Keeling Curve - Keeling & Whorf, Scripps Institution
Law Dome Antarctic Ice Cores - Etheridge et al (CSIRC)
Petit et al, Nature 1999; Am Ass Adv Science November 2005; Science November 2005
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
How can the World Prepare for Climate Change and the Magnetic Polar Shift?
- Thread starter Gantlemagne
- Start date
Keeling Curve - Keeling & Whorf, Scripps Institution
Law Dome Antarctic Ice Cores - Etheridge et al (CSIRC)
Petit et al, Nature 1999; Am Ass Adv Science November 2005; Science November 2005
Gantlemagne
Active Member
- Thread starter
- #82
That may fit in with the Axial Zodiac Cycle theory I have about the Axial Rotation; perhaps if you explained what the amounts do, I can clearly see there are cycles on the graphs, but how would that affect the atmosphere. Explain to your audience.View attachment 337592
View attachment 337593
View attachment 337594
View attachment 337596
Keeling Curve - Keeling & Whorf, Scripps Institution
Law Dome Antarctic Ice Cores - Etheridge et al (CSIRC)
Petit et al, Nature 1999; Am Ass Adv Science November 2005; Science November 2005
Gantlemagne
Active Member
- Thread starter
- #83
I see, on these graphs, there are high points and low points about each 100,000 or so, which would indicate about a 200,000 year Galactic Cycle, in My mind; and means what though? There are years indicated and CO2 levels, how does that correspond to glaciers?
You are asking a lot. I don't have the time to do it proper justice. So I'll just do a quick summary.That may fit in with the Axial Zodiac Cycle theory I have about the Axial Rotation; perhaps if you explained what the amounts do, I can clearly see there are cycles on the graphs, but how would that affect the atmosphere. Explain to your audience.View attachment 337592
View attachment 337593
View attachment 337594
View attachment 337596
Keeling Curve - Keeling & Whorf, Scripps Institution
Law Dome Antarctic Ice Cores - Etheridge et al (CSIRC)
Petit et al, Nature 1999; Am Ass Adv Science November 2005; Science November 2005
The world we live in today is an icehouse world. It is characterized by bipolar glaciation. We think of this as normal, but it's not. For most of the past 55 million years our planet was a greenhouse world. Bipolar glaciation is geologically rare, possibly unique. No other previous instance of bipolar glaciation has been recorded in the geologic record. The icehouse world we live in today is characterized by glacial - interglacial cycles and a high latitudinal thermal gradient.The modern icehouse world we live in today differed strongly from the greenhouse world in that the greenhouse world did not have bipolar glaciation and had a low latitude thermal gradient. The start of the transition from the greenhouse world to an icehouse world began 55 million years ago when the Azolla event drew down atmospheric CO2 from 3500 ppm to 1000 ppm, but it wasn't until the last 5 million years that we actually transitioned to an icehouse world. The oxygen isotope curve is well established for the Cenozoic and shows that the trend is for a cooling earth. This curve shows the cooling trend over the last 55 million years. Note the glaciation markers on the graph. About 5 million years ago the earth started to rapidly cool as evidenced by the saw tooth behavior of the oxygen isotope curve which is a proxy for temperature.
It was plate tectonics which set the stage for bipolar glaciation and the icehouse world we live in today. The north pole was isolated by warm marine currents by landmasses. The south pole was isolated from warm marine currents because Antarctica is centered over the pole. When the poles become isolated from warm marine currents the threshold is lowered for glaciation at the poles. The south pole has a lower threshold for glaciation than the north pole because a continent is parked over the south pole while the north pole is somewhat less isolated because other land masses are interfering with the circulation of the warm marine currents of the ocean rather than a landmass being parked over the pole.
Climate models predict that extensive glaciation cannot occur at the South Pole until atmospheric CO2 reaches 750 ppm. Climate models predict that extensive glaciation cannot occur at the North Pole until atmospheric CO2 reaches 250 ppm. Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciation
Five million years ago the earth began to rapidly cool. The glacial-interglacial cycles of the past 400,000 years were triggered by Milankovitch cycles. Before the glacial-interglacial cycles could be triggered, two conditions needed to be met; the north and south poles had to be isolated from warm marine currents and atmospheric CO2 needed to be 400 ppm or less.
These conditions still exist today.
When the climate cools, the oceans suck CO2 out of the atmosphere (100 to 250 ppm = glacial cycle). Reinforcing the cooler climate. When the climate warms, the oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere (>250 ppm = interglacial cycle). Reinforcing the warmer climate.I see, on these graphs, there are high points and low points about each 100,000 or so, which would indicate about a 200,000 year Galactic Cycle, in My mind; and means what though? There are years indicated and CO2 levels, how does that correspond to glaciers?
Atmospheric CO2 lags temperature by ~800 years. Geologically speaking, CO2 does not drive climate change, CO2 reinforces climate change.
~94% of CO2 is contained in the ocean.
Last edited:
Gantlemagne
Active Member
- Thread starter
- #86
From what I note here:You are asking a lot. I don't have the time to do it proper justice. So I'll just do a quick summary.That may fit in with the Axial Zodiac Cycle theory I have about the Axial Rotation; perhaps if you explained what the amounts do, I can clearly see there are cycles on the graphs, but how would that affect the atmosphere. Explain to your audience.View attachment 337592
View attachment 337593
View attachment 337594
View attachment 337596
Keeling Curve - Keeling & Whorf, Scripps Institution
Law Dome Antarctic Ice Cores - Etheridge et al (CSIRC)
Petit et al, Nature 1999; Am Ass Adv Science November 2005; Science November 2005
The world we live in today is an icehouse world. It is characterized by bipolar glaciation. We think of this as normal, but it's not. For most of the past 55 million years our planet was a greenhouse world. Bipolar glaciation is geologically rare, possibly unique. No other previous instance of bipolar glaciation has been recorded in the geologic record. The icehouse world we live in today is characterized by glacial - interglacial cycles and a high latitudinal thermal gradient.The modern icehouse world we live in today differed strongly from the greenhouse world in that the greenhouse world did not have bipolar glaciation and had a low latitude thermal gradient. The start of the transition from the greenhouse world to an icehouse world began 55 million years ago when the Azolla event drew down atmospheric CO2 from 3500 ppm to 1000 ppm, but it wasn't until the last 5 million years that we actually transitioned to an icehouse world. The oxygen isotope curve is well established for the Cenozoic and shows that the trend is for a cooling earth. This curve shows the cooling trend over the last 55 million years. Note the glaciation markers on the graph. About 5 million years ago the earth started to rapidly cool as evidenced by the saw tooth behavior of the oxygen isotope curve which is a proxy for temperature.
View attachment 337606
It was plate tectonics which set the stage for bipolar glaciation and the icehouse world we live in today. The north pole was isolated by warm marine currents by landmasses. The south pole was isolated from warm marine currents because Antarctica is centered over the pole. When the poles become isolated from warm marine currents the threshold is lowered for glaciation at the poles. The south pole has a lower threshold for glaciation than the north pole because a continent is parked over the south pole while the north pole is somewhat less isolated because other land masses are interfering with the circulation of the warm marine currents of the ocean rather than a landmass being parked over the pole.
View attachment 337610
Climate models predict that extensive glaciation cannot occur at the South Pole until atmospheric CO2 reaches 750 ppm. Climate models predict that extensive glaciation cannot occur at the North Pole until atmospheric CO2 reaches 250 ppm. Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciation
View attachment 337611
Five million years ago the earth began to rapidly cool. The glacial-interglacial cycles of the past 400,000 years were triggered by Milankovitch cycles. Before the glacial-interglacial cycles could be triggered, two conditions needed to be met; the north and south poles had to be isolated from warm marine currents and atmospheric CO2 needed to be 400 ppm or less.
These conditions still exist today.
We actually appear to be at approaching a ~10,000 year high point that may increase by 3 (~37F) to 4(~39) more degrees based on the theorized Galactic Cycle of about 200,000 years. Looks like the planet gets really cold, a Hoth (Star Wars) type of planet at the low points, -25 (-77F) at the polar regions; which is likely not as adverse to life at the equator considering the continuance of life on this planet.
Glacial-Interglacial Cycles | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
Feedbacks related to ice and atmospheric carbon dioxide caused abrupt warming during the transition from glacial to interglacial conditions.
Attachments
When the climate cools, the oceans suck CO2 out of the atmosphere (100 to 250 ppm = glacial cycle). Reinforcing the cooler climate. When the climate warms, the oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere (>250 ppm = interglacial cycle). Reinforcing the warmer climate.I see, on these graphs, there are high points and low points about each 100,000 or so, which would indicate about a 200,000 year Galactic Cycle, in My mind; and means what though? There are years indicated and CO2 levels, how does that correspond to glaciers?
Atmospheric CO2 lags temperature by ~800 years. Geologically speaking, CO2 does not drive climate change, CO2 reinforces climate change.
~94% of CO2 is contained in the ocean.
Yes, it is called the geologic carbon cycle and without it the current global warming would be much worse.
See:
Evolution of the atmosphere - Biological Carbon Cycle
Evolution of the atmosphere - Biological Carbon Cycle: The biological processes of photosynthesis and respiration mediate the exchange of carbon between the atmosphere or hydrosphere and the biosphere, In these reactions, CH2O crudely represents organic material, the biomass of bacteria...
www.britannica.com
Under the geologic carbon cycle subheading.
Note this chart:
Carbon in Earth's crust
| form | total amount (Pg* C) |
|---|---|
| *One Pg (abbreviation for petagram) equals one quadrillion (1015) grams. Entries refer to amounts of carbon. | |
| atmospheric CO (as of 1978) | 696 |
| oceanic carbon dioxide, bicarbonate ion, and carbonate ion | 34,800 |
| limestones, other carbonate sediments | 64,800,000 |
| carbonate in metamorphic rocks | 2,640,000 |
| total biomass | 594 |
| organic carbon in ocean water | 996 |
| organic carbon in soils | 2,064 |
| organic carbon in sedimentary rocks | 12,000,000 |
[Organic carbon in metamorphic rocks - 3,480,000]
Thankfully, atmospheric CO2 (696 petagrams of carbon) is much less than oceanic carbonate ions (CO3 & HCO3) (34,800 pg. of C).
So your point is excellent. However, if the 696 pg of C in the atmosphere was just 1% of that in the oceans, the oceans would have 69,600 pg of C. It has roughly half that - so 98% would be the estimate - comparable to your estimate of 94%!
Or am I missing other forms of carbon besides carbonate ions in earth's oceans?
Bottom line - we can be thankful our earth has been fine tuned so that over 64 million petagrams of C are in earth's crustal carbonates. What a blessing!
After all, Venus' atmosphere has roughly 64+ million petagrams of C as CO2. We should thank Jehovah earth did not turn out like Venus!
Gantlemagne
Active Member
- Thread starter
- #88
Sorry about that, more like 125,000 years.Galactic Cycle of about 200,000 years.
Gantlemagne
Active Member
- Thread starter
- #89
I'll refrain from praying to disaster, knowing Hebrew.We should thank Jehovah earth did not turn out like Venus!
Carbon Dioxide from breathing. So, the more carbon dioxide, as opposed to carbon monoxide, that's in the atmosphere, the warmer the planet is, and the more plants can grow... which is why deciduous and tropical forests are important.Or am I missing other forms of carbon besides carbonate ions in earth's oceans?
What I want to know is how can We maintain high amounts of water vapor and CO2 in the air so the Galactic Winter isn't so cold here? I think Hydrogen FC vehicles will put a lot of water vapor into the air... which will likely come down as precipitation in cooler environments.
Gantlemagne
Active Member
- Thread starter
- #90
Looks as though We have some high activity Sunspots headed Our way this week.
Gantlemagne
Active Member
- Thread starter
- #91
Sea level graphs are an indication of something different than that ~125,000 year cycle. High Sea Levels indicate a much, much warmer planet. I'm beginning to think that whatever scientists and researchers are using to chronologically date objects is not as accurate as they say.When the climate cools, the oceans suck CO2 out of the atmosphere (100 to 250 ppm = glacial cycle). Reinforcing the cooler climate. When the climate warms, the oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere (>250 ppm = interglacial cycle). Reinforcing the warmer climate.I see, on these graphs, there are high points and low points about each 100,000 or so, which would indicate about a 200,000 year Galactic Cycle, in My mind; and means what though? There are years indicated and CO2 levels, how does that correspond to glaciers?
Atmospheric CO2 lags temperature by ~800 years. Geologically speaking, CO2 does not drive climate change, CO2 reinforces climate change.
~94% of CO2 is contained in the ocean.
Yes, it is called the geologic carbon cycle and without it the current global warming would be much worse.
See:
Evolution of the atmosphere - Biological Carbon Cycle
Evolution of the atmosphere - Biological Carbon Cycle: The biological processes of photosynthesis and respiration mediate the exchange of carbon between the atmosphere or hydrosphere and the biosphere, In these reactions, CH2O crudely represents organic material, the biomass of bacteria...
Under the geologic carbon cycle subheading.
Note this chart:
Carbon in Earth's crust
form total amount (Pg* C) *One Pg (abbreviation for petagram) equals one quadrillion (1015) grams. Entries refer to amounts of carbon. atmospheric CO (as of 1978) 696 oceanic carbon dioxide, bicarbonate ion, and carbonate ion 34,800 limestones, other carbonate sediments 64,800,000 carbonate in metamorphic rocks 2,640,000 total biomass 594 organic carbon in ocean water 996 organic carbon in soils 2,064 organic carbon in sedimentary rocks 12,000,000
[Organic carbon in metamorphic rocks - 3,480,000]
Thankfully, atmospheric CO2 (696 petagrams of carbon) is much less than oceanic carbonate ions (CO3 & HCO3) (34,800 pg. of C).
So your point is excellent. However, if the 696 pg of C in the atmosphere was just 1% of that in the oceans, the oceans would have 69,600 pg of C. It has roughly half that - so 98% would be the estimate - comparable to your estimate of 94%!
Or am I missing other forms of carbon besides carbonate ions in earth's oceans?
Bottom line - we can be thankful our earth has been fine tuned so that over 64 million petagrams of C are in earth's crustal carbonates. What a blessing!
After all, Venus' atmosphere has roughly 64+ million petagrams of C as CO2. We should thank Jehovah earth did not turn out like Venus!
But this image matches the the data from the Dome Fuji Icecore.
Source: File:Post-Glacial Sea Level.png - Wikimedia Commons
Gantlemagne
Active Member
- Thread starter
- #93
I think that in time... somethings science is measuring now from the past will be revealed as incorrect, considering We, as a Civilization, have only been keeping records of such things as sea level rise until recently. We calculated the Axial rotation time, which also matches approximately with the Zodiac Cycle to roughly 26,000 years.... I think this has meaning.
Source: Axial precession - Wikipedia
Source: Astrological age - Wikipedia
Based on this cycle, the planet is probably at the Mid Spring point, according to the Zodiac, which means that if this Axial Cycle operates in the same way the Solar Cycle operates, then We have about ~8,600 years until the cool down starts again, and ~6,500 years until maximum heat is achieved... not considering this 125,000 year cycle that appears to be in Our ice samples.
But... if all the ice in Antarctica melts, then I guess the ice core dating might be off...
Source: Axial precession - Wikipedia
Source: Astrological age - Wikipedia
Based on this cycle, the planet is probably at the Mid Spring point, according to the Zodiac, which means that if this Axial Cycle operates in the same way the Solar Cycle operates, then We have about ~8,600 years until the cool down starts again, and ~6,500 years until maximum heat is achieved... not considering this 125,000 year cycle that appears to be in Our ice samples.
But... if all the ice in Antarctica melts, then I guess the ice core dating might be off...
I appreciate your in depth research. However, a discussion of climate change should include this speech which summarizes the problems of increased CO2 (way to rapid for evolutionary adaptation):
I don't agree there's a problem.
Gantlemagne
Active Member
- Thread starter
- #95
I appreciate your in depth research. However, a discussion of climate change should include this speech which summarizes the problems of increased CO2 (way to rapid for evolutionary adaptation):
Not necessarily. I noticed that My body temperature is consistently cooler than the average Human, around 97.6. Might be an evolutionary adaptation for a warmer environment. We can follow Canada and Ethiopia's example of planting large amounts of trees.
Gantlemagne
Active Member
- Thread starter
- #96
There will probably be a point of Axial Solar Zenith, or an Axial Solstice, and if the whole planet is evenly getting direct Sunlight, then the whole planet may be as the Equator; but the planet does not spin on a perfect vertical Axis; so the likelihood of the whole planet being as the Equator in terms of climate is unlikely.I think that in time... somethings science is measuring now from the past will be revealed as incorrect, considering We, as a Civilization, have only been keeping records of such things as sea level rise until recently. We calculated the Axial rotation time, which also matches approximately with the Zodiac Cycle to roughly 26,000 years.... I think this has meaning.
Source: Axial precession - Wikipedia
Source: Astrological age - Wikipedia
Based on this cycle, the planet is probably at the Mid Spring point, according to the Zodiac, which means that if this Axial Cycle operates in the same way the Solar Cycle operates, then We have about ~8,600 years until the cool down starts again, and ~6,500 years until maximum heat is achieved... not considering this 125,000 year cycle that appears to be in Our ice samples.
But... if all the ice in Antarctica melts, then I guess the ice core dating might be off...
Gantlemagne
Active Member
- Thread starter
- #97
Earthquake in Sweden.Yeah, sad really. But, I did just warn the governments of Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Britain and Ireland, and Scandinavia about the possibility of a Stroregge (Storegga) Slide event that could happen with a Greenland ice sheet or glacial collapse.No. It's all but proven that human activity is responsible for all of the rapid warming we have observed over the last 100 years. This nonsense belongs in the conspiracy theory section, not the science section.There might be a component of Human Caused Climate Change.
So, as i guessed, you are, indeed, making the absurd implication that the very scientists who discovered and taught you that are now suddenly laboring under the ignorance of their own discoveries and life's work. Ridiculous.Leading scientists and politicians are not recognizing the Natural Order of Climate Change...
Gantlemagne
Active Member
- Thread starter
- #98
Based on the size and amount, I see 3 larger active Sunspots in the same longitudinal Solar region; intelligence's safe to issue a SEISMIC ACTIVITY ALERT as the planet is about to face an increase of Solar radiation.View attachment 337740
Looks as though We have some high activity Sunspots headed Our way this week.
I'll refrain from praying to disaster, knowing Hebrew.We should thank Jehovah earth did not turn out like Venus!
Carbon Dioxide from breathing. So, the more carbon dioxide, as opposed to carbon monoxide, that's in the atmosphere, the warmer the planet is, and the more plants can grow... which is why deciduous and tropical forests are important.Or am I missing other forms of carbon besides carbonate ions in earth's oceans?
What I want to know is how can We maintain high amounts of water vapor and CO2 in the air so the Galactic Winter isn't so cold here? I think Hydrogen FC vehicles will put a lot of water vapor into the air... which will likely come down as precipitation in cooler environments.
The time scale is off. It is not 125,000 years vs. 200,000 years. Greta Thunberg pointed to estimates of about 8 years.
One thing for sure, the current global warming, with attendant extinctions, forest fires, rise in sea level, etc., is occurring at a speed micro-evolution would have difficulty adapting to - extinctions is proof of this.
Of course, man is destroying the environment in many more ways than global warming - forests are not only being destroyed by wildfires.
I appreciate your in depth research. However, a discussion of climate change should include this speech which summarizes the problems of increased CO2 (way to rapid for evolutionary adaptation):
Not necessarily. I noticed that My body temperature is consistently cooler than the average Human, around 97.6. Might be an evolutionary adaptation for a warmer environment. We can follow Canada and Ethiopia's example of planting large amounts of trees.
My body temperature is also about the same amount cooler - I thought that was simply due to lower metabolism at old age - or simply the lack of immune system response to sickness - as I found out this while in the hospital with bronchitis leading to pneumonia.
Planting trees - excellent idea, However, we harvested trees on our rural acreage and did not have to plant any trees - amazing how fast so many trees are growing. The earth can heal which is why Revelation 11:18 will solve the problem after our Creator destroys those destroying the earth.
Btw - we did not burn the branches and small trees left lying on the ground to rot. Locals here think burning is better. But the truth is that burning releases CO2 into the atmosphere while composting locks CO2 (via carbohydrates) in the soil - increasing top soil while lowering atmospheric CO2.
Btw - the harvested trees are being used for lumber. The main problem is the destruction of old growth forests - that happened here long before we moved here 20 years ago. The new forests only take a few years to become young forests which, btw, are more resistant to damage by hurricanes than older forests with taller trees.
One of the advantages to not planting trees after harvesting them is biodiversity. Rather than planting trees, we simply discourage some species that tend to predominate - locally Privet and wild blackberries are an example - not that we removed all of them btw.
The environment is also helped by our mowing infrequently which allows all sorts of plants, including beautiful wildflowers, to grow - which in turn help a biodiverse insect population and some birds (e.g. hummingbirds).
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Replies
- 13
- Views
- 300
- Replies
- 15
- Views
- 140
- Replies
- 9
- Views
- 85
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 511
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 14
- Views
- 310
- Replies
- 42
- Views
- 244
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8069
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-