solar warming

[CrusaderFrank]

Scarfetta and West successfully attributed the current (non) warming between mankind and the Big Yellow Thing in the Sky using the "Because We Say So" Method

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So you believe the snowball theory? There is nothing from Noah's Ark that would indicate a "snowball" earth. Why would you believe some science and "pick and choose" other science?

Yes, I believe in "Snowball Earth", I believe we have enough scientific proof that earth was frozen over, several times.

I don't pick and choose what Science to believe??? I don't believe Science differs with Genesis 1 if one can see beyond the book in front of them instead of nitpicking, they would see this also.

And as far as Noah's ark....or the Great Deluge story.... I believe what the people have written about it....throughout the entire world....there are around 100 stories throughout different regions of the earth from different religions and tribal beliefs from ancient times, that ALL SPEAK of "the Great Flood or the Great Deluge" and due to all of these various myths out there, all saying nearly the same thing from all different regions, I believe we will find scientific proof that there WAS a great flood.

I love science and all that encompasses it.

So did the Ark hold millions of pairs of animals or just millions of pears?

FOFLOL!

Every major civilization on the planet has a legend of a Great Flood.

 

[Old Rocks]

No, that is not correct. Some have instead a legend of the 'Fimbulvetr'.

Since almost all major early cultures developed by a major river, it is not surprising all have a legend about a huge flood.

 

[Care4all]

What is astonishing is that someone who has obvious intellectual capabilities can be so dishonest.

You know full well what is being said is that the sun has been steady enough that there has been little contribution to the increase on it's part.

The fact that you approach it by denigrating the efforts of the scientists, and useing false humor, simply shows the intellectual poverty of your viewpoint.

Many thanks to Si modo for his research from Scafetta.

It's nice to know that when something is just obviously wrong, there is science to back it up. Implying, saying, stating, demanding, asking or anything else that the Sun has very little effect on warming is just so inane that it hardly even need be questioned.

Of course the Sun has effect on warming. The Sun is the source of any and all warming that our little planet enjoys. It doesn't take a wizard, a scientist or even an educated person to know this. Before we had a way to measure CO2, we had people worshipping the Sun because it provides warmth.

As soon as someone says that the Sun has had very little effect on warming, anything that comes after is just ridiculous.

no dear, you are wrong in your assumptions....

the sun was OBVIOUSLY NOT warming the earth ENOUGH to stop the ''snowball'' earth from taking place....from glaciers reaching the equator.... do you think the sun or sun flares just stopped shining on us those millions of years????

The reflection of the sun on the snow and ice prevented the sun from warming us.

 

[Old Rocks]

SUVs?

republicans?

merry Christmas Del!

CO2 caused the melt....from natural events....massive earthquakes and volcanoes releasing the gas....

Without the CO2, we...the Earth, was destined to stay frozen.

We need to give THANKS and praise, to CO2!!!

2 points....

CO2 is released naturally, not just from manmade uses.

CO2 can cause the warming of the earth enough to melt the glaciers of an entirely frozen earth, so it CAN be the scientific culpret of global warming today.

AS TO whether this is all from man made causes or a mixture of natural and man made causes, is up for debate and scientific scrutiny....I would NOT rule out one theory or the other....

Volcanoes routinely cause cooling through eruptions today. Was the "snowball" -ing of Earth complete? Was the change in CO2 the only the change in anything that might possibly have produced a rise in temperature?

Sulfur, which reflects Sun light back into space is always more plentiful in eruptions than is CO2. Ash is some eruptions and dust is much more plentiful than is CO2. What kind of eruptions were these?

When the ash settled, could this have changed the albedo? Did the shape of the orbit change at that time? Could ocean currents have changed and started to cause a melting around the globe? Plate tectonics?

When was "Snowball Earth" supposed to have frozen over?

Greenhouse gases shrouded Snowball Earth

Greenhouse gases shrouded Snowball Earth
12 January 2009

The Snowball Earth theory - that ice sheets covered almost the entire planet during certain periods in Earth's history - has had one of its predictions confirmed.


630 million years ago marked the end of a 'Snowball Earth' period in the planet's history, when ice covered virtually the whole planet.
New evidence from ancient Arctic rocks suggests that high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - normally associated with a warm climate - coexisted with the vast ice sheets.

Scientists have speculated for some time that an ice-bound Earth would lead to high atmospheric CO2 levels, but the theory lacked independent evidence. Now they have it in the form of rocks from Svalbard - a collection of islands between Norway and Greenland - that date from around 630 million years ago, when researchers believe the world was coming to the end of a so-called Snowball Earth period.

The paper, published in the American journal Science, states that 'the atmosphere [630 million years ago] had either an exceptionally high atmospheric CO2 level or an utterly unfamiliar oxygen cycle.' Both possibilities fit with an Earth largely covered in ice and snow.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No, that is not correct. Some have instead a legend of the 'Fimbulvetr'.

Since almost all major early cultures developed by a major river, it is not surprising all have a legend about a huge flood.

Right, people from the Aztecs to the Jews to the Yetis mistook the Tigris overrunning its banks for their prior civilization disappearing in a Flood.

 

[Care4all]

No, that is not correct. Some have instead a legend of the 'Fimbulvetr'.

Since almost all major early cultures developed by a major river, it is not surprising all have a legend about a huge flood.

fyi....this is what i am going by:

Abiogenesis and the Origin of Life

many of these myths and legends have nearly the same type story as the story of noah...

-a few of mankind was saved
-a boat was built to carry animals and the few humans
-the world was flooded
-birds were sent out to search for dry land

etc....

this link too....

http://www.scribd.com/doc/7690483/Antiquity-Great-Deluge

Africa

Southwest Tanzania
Once upon a time the rivers began to flood. The god told two people to get into a ship. He told them to take lots of seed and to take lots of animals. The water of the flood eventually covered the mountains. Finally the flood stopped. Then one of the men, wanting to know if the water had dried up let a dove loose. The dove returned. Later he let loose a hawk which did not return. Then the men left the boat and took the animals and the seeds with them.

Asia

China
The Chinese classic called the Hihking tells about "the family of Fuhi," that was saved from a great flood. This ancient story tells that the entire land was flooded; the mountains and everything, however one family survived in a boat. The Chinese consider this man the father of their civilization. This record indicates that Fuhi, his wife, three sons, and three daughters were the only people that escaped the great flood. It is claimed, that he and his family were the only people alive on earth, and repopulated the world.

Babylon
Gilgamesh met an old man named Utnapishtim, who told him the following story. The gods came to Utnapishtim to warn him about a terrible flood that was coming. They instructed Utnapishtim to destroy his house and build a large ship. The ship was to be 10 dozen cubits high, wide and long. Utnapishtim was to cover the ship with pitch. He was supposed to take male and female animals of all kinds, his wife and family, provisions, etc. into the ship. Once ship was completed the rain began falling intensely. The rain fell for six days and nights. Finally things calmed and the ship settled on the top of Mount Nisir. After the ship had rested for seven days Utnapishtim let loose a dove. Since the land had not dried the dove returned. Next he sent a swallow which also returned. Later he let loose a raven which never returned since the ground had dried. Utnapishtim then left the ship.

Chaldean
There was a man by the name of Xisuthrus. The god Chronos warned Xisuthrus of a coming flood and told him to build a boat. The boat was to be 5 stadia by 2 stadia. In this boat Xisuthrus was to put his family, friends and two of each animal (male and female). The flood came. When the waters started to recede he let some birds loose. They came back and he noticed they had mud on their feet. He tried again with the same results. When he tried the third time the birds did not return. Assuming the water had dried up the people got out of the boat and offered sacrifices to the gods.

India
A long time ago lived a man named Manu. Manu, while washing himself, saved a small fish from the jaws of a large fish. The fish told Manu, "If you care for me until I am full grown I will save you from terrible things to come". Manu asked what kind of terrible things. The fish told Manu that a great flood would soon come and destroy everything on the earth. The fish told Manu to put him in a clay jar for protection. The fish grew and each time he outgrew the clay jar Manu gave him a larger one. Finally the fish became a ghasha, one of the largest fish in the world. The fish instructed Manu to build a large ship since the flood was going to happen very soon. As the rains started Manu tied a rope from the ship to the ghasha. The fish guided the ship as the waters rose. The whole earth was covered by water. When the waters began subsiding the ghasha led Manu's ship to a mountaintop.

Australia

There is a legend of a flood called the Dreamtime flood. Riding on this flood was the woramba, or the Ark Gumana. In this ark was Noah, Aborigines, and various animals. This ark eventually came to rest in the plain of Djilinbadu where it can still be found. They claim that the white mans story about the ark landing in the middle east is a lie that was started to keep the aborigines in subservience. This legend is undoubtedly the product of aboriginal legends merging with those of visiting missionaries, and there does not appear to be any native flood stories from Australia.

Europe

Greece
A long time ago, perhaps before the golden age was over, humans became proud. This bothered Zeus as they kept getting worse. Finally Zeus decided that he would destroy all humans. Before he did this Prometheus, the creator of humans, warned his human son Deucalion and his wife Pyrrha. Prometheus then placed this couple in a large wooden chest. The rains started and lasted nine days and nights until the whole world was flooded. The only thing that was not flooded was the peaks of Mount Parnassus and Mount Olympus. Mount Olympus is the home of the gods. The wooden chest came to rest on Mount Parnassus. Deucalion and his wife Pyrrha got out and saw that everything was flooded. The lived on provisions from the chest until the waters subsided. At Zeus' instruction they re-populated the earth.

North America

Mexico
The Toltec natives have a legend telling that the original creation lasted for 1716 years, and was destroyed by a flood and only one family survived.

Aztec- A man named Tapi lived a long time ago. Tapi was a very pious man. The creator told Tapi to build a boat that he would live in. He was told that he should take his wife, a pair of every animal that was alive into this boat. Naturally everyone thought he was crazy. Then the rain started and the flood came. The men and animals tried to climb the mountains but the mountains became flooded as well. Finally the rain ended. Tapi decided that the water had dried up when he let a dove loose that did not return.

United States
The Ojibwe natives who have lived in Minnesota USA since approximately 1400AD also have a creation and flood story that closely paralleles the Biblical account. "There came a time when the harmonious way of life did not continue. Men and women disrespected each other, families quarreled and soon villages began arguing back and forth. This saddened Gitchie Manido [the Creator] greatly, but he waited. Finally, when it seemed there was no hope left, Creator decided to purify Mother Earth through the use of water. The water came, flooding the Earth, catching all of creation off guard. All but a few of each living thing survived." Then it tells how Waynaboozhoo survived by floating on a log in the water with various animals.
Ojibwe - Ancient native American creation story tells of world wide flood.

Delaware Indians - In the pristine age, the world lived at peace; but an evil spirit came and caused a great flood. The earth was submerged. A few persons had taken refuge on the back of a turtle, so old that his shell had collected moss. A loon flew over their heads and was entreated to dive beneath the water and bring up land. It found only a bottomless sea. Then the bird flew far away, came back with a small portion of earth in its bill, and guided the tortoise to a place where there was a spot of dry land.

South America

Inca
During the period of time called the Pachachama people became very evil. They got so busy coming up with and performing evil deeds they neglected the gods. Only those in the high Andes remained uncorrupted. Two brothers who lived in the highlands noticed their llamas acting strangely. They asked the llamas why and were told that the stars had told the llamas that a great flood was coming. This flood would destroy all the life on earth. The brothers took their families and flocks into a cave on the high mountains. It started to rain and continued for four months. As the water rose the mountain grew keeping its top above the water. Eventually the rain stopped and the waters receded. The mountain returned to its original height. The shepherds repopulated the earth. The llamas remembered the flood and that is why they prefer to live in the highland areas.

 

[Care4all]

So you believe the snowball theory? There is nothing from Noah's Ark that would indicate a "snowball" earth. Why would you believe some science and "pick and choose" other science?

Yes, I believe in "Snowball Earth", I believe we have enough scientific proof that earth was frozen over, several times.

I don't pick and choose what Science to believe??? I don't believe Science differs with Genesis 1 if one can see beyond the book in front of them instead of nitpicking, they would see this also.

And as far as Noah's ark....or the Great Deluge story.... I believe what the people have written about it....throughout the entire world....there are around 100 stories throughout different regions of the earth from different religions and tribal beliefs from ancient times, that ALL SPEAK of "the Great Flood or the Great Deluge" and due to all of these various myths out there, all saying nearly the same thing from all different regions, I believe we will find scientific proof that there WAS a great flood.

I love science and all that encompasses it.

So did the Ark hold millions of pairs of animals or just millions of pears?

FOFLOL!

no, i don't believe the ark held millions of paired animals, but i do believe it held animals that were considered ''clean''.

 

[concept]

According to this article, solar seems to play a very minor part in the present warming.

Pubs.GISS: Abstract of Benestad and Schmidt 2009

Benestad and Schmidt 2009
Benestad, R.E., and G.A. Schmidt, 2009: Solar trends and global warming. J. Geophys. Res., doi:10.1029/2008JD011639.

We use a suite of global climate model simulations for the 20th Century to assess the contribution of solar forcing to the past trends in the global mean temperature. In particular we examine how robust different published methodologies are at detecting and attributing solar-related climate change in the presence of intrinsic climate variability and multiple forcings. We demonstrate that naive application of linear analytical methods such as regression gives non-robust results. We also demonstrate that the methodologies used in Scafetta & West [2005, 2006a, b, 2007, 2008] are not robust to these same factors and that their error bars are significantly larger than reported. Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7±1% for the 20th Century, and is negligible for the warming since 1980.

Download PDF (Document is 4.9 MB)
PDF documents require a special viewer such as the free Adobe Reader.

"THE SUN" has a minor effect?

 

[concept]

Question:

WHAT brought us out of the ''snowball earth''? What made the glaciers melt?





Hint:

NOT the sun's rays/heat....

SUVs?

republicans?

merry Christmas Del!

CO2 caused the melt....from natural events....massive earthquakes and volcanoes releasing the gas....

Without the CO2, we...the Earth, was destined to stay frozen.

We need to give THANKS and praise, to CO2!!!

2 points....

CO2 is released naturally, not just from manmade uses.

CO2 can cause the warming of the earth enough to melt the glaciers of an entirely frozen earth, so it CAN be the scientific culpret of global warming today.

AS TO whether this is all from man made causes or a mixture of natural and man made causes, is up for debate and scientific scrutiny....I would NOT rule out one theory or the other....

There has been 4 or 5 ice ages.

This is what happens on this planet and will continue to do so long after we have gone.

 

[Big Fitz]

yeah, and holding the thermometer to a lighter won't give the illusion your temperature is higher than what it really is.

Talk about patently disingenuous.

 

[Care4all]

SUVs?

republicans?

merry Christmas Del!

CO2 caused the melt....from natural events....massive earthquakes and volcanoes releasing the gas....

Without the CO2, we...the Earth, was destined to stay frozen.

We need to give THANKS and praise, to CO2!!!

2 points....

CO2 is released naturally, not just from manmade uses.

CO2 can cause the warming of the earth enough to melt the glaciers of an entirely frozen earth, so it CAN be the scientific culpret of global warming today.

AS TO whether this is all from man made causes or a mixture of natural and man made causes, is up for debate and scientific scrutiny....I would NOT rule out one theory or the other....

There has been 4 or 5 ice ages.

This is what happens on this planet and will continue to do so long after we have gone.

I agree Concept,

there is no question that nature can reap its wrath whenever it pleases!

I don't have a ''Dog in this fight!'', other than wanting to know the truth about the subject...and hating the fact that it seems like the entire nation's pollution is being dumped in Maine on its way out to sea. Whether this pollution is the main cause for the accelerated warming or a combination of man's pollution and nature's wrath or just nature's wrath....doesn't much matter to me one way or the other....I still would like to see our country's pollution output reduced...

However...I am not for cap and trade, not at this time....i'd rather see us band together and reduce pollution on our own, as a country filled with private citizens and prvate businesses that take their own pollution output in to consideration.

care

 

[code1211]

What is astonishing is that someone who has obvious intellectual capabilities can be so dishonest.

You know full well what is being said is that the sun has been steady enough that there has been little contribution to the increase on it's part.

The fact that you approach it by denigrating the efforts of the scientists, and useing false humor, simply shows the intellectual poverty of your viewpoint.

Many thanks to Si modo for his research from Scafetta.

It's nice to know that when something is just obviously wrong, there is science to back it up. Implying, saying, stating, demanding, asking or anything else that the Sun has very little effect on warming is just so inane that it hardly even need be questioned.

Of course the Sun has effect on warming. The Sun is the source of any and all warming that our little planet enjoys. It doesn't take a wizard, a scientist or even an educated person to know this. Before we had a way to measure CO2, we had people worshipping the Sun because it provides warmth.

As soon as someone says that the Sun has had very little effect on warming, anything that comes after is just ridiculous.

no dear, you are wrong in your assumptions....

the sun was OBVIOUSLY NOT warming the earth ENOUGH to stop the ''snowball'' earth from taking place....from glaciers reaching the equator.... do you think the sun or sun flares just stopped shining on us those millions of years????

The reflection of the sun on the snow and ice prevented the sun from warming us.

I grew up in Northern Minnesota and have a great deal of respect for snow and for ice.

Every winter the snow piled up pretty deep and every summer it melted. Depending on the direction of the wind during the melt, in some years ice would pile up on the shore several yards tall and extend into the water for a pretty good distance.

It was white at this time of year, and it melted.

The Ice in the middle of Greenland does not melt because the Sun's light is not direct enough, not intense enough to do the job. Same for the Antarctic Ice. If it doesn't touch the water, it doesn't melt.

Again, when did the "Snowball Earth" conditions exist and what were these conditions? What was the TSI during this period? What was the eccentricity of the orbit of the Earth? What was the CO2 level before during and after the period?

Simply saying that this one thing might have happened and this other thing might have been the cause to this first thing that might or might not have happened is not proof. "There are things in Heaven and Eath not dreamed of in your philosophy."

We know that today, we are warming from an Ice Age. Have been for about 12 thousand years. There is good evidence to suggest that Ice ages have been repeating in a cycle for about 600 thousand years. Something causes to Ice ages to begin and something causes them to end. CO2's puny influence on glaciation is overcome in every instance of causation in this cycle.

Why must, or perhaps better stated, how can CO2 be the ender of Snowball Earth conditions when all conditions which lead to CO2 growth are absent at the most extreme time of glaciation of Snowball Earth?

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, I believe in "Snowball Earth", I believe we have enough scientific proof that earth was frozen over, several times.

I don't pick and choose what Science to believe??? I don't believe Science differs with Genesis 1 if one can see beyond the book in front of them instead of nitpicking, they would see this also.

And as far as Noah's ark....or the Great Deluge story.... I believe what the people have written about it....throughout the entire world....there are around 100 stories throughout different regions of the earth from different religions and tribal beliefs from ancient times, that ALL SPEAK of "the Great Flood or the Great Deluge" and due to all of these various myths out there, all saying nearly the same thing from all different regions, I believe we will find scientific proof that there WAS a great flood.

I love science and all that encompasses it.

So did the Ark hold millions of pairs of animals or just millions of pears?

FOFLOL!

no, i don't believe the ark held millions of paired animals, but i do believe it held animals that were considered ''clean''.

For the cultures that have the Babylonian basis for their flood 'mythology', the infilling of the Black Sea was most likely the source of the legand. A legand with a real cause, subsequently with added religious elements.

Access : Oceanography: Noah's flood : Nature

Oceanography: Noah's flood
Quirin Schiermeier1

Quirin Schiermeier is Nature's German correspondent.

Top of pageAbstractDid a great flood once surge into the Black Sea, forming the basis of a Biblical tale? Quirin Schiermeier investigates a computer model that has added weight to the idea.

It sounds like a question more suited to the history of religion than science. Yet it is the driving force behind a whole field of geological research.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

According to this article, solar seems to play a very minor part in the present warming.

Pubs.GISS: Abstract of Benestad and Schmidt 2009

Benestad and Schmidt 2009
Benestad, R.E., and G.A. Schmidt, 2009: Solar trends and global warming. J. Geophys. Res., doi:10.1029/2008JD011639.

We use a suite of global climate model simulations for the 20th Century to assess the contribution of solar forcing to the past trends in the global mean temperature. In particular we examine how robust different published methodologies are at detecting and attributing solar-related climate change in the presence of intrinsic climate variability and multiple forcings. We demonstrate that naive application of linear analytical methods such as regression gives non-robust results. We also demonstrate that the methodologies used in Scafetta & West [2005, 2006a, b, 2007, 2008] are not robust to these same factors and that their error bars are significantly larger than reported. Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7±1% for the 20th Century, and is negligible for the warming since 1980.

Download PDF (Document is 4.9 MB)
PDF documents require a special viewer such as the free Adobe Reader.

Let me get this right..... The sun has nothing to do with the increase in temperature BUT it does in the DECREASE of temperature. Or rather the ABSENCE of warming since 1998 is due to low solar activity but from 1980 to 1997 it had NOTHING to do with the warming.

Do I have that right?

 

[Care4all]

Many thanks to Si modo for his research from Scafetta.

It's nice to know that when something is just obviously wrong, there is science to back it up. Implying, saying, stating, demanding, asking or anything else that the Sun has very little effect on warming is just so inane that it hardly even need be questioned.

Of course the Sun has effect on warming. The Sun is the source of any and all warming that our little planet enjoys. It doesn't take a wizard, a scientist or even an educated person to know this. Before we had a way to measure CO2, we had people worshipping the Sun because it provides warmth.

As soon as someone says that the Sun has had very little effect on warming, anything that comes after is just ridiculous.

no dear, you are wrong in your assumptions....

the sun was OBVIOUSLY NOT warming the earth ENOUGH to stop the ''snowball'' earth from taking place....from glaciers reaching the equator.... do you think the sun or sun flares just stopped shining on us those millions of years????

The reflection of the sun on the snow and ice prevented the sun from warming us.

I grew up in Northern Minnesota and have a great deal of respect for snow and for ice.

Every winter the snow piled up pretty deep and every summer it melted. Depending on the direction of the wind during the melt, in some years ice would pile up on the shore several yards tall and extend into the water for a pretty good distance.

It was white at this time of year, and it melted.

The Ice in the middle of Greenland does not melt because the Sun's light is not direct enough, not intense enough to do the job. Same for the Antarctic Ice. If it doesn't touch the water, it doesn't melt.

Again, when did the "Snowball Earth" conditions exist and what were these conditions? What was the TSI during this period? What was the eccentricity of the orbit of the Earth? What was the CO2 level before during and after the period?

Simply saying that this one thing might have happened and this other thing might have been the cause to this first thing that might or might not have happened is not proof. "There are things in Heaven and Eath not dreamed of in your philosophy."

We know that today, we are warming from an Ice Age. Have been for about 12 thousand years. There is good evidence to suggest that Ice ages have been repeating in a cycle for about 600 thousand years. Something causes to Ice ages to begin and something causes them to end. CO2's puny influence on glaciation is overcome in every instance of causation in this cycle.

Why must, or perhaps better stated, how can CO2 be the ender of Snowball Earth conditions when all conditions which lead to CO2 growth are absent at the most extreme time of glaciation of Snowball Earth?

Thanks for being so nice and nonpartisan in your response Code!

I am not a scientist, and I don't have all the answers as Scientists still do not have all the answers on their hypothesis of Snowball earth....(It really should be called Iceball Earth) I was not referring to the different ice ages we had in recent history....snowball Earth supposedly happen a couple of BILLION years ago....

The show I watched on the History channel this past week, theorized that the Earth was beyond the ability to melt during snowball earth because of the lacking of a dark surface that would soak in the sun to warm it verses the ice sheet that reflected the sun and it said something about the ocean conveyor belt that usually brought warm water to the north was frozen over and not functioning....it said that volcanoes and earthquakes took place that released carbon but even this was NOT ENOUGH to truly start the melt, but some kind of reaction from this, a greenhouse effect began the melt....which then broke the ice lock of the water conveyor belt and began the process of us warming again....

I am so lacking in this area of Science so I apologize for my NON Technical way of trying to explain it.

Care

 

[code1211]

no dear, you are wrong in your assumptions....

the sun was OBVIOUSLY NOT warming the earth ENOUGH to stop the ''snowball'' earth from taking place....from glaciers reaching the equator.... do you think the sun or sun flares just stopped shining on us those millions of years????

The reflection of the sun on the snow and ice prevented the sun from warming us.

I grew up in Northern Minnesota and have a great deal of respect for snow and for ice.

Every winter the snow piled up pretty deep and every summer it melted. Depending on the direction of the wind during the melt, in some years ice would pile up on the shore several yards tall and extend into the water for a pretty good distance.

It was white at this time of year, and it melted.

The Ice in the middle of Greenland does not melt because the Sun's light is not direct enough, not intense enough to do the job. Same for the Antarctic Ice. If it doesn't touch the water, it doesn't melt.

Again, when did the "Snowball Earth" conditions exist and what were these conditions? What was the TSI during this period? What was the eccentricity of the orbit of the Earth? What was the CO2 level before during and after the period?

Simply saying that this one thing might have happened and this other thing might have been the cause to this first thing that might or might not have happened is not proof. "There are things in Heaven and Eath not dreamed of in your philosophy."

We know that today, we are warming from an Ice Age. Have been for about 12 thousand years. There is good evidence to suggest that Ice ages have been repeating in a cycle for about 600 thousand years. Something causes to Ice ages to begin and something causes them to end. CO2's puny influence on glaciation is overcome in every instance of causation in this cycle.

Why must, or perhaps better stated, how can CO2 be the ender of Snowball Earth conditions when all conditions which lead to CO2 growth are absent at the most extreme time of glaciation of Snowball Earth?

Thanks for being so nice and nonpartisan in your response Code!

I am not a scientist, and I don't have all the answers as Scientists still do not have all the answers on their hypothesis of Snowball earth....(It really should be called Iceball Earth) I was not referring to the different ice ages we had in recent history....snowball Earth supposedly happen a couple of BILLION years ago....

The show I watched on the History channel this past week, theorized that the Earth was beyond the ability to melt during snowball earth because of the lacking of a dark surface that would soak in the sun to warm it verses the ice sheet that reflected the sun and it said something about the ocean conveyor belt that usually brought warm water to the north was frozen over and not functioning....it said that volcanoes and earthquakes took place that released carbon but even this was NOT ENOUGH to truly start the melt, but some kind of reaction from this, a greenhouse effect began the melt....which then broke the ice lock of the water conveyor belt and began the process of us warming again....

I am so lacking in this area of Science so I apologize for my NON Technical way of trying to explain it.

Care

Hi Care,

I'm sorry if I've given the impression of being a raving idealogue. On this topic, I feel the discussion exists on at least three levels:
1. Scientific.
2. Political
3. Economic.

Your post seemed to be on the scientific so my response stayed there. There are those that cannot keep it on the scientific and always have to bring in the other two considerations.

I think I saw the same piece that you saw. Was this the show that had the green colored ocean that became blue? If yes, then the question that I had watching it was this: Since oxygen turned the water blue and was the result of plants eating the C and exhaling the O, does this not mean both that CO2 and, probably more importantly to heat retention, Water Vapor increased at about the time that the Snowball Earth cycles ended?

The template from the intelligencia is that CO2 is the warming agent. Only very rarely will the idea of water vapor, which is about 1200 times more plentiful and is also a GHG, be raised as a factor in warming at all in shows on TV. This is curious to me.

Of course, with the advent of the enormous growth of O, CO2 had to be one of the results in our environment. H2O had to be another. Were those original little life thingys around the volcanic vents? Those little guys ate sulfur. Not enough sulfur to survive on away from the vents so they didn't spread.

Farther away were the algae thingys and they ate carbon. I've always thought that since those original life thingys ate Carbon, that must mean that Carbon was pretty thick at the time of their rise.

This is similar to the current human race surviving on hamburgers. If you look around, you find that there are McDonald's everywhere. Natural selection moves on.