- Joined
- Dec 22, 2012
- Messages
- 66,566
- Reaction score
- 22,189
- Location
- Portlandia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Yes, in the past, CO2 levels followed SST. Now that we add to atmospheric CO2, this equilibrium is disrupted.
Yes, in the past, CO2 levels followed SST. Now that we add to atmospheric CO2, this equilibrium is disrupted.
As I already pointed out, no CO2 levels did not correlate to the corresponding surface temperatures. When atmospheric CO2 levels were between 5 and 20 times higher than current levels 440 million years ago the surface temperature dropped by between 8°C and 10°C. There is absolutely no correlation between mean surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2, and anyone who claims otherwise is either deliberately lying or ignorant of the meaning of "correlation."
As I already pointed out, no CO2 levels did not correlate to the corresponding surface temperatures. When atmospheric CO2 levels were between 5 and 20 times higher than current levels 440 million years ago the surface temperature dropped by between 8°C and 10°C. There is absolutely no correlation between mean surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2, and anyone who claims otherwise is either deliberately lying or ignorant of the meaning of "correlation."
Correct, I have no idea how good the proxies are at recording the levels of solar activity in question.I understand the theory. I also understand the difference between direct observation and statistical analysis. One is actual evidence the other is not.
Whatever you need to tell yourself, man.
Then the author was mistaken when he claimed there was evidence. Statistical analysis is not evidence. Direct observation is evidence.
I dispute your claim, and the author's claim of an exceptionally close supernovae in the last 500 million years. There would be evidence of such an event even today, and there is none. The long-term survival of life on this planet depends on supernovae NOT being local. Not within a least 10,000 light years.
This is where the theory breaks down. There is no way to differentiate the effects cosmic radiation has on charged particles from the effects solar radiation has on those very same charged particles. All of the cloud condensation nuclei caused by ionized solar particles could be the result of solar radiation, with cosmic radiation playing little or no role at all.
There is absolutely no climate "coincidence" that has anything do with cosmic radiation, certainly none that have even a shred of actual evidence (I don't mean statistical analysis either). If you expect anyone to buy this theory you need to demonstrate that cosmic radiation has somehow managed to overcome solar radiation. Otherwise everything can be explained by solar activity.
It also makes no sense whatsoever to blame atmospheric CO2 for any of the temperature changes in the last 500 million years. Just 250 million years ago atmospheric CO2 was between 250 and 350 ppm, below today's current levels, but the planet's surface temperature was the highest ever recorded at between 35°C and 40°C. Which resulted in 96% of the marine life and 70% of the terrestrial life dying out. Then there was the Ordovician-Silurian extinction event 440 million years ago which was twice as bad as the one that killed the dinosaurs, when atmospheric CO2 was anywhere from 2,000 to 8,000 ppm, and the surface temperature of the planet dropped by 8°C to 10°C.
There is absolutely no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and mean surface temperatures.
I went back that far because the statistical analysis Jack Hays posted claimed that there was "evidence" of a nearby supernovae in the last 500 million years. Yet provided no actual observed evidence, just statistical probability. With regard to what we know of that period, quite a bit actually. From the rocks in the Karoo desert in South Africa, to the rocks in England and Scotland. There are lots of places with 440 million year old rock to sample.When you go as far back as 440 million years ago, what do we really know about that period? Not enough to make such conclusions.
We've been in an ice-age for the last 2.58 million years, and I've heard the myth about atmospheric CO2 levels trialing temperatures by 800 years (or 400 years, depending on which study you read). In these cases it is the increase in surface temperatures driving the increase in CO2, not the other way around. Otherwise we would be seeing the reverse, with CO2 levels rising first followed by an increase in temperature centuries later. But that is not what we see.However, we do know the last 400,000 years or so to be a bit more geologically stable. Ice cores we see that show both temperature and CO2 levels have a clear correlation that CO2 follows SST by around 800 years.
[h=3]20TH CENTURY GLOBAL WARMING - "THERE IS NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN" - PART III[/h][FONT="]... is that of liquid water. However, if the water vapor has nothing to condense upon, it will not do so. In fact, under very clean ... is reduced. Less ions reduce the efficiency with which new cloud condensation nuclei can grow, especially over the oceans, such that ...
[/FONT]
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:
Another excellent article! I can actually understand the point being made, and that's great, since I don't believe a one degree change in worldwide weather is something that should bother anyone! It was also interesting to read the quote at the end of the article attributed to King Solomon, --- who was basically stating "that what has been will be again, and what has been done would be done again since there is nothing new under the sun." Since he lived over 2000 years ago, should we be expected to believe what is being touted as "news" today by those with an agenda, especially since the sun is resting? :thumbdown:
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:
Another excellent article! I can actually understand the point being made, and that's great, since I don't believe a one degree change in worldwide weather is something that should bother anyone! It was also interesting to read the quote at the end of the article attributed to King Solomon, --- who was basically stating "that what has been will be again, and what has been done would be done again since there is nothing new under the sun." Since he lived over 2000 years ago, should we be expected to believe what is being touted as "news" today by those with an agenda, especially since the sun is resting? :thumbdown:
Solar data:
Always useful to see charts with no axes labels.
So helpful.
The titles say "number of active regions per month." Isn't it self explanatory?
Seems pretty easy to me.
Want me to interpret, and lie to you, like you pundits do?
Oh. Active regions.
Wow. That’s super useful. [emoji849]
Always useful to see charts with no axes labels.
So helpful.
Labeled at the top.