Artic Ice: CO2, Solar or Ocean Currents?

Discussion in 'Environment' started by IanC, Nov 1, 2010.

  1. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,191
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,441
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    I'm sure these or similar graphs have been posted before but it is necessary to post up reasons for natural explanations for supposedly AGW catastrophies once in a while. Tell me again that the science is settled and CO2 is the root cause for everything.



    as an interesting side note, Soon and Baliunas were the subject of many of the climategate emails dealing with subverting peer review to keep their work out of climate science journals
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2010
  2. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,546
    Thanks Received:
    2,554
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,662
    Your first set of graphs shows the addition of a new variable to the equation, CO2. Given its known ability to absorb infra-red radiation and the LAW (no theory here) of Conservation of Energy, why should we think what happened in the past will happen in the future?
     
  3. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,191
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,441
    the first graph compares TSI to artic temp, good fit

    the second graph compares CO2 to artic temp, no fit

    the third graph compares ocean currents to artic temp, good fit

    I didn't really understand your point konradv. And I don't agree with your understanding of the CO2 effect either. CO2 warms the planet by scattering the IR and slowing down nighttime energy loss into space, not by the piddly amount that it temporarily captures.
     
  4. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,191
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,441
    konradv- you should look up how the sun works to give yourself a better understanding of CO2 warming. it takes roughly a million years for the high energy photons produced in the centre of the sun to make it out of the body of the sun and by that time they are transposed into much lower energy photons that we recognize as visible light.
     
  5. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,465
    Thanks Received:
    5,410
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,305
  6. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,948
    Thanks Received:
    7,964
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,685



    Because what has happened in the past has ALLWAYS happened again. It is the foundation of modern geology. It is called the Principle of Uniformitarianism. I can show you Stromatolites that are a billion years old and they function the same as those today.
    Amazing concept, eh?
     
  7. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,948
    Thanks Received:
    7,964
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,685



    The Danes seem to disagree with your sources. Given the known failings of the US temperature gathering ability and the lack of rigourous checks of those same instruments, not to mention the provable distorted data your sources are using, I think I will stick with the Danes.


    Hide the decline - Latest News (hidethedecline)
     
  8. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,191
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,441

    I don't know when the studies that contained those graphs were published. I assume early 2000's but I could be wrong. Are you assuming that they are designed to misdirect like the Mann98 hockey stick graph that cutoff the proxy data 35 years early to 'hide the decline'?
     
  9. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    Parts of greenland are rising at an inch or more per year because of the reduced weight of ICE on it.
     
  10. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,948
    Thanks Received:
    7,964
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,685



    Guess what? The area around the Great Lakes is too. It is called isostatic rebound and the only reason why the ice can rebound in the first place is because once upon a time there was no ice on it. At one time the sub-continent of Greenland was higher, it was warmer, there was no ice sheet. Then the ice came and compressed the land down. Now, for the last 10,000 to 15,000 years it has been rising. It is NOT A RECENT OCCURENCE, it has been going on for millenia. Just another irrefutable fact the alarmists don't want you to find out.
     

Share This Page