You should, in science, believe logic and arguments, carefully drawn, and not authorities.
– Richard Feynman
Fifty years ago, National Geographic understood that the sun controls glaciers. But that was before they realized they could make money lying about the climate.
National Geographic : 1967 Feb, Page 194
This was back in the days when NASA could still put people in space.
Good spot. Fifty years after that NG report, sunspots are tanking.
‘So far in 2017, the big story in space weather is sunspots–or rather, the lack thereof. The sun has been blank more than 90% of the time.’
http://news.spaceweather.com/sunspots-vanish-space-weather-continues/
Yep, though today an actual spot is coming around the eastern limb:
INFO FROM SIDC – RWC BELGIUM 2017 Jan 12 12:35UTC
Solar activity has been very low, no C-class flares in past 24h, an active
region rotating into view from the eastern limb may increase activity.
No Earth directed Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) have been detected. Solar
protons have remained at background levels over the past 24 hours.
Geomagnetic conditions have ranged between K=2 and K=3. Solar wind speed is
now at 390 km/s with interplanetary magnetic fields of 5 nT. There is a
small equatorial coronal hole that could still affect the Earth today, but
K is not expected to go above 4.
There is an article doing the rounds at WUWT which discusses glacier retreat and CO2.
Yes, that they release c02 as the melt – same as the ocean when it warms.
Climate change is a false premise for regulating or taxing carbon dioxide emissions. Nature converts CO2 to calcite (limestone). Climate change may or may not be occurring, but is is surely NOT caused by human fossil fuels use. Changes in temperature cause changes in ambient CO2, with an estimated 800 year time lag.
Others have shown the likely causes of climate change, and they DO NOT include human use of fossil fuels. There is no empirical evidence that fossil fuels use affects climate. Likely and well-documented causes include sunspot cycles, earth/sun orbital changes, cosmic ray effects on clouds and tectonic plate activity. The further point here is that earth naturally recycles all carbon dioxide.
Here’s why. Fossil fuels emit only 3% of total CO2 emissions. 95% comes from rotting vegetation. All the ambient CO2 in the atmosphere is promptly converted in the oceans to calcite (limestone) and other carbonates, mostly through biological paths. CO2 + CaO => CaCO3 (exothermic). The conversion rate increases with increasing CO2 partial pressure. A dynamic equilibrium-seeking mechanism.
99.84% of all carbon on earth is already sequestered as sediments in the lithosphere. The lithosphere is a massive hungry carbon sink that converts ambient CO2 to carbonate almost as soon as it is emitted. All living or dead organic matter (plants, animals, microbes etc. amount to only 0.00033% of the total carbon mass on earth. Ambient CO2 is only 0.00255%.
Full implementation of the Paris Treaty is now estimated to cost $50 trillion to $100 trillion by 2030–$6,667-$13,333 per human being. Nearly two-thirds of humanity’s cumulative savings over history. And will not affect climate at all.
Miner, your facts are correct but your conclusions erroneous. Co2 is higher than it has been since the dinosaurs roamed the earth at 404 parts per million — and it is rising steadily because of the actions of humans.
We don’t know how much this will alter the planet. But we know that the glaciers are melting and that trillions of dollars of coastal real estate will be destroyed.
Who wins if we under-invest in wind and solar? The Koch brothers and Exxon, and then China. The US could take over the solar panel business, or we could just let China have it. Which do you think is a good idea?
In six days, your religion is dead
Scott,tries hard to say something but fails since it is all over the drooling table.
Solar will never replace 24/7 power producers for an obvious reason,you will never figure out.
Go back to your garden,spare the rest of us your eco drivel.
Sunsettommy, generally the thinking is that you want to get as much out of wind and solar as you can, throw in some nuclear, and fill in the rest with fossil fuels.
The eco drivel is coming, whether you like it or not. Battery prices are down to less thank $150/kwh, and when they get to $50 gasoline powered cars will go the way of the dodo.
Wouldn’t you like to see the US be ahead in that game when the time comes?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-11/battery-cost-plunge-seen-changing-automakers-most-in-100-years
“Wouldn’t you like to see the US be ahead in that game when the time comes?”
Sure with development money from the private sector and no government subsidies or rebates for electric cars involved. If such technology is viable and wanted by the citizens then lets see it stand on it’s own economic feet.
And at the same time get the government out of the way of exploration and development of fossil fuel sources in places where such development is possible without demonstrable dire consequences for the environment.
Yeah what RAH said.
Both wind power and solar are OLD technology. They suffer from the same problem. Not enough energy density.
If you want to save petrochemicals for manufacturing, then use nuclear where possible.
For the amount of money wasted chasing unicorn farts, the USA could have 100% state of the art nuclear for the cost of transmitting the power.
But the Wind and Solar structure are based on TOXIC materials,they are intermittent power producer with inherent instability behind its operation.
It is a terrible waste of money since the 24/7 power generation set up MUST still be running anyway,to keep the lights on,when the LOW MASS power producers go offline which they do a lot.
Nuclear,Hydro and Fossil fuels which are HIGH MASS producers are much more economical and reliable as they can provide continuous 24/7 power at a high rate,which Solar and Wind can’t deliver.
It doesn’t matter what price Batteries have since they can’t reserve the necessary power back up for the Solar when night or clouds comes,and wind when it is calm.
Scott you have posted at the “BIG BOYS/GIRLS” website, if you post here you have to reference real research, not just some reporters ideas.
Wind farms actually lead to global warming, no research on solar farms yet but would hazard a guess they do too. I am all for letting the Chinese spend money on such nonsense research, IF they do make a huge discovery, then we can steal it from them just like they steal our research.
Heres the link to real research on wind farms and the rise of .74 in temperature, after they are built. And as far as big oil and the Koch brothers check the World Bank and see who makes the most money in carbon credits.
https://phys.org/news/2012-04-farms-temperature-region.html
http://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/Topics_Ext_Content/IFC_External_Corporate_Site/CB_Home/Mobilizing+Climate+Finance/CarbonFinance/
PS we will let you keep your lunch money this time.
According to Bartoli et al, Paleoceanography 16 November 2011, Atmospheric CO2 decline during the Pliocene intensification of Northern Hemisphere glaciations:-
“The highest pCO2 values were reached during the early Pliocene prior to 3.6 Ma with a maximum of 425 μatm at 4.58 Ma and 410 μatm on average”
Now that is a real load of Bull feces.
I ran across a recent reference where it was stated: ” ” .. Air bubbles trapped in polar ice sheets reveal the composition of the atmosphere of the past….” The idea of using the whole sample and not just the air bubble had vanished from science.
CO2 LIKES water and will migrate out of the air bubble into the free water within the ice lattice. If you do not believe CO2 will migrate, try leaving a 2 liter bottle of pepsi in the closet unopened for a year and see just how fast the CO2 migrates through the plastic!
A study backing that up:
It is dealing with landfast sea ice but does look at the diffusion and transport coefficients.
There is page 54 of this book: Exploration of Antarctic Subglacial Aquatic Environments: Environmental and Scientific Stewardship ( 2007 )
Also this paper:
The hydrochemistry of Lake Vostok and the potential for life in Antarctic subglacial lakes
Gail, my reference to Bartoli et al was in response to Scott (January 14, 2017 at 12:41 am):
“Miner, your facts are correct but your conclusions erroneous. Co2 is higher than it has been since the dinosaurs roamed the earth at 404 parts per million …”
Dinosaurs first roamed the earth more than 230 million years ago, so Scott was implying that there was no evidence of general atmospheric carbon dioxide levels at above 404 ppm(v) from that time.
Sorry Leo G.
I read it as support of Scott.
C02 is higher now, than when the arctic was a jungle? I bet.
SNICKER
Actually the Earth is in CO2 starvation mode.
Carbon dioxide starvation, the development of C4 ecosystems, and mammalian evolution | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California That is pretty much at sea level.
There is another more subtle aspect to the CO2 starvation level and that is partial pressure.
Impact of lower atmospheric carbon dioxide on tropical mountain ecosystems
Read this again,Scott:
“Here’s why. Fossil fuels emit only 3% of total CO2 emissions. 95% comes from rotting vegetation. All the ambient CO2 in the atmosphere is promptly converted in the oceans to calcite (limestone) and other carbonates, mostly through biological paths. CO2 + CaO => CaCO3 (exothermic). The conversion rate increases with increasing CO2 partial pressure. A dynamic equilibrium-seeking mechanism.
99.84% of all carbon on earth is already sequestered as sediments in the lithosphere. The lithosphere is a massive hungry carbon sink that converts ambient CO2 to carbonate almost as soon as it is emitted. All living or dead organic matter (plants, animals, microbes etc. amount to only 0.00033% of the total carbon mass on earth. Ambient CO2 is only 0.00255%.”
Notice the trivial impact by mankind?
I have pointed out in various places on the Internet about the fact that Ocean waters already have 99% of the Free CO2 in the system,therefore a dribble more CO2 added can’t overturn the dominant paradigm nature is set at.
Think Scott, at how silly a few dozen more PPM free CO2 being added to the atmosphere,which is currently at impoverished levels compared to past atmosphere history,where it was never a threat to life.
It is brain dead stupid!
Scott, if you want to have a chance to participate in the debate, you have to up your game. Throwing around Exxon and the Koch brothers is a valid argument at Democratic Underground or Puffington Host but not among people discussing data and facts.
You don’t seem to know anything about China and solar panels manufacturing, otherwise you would never say naive things like “The US could take over the solar panel business”.
+1
“that trillions of dollars of coastal real estate will be destroyed.”
What utter BULL CRAP !!
Which climate moron have you been listening to
Sea levels rise has been below 2mm/year (probably around the 1.4mm/year) for well over a century, no acceleration.. do you know how big 2mm is ??? SCARY hey !!!
NO CO2 signal, and NO DANGER to coastal property.
Man-made climate change is a democratic idea to get Liberals elected through fraudulent means.
Actually it is a Global Corporate Elite idea. It is a method for convincing people that a world totalitarian government is the ‘only way’ to save the planet.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
Look at World Trade Organization Director-General Pascal Lamy’s writing some time. He makes it clear they have been working on a world government since the 1930s.
Pascal Lamy takes ‘Practical Politics’ the next step, by telling us the “new enemy to unite us” is needed to create Legitimacy, one of the three legs needed to implement a global government… It gives me great pleasure to be here today to participate in this thematic debate on the United Nations in global governance, an issue of the utmost importance given the urgency of the global challenges we are facing… As for legitimacy, I see two avenues to strengthen it. First, domestically, by increasing the visibility of international issues and giving citizens a greater say There sure as heck is no greater threat for uniting citizens together then the threat of ‘catastrophic climate change’. is there?
He also indicates that an European Union like super state has been the goal since the 1930s.
The world is headed toward greater degrees of globalization — deeper integration, wider cooperation and greater sharing of responsibilities. To govern this globalized world, writes World Trade Organization Director-General Pascal Lamy, existing institutions will need to be reformed to ensure they work together optimally.
Lamy sure hits a lot of the environmental panic buttons doesn’t he?
Miner49er,
Are you a geologist? Few have that knowledge.