How do you feel about snowball earth and the reasoning behind it?

[ScienceRocks]

How do you feel about snowball earth and the reasoning behind it?







There's like 3 video's about it...So I agree with the one about the methane being taken out of the atmosphere from the first "life" that put oxygen into the atmosphere 650 million years ago. This only ended when the volcano's released extreme amounts of co2 into the atmosphere.

 

[Kosh]

Does not matter how anyone feels about it, due to the AGW cultists and their propaganda.

Then again anyone claiming that the dinosaurs were killed off by CO2 is not to be taken seriously.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I never said the kt was caused by co2. That was clearly a 6 mile wide asteroid.

 

[Kosh]

I never said the kt was caused by co2. That was clearly a 6 mile wide asteroid.

So now you want to lie about your lies.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I never said the kt was caused by co2. That was clearly a 6 mile wide asteroid.

So now you want to lie about your lies.

You're a troll. Welcome to my ignore.

I was talking about the extinctions 550, 500 and the coming out of snowball earth.

 

[Kosh]

I never said the kt was caused by co2. That was clearly a 6 mile wide asteroid.

So now you want to lie about your lies.

You're a troll. Welcome to my ignore.

I was talking about the extinctions 550, 500 and the coming out of snowball earth.

The AGW propaganda troll poster is calling someone else a troll.

Talk about irony.

 

[westwall]

How do you feel about snowball earth and the reasoning behind it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV4EirRu6bA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87hHbiWBwmY

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

There's like 3 video's about it...So I agree with the one about the methane being taken out of the atmosphere from the first "life" that put oxygen into the atmosphere 650 million years ago. This only ended when the volcano's released extreme amounts of co2 into the atmosphere.

I don't think too highly of it at all.

 

[Two Thumbs]

its scientist trying to prove they are right by lying about another event

aside from that


fern fossils were found in the artic circle. thats as neat as snowball earth

 

[Politico]

I think it makes a great movie.

 

[Old Rocks]

How do you feel about snowball earth and the reasoning behind it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV4EirRu6bA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87hHbiWBwmY

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

There's like 3 video's about it...So I agree with the one about the methane being taken out of the atmosphere from the first "life" that put oxygen into the atmosphere 650 million years ago. This only ended when the volcano's released extreme amounts of co2 into the atmosphere.

I don't think too highly of it at all.

While there is debate as to whether these events involved a total snowball Earth, there is no debate about that fact that these were periods of extreme glaciation. Glaciers down to sea level at the equator. And the proxies from those periods indicate major reductions in GHGs at the same time. Just as when we see periods of very fast heating of the Earth, the proxies indicate that there were major increases in GHGs at the same time.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g]Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Kosh]

How do you feel about snowball earth and the reasoning behind it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV4EirRu6bA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87hHbiWBwmY

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

There's like 3 video's about it...So I agree with the one about the methane being taken out of the atmosphere from the first "life" that put oxygen into the atmosphere 650 million years ago. This only ended when the volcano's released extreme amounts of co2 into the atmosphere.

I don't think too highly of it at all.

While there is debate as to whether these events involved a total snowball Earth, there is no debate about that fact that these were periods of extreme glaciation. Glaciers down to sea level at the equator. And the proxies from those periods indicate major reductions in GHGs at the same time. Just as when we see periods of very fast heating of the Earth, the proxies indicate that there were major increases in GHGs at the same time.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g]Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History" - YouTube[/ame]

And the AGW propaganda continues.

 

[JimBowie1958]

How do you feel about snowball earth and the reasoning behind it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV4EirRu6bA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87hHbiWBwmY

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

There's like 3 video's about it...So I agree with the one about the methane being taken out of the atmosphere from the first "life" that put oxygen into the atmosphere 650 million years ago. This only ended when the volcano's released extreme amounts of co2 into the atmosphere.

I don't think too highly of it at all.

While there is debate as to whether these events involved a total snowball Earth, there is no debate about that fact that these were periods of extreme glaciation. Glaciers down to sea level at the equator. And the proxies from those periods indicate major reductions in GHGs at the same time. Just as when we see periods of very fast heating of the Earth, the proxies indicate that there were major increases in GHGs at the same time.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g]Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History" - YouTube[/ame]

So what temps would those same proxies give for our time today, OR?

Oh, wait, those don't fit so they get hidden, never mind.

 

[mamooth]

So what temps would those same proxies give for our time today, OR?

Oh, wait, those don't fit so they get hidden, never mind.

There's no real point in you posting these bizarre conspiracy theories. After all, everyone already knows how you'll insta-parrot whatever crazy story your political cult tells you to parrot.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So what temps would those same proxies give for our time today, OR?

Oh, wait, those don't fit so they get hidden, never mind.

There's no real point in you posting these bizarre conspiracy theories. After all, everyone already knows how you'll insta-parrot whatever crazy story your political cult tells you to parrot.

Lol, oh noes! You caught me talking about conspiracies like they don't ever exist!

Makes one wonder why there are laws against such things, and why libtards like you can only see them if it involves some conservative like Tom Delay, roflmao.

As to hiding the decline in temps according to the tree ring proxy data....in case anyone missed my other posts in this topic....


Why Hansen Had To Corrupt The Temperature Record | Real Science

Climategate: The Smoking Code | Watts Up With That?

Now, here is some actual proof that the CRU was deliberately tampering with their data. Unfortunately, for readability’s sake, this code was written in Interactive Data Language (IDL) and is a pain to go through.

NOTE: This is an actual snippet of code from the CRU contained in the source file: briffa_Sep98_d.pro

1;
2; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
3;
4 yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
5 valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
6 if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
7
8 yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

So the fudge factor is adjusting each year by their calendar year starting with 1904, in five year increments. Note that starting in 1930 the function arbitrarily subtracts 0.1 degrees, then in 1936 it removes 0.25, etc. Then in 1955 it begins to ADD temperature adjustments beginning with 0.3, etc.

Is it any wonder we have 'global warming' according to these liars?

Just the name 'fudge factor' at line 5 should be a dead give away.

Very revealing programmer comments found in the hacked emails in the Climategate scandal, and they explain how we have 'Global Warming' no matter what the temperatures may actually be.

And note how they call the temperatures they want to see the 'real' temperatures, when ordinary people might think the MEASURED proxy temperatures would be the 'real' temperatures or else the proxy temps are worthless anyway!

Climategate: hide the decline ? codified | Watts Up With That?

WUWT blogging ally Ecotretas writes in to say that he has made a compendium of programming code segments that show comments by the programmer that suggest places where data may be corrected, modified, adjusted, or busted. Some the HARRY_READ_ME comments are quite revealing. For those that don’t understand computer programming, don’t fret, the comments by the programmer tell the story quite well even if the code itself makes no sense to you....

?FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps12.proFOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps15.proFOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps24.pro; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses "corrected" MXD - but shouldn't usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

....

; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series.
; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline
......

; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline that affects tree-ring density records)

...


;getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been
; introduced, so many false references.. so many changes that aren't documented.

....


;I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as
; Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations

...


Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet
the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is
supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have

...

It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm
hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform
data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.

...

printf,1,’(April-September) temperature anomalies (from the 1961-1990 mean).’
printf,1,’Reconstruction is based on tree-ring density records.’
printf,1
printf,1,’NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY’
printf,1,’REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values’
printf,1,’will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should be,’
printf,1,’which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful’
printf,1,’than it actually is.

...

printf,1,'temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set'
printf,1,'this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and'
printf,1,'this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring
printf,1,'density variations, but have been modified to look more like the
printf,1,'observed temperatures.'


.....


; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
(...)
;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj

...

;*** MUST ALTER FUNCT_DECLINE.PRO TO MATCH THE COORDINATES OF THE
; START OF THE DECLINE *** ALTER THIS EVERY TIME YOU CHANGE ANYTHING ***

...

applied the calibration to unfiltered MXD data (which
; gives a zero mean over 1881-1960) after extending the calibration to boxes
; without temperature data (pl_calibmxd1.pro). We have identified and
; artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline in this calibrated
; data set. We now recalibrate this corrected calibrated dataset against
; the unfiltered 1911-1990 temperature data, and apply the same calibration
; to the corrected and uncorrected calibrated MXD data.

 

[mamooth]

That "fudge factor" was used for sanity testing the code, not generating data.

That is, your sources lied their asses off about the "fudge factor". But you don't care, being that you're a loyal cultist.

 

[westwall]

How do you feel about snowball earth and the reasoning behind it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV4EirRu6bA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87hHbiWBwmY

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

There's like 3 video's about it...So I agree with the one about the methane being taken out of the atmosphere from the first "life" that put oxygen into the atmosphere 650 million years ago. This only ended when the volcano's released extreme amounts of co2 into the atmosphere.

I don't think too highly of it at all.

While there is debate as to whether these events involved a total snowball Earth, there is no debate about that fact that these were periods of extreme glaciation. Glaciers down to sea level at the equator. And the proxies from those periods indicate major reductions in GHGs at the same time. Just as when we see periods of very fast heating of the Earth, the proxies indicate that there were major increases in GHGs at the same time.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g]Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History" - YouTube[/ame]

And those same proxies also show that the CO2 levels fluctuated by vast amounts over thousands of years all during the periods of glaciation. Conversely those same proxies also show warm periods with low CO2 concentrations. In fact you posted one of these studies a few years ago and when I pointed out to you that it didn't support your cause you "disappeared" it along with anything else that doesn't support your pre-conceived ideas.

The fact remains that ALL empirical evidence shows that CO2 lags temperature by hundreds of years. The overwhelming evidence also shows that no mass extinction event can be attributed to warming. The one warming event that we have very good evidence of, namely the PETM, shows that the entire world (with the exception of some benthic forams, who's demise is attributed to anoxic conditions in their very localized areas) bloomed. There is ZERO empirical evidence to show that warmth has EVER been bad for the planet. Absolutely none.

 

[JimBowie1958]

That "fudge factor" was used for sanity testing the code, not generating data.
That is, your sources lied their asses off about the "fudge factor". But you don't care, being that you're a loyal cultist.

Prove it.

 

[mamooth]

That "fudge factor" was used for sanity testing the code, not generating data.
That is, your sources lied their asses off about the "fudge factor". But you don't care, being that you're a loyal cultist.

Prove it.

Pay me first. I only educate people willing to be educated.

Okay, I'll be generous. If, after I show you, you promise to apologize, condemn your source for outright lying and to never use them again, I'll do the work for you. Deal? That's reasonable. After all, you shouldn't be allowed to just slink away afterwards, pretend it never happened, and go right back to using that liar source.

 

[mamooth]

The fact remains that ALL empirical evidence shows that CO2 lags temperature by hundreds of years.

If conditions in the present are different, the present will not act like the past.

For some reason, that very basic logic is something denialists have never been capable of grasping. That's the main reason why they're laughed at in the world of science. Scientists are good at logic, so they instantly recognize how awful the logic of the denialists is.

 

[Old Rocks]

I don't think too highly of it at all.

While there is debate as to whether these events involved a total snowball Earth, there is no debate about that fact that these were periods of extreme glaciation. Glaciers down to sea level at the equator. And the proxies from those periods indicate major reductions in GHGs at the same time. Just as when we see periods of very fast heating of the Earth, the proxies indicate that there were major increases in GHGs at the same time.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g]Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History" - YouTube[/ame]

And those same proxies also show that the CO2 levels fluctuated by vast amounts over thousands of years all during the periods of glaciation. Conversely those same proxies also show warm periods with low CO2 concentrations. In fact you posted one of these studies a few years ago and when I pointed out to you that it didn't support your cause you "disappeared" it along with anything else that doesn't support your pre-conceived ideas.

The fact remains that ALL empirical evidence shows that CO2 lags temperature by hundreds of years. The overwhelming evidence also shows that no mass extinction event can be attributed to warming. The one warming event that we have very good evidence of, namely the PETM, shows that the entire world (with the exception of some benthic forams, who's demise is attributed to anoxic conditions in their very localized areas) bloomed. There is ZERO empirical evidence to show that warmth has EVER been bad for the planet. Absolutely none.

Phd geologist? The proxies indicate strong rise in GHGs before both the PT event and the Tertiary event.

The Permian-Triassic Extinction - Volcanism and the Great Dying

Consider the stressed biosphere late in the Permian: low oxygen levels restricted land life to low elevations. Ocean circulation was sluggish, raising the risk of anoxia. And the continents sat in a single mass (Pangea) with a reduced diversity of habitats. Then great eruptions begin in what is Siberia today, starting the largest of Earth's large igneous provinces (LIPs).

These eruptions release huge amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and sulfur gases (SOx). In the short term the SOx cools the Earth while in the longer term the CO2 warms it. The SOx also creates acid rain while CO2 entering the seawater makes it harder for calcified species to build shells. Other volcanic gases destroy the ozone layer. And finally, magma rising through coal beds releases methane, another greenhouse gas.

With all of this happening to a vulnerable world, most life on Earth could not survive. Luckily it has never been quite this bad since then. But global warming poses some of the same threats today