• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NOAA Annual Greenhouse Gas Index

slo1111

Active member
Joined
Jun 11, 2017
Messages
331
Reaction score
89
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html

- CO2 is in the atmoshere at levels higher than any time in history.

- It is a scientific fact that CO2, Methane, and other green house gasses trap thermal radiation.

Forget everything you have ever heard about global warming and the politics of it and consider these questions.

1. Do you accept that there is a finite amount of green house gasses (GHG) that can be put into an atmosphere before something adverse happens?

2. We are currently above 400 ppm in CO2. How high can we go before we experience profound changes? 500 ppm, 800 ppm, 10,000 ppm, 100,000 ppm? (that would be 10% of the atmoshere. We would die at that point. Oxygen is around 21%)

3. If you haven't ever considered #2, do you believe that since we have excellent labatory data on how much thermal radiation GHG can trap, and we can measure the thermal radiation lost to space, that we can calculate the expected trapped thermal radiation when CO2 increases to 300 ppm to 400 ppm?

4. GSG's are not the only factor in warming and cooling. As an example aresols and particles can reduce the amount of radiation from the sun by reflecting it back before traveling through the atmoshere.

A. Do you believe other factors eliminate GSG ability to trap heat? No, it can always trap heat, but you can change the amount of thermal radiation thus reduce or increase likelyhood of an interaction with a GSG particle.

B. Are you willing to not address GHG's because you feel with other factors are reducing the thermal radiation that could be trapped with increased GHG's?

C. Do you believe warming and cooling is too complex for humans to impact, alter, and address?


I propose all we need to consider before taking action to limit GSG is #2. There is obviously a finite amount of CO2 that we can put in the atmoshere before we experience large scale change. Other factors may play a role in warming and cooling, but it is scientific fact that a higher percentage of thermal energy radiating towards space will be captured as the number of GSG particles increase in the atmosphere.




Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk
 
There is obviously a finite amount of CO2 that we can put in the atmoshere before we experience large scale change. Other factors may play a role in warming and cooling, but it is scientific fact that a higher percentage of thermal energy radiating towards space will be captured as the number of GSG particles increase in the atmosphere.

I am all for green and cleaner energy simply because it's better for us in the long run, but let's be honest. What puts out more CO2, humans or volcanic eruptions? Also, what about the increased animal population for food production, do you not think that plays a part in CO2 as well? Should we reduce the food supply? There are tons of factors involved as well as natural conditions that increase CO2 output.
 
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html

- CO2 is in the atmoshere at levels higher than any time in history.

- It is a scientific fact that CO2, Methane, and other green house gasses trap thermal radiation.

Forget everything you have ever heard about global warming and the politics of it and consider these questions.

1. Do you accept that there is a finite amount of green house gasses (GHG) that can be put into an atmosphere before something adverse happens?

2. We are currently above 400 ppm in CO2. How high can we go before we experience profound changes? 500 ppm, 800 ppm, 10,000 ppm, 100,000 ppm? (that would be 10% of the atmoshere. We would die at that point. Oxygen is around 21%)

3. If you haven't ever considered #2, do you believe that since we have excellent labatory data on how much thermal radiation GHG can trap, and we can measure the thermal radiation lost to space, that we can calculate the expected trapped thermal radiation when CO2 increases to 300 ppm to 400 ppm?

4. GSG's are not the only factor in warming and cooling. As an example aresols and particles can reduce the amount of radiation from the sun by reflecting it back before traveling through the atmoshere.

A. Do you believe other factors eliminate GSG ability to trap heat? No, it can always trap heat, but you can change the amount of thermal radiation thus reduce or increase likelyhood of an interaction with a GSG particle.

B. Are you willing to not address GHG's because you feel with other factors are reducing the thermal radiation that could be trapped with increased GHG's?

C. Do you believe warming and cooling is too complex for humans to impact, alter, and address?


I propose all we need to consider before taking action to limit GSG is #2. There is obviously a finite amount of CO2 that we can put in the atmoshere before we experience large scale change. Other factors may play a role in warming and cooling, but it is scientific fact that a higher percentage of thermal energy radiating towards space will be captured as the number of GSG particles increase in the atmosphere.




Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

Your first premise is BS. CO2 levels have been much higher. When it was much lower, we were freezing.
 
I am all for green and cleaner energy simply because it's better for us in the long run, but let's be honest. What puts out more CO2, humans or volcanic eruptions? Also, what about the increased animal population for food production, do you not think that plays a part in CO2 as well? Should we reduce the food supply? There are tons of factors involved as well as natural conditions that increase CO2 output.
Human causes to increased carbon in the atmosphere is incrimental to volcanos and I believe most people would agree that it is easier to control human caused emissions than to control volcanos.

All causes that we can control should be looked at as well as investigating technology to reduce and negate impact. I would even say technology to increase CO2 as cooling can also have a huge impact on humanity if an ice age hit far from now.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk
 
Your first premise is BS. CO2 levels have been much higher. When it was much lower, we were freezing.
Ops I meant to say higher than any time in human history. Correction noted.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk
 
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html

- CO2 is in the atmoshere at levels higher than any time in history.

- It is a scientific fact that CO2, Methane, and other green house gasses trap thermal radiation.

Forget everything you have ever heard about global warming and the politics of it and consider these questions.

1. Do you accept that there is a finite amount of green house gasses (GHG) that can be put into an atmosphere before something adverse happens?

2. We are currently above 400 ppm in CO2. How high can we go before we experience profound changes? 500 ppm, 800 ppm, 10,000 ppm, 100,000 ppm? (that would be 10% of the atmoshere. We would die at that point. Oxygen is around 21%)

3. If you haven't ever considered #2, do you believe that since we have excellent labatory data on how much thermal radiation GHG can trap, and we can measure the thermal radiation lost to space, that we can calculate the expected trapped thermal radiation when CO2 increases to 300 ppm to 400 ppm?

4. GSG's are not the only factor in warming and cooling. As an example aresols and particles can reduce the amount of radiation from the sun by reflecting it back before traveling through the atmoshere.

A. Do you believe other factors eliminate GSG ability to trap heat? No, it can always trap heat, but you can change the amount of thermal radiation thus reduce or increase likelyhood of an interaction with a GSG particle.

B. Are you willing to not address GHG's because you feel with other factors are reducing the thermal radiation that could be trapped with increased GHG's?

C. Do you believe warming and cooling is too complex for humans to impact, alter, and address?


I propose all we need to consider before taking action to limit GSG is #2. There is obviously a finite amount of CO2 that we can put in the atmoshere before we experience large scale change. Other factors may play a role in warming and cooling, but it is scientific fact that a higher percentage of thermal energy radiating towards space will be captured as the number of GSG particles increase in the atmosphere.




Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

Hockeystick! Goody! Highest in history! ;)

The period from 1975 on which this study is based is very short, if we want to speak of historical. Even the as of 1700 period is not really so long that climatic rules can be discerned.

But the approach is interesting.
 
Hockeystick! Goody! Highest in history! ;)

The period from 1975 on which this study is based is very short, if we want to speak of historical. Even the as of 1700 period is not really so long that climatic rules can be discerned.

But the approach is interesting.
I'm not certain, what you are getting at. It is an annual report on NOAA's GHG measurements. They have only been measuring since 75.

It is soley that change since then and the calulated heat capture as a result of that change.

Making inferences and forecasts is the realm of scientists who can then put out therories and test them.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk
 
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html

- CO2 is in the atmoshere at levels higher than any time in history.

- It is a scientific fact that CO2, Methane, and other green house gasses trap thermal radiation.

Forget everything you have ever heard about global warming and the politics of it and consider these questions.

1. Do you accept that there is a finite amount of green house gasses (GHG) that can be put into an atmosphere before something adverse happens?

2. We are currently above 400 ppm in CO2. How high can we go before we experience profound changes? 500 ppm, 800 ppm, 10,000 ppm, 100,000 ppm? (that would be 10% of the atmoshere. We would die at that point. Oxygen is around 21%)

3. If you haven't ever considered #2, do you believe that since we have excellent labatory data on how much thermal radiation GHG can trap, and we can measure the thermal radiation lost to space, that we can calculate the expected trapped thermal radiation when CO2 increases to 300 ppm to 400 ppm?

4. GSG's are not the only factor in warming and cooling. As an example aresols and particles can reduce the amount of radiation from the sun by reflecting it back before traveling through the atmoshere.

A. Do you believe other factors eliminate GSG ability to trap heat? No, it can always trap heat, but you can change the amount of thermal radiation thus reduce or increase likelyhood of an interaction with a GSG particle.

B. Are you willing to not address GHG's because you feel with other factors are reducing the thermal radiation that could be trapped with increased GHG's?

C. Do you believe warming and cooling is too complex for humans to impact, alter, and address?

Hello, and welcome to DP.
I will go through your points one by one.
1. and 2. We have a very limited amount of economically viable fossil energy,
We may be able to reach the fist doubling of CO2 levels at 560 ppm, but almost certainly not the second at 1120 ppm.
It have taken our complete unrestricted activity for 150 years to increase the CO2 level by 129 ppm,
The balance of the first doubling (151 ppm) will not be as easy or inexpensive as the first part.

3. we do not actually have good lab laboratory data on how much energy imbalance the added greenhouse will cause.
There is a paper out there that measured the imbalance from 2000 to 2010.
Springer Nature (the link looks like it is not currently working)
Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative
forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2.
The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m−2 per decade (with respective uncertainties of ±0.06 W m−2 per decade
and ±0.07 W m−2 per decade) and have seasonal ranges of 0.1–0.2 W m−2.
For a delta of 22 ppm, they measured an energy imbalance of 0.2 W m−2.
And yes we can calculate the amount of trapped energy if we add more CO2,
the problem is that based on the observed data, the energy imbalance from doubling the Co2 level would only be
2.38 Wm-2, much lower than the IPCC number of 3.71 Wm-2, and right in line with skeptics like Judith Curry.
Show the work? .2 Wm-2/ln(289.90/267.90)= 3.44, 3.44 X ln(560/280)=2.38 Wm-2.

4.aresols and particles, our very successful efforts to reduce aresols and particles emissions, could have been
a major factor in the rapid warming between 1978 and 1998, and may have skewed the models.
we really do not have good data on how much energy was reaching the ground now vs in 1978.

4A, Other factors do limit a greenhouse molecule's ability to absorb energy, In the case of CO2,
if the molecule is not at ground state the 15 um photon will pass, CO2 spends much of it's time not at ground state.
in a CO2 laser, we add helium to the mix to speed the steps to ground state, to limit population inversion.

4B, I am not concerned about greenhouse gasses, because the measured sensitivity is much lower than the modeled amount,
and we will replace fossil oil based fuels with man made one in the next few decades.
Oil prices have been creeping higher, and electricity prices creeping lower.
In the last 5 years, researchers working on carbon neutral fuels have increased the efficiency from 60 to 70%,
and we have not seen what the real experts have in their labs. (Exxon and Shell, ect, are all doing research, but protect intellectual property).

4C, we can alter the climate, we already have. we cannot cut our use of fossil fuels much without a viable replacement,
and the viable replacement will have to wait until, it is naturally the most profitable.
Thankfully, fracking oil wells, shortens their life, and the current over supply will end quicker.
 
I'm not certain, what you are getting at. It is an annual report on NOAA's GHG measurements. They have only been measuring since 75.

It is soley that change since then and the calulated heat capture as a result of that change.

Making inferences and forecasts is the realm of scientists who can then put out therories and test them.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

Short term data is not very good at perdition of long term variables in many cases. Climate and co2 have been changing for hundreds of milliins of years and a few decades will not deliver robust results.
 
Short term data is not very good at perdition of long term variables in many cases. Climate and co2 have been changing for hundreds of milliins of years and a few decades will not deliver robust results.
Understood, but I am only referring to the effects of increased GHG's in the atmosphere. It is very feasible to test the additional heat capture of a 300 ppm atmosphere versus a 400 ppm atmosphere.

Obviously as other variables play into climate, it could be very good to have that increased heat capture, if we had other variables forcing cooling. It could also be bad if we are holding steady or increasing in temp.

At some point we need to at least agree on what a 400, 500, 600 ppm and increases in methane, nitris oxide, and other GHG's means in terms of heat capture.

We get too focused on arguing a political position to stop quantify that one variable.

Everything else equal, how much does X percent rise in X gas mean to atmospheric temperature?

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk
 
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html

- CO2 is in the atmoshere at levels higher than any time in history.

- It is a scientific fact that CO2, Methane, and other green house gasses trap thermal radiation.

Forget everything you have ever heard about global warming and the politics of it and consider these questions.

1. Do you accept that there is a finite amount of green house gasses (GHG) that can be put into an atmosphere before something adverse happens?

2. We are currently above 400 ppm in CO2. How high can we go before we experience profound changes? 500 ppm, 800 ppm, 10,000 ppm, 100,000 ppm? (that would be 10% of the atmoshere. We would die at that point. Oxygen is around 21%)

3. If you haven't ever considered #2, do you believe that since we have excellent labatory data on how much thermal radiation GHG can trap, and we can measure the thermal radiation lost to space, that we can calculate the expected trapped thermal radiation when CO2 increases to 300 ppm to 400 ppm?

4. GSG's are not the only factor in warming and cooling. As an example aresols and particles can reduce the amount of radiation from the sun by reflecting it back before traveling through the atmoshere.

A. Do you believe other factors eliminate GSG ability to trap heat? No, it can always trap heat, but you can change the amount of thermal radiation thus reduce or increase likelyhood of an interaction with a GSG particle.

B. Are you willing to not address GHG's because you feel with other factors are reducing the thermal radiation that could be trapped with increased GHG's?

C. Do you believe warming and cooling is too complex for humans to impact, alter, and address?


I propose all we need to consider before taking action to limit GSG is #2. There is obviously a finite amount of CO2 that we can put in the atmoshere before we experience large scale change. Other factors may play a role in warming and cooling, but it is scientific fact that a higher percentage of thermal energy radiating towards space will be captured as the number of GSG particles increase in the atmosphere.




Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

The world's climate specialists have been monitoring CO2 in the atmosphere since 1958, less than 60 years. The Earth is estimated to be something between four and five billion years old.

But apparently we hit the arbitrary 400 ppm tipping point--the point where CO2 levels would be disastrous according to the 'expert' predictors--in 2013. But here we are four years later doing just fine. 400 ppm is about .03% of the atmosphere. 10,000 ppm will be .75% or still less than 1% of the atmosphere. Some scientists who are not paid to accommodate AGW as a global problem say that 400 ppm CO2 is dangerously low. Most animal and plant life dies off at 180 ppm while plant and animal life thrives at up to at least 7,000 ppm.

The jury is still out whether anthropological greenhouse gasses are a problem.
 
I'm not certain, what you are getting at. It is an annual report on NOAA's GHG measurements. They have only been measuring since 75.

It is soley that change since then and the calulated heat capture as a result of that change.

Making inferences and forecasts is the realm of scientists who can then put out therories and test them.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

which means their report is bogus. that means it is only the highest since 1975.
which means their claims are garbage.
 
Understood, but I am only referring to the effects of increased GHG's in the atmosphere. It is very feasible to test the additional heat capture of a 300 ppm atmosphere versus a 400 ppm atmosphere.

Obviously as other variables play into climate, it could be very good to have that increased heat capture, if we had other variables forcing cooling. It could also be bad if we are holding steady or increasing in temp.

At some point we need to at least agree on what a 400, 500, 600 ppm and increases in methane, nitris oxide, and other GHG's means in terms of heat capture.

We get too focused on arguing a political position to stop quantify that one variable.

Everything else equal, how much does X percent rise in X gas mean to atmospheric temperature?

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk
In the IPCC's key concepts in climate science document here is what they say.
If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously,
with everything else remaining the same, the outgoing infrared
radiation would be reduced by about 4 Wm-2. In other words, the
radiative forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO2 concentration
would be 4 Wm-2. To counteract this imbalance, the
temperature of the surface-troposphere system would have to
increase by 1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%), in the absence of
other changes. In reality, due to feedbacks, the response of the
climate system is much more complex. It is believed that the
overall effect of the feedbacks amplifies the temperature increase to 1.5 to 4.5°C.
A significant part of this uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge
of clouds and their interactions with radiation.
The assumptionfor the forcing is that the doubling would cause an energy imbalance of 4 wm-2,
for the CO2 forcing, and that 4Wm-2 would cause warming of 1.2 °C, or .3 °C per Wm-2 imbalance.
1.2°C/ ln(2)= 1.73, so 1.73 X ln(CO2_high/CO2_low) would tell you the amount of warming we could expect
from a change in CO2 levels based on the input assumptions.
The measured data comes in lower at 2.38 Wm-2, or .72°C for the forcing warming.
If all else remained the same, the ECS from doubling the Co2 level would be about 1.8°C.
 
In the IPCC's key concepts in climate science document here is what they say.

The assumptionfor the forcing is that the doubling would cause an energy imbalance of 4 wm-2,
for the CO2 forcing, and that 4Wm-2 would cause warming of 1.2 °C, or .3 °C per Wm-2 imbalance.
1.2°C/ ln(2)= 1.73, so 1.73 X ln(CO2_high/CO2_low) would tell you the amount of warming we could expect
from a change in CO2 levels based on the input assumptions.
The measured data comes in lower at 2.38 Wm-2, or .72°C for the forcing warming.
If all else remained the same, the ECS from doubling the Co2 level would be about 1.8°C.

And it is important to know that if CO2 levels of 400 ppm are dangerously low--at 180 ppm most plant and animal life on Earth would become extinct--and we know that plant and animal life thrived at levels at least 7000 ppm--we have a looooooooooong way to go before reaching the 60,000 ppm at which level CO2 becomes toxic.
 
And it is important to know that if CO2 levels of 400 ppm are dangerously low--at 180 ppm most plant and animal life on Earth would become extinct--and we know that plant and animal life thrived at levels at least 7000 ppm--we have a looooooooooong way to go before reaching the 60,000 ppm at which level CO2 becomes toxic.
Thanks, I was unaware what the lower range was.
I think we are already seeing the real feedback of the planet, with the large increase in greening.
 
The world's climate specialists have been monitoring CO2 in the atmosphere since 1958, less than 60 years. The Earth is estimated to be something between four and five billion years old.

But apparently we hit the arbitrary 400 ppm tipping point--the point where CO2 levels would be disastrous according to the 'expert' predictors--in 2013. But here we are four years later doing just fine. 400 ppm is about .03% of the atmosphere. 10,000 ppm will be .75% or still less than 1% of the atmosphere. Some scientists who are not paid to accommodate AGW as a global problem say that 400 ppm CO2 is dangerously low. Most animal and plant life dies off at 180 ppm while plant and animal life thrives at up to at least 7,000 ppm.

The jury is still out whether anthropological greenhouse gasses are a problem.
I think you are conflating issues. As a factor by itself all else being equal the increase in CO2 you mention will result in X percent more thermal radiation being trapped. That is factual.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk
 
I think you are conflating issues. As a factor by itself all else being equal the increase in CO2 you mention will result in X percent more thermal radiation being trapped. That is factual.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk
It is not X percent, it is a doubling curve and so is not a one for one sort of thing.
I will use the IPCC numbers to illustrate
from 280 to 560 ppm the IPCC says the forcing warming from the extra CO2 would be 1.2 °C,
the next doubling would be from 560 ppm to 1120 ppm, so each unit increase would
contribute less warming than the unit before it.
 
which means their report is bogus. that means it is only the highest since 1975.
which means their claims are garbage.
There are other methods used to measure CO2, mainly ice cores on glacers that have been around as long as us. If you have credible studies that refute there have been higher CO2 in the last 880,000 years, I would love to see it.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk
 
I think you are conflating issues. As a factor by itself all else being equal the increase in CO2 you mention will result in X percent more thermal radiation being trapped. That is factual.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

Does it? It also could result in considerably more cloud cover that would prevent more thermal radiation being trapped. But even if the Earth warms more, that could make cold areas into arable zones producing food for a growing population.

But the most important thing to consider is that so far none of the so-called expert scientific climate models have produced anything close to their predictions. So they just keep moving the goal posts on down the line because there are enough gullible people to believe them. IMO, they will continue to do that as long as it is profitable to them. And right now it is hugely profitable to both them and the government officials who are promoting it.

The rest of us, however, are picking up all the tab.
 
And it is important to know that if CO2 levels of 400 ppm are dangerously low--at 180 ppm most plant and animal life on Earth would become extinct--and we know that plant and animal life thrived at levels at least 7000 ppm--we have a looooooooooong way to go before reaching the 60,000 ppm at which level CO2 becomes toxic.
True, however, the pain point is not necessarily that human kind can not thrive in warmer temps, it is the change to environment that can cause problems as people adapt to those changes. IE: migrations away from coast, food production, etc.

I have heard some argue that we should be preparing for such changes rather than trying to reverse warming, emissions, etc.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk
 
It is not X percent, it is a doubling curve and so is not a one for one sort of thing.
I will use the IPCC numbers to illustrate
from 280 to 560 ppm the IPCC says the forcing warming from the extra CO2 would be 1.2 °C,
the next doubling would be from 560 ppm to 1120 ppm, so each unit increase would
contribute less warming than the unit before it.
I'm not certain how you interpret my response as suggesting it is a linear relationship. X is any number. Increase of GHG gasses in atmosphere results in higher amount of thermal radiation getting captures versus escaping.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk
 
True, however, the pain point is not necessarily that human kind can not thrive in warmer temps, it is the change to environment that can cause problems as people adapt to those changes. IE: migrations away from coast, food production, etc.

I have heard some argue that we should be preparing for such changes rather than trying to reverse warming, emissions, etc.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

That is absolutely my argument. We humans are not going to change our behavior sufficiently to significantly affect the CO2 in the atmosphere because most of that CO2 comes from sources that have absolutely nothing to do with us. So IMO what we should be doing is devoting our climate research money to finding ways for a growing population to adapt to what is. We need fast, safe, affordable means of creating potable water from ocean water. (Look at it as one way to reduce rising ocean levels. :) ) We do need to increase food production in many parts of the world, and if the oceans do rise--hasn't happen yet, has it--it will be gradual enough that we can gradually pull cities back from the brink or find other ways to deal with that.
 
CO2 follows temperature; it does not drive it.

Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth - Svensmark ...

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20953.x/abstract


by H Svensmark - ‎2012 - ‎Cited by 27 - ‎Related articles

ABSTRACT

Observations of open star clusters in the solar neighbourhood are used to calculate local supernova (SN) rates for the past 510 Myr. Peaks in the SN rates match passages of the Sun through periods of locally increased cluster formation which could be caused by spiral arms of the Galaxy. A statistical analysis indicates that the Solar system has experienced many large short-term increases in the flux of Galactic cosmic rays (GCR) from nearby SNe. The hypothesis that a high GCR flux should coincide with cold conditions on the Earth is borne out by comparing the general geological record of climate over the past 510 Myr with the fluctuating local SN rates. Surprisingly, a simple combination of tectonics (long-term changes in sea level) and astrophysical activity (SN rates) largely accounts for the observed variations in marine biodiversity over the past 510 Myr. An inverse correspondence between SN rates and carbon dioxide (CO2) levels is discussed in terms of a possible drawdown of CO2 by enhanced bio-productivity in oceans that are better fertilized in cold conditions – a hypothesis that is not contradicted by data on the relative abundance of the heavy isotope of carbon, 13C.



3b) The Svensmark Hypothesis | Calder's Updates

https://calderup.wordpress.com/category/3b-the-svensmark-hypothesis/

Here are the main results:
The long-term diversity of life in the sea depends on the sea-level set by plate tectonics and the local supernova rate set by the astrophysics, and on virtually nothing else.
The long-term primary productivity of life in the sea – the net growth of photosynthetic microbes – depends on the supernova rate, and on virtually nothing else.
Exceptionally close supernovae account for short-lived falls in sea-level during the past 500 million years, long-known to geophysicists but never convincingly explained..
As the geological and astronomical records converge, the match between climate and supernova rates gets better and better, with high rates bringing icy times.
Presented with due caution as well as with consideration for the feelings of experts in several fields of research, a story unfolds in which everything meshes like well-made clockwork. Anyone who wishes to pooh-pooh any piece of it by saying “correlation is not necessarily causality” should offer some other mega-theory that says why several mutually supportive coincidences arise between events in our galactic neighbourhood and living conditions on the Earth.
An amusing point is that Svensmark stands the currently popular carbon dioxide story on its head. Some geoscientists want to blame the drastic alternations of hot and icy conditions during the past 500 million years on increases and decreases in carbon dioxide, which they explain in intricate ways. For Svensmark, the changes driven by the stars govern the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. Climate and life control CO2, not the other way around.


 
Back
Top Bottom