http://www.climateoutcome.kiwi.nz/blog.html

Recurring ice ages and warm periods explained

15/10/2014

To understand modern climate change a knowledge of the natural cycle of ice ages and warm periods is a great help. Once the simple mechanics of how the system works is appreciated it is easier to see where we are going wrong and the likely consequences of our actions.
A detailed explanation is available on this simple website or watch this 30 minute explanation on YouTube.

9 Comments

Bob Bristow

19/10/2014 12:01:19 pm

Interesting and clear video - Many thanks for blowing some cobwebs away.

I recently learnt that an international symposium of scientists figured that we had a 50% chance of keeping under +2°C (global average) at 450 ppm of atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Remembering my business experience (with computer capacity planning), I would draw a thick red line at around 425 ppm. As we are now at 400 and increasing around 2 ppm per year, we need to really move within the next 10 years, and also consider scrubbing the atmosphere for CO2 (overcoming Second Law of Thermodynamics), a lot to do and so little time. Now aged nearly 70 I expect to see a late summer ice free Arctic before I finally depart.

Bob Bingham

20/10/2014 10:52:25 am

When they talk about the forecast temperature from CO2 I am never sure if that is a simple calculation based on a certain level of CO2 say at 425 ppm or if it includes feedbacks from methane and dying trees and warmer seas. I suspect that it does not include feedbacks because it would be a very complicated calculation.

Bob Bristow

20/10/2014 04:44:08 pm

I suspect you can use Svante Arrhenius's 1896 formula

\Delta F = \alpha \ln(C/C_0)

With a bit of computer modelling/forecasting feedbacks and amplifiers. The result is approximate but not too inaccurate. The law of physics is known.

Mack

29/10/2014 03:02:14 pm

Bob Bristow......"we really need to move within the next 10yrs"
Hell Bob, we haven't moved for 40yrs,..what's the hurry? Add another 10yrs or so of inaction would give new meaning to the word "lethargy"
To both Bobs ....There's one thing you don't have to worry about any more and that's Man-made global warming. You might want to take a read of these comments I said to Dr. Roy Spencer last year beginning with something like this....
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/direct-evidence-of-earths-greenhouse-effect/#comment-75584
then this....
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/a-simple-model-of-global-average-surface-temperature/#comment-77341
Which then probably caused this.....
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/time-for-the-slayers-to-put-up-or-shut-up/#comment-78670
I wish you happy reading and good fortune for the remainder of your lives,
Mack

Bob Bingham

30/10/2014 04:51:21 am

Mack. As you can see I don't get many comments on my website so it was interesting to get a post from a denier. When looking at Roy Spencer you have to realise that he is a member of the Marshal Institute which is an extreme right wing organisation, funded in large part by the coal and oil companies and completely committed to misinformation concerning global warming.. He is one of a very, very few scientists who speak against the science of climate change. Most who do are either meteorologists, as Spencer is or physicists. .

Mack

30/10/2014 03:46:57 pm

......"to get a post from a denier" Please Bob, I'm a denialist,..it's more professional.
You misunderstand Roy Spencer's position Bob. Spencer is a "lukewarmer". He's listed as just that, in that right hand column on Anthony Watt's site, WUWT. If Watts were to classify himself on his own blog, he would be right there alongside Spencer...ie a "lukewarmer". Now whether or not Watts and Spencer have adopted this position to preserve the AGW arguement and hence their blogs, or they actually believe that Man is capable of altering the global temperature...is the moot point.
At this point in time, I would say Spencer is only throwing a bone to the true believers Bob. But unfortunately these 2 individuals have spent just about their whole lives researching, blogging, talking about "greenhouse" gases. They're not going to say..."Oh sorry, the slayers are right, There are no "greenhouse" gases...many apologies, let's all go home now and close all the blogs"
But the fact is , their position is untenable. They want their cake and eat it. "Can I have just a wee bit of AGW please....just some effect by Man, surely?" Sorry, they either have to adhere to the methodology and numbers of the IPCC or say ..no..the IPCC are wrong....the IPCC figures are wrong. They can't just sit in no-man's land between the denialists like myself and the IPCC, because they suddenly find themselves drifting about.... bereft of any numbers to support their stance. Nothing more than a thought experiment in the way science to support their "greenhouse" theory.
(Spencer really came out with his gloves on Jan 1st ! New Years day ! 2013 ...see his site Bob.)
Bob, what you really need to do is read the science presented by Nasif Nahle at Jennifer Marohasy's site to understand all this. It's a big read, put aside a couple of days, The facts are real, the characters are real and live, what better a read? I think you are looking at an historical document there...hence the attempts from your side to sabotage Jennifer's blog.
Here's another link to some of my comments
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/08/sack-australias-biggest-laughing-stock.html?showComment=1408182051991#c8686407071562919858
to help you understand that we are looking at one of the biggest scientific mistakes/deceptions/hoaxs/scam in the history of modern times (spanning about 40yrs)
Some further clarification Bob, The incoming solar of 1360w/sq.m simply attenuates down to 340w/sq.m at the Earth's surface. The "missing" about 1020w/sq.m. (ie, the difference between) would be mainly attenuated in that place of physical paradox called the THERMOSPHERE. Climate scientists? who concocted the quack "greenhouse" theory. haven't thought much further than the clouds. In fact the theory artificially considers the atmosphere to the tropopause,about 20ks up , when in fact it goes out about 500ks to the exosphere
The newer outer satellites can actually see the glowing of nitric oxide and CO2 as they shed heat from incoming solar radiation. (Saber study) It gets to almost 2500degrees C out there Bob !
Space craft have to revolve otherwise they'd be red hot on one side and freeze on the other. Notice that all the astronauts say this is a piece of crap science.
Yes Bob, it's an old, outdated, unreal, crackpot "greenhouse" theory.
Divest yourself of it.
Regards,
Mack. (Chief Sky Dragon Slayer)

Bob Bingham

31/10/2014 05:25:34 am

As soon as you mentioned wattsouwith that I knew is was fossil fuel funded rubbish.

Mack

31/10/2014 06:30:51 am

Yes sorry Bob, unfortunately there are some people like you who could be waterboarded in the fount of knowledge but they still wouldn't drink.
Adios Amigo
Mack.

Bob Bingham

31/10/2014 09:10:35 am

Get a reference from NASA or NOAA and I will have a look at it.

Bob Bingham Blog page.

Recurring ice ages and warm periods explained

Leave a Reply.

Bob Bingham

Archives

Categories