Peer Review

[Kosh]

People, if you dump CO2 into a closed finite system, it eventually fills up. Get your head out your butt.

The Earth is a closed system? I thought you were an advocate of science? How can someone who claims to be an advocate of science be so scientifically incompetent?

Please show us the facts that support your contention that Earth is a "closed system".

The top of the atmosphere.

More closed minded AGW cultist church propaganda. Unless you think the top of the atmosphere stretches out into the entire cosmos.

Sounds is if these AGW cultists believe the moon landing was shot on a sound stage in Hollywood.

 

[Kosh]

Shakes head

A wee tip for you son, no one mentioned energy.

Another example of the AGW cultists continue to post when they get caught in their propaganda lies.

Just admit you were wrong and move on.

 

[Kosh]

Oh, come on people. You can't be serious.

If you take a box, which is definitely a closed system, and pound it with a hammer, it's no longer closed, but it's also destroyed.

You hit the earth with a six mile wide asteroid, on one hand it proves it's not closed. But when it comes to an ecosystem of life, that's wiped out. It's not closed, it's gone. So it was closed. Until it was hit with an hammer.

The same thing with CO2. You can overwhelm the ecosystem with poison gas. It's not any different than hitting it with a hammer or an asteroid, it's just slower.

And the far left AGW cultist Obama propaganda drones are once again proven wrong with their assertions and still continue to post if they are correct. This is proof that the mentality of a two year old controls their programming.

The only closed system in play is the far left and the AGW cultists incestuous relatives.

Schrödinger's cat
Schrödinger's cat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SwimExpert]

This is funny. Rdean is saying "closed system." But the Earth isn't a closed system.

Then when he tries to defend the stupid thing he's said, what he's describing isn't even a "closed" system. He's actually talking about a static system. He fails at his own failure.

 

[SSDD]

Short wave energy moves into the system and long wave goes out...

It is a open system A open system gains and loses energy...Greenhouse gases like water vapor, co2, and methane just reflect a little more back towards the surface.

And to date, there has never been a scientific experiment able to show that occurring. Not one. It is my feeling that the Ideal Gas Laws are more important as a warming explanation than any GHG theory.

The ideal gas laws and the incoming solar energy are basically all that are needed to accurately predict the temperature on every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere,,,the greenhouse hypothesis can't even accurately predict the temperature here without fiddling with the laws of physics, much less predict the temperature of other planets.

 

[SSDD]

Shakes head

A wee tip for you son, no one mentioned energy.

The term closed system implies the mention of both matter and energy.

closed system
noun Thermodynamics .
a region that is isolated from its surroundings by a boundary that admits no transfer of matter or energy across it.

You warmers claim to have a grasp of science but routinely drop the ball when talking about the basics....here is a clue...if you dont know the basics, you are prone to error at every turn and climate science is the perfect example.

 

[SSDD]

Oh, come on people. You can't be serious.

If you take a box, which is definitely a closed system, and pound it with a hammer, it's no longer closed, but it's also destroyed.

You hit the earth with a six mile wide asteroid, on one hand it proves it's not closed. But when it comes to an ecosystem of life, that's wiped out. It's not closed, it's gone. So it was closed. Until it was hit with an hammer.

The same thing with CO2. You can overwhelm the ecosystem with poison gas. It's not any different than hitting it with a hammer or an asteroid, it's just slower.

F'ing idiot...about 40,000 tons of cosmic dust enter our atmosphere every year....care to take a stab at how much matter naturally exits the earth system every year?

 

[Abraham3]

Oh, come on people. You can't be serious.

If you take a box, which is definitely a closed system, and pound it with a hammer, it's no longer closed, but it's also destroyed.

You hit the earth with a six mile wide asteroid, on one hand it proves it's not closed. But when it comes to an ecosystem of life, that's wiped out. It's not closed, it's gone. So it was closed. Until it was hit with an hammer.

The same thing with CO2. You can overwhelm the ecosystem with poison gas. It's not any different than hitting it with a hammer or an asteroid, it's just slower.

F'ing idiot...about 40,000 tons of cosmic dust enter our atmosphere every year....care to take a stab at how much matter naturally exits the earth system every year?

Hmm... let's see 40,000 tons / 6,569,387,000,000,000,000,000 tons mass of Earth = 6.0888481680254e-18. Over the ENTIRE 3.5 billion years the Earth has been around, this process has increased the Earth's mass by a factor of 0.0000000213110 or roughly 2 MILLIONTHS of ONE PERCENT.

And you believe that has some significance to a discussion of the last century and a half's AGW? Human emissions of gaseous CO2 in the present day mass 29,000,000,000 tons/year or 725,000 TIMES as much mass as the annual influx of meteors.

For each one pound, fist-sized meteor the Earth receives, humans release enough CO2 into the atmosphere to occupy a 0.5 atm cube roughly 360 feet on a side.

With regards to CO2 or other GHGs, the Earth is a closed system.

 

[Abraham3]

Shakes head

A wee tip for you son, no one mentioned energy.

You think that matter is inherently different than energy?

You've been quite the disappointment here son. How much net* matter->energy or energy->matter conversion do you see taking place around here? Is that a big climate factor in your expert opinion?

* - ie, aside from virtual particle pairs

 

[skookerasbil]

The whole peer review process is nothing but another fraudulent part of the climate change crowd......

Its just like "computer models". Fake terms meant to dupe the public.......meant to prove legitimacy with semantics. The far left is expert at it.

All total BS.......the peer review process is rigged. But don't take my word for it >>>>


What is the future of peer review? Why is there fraud in science? Is plagiarism out of control? Why do scientists do bad things? Is it all a case of:?All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing??




These people have a playbook......the climate activists........always have. Had its beginnings in the early 1070's ( remember "Earth Day"? ).....and really ramped up to a "science" in the early 90's.......


Read it here >>>

The Green Agenda

 

[SSDD]

With regards to CO2 or other GHGs, the Earth is a closed system.

Systems are either open or closed...but thanks for demonstrating your ignorance once again for anyone who may have missed it previously.

 

[Abraham3]

Thanks for once more demonstrating the shallowness of your weltsicht.

 

[SwimExpert]

Shakes head

A wee tip for you son, no one mentioned energy.

You think that matter is inherently different than energy?

You've been quite the disappointment here son. How much net* matter->energy or energy->matter conversion do you see taking place around here? Is that a big climate factor in your expert opinion?

* - ie, aside from virtual particle pairs

Pull your pants up. Your complete ignorance is showing.

 

[orogenicman]

The Earth is not a closed system thermodynamically. But the Earth has many cycles, one of which is the carbon cycle. Does anyone here believe that Humans have not adversely influenced the carbon cycle with our massive CO2 emissions?

 

[SSDD]

The Earth is not a closed system thermodynamically. But the Earth has many cycles, one of which is the carbon cycle. Does anyone here believe that Humans have not adversely influenced the carbon cycle with our massive CO2 emissions?

Can you describe the carbon cycle in accurate detail both before the advent of the internal combustion engine and after? No? Of course not so your belief that we have adversely influenced the cycle is just that..an unsupported belief. Let me know when you can describe it in anything approaching exact detail prior to and after the internal combustion engine...we may then have something other than your beliefs to talk about.

 

[flacaltenn]

People, if you dump CO2 into a closed finite system, it eventually fills up. Get your head out your butt.

Our First Nominee for stupidiest comment on the Enviro Forum 2014.. ^^^^^^

 

[longknife]

This entire thread reflects the huge differences between the Al Gore followers and those who think it's all junk science.

I think it shows that the Al Gore brownnosers are losing.

 

[flacaltenn]

Oh, come on people. You can't be serious.

If you take a box, which is definitely a closed system, and pound it with a hammer, it's no longer closed, but it's also destroyed.

You hit the earth with a six mile wide asteroid, on one hand it proves it's not closed. But when it comes to an ecosystem of life, that's wiped out. It's not closed, it's gone. So it was closed. Until it was hit with an hammer.

The same thing with CO2. You can overwhelm the ecosystem with poison gas. It's not any different than hitting it with a hammer or an asteroid, it's just slower.

Sure... THere's enough Carbon to do all that. But the GOOD NEWS is RDeany -- that Global Warming would virtually cease LONG before that time. Because the heating effects of CO2 in the atmos are logarithmic. Zero chance of you understanding that basic math/science factoid. But it means that the warming power of a unit of CO2 decreases quite rapidly as the concentrations go up.. Wait !! I'm explaining to a Leftist SuperStar? Who do I think I am?

So Global Warming is like an Asteroid impact on a closed system..

Go on... Tell us more...

 

[Abraham3]

And, RDean, NONE of the world's PhD climate scientists, the ones who've been predicting what our increasing CO2 levels will do to temperatures and ocean acidity - NONE of them were aware of that because FlaCalTenn is smarter than all of them rolled together.

Right? Is that what you MEAN to imply? That none of the world's scientists - the ones who developed that equation - are aware of its implications?

 

[flacaltenn]

I have been under the weather with whooping cough (pertussis) since before Christmas. I strongly recommend that if you are over 50 and have not been vaccinated for whooping cough, you get it at your next doctor visit. I have had the flu several times and the flu doesn't have anything on whooping cough if you are over 50.

i haven't really felt like talking to the warmist idiots on the board (you know who you are) but have watched the steady flow of peer reviewed material contradicting alarmist claims. It just keeps getting worse and worse for acoloytes of the church of AGW.

New Paper Finds Another Amplification Mechanism by Which the Sun Controls Climate

A new paper published in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics finds more evidence of solar amplification mechanisms by which the Sun controls climate change. According to the authors, changes in solar activity affect cosmic rays [Svensmark et al] and the distribution of solar energy between different layers of the atmosphere [stratosphere and troposphere]. This then results in third order effects upon natural atmospheric oscillations such as the Southern Oscillation, North Atlantic Oscillation, Scandinavian Pattern, and the Quasi Biennial Oscillation (QBO). These atmospheric oscillations in turn have global effects upon climate change.


New paper finds glaciers have been melting at the same rate since 1850, no acceleration predicted

A paper published today in The Cryosphere finds global glaciers melted at the same rate in the first half of the 20th century as in the second half. This implies no man-made influence on glacier melt, since the melting began naturally at the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850 with "safe" CO2 levels, and continued at the same rate throughout the 20th century with no acceleration. The authors predict glacier mass loss will continue at the same rate in the 21st century and have "relatively weak dependence" on future greenhouse gas emissions.


71 new papers reported in 2013 demonstrating the sun controls climate, not manmade CO2

Club du Soleil has compiled a listing of new papers published during 2013 demonstrating that the Sun controls climate, not man-made CO2. Visit Club du Soleil for many more published in 2012 and earlier.


New computer model claims that global warming decreases cloudsl

A new paper published in Nature claims global warming reduces low clouds, the opposite of what has been claimed in the past. For example, the forthcoming IPCC AR5 notes climate models have predicted that in a warmer climate, increased evaporation will increase low cloud thickness, vertical, and horizontal extent, all of which increases reflection of sunlight [albedo], cools the planet, and acts as a negative feedback.


New paper finds globe was warmer, sea levels rose faster and higher during the last interglacial

A paper published today in the Journal of Quaternary Science notes that during the last interglacial, "global temperatures were 2 °C higher and rates of sea-level rise [greater than 5.6mm/year], leading to sea levels 6.6–9.4 meters [22 to 31 feet] higher than present. The source(s) of this sea-level rise remain fiercely debated."

Thus, during the last interglacial, the globe was naturally 2 °C warmer, sea levels rose 5 times faster than at the present, sea levels were up to 31 feet higher than the present, and Antarctic sea ice was much less than the present, all with "safe" levels of CO2. There is no evidence that climate change within the present interglacial is any different, unprecedented, unnatural, unusual, or due to man-made CO2.


New paper finds Antarctica had much less sea ice during last interglacial

A paper published today in Climate of the Past finds Antarctic sea ice extent was much less than the present during the last interglacial period ~120,000 years ago. According to the authors, "During the last interglacial, the [sea ice proxy at 2 sites in Antarctica] are only half of the Holocene levels, in line with higher temperatures during that period, indicating much reduced sea ice extent in the Atlantic as well as the Indian Ocean sector of the Southern Ocean."

Prior research has also shown that Antarctic sea ice has markedly increased over past 7000 years since the Holocene Climate Optimum, when temperatures were significantly higher than the present.


Paper fnds solar activity explains climate change over the past 200,000 years

A paper published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters finds solar activity was strongly correlated to climate change over the past 200,000 years. The paper reconstructs solar geomagnetic field strength using the 10Be isotope proxy of cosmic rays, which is inversely related to solar activity. The reconstruction in Figure 2 shows solar activity at the end of the record ["near present day"] was at some of the highest levels of the past 200,000 years, and solar geomagnetic field intensity approximately 3 times higher than during the ice age ~180,000 years ago.
Figure 4 below shows the strong correlation between solar activity [grey and black] and the climate change proxy [d18O in red] over the past 200,000 years. According to the author, "The marine δ18O [temperature proxy] record and solar modulation are strongly correlated at the 100,000 year timescale. It is proposed that variations in solar activity control the 100,000 year glacial–interglacial cycles."


New paper finds the Gulf Stream has not slowed down, contradicts alarmist's claims

A new paper published in Geophysical Research Letters finds "In contrast to recent claims of a Gulf Stream slow-down, two decades of directly measured velocity across the current show no evidence of a decrease." The paper contradicts claims by the IPCC that the Gulf Stream has slowed down due to global warming and alleged secondary climate effects.


New paper finds Arctic sea ice is controlled by natural cycles

A paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters finds Arctic sea ice extent is determined primarily by the natural ~60-90 year cycle of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation [AMO], not greenhouse gases.

According to the authors, "Arctic sea ice is intrinsically linked to Atlantic multidecadal [natural] variability" finding a ~60-90 year cycle of "Covariability between sea ice and Atlantic multidecadal variability as represented by the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) index is evident during the instrumental record."

The paper adds to many other peer-reviewed publications finding changes in Arctic sea ice are primarily related to natural variability of ocean and atmospheric oscillations, storm and wind activity, and not changes in greenhouse gases.

New paper finds corals thriving in 'naturally acidified' waters

A paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters finds coral reefs are thriving in "naturally acidified" waters in Palau, one of the top diving destinations in the world.

According to the authors, "we report the existence of highly diverse, coral-dominated reef communities under chronically low pH and aragonite saturation state...where acidification levels approach those projected for the western tropical Pacific open ocean by 2100. Nevertheless, coral diversity, cover and calcification rates are maintained [normal] across this natural acidification gradient."

New paper finds rivers and lakes are large net sources of CO2 to the atmosphere

A new paper published in Nature finds inland waters such as rivers and lakes are large annual net sources of CO2 to the atmosphere. The authors find inland waters contribute 2.1 Petagrams/yr of CO2 to the atmosphere, which is much larger than previously thought and equivalent to 35% of man-made CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels of 6 Petagrams/yr.

New paper finds the South China Sea is a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere

A paper published today in Biogeosciences finds the South China Sea is a net annual source of CO2 to the atmosphere. The findings oppose the commonly held assumption that oceans serve as a net sink for CO2, and add to several other recent peer-reviewed papers finding the oceans can act as net annual sources of CO2, and which demonstrate many prior assumptions of the global carbon cycle may be highly erroneous.

Based upon 14 field surveys conducted between 2003-2008, the authors find "The estimate of annual sea–air CO2 fluxes showed that most areas of the South China Sea proper served as weak to moderate sources of the atmospheric CO2." " Overall the four [regions of the South China Sea] contributed (18 ± 10) × 1012 g C yr−1 to the atmospheric CO2."

New paper finds ocean crustaceans not affected by CO2 levels 8 times higher than the present

A new paper published in Biogeosciences finds copepods [a crustacean] were not affected by "CO2 acidified" seawater at CO2 levels of 3300 ppm, which is more than 8 times higher than the present. According to the authors, "Following the 28-day exposure period, survival was found to be unaffected by exposure to 3300 ppm CO2" and "Together, the findings indicate that apCO2 level ≤2000 ppm (the highest CO2 level expected by the year 2300) will probably not directly affect survival in C. finmarchicus."

Hansen's NASA GISS data confirm the Arctic was warmer 1920-1940 and cooled 1940 - 2000

A 2005 paper published in the ICES Journal of Marine Science shows NASA GISS data demonstrating that 20th century Arctic temperatures peaked between 1920 to 1940, followed by a decline over the remainder of the 20th century. According to the authors,
"From approximately 1920 to 1940, North Atlantic Waters from Greenland to Norway warmed significantly, by as much as 3–4°C (Tåning, 1948). Although the causes of this event are not well understood, there is no doubt of its authenticity or widespread occurrence in temperature records (Figure 7)." and "a major warming event in Icelandic and Greenland waters between 1920 and 1940 was extensively documented (e.g. Sæmundsson, 1932; Ahlmann, 1948; Lysgaard, 1948)."

New paper how natural ocean oscillations control clouds and temperature thousands of miles away
A new paper published in Climate Dynamics finds a mechanism by which the natural North Atlantic Oscillation [NAO] controls atmospheric waves that affect cloud formation, which in turn controls surface temperatures and crop yields in far-away NE China [over 8,000 miles from the Atlantic].

Climate alarmists simplistically claim warming increases water vapor in the atmosphere and clouds, and erroneously claim that clouds have a positive feedback effect to cause more warming. However, this new paper finds stronger cold surges increase cloud formation, and that those clouds have a cooling and moderating effect on temperatures:
"stronger cold surges can accordingly increase cloud amount, resulting in an a decrease in daily maximum temperature and an increase in daily minimum temperature, thereby leading to a decrease in the daily temperature range." [and vice-versa as shown below]

New paper confirms that the sun was particularly active during the latter 20th century

A paper published today in Annales Geophysicae reconstructs solar geomagnetic activity over the past 167 years and shows a decrease of the interplanetary magnetic field [IMF, an indicator of solar activity] from 1846 to the first part of the 20th century, followed by increase of approximately 50% in the IMF over the twentieth century. The new paper corroborates author M. Lockwood's prior peer-reviewed publications demonstrating that the Sun was particularly active in the latter 20th century.

And it just goes on and on. So let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin.

Every one of those is worth a read. Especially like to see the research being done on the Ocean Acidification front coming along nicely.. We didn't actually know very much about pH of Ecosystems when the hysterical warnings first hit the press. Now we know more.

Finding MORE precise descriptions of CO2 budget on land and sea is always good. And at THIS POINT -- ((with the science being settled and all that)) we shouldn't really be finding surprises about natural CO2 volumes. Always figured that the Trenberth Energy diagram was a fortunate series of bad guesses resulting in him finding EXACTLY the miniscule number he required to match observed warming. Pretty sure -- it's obvious by now..

Couple of papers in there from the REAL climate scientists at Georgia Tech. Must doubly piss off warmers that a bunch of yayhoos from Nascar country are actually figuring out how the climate works..

Good stuff.. When YOU get sick -- good things happen..