Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (832457)	1/25/2015 3:09:27 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579867

"Why The Big Fuss?" "Tar sands exploitation would mean game over for climate, warns leading scientist" Prof James Hansen Euan has always been a denier, going back to his days on The Drum. He wasn't alone. Euan Mearns opts for the outdated laggy denier meme The second article I'll comment on is about CO2 and temperature. Euan Mearns wrote a very long article (archived here) repeating the worn out, dated denier meme that CO2 lags temperature therefore climate science is a hoax. Well, not quite, but almost. Problem for Euan is that he doesn't keep up with the science. He's relying on a very highly-cited 1999 paper in Nature, by Jean-Robert Petit and colleagues, reporting analysis of the Vostok ice core. The paper showed that: Present-day atmospheric burdens of these two important greenhouse gases seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years. The actual "lag" had long been questioned by scientists, including the authors of the paper, who themselves wrote: However, considering the large gas-age/iceage uncertainty (1,000 years, or even more if we consider the accumulation-rate uncertainty), we feel that it is premature to infer the sign of the phase relationship between CO2 and temperature at the start of terminations. This is explained more, in this realclimate.org article from 2007. ...it is very challenging to put CO2 records from ice cores on the same timescale as temperature records from those same ice cores, due to the time delay in trapping the atmosphere as the snow is compressed into ice (the ice at any time will always be older than the gas bubbles it encloses, and the age difference is inherently uncertain). Last year there were two papers that came out around the same time, which markedly reduced the "lag" in the Antarctic ice cores. One was by Parrenin and co, published in Science and the other by Joel Pedro and colleagues, published in Climate of the Past. Both are discussed in an article by Edward J. Brook in Science mag. He wrote: One reason that the answer to the above question [which came first - CO2 or temperature change] is more complicated than it may seem is a peculiarity of air preservation in ice. Over the top 50 or 100 m of an ice sheet, the snowpack (firn) gradually becomes denser before it becomes solid ice containing air bubbles. Air diffuses rapidly through the firn, and the trapped air is therefore younger than the surrounding ice. In places with little snowfall, the age difference can be several thousand years. The age difference cannot be reconstructed perfectly, leading to uncertainty in the age of the air (containing the CO2 record) relative to that of the ice (containing the climate record). A second problem is related to the question itself. The global carbon cycle is an interlinked set of processes that both impact, and are impacted by, climate. For example, warming of the sea surface releases CO2, and that increase contributes to further warming. Ocean circulation changes driven by changes in climate affect the amount of CO2 sequestered in the deep ocean, in turn influencing surface temperature. It seems unlikely that a change in global climate would not influence CO2 concentrations and vice versa. Seeking simple cause and effect is thus difficult.If you don't have time to read the papers themselves but want to find out more, I strongly suggest reading Edward J. Brook's article. It not only reports the findings of the papers, it discusses what is still not known plus the inherent uncertainties in analysis of ice cores. It's just a shame that Euan Mearns doesn't read more science. blog.hotwhopper.com

To: Brumar89 who wrote (832457)	1/25/2015 3:11:37 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1579867

We have a winner. Some denier says it's the galactic plane. LilyR. says: January 23, 2015 at 8:48 pm Picture an egg in a frying pan. That is our milky way galaxy. Our sun is on the outer edges of the white part of the egg. It takes 226 million years to orbit the galaxy only once. If you look at the milky way galaxy sideways, it’s very thin. As our sun travels around, it oscillates a small amount above and below the center of the galactic plane. It takes 11000 years to go from above to below and back. When it passes through the center, the pull of the Galaxy’s gravity affects our sun in a small way. The pull of our sun affects us in a small way too. At the present time, we are dead center into the transition from above to below. This explains what is happening to the global temperatures. It’s not the end of the world. It just means more bizarre weather ahead for the next century or so. The result of that is you can’t equate anything like the ice caps melting with some kind of bizarre and desperate need for a cap’n trade or carbon credit scheme. Anybody seriously buying into these things would be a worthy candidate for a lobotomy to see what went so horribly wrong with the person’s neurons. Ron Patterson says: January 23, 2015 at 10:52 pm Doug, Lily gave me the best laugh I’ve had in a week. It takes an imagination to dream up bullshit like that. LilyR. says: January 23, 2015 at 11:19 pm Mr. Leighton, I don’t think you are understanding me. Once again, let me emphasize the earth has become slightly warmer in the past few decades simply because we’re passing through the galactic celestial plane. This happens every 11000 years or so like clockwork. During this time the galaxy pulls on our sun and increases gravity slightly and as a result, the sun’s pull on all the planets increases. Of course here on earth we’ll feel this a bit more because we’re on one of the Inner Planets. But make no mistake, all the planets influenced by our sun have had a proportional temp. increase in the past few decades for the exact same reason. NASA is aware of this but is being bamboozled by O and his far left government in order to secure government funding. Thus NASA and other agencies are forced to continue toeing the official AGW line and to mislead the public with false claims as to the real reasons behind the global warming. peakoilbarrel.com