EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Wed Jul 30, 2014 3:21 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: ANDRILL
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 4:19 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:47 am
Posts: 110
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Spongebob wrote:
There spot is the problem, most of their papers only talk about millions of years ago and the last million years, last 50k years, last 20k years and last 2k years are in soundbites in the papers, I agree that they have had enough time to show these years in more detail but the papers I have read so far still don't show it in enough.

Yet from the quote in my last post, they confirm that the northern hemisphere temperature can change extremely quickly in the last glacial and it would be interesting to find the papers (when I have some spare time) that discuss this from the data in the arctic circle, as it would mean the warming we have had over the last 150+ years is nothing in comparison. Yet in the papers I have found available from 2009/2010 talking about the 2007/08/09 seasons they talk about the temperature range of the diatoms(sea living tiny shelled creatures) and that they can accurately tell the local temperature from them, so the fact they are there clearly indicates (with the sediment type as well) that a sea ice free antarctic is nothing unusual in the natural system.

As I have shown before from their papers they also discuss that the last glacial was 300ppm CO2 and yet the temperature was 3-8C depending on which paper it is from, though they do not clearly show how far back the higher temperature goes, so 3-5C is the temperatures they clearly show for the last interglacial. While we are topping 400ppm very soon the temperature rise we currently see does not match the history by a serious amount if CO2 is the main driver of our climate we are led to believe.



Papers have soundbites?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ANDRILL
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 5:03 pm 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 4:02 pm
Posts: 41
spot1234 wrote:
Spongebob wrote:
There spot is the problem, most of their papers only talk about millions of years ago and the last million years, last 50k years, last 20k years and last 2k years are in soundbites in the papers, I agree that they have had enough time to show these years in more detail but the papers I have read so far still don't show it in enough.

Yet from the quote in my last post, they confirm that the northern hemisphere temperature can change extremely quickly in the last glacial and it would be interesting to find the papers (when I have some spare time) that discuss this from the data in the arctic circle, as it would mean the warming we have had over the last 150+ years is nothing in comparison. Yet in the papers I have found available from 2009/2010 talking about the 2007/08/09 seasons they talk about the temperature range of the diatoms(sea living tiny shelled creatures) and that they can accurately tell the local temperature from them, so the fact they are there clearly indicates (with the sediment type as well) that a sea ice free antarctic is nothing unusual in the natural system.

As I have shown before from their papers they also discuss that the last glacial was 300ppm CO2 and yet the temperature was 3-8C depending on which paper it is from, though they do not clearly show how far back the higher temperature goes, so 3-5C is the temperatures they clearly show for the last interglacial. While we are topping 400ppm very soon the temperature rise we currently see does not match the history by a serious amount if CO2 is the main driver of our climate we are led to believe.



Papers have soundbites?


Are you being facetious to be a prat?

You have completely sidetracked from any of the evidence of the research, have you got any comments about the work or are you going to nit pick with a word I used to explain the way the research papers do not fully cover the dates above even though they state they have the data and also the things it clearly shows them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ANDRILL
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 8:03 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2243
Location: Central Colorado
http://www.skepticalscience.com/

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ANDRILL
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 8:49 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
spot1234 wrote:
I can deny it your citing a very controversial paper. I don't really think that cosmic rays impacting cloud formation are the best explanation for anything that they are claimed to do. Furthermore I don't think you are capable of understanding anything. You have repeatedly demonstrated you don't read what you reference let alone the rebuttals.


It's not particularly controversial that Solar Activity dramatically ramped up from the Little Ice Age to the Late-20th Century, meaning that at least part of the warming we have observed in the 20th Century can probably be attributed to solar variation. What is controversial is the GCR Link with Cloud Cover. The papers that try and disprove a GCR-Climate Link use modeled studies Much observational evidence indicates a fairly robust impact on Cloud Cover. However, models are very inadequate with modeling Cloud Cover, and show no statistically significant correlations to observational Cloud properties (Probst et al. 2012). Much observational evidence suggests a robust link between GCRs and Cloud Cover (Dengel et al. 2009).

And the total forcing over a solar cycle has been observed to be 7-8 times larger than the forcing from TSI, suggesting that an amplification mechanism is at work here. (Shaviv 2008) GCRs satisfy this observation, since they have been observed to be well correlated with Cloud Cover over the course of a Solar Cycle, and a 3-4% change in Cloud Cover has been observed, in sync with the Solar Cycle (Reis and Serrano 2009)(Friis-Christensen and Svensmark 1996)

This would correspond to a radiative forcing of approximately 0.8-1.7 w/m^2 which is highly significant and comparable to the anthropogenic forcing since 1750.

Total Solar Irradiance varies by about 1 w/m^2 during a Solar Cycle. To covert this into a radiative forcing, you would need to divide this value by 4 to account for the spherical geometry of the Earth, and multiply it by 0.7 to account for Earth's albedo. This qould equate to a radiative forcing from TSI during a Solar Cycle of around 0.18 w/m^2. Using a median estimate of 1.25 w/m^2 in the Reis and Serrano paper, this represents a total forcing that is around 8 times the TSI Forcing during a Solar Cycle, indicating a robust and strong amplifying mechanism.

This median value is also notably very close to the calculations from Kirkby and Laaksonen 2000who found a radiative forcing from Low Clouds (from Cosmic Rays) during the Solar Cycle to be around 1.2 w/m^2 (Marsden and Lingenfelter 2002).

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ANDRILL
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 10:41 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20474
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
spot1234 wrote:
I can deny it your citing a very controversial paper. I don't really think that cosmic rays impacting cloud formation are the best explanation for anything that they are claimed to do. Furthermore I don't think you are capable of understanding anything. You have repeatedly demonstrated you don't read what you reference let alone the rebuttals.


It's not particularly controversial that Solar Activity dramatically ramped up from the Little Ice Age to the Late-20th Century, meaning that at least part of the warming we have observed in the 20th Century can probably be attributed to solar variation. What is controversial is the GCR Link with Cloud Cover. The papers that try and disprove a GCR-Climate Link use modeled studies Much observational evidence indicates a fairly robust impact on Cloud Cover. However, models are very inadequate with modeling Cloud Cover, and show no statistically significant correlations to observational Cloud properties (Probst et al. 2012). Much observational evidence suggests a robust link between GCRs and Cloud Cover (Dengel et al. 2009).

And the total forcing over a solar cycle has been observed to be 7-8 times larger than the forcing from TSI, suggesting that an amplification mechanism is at work here. (Shaviv 2008) GCRs satisfy this observation, since they have been observed to be well correlated with Cloud Cover over the course of a Solar Cycle, and a 3-4% change in Cloud Cover has been observed, in sync with the Solar Cycle (Reis and Serrano 2009)(Friis-Christensen and Svensmark 1996)

This would correspond to a radiative forcing of approximately 0.8-1.7 w/m^2 which is highly significant and comparable to the anthropogenic forcing since 1750.

Total Solar Irradiance varies by about 1 w/m^2 during a Solar Cycle. To covert this into a radiative forcing, you would need to divide this value by 4 to account for the spherical geometry of the Earth, and multiply it by 0.7 to account for Earth's albedo. This qould equate to a radiative forcing from TSI during a Solar Cycle of around 0.18 w/m^2. Using a median estimate of 1.25 w/m^2 in the Reis and Serrano paper, this represents a total forcing that is around 8 times the TSI Forcing during a Solar Cycle, indicating a robust and strong amplifying mechanism.

This median value is also notably very close to the calculations from Kirkby and Laaksonen 2000who found a radiative forcing from Low Clouds (from Cosmic Rays) during the Solar Cycle to be around 1.2 w/m^2 (Marsden and Lingenfelter 2002).


Still ignoring no mechanism for causation thus leaving only a correlation.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ANDRILL
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:06 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:47 am
Posts: 110
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Spongebob wrote:
Are you being facetious to be a prat?

You have completely sidetracked from any of the evidence of the research, have you got any comments about the work or are you going to nit pick with a word I used to explain the way the research papers do not fully cover the dates above even though they state they have the data and also the things it clearly shows them.



I don't really understand what your arguing, ANDRILL tells us what that is new and revolutionary? I allways thought that the fact that climate changed in the past was well known.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ANDRILL
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:22 pm 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 4:02 pm
Posts: 41
Spot, the data from ANDRILL is well within the natural cycle at our current time and I have put my questions 3 times about this. GWers like yourself seem to think a sea ice free arctic and antarctic is a bad thing, OK so a few polar bears may die in accordance with natural selection as they have evolved to a specialised habitat but this in no way shows we are responsible (edit* for the release of CO2 and its affect on the climate) because the current data does not fit the facts of even the last few thousand years, let alone the last interglacial.

They cannot tax sunlight (yet) so they are taxing the next best thing carbon, now we should stop polluting and change our ways to live with the environment (something a few on this site would actually not want to do) but as resources run out they need to make money from something and to suppress 3/4 of the planet with something as ridiculous as a carbon tax while the other 1/4 carry on with their comfortable lifestyle is not on.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ANDRILL
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 3:08 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2243
Location: Central Colorado
I hear GW is within the natural cycle or all caused by the sun from denialists like you. It has all been previously debunked.
You are getting a little emotional with your bait and switch and name calling. I have also seen this too much.
Andrill isn't the first or only Antarctic core drilling that has happened. They admit large areas of missing data, and that their purpose is to see what an ice free Antarctic was like. The 1992 book from 34 scientists in 18 disciplines and their analysis of 650K years of ice and sediment core data is still valid today, and their forecasts are happening even faster. Same year Teller wrote his last book.
People like you, snow, and others keep blasting away at doing enough to stop tipping points from being crossed, while others call the AGW ignorant right wingers and other garbage.
That is why I don't believe enough will ever be done in time to prevent thermageddon and its ELE completion. People cite one trick pony studies or other previously debunked and rehashed and debunked anti-CAGW garbage, ad nauseum. Just like the infinite Earthers denied overpopulation until the crash is a mathematical certainty.
You denialists guarantee that your own species and near 90% of others go extinct, and do it without a sense of guilt. Amazing. Sad but true. Rabid selfish greed? Maybe. Rabid, for sure. Criminal? Probably, at least to our Creator.

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ANDRILL
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:29 pm 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 4:02 pm
Posts: 41
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
I hear GW is within the natural cycle or all caused by the sun from denialists like you. It has all been previously debunked.
You are getting a little emotional with your bait and switch and name calling. I have also seen this too much.
Andrill isn't the first or only Antarctic core drilling that has happened. They admit large areas of missing data, and that their purpose is to see what an ice free Antarctic was like. The 1992 book from 34 scientists in 18 disciplines and their analysis of 650K years of ice and sediment core data is still valid today, and their forecasts are happening even faster. Same year Teller wrote his last book.
People like you, snow, and others keep blasting away at doing enough to stop tipping points from being crossed, while others call the AGW ignorant right wingers and other garbage.
That is why I don't believe enough will ever be done in time to prevent thermageddon and its ELE completion. People cite one trick pony studies or other previously debunked and rehashed and debunked anti-CAGW garbage, ad nauseum. Just like the infinite Earthers denied overpopulation until the crash is a mathematical certainty.
You denialists guarantee that your own species and near 90% of others go extinct, and do it without a sense of guilt. Amazing. Sad but true. Rabid selfish greed? Maybe. Rabid, for sure. Criminal? Probably, at least to our Creator.



You make me laugh, just because I disagree with the effects of CO2 because the facts do not fit with what has happened or is happening you call me a deniar, you are right bait and switch is used to much by both sides of the argument and it gets boring to read stupid remarks when trying to discuss things, and to not be presented with a counter argument for that one point is pretty poor. Wayne keeps using the saying correlation is not causation or whatever it is and that is everything in a nutshell. If you think ANDRILL is a one trick pony study when it is carried out by the very same organisations that bring you the ice core samples, ice sheet growth and loss each year, CO2 and other gas levels in the atmosphere of the antarctic and anything else that is studied in the antarctic then you need to open your eyes and grow up. To accuse someone of something as you have is nothing more than a blinded argument because if you took the time to read another thread I posted in you would see I agree with over-population being a serious problem (but have a different starting point to its cause).

I will ask you if you knew that in the research done in the arctic, with the better resoultion they have on the ice and sediment cores, that it shows before we go into a cooling (and they found it the same at the start of every glacial) a period of a few decades when the temperature spikes?

You accuse me of getting emotional, and without even taking the time to get to know me, or discuss things like an adult you spout a load of religious garbage thinking in some way you are better than me, well it is people like you that took part in the fascist war we suffered in the last century and that johnny electriglide (you trying to sound like a super hero by chance??lol) is my opinion of you, but wait I have just done to you what you did to me and judged you without getting to know you, without taking time to discuss things like an adult.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ANDRILL
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:40 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:47 am
Posts: 110
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Spongebob wrote:
Spot, the data from ANDRILL is well within the natural cycle at our current time


That statement is meaningless


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ANDRILL
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:27 pm 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 4:02 pm
Posts: 41
spot1234 wrote:
Spongebob wrote:
Spot, the data from ANDRILL is well within the natural cycle at our current time


That statement is meaningless



Really, why is that spot?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ANDRILL
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 6:47 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Spongebob wrote:

You accuse me of getting emotional, and without even taking the time to get to know me, or discuss things like an adult you spout a load of religious garbage thinking in some way you are better than me, well it is people like you that took part in the fascist war we suffered in the last century and that johnny electriglide (you trying to sound like a super hero by chance??lol) is my opinion of you, but wait I have just done to you what you did to me and judged you without getting to know you, without taking time to discuss things like an adult.


Johnny is a nasty troll who has absolutely nothing scientific or meaningful to add in any of his posts.

It's best that you just simply ignore him.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ANDRILL
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 6:49 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
spot1234 wrote:
I can deny it your citing a very controversial paper. I don't really think that cosmic rays impacting cloud formation are the best explanation for anything that they are claimed to do. Furthermore I don't think you are capable of understanding anything. You have repeatedly demonstrated you don't read what you reference let alone the rebuttals.


It's not particularly controversial that Solar Activity dramatically ramped up from the Little Ice Age to the Late-20th Century, meaning that at least part of the warming we have observed in the 20th Century can probably be attributed to solar variation. What is controversial is the GCR Link with Cloud Cover. The papers that try and disprove a GCR-Climate Link use modeled studies Much observational evidence indicates a fairly robust impact on Cloud Cover. However, models are very inadequate with modeling Cloud Cover, and show no statistically significant correlations to observational Cloud properties (Probst et al. 2012). Much observational evidence suggests a robust link between GCRs and Cloud Cover (Dengel et al. 2009).

And the total forcing over a solar cycle has been observed to be 7-8 times larger than the forcing from TSI, suggesting that an amplification mechanism is at work here. (Shaviv 2008) GCRs satisfy this observation, since they have been observed to be well correlated with Cloud Cover over the course of a Solar Cycle, and a 3-4% change in Cloud Cover has been observed, in sync with the Solar Cycle (Reis and Serrano 2009)(Friis-Christensen and Svensmark 1996)

This would correspond to a radiative forcing of approximately 0.8-1.7 w/m^2 which is highly significant and comparable to the anthropogenic forcing since 1750.

Total Solar Irradiance varies by about 1 w/m^2 during a Solar Cycle. To covert this into a radiative forcing, you would need to divide this value by 4 to account for the spherical geometry of the Earth, and multiply it by 0.7 to account for Earth's albedo. This qould equate to a radiative forcing from TSI during a Solar Cycle of around 0.18 w/m^2. Using a median estimate of 1.25 w/m^2 in the Reis and Serrano paper, this represents a total forcing that is around 8 times the TSI Forcing during a Solar Cycle, indicating a robust and strong amplifying mechanism.

This median value is also notably very close to the calculations from Kirkby and Laaksonen 2000who found a radiative forcing from Low Clouds (from Cosmic Rays) during the Solar Cycle to be around 1.2 w/m^2 (Marsden and Lingenfelter 2002).


Still ignoring no mechanism for causation thus leaving only a correlation.


CERN confirmed that Cosmic Rays influence the nucleation rate for Cloud Formation... the only question now is how strong this impact is.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ANDRILL
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 7:01 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20474
Location: Southeastern US
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
spot1234 wrote:
I can deny it your citing a very controversial paper. I don't really think that cosmic rays impacting cloud formation are the best explanation for anything that they are claimed to do. Furthermore I don't think you are capable of understanding anything. You have repeatedly demonstrated you don't read what you reference let alone the rebuttals.


It's not particularly controversial that Solar Activity dramatically ramped up from the Little Ice Age to the Late-20th Century, meaning that at least part of the warming we have observed in the 20th Century can probably be attributed to solar variation. What is controversial is the GCR Link with Cloud Cover. The papers that try and disprove a GCR-Climate Link use modeled studies Much observational evidence indicates a fairly robust impact on Cloud Cover. However, models are very inadequate with modeling Cloud Cover, and show no statistically significant correlations to observational Cloud properties (Probst et al. 2012). Much observational evidence suggests a robust link between GCRs and Cloud Cover (Dengel et al. 2009).

And the total forcing over a solar cycle has been observed to be 7-8 times larger than the forcing from TSI, suggesting that an amplification mechanism is at work here. (Shaviv 2008) GCRs satisfy this observation, since they have been observed to be well correlated with Cloud Cover over the course of a Solar Cycle, and a 3-4% change in Cloud Cover has been observed, in sync with the Solar Cycle (Reis and Serrano 2009)(Friis-Christensen and Svensmark 1996)

This would correspond to a radiative forcing of approximately 0.8-1.7 w/m^2 which is highly significant and comparable to the anthropogenic forcing since 1750.

Total Solar Irradiance varies by about 1 w/m^2 during a Solar Cycle. To covert this into a radiative forcing, you would need to divide this value by 4 to account for the spherical geometry of the Earth, and multiply it by 0.7 to account for Earth's albedo. This qould equate to a radiative forcing from TSI during a Solar Cycle of around 0.18 w/m^2. Using a median estimate of 1.25 w/m^2 in the Reis and Serrano paper, this represents a total forcing that is around 8 times the TSI Forcing during a Solar Cycle, indicating a robust and strong amplifying mechanism.

This median value is also notably very close to the calculations from Kirkby and Laaksonen 2000who found a radiative forcing from Low Clouds (from Cosmic Rays) during the Solar Cycle to be around 1.2 w/m^2 (Marsden and Lingenfelter 2002).


Still ignoring no mechanism for causation thus leaving only a correlation.


Snowy123 wrote:
CERN confirmed that Cosmic Rays influence the nucleation rate for Cloud Formation... the only question now is how strong this impact is.


No, they confirmed an influence on the nucleation rate of very small particles that could not account for the observed rates even with various multipliers added.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ANDRILL
PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2012 12:05 am 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 4:02 pm
Posts: 41
Johnny, they admit to missing data because at depth in the sediment core there are times when the ice touched the ground at the spot they are drilling into the sea bed under the sea ice, so those gaps are because the ice scoured that sediment out of existence as it did what ice at that volume does best.

What it also shows is that there were times when the ice sheet on the land receded due to the change in composition of the sediment and the diotoms that populated the warmer seas.

Palaeontological Characterisation and Analysis of the
AND-2A Core, ANDRILL Southern McMurdo Sound Project,
Antarctica

Have a look at that paper and you will see the sediment layers, species abundance and spread, and while they do not display the data for the top few metres, in the other papers I have cited before they claim they have studied it, even to as recently as the last 1,000 years because they can see the MWP and LIA, I have emailed them to ask for a copy of it, if they do I will post it to the thread.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group