If CO2 was an issue. What happened? The CO2 got wet and hasn't been insulating over the past 16 years?
Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown
- Thread starter petros
- Start date
I wonder what our temps would be if NOT for the CO2. Have you ever thought about that?
Are you saying I could be still in full on winter with 2.5ft of snow in the later half of April if it weren't for CO2?I wonder what our temps would be if NOT for the CO2. Have you ever thought about that?
It's something to ponder.
In the end, I personally feel it's too large, too complex a system, with too many factors COMPLETELY outside of our control (the cold of space, the sun's radiation), to stress too much about the impact we piddly humans have on it. We have other, more demonstrable, reasons to look at conservation.
If it's not an issue, then why isn't it? Which part of the model is wrong? A CO2 molecule absorbs spacebound longwave radiation and re-emits it a random direction, thus redirecting about 50% of infrared back towards the surface of the planet. That changes the heat balance, essentially making teh region close to the surface hotter (trapping heat) and the atmosphere far from teh surface cooler. Adding more molecules of CO2 will increase this effect.
I looked out my window and it became a reality.
It's the eight-fvcking-teenth and we just cracked +0C
I don't know what happened. My opinion is that the earth is subject to several climate cycles of differing periods, all interlaid on top of each other, from the tilt of the planet's access to the movement of vast ocean currents (El Nino/La Nina) to the 11-year sunspot cycle, etc etc etc. These all have the fefct of cooling or heating up the planet. If the planet never changed we wouldn't even have a word for climate.
The forcing as a result of climate change is overlaid on top of that. Cooling cycles will mask the affaects of CO2. If you have your oven on and the doors are open you might not notice it. If you have the oven on and the heat cranked, you'd be more likely to notice the oven because it would be uncomfortable.
Science basically is models. From quarks to the cosmos. Models and theories. Seems pretty flaky, but it's done some pretty cool stuff.
It depends what you mean by accurately, I suppose. They can pretty accurately calculate the lift and drag around an aerofoil, which is a good thing, otherwise planes wouldn't take off.
Right. Have all models been successful? For every scientific success, there are thousands of failed models and experiments.
I've drilled thousands of holes where models and repeated surveying were very sure in the indicators there should be gold but alas...no gold.
All the right conditions for gold but just no gold.
Chalked it up as another in the failure column and back to the drawing board.
I've drilled thousands of holes where models and repeated surveying were very sure in the indicators there should be gold but alas...no gold.
All the right conditions for gold but just no gold.
Chalked it up as another in the failure column and back to the drawing board.
Well, it's hard to believe many theories would ignore the electric basis, since infrared radiation is electromagnetic.
The idea is that you continually improve the model--through peer-reviewed science--so that it gets better at predicting things.
Some parts of the climate change model are pretty dicey--cloud formation leaps to mind. But the physics--blackbody radiation, the Greenhouse Effect, thermodynamics--has been fairly standard for almost one or two hundred years. Spectral analysis is used in many applications from medical diagnostics to chemistry laboratories. That model has proven to be accurate millions of times. So I like that model. And before I dismiss anthropogenic global warming, I'd need some pretty strong evidence as to why, in this case the predictions of that radiation physics model (e.g. adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will increase the average temperature) didn't apply.
I'm not saying that's not possible. Just that I haven't seen anyone do it yet to my satisfaction. It could be that, for example, a tiny change in the water balance (water is also GHG, much more prevalent in the lower atmosphere than CO2) pushed the climate back to its "equilibrium" to balance the increase in CO2. Or it could be that the rise in temperature is causing the rise in CO2 (as opposed to the other way around), and that all the CO2 humans are emitting is being picked up by plants, or the ocean. Or it could be the movement of the earth's core relative to its crust (polar shift), but again, before accepting that theory I'd need someone to do the math for me to show me why the CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere isn't behaving the way science says it should.
And there is where you should have had a great big A-HA! Geo-magnetics!
What does the model predicting the changes in relation to shifting ocean currents and jetstreams from geo-magnetic shifting have to say?
The CO2 model failed because CO2 isn't an issue, that is blatantly obvious.
Just stating that CO2 doesn't matter doesn't really bolster your case. Where is the flaw? According to simple radiation physics, an increase of CO2 from 280 ppm to 380 ppm should cause a temperature increase of around 0.5 deg C, all other things being equal. From 1850 to now, the CO2 concentration has increased from 280 ppm to around 380 ppm. And the instrumental record shows an increase of about 0.8 deg C, I think. That's a good correlation. Factoring in solar activity the correlation gets better.
I'm not dismissing the geomagnetic model--I actually haven't studied it. But even if your geomagnetic model is true, wouldn't its effects with CO2 be additive? That is to say, what in the geomagentic model alllows you dismiss the radiative properties of a carbon dioxide molecule?
The flaw is emotionally, socially and financially abusing Billions of people with an unproven theory of CO2 (GHGs) being the ONLY causation to climate change.
Let it Rain | thunderbolts.info
Apr 08, 2013
External electric flux influences Earth’s climate
According to a recent press release, ten years of data analysis has revealed that cloud height changes over time in response to an electric field generated by “global thunderstorms”. Although Earth’s electric field is brought into the discussion, and the electric charge on small water droplets is mentioned, researchers admit to mysterious forces at play.
It is commonly believed that weather on Earth is driven by the Sun’s thermal influence on the atmosphere. As we rotate beneath our primary, gases and dust absorb solar radiation at varying rates and in varying degrees.
When any particular region heats up, the air expands and loses density, creating a relative low pressure area. Cooler air, being denser, will naturally flow into the bottom of the warm, low pressure region, causing an upwardly rotating convection cell to form. Most weather systems on Earth are thought to be based on that simple kinetic explanation: winds blow when the cooler, denser air flows into the warmer, buoyant air.
However, ions attract water in the atmosphere instead of through the commonly described process of neutral dust motes building up raindrops due to condensation. The dust hanging in the air becomes charged, making it more attractive to water vapor.
Electricity from the Sun speeds along massive Birkeland currents forming a circuit connecting the Sun with our planet. Since Earth is immersed in the Sun’s circuit, it has a vertical clear-air electric field of 50 – 200 volts per meter.
Apr 08, 2013
External electric flux influences Earth’s climate
According to a recent press release, ten years of data analysis has revealed that cloud height changes over time in response to an electric field generated by “global thunderstorms”. Although Earth’s electric field is brought into the discussion, and the electric charge on small water droplets is mentioned, researchers admit to mysterious forces at play.
It is commonly believed that weather on Earth is driven by the Sun’s thermal influence on the atmosphere. As we rotate beneath our primary, gases and dust absorb solar radiation at varying rates and in varying degrees.
When any particular region heats up, the air expands and loses density, creating a relative low pressure area. Cooler air, being denser, will naturally flow into the bottom of the warm, low pressure region, causing an upwardly rotating convection cell to form. Most weather systems on Earth are thought to be based on that simple kinetic explanation: winds blow when the cooler, denser air flows into the warmer, buoyant air.
However, ions attract water in the atmosphere instead of through the commonly described process of neutral dust motes building up raindrops due to condensation. The dust hanging in the air becomes charged, making it more attractive to water vapor.
Electricity from the Sun speeds along massive Birkeland currents forming a circuit connecting the Sun with our planet. Since Earth is immersed in the Sun’s circuit, it has a vertical clear-air electric field of 50 – 200 volts per meter.
Are they saying charged particles like atmospheric gasses and aerosol particulate solids can be manipulated by geo-magnetics?
Reeeeallly?
That sounds like BS to me.
Reeeeallly?
That sounds like BS to me.
There's nothing we can do I'm afraid. We are doomed to go through hot periods and then cold periods and then hot periods and then some more cold, like the planet has done since day one. And there ain't any normal climate either.
I'm developing a CO2 powered coffee percolator which will capture the twice reflected IR into the special glass decanter just before the dampening Aribica is added by the computer.
I am yust a parrot I yust tell what I read.
I'm developing a CO2 powered coffee percolator which will capture the twice reflected IR into the special glass decanter just before the dampening Aribica is added by the computer.
Are they saying charged particles like atmospheric gasses and aerosol particulate solids can be manipulated by geo-magnetics?
Reeeeallly?
That sounds like BS to me.
I am yust a parrot I yust tell what I read.