Climate-Modeling Illusions Not Based on Reality

[DB]

The problem when it comes to any climate predictions as you’re dealing with something that is dynamic and a natural part of the earth anyways. We could be in another Ice Age 100 years from now

@LMAO, We've been in the Quaternary ice age for over 2 million years now. It seems few people realize that. We are in an interglacial period within the current ice age. We've been in the current interglacial period for about 10,000 years now. The definition of an interglacial period is when glaciers recede over an extended period of time. Imagine that... And now people claim it must be man caused if glaciers are receding... They have been for thousands of years... When the next glacial period starts up again, look out... The northern part of North America had 2 mile thick ice covering it... Climate science has turned into religion not based on science at all.

[DB]

I challenge Dexter to define a "math model," "algorithm," etc. how he chooses.

His purpose if he accept the challenge, would be to merely demonstrate that he even understands the process.

And I keep on repeating the question "What cause the warming  to bring about, the end of previous Ice Ages?"

@truth_seeker , The end of the last glacial period, we are in an ice age now. Imagine when this ice age ends... It was drastically warmer than today...

[catfish1957]

@LMAO, We've been in the Quaternary ice age for over 2 million years now. It seems few people realize that. We are in an interglacial period within the current ice age. We've been in the current interglacial period for about 10,000 years now. The definition of an interglacial period is when glaciers recede over an extended period of time. Imagine that... And now people claim it must be man caused if glaciers are receding... They have been for thousands of years... When the next glacial period starts up again, look out... The northern part of North America had 2 mile thick ice covering it... Climate science has turned into religion not based on science at all.

The actual warmest record earth temperature in recorded history was between 950- 1050 a.d  Greenland was colonized, with evidence of agriculture.  The envirowhackos don't really like the cover that aspect of climate variability .

[truth_seeker]

@truth_seeker , The end of the last glacial period, we are in an ice age now. Imagine when this ice age ends... It was drastically warmer than today...

Thanks. It is my understanding the ice advanced south across Eurasia and North America, then retreated.

I am searching for the best scientific  knowledge, theories, about the cause of warming, that resulted in that caused the the latest retreat.

[Axeslinger]

Thanks. It is my understanding the ice advanced south across Eurasia and North America, then retreated.

I am searching for the best scientific  knowledge, theories, about the cause of warming, that resulted in that caused the the latest retreat.

@truth_seeker  @DB

But, but, but....SCIENTISTS!!!!

[DB]

Thanks. It is my understanding the ice advanced south across Eurasia and North America, then retreated.

I am searching for the best scientific  knowledge, theories, about the cause of warming, that resulted in that caused the the latest retreat.

Probably the sun, orbit and tilt. Ocean currents are also a factor moving heat around. Considering the earth's land masses are moving with plate tectonics the ocean currents are changing too beyond their known cycles. Nothing is static regardless of what the AGW crowd claims. We have an infantile understanding of the sun at this point and our recorded history of it activities is a blink of an eye in geological time terms. There are only two significant energy sources (that I can think of off hand), the sun and the earths core. Everything else is tiny noise.

[truth_seeker]

@truth_seeker  @DB

But, but, but....SCIENTISTS!!!!

I studied just enough "science" to realize that a statement about reasons that caused prior warming, is reasonable.


But I have not found it.

BTW Scott Adams analysed the 1600+ page report from 13 govt. agencies, and it concludes the most likely result of NOT DOING ANYTHING, is about a 10 percent hit, to to USA's GDP by 80 years from present.

He's no scientist. But he opines we will do something, and technology will advance, etc.

So the real impact will be even less than 10 percent.

[truth_seeker]

Probably the sun, orbit and tilt. Ocean currents are also a factor moving heat around. Considering the earth's land masses are moving with plate tectonics the ocean currents are changing too beyond their known cycles. Nothing is static regardless of what the AGW crowd claims. We have an infantile understanding of the sun at this point and our recorded history of it activities is a blink of an eye in geological time terms. There are only two significant energy sources (that I can think of off hand), the sun and the earths core. Everything else is tiny noise.

Weathermen usually mention "El Nino" but then conclude we don't know what, how, etc.

Sun spots, cycles, deep ocean temps and currents, and dozens of factors to learn about.


I would enjoy a simple lay explanation about the "models," variables, track record for predictions, etc.

[berdie]

Huh?  Right leaning?  So you are basically admitting that AGW is a "left leaning position?

You are making progress son.  Keep it up.

And I find it sad that @Dexter  didn't read the article and check the  background of the author and the  institute that he is a part of.  It was a good article that might have shed some light. But sometimes people don't want more education I guess. Contrary to what they say.

[DB]

Weathermen usually mention "El Nino" but then conclude we don't know what, how, etc.

Sun spots, cycles, deep ocean temps and currents, and dozens of factors to learn about.


I would enjoy a simple lay explanation about the "models," variables, track record for predictions, etc.

The models assume that CO2 provides positive feedback to the energy balance system making it a hypersensitive factor. It is the only way to make CO2 a significant factor. Yet there is zip actual evidence to support that position. Water vapor is the far more dominant "green house" gas in the atmosphere many times over.

And magically the models leave out clouds. Clouds are a negative feedback stabilizing factor. Water vapor produces clouds and clouds reflect sunlight back into space. There is also strong evidence that when the sun quiets down the solar winds diminish changing the earths magnetic field behavior allowing more cosmic rays into our atmosphere. There is a correlation between cosmic rays and cloud seeding. The theory goes that when the sun quiets down with more cosmic rays entering the atmosphere there is more cloud formation cooling the planet. And that explains why even though the energy output of the sun doesn't go down by much in quiet periods it has other affects on our planet besides just energy output.

There is also "space weather".  Cosmic rays from outside our solar system are not constant. As they fluctuate they may well have an impact on our planet as described above.

[Bigun]

And I find it sad that @Dexter  didn't read the article and check the  background of the author and the  institute that he is a part of.  It was a good article that might have shed some light. But sometimes people don't want more education I guess. Contrary to what they say.

@berdie

Unfortunately, @Dexter isn't interested in learning anything. He's just your standard, everyday troll.

[berdie]

@berdie

Unfortunately, @Dexter isn't interested in learning anything. He's just your standard, everyday troll.

@Bigun I fear you maybe right. I keep thinking he might really want to learn...but after reading his  posts I'm beginning to rethink that.

[Oceander]

Would you knock it off talking like that.  There is no place for reasoned thought and logic like that in this topic.

You sir need to leave now!

[Oceander]

@berdie

Unfortunately, @Dexter isn't interested in learning anything. He's just your standard, everyday troll.

No, he’s not just a standard troll.  He has his moments, granted, but he also shows a lot more good faith than a mere troll would show.

[the_doc]

No, he’s not just a standard troll.  He has his moments, granted, but he also shows a lot more good faith than a mere troll would show.

I agree. 

[Elderberry]

Thanks. It is my understanding the ice advanced south across Eurasia and North America, then retreated.

I am searching for the best scientific  knowledge, theories, about the cause of warming, that resulted in that caused the the latest retreat.

@truth_seeker  Maybe this will help.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-climate-change/Glacial-Interglacial%20Cycles

Home > Perspectives Abrupt Climate Change > Perspectives Abrupt Climate Change > Glacial-Interglacial Cycles

Glacial-Interglacial Cycles

Large, continental ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere have grown and retreated many times in the past. We call times with large ice sheets “glacial periods” (or ice ages) and times without large ice sheets “interglacial periods.” The most recent glacial period occurred between about 120,000 and 11,500 years ago. Since then, Earth has been in an interglacial period called the Holocene. Glacial periods are colder, dustier, and generally drier than interglacial periods. These glacial–interglacial cycles are apparent in many marine and terrestrial paleoclimate records from around the world.

 What causes glacial–interglacial cycles?

Variations in Earth's orbit through time have changed the amount of solar radiation Earth receives in each season. Interglacial periods tend to happen during times of more intense summer solar radiation in the Northern Hemisphere. These glacial–interglacial cycles have waxed and waned throughout the Quaternary Period (the past 2.6 million years). Since the middle Quaternary, glacial–interglacial cycles have had a frequency of about 100,000 years (Lisiecki and Raymo 2005 (link is external)). In the solar radiation time series, cycles of this length (known as “eccentricity”) are present but are weaker than cycles lasting about 23,000 years (which are called “precession of the equinoxes”).

Interglacial periods tend to occur during periods of peak solar radiation in the Northern Hemisphere summer. However, full interglacials occur only about every fifth peak in the precession cycle. The full explanation for this observation is still an active area of research. Nonlinear processes such as positive feedbacks within the climate system may also be very important in determining when glacial and interglacial periods occur.

Another interesting fact is that temperature variations in Antarctica are in phase with solar radiation changes in the high northern latitudes. Solar radiation changes in the high southern latitudes near Antarctica are actually out of phase with temperature changes, such that the coldest period during the most recent ice age occurred at about the time the region was experiencing a peak in local sunshine. This means that the growth of ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere has an important influence on climate worldwide.
Why do glacial periods end abruptly?

Notice the asymmetric shape of the Antarctic temperature record (black line), with abrupt warmings shown in yellow preceding more gradual coolings (Kawamura et al. 2007 (link is external); Jouzel et al. 2007 (link is external)). Warming at the end of glacial periods tends to happen more abruptly than the increase in solar insolation. Several positive feedbacks are responsible for this. One is the ice-albedo feedback. A second feedback involves atmospheric CO2. Direct measurement of past CO2 trapped in ice core bubbles shows that the amount of atmospheric CO2 decreased during glacial periods (Kawamura et al. 2007 (link is external); Siegenthaler et al. 2005 (link is external); Bereiter et al. 2015 (link is external)), in part because the deep ocean stored more CO2 due to changes in either ocean mixing or biological activity. Lower CO2 levels weakened the atmosphere's greenhouse effect and helped to maintain lower temperatures. Warming at the end of the glacial periods liberated CO2 from the ocean, which strengthened the atmosphere's greenhouse effect and contributed to further warming.

 Some important datasets related to glacial/interglacial cycles:

    Berger and Loutre (1991) (link is external), calculated incoming solar radiation for the last 5 million years
    Peltier (1994) (link is external), ice sheet topography since the last glacial maximum
    Lisiecki and Raymo (2005) (link is external), benthic δ18O records used as a proxy for global ice volume
    Siegenthaler et al. (2005) (link is external), carbon dioxide from the EPICA Dome C ice core in Antarctica
    Jouzel et al. (2007) (link is external), stable isotopes from the EPICA Dome C ice core in Antarctica
    Kawamura et al. (2007) (link is external), stable isotopes and trace gases from the Dome Fuji ice core
    Bereiter et al. (2015) (link is external), carbon dioxide from the EPICA Dome C ice core in Antarctica

More at link above.