That Shiny Thing in the Sky and Global Temperatures

[ding]

And there's a good reason for it. The polar regions are isolated from the warmer marine currents. Plus a couple of other geologic features that provided the background conditions for a transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet.

Too simplistic an explanation for a complex system ... and these "greenhouse planet" and "icehouse planet" are just made up terms, they don't mean anything outside political hack websites ... perhaps some definitions are in order? ...

Ocean currents play a very minor roll in the energy transfer ... far and away, it's the air currents that drive the climate system's energy transfer ... in fact, it's air currents that cause ocean currents ... and the breakup of Pangaea and the creation of the Atlantic ocean is coincident with the Earth's cooling in recent years, theories abound as to explain this ... but truthfully. it's still a mystery why our planet changes back and forth ... just random chance humans evolved during a horrifically cold period ... we'll be extinct long before the Earth warms back up to her normal 15 - 20ºC above today's temperatures ...

And yet the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet is well documented. Do you even oxygen isotope curve?

So unless you believe in magic, there are reasons for this transition and those reasons start with the configuration of the plates and certain other geographic features which influence the circulation of heat; both in the ocean an in the atmosphere. It's not that complicated to find the smoking gun.

 

[ding]

we'll be extinct long before the Earth warms back up to her normal 15 - 20ºC above today's temperatures ...

For that to happen would require the plates to remove the background configuration of an isolated polar region in the northern hemisphere which is the primary reason we have bipolar glaciation today. So sure, when that happens we will be long gone.

Why is it that extensive glaciation in the southern hemisphere occurs at ~750 ppm and extensive glaciation occurs at the northern hemisphere at ~280 ppm?

 

[ReinyDays]

And yet the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet is well documented. Do you even oxygen isotope curve?

So unless you believe in magic, there are reasons for this transition and those reasons start with the configuration of the plates and certain other geographic features which influence the circulation of heat; both in the ocean an in the atmosphere. It's not that complicated to find the smoking gun.

How are you documenting something you won't define? ... the O-18 curve shows us clearly in a severe "icehouse" state ... as cold as it's been since the Cambrian ... permanent ice at sea level has been quite rare in the past half billion years ... dinosaur fossils abound in the polar regions ...

For that to happen would require the plates to remove the background configuration of an isolated polar region in the northern hemisphere which is the primary reason we have bipolar glaciation today. So sure, when that happens we will be long gone.

Why is it that extensive glaciation in the southern hemisphere occurs at ~750 ppm and extensive glaciation occurs at the northern hemisphere at ~280 ppm?

Above 30ºS latitude, the Earth is almost entirely open ocean ... no glaciation at all ... just a thin sliver of South America is all ... this might surprise you, but at 415 ppm, we do have extensive glaciation in the Northern Hemisphere ... Eurasia and North America ... so I don't know why these glaciers disappear at 280 ppm, they don't seem to ...

 

[ding]

And yet the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet is well documented. Do you even oxygen isotope curve?

So unless you believe in magic, there are reasons for this transition and those reasons start with the configuration of the plates and certain other geographic features which influence the circulation of heat; both in the ocean an in the atmosphere. It's not that complicated to find the smoking gun.

How are you documenting something you won't define? ... the O-18 curve shows us clearly in a severe "icehouse" state ... as cold as it's been since the Cambrian ... permanent ice at sea level has been quite rare in the past half billion years ... dinosaur fossils abound in the polar regions ...

For that to happen would require the plates to remove the background configuration of an isolated polar region in the northern hemisphere which is the primary reason we have bipolar glaciation today. So sure, when that happens we will be long gone.

Why is it that extensive glaciation in the southern hemisphere occurs at ~750 ppm and extensive glaciation occurs at the northern hemisphere at ~280 ppm?

Above 30ºS latitude, the Earth is almost entirely open ocean ... no glaciation at all ... just a thin sliver of South America is all ... this might surprise you, but at 415 ppm, we do have extensive glaciation in the Northern Hemisphere ... Eurasia and North America ... so I don't know why these glaciers disappear at 280 ppm, they don't seem to ...

C'mon man. Bipolar glaciation is self descriptive, right? The modern ice house world is characterized by glacial / interglacial cycles and has a high latitudinal thermal gradient. The Mesozoic greenhouse world differed strongly from the modern icehouse world because there was no bipolar glaciation and there was a low latitudinal thermal gradient.

Gotta run. I will address the rest when I get back from the range. Gotta go sight in some scopes.

 

[ReinyDays]

C'mon man. Bipolar glaciation is self descriptive, right? The modern ice house world is characterized by glacial / interglacial cycles and has a high latitudinal thermal gradient. The Mesozoic greenhouse world differed strongly from the modern icehouse world because there was no bipolar glaciation and there was a low latitudinal thermal gradient.

View attachment 417068
View attachment 417070


View attachment 417067

Gotta run. I will address the rest when I get back from the range. Gotta go sight in some scopes.

Well ... no ... I have no idea what you mean by "bipolar glaciation" ... how is this different from monopolar glaciation or tripolar glaciation? ... why just the poles, those are deserts, glaciation is inhibited ...

Start with your definitions of icehouse and greenhouse Earths ... with regard to you post #38: " ... a transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet." in the context of temperature records between 1895 and 2019 ... late Holocene, not early Quaternary ...

 

[ding]

Above 30ºS latitude, the Earth is almost entirely open ocean ... no glaciation at all ... just a thin sliver of South America is all ... this might surprise you, but at 415 ppm, we do have extensive glaciation in the Northern Hemisphere ... Eurasia and North America ... so I don't know why these glaciers disappear at 280 ppm, they don't seem to ...

I wish I had seen this earlier. Stop being silly. The distinction is magnitude. If you like I can provide the link on the thresholds and you can argue with the authors of that paper. Suffice it so say, the difference in the thresholds has to do with the location of the landmasses. So plate tectonics play a big part.

 

[ding]

C'mon man. Bipolar glaciation is self descriptive, right? The modern ice house world is characterized by glacial / interglacial cycles and has a high latitudinal thermal gradient. The Mesozoic greenhouse world differed strongly from the modern icehouse world because there was no bipolar glaciation and there was a low latitudinal thermal gradient.

View attachment 417068
View attachment 417070


View attachment 417067

Gotta run. I will address the rest when I get back from the range. Gotta go sight in some scopes.

Well ... no ... I have no idea what you mean by "bipolar glaciation" ... how is this different from monopolar glaciation or tripolar glaciation? ... why just the poles, those are deserts, glaciation is inhibited ...

Start with your definitions of icehouse and greenhouse Earths ... with regard to you post #38: " ... a transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet." in the context of temperature records between 1895 and 2019 ... late Holocene, not early Quaternary ...

Sure you have an idea what I mean by bipolar glaciation. There are only two poles so tripolar glaciation would be a sight to behold.

I already provided the definitions. An ice house world is characterized by glacial / interglacial cycles and has a high latitudinal thermal gradient. A greenhouse world is characterized by an absence of bipolar glaciation and has a low latitudinal thermal gradient. I even provided some pretty pictures of it.

From 1895 to 2019 would have been an interglacial period of a modern icehouse world. The transition from greenhouse to icehouse was 3 to 5 million years ago.

Why are you doing this?

 

[ReinyDays]

Sure you have an idea what I mean by bipolar glaciation. There are only two poles so tripolar glaciation would be a sight to behold.

I already provided the definitions. An ice house world is characterized by glacial / interglacial cycles and has a high latitudinal thermal gradient. A greenhouse world is characterized by an absence of bipolar glaciation and has a low latitudinal thermal gradient. I even provided some pretty pictures of it.

From 1895 to 2019 would have been an interglacial period of a modern icehouse world. The transition from greenhouse to icehouse was 3 to 5 million years ago.

Why are you doing this?

You keep bringing this up ... I keep asking what it means ...

I'd like to know why these thermal gradients change with temperature ...

 

[ding]

Sure you have an idea what I mean by bipolar glaciation. There are only two poles so tripolar glaciation would be a sight to behold.

I already provided the definitions. An ice house world is characterized by glacial / interglacial cycles and has a high latitudinal thermal gradient. A greenhouse world is characterized by an absence of bipolar glaciation and has a low latitudinal thermal gradient. I even provided some pretty pictures of it.

From 1895 to 2019 would have been an interglacial period of a modern icehouse world. The transition from greenhouse to icehouse was 3 to 5 million years ago.

Why are you doing this?

You keep bringing this up ... I keep asking what it means ...

I'd like to know why these thermal gradients change with temperature ...

I seem to recall you saying that the globe doesn't incrementally get warmer evenly. That the poles warm more than the other regions such as the equator. So I am pretty sure you already know why.

Yes, I keep bringing it up because the rapid cooling from a GH world to an IH world was due to glaciation in the northern hemisphere. Understanding the transition from a GH world to an IH world is relevant to today's discussion on climate change. It is the single greatest example of climate change. No one disputes it happened. No one disputes that there are physical causes which caused the climate to change. So understanding the background conditions and their role is useful. That's why I keep bringing it up.

So besides it meaning that we can better understand future climate changes by understanding past climate changes it also means those conditions still exist. So it has bearing on the risk discussion.

 

[westwall]

Wow! ok science lesson 101. Every scientist knows the sun warms the earth. The problem is when too much carbon is in the atmosphere the earth warms more. The sun also cycles with how much heat it throws at us. The reason for the confusion is it should not be called global warming although that is what is happening. It is an imbalance in the carbon cycle. The earth can process so much carbon. It is stored in trees and soil. It is even stored in fossil fuels. When too much is let out at one time the atmosphere is thickened. This causes a warming effect on the earth. The earth has gone through periods of hot and cold. We actually are in a cooler time historically. That is why the earth is able to hold all these two-legged locusts. If it gets much warmer crops will wilt and billions will starve. Look what that big yellow (white) ball does to plants when it is 90 degrees out. If that was more of the norm it should be easy to see how crops will die. No crops, no cow, not many homo-sapiens (humans). Yes, the earth will get warmer, we are just speeding it up by an exponential rate. Get you a book educate yourself on the carbon cycle and you can intelligently decide if 'global warming" is something we should be worried about. The choice is 100 years more of billions of humans or 1000.

And not one bit of empirical data to support the claim.

Not one.

 

[ReinyDays]

I seem to recall you saying that the globe doesn't incrementally get warmer evenly. That the poles warm more than the other regions such as the equator. So I am pretty sure you already know why.

No one knows ... some say albedo, some say convection ... it may not even be real, just some weird readings ... very difficult getting temperatures in the polar regions of the world ... all we can say is that the poles have been warming twice as fast as the equator over the past 50 odd years ... we assume this will continue, and this is only an assumption ... not proved ...

Yes, I keep bringing it up because the rapid cooling from a GH world to an IH world was due to glaciation in the northern hemisphere. Understanding the transition from a GH world to an IH world is relevant to today's discussion on climate change. It is the single greatest example of climate change. No one disputes it happened. No one disputes that there are physical causes which caused the climate to change. So understanding the background conditions and their role is useful. That's why I keep bringing it up.

This seems based on your own theories ... your own definitions ... we live on a greenhouse Earth, if not for the GHGs we'd see average global temperatures closer to -15ºC ... conditions similar to the Cryogenian period, when the tropical oceans were frozen over ... the Official™ term we use is an Ice Age, times when permanent ice persists at sea level, starting at the poles and expanding down to the equator ... or in the case of our current Ice Age, down to around 45º latitude ... this all started in the mid-Cretaceous, a slow slow process of the Earth cooling such that this permanent ice feature at sea level appeared about 30 million years ago ... NOT 3-5 million years ago as you seem to think ...

We have plenty of coincidences ... I mentioned the expanding Atlantic Ocean above ... the Farralons Plate finishing it's subduction and the death of the Sierra Nevadas/Sierra Madres ... the partial closing of the Central America passage between the Pacific and Atlantic ... Antarctica speeding to it's current polar position ... none, some or all of these events could have thrown the Earth into it's current frozen state ... back when human forebearers were not much bigger than mice ... all slow slow processes ...

Hardly the greatest example of climate change, it's something that has occurred many many times, at least three times since the Cambrian ... I'm more inclined to say the Oxygen Catastrophe was the biggest change in climate ... moving from an atmosphere of 96% carbon dioxide to one similar to today's 0.0415% ...

So besides it meaning that we can better understand future climate changes by understanding past climate changes it also means those conditions still exist. So it has bearing on the risk discussion.

Yes ... you keep bring this up ... do you have anything new to add? ... it was much warmer 100 million years ago ... it may be much much warmer 100 million years from now ... what does this say about conditions 200 years from now? ... 500 years? ...

I think all the Hysteria is total BS, but all the new research is really really cool ... long overdue IMEIO ... frankly, I don't think there's enough fossil fuel to economically burn to change climate ...

 

[ding]

I seem to recall you saying that the globe doesn't incrementally get warmer evenly. That the poles warm more than the other regions such as the equator. So I am pretty sure you already know why.

No one knows ... some say albedo, some say convection ... it may not even be real, just some weird readings ... very difficult getting temperatures in the polar regions of the world ... all we can say is that the poles have been warming twice as fast as the equator over the past 50 odd years ... we assume this will continue, and this is only an assumption ... not proved ...

And has nothing to do with the transition from a GH to an IH planet.

Yes, I keep bringing it up because the rapid cooling from a GH world to an IH world was due to glaciation in the northern hemisphere. Understanding the transition from a GH world to an IH world is relevant to today's discussion on climate change. It is the single greatest example of climate change. No one disputes it happened. No one disputes that there are physical causes which caused the climate to change. So understanding the background conditions and their role is useful. That's why I keep bringing it up.

This seems based on your own theories ... your own definitions ... we live on a greenhouse Earth, if not for the GHGs we'd see average global temperatures closer to -15ºC ... conditions similar to the Cryogenian period, when the tropical oceans were frozen over ... the Official™ term we use is an Ice Age, times when permanent ice persists at sea level, starting at the poles and expanding down to the equator ... or in the case of our current Ice Age, down to around 45º latitude ... this all started in the mid-Cretaceous, a slow slow process of the Earth cooling such that this permanent ice feature at sea level appeared about 30 million years ago ... NOT 3-5 million years ago as you seem to think ...

No. Not my theories. Not my definitions. Very much a real thing. I'm not shooting from the hip here.

Greenhouse and icehouse Earth - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

From Greenhouse to Icehouse - Astrobiology Magazine

A new study that reconstructed ocean temperatures from millions of years ago could provide new insight into how the Earth responds to climate change.

www.astrobio.net

Quaternary glaciation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We have plenty of coincidences ... I mentioned the expanding Atlantic Ocean above ... the Farralons Plate finishing it's subduction and the death of the Sierra Nevadas/Sierra Madres ... the partial closing of the Central America passage between the Pacific and Atlantic ... Antarctica speeding to it's current polar position ... none, some or all of these events could have thrown the Earth into it's current frozen state ... back when human forebearers were not much bigger than mice ... all slow slow processes ...

Again... the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet was a real event with real physical causes; plate tectonics and ocean currents, rise of mountains and atmospheric composition.

Hardly the greatest example of climate change, it's something that has occurred many many times, at least three times since the Cambrian ... I'm more inclined to say the Oxygen Catastrophe was the biggest change in climate ... moving from an atmosphere of 96% carbon dioxide to one similar to today's 0.0415% ...

"The transition from the greenhouse Eocene to the ice-house Oligocene represents one of the most dramatic climate change events in recent geologic history."

From Greenhouse to Icehouse - Astrobiology Magazine

A new study that reconstructed ocean temperatures from millions of years ago could provide new insight into how the Earth responds to climate change.

www.astrobio.net

So besides it meaning that we can better understand future climate changes by understanding past climate changes it also means those conditions still exist. So it has bearing on the risk discussion.

Yes ... you keep bring this up ... do you have anything new to add? ... it was much warmer 100 million years ago ... it may be much much warmer 100 million years from now ... what does this say about conditions 200 years from now? ... 500 years? ...

Sure.... "It is often said that the past is the key to the future. For climate scientists, understanding how the Earth’s climate changed and evolved millions of years ago could help predict future climate change."

From Greenhouse to Icehouse - Astrobiology Magazine

A new study that reconstructed ocean temperatures from millions of years ago could provide new insight into how the Earth responds to climate change.

www.astrobio.net

What does it say about the climate 200 years from now? ... 500 years? It says that the same conditions which caused the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet still exist today and that the greatest risk is not a warming planet but a cooling planet.

I think all the Hysteria is total BS, but all the new research is really really cool ... long overdue IMEIO ... frankly, I don't think there's enough fossil fuel to economically burn to change climate ...

This we agree on.

 

[bloodhogs]

One should do their own experiments I would say. Take glasses maybe ten of tap water fill them with water. Put various amounts of water in them. Cover each with Siran wrap none on first, two on second, four on third, six on the fourth, etc. Place them in the sunlight for several hours or more. Then take the temperature. This will demonstrate what happens when more carbon establishes itself in the atmosphere.

In this day in age, there is so much misinformation out there. I am sure people are making a living at spreading misinformation. It is a shame, and it is wrong. Remember an expert at something can make you believe anything about that topic, even if it's incorrect. Test the general principles of anything before you believe anyone, especially on the internet.

Just because some seems like a genius does not mean they are correct. They may have alternative motives.

The poles of the earth exist in most part from the tilt of the earth. You can not tilt earth so as to have three parts not getting direct rays from the sun. You can put too much carbon in the air to heat up the earth so much to have any poles. You can also have too little carbon to freeze the whole planet.

 

[ReinyDays]

One should do their own experiments I would say. Take glasses maybe ten of tap water fill them with water. Put various amounts of water in them. Cover each with Siran wrap none on first, two on second, four on third, six on the fourth, etc. Place them in the sunlight for several hours or more. Then take the temperature. This will demonstrate what happens when more carbon establishes itself in the atmosphere.

All ten glasses of water are the exact same temperature, as predicted by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics ... are you saying CO2 has no effect on temperature? ... very odd ...

 

[bloodhogs]

Thermodynamics would only apply in time in the form of diffusion.

 

[bloodhogs]

Why is Venus the hottest planet, there is a closer one?

 

[ding]

One should do their own experiments I would say. Take glasses maybe ten of tap water fill them with water. Put various amounts of water in them. Cover each with Siran wrap none on first, two on second, four on third, six on the fourth, etc. Place them in the sunlight for several hours or more. Then take the temperature. This will demonstrate what happens when more carbon establishes itself in the atmosphere.

In this day in age, there is so much misinformation out there. I am sure people are making a living at spreading misinformation. It is a shame, and it is wrong. Remember an expert at something can make you believe anything about that topic, even if it's incorrect. Test the general principles of anything before you believe anyone, especially on the internet.

Just because some seems like a genius does not mean they are correct. They may have alternative motives.

The poles of the earth exist in most part from the tilt of the earth. You can not tilt earth so as to have three parts not getting direct rays from the sun. You can put too much carbon in the air to heat up the earth so much to have any poles. You can also have too little carbon to freeze the whole planet.

If you are arguing there is a GHG effect, congratulations, there is. If you are arguing that CO2 drives climate change, that is an entirely different subject.

 

[ReinyDays]

Thermodynamics would only apply in time in the form of diffusion.

Thermodynamics applies any time energy is moving ... like from the Sun to our 10 glasses of water ... diffusion is an effect of Brownian Motion although your statement is awful confusing, not sure if this is what you mean ...

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere slows down the radiative transfer of energy from Earth's surface to outer space ... the slower this transfer, the longer the energy remains in the atmosphere, thus the higher the temperature ... what no one knows is how much ... apparently not even a clue ... as more and more research is completed and published, it's looking to be a small or even trivial effect ...

Note that the IPCC is due to release an update right now ... as far as I know, they haven't started the process yet ... too much of what they published in the last report has to be back-tracked ... I'm guessing they will never update again ... too prideful to admit error ...