On 08/08/2019 14:10, Alastair B. McDonald wrote:
On Thursday, 8 August 2019 09:12:22 UTC+1, Spike wrote:
On 07/08/2019 21:48, JGD wrote:
On 07/08/2019 17:45, Spike wrote:

The Vostok ice cores showed that CO2 levels *lag* temperature levels
rather than leading them, over a time span of some hundreds of thousands
of years.

That's quite an old chestnut now. See eg:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHozjOYHQdE

Interesting.

The presenter said in short that the CO2/temperature issue was one of
one sometimes leading, and sometimes following, the other, the
perturbing agent being Milankovich cycles,

Unfortunately, this raises more questions than it answers. One such is
that where in the Vostok record is this shown? What records do in fact
show this? What is the mechanism whereby a lead changes to a lag?

And the big one: if this is all caused by the influence of Jupiter and
Saturn's gravity fields, why are we being strongly encouraged to go
vegetarian, and not to till the soil, in order to help the planet? (BBC
R4 'news' this morning). Eating soyaburgers won't perturb Jupiter at all.

It is not Jupiter that is causing the rise in CO2 this time; it is civilised mankind.

Apparently it's due to natural cycles, as explained in this video,
although the term isn't used in it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHozjOYHQdE


--
Spike

On 08/08/2019 15:31, Martin Brown wrote:
On 08/08/2019 09:12, Spike wrote:
On 07/08/2019 21:48, JGD wrote:
On 07/08/2019 17:45, Spike wrote:

The Vostok ice cores showed that CO2 levels *lag* temperature levels
rather than leading them, over a time span of some hundreds of thousands
of years.

That's quite an old chestnut now. See eg:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHozjOYHQdE

Interesting.

The presenter said in short that the CO2/temperature issue was one of
one sometimes leading, and sometimes following, the other, the
perturbing agent being Milankovich cycles,

They did explain it in the clip. Basically in the present geological era
the south pole almost always lags the rest of the planet because it is
cut off from the rest of the land masses by the roaring forties oceans.

It was not always the case. When there were land masses spread in a
different pattern then things were different. But with the continents as
they are presently positioned on the Earth insolation at 70N is a pretty
good proxy for the global temperature from solar forcing. This page
isn't a bad introduction if you actually want to learn some physics:

http://www.atmos.albany.edu/facstaff...ariations.html

The north pole has no solid land mass at the pole but there is a *lot*
of land at high latitudes with huge forests in near permanent sunlight
during the summers. CO2 concentration has much wider variation near the
north pole than elsewhere. By comparison the south pole concentration
lags any changes by a few ppm and shows a much smaller annual variation.

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_...tration_trends

Point Barrow 70N has already been above 415ppm and may touch 420 this
year. With an annual peak to peak variation of ~20ppm

Christmas Island at the equator is about 407ppm with 8ppm peak to peak.

South Pole is just below 405ppm with about 2ppm peak to peak variation.

Unfortunately, this raises more questions than it answers. One such is
that where in the Vostok record is this shown? What records do in fact
show this? What is the mechanism whereby a lead changes to a lag?

I will assume that you are asking for information here.

The ice core can be used multiple ways as can ocean sediment cores.

The gas bubbles trapped in it can be analysed as samples of the
atmosphere at the time the snow was laid down.

The isotope ratios of the oxygen and carbon in it can be used to infer
the volume of water remaining in the oceans. Precipitation is
preferentially of the lower mass isotopes (as is photosynthetic uptake).

Other slow growing long lived things that lay down calcium carbonate.
Notably deep water corals and stalactites can also be used to do stable
isotope analysis and work out how much of the oceans were liquid and how
much water was locked up as solid ice glaciers. Things with regular
growth cycles are prized because you can count the rings to date them.

And the big one: if this is all caused by the influence of Jupiter and
Saturn's gravity fields, why are we being strongly encouraged to go
vegetarian, and not to till the soil, in order to help the planet? (BBC
R4 'news' this morning). Eating soyaburgers won't perturb Jupiter at all.

The ice age cycles work on geological timescales. We are presently
wrecking the planet on a timescale that is at most centuries and could
well do irreversible damage within decades if we haven't already.

I don't see much prospect of our politicians doing anything sensible
about it. You can be sure though that they will blame the scientists for
not shouting loudly enough when the chickens come home to roost.

The video essentially showed that global warming is due to natural cycles.


--
Spike

On 08/08/2019 14:10, Alastair B. McDonald wrote:
On Thursday, 8 August 2019 09:12:22 UTC+1, Spike wrote:
On 07/08/2019 21:48, JGD wrote:
On 07/08/2019 17:45, Spike wrote:

The Vostok ice cores showed that CO2 levels *lag* temperature levels
rather than leading them, over a time span of some hundreds of thousands
of years.

That's quite an old chestnut now. See eg:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHozjOYHQdE

Interesting.

The presenter said in short that the CO2/temperature issue was one of
one sometimes leading, and sometimes following, the other, the
perturbing agent being Milankovich cycles,

Unfortunately, this raises more questions than it answers. One such is
that where in the Vostok record is this shown? What records do in fact
show this? What is the mechanism whereby a lead changes to a lag?

And the big one: if this is all caused by the influence of Jupiter and
Saturn's gravity fields, why are we being strongly encouraged to go
vegetarian, and not to till the soil, in order to help the planet? (BBC
R4 'news' this morning). Eating soyaburgers won't perturb Jupiter at all.

It is not Jupiter that is causing the rise in CO2 this time; it is civilised mankind.

When eight out of twelve forcing mechanisms are known only to a 'very
low' level of understanding, your claim would appear to be not well founded.


--
Spike

On 09/08/2019 09:11, Spike wrote:
On 08/08/2019 15:31, Martin Brown wrote:
On 08/08/2019 09:12, Spike wrote:
On 07/08/2019 21:48, JGD wrote:
On 07/08/2019 17:45, Spike wrote:

The Vostok ice cores showed that CO2 levels *lag* temperature levels
rather than leading them, over a time span of some hundreds of thousands
of years.

That's quite an old chestnut now. See eg:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHozjOYHQdE

Interesting.

The presenter said in short that the CO2/temperature issue was one of
one sometimes leading, and sometimes following, the other, the
perturbing agent being Milankovich cycles,

They did explain it in the clip. Basically in the present geological era
the south pole almost always lags the rest of the planet because it is
cut off from the rest of the land masses by the roaring forties oceans.

It was not always the case. When there were land masses spread in a
different pattern then things were different. But with the continents as
they are presently positioned on the Earth insolation at 70N is a pretty
good proxy for the global temperature from solar forcing. This page
isn't a bad introduction if you actually want to learn some physics:

http://www.atmos.albany.edu/facstaff...ariations.html

The north pole has no solid land mass at the pole but there is a *lot*
of land at high latitudes with huge forests in near permanent sunlight
during the summers. CO2 concentration has much wider variation near the
north pole than elsewhere. By comparison the south pole concentration
lags any changes by a few ppm and shows a much smaller annual variation.

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_...tration_trends

Point Barrow 70N has already been above 415ppm and may touch 420 this
year. With an annual peak to peak variation of ~20ppm

Christmas Island at the equator is about 407ppm with 8ppm peak to peak.

South Pole is just below 405ppm with about 2ppm peak to peak variation.

Unfortunately, this raises more questions than it answers. One such is
that where in the Vostok record is this shown? What records do in fact
show this? What is the mechanism whereby a lead changes to a lag?

I will assume that you are asking for information here.

The ice core can be used multiple ways as can ocean sediment cores.

The gas bubbles trapped in it can be analysed as samples of the
atmosphere at the time the snow was laid down.

The isotope ratios of the oxygen and carbon in it can be used to infer
the volume of water remaining in the oceans. Precipitation is
preferentially of the lower mass isotopes (as is photosynthetic uptake).

Other slow growing long lived things that lay down calcium carbonate.
Notably deep water corals and stalactites can also be used to do stable
isotope analysis and work out how much of the oceans were liquid and how
much water was locked up as solid ice glaciers. Things with regular
growth cycles are prized because you can count the rings to date them.

And the big one: if this is all caused by the influence of Jupiter and
Saturn's gravity fields, why are we being strongly encouraged to go
vegetarian, and not to till the soil, in order to help the planet? (BBC
R4 'news' this morning). Eating soyaburgers won't perturb Jupiter at all.

The ice age cycles work on geological timescales. We are presently
wrecking the planet on a timescale that is at most centuries and could
well do irreversible damage within decades if we haven't already.

I don't see much prospect of our politicians doing anything sensible
about it. You can be sure though that they will blame the scientists for
not shouting loudly enough when the chickens come home to roost.

The video essentially showed that global warming is due to natural cycles.

You are just another pathological LIAR suckered in by denialist
propaganda. No point in further discussion.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Friday, 9 August 2019 09:11:21 UTC+1, Spike wrote:
On 08/08/2019 14:10, Alastair B. McDonald wrote:
On Thursday, 8 August 2019 09:12:22 UTC+1, Spike wrote:
On 07/08/2019 21:48, JGD wrote:
On 07/08/2019 17:45, Spike wrote:

The Vostok ice cores showed that CO2 levels *lag* temperature levels
rather than leading them, over a time span of some hundreds of thousands
of years.

That's quite an old chestnut now. See eg:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHozjOYHQdE

Interesting.

The presenter said in short that the CO2/temperature issue was one of
one sometimes leading, and sometimes following, the other, the
perturbing agent being Milankovich cycles,

Unfortunately, this raises more questions than it answers. One such is
that where in the Vostok record is this shown? What records do in fact
show this? What is the mechanism whereby a lead changes to a lag?

And the big one: if this is all caused by the influence of Jupiter and
Saturn's gravity fields, why are we being strongly encouraged to go
vegetarian, and not to till the soil, in order to help the planet? (BBC
R4 'news' this morning). Eating soyaburgers won't perturb Jupiter at all.

It is not Jupiter that is causing the rise in CO2 this time; it is civilised mankind.

When eight out of twelve forcing mechanisms are known only to a 'very
low' level of understanding, your claim would appear to be not well founded.


--
Spike

It seems that you have a low level of understanding of the other four!

On 09/08/2019 12:21, Martin Brown wrote:
On 09/08/2019 09:11, Spike wrote:
On 08/08/2019 15:31, Martin Brown wrote:

The ice age cycles work on geological timescales. We are presently
wrecking the planet on a timescale that is at most centuries and could
well do irreversible damage within decades if we haven't already.

I don't see much prospect of our politicians doing anything sensible
about it. You can be sure though that they will blame the scientists for
not shouting loudly enough when the chickens come home to roost.

The video essentially showed that global warming is due to natural cycles.

You are just another pathological LIAR suckered in by denialist
propaganda. No point in further discussion.

So we can take it that you don't want to discuss the science?

BTW, the video was posted in order to scupper the case for the Vostok
ice record showing that for 450,000 years CO2 lagged temperature, but it
turns out it's due to natural cycles. I can see why you're angry.

I take it we can agree that the science is NOT settled.


--
Spike

On 09/08/2019 12:26, Alastair B. McDonald wrote:
On Friday, 9 August 2019 09:11:21 UTC+1, Spike wrote:
On 08/08/2019 14:10, Alastair B. McDonald wrote:
On Thursday, 8 August 2019 09:12:22 UTC+1, Spike wrote:

And the big one: if this is all caused by the influence of Jupiter and
Saturn's gravity fields, why are we being strongly encouraged to go
vegetarian, and not to till the soil, in order to help the planet? (BBC
R4 'news' this morning). Eating soyaburgers won't perturb Jupiter at all.

It is not Jupiter that is causing the rise in CO2 this time; it is civilised mankind.

When eight out of twelve forcing mechanisms are known only to a 'very
low' level of understanding, your claim would appear to be not well founded.

It seems that you have a low level of understanding of the other four!

The eight-out-of-twelve issue begs the question of what exactly it is
that climate modellers plug in to their models, if they have such a low
level of knowledge from which to work. Your remark suggests these eight
are irrelevant, yet so much treasure is staked on the models'
predictions. That's a courageous position to have to defend.


--
Spike

On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 12:11:02 +0400, Spike wrote:

The video essentially showed that global warming is due to natural
cycles.

So lie back and enjoy it?

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
An interesting hypothesis - can you provide some examples
of this happening?

yes.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.word...-barrier-reef/

All that blog link establishes that there is a dispute; it does
not establish that Ridd's claims (or the Uni's, for that
matter) are valid. Do you have an informative link?

Then there is Susan Crockford
who dared say that in fact polar bear numbers were increasing.

Which has little to do with climate science per se, but
is about polar bears. Or do polar bears, being especially
reflective, change the earth's albedo? :-)

Also Judith Curry, a top climate scientist who basically got
fed up with the flak and resigned...

Or "retired", as it turns out on closer reading, although it also
seems she did both while still wanting to continue work as an Emeritus
Professor. Quite the dramatic exit, it would seem.

If ytou are in climate science you simply wont get funding
unless you maintain the fiction of CO2 induced climate change.

None of your examples support this claim. Further, a topic as vague as
"CO2 induced climate change" is in any case unlikely to be a useful a
subject of a grant proposal. I would expect that a scientist who
happened to not believe in CO2ICC could still sucessfully apply for
funding by focussing on some actual useful and specific technical or
scientific issue that needed better understanding. Whilst, as is
always good practise, avoiding any muddying of the scientific focus of
their proposal [1], by not mentioning some tangentally related
controversial scepticisms they might have.

If I, for example, felt that homogenization techniques used in the
metamaterials field were deficient in some way, or that much work
invoking spatial dispersion rested on poor conceptual foundations, I
would not apply to a funding body with a proposal claiming that
existing results were somehow "ficticious" (or any other comparably
loaded adjective). I would instead present a plan aimed at improving
(some specific aspect of) the field. Scientific understanding is
primarily advanced by doing things better, and not by merely pointing
out flaws.



[1] For example, Machine Learning is quite the enthusiasm now in many
circles, and so you might think that adding a sentence or two on that
to a proposal would be a good idea. But if you just wedge in in a
poorly matched mention of it into a grant proposal and it will be
spotted as such and so *not* help your case.


#Paul

On 09/08/2019 09:33, Spike wrote:
On 09/08/2019 12:21, Martin Brown wrote:

You are just another pathological LIAR suckered in by denialist
propaganda. No point in further discussion.

So we can take it that you don't want to discuss the science?

BTW, the video was posted in order to scupper the case for the Vostok
ice record showing that for 450,000 years CO2 lagged temperature, but it
turns out it's due to natural cycles. I can see why you're angry.

I take it we can agree that the science is NOT settled.



Mmm. It begs the question (as always) as to *who* is in denial and
sucked in by the propaganda.



--
“Some people like to travel by train because it combines the slowness of
a car with the cramped public exposure of 
an airplane.�

Dennis Miller