A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Second hottest March since records began



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old April 23rd 17, 05:52 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,551
Default Second hottest March since records began

There is the weekday day/night cycle and then there is separately the polar day/night cycle and both arising from separate rotations to the Sun, one daily and the other orbital.

Presently it is polar twilight at the South Pole but unfortunately live imaging of this extended twilight isn't up to scratch at the moment -

https://www.usap.gov/videoclipsandmaps/spwebcam.cfm

Say goodbye to Milankovitch cycles as that notion emerged without recognition of the polar day/night cycle and its rotational cause. The precession of the equinoxes is due to a further refinement of the leap day correction as the proportion of rotations to orbital circuits is not exactly 1461 rotations to 4 circuits hence the slight drift in orbital position when using timekeeping. This drift which is large is terms of the leap day correction where Sirius skips a first annual appearance every 4th 365 day cycle is much smaller after the correction is made but there nonetheless.

Remember now, climate is a spectrum between Equatorial and Polar represented by 0 degrees and 90 degrees inclination respectively.

  #12  
Old April 24th 17, 01:09 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gary Harnagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 659
Default Second hottest March since records began

On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 9:44:48 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:

Gary Harnagel wrote:

On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 7:50:57 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:

The little ice age was preceded by a substantial drop in atmospheric CO2
possible attributable to the regeneration of the Amazon rain forest after
the destruction of its civilisation by disease.


Yes, I saw a report that earthen structures were found in cleared Amazon
forest areas. But what makes you believe that the forest RE-generated
when the natives were decimated by disease? Maybe it just generated.
Also, what evidence do you have for a drop in the CO2 levels? The latest
entry from the Vostok data is about 2500 years ago:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milank...insolation.jpg

and shows the CO2 level at just over 280 ppm and on the increase. The last
2000 years have shown the following:

"The merged, 2000-year record indicates that atmospheric CO2 levels have
substantially increased beyond their preindustrial values which fluctuated
around 280 parts per million (ppm) for most of the period, with a slight
dip from around 1600 to 1800 C.E."

Note m a SLIGHT dip.

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change defined preindustrial
concentrations as those prior to 1750."

How convenient that the Sargasso sea data shows the temperature minimum
at that time.

"Atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose from around 277 ppm (IPCC, 2007) in
1750 to a global average of around 388 ppm"

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/modern_co2.html

There is correlation here. The very extensive cultivation of Amazonia
ended at the time of the conquistadors and their associated epidemics.
The forest regenerated. CO2 fell.


http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xm...pdf;sequence=1



Actually, the forest is not the largest CO2 sink by far.

Irrelevant. The forest regrew.


Did it? Or did it just grow?

That's a likely CO2 sink in fact it's required or the forest would not grow.
Tropical rain forest is a bigger CO2 sink than temperate forest.


But forests are a small net change, decaying tress give back most of what
they consume during their lives:

http://www.livescience.com/44235-ama...-measured.html

It's also possible that the medieval warm period was partly due to massive
increases in forest clearing and agriculture as the world population,
including Amazonia, rose and cleared more forest to grow crops.


Hmmm, you're proposing a civilization with a population similar to what
exists there now?


That's something archaeologists need to find out. But the areas of cleared
forest are huge. The civilisation had farms in large forest clearings.


Mostly irrelevant since the net CO2 exchange of all Amazon forest is only
about 0.3 GT/year. We're adding 7.7 GT/year from fossil fuels:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/carbon_cycle.html
  #13  
Old April 24th 17, 03:42 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Mike Collins[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,824
Default Second hottest March since records began

Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 9:44:48 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:

Gary Harnagel wrote:

On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 7:50:57 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:

The little ice age was preceded by a substantial drop in atmospheric CO2
possible attributable to the regeneration of the Amazon rain forest after
the destruction of its civilisation by disease.

Yes, I saw a report that earthen structures were found in cleared Amazon
forest areas. But what makes you believe that the forest RE-generated
when the natives were decimated by disease? Maybe it just generated.
Also, what evidence do you have for a drop in the CO2 levels? The latest
entry from the Vostok data is about 2500 years ago:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milank...insolation.jpg

and shows the CO2 level at just over 280 ppm and on the increase. The last
2000 years have shown the following:

"The merged, 2000-year record indicates that atmospheric CO2 levels have
substantially increased beyond their preindustrial values which fluctuated
around 280 parts per million (ppm) for most of the period, with a slight
dip from around 1600 to 1800 C.E."

Note m a SLIGHT dip.

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change defined preindustrial
concentrations as those prior to 1750."

How convenient that the Sargasso sea data shows the temperature minimum
at that time.

"Atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose from around 277 ppm (IPCC, 2007) in
1750 to a global average of around 388 ppm"

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/modern_co2.html

There is correlation here. The very extensive cultivation of Amazonia
ended at the time of the conquistadors and their associated epidemics.
The forest regenerated. CO2 fell.


http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xm...pdf;sequence=1



Actually, the forest is not the largest CO2 sink by far.

Irrelevant. The forest regrew.


Did it? Or did it just grow?

The forst had been cleared. It renew.

That's a likely CO2 sink in fact it's required or the forest would not grow.
Tropical rain forest is a bigger CO2 sink than temperate forest.


But forests are a small net change, decaying tress give back most of what
they consume during their lives:

It's not a small net change. The forests had been cleared.

http://www.livescience.com/44235-ama...-measured.html

It's also possible that the medieval warm period was partly due to massive
increases in forest clearing and agriculture as the world population,
including Amazonia, rose and cleared more forest to grow crops.

Hmmm, you're proposing a civilization with a population similar to what
exists there now?


That's something archaeologists need to find out. But the areas of cleared
forest are huge. The civilisation had farms in large forest clearings.


Mostly irrelevant since the net CO2 exchange of all Amazon forest is only
about 0.3 GT/year. We're adding 7.7 GT/year from fossil fuels:

You're missing the point. The forest was not in a normal cycle. It was
regrown in general on previously cleared farmland. So the uptake of CO2 was
not balanced by decay and liberation of previously fixed carbon.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/carbon_cycle.html




  #14  
Old April 25th 17, 01:44 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gary Harnagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 659
Default Second hottest March since records began

On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 8:45:41 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:

The forst had been cleared. It renew.
....
It's not a small net change. The forests had been cleared.
....
You're missing the point. The forest was not in a normal cycle. It was
regrown in general on previously cleared farmland. So the uptake of CO2 was
not balanced by decay and liberation of previously fixed carbon.


Your assertions may or may not be true. There may be evidence, but I
haven't seen any. How do we know that the forest wasn't pampas a couple of
millennia ago?
  #15  
Old April 25th 17, 04:55 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Mike Collins[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,824
Default Second hottest March since records began

Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 8:45:41 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:

The forst had been cleared. It renew.
....
It's not a small net change. The forests had been cleared.
....
You're missing the point. The forest was not in a normal cycle. It was
regrown in general on previously cleared farmland. So the uptake of CO2 was
not balanced by decay and liberation of previously fixed carbon.


Your assertions may or may not be true. There may be evidence, but I
haven't seen any. How do we know that the forest wasn't pampas a couple of
millennia ago?

Not just millennia but millions of years. Although severely reduced it
probably lasted through the last ice age, unlike the Congo rainforest.


The Wikipedia article is good although it quotes old estimates of the poor
fertility of the land for crop growing.

It fails to mention the "Black Soil"which is the world's most fertile soil
and which is produced by adding human and animal faeces, charcoal and bone
to the cleared forest soil. This produces soil with long lasting fertility
which outperforms modern farming using chemical fertilisers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon...st?wprov=sfsi1

There are plenty of references in that article

Here is another on Black Soil.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta?wprov=sfsi1


  #16  
Old April 26th 17, 11:56 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gary Harnagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 659
Default Second hottest March since records began

On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 9:58:43 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:

....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon...st?wprov=sfsi1


"One computer model of future climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions shows that the Amazon rainforest could become unsustainable under conditions of severely reduced rainfall and increased temperatures, leading to an almost complete loss of rainforest cover in the basin by 2100.[54][55] However, simulations of Amazon basin climate change across many different models are not consistent in their estimation of any rainfall response, ranging from weak increases to strong decreases"

Interesting how climate models can disagree so much :-|
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Where/When time began.  Jeff-Relf.Me Astronomy Misc 0 March 1st 14 02:25 PM
The rapid melting began in Antarctica [email protected] Astronomy Misc 2 February 26th 09 05:16 AM
Observing Report: GSSP 2007 - Where The Myth Began [email protected] Amateur Astronomy 1 July 19th 07 02:27 AM
How Aids Began Twittering One Misc 0 June 1st 05 04:16 AM
hottest part of Sun and hottest part of a fireplace question & observation Archimedes Plutonium Astronomy Misc 5 January 27th 04 06:00 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.