Global Warming is Shaking the Earth. Increased Ocean Energy Visible in Seismic Background

[jc456]

Useful Idiot a certainty. Also, remember that this is a scam religion for the dimwits.

They worship to the Gods of AGW. "The End is Nigh!".

Smart people call what these warmers spew as power hungry peeps who want to control our lives.

 

[jc456]

I personally don’t care if they want to believe that mankind is controlling the climate. Loons are free to believe anything they’d like. It’s when they get all sanctimonious and dictatorial that I enjoy laughing in their faces.

They insist on compliance by all, and interfering in our rights! They can make their point when they can make it rain their own self

 

[ding]

That is incorrect. Global temperature is higher than it has been in at least several thousand years and CO2 is higher than it has been in 3 million years.

Much of the past 10,000 years has been warmer and it is considerably cooler than the previous interglacial periods. A doubling of CO2 only yields a 1C increase. So a 120 ppm increase is nothing.

The conditions that affect the glaciation thresholds of the poles are landmass distribution and the ocean heat transport system. Those conditions are still the same.

 

[ding]

The questions were "what changes have taken place to the planet's commonplace configuration in the last 150 years and why would increased CO2 have had no effect and why wouldn't increasing temperatures increase the atmosphere's water vapor levels?" and you have answered NONE of them.

CO2 does not effect the glaciation threshold at the poles. Only landmass distribution does because of how that affects the ocean circulation system which affects how heat is brought to the polar regions.

The heat in the oceans - and how it gets distributed - dominate the climate. Not the atmosphere.

 

[badger2]

Yes, the oceans are where the heat is stored. Which is why changes to the ocean circulation of heat are responsible for climate changes. The planet's unique configuration of thermally isolated polar regions responds quickly to a loss of heat transport to the northern polar region. The landmass surrounding the north pole provides ample room for extensive continental glaciation to spread. The increased albedo from NH continental glaciation amplifies the effect.

Though not completely unique.

âWould you like a little ice with your exoplanet?â For Earth-like worlds, that may be a tall order

A team at the University of Washington and the University of Bern has computationally simulated more than 200,000 hypothetical Earth-like worlds all in orbit of stars like our sun. As they report in a...

washington.edu

'When partial ice was present, its distribution varied by star. Around F-type stars, polar ice caps -- like what Earth sports currently -- were formed about three times more often than ice belts, whereas ice belts occurred twice as often as caps for planets around G- and K-type stars. Ice belts were also more common on worlds with extreme axial tilts, likely because seasonal extremes keep the polar climates more volatile than equatorial regions, according to Wilhelm (UW Dept. of Astronomy).'

 

[Crick]

CO2 does not effect the glaciation threshold at the poles. Only landmass distribution does because of how that affects the ocean circulation system which affects how heat is brought to the polar regions.

The heat in the oceans - and how it gets distributed - dominate the climate. Not the atmosphere.

CO2 affects global temperature which most assuredly affects glaciation.

The questions were "what changes have taken place to the planet's commonplace configuration in the last 150 years and why would increased CO2 have had no effect and why wouldn't increasing temperatures increase the atmosphere's water vapor levels?" and you STILL have answered NONE of them.

 

[jc456]

CO2 affects global temperature which most assuredly affects glaciation.

you have no evidence to make any such claim. Zero!!!!!! Again, points given to you multiple times by multiple people.

 

[badger2]

Extrapolating into the future for ice caps shows a changed composition:

Exoplanet Covered in Lava Offers a Glimpse Into Earth's Far Future

Exoplanet Covered In Lava Offers A Glimpse Into Earthâs Far Future

The Earth-size exoplanet K2-141b orbits his host star so close that some regions are likely oceans of molten lava.

forbes.com

'....an ice cap composed of frozen water, CO2-, nitrogen- and argon-ice will form.'

 

[luiza]

Global Warming is Shaking the Earth ----- ???​

What proportion of total energy is caused by human activities. ​

As distinct from energy absorbed by the mantle that comes from the Sun and Galaxy centre .
The Key Question
Because if the answer is from the latter and it is hugely greater , there is the source of temperature fluctuations which dwarf human activity efforts .
Leading to an expanding planet , and , over 2000 million years ago , the breaking down of the one land mass Pangea ?

Of course the expanding planet hypothesis is hated because it dsirupts hitherto consensus theorising built around plate tectonics .
So here is a 10 minute video which advances the expanding planet idea and at the expense of other mechanisms which might lead to planet warming which are in the least bit controllable
The Expanding Earth theory (Growing Earth theory) with various geological and visual interpretations to consider, has some intriguing ideas.

 

[Flash]

CO2 affects global temperature which most assuredly affects glaciation.

Bullshit.

There is absolutely no evidence that CO2 in the concentrations we are seeing now has or will affect climate to any significant degree. All we have are some really stupid shit in shit out computer models (produced to get research funds) and an unscientific and really idiotic correlation.

The time when we have the most dense biosphere in the history of the earth was when CO2 was several times higher than it is now.

The buffering capacity of the land and mostly the seas mitigate CO2 becoming a significant greenhouse gas. It is only a greenhouse gas in the concentration we see now in theory. In reality the chemistry of the atmosphere is far more complex than the simple models predict.

Face it. Your religion is a scam, Moon Bat.

My gas guzzling Tundra does not contribute to global warming, you idiot. Neither does my lawnmower, my gas stove, my AC, my light bulbs, my emergency generator or anything else you stupid Moon Bats want to ban for your religion.

What kind of vehicle do you drive?

 

[Flash]

Missy Crick

You didn't answer my questions.

What kind of vehicle do you drive?

Do you have an AC?

Do you have a refrigerator?

Do you have a gas or electric stove/oven?

Do you have a hot water heater?

Do you buy groceries at a store where the food is distributed by truck or railway?

Do you buy food that is produced on farms with tractors?

What kind of energy is powering the computer that you are using to post your Wacko Religious bullshit?

Did you vote for Mr. Potatohead that is accumulating $2 trillion in debt this year to subsidize EVs that the car companies are now saying are a bust?

Dis you vote for Mr. Potatohead that wants to ban most of the things I asked you about?

 

[Crick]

Global Warming is Shaking the Earth ----- ???​

What proportion of total energy is caused by human activities. ​

As distinct from energy absorbed by the mantle that comes from the Sun and Galaxy centre .
The Key Question
Because if the answer is from the latter and it is hugely greater , there is the source of temperature fluctuations which dwarf human activity efforts .
Leading to an expanding planet , and , over 2000 million years ago , the breaking down of the one land mass Pangea ?

Of course the expanding planet hypothesis is hated because it dsirupts hitherto consensus theorising built around plate tectonics .
So here is a 10 minute video which advances the expanding planet idea and at the expense of other mechanisms which might lead to planet warming which are in the least bit controllable
The Expanding Earth theory (Growing Earth theory) with various geological and visual interpretations to consider, has some intriguing ideas.

The energy we receive from the sun has not changed enough or consistently in the proper direction to be responsible for the observed warming. The energy we receive from the galactic centre requires a telescope many feet across to even detect. What DOES produce the right amount of energy to have created the observed warming is the greenhouse effect acting on CO2 and methane we've added to the atmosphere and then cooled slightly by reflective aerosols we've also added. The total global warming since the Industrial Revolution has been about 1.1C. So that's what we're looking for. Look once more at this graph. Look at the set of bars on the upper right. Those are the TEMPERATURE CHANGES that those different atmospheric components have created; some making it warmer and some making it cooler. Look at the bottom of that set and you will see a single marker labled "SUM". That is the algebraic sum of all those effects. Note that it is 1.1C. We are not missing anything. There is no requirement that the sun be exploding or that the Earth be expanding. I attempted to look at your expanding Earth site but my browser told me three times in a row that it was not safe. However, I have to point out that the GPS network, among other systems, would detect any changes in the diameter or shape of the planet down to 5 centimeters or less.

 

[Crick]

CO2 affects global temperature which most assuredly affects glaciation.

The questions were "what changes have taken place to the planet's commonplace configuration in the last 150 years and why would increased CO2 have had no effect and why wouldn't increasing temperatures increase the atmosphere's water vapor levels?" and you STILL have answered NONE of them.

Bullshit.

There is absolutely no evidence that CO2 in the concentrations we are seeing now has or will affect climate to any significant degree.

That is a lie. See https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_TS.pdf

All we have are some really stupid shit in shit out computer models (produced to get research funds) and an unscientific and really idiotic correlation.

That is also a lie. The evidence contains enormous amount of empirical data.

The time when we have the most dense biosphere in the history of the earth was when CO2 was several times higher than it is now.

So what? None of that biosphere were homo sapiens and those conditions took hundreds of thousands to millions of years to develop.

The buffering capacity of the land and mostly the seas mitigate CO2 becoming a significant greenhouse gas.

The oceans have absorbed enormous amounts of the CO2 we have put into the atmosphere. That is why the oceans are becoming acidified. But the levels IN THE ATMOSPHERE have risen by 50% since the Industrial Revolution and the effect of that increase, calculable from first principles, is the observed warming. More CO2 will cause more warming. And increasing temperatures increase the level of water vapor in the atmosphere creating a positive feedback.

It is only a greenhouse gas in the concentration we see now in theory.

What concentration? What theory? And what actual scientist says such a thing? Every statement you've made here has the stink of anal derivation.

In reality the chemistry of the atmosphere is far more complex than the simple models predict.

The chemistry of the atmosphere is not discerned with models but by run-of-the-mill chemistry. It is well understood. You act as if there is some factor in atmospheric chemistry that precludes the greenhouse effect. Of course you fail to identify it in any way.

Face it. Your religion is a scam, Moon Bat.

Face it. You have done nothing here but make completely unsubstantiated assertions with NO BASIS IN SCIENCE WHATSOEVER.

My gas guzzling Tundra does not contribute to global warming, you idiot.

Sorry, but it does, you fool.

Neither does my lawnmower, my gas stove, my AC, my light bulbs, my emergency generator or anything else you stupid Moon Bats want to ban for your religion.

Everything you (or I or anyone else on this planet) do that puts more CO2 into the atmosphere contributes to global warming.

I drive a 2021 Toyota Sienna Hybrid. The CO2 it puts out contributes to global warming.

 

[luiza]

The energy we receive from the sun has not changed enough or consistently in the proper direction to be responsible for the observed warming. The energy we receive from the galactic centre requires a telescope many feet across to even detect.

Did you make up that crock of shite?
If not, let's have your Fake News source .

 

[Crick]

Did you make up that crock of shite?
If not, let's have your Fake News source .

On the road. Go to Google and look for graph of global temperature and solar luminosity vs time.

 

[Flash]

That is a lie. See https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_TS.pdf

That is also a lie. The evidence contains enormous amount of empirical data.

So what? None of that biosphere were homo sapiens and those conditions took hundreds of thousands to millions of years to develop.

The oceans have absorbed enormous amounts of the CO2 we have put into the atmosphere. That is why the oceans are becoming acidified. But the levels IN THE ATMOSPHERE have risen by 50% since the Industrial Revolution and the effect of that increase, calculable from first principles, is the observed warming. More CO2 will cause more warming. And increasing temperatures increase the level of water vapor in the atmosphere creating a positive feedback.

What concentration? What theory? And what actual scientist says such a thing? Every statement you've made here has the stink of anal derivation.

The chemistry of the atmosphere is not discerned with models but by run-of-the-mill chemistry. It is well understood. You act as if there is some factor in atmospheric chemistry that precludes the greenhouse effect. Of course you fail to identify it in any way.

Face it. You have done nothing here but make completely unsubstantiated assertions with NO BASIS IN SCIENCE WHATSOEVER.

Sorry, but it does, you fool.

Everything you (or I or anyone else on this planet) do that puts more CO2 into the atmosphere contributes to global warming.

I drive a 2021 Toyota Sienna Hybrid. The CO2 it puts out contributes to global warming.

Enough of your silly Environmental Wacko denial bullshit that has no scientific basis other than your AGW religious faith. CO2 at the levels we see now is not a greenhouse gas and there is absolutely no proof that it is.

Are you going to answer the questions or not?

I want to see what your real convictions are.

I suspect you are like the sanctimonious church goer that sits in church every Sunday but was out whoring around on Saturday night. I think you are a fraud.

 

[ding]

Though not completely unique.

âWould you like a little ice with your exoplanet?â For Earth-like worlds, that may be a tall order

A team at the University of Washington and the University of Bern has computationally simulated more than 200,000 hypothetical Earth-like worlds all in orbit of stars like our sun. As they report in a...

washington.edu

'When partial ice was present, its distribution varied by star. Around F-type stars, polar ice caps -- like what Earth sports currently -- were formed about three times more often than ice belts, whereas ice belts occurred twice as often as caps for planets around G- and K-type stars. Ice belts were also more common on worlds with extreme axial tilts, likely because seasonal extremes keep the polar climates more volatile than equatorial regions, according to Wilhelm (UW Dept. of Astronomy).'

Unique to earth's history.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

I bet you carry around a placard reading "We are all going to die!". Am I right or am I right?

I don't know how I'm going to die, but I know that I'm not going to die because it gets 2 degrees warmer in a hundred years.

 

[ding]

CO2 affects global temperature which most assuredly affects glaciation.

Glaciation occurs when the temperature reaches the glaciation temperature threshold. We focus on polar regions because they receive the least amount of sunlight. Glaciation can also occur - at elevation - in nonpolar regions but that is because it is colder at high elevations than lower elevations at the same latitude not because it receives less sunlight.

The glaciation threshold for polar regions is based upon how thermally isolated the polar region is from warm marine currents. The south pole has a continent parked on it. The north pole has an ocean parked over it but is mostly surrounded by land which impedes warm water from reaching it. The south pole will glaciate before the north pole will because the south pole is more thermally isolated from warm marine currents than the north pole is. And that's what the oxygen isotope curve shows. You can literally read the glaciation temperature threshold from the oxygen isotope curve. Which also happens to be the temperature of the oceans and not the atmosphere.

So glaciation threshold temperature is determined by geographic location (i.e. latitude), elevation and thermal isolation from warm marine currents.

CO2 does not affect the temperature threshold for glaciation. CO2 only affects the temperature. And that relationship is well established. Every time the atmospheric concentration of CO2 doubles the atmospheric temperature will increase by 1C.

The current threshold for extensive NH continental glaciation is ~2C colder than today's temperatures. So CO2 can't cause glacial cycles. And CO2 cannot influence the threshold for extensive continental glaciation. But changes to the ocean's heat transport system can cause extensive NH continental glaciation and has been doing so for the past 3 million years. Of which there have been ~30 cycles which occurred.

 

[ding]

The questions were "what changes have taken place to the planet's commonplace configuration in the last 150 years and why would increased CO2 have had no effect and why wouldn't increasing temperatures increase the atmosphere's water vapor levels?" and you STILL have answered NONE of them.

CO2 does not change the temperature threshold for extensive continental glaciation. It only affects atmospheric temperature. And a 120 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 from 300 ppm to 420 ppm, will not even produce 1C of atmospheric warming. The vast majority of heat is stored in the oceans and not the atmosphere. So by changing the circulation of water from the equator to the north pole, a significant decrease in heat can occur at the northern polar region just from warm water not reaching it. Enough to trigger extensive NH continental glaciation.