Jump to content
Science Forums

Essay

Members
  • Content Count

    811
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

Essay last won the day on December 24 2018

Essay had the most liked content!

2 Followers

About Essay

  • Rank
    Explaining
  • Birthday 02/09/1955

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Colorado, Earth
  • Interests
    Saving humanity/civilization, Gaia theory, biochemistry and biophysics, earth sciences, cosmology, history, economics, ecology, sociology, psycholgy, feminism, anthropology, philosophy, citizenship, agriculture, soil sciences, microbiology, evolution, religion, genetics, epigenetics, humus, biochar, graphene, Artificial Intelligence, networking, Type I civilization, C.P. Snow, Klaus Kinder-Geiger, Stephen J. Pyne, Steven Stoll, Charles C. Mann, biogeochemistry, and climate science.

Converted

  • Biography
    over-educated under-applied
  • Location
    Colorado, Earth
  • Interests
    Learning, saving humanity, cosmology, environment, sociology, AI
  • Occupation
    Research Library (20+ yrs)
  1. That is essentially what I’ve figured also. It must be that any measurable temperature change (from a ‘forcing’ on the system) already includes the feedback from any change in water vapor, since water vapor adjusts as quickly as weather changes rather than at a glacial pace. As you noted, the system radiates away more heat, as the system heats up, until the extra heat leaving will balance with the extra heat of the system. That is of course on average, for the globe over the year, I think, and so it does act like a classic ‘black body’ for the purposes of using physics to understand the sy
  2. That video is fairly off-topic, and should have its own title as a topic, shouldn't it? (hint, hint, hint) While I haven't watched your link, I’m familiar with a 'controversy' over her comments as a keynote speaker at an Alberta Teachers' Association meeting. Is that what your link is about? For instance, the Calgary Herald quoted Berman in an article entitled, "Tzeporah Berman better get her facts straight before she talks to ATA." "Berman says the demand for oil 'is softening,' and that’s why Canada doesn’t need to build any more pipelines…." The article then counters by explaining:
  3. UPDATE! Around 3,700 years ago, “a superheated blast from the skies obliterated cities and farming settlements north of the Dead Sea.” “Archaeologists at a site in what's now Jordan have found evidence of a cosmic calamity.” “Ground surveys have located 120 additional, smaller settlements in the region that the researchers suspect were also exposed to extreme, collapse-inducing heat and wind.” These conditions sound similar to those described in the OP, and maybe, if this was just one piece of a larger broken-up meteor, then the same conditions could have occurred elsewhere along its tr
  4. This does not seem to make sense. If we were “about 11-12 years into a 30 year cool down period,” then showing how each of the last three years have been “the warmest year in 125,000 years” does nothing to support this odd “winter theory” you mentioned. But regardless, climate scientists already understand why it was warmer briefly during the Eemian, around 125,000 years ago. That was then due to a well-known orbital variation, which is not now having that same effect, so the comparison shouldn’t be taken too far. === It is well documented how anthropogenic changes to the atmosphere are
  5. If you mean the GeoCrapt website, it is a horrible place to seek any understanding about climate, unless they've changed lots. The last time I checked, it was obvious that they post lots of valid information, but that they also draw many crazy conclusions based on personal ideologies. If your ideas about what the "current logic" is, come from that 'GeoC' website, then that would explain why nothing seems to make sense to you. ~
  6. As Billvon has already pointed out, we can ignore HB’s steaming pile of confused rhetoric, because most people recognize that scientists are not idiots and that they don’t use anecdotal evidence, and that they do account for those obvious confounding factors mentioned. Also, most people know that other scientists are not idiots who wouldn’t miss a chance to further their own careers, either by pointing out those obvious flaws and doing a better job of accounting for those confounding factors, or by proving some other well-supported conclusion. ...yet still, "determined" with a high degree
  7. I agree the glacial cycle of advance and retreat is complex enough that we can’t be certain of our analysis and prediction for the ice behavior. Each turn of the astronomical cycle is a little different, and the biogeochemical feedbacks here on the receiving end of that astronomical cycle are always changing and evolving too. I’m amazed that any regularity shows up in the records at all, let alone so much regularity; it almost seems as if the system was intelligently designed, but that is just the way for this sort of “complex” system. But the Milankovitch cycle itself, unlike the glacial
  8. But if the question is about the “Increase In Earth’s Temperature,” then why suggest the orbital cycle at all? That cycle has been in a cooling phase for over 10,000 years now. Milankovitch is a good answer for explaining past glacial/interglacial cycles, but the correlation falls apart as an explanation for the present. Well, you are perfectly correct here! And it’s a good point, since my answer was mostly about the question of why Earth’s temperature hasn’t been decreasing for millennia …or why the Earth’s temperature has been relatively constant for millennia. Just contrast the
  9. Increased solar radiation? From what? Do you mean the way the sun has always been heating up by about 0.01% per each million years? Sure, "we can adapt," (with nifty air conditioners?) but what about the biodiversity, the resource services, and the food chains upon which we depend? I think many of us are fanatical about the reality of the effect of Milankovitch cycles on the climate. And sure, the Milankovitch cycle explains a lot, and there is evidence going back for hundreds of millions of years showing the signals of its regular effects. But with today’s configuration of contin
  10. That graph posted above, of insolation at 65 N., is a composite of the 3 Milankovitch cycles showing the cumulative effect of the 3 cycles. There are probably many cyclic energy storage mechanisms on the planet, though few so large, but that's not the point. The point should be about the long-term average or "mean" of those cycles, and if that average is being changed or shifted, radically and rapidly. But about the Ruddiman link from above, you might have noticed they kept talking about sparse populations during the Copper and Bronze Ages, with the caveat that people used more land per
  11. ...along the lines of billvon's answer.... Raising awareness, gaining unique knowledge, building credibility, and networking all seem to be the goal of these efforts, which usually entail a one-time expenditure of extra carbon, but that are intended to reduce the overall long-term expenditure of extra carbon. But most of those points are only benefiting John Kerry directly, rather than us. I guess all "we are getting out of" his trip is the raised awareness. Hopefully our children's grandchildren will get some substantial benefit from his extra trip. If our policy makers would properl
  12. I thought we had already stopped the "warming" part of the Milankovitch cycle. We should have been cooling for thousands of years now, according to the pattern. But since, "No doubt, our activities have accelerated" our emissions, we are now overpowering the cycle. Now, at our spot in the cycle, orbital forcing will no longer have that cooling effect; but as you can see, it will now also contribute some additional warming force. Surely, Milankovitch explains the orbital effects on solar insolation (especially at 65 degrees N. latitude, which correlates best with the glacial/intergla
  13. We are designed to be subjectively oriented creatures, and it takes a concerted effort to gain any (partially, at best) objective perspective. So congratulations, and good luck! ~
  14. It’s been well documented that the ocean and crust are gaining extra heat from the top down, rather than from the bottom up, so a geological explanation doesn’t seem likely. Plus, the greenhouse effect already accounts fairly fully for the normal and extra heating. “Without naturally occurring greenhouse gases, Earth's average temperature would be near 0°F (or -18°C; 255 K) instead of the much warmer 59°F (15°C; 288 K). In particular, the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) has increased by 30% [48%] since pre-industrial times (from about 270 molecules of CO2 per million molecules of air in
×
×
  • Create New...