Why is the climate changing. (Page 37)

ghostgeek: Now a dive back into the history books. Has anyone heard of Johannes Stöffler? If not, he was a German mathematician, astronomer, astrologer, priest, maker of astronomical instruments and professor at the University of Tübingen. In other words, an egg head. Well, it seems the lad in 1499 predicted that, according to his calculations, the world would end by a giant flood on February 20th, 1524. So convincing was he that hundreds of believers built themselves wooden arks and launched them in the Rhine River. So what happened? Actually, nothing. For all his learning he got it wrong.

ghostgeek: Johannes Stöffler's story goes to show that just because somebody is clever, it doesn't mean that everything they say has to be correct.

ghostgeek: Paper Reviewed
Davis, W.J. 2017. The relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and global temperature for the last 425 million years. Climate 5: 76; doi: 10.3390/cli5040076.

Writing by way of introduction to his work, Davis (2017) notes that "a central question for contemporary climate policy is how much of the observed global warming is attributable to the accumulation of atmospheric CO2 and other trace greenhouse gases emitted by human activities." If you talk to a climate alarmist, the answer you receive from such an inquiry will likely be "almost all." A climate skeptic, on the other hand, will likely respond that the answer is "likely none."

Hoping to provide some crucial information on this topic, Davis analyzed the relationship between historic temperature and atmospheric CO2 using the most comprehensive assemblage of empirical databases of these two variables available for the Phanerozoic period (522 to 0 million years before present; Mybp). In all, 6680 proxy temperature and 831 proxy CO2 measurements were utilized, enabling what Davis described as "the most accurate quantitative empirical evaluation to date of the relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature." Multiple statistical procedures and analyses were applied to the proxy records and the resultant relationship is depicted in the figure below.

As noted by the author, the most striking observation from the visual comparison is the "apparent dissociation and even an antiphasic relationship" among the two variables. For example, Davis reports that, (1) "a CO2 concentration peak near 415 My occurs near a temperature trough at 445 My," (2) "similarly, CO2 concentration peaks around 285 Mybp coincide with a temperature trough at about 280 My and also with the Permo-Carboniferous glacial period (labeled 2 in [the] Figure)," (3) "the atmospheric CO2 concentration peak near 200 My occurs during a cooling climate, as does another, smaller CO2 concentration peak at approximately 37 My," (4) "the shorter cooling periods of the Phanerozoic, labeled 1-10 in [the] Figure, do not appear qualitatively, at least, to bear any definitive relationship with fluctuations in the atmospheric concentration of CO2" (emphasis added), (5) "regression of linearly-detrended temperature proxies against atmospheric CO2 concentration proxy data reveals a weak but discernible negative correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature," and (6) "the percent of variance in temperature that can be explained by variance in atmospheric CO2 concentration, or conversely, R2 × 100, is 3.6%, [indicating that] more than 95% of the variance in temperature is explained by unidentified variables other than the atmospheric concentration of CO2."

In light of these several important findings (or lack thereof), Davis concludes that his analysis "demonstrates that changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration did not cause temperature change in the ancient climate," which findings, he adds, "corroborate the earlier conclusion based on study of the Paleozoic climate that 'global climate may be independent of variations in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration" (Came et al., 2007).

[ http://www.co2science.org/articles/V21/sep/a13.php ]

ghostgeek: So, can somebody please tell me why they think the recent rise in CO2 is something to worry about?

zeffur: Because facts don't matter to alarmists & people who are trying to enslave everyone with their grand tax schemes to control people with unnecessary costs?

What about the other purported global warming trace gases in the atmosphere?
(e.g.: H20 (water vapor), CH4 (methane), N20 (nitrous oxide), O3 (ozone), CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons), & HCFCs + HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons)? Let's get all of them plotted to see if there is any correlation that matters! Maybe we'll find that only H20 & O3 are the culprits--or not.

Angry Beaver: It's Winter in Australia and very cold, I think it's global warming!!

ghostgeek: It's summer in the UK and none too hot because it's so bleeding cloudy. All that water circulating in the atmosphere certainly makes a difference here.

ghostgeek: Powerful deep Arctic Ocean geological heat flow forces are melting the ice, says geologist James Edward Kamis.

In an article entitled “Heat From Deep Ocean Fault Punches Hole in Arctic Ice Sheet,” Kamis punches his own holes in the “humans-are-melting-the-ice” chorus. ...

The Gakkel ridge is a gigantic chain of underwater volcanoes snaking 1,800 kilometers (1,100 miles) beneath the Arctic Ocean from the northern tip of Greenland to Siberia.

With its deep valleys plummeting 5,500 meters (3.4 miles) beneath the sea surface and its summits rising 5,000 meters (3.1-miles) above the seafloor (but still a third of a mile beneath the sea surface), the Gakkel ridge is far mightier than the Alps.

The Gakkel Ridge has in the recent past pulsed massive amounts of heat into the overlying ocean and thereby melted large portions of the ice that floats above the heated ocean column, says Kamis.

Climate scientists who favor the theory of man-made global warming maintain that the higher melt rate of Arctic sea ice from 1999 to 2007 was entirely due to man-made CO2 emissions, Kamis continues.

However, it is clear to most scientists, he continues, that non-atmospheric natural forces play the dominate role in sea ice extent and thickness.

These natural forces include variations in the Earth’s orbit, long-term cyclic changes in deep-ocean currents, and most importantly geologically induced heat and chemically charged fluid flow from deep ocean faults and volcanoes.

[ https://www.iceagenow.info/underwater-volcanoes-melting-arctic-ice-says-geologist/ ]

ghostgeek: So much for a consensus on global warming.

zeffur: 97% of all climate scientist are in agreement though--don't start throwing facts at them... lol

ghostgeek: No, I suppose I shouldn't. We wouldn't want to upset the gravy train, would we.

kittybobo34: Ghost,, only problem is that the water over the Gakkel ridge is leaving the arctic and heads south along the European coast. It is also the slowest spreading ridge of all, something like 12 mm per year, so the least active.

ghostgeek: Yes, I suppose the water over the Gakkel Ridge would flow south, seeing as the ridge is pretty near the top of the world.

ghostgeek: The Arctic Mid-Ocean Ridge (AMOR) represents one of the most slow-spreading ridge systems on Earth. Previous attempts to locate hydrothermal vent fields and unravel the nature of venting, as well as the provenance of vent fauna at this northern and insular termination of the global ridge system, have been unsuccessful. Here, we report the first discovery of a black smoker vent field at the AMOR. The field is located on the crest of an axial volcanic ridge (AVR) and is associated with an unusually large hydrothermal deposit, which documents that extensive venting and long-lived hydrothermal systems exist at ultraslow-spreading ridges, despite their strongly reduced volcanic activity.

[ https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms1124 ]

ghostgeek: The existence of heat rising through earth’s crust is evident to all, and the large majority of vents are under the ocean. Consider the image above, and notice at the top center is the small black island off the east coast of Greenland, right on top of the orange mid-ocean ridge. Iceland produces more than 50% of its electricity from geothermal, as well as heating numerous buildings from the same source.

In addition, farther up under the north pole, scientists discovered an eruption of intense seismic activity beginning in Gakkel Ridge in January of 1999 and continuing for seven months. That happens to be about the time Arctic ice extent took a nosedive, stabilizing after 2007.

[ https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/10/05/overview-seafloor-eruptions-and-ocean-warming/ ]

ghostgeek: Vast ranges of volcanoes hidden under the oceans are presumed by scientists to be the gentle giants of the planet, oozing lava at slow, steady rates along mid-ocean ridges. But a new study shows that they flare up on strikingly regular cycles, ranging from two weeks to 100,000 years—and, that they erupt almost exclusively during the first six months of each year. The pulses—apparently tied to short- and long-term changes in earth’s orbit, and to sea levels–may help trigger natural climate swings. Scientists have already speculated that volcanic cycles on land emitting large amounts of carbon dioxide might influence climate; but up to now there was no evidence from submarine volcanoes. The findings suggest that models of earth’s natural climate dynamics, and by extension human-influenced climate change, may have to be adjusted. The study appears this week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

[ https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/10/05/overview-seafloor-eruptions-and-ocean-warming/ ]

The flying Squirrel: Yep not just Greenland ,see also ring of fire runs right around the pacific japan Sunami all the rest in recent years. Question is why are they going off Punishment
lol

zeffur: re: "The findings suggest that models of earth’s natural climate dynamics, and by extension human-influenced climate change, may have to be adjusted."

Translation: our models don't work right & the underwater volcanic activity throughout the world may contribute much more than we've accounted for in our models--so much so, that we've over estimate the impact of humans effects on the world, again--but still, we're happy to carbon tax them to death & force them to cutback on their fossil fuel consumption to pre-1895 levels to ensure we get our money's worth out of them & they otherwise suffer needlessly. Yay! to politics influenced by billionaires!

ghostgeek: The bottom ninety odd percent of society have always had to work their cobs off to support the rich. It's an immutable law of physics.

kittybobo34: Zeff,, Carbon has a fingerprint, the carbon we release in factories, fossil fuels etc is not the same as the carbon from plants and volcanos. The carbon we detect in the atmosphere is 50% from us. The oceans can't absorb any more without going acidic. The levels of co2 are 2x as high as they should be, so that extra 50% is on us.

zeffur: @kittybobo34:
Chemically, CO2 is CO2, isn't it? What's the exact difference that you are referring to?

kittybobo34: Zeff,,,There are allot of isotopes of co2,, Like the difference between carbon 14 and carbon 12 as used in dating techniques.

zeffur: Kitty:
Got anything better than this? http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

That info looks a bit sketchy, imo. Where's the actual data??
The only link that shows a graph is of the sponge data....and I'm not convinced that the C-12, C-13, & C-14 or their ratios plotted over time validly explains anything--given that other CO2 plots posted by Ghost clearly show no correlation of CO2 concentration with historical climate/temp fluctuations.

kittybobo34: Not sure what you mean by actual data? You wish to see the logs of all the carbon ratios?
Actually all the co2 has to do is raise the world temp a few degrees before the methane hydrates kick in and start releasing by the tons. We could be in for a wild roller coaster ride in world temps within the next decade.

zeffur: That article (cited by me above) references tree ring data that it doesn't provide a graph of to support its claims & you wrote "There are allot of isotopes of co2,, Like the difference between carbon 14 and carbon 12 as used in dating techniques." which you provide no citation for and you provide no concrete data to show your 'CO2 fingerprint' position with respect to anthropomorphic climate change. Believing something is true isn't the same thing as proving something is true.