- Location
- East Yorkshire
Here's a nice simple one.
Clearly there are conditions that inhibit decay- we have bog Oaks buried in the peat. What I'm saying, is that CO2 levels won't fall to such low levels while ever there is animal life on earth; plant and animal life is interdependent. However, we know there are geological and astronomical events that can throw the natural balance into chaos, and these things are completely beyond the influence of 'nature'.
I've been studying this for ages myself, it's a hobby for me and when I see things that are wrong I say so, thats all.
If mc Donald had any idea how much I've been researching this stuff over the last few months he wouldn't say what he has, but whatever
Look at my last post the global data is there for you, not your old thermometer.
I went back to college at 40 and found learning pretty easy to do and if I decide to learn something, I just get my head down and learn it.
Well - the devil's in the detail, isn't it.
I didn't know, until this thread, about the American heatwave of 1936
Here you go- even simpler. Its the bit above the dotted line that I'm concerned about. Clearly things have never been static, and Ive never suggested they ever were.
There are lots of graphs and I can't show them all. I chose a couple that best illustrate the situation on a timescale most relevant to mankind. When you start going back millions, rather than thousands of years, the less confident we can be about other environmental, geological and astronomical conditions.During the last 550 MILLION years of the Earth life CO2 in the atmosphere was over 1000 ppm for approxiamtely 450 MILLION years, with CO2 in the atmosphere being over 2000ppm for approximately 300 MILLION years and over 4000ppm for 150 MILLION years.
The other graphs you've put on also feature on the same page ... shame you declined to put this information on as well.
There are lots of graphs and I can't show them all. I chose a couple that best illustrate the situation on a timescale most relevant to mankind. When you start going back millions, rather than thousands of years, the less confident we can be about other environmental, geological and astronomical conditions.
It was probably by averaging out the heatwave against the vicious winter which preceded it that allowed it to be hidden on later graphs - despite recent summer temperatures being lower and average temperatures being - well, average.
Yes that is one of the other effects of volcanoes, they put vast amounts of dust and ask into the atmosphere, which reduces the amount of sunlight reaching the ground, it can have very profound effects, but that wasn't by co2 emissions.
https://ww2.kqed.org/science/2015/0...ora-eruption-what-if-this-volcano-blew-today/
Ok I m back really just out of frustration.Thought some of you might like this regarding basic ice, water science that seems to be forgotten about these days, kids program seems logical to me.
I will join in your game of “why everyone should believe my posts rather than yours”. Whilst this post is fairly lengthy, it will take a lot less time to read than watching any of your vídeos. If you knew how much time I have spent researching “this stuff” for the past 13 years, you would not be so quick to dismiss my posts.
When I moved here in January 2003 I was sceptical that the earth was warming and that even if it was, that human CO2 and other GHG emissions were responsible. This was partly because I had accepted the statements about the vast quantity of CO2 that was emitted every time a volcano decided to burp. I now know, and I think everyone on this fórum except you also knows, that volcanic emitted CO2 is a minor amount of global emissions.
I had been a member of the Centre for Alternative Technology in Wales for quite a few years because I had been interested in the possibilities of producing my own fuel and electricity. Their quarterly magazines kept pushing this global warming idea, and I was none too happy that they were following that line instead of doing more work on alternative technologies. Over the years they became more dogmatic that it was definitely human burning of fóssil fuels, and farm livestock that were the cause of increasing temperatures and we should cull most of the livestock in the world, preferably all becoming vegetarians at the same time. I have ceased to support them.
After I had settled in I began making plans for what I would do with it agriculturally, and planned a garden and orchards for producing some of our own food. Apart from saving expenditure being ar easier to achieve than incresing income, I enjoy gardening. There were no citrus trees on the property which is unusual for the area. I began to make enquiries and discovered that the property was too cold. It is low lying compared with others around about and at slightly higher elevations such trees are common. I then began to learn about olives, almonds, chestnuts, pistáchios and the drupes such as peaches and apricots since I had a longer term plan for other trees as well as a “first project” one for a lot more olives.
I soon discovered that concerns were being raised in various countries that rising temperatures were affecting the level of winter chill which trees and other crops were receivng and some were already being affected by the lack of chill. I also found that increasing soil temperatures were causing problems for some crops. The one that struck me most was the fact that the Scottish Crop Research Institute as it then was, was finding rising soil temperature levels down to the 1 metre level. I think they did not measure below this depth. This has a bad effect on soft fruits. NZ was discovering similar problems. This led me to take the CAT information more seriously and to learn more about the subject.
I suppose you know the low chill effects such as weak, delayed and protracted anthesis, and weak leaf-out. This results in a severe reduction in yield in the cvurrent year due to poor pollination, and a likely lower yield in the following year for perennial crops due to poorer growth in the current year. I am sure most posters will be aware that there are cereal varieties that are considered to be winter ones and others that are spring ones, and that they know the reason why they are so classified.
Since I was proposing to plant tree crops that will be producing for many years, I realised that if global warming was happening I had to allow for decreasing winter chill levels in choosing the varieties to plant. If it was not happening then I had no need to worry and could plant whichever varieties were considered the most productive for the área at present. I soon discovered that global temperatures were rising. California produces 80% of the total world almond crop. Rising temperatures are so serious for them now that in the last four or five years many large scale growers have begun to spray a kaolin mix on their trees to reflect the winter Sun, thereby increasing the winter chilling effect. They are not doing this for the fun of it. It does work.
My equipment for meteorological measuring is somewhat more than an “old thermometer”. Are you suggesting that my records are not accurate? That is the implication in your post. Since you claim that climate change is a hobby of yours and you have spent a lot of time over the last few months studying it, it goês without saying that you have at least a Max min thermometer, a soil thermometer and a rainfall gauge, possibly more instruments. I accept that you have only been studying the subject for a few months, but are you comparing your new data with the records of your nearest weather station over the last 20 years or so? If you are serious about the subject you will be.
At age 42 and having had a 15 years break from formal study I too decided to do some more studying and obtained a University Bachelor of Business degree on a part-time basis. It was 3 years for full-time students and 6 for part-timers, but I made the time to put in more hours and completed it in four. I continued to study after that and sat my last formal exam six years later. Consequently I too can “just put my head down and learn”.
Whether or not the temperature is increasing is not a hobby for me, but a necessary knowledge. I suggest it is also a necessary knowledge for all those who are intending to farm for the next few decades. My research and follow up recording hás nothing to do with models, projections, supporting scientists or what hás happened in the past. It hás all to do with the effects on my farming and gardening.
Some of the sprays I use have temperature limitations and many of the annual crops have a minimum soil temperature for germination. I need to know air and soil temperature for these reasons. Through my records I know that temperatures are continuing to rise. I planted out a lemon tree and a date palm five years ago on the strength of this increase. They both survive along with other citrus and more dates.
How do you know that the people in these vídeos you posted are experts and telling the truth? You are quick enough to lend support to them and accept their version. I am of the opinion that most of the vídeos you have put up are factually incorrect, purposely slanted to produce the figures they want, and narrated by people who are not telling the truth. That statement is no worse than what the people in the vídeos are saying about the people they are denigrating, so I have no hesitation in saying they are charlatans.
I will give you one startling example from one of your most recent vídeos – the one at #337. Look at it again from 6.45 to 7.37. It begins with the statement “warm air holds more water vapour than cold”. Then listen to what the “expert” hás to say - “yet the data shows there is less water vapour in the atmsophere. It’s been going down. Exactly the opposite of what he claims. Etc.” He backs up his nonsense by claiming that the relative humidity graph he shows indicates that humidity in the atmosphere hás fallen, and McKibben is saying the opposite of the facts. The narrator is trying to convince the audience (and obviously succeeded with you and many others) that relative humidity percentage equates to the amount of humidity in the atmosphere. No it does not. Either he is purposely blatantly lying, or he hás no knowledge of simple physics in relation to temperature and water vapour. Who is he?
Here are two very simple explanations (taken via a quick Google) of relative humidity:-
In the winter, when you heat cool air to warm your house, the air gets very dry. Why is this? There’s the same amount of moisture, but the relative humidity of the heated air is much less —the warmed air can “hold” a good deal more moisture than the cool air. Is there some special property of warm air that lets it soak up more water vapor? Not really. It’s just that, at higher temperatures, water molecules are more likely to go into the vapor phase, so there will be more water vapor in the air.
Relative Humidity : The ratio of the actual amount of water vapor in a given volume of air to the amount which could be present if the air were saturated at the same temperature. It's commonly expressed as a percentage. Since warm air will hold more moisture than cold air, the percentage of relative humidity must change with changes in air temperature.
In other words, the graph, which shows RH decreasing, is showing precisely what happens at higher temperatures. The amount of water vapour in the air is further away from saturation point (the point at which the vapour condenses to liquid water) than at a cooler temperature consequently the RH percentage is lower. It hás nothing whatsoever to do with the quantity of water vapour in the air.
I also know, as hás been known for very close to 200 years, that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, even at its very small concentration, will affect temperatures. You may or may not choose to read this link giving a quick synopsis of the thoughts and subsequent work of19th century researchers in this field. http://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm Nobody hás proved these people wrong. Why? Because they were and are correct.
I have been pushing you throughout this thread to produce historical temperature records to show your ongoing and constant claim about the 1930s. You have, of course, failed to do so, because the 1930s (despite the claim in some of your vídeo links) was not the warmest decade on record. In post #346 Dave645 gave a link to a large number of historical weather station records for the UK. Similar records are available for other countries. I knew from past research, but confirmed again today by checking a few of these records, that the years 1930-39 were not warmer than the years 2000-09. How do you, and your vídeo experts explain that one away?
Ok I m back really just out of frustration.
@banjo Kindly remember sea water is salty, and that makes an hell of a difference in the ammount of water displace. "It is shown that the melting of ice floating on the ocean will introduce a volume of water about 2.6 per cent greater than that of the originally displaced sea water. The melting of floating ice in a global warming will cause the ocean to rise. If all the extant sea ice and floating shelf ice melted, the global sea level would rise about 4 cm. The sliding of grounded ice into the sea, however, produces a mean water level rise in two parts; some of the rise is delayed. The first part, while the ice floats, is equal to the volume of displaced sea water. The second part, equal to 2.6 per cent of the first, is contributed as it melts. These effects result from the difference in volume of equal weights of fresh and salt water.
Your lot sais if the sea ice melts 20ft rise in water, not including land ice, don't change the peramiters and the amount of heat needed to melt all the sea ice is going a bit nuts now isn't it, we have only heated by a degree either way in the last 100 years after all.