WorthyNews: Europe boils in record-setting heat wave

[thomas t]

5 hours ago, other one said:

yes it is a Christian trait when it's been three or four years since one has looked into it.

no, please, back your allegations up.

The source I gave earlier is about the CO2 levels and its relationship with climate change. Did you like it?

this is what we ought to do (Gen 1:28:)

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Thomas

EDIT: since you say plants are thriving because of CO2 surpluses:

https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-forests-on-the-verge-of-collapse-experts-report/a-49659810

This essay describes very much how the weather impacts cause German plants to die.

 

P.S.: I don't want to kill off anybody, as you said. Just asking if you could contribute to get CO2 levels down. I love God's given forests and at the moment forests are getting down.

 

Edited July 27, 2019 by thomas t
wanted to comment on one more point brought up by "other one"

[other one]

17 minutes ago, thomas t said:

no, please, back your allegations up.

The source I gave earlier is about the CO2 levels and its relationship with climate change. Did you like it?

this is what we ought to do (Gen 1:28:)

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Thomas

EDIT: since you say plants are thriving because of CO2 surpluses:

https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-forests-on-the-verge-of-collapse-experts-report/a-49659810

This essay describes very much how the weather impacts cause German plants to die.

 

P.S.: I don't want to kill off anybody, as you said. Just asking if you could contribute to get CO2 levels down. I love God's given forests and at the moment forests are getting down.

 

bark beetles are killing off entire mountain ranges here for certain kinds of trees....   as the evergreen trees die out Aspens are replacing them....    It happens....   CO2 really isn't causing the problem, it is the sun.

About 8 years ago as I remember a group of us were concerned about the HAARP antenna array in Alaska and was monitoring it's activity as the Air Force and the two colleges built up it's power to 7 billion watts just before DARPA took it over and all information went dark and was not available.    Even the patents that Dr. Teller filed and were given were listed as secrets.

During this time period as we researched what they were doing with harp one of the patents they had received was to actually modulate the earths magnetosphere to send messages to our nuclear submarines while they were deep in the ocean....    so as a particular set of sequences showed up we were wanting to know what it was doing.    One of our guys ran across a Japanese company that was doing research on the earths magnetosphere and they had all kinds of sensors that would feed information to a mainframe computer they were using for their research.  It had a public web site that had a live model of what was happening to the magnetosphere 24/7 and we got to watching that site along with the HAARP signals and could see the fluctuations.....      Then sometime after DARPA took it over we started seeing some very large anomalies in the magnetosphere that didn't have anything to do with HAARP.  Some days it would nearly collapse over certain areas and in trying to find out what was going on someone ran across a paper discussing the deep magnetic storms on the Sun...   and it turns out that the activity on the sun was affecting our own magnetosphere which lets the solar output go much deeper into our atmosphere and at times  above the artic circle all the way to the ground...  sometimes for an hour and other times for a day.       Someone made the mistake of writing to the company in Japan and asked some questions about their research and "just like that"  the model site we were using became a private address that is basically invitation only access...

This long story short, our government and some higher education knows that the sun is affecting our earth and does not want the general public to understand....   deep state people and global government people are using this as a scam to grab global power over all local governments.   I have seen many different things written about it, but nothing I could share at the moment as you have to be seriously involved to have any access to it these days.

It's pretty much the old adage of not letting any disaster go to waste in the political realm.

If you want to spend the hours of looking all this might be available to you, but my personal mind has been set for some time now....    I'm just letting you know the information is probably still there but it's buried inside a lot of false stuff to confuse the situation....

[missmuffet]

6 hours ago, thomas t said:

Hi Other One,

not giving back-up information when we accuse somebody of something - is that a Christian trait?

Hi Missmuffet,

when we treat His earth like waste, we shouldn't be worried that the punishment will come.

Regards,

Thomas

I agree. We should respect this earth that He created and take care of it. 

[thomas t]

Hi Missmuffet,

20 hours ago, missmuffet said:

We should respect this earth that He created and take care of it. 

Amen, must be the Holy Spirit that explains.

Thomas

---

Hi Cletus;

20 hours ago, Cletus said:

another good way we can do that is cut down all the forests, especially the rain forest because the decaying forest floor produces lots of carbon dioxide. 

So let's listen to what science has to say:

"By most accounts, deforestation in tropical rainforests adds more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than the sum total of cars and trucks on the world’s roads. According to the World Carfree Network (WCN), cars and trucks account for about 14 percent of global carbon emissions, while most analysts attribute upwards of 15 percent to deforestation. "

Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/

Thomas

---

Hi Other One,

20 hours ago, other one said:

CO2 really isn't causing the problem, it is the sun.

[...]

deep state people and global government people are using this as a scam

Again, I couldn't find but one source in your whole article. It's a shame.

So let's listen to what science has to tell you about what you say:

"The greenhouse gas qualities of carbon dioxide have been known for over a century. In 1861, John Tyndal published laboratory results identifying carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas that absorbed heat rays (longwave radiation). Since then, the absorptive qualities of carbon dioxide have been more precisely quantified by decades of laboratory measurements (Herzberg 1953, Burch 1962, Burch 1970, etc). "

Click here for source.

Regards,

Thomas

EDIT: here we see information about your hypothesis that the sun is causing global warmth:

https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

This source says this:

"Over the last 35 years the sun has shown a cooling trend. However global temperatures continue to increase. If the sun's energy is decreasing while the Earth is warming, then the sun can't be the main control of the temperature.

Figure 1 shows the trend in global temperature compared to changes in the amount of solar energy that hits the Earth. The sun's energy fluctuates on a cycle that's about 11 years long. The energy changes by about 0.1% on each cycle. If the Earth's temperature was controlled mainly by the sun, then it should have cooled between 2000 and 2008. 

Figure 1: Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007. TSI from 1979 to 2015 from the World Radiation Center (see their PMOD index page for data updates). Plots of the most recent solar irradiance can be found at the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics LISIRD site."

Edited July 28, 2019 by thomas t
wanted to add information about the sun purpotedly causing global warming, I hope the figure opens..., see EDIT

[other one]

A study: The temperature rise has caused the CO2 Increase, not the other way around

Anthony Watts / June 9, 2010

Guest post by Lon Hocker

A commonly seen graph illustrating what is claimed to be a causal correlation between CO2 and temperature, with CO2 as the cause. (Image courtesy Zfacts.com)

Abstract

Differentiating the CO2 measurements over the last thirty years produces a pattern that matches the temperature anomaly measured by satellites in extreme detail.    That this correlation includes El Niño years, and shows that the temperature rise is causing the rise in CO2, rather than the other way around.  The simple equation that connects the satellite and Mauna Loa data is shown to have a straight forward physical explanation.

Introduction

The last few decades has shown a heated debate on the topic of whether the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is causing rising temperatures.  Many complex models have been made that seem to confirm the idea that anthropological CO2 is responsible for the temperature increase that has been observed.  The debate has long since jumped the boundary between science and politics and has produced a large amount of questionable research.

“Consensus View”

Many people claim that anthropological CO2 is the cause of global warming.  Satellite temperature data, http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt, and Mauna Loa CO2 measurements, ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt, are well accepted and freely available to all researchers.  Figure 1 shows a plot of the Ocean Temperature Anomaly from the satellite data shows a general rising trend.  Shown along with the temperature data is a simple linear model showing the temperature rise as a linear function of CO2 concentration.   This shown linear model is:

Temperature Anomaly =  (CO2 -350)/180

No attempt has been made to optimize this model.  Although it follows the general trend of the temperature data, it follows none of the details of the temperature anomaly curve.  No amount of averaging or modification of the coefficients of the model would help it follow the details of the temperature anomaly.

Figure 1:  Ocean Temperature Anomaly and linear CO2 model

Derivative approach

An alternate approach that does show these details is that the temperature anomaly is correlated with the rate of increase of CO2.  I discovered this independently and roughly simultaneously with Michael Beenstock and Yaniv Reingewertz http://economics.huji.ac.il/facultye/beenstock/Nature_Paper091209.pdf.

Applying this model to the Mauna Loa data not only shows the overall trend, but also matches the many El Niño events that have occurred while satellite data has been available.  The Figure 2, shows the derivative model along with the observed Ocean Temperature Anomaly.  The model is simply

Temperature Anomaly = (CO2(n+6) – CO2(n-6))/(12*0.22) – 0.58

where ‘n’ is the month.  Using the n+6 and n=6 values (CO2 levels six months before and six months after) cancels out the annual variations of CO2 levels that is seen in the Mauna Loa data, and provides some limited averaging of the data.

The two coefficients, (0.22 and 0.58) were chosen to optimize the fit.  However, the constant 0.58 (degrees Celsius) corresponds to the offset needed to bring the temperature anomaly to the value generally accepted to be the temperature in the mid 1800’s when the temperature was considered to be relatively constant.  The second coefficient also has a physical basis, and will be discussed later.

Figure 2:  Ocean Temperature Anomaly and derivative CO2 model

There is a strong correlation between the measured anomaly and the Derivative model.  It shows the strong El Niño of 1997-1998 very clearly, and also shows the other El Niño events during the plotted time period about as well as the satellite data does.

Discussion

El Niño events have been recognized from at least 1902, so it would seem inappropriate to claim that they are caused by the increase of CO2.  Given the very strong correlation between the temperature anomaly and the rate of increase of CO2, and the inability to justify an increase of CO2 causing El Niño, it seems unavoidable that the causality is opposite from that which has been offered by the IPCC.  The temperature increase is causing the change in the increase of CO2.

It is important to emphasize that this simple model only uses the raw Mauna Loa CO2 data for its input.  The output of this model compares directly with the satellite data.  Both of these data sets are readily available on the internet, and the calculations are trivially done on a spreadsheet.

Considering this reversed causality, it is appropriate to use the derivative model to predict the CO2 level given the temperature anomaly.  The plot below shows the CO2 level calculated by using the same model.  The CO2 level by summing the monthly CO2 level changes caused by the temperature anomaly.

Month(n) CO2 = Month(n-1) CO2 + 0.22*(Month(n) Anomaly + 0.58)

Figure 3: Modeled CO2 vs Observed CO2 over Time

 

Not surprisingly the model tracks the CO2 level well, though it does not show the annual variation.  That it does not track the annual variations isn’t particularly surprising, since the ocean temperature anomaly is averaged over all the oceans, and the Mauna Loa observations are made at a single location.  Careful inspection of the plot shows that it tracks the small inflections of the CO2 measurements.

The Mauna Loa data actually goes back to 1958, so one can use the model to calculate the temperature anomaly back before satellite data was available.  The plot below shows the calculated temperature anomaly back to 1960, and may represent the most accurate available temperature measurement data set in the period between 1960 and 1978.

Figure 4: Calculated Temperature Anomaly from MLO CO2 data

 

Precise temperature measurements are not available in the time period before Satellite data.  However, El Niño data is available at http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml making it possible  to show the correlation between the calculated temperatures and the and El Niño strength.  Note that the correlation between temperature anomaly and El Niño strength is strong throughout the time span covered.

Figure 5: Calculated Temp CO2 from CO2 and ENSO data

 

An Explanation for this Model

The second free parameter used to match the CO2 concentration and temperature anomaly,  0.22 ppm per month per degree C of temperature anomaly, has a clear physical basis.  A warmer ocean can hold less CO2, so increasing temperatures will release CO2 from the ocean to the atmosphere.

The Atmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 (http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/slides/climate/carbon_res_flux.gif), the ocean 36,000 billion tons of CO2.  Raising the temperature of the ocean one degree reduces the solubility of CO2 in the ocean by about 4% (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gases-solubility-water-d_1148.html)

Figure 6: Solubility of CO2 in water (While CO2 solubility in seawater is slightly different than in pure H2O shown above in Figure 6, it gives us a reasonably close fit.)

This releases about 1440 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere. This release would roughly triple the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

We have seen what appears to be about a 0.8 degree temperature rise of the atmosphere in the last century and a half, but nowhere near the factor of three temperature rise.  There is a delay due to the rate of heat transfer to the ocean and the mixing of the ocean.  This has been studied in detail by NOAA, http://www.oco.noaa.gov/index.jsp?show_page=page_roc.jsp&nav=universal,  and they estimate that it would take 230 years for an atmospheric temperature change to cause a 63% temperature change if the ocean were rapidly mixed.

Using this we can make a back of the envelope calculation of the second parameter in the equation.  This value will be approximately the amount of CO2 released per unit temperature rise (760 ppm/C)) divided by the mixing time (230 years). Using these values gives a value of 0.275 ppm /C/month instead of the observed 0.22 ppm/C/month, but not out of line considering that we are modeling a very complex transfer with a single time constant, and ignoring the mixing time of the ocean.

Conclusion

Using two well accepted data sets, a simple model can be used to show that the rise in CO2 is a result of the temperature anomaly, not the other way around.  This is the exact opposite of the IPCC model that claims that rising CO2 causes the temperature anomaly.

We offer no explanation for why global temperatures are changing now or have changed in the past, but it seems abundantly clear that the recent temperature rise is not caused by the rise in CO2 levels.

================================================

Lon Hocker describes himself as: “Undergrad physics at Princeton.  Graduate School MIT.  PhD under Ali Javan the inventor of the gas laser.  Retired president of Onset Computer Corp., which I started over 30 years ago.  Live in Hawaii and am in a band that includes two of the folks who work at MLO (Mauna Loa Observatory)!”

[thomas t]

36 minutes ago, other one said:

A study: The temperature rise has caused the CO2 Increase, not the other way around 

ok, below is a rebuttal:

Let me first point out that this source, providing a source itself, says the oceans are rather a "sink" for CO2 than a source.

 

Quote

 

Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?

Link to this page

What the science says...

Hocker is claiming that his model shows that the long-term upward trend in CO2 is explained by temperature, when his methods actually removed the long-term trend. In today's world, the greatly increased partial pressure of CO2 from fossil fuel emissions causes a flux of CO2 from the atmosphere to the oceans. Observations show the oceans are a "sink" rather than a source of CO2 in the atmosphere

Climate Myth...

Warming causes CO2 rise
'Differentiating the CO2 measurements over the last thirty years produces a pattern that matches the temperature anomaly measured by satellites in extreme detail.    That this correlation includes El Niño years, and shows that the temperature rise is causing the rise in CO2, rather than the other way around.' (Lon Hocker)

 

A new article by Lon Hocker at the website "Watts Up With That?" examines the relationship between global temperature and CO2 over the last three decades.  The article's conclusion is concisely summarised in its title:  The temperature rise has caused the CO2 increase, not the other way around. This conclusion would be rather startling if it were true, since the scientific consensus is that CO2 is currently acting as a "forcing" that warms the climate.  How does Hocker reach this conclusion, and is it reasonable?

The data used in Hocker's analysis are monthly atmospheric CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa (obtained from NOAA) and satellite-measured temperature data for the lower troposphere (from UAH, apparently using a subset of the global data over the oceans only).  The temperature data are recorded as anomalies, or differences between the actual temperature and the long-term mean. 

The Mauna Loa CO2 data show a long-term increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.  The Mauna Loa data are the longest high-quality CO2 record, dating back to 1958.  While one might think that the side of a volcano might not be the best place to measure CO2, in fact the procedures used at Mauna Loa compensate for any contamination by volcanic gases.  As shown in Figure 1, since 1980 we have had global CO2 data from a network of stations, and these data show that the Mauna Loa trend is very representative of the global trend in CO2.

 

 Figure 1: Global atmospheric CO2 (NOAA) versus Mauna Loa CO2 (NOAA).

Hocker begins his analysis by calculating the first derivative of the CO2 data.  He does this using the difference between the CO2 measurement six months after a given month and the measurement six months before.  (Calculating this difference over a 12-month interval effectively removes the seasonal variation in atmospheric CO2 concentration.)

At this point, alert readers may begin to glimpse the flaw in Hocker's methods.  However, let's follow Hocker through to his conclusion. 

He derives a simple model to estimate the temperature anomaly as a function of the derivative of CO2 concentration:

 Temperature Anomaly = (CO2[n+6] – CO2[n-6])/(12*0.22) – 0.58

 Hocker's Figure 2 shows a comparison of the observed and modeled global ocean temperature anomaly:

Figure 2.  Comparison of global lower troposphere temperature anomaly over the oceans (blue line) to a model based on the first derivative of atmospheric CO2 concentration at Mauna Loa (red line).  From Hocker 2010.

Looking at this figure, Hocker notes "There is a strong correlation between the measured anomaly and the Derivative model.  It shows the strong El Niño of 1997-1998 very clearly, and also shows the other El Niño events during the plotted time period about as well as the satellite data does."  He does not quantify the correlation between the two, but the squared correlation coefficient (r²) for the two time series is 0.36.

Let's pause here to consider the actual effect of Hocker's methods to this point.  Taking the first derivative of the CO2 data removes the long-term trend in CO2 concentration, and shows the effect of short-term variability around that trend.  Thus, it would be appropriate to conclude from this that short-term fluctuations in the overall upward CO2 trend are moderately well correlated with temperatures in the lower troposphere over oceans.

What Hocker actually concludes is quite different:  "Using two well accepted data sets, a simple model can be used to show that the rise in CO2 is a result of the temperature anomaly, not the other way around.  This is the exact opposite of the IPCC model that claims that rising CO2 causes the temperature anomaly." 

In other words, Hocker is claiming that his model shows that the long-term upward trend in CO2 is explained by temperature, when his methods actually removed the long-term trend.

This is where the previously-mentioned alert readers will be nodding their heads and saying "Yes!  We knew it!"  The error that Hocker makes - taking the derivative of a time series to remove its long-term trend, then correlating a second data set with this derivative, and finally claiming the second data set explains the long-term trend - is exactly the same error that was recently discovered in a prominent "skeptical" paper by McLean 2009.  McLean correlated an index of the El Niño/Southern Oscillation with the first derivative of temperature, while Hocker correlates temperature with the first derivative of CO2 concentration.  Perhaps if Hocker were an avid reader of Skeptical Science, he would have been familiar with this error in McLean's analysis and would have avoided repeating it!

What else can be said about this subject?  Well, it is true that the solubility of CO2 in seawater is a function of temperature, and all else being equal, as the ocean warms it will give off CO2 to the atmosphere.  And in fact this is the mechanism by which a CO2 feedback amplified the temperature swings during the Pleistocene glacial/interglacial cycles.  But in today's world, the greatly increased partial pressure of CO2 from fossil fuel emissions causes a flux of CO2 from the atmosphere to the oceans.  This is known from decades of oceanographic surveys that show the oceans are a "sink" rather than a source of CO2 in the atmosphere (Takahashi 2009, Sabine 2004).

It's also interesting to note that climate scientists have known for at least three decades that short-term fluctuations in temperature (e.g., those associated with the ENSO cycle) are correlated with short-term fluctuations in the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 (Bacastow and Keeling 1981).  Section 7.3.2.4 of the IPCC AR4 Working Group 1 report discusses this in some detail.

 

But even if Hocker were to be right... we can't lean back and say it's the oceans.

Even if he was right... it's still man who's responsible for much of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (see my first source in this thread). In my opinion, we should assume responsibility for our own emissions and stop blaming anything and everything for it.

I hope you noted my EDIT of my last post, just minutes before your reply.

Thomas

 

Edited July 28, 2019 by thomas t
typo

[other one]

in your opinion we should bring society back to the stone age....    don't care to go there...

[1to3]

"

There is a clear cycle in solar activity of around 11 years. This has some effect on short-term climate, though it tends to average out over longer time periods. For example, the unusually low solar output in after 2009 may have contributed to slower warming of the Earth’s surface between 1998 and 2013.

Atmospheric ‘fingerprint’

The lack of an increase in solar activity after 1970 is one major argument against a solar role in modern warming. Another is the cooling in a layer of the upper atmosphere known as  the stratosphere.

If changing solar output were driving warming, the whole atmosphere would warm due to the addition of incoming solar radiation. In contrast, if warming was due to greenhouse gases, the lowest layer of the atmosphere – the troposphere – and surface would warm, while the upper atmosphere would cool as greenhouse gases trapped heat and prevented it from escaping the troposphere.

The figure below shows what has actually happened since 1950. The upper chart shows a clear cooling trend in the stratosphere, while the lower chart shows the warming of the troposphere and Earth’s surface. This is the “fingerprint” of warming from CO2 and other greenhouse gases, though recent declines in stratospheric ozone also play a large role in stratospheric cooling.

Global lower stratosphere (top) and troposphere (bottom) temperatures between 1958 and 2012. Figure from the UK MET Office HadAT. The CO2 cooling signal is clearer and more differentiable from ozone-driven stratospheric cooling in higher levels of the stratosphere.

Schmidt describes this evidence as “the biggest mismatch”. He tells Carbon Brief:

“If the warming at the surface was related to solar forcing, the upper atmosphere would also be warming. But it hasn’t been – it has been cooling, exactly as predicted from the effects of CO2 increases.”

Grasping at cosmic rays

With no discernable increase in solar activity, proponents of solar influence on modern warming have turned to other possible explanations. One that has gained traction in recent years is the idea that galactic cosmic rays may play a role in the Earth’s climate.

Galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) are high energy particles from beyond our solar system that regularly bombard the Earth. When solar activity is high, the “solar wind” – a stream of particles emitted from the sun – acts to reduce the number of GCRs that enter the Earth’s atmosphere.

Some research has found that GCRs in the atmosphere can play a role in cloud formation, with higher levels of GCRs potentially leading to more low-altitude clouds. These low-altitude clouds can influence the Earth’s climate by reflecting incoming sunlight back into space.

This has led some to suggest that changes in solar activity could influence the Earth’s climate by changing cloud formation.

However, the GCR hypothesis suffers from the same fundamental problem as total solar irradiance: it is moving in the wrong direction. Since 1960, the amount of GCRs reaching the Earth has increased, as shown in the figure below. If GCRs were a major influence on climate, this would result in cooling, not warming, over the past 50 years."

See more:https://www.carbonbrief.org/why-the-sun-is-not-responsible-for-recent-climate-change

 

 

[1to3]

Another perspective:

http://www.breakpoint.org/2019/05/41973/