature for tens of thousands of years. There are also moments when our Sun does not behave as calm and stable as it has been the past century, for example Maunder Minimum, the "prolonged sunspot minimum", was a period around the mid 1600s to 1715 during which sunspots became rare. High levels of Atomic Bomb testing by the USA and Russian Soviets has impacted our entire planet so if you dig below any layers before the 1950s you start to find different records, you see radionuclide records 10 Be and 14C which are stored samples on our Earth. Chemical Be and C samples in polar ice cores and tree rings, offering a unique opportunity to reconstruct the history of cosmic radiation and solar activity. If we could get enough samples from around Spain we could see or plot Solar Flux modulation reconstruction past thousands years based data and I would see if we could get samples from other near sites for example France, Britain, Iceland, Portugal, North Africa, Greece, samples from the Canary Islands region of Spain and compare them to Antarctica or a sample from the North Pole and compare Cosmic Radiation and Solar Output on polar 10Be and Carbon 14 data giving us a past recording of Solar Activity within samples.
As far as I remember we have been observing the Sun in detail since the 1960s, the Sun has been observed since ancient times but if I remember correct Sunspots have probably been observed in detail since the mid 1600s with some standing upon the shoulders of guys like Galileo, Johannes Kepler, Simon Marius, the 17th and 18th centuries did see advancements in helioscopes but also periods of lesser Solar Activity, we do know the average output of the Sun has varied little, maybe less than 0.1% or 0.2 percent in the past 4 hundred years so any current warming does not seem to be our Sun. However our Sun probably played a bigger role in the past, looking at other stars in our own Galaxy and stars inside other Galaxies our Sun could have been active like other stars are very active with super spots and super flares, perhaps went through periods of dimming and increased activity, there have most likely been periods long ago in its Billions of Years lifetime when it was cooler than today or more active than today.

We do know natural events impact the climate for example a Large Rock hitting Earth from space can change the environment and weather as does Volcanism. We can see events recorded in samples Ancient Tree for example found in New Zealand come with Record of Earth's Magnetic Field Reversal in Its Rings. Looking at our Earth we see No big Asteroid or Comet has wrecked the climate the past thousand years but Space Rocks and Big ice impacting our planet have changed the climate in other eras of time. If it hits our Earth and vaporizes rock into molten rain our climate changes. If for example a Comet were to aerosolize and dump material for example Water vapor (H2O) into our Atmosphere it would also add to the Greenhouse effect, perhaps unknown to many is how Water Vapor itself is our number one Greenhouse Gas but it is thought to cause less of a feedback effect than other long term gasses like Carbon dioxide (CO2), the industrial production of Sulfur hexafluoride SF6, natural Methane (CH4), Nitrous oxide (N2O) there are also global cooling gasses and aerosols produced. We have not seen any Massive Impact from Space that wrecked the planet the past thousand years however we do know Volanic events seem to be more frquent than big rocks from space, many different gasses are released by volcanic activity, Volcanoes release ash consists of fragments of rock, mineral crystals, and volcanic glass, in subduction zones can release lots of CO2 or Nitrogen or trapped Waters, they can release dissolved gases in magma, in Iceland Volcanoes can come from two Continental Plates pulling away or ripping apart, there are also pockets of 'Volcanic Gas' if I recall for lack of a better term that well up and rise from Deep within the Earth and simply burn through the crust shell of our Earth like you might see a bubble rise up and pop when you start to over cook your bowl of soup, the island chain of Hawaii an example of an uplifting of heat and gas, popping out of the Earth as the Earth's mantle slowly moved northwestward over a hotspot in the Earth's crust over millions of years and the Large Volcano on the Chinese–North Korean border, the Volcano on the Chinese North Korea border would have literally changed our Earth and released about 100–120 km3 or 24–29 cu mi of burning rock and dust and chemical and ash into the atmosphere, it would have been the largest Eruptions for Thousands upon Thousands of years, this Eruption also lines up with the 'Dark Ages'. We do know of other Volcanic events in South America, North America, Greece, Russia, Iceland and other eruption which triggered catastrophic global cooling, maybe sending people on the move, perhaps precipitating famine, cultural conflict and plague across the planet, not all Volcanoes will warm and not all cool, each one gives off a different type of Eruption and Different size of Eruption. A Volcano buried under ices will release Water vapor (H2O) adding the Warming, Water is recycled quickly back into the system while Methane and Nitrous oxide can remain suspended in the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas for decades and Sulfur hexafluoride would stay a global warming gas without breaking down for thousands of years. There are big questions like what role does the Chemistry and Animal and Planet life of the Ocean play and what happens when Volcanos change the Sea. We have even 'Terraforming' topics here on newmars about Warming Mars up with manufactured extreme greenhouse gasses, if a Volcano melts a Glacier or dumps 'Blackened Ash' on a region where there was Snow reflecting Solar radiation to space but now makes the region dark in color it will change the Albedo and create a Warming. Volcanism also produces suspended particles and aerosols, on Saturn's Moon the atmospheric molecular growth that generates Titan’s aerosols is adding to the opposite effect global cooling, this has also happened on our Planet Earth. The chemistry and stratospheric particles suspended in Titan's atmosphere reflects infra red radiation back into space making Titan cooler than it should be. On Earth Some of these 'Dark Ages' with failed crops and Warming and colder Winters have been recorded by Syrians, the Celts, the Chinese, Roman statesman, the Sun was gray or greyish for a year or the sun's rays were weak, and they appeared a "bluish colour" the crops failed, even stars and the Moon seemed dimmer, the loss of crop and cold helped the spread of plague, the seasons "seem to be all jumbled up together" "we have little recording from the aboriginal people of Australia who mostly did art, folklore or told stories going back to dream time but other cultures kept recordings we have story of dense, dry fog" in the Middle East, China and Europe and drought in Peru, which affected the Moche culture hypothesized as belonging to a wider Chimuan Maya language culture family.

No one reading or one sample from one location can give you a fully accurate picture of the entire climate but they can add up many readings from different periods and locations to gave add into an accurate model built by computers. Climate scientists will argue over a half a degree or two degrees or a quarter of a degree because there are good scientists out there who are trying to work on good computer models and good science, with samples they can make accurate measurement down to thousandths of a degree. The base level of our first readings from years ago might be slightly off, as we as humans possibly made a mistake at the beginning and probably started at a period slightly cooler than normal calling this our 'Base Levels' however we know the climate is currently warming quicker than usual and the rate warming is happening faster than any other period in history while not caused by an impacting Space Rock, not caused by a more angry Sun and not caused by any Volcanism event. We do know that Spain had a Warm period but maybe not as hot as today and sometimes not as hot as previously suggested by news articles, we also know our base reading might have started from an artificially Low Point as we Exited an Ice Age, Global Warming might have a slight benefit as parts of the planet could be cooler currently if not for warming. Also do not underestimate mankinds ability to change the land and manufacture wonders in historical times, the Pyramids of Giza one of mankind's largest structures 480 feet high, until the Eiffel Tower was built, the Chinese Great Wall another Ancient Wonder yet to be passed, also do not under estimate mankind's ability for destruction, burning lands, destroying cities, poisoning each others wells, fighting wars of total annihilation although using more personal slower weapons and farmers having large crop failure, mass slavery common place. The Holocene extinction or Anthropocene extinction is what is happening to animal and plant life today, it is the ongoing extinction event during the Holocene epoch. For what happened in Spain I would say look at the measurements that tell us what was happening with the Sun, look at samples which tell us what Volcanoes were doing 1,000 years ago, if you can not get it from a sample in France then maybe another nearby region. Sometimes inside readings and models and measurement we see a big revision another scientist checks one scientists report and it gets changed and revised because of a simple maths mistake. Inside all these papers and models will be a variable we do not fully understand like a mentioned previously cosmic rays, Ozone in the upper atmosphere, the interaction with the Sun winds, Stratosphere, Mesosphere, Thermosphere, Exosphere, CMEs, chemistry changes sparked by Upper Atmospheric Lightning, the Earth's Magnetosphere and its role in climate, although if I recall correctly we are starting to understand 'better' today we also have a much wider variety of data come e.g. from sediment drilling in the deep sea, from corals, ice cores and other sources from multiple regions on our planet, most changes in the past have happened with forcing due to the Sun or orbital cycles, some events recorded by sediment data the concentration of oxygen isotopes or the ratio of magnesium to calcium in the calcite shells of microscopic plankton, changes to climate they have also happened to big natural events like Super Volcano happenings, the current change seems to suggest a mostly man made happening and man made changes to the composition of the atmosphere.

I agree there is a level of political insanity that comes with this climate change tax religion, Windmill or Solar Panel and Germany ending research into Fusion or closing down one of the world's only Functional Thorium Reactors, the Greens are actually pushing for more pollution while on a quest to enforce some strange type of backward Luddite policy.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-05-08 09:44:59

I wrote there was no major Comet or Meteor event in the past 1,000 years but I seem to have been wrong and could be in error here. I just did a quick scan of the web and I did find another of the many Impact Event I was unaware of in Canada from 1,000 year ago. However my gut feeling says it did not have an impact on global climate or 'warming' in Spain which seems to have warmed somewhat and seemed to be mostly localized if I recall correct. The Canada impact event it is the Whitecourt crater within Woodlands County Alberta, Canada, the crater is approximately 36 m (118 ft) in diameter and 6 m (20 ft) deep, and its age is estimated to be between 1,080 and 1,130 years since the buried fragments of the impacting meteorite are all found above a layer of carbon from a forest fire dating around 1,100 years ago.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ful … 10.01118.x

http://www.passc.net/EarthImpactDatabas … court.html

https://www.meteoritestudies.com/protected_WHITECOU.HTM

'Observations and Interpretations at a Late Holocene Impact Structure'

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio … _Structure

Climate Science and Research might be one of those things where Artifical Intelligence might one day go through this small mounatin of data we collected all these years and helps us understand what has been truly going on.

kbd512 · 2023-05-08 14:15:40

Mars_B4_Moon,

My underlying point is fairly easy to understand. It requires no specific political or religious or social beliefs, apart from being open to the mere possibility that something as complex as the Earth's climate can't be reduced to a singular contributing factor, such as atmospheric CO2 content or lack thereof.

1. 1,000 years ago, humanity was not burning enormous quantities of hydrocarbon fuels. At a local level, there may have been other explanations or contributing factors for abnormally high or low temperatures. The same can be equally true today, but that possibility is entirely discounted by people obsessed with reducing all other variability and complexity to CO2 levels. They've found their toy to play with and nothing is going to "take it away" from them. Dr. Lindzen described this as the sophmoric belief that CO2 is the one and only "control knob" affecting temperatures / weather / every other aspect of human existence. It's a facially absurd assertion. That said, it's not a globally-applicable explanation for why it managed to get as hot or even hotter than it is today, centuries before mass quantities of hydrocarbon fuels were in use. Historical evidence of abnormal temperatures and extreme weather events seems to suggest that those extreme weather events are not a reliable indicator of climate change. CO2 is undoubtedly a contributing factor, but it must not be the only one, given what we know of Earth's historical climate.

2. If extreme temperatures or weather events are being used to assert that climate change is happening because we're burning hydrocarbon fuels, then that assertion is at odds with recorded history. Claiming that extreme weather is directly and primarily attributable to burning fuel then becomes a logical fallacy. That fallacy has been amplified and disseminated far and wide by mass media. There is no questioning attitude on their part, because it satisfies an agenda they're pursuing. I think it's the same syndrome that Yuri Bezmenov described, wherein the entire populace has substantial evidence that claims don't correlate with observable reality, but perceptions are so contorted and confusing that the people don't know how to process and respond to what they observe. There is no push-back from actual scientists who hold more moderate viewpoints to explain what happened in the distant and more recent past. Maybe our scientists just don't know what happened or why, with a high degree of confidence. In other words, a popularly held belief about present proximal causes has largely ignored historically observed counter-factual evidence.

3. The accuracy and scale of measurement required to generate "baselines" for accurate temperature delta records doesn't exist. You can't accurately "interpolate" temperatures over swaths of surface area measuring a thousand square miles or more. The measurement stations to cover these empty tracts of land or ocean simply don't exist and never have. There's a reason we started measuring temperature using satellites, from the time that option became available to use. It's the best option we have to measure the enormous areas we require measurements over. Unfortunately, we only have bulk recorded temperature data over a very brief period of time.

4. None of the models, which should first be tested to assess their ability to recreate the temperature records we do have, faithfully recreate the observed / recorded temperature data. They're all off by so much that we average the outputs together and the error bars exceed the delta or change we're attempting to measure by an order of magnitude or more. That's a very fundamental accuracy problem. We could trace the source of error back to the recorded temperature data used to calibrate the models, or to the models themselves. Either way, it prevents us from accurately forecasting temperature changes to the 0.1C/decade required to have useful information, which is the primary stated reason for having and using the climate models (to figure out by how much the Earth is expected to warm or cool by). My money is on the models being wrong. So many assumptions were made based upon incomplete understanding, by direct admission of the people creating and using the models, in their various caveats and disclaimers included within scientific publications such as IPCC reports.

5. The assertion of NASA's climate scientist, that models are useful when they're skillful, and that the present model(s) are indeed "skillful", is at odds with the actual model forecast results. IPCC publishes graphs of the model output with the historical temperature record overlay on the same graph, and none of the models recreate the temperature observations. We're attempting to forecast a 0.1C increase per decade. Our models show projections as much as 1.5C above or below the recorded temperature observations. There's nothing "skillful" about that. It does track with the historical record and brackets a set of plausible future temperature values, which is a great first step, but no forecasting tool which is "off" by an order of magnitude is all that useful. In forecasting products sold to various customers, if the forecast is off by +/-20%, it's only useful as a trash can liner.

The accuracy of our climate models is exactly like having a guided missile with a 150m accuracy when 10m accuracy is required to deliver the warhead to within lethal range of its intended target. Sometimes you get lucky and the warhead hits the target. At all other times, you have a very expensive noise-maker that outwardly resembles a guided missile and mimics the behavior of a guided missile. Any military procurement officer who required usable missiles would either cancel the project or demand a drastic accuracy improvement from the missile development program's guidance team. Nobody would find this state of affairs acceptable if we were procuring a guided missile system. Why is it acceptable for climate models? We would dump almost any amount of money into a missile's guidance system to improve its accuracy, rather than asserting that it was acceptable for service because "sometimes" it managed to hit a target. We should be doing the same thing with our climate models.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2023-04-24 10:18:50

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#127 2023-04-24 14:36:04

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#128 2023-04-25 11:23:09

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#129 2023-04-25 11:32:46

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#130 2023-04-25 16:10:14

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#131 2023-04-25 20:21:24

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#132 2023-04-26 10:19:59

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#133 2023-04-26 14:40:25

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#134 2023-04-29 14:04:24

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#135 2023-04-30 05:21:30

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#136 2023-04-30 13:29:10

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#137 2023-04-30 16:30:38

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#138 2023-05-01 08:06:30

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#139 2023-05-01 10:11:42

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#140 2023-05-01 10:29:15

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#141 2023-05-01 11:23:17

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#142 2023-05-01 20:08:25

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#143 2023-05-01 22:15:22

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#144 2023-05-02 18:39:08

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#145 2023-05-03 08:47:25

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#146 2023-05-03 19:23:45

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#147 2023-05-03 21:21:54

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#148 2023-05-08 09:01:09

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#149 2023-05-08 09:44:59

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#150 2023-05-08 14:15:40

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

Board footer