Another New Paper Shows Temp Changes Before CO2
This is taken from a very long paper, so we have reproduced the most important parts of it. It will likely be ignored by the mainstream media and politicians. The full paper can be seen via the see more here link
The scientific and wider interest in the relationship between atmospheric temperature (T) and concentration of carbon dioxide ([CO2]) has been enormous
According to the commonly assumed causality link, increased [CO2] causes a rise in T.
However, recent developments cast doubts on this assumption by showing that this relationship is of the hen-or-egg type, or even unidirectional but opposite in direction to the commonly assumed one.
These developments include an advanced theoretical framework for testing causality based on the stochastic evaluation of a potentially causal link between two processes via the notion of the impulse response function.
Using, on the one hand, this framework and further expanding it and, on the other hand, the longest available modern time series of globally averaged T and [CO2], we shed light on the potential causality between these two processes.
All evidence resulting from the analyses suggests a unidirectional, potentially causal link with T as the cause and [CO2] as the effect. That link is not represented in climate models, whose outputs are also examined using the same framework, resulting in a link opposite the one found when the real measurements are used.
However, popularity does not necessarily mean correctness, and here we have provided strong arguments against this assumption.
Since we have identified atmospheric temperature as the cause and atmospheric CO2 concentration as the effect, one may be tempted to ask the question: What is the cause of the modern increase in temperature?
Apparently, this question is much more difficult to reply to, as we can no longer attribute everything to any single agent.
Neither do we believe that mainstream climatic theory, which is focused upon human CO2 emissions as the main cause and regards everything else as feedback of the single main cause, can explain what happened on Earth for 4.5 billion years of changing climate.
-
The dependence of the carbon cycle on temperature is quite strong and indeed major increases of [CO2] can emerge as a result of temperature rise. In other words, we show that the natural [CO2] changes due to temperature rise are far larger (by a factor > 3) than human emissions (Appendix A.1).
-
There are processes, such as the Earth’s albedo (which is changing in time as any other characteristic of the climate system), the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the ocean heat content in the upper layer (represented by the vertically averaged temperature in the layer 0–100 m), which are potential causes of the temperature increase, unlike what is observed with [CO2], their changes precede those of temperature (Appendix A.2, Appendix A.3 and Appendix A.4).
-
On a large timescale, the analysis of paleoclimatic data supports the primacy of the causal direction T → [CO2], even though some controversy remains about this issue (Appendix A.5).
However, the global temperature increase began succeeding the Little Ice Period, at a time when human CO2 emissions were very low.
To cast light on the problem, we examine the issue of CO2 emissions vs. atmospheric temperature further in the Supplementary Information, where we provide evidence that they are not correlated with each other.
The outgassing from the sea is also highlighted sometimes in the literature among the climate-related mechanisms. On the other hand, the role of the biosphere and biochemical reactions is often downplayed, along with the existence of complex interactions and feedback.
This role can be summarized in the following points, examined in detail and quantified in Appendix A.1.
-
Terrestrial and maritime respiration and decay are responsible for the vast majority of CO2 emissions [32], Figure 5.12.
-
Overall, natural processes of the biosphere contribute 96 percent to the global carbon cycle, the rest, four percent, being human emissions (which were even lower in the past [33]).
-
The biosphere is more productive at higher temperatures, as the rates of biochemical reactions increase with temperature, which leads to increasing natural CO2 emission [2].
-
Additionally, a higher atmospheric CO2 concentration makes the biosphere more productive via the so-called carbon fertilization effect, thus resulting in greening of the Earth [34,35], i.e., amplification of the carbon cycle, to which humans also contribute through crops and land-use management [36].
Orbital parameters of Earth’s revolution change quasi-cyclically in a multi-millennial scale (variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of Earth’s orbit), as interpreted by Milanković [37,38,39,40,41], and changes in the orbit geometry influence the amount of insolation.
The non-periodic drivers of the Earth’s climate variability include volcanic eruptions and collisions with large extraterrestrial objects, e.g., asteroids. An important climate driver is water in its three phases [33].
Another apparent factor is solar activity (including solar cycles) and the solar radiation (im)balance on Earth (e.g., albedo changes; see [33] and Appendix A.2). Notably, a recent study [42], by assessing 20 years of direct observations of energy imbalance from Earth-orbiting satellites, showed that the global changes observed appear largely from reductions in the amount of sunlight scattered by Earth’s atmosphere.
ENSO and ocean heating, both of which affect temperature, are examined in Appendix A.3 and Appendix A.4, respectively. The results of Appendix A.2, Appendix A.3 and Appendix A.4 are summarized in the schematic of Figure 13.
Changes in all three examined processes, albedo, ENSO and the upper ocean heat, precede in time the changes in temperature and even more so those in [CO2]. Generally, the time lags shown in Figure 13 complete a consistent picture of potential causality links among climate processes and always confirm the 𝑇→[CO2] direction.
Generally, in complex systems, an identified causal link, even though it gives some explanation of a phenomenon, raises additional questions, e.g., what caused the change in the identified cause, etc. In turn, causal links in complex systems may form endless sequences.
For this reason, it is naïve to expect complete answers to problems related to complex systems or to assume that a complex system is in permanent equilibrium and that an external agent is needed to “kick” it out of the equilibrium and produce change.
Yet the investigation of a single causal link between two processes, as is the focus of this paper, provides useful information, with possible significant scientific, technical, practical, epistemological and philosophical implications.
These are not covered in this paper. Readers interested in epistemological and philosophical aspects of causality are referred to Koutsoyiannis et al. [6], while those interested in the perennial changes in complex systems are referred to Koutsoyiannis [50,51].
This is not negligible for investigating causality, but also leaves a margin for many other climatic factors to act.
Nonetheless, our results can certainly be improved if we change our scope to more detailed modeling. To illustrate this, we provide the following toy model. Based on our result that the T-[CO2] system is potentially causal with direction Δ𝑇→Δln[CO2], we estimate Δln[CO2] as
Δln[CO2]=∑𝑗=020𝑔𝑗Δ𝑇𝜏−𝑗+𝜇𝑣
and we proceed a step further, assuming that the mean 𝜇𝑣 also depends on past temperature, averaged at timescale m, i.e.,
𝜇𝑣=𝛼(𝑇𝑚−𝑇0)
where 𝑇𝑚 is the average temperature of the previous m years, and 𝛼 and 𝑇0 are constants (parameters). Such a simple linear relationship is supported by the above-listed points related to the productivity of the biosphere. Equation (9) will result in negative values 𝜇𝑣 if 𝑇𝑚<𝑇0 and positive otherwise.
By re-evaluating the IRF coordinates 𝑔𝑗 simultaneously with the parameters of Equation (9), we find the modified version of the IRF plotted in Figure 14. The optimized additional parameters are 𝑚=4 (years), 𝛼=0.0034, 𝑇0=285.84 K.
Similarly to [6], we used a common spreadsheet software solver to perform the optimization, adding the two parameters α and 𝑇0 to the unknown coordinates 𝑔𝑗 of the IRF and performing the (nonlinear) optimization for all unknowns (𝑚 was found by trial-and-error).
A graphical comparison of the actual Δln[CO2] and [CO2] with those simulated by the model of Equations (8) and (9) is given in Figure 15. The explained variance for Δln[CO2] was drastically increased from 34 to 55.5 percent and that for [CO2] is an impressive 99.9 percent.
Figure 15. Comparison of the actual Δln[CO2] (upper) and [CO2]
For the convenience of the readers who are interested in repeating the calculations, we also give a parametric expression of IRF and summarize the toy model as:
Δln[CO2]=∑𝑗=020𝑔𝑗Δ𝑇𝜏−𝑗+𝜇𝑣,𝑔𝑗=0.00076 𝑗0.67𝑒−0.2𝑗/K,𝜇𝑣=0.0034 (𝑇4/K−285.84)
(where K is the unit of kelvin).
We emphasize, however, that we do not exploit the impressive result of explained variance of 99.9 percent to assert that we have built a decent model, even though this toy model is both accurate (in the lower panel of Figure 15, the simulated curve is indistinguishable from the actual) and parsimonious (the model expression in (10) contains only 5 fitted parameters).
We prefer to highlight the fact that the hugely complex climate system entails high uncertainty, and its study needs reliable data that provide the basis for the modeling and testing of hypotheses.
Conclusions
-
All evidence resulting from the analyses of the longest available modern time series of atmospheric concentration of [CO2] at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, along with that of globally averaged T, suggests a unidirectional, potentially causal link with T as the cause and [CO2] as the effect. This direction of causality holds for the entire period covered by the observations (more than 60 years).
-
Seasonality, as reflected in different phases of [CO2] time series at different latitudes, does not play any role in potential causality, as confirmed by replacing the Mauna Loa [CO2] time series with that in South Pole.
-
The unidirectional 𝑇→ln[CO2]
-
potential causal link applies to all timescales resolved by the available data, from monthly to about two decades.
-
The proposed methodology is simple, flexible and effective in disambiguating cases where the type of causality, HOE or unidirectional, is not quite clear.
-
Furthermore, the methodology defines a type of data analysis that, regardless of the detection of causality per se, assesses modeling performance by comparing observational data with model results. In particular, the analysis of climate model outputs reveals a misrepresentation of the causal link by these models, which suggest a causality direction opposite to the one found when the real measurements are used.
-
Extensions of the scope of the methodology, i.e., from detecting possible causality to building a more detailed model of stochastic type, are possible, as illustrated by a toy model for the T-[CO2] system, with explained variance of [CO2] reaching an impressive 99.9 percent.
-
While some of the findings of this study seem counterintuitive or contrary to mainstream opinions, they are logically and computationally supported by arguments and calculations given in the Appendices.
A crucial characteristic of our methodology is its direct use of the data per se, in contrast with other methodologies that are based on uncertain estimates of autocorrelation functions or on the more uncertain tool of the power spectrum, i.e., the Fourier transform of the autocorrelation function.
The methodology has the potential for further advances, as we first reported here (e.g., the asymmetric time lag window, the definition of a type of data analysis to be used in assessing modeling performance, and the extensions of its scope from detecting possible causality to building a more detailed model).
Bold emphasis added
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
JaKo
| #
Strange?
An example of double inversion not changing the intended meaning, as in Al Gore:
“The Inconvenient Truth;” double inverted: “The Convenient Lie.”
I recall, Gee, seventeen years ago, a complaint raised about the graphs where the CO2 was clearly following instead of leading T was swept aside as sort of “… there is much more going on than meets the eye …”
It indeed has been, and I think “they” should be liable to compensate us all for that.
Cheers, JaKo
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
CO2 was a feedback for changes in ocean temperatures which happened to be caused by changes in planetary geometry in that ice core era.
Over a 100,000 year cycle the ocean temperatures changes by +/- 6 degrees C. and the atmospheric CO2 ;eve; later changed by +.- 100ppm. A very slow process.
That process has NOTHING to do with manmade CO2 emissions mainly after 1975 that are NOT in the ice core data.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Richard,
You write: “Over a 100,000 year cycle the ocean temperatures changes by +/- 6 degrees C. and the atmospheric CO2 ;eve; later changed by +.- 100ppm. A very slow process.” I ask: Who was measuring the atmospheric CO2 100,000 years ago?
But thank you for your comment as it too explains a lot.
Have a good day
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
Air bubbles trapped in ice cores were measured. with decent accuracy for up to 400,000 years ago and less accuracy from 400,000 to 800,000 years ago
Without climate proxy reconstructions, we have no knowledge of global average temperature changes before 1900. And the 1900 to 1979 global average temperature statistics are not particularly accurate.
CO2 real time measurements began in 1958
Nothing learned from ice cores applies to the post-1960s world of manmade CO2 emissions. That was my point.
Reply
Charles Higley
| #
Why do such discussions leave out energy as heat from the Earth’s surface? In particular, suboceanic warming from the western Pacific drives the El Nino and La Nina cycle, which clearly determine warming and cooling of the planet’s largest ocean. Heat from the crust is not to be ignored.
Reply
JaKo
| #
Hi Charles,
Did you mean energy from the Earth “Guts”? Do you remember Zoe?? (Zoe’s Insight) She estimated the heat outflux from the inner Earth and was constantly harassed (not refuted) by all sorts of creatures from around the world.
Me thinks the “climate model” is quite impossible to master with our current means.
Cheers, JaKo
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi JaKo,
Started this comment to Sunsettommy and then remembered that you had mentioned Zoe. Whom I suspect no other commenters, here, know about.
And at this earlier time, I know I had not yet seen the two common measurements which absolutely refute the generally accepted theory, known as the Greenhouse Effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide gas. Whose prediction is that the measured air temperature would be about 56F (33C) degrees less (lower) if there were no atmospheric carbon dioxide gas.
For at many, many weather stations the atmosphere’s temperature and the atmosphere’s dew point temperatures are measured side by side at the same time. And the air’s temperature has never been measured to be lower than that of the air’s dew point temperature.
I have to ask you and the other commenters here: do you (individually) accept that these common measurements absolutely refute this wrong scientific theory?
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Again Jerry. The dew point is not a measurement of temperature but of the water in the atmosphere. Instead of referencing the relative humidity, which is the maximum water at that temperature, it references the temperature at which that amount water would be 100% humidity. It is an inverse reference point just like density of the air is the weight per unit volume you can also measure the volume of a constant weight of molecules. The temperature can rise or fall but as long as the amount of water in the air remains the same the dew point will also be constant. It in no way affects the temperature.
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
Surface temperature measurements have siting and coverage problems. Satellite temperature measurements have the potential to be more accurate. It does not really matter
The predictions of climate doom are not based on historical temperatures measurements, or any other data.
Humans have survived climate change every day of their lives and the current climate is quite pleasant.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb
For a while I accepted your statement “The dew point is not a measurement of temperature but of the [amount of] water in the atmosphere.” But the DPT is the temperature of a surface upon which liquid water (des) begins to condense on the surface. And it is the atmosphere’s temperature at which the atmosphere becomes saturated with eater vapor (gas).
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
The dew point is the temperature at which the relative humidity of the air reaches 100%.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
At least we agree on the same thing. You just wrote “The dew point is the temperature at which the relative humidity of the air reaches 100%”. After writing th do you not understand that 100% relative humidity is when the air is saturated with water vapor (g), trgatdless of the temperature of the air (atmosphere).
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Jerry there is no water vapor (gas) in the atmosphere below the boiling point of water at STP. No matter how often this has been explained to you and the evidence provided you can’t accept this. At 0 C when water is frozen it still puts water into the air as sublimation. Where does it get the 720 calories/gram to convert that solid into a gas? There is no point discussing this with you because you cannot accept that what you believe is wrong (ego).
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Charles and Jako,
Energy flows from greater to lower until stasis is achieved. All objects above absolute zero will radiate energy and all objects will absorb radiated energy. To which of the objects the energy flows depends on the energy of the objects. Think of it as a flow of water from a river into the ocean. At low tide (night) the fresh water will flow out into the ocean making the river longer. At high tide (day) the salt water will flow into the river making the river shorter. The equilibrium point, where flow stops changes, changing the size of the objets. During the day the radiated energy field of the Earth is compressed by the sun’s radiated energy. At night the Earth’s radiated energy field expands. Because the Earth is in stasis with the sun’s energy it’s size remains constant.
When a volcano erupts it will cause a temporary increase in the flow of the river but the flow is still controlled by the ocean. The earth’s crust is paper thin because it has not been able to lose much heat since it formed. Mars crust is thick because it has been able to lose heat to a weaker solar energy field.
The equilibrium point for the Earth and suns energy field also changes with the shape of the Earth and the nature of the crust. At the equator the depth at which the soil will begin to get hotter from geothermal heat is in general deeper than in the arctic where the permafrost marks the equilibrium point but you will find geothermal vents (hot spots) not only in Hawaii but also Iceland and even Antarctica.
Climate is determined by the sun’s energy, weather by the flow of energy on the Earth.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and other commenters,
Herb, just taught me a new word: “Stasis”.
Stasis is a 2015 science fiction horror point-and-click adventure game developed by The Brotherhood. Viewed from an isometric perspective, the game requires interactions with computers, combining items and puzzle solving. Wikipedia
Developer: Brotherhood Games
Platforms: Microsoft Windows, macOS
Genres: Indie game, Graphic adventure game
Engine: Visionaire Studio
Thank you Herb because this explains a lot.
Have a good day
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
“Climate is determined by the sun’s energy, ”
The sun’s energy measured at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is nearly constant.
Earth’s climate is determined by how much solar energy is absorbed by earth’s surface less how much energy escapes Earth into space.
After reading about climate science for 26 years, I have never seen the word stasis used. It makes no sense. Earth’s climat is not in thermodynamic equilibrium, so is always changing.
STASIS meaning a state that does not change.
I do not see how that applies to Earth’s climate.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
I prefer the word stasis over equilibrium because the two sources of energy are not equal but in a steady state of energy exchange. When a volcano erupts the Earth will have an excess of energy over that which it receives from the sun. That excess energy will join the energy absorbed from the sun and be radiated into space returning to a stasis where the energy radiated by the Earth will be the same as the energy absorbed from its major source of energy, the sun.
If the output of energy from the sun decreases, as in a Grand Solar Minimum, the climate will change as it did during the little ice age.
The thermosphere is where the exchange of energy occurs. It is where the expansion and contraction of the atmosphere occurs, not in the troposphere. As the Pineti gauge shows it is in the thermosphere where the energy being transferred by radiation is equal to the energy being transferred by convection to other gas molecules. That is why the second layer of the atmosphere consists of oxygen atoms and helium (top layer hydrogen, helium) The energy level is greater than the bond strength (392,000 joules/mole) of oxygen molecules.
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
Disinformation
ENSO are neutral over 30 ti 50 year periods
They do not add heat to the planet.
They merely redistribute heat.
Heat from earth’s core reaching the surface is estimated to be 0.3% of all heat reaching earth’ surface /
Irrelevant.
Reply
Purple People Eater
| #
I appreciate that you forewarned any readers that your comment is disinformation.
There is very strong evidence that El Nino events are caused by geothermal heat being released to the surface. Hydro thermal vents as a part of that.
This science is supported by observation and the record of UAH TEMPERATURE 1979-NOV 2023 (0.91C).
I note you are still practicing personal abuse which is the modus of those who can not practice rational debate.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Purple,
If the El Nino and La Nina occur around the time when the sun crosses the equator into the southern hemisphere why and how does irregular geothermal heat output cause them but not on a yearly basis?
Herb
Reply
Purple People Eater
| #
Hi Herb. La Nina appears to be a natural accumulation of warm tropical water in the New Guinea surrounds, with a possible geo thermal contribution, but not necessarily geo thermal contribution. The Jury is out on that one.
El Nino is probably triggered by moon phase gravity effect flexing the earth crust and allowing release of geo-thermal pressure build up initially, and then subsequent pulsing release of geo-thermal/hydro-thermal heat as a result of moon phase and moon geo-location. There is also oceanic current gyre recirculation occurring South of the Galapagos.
I watched the formation of the current El Nino in real time around March this year and the heat source was South East of the Galapagos and if you take a look at the referenced 3 month animation check carefully at the end of the animation run the anomalous warm SST temperature off the East Coast of Japan.
That can only be explained by geothermal/hydrothermal activity. It is the site of the convergence of 4 tectonic plates as well as the Fukushima earthquake.
Watching the animation you can observe the movement of warmer SST water masses from the Galapagos Islands area and their dispersal North and South near Micronesia.
The current global temperature peak was caused by the three year La Nina and associated events and the El Nino just warmed some smaller oceanic areas that were still cool and finished the job.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_90day_large.gif
sunsettommy
| #
Not sure about the effect of Geothermal heating of the waters near the Philippines but every El-Nino that is significant generates a STEP up warming event in the atmosphere because of its low mass reacts strongly from the much-increased inflow of energy from the Pacific waters which is easily seen in the temperature record.
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
There are no global average data for heat releases form Earth’s core. Especially for underseas heat releases. Therefore, any claims about earth’s heat releases are data free speculation. Without data there is no science.
What’s ENSO? (The El Nino / La Nina Cycle)
ENSO describes the fluctuation of two things in the equatorial Pacific: the surface temperature of the ocean and the pressure of the air above it.
If an El Nino was caused by a heat release from the earth’s core, which it is NOT, then a La Nina would mean heat returning to the earth’s core, which obviously is not happening.
There is no evidence that underseas volcanoes or other underseas heat releases can be measured at the ocean’s surface, much less cause a one degree C. sea surface measurement change typical of an ENSO cycle.
Nor even evidence that we can measure the heat in the deep ocean over 100 yards away from an underseas volcano.
To you “rational debate” only means agreeing with you.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Air pressure is defined as 15 PSI at sea level so the air pressure over the Philippines is the same as the air pressure over the Bering Sea even though the diameter of the Earth is 22km greater at the equator than at the poles, making gravity weaker.
El Nino is caused by the rotation of the Earth and inertia of water. The equatorial currents move east slower than the Earth’s surface does, exposing it to solar energy for a longer period of time. In the Atlantic this current is deflected north by the coast of Brazil forming the Gulf Stream. In the Pacific the islands of Indonesia and the Philippines break up the flow forming a partial dam and a pool of warm water. When that water becomes hotter than the Pacific Equatorial Current the current flows under the surface water and when it strikes the island it flows upwards pushing the warm water eastward along the edges of the equatorial current.
MattH
| #
Hi Herb.
The SST temperature anomaly data animation
that Purple posted clearly shows your explanation for the mechanism of El Nino is debunked.
Have you an issue with the animation?
Have you an issue with my (purple) explanation?
Why no comment on the animation when it clarifies so much misunderstanding?
The animation is consistent with global oceanic current temperature maps.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_90day_large.gif
And here is one of the better global oceanic current maps that endorses the OBSERVATIONS of the coral reef watch animation.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/69/ef/76/69ef7696ac63e31771cb64e1f71346e7.png
Cheers Herb. The best for Christmas.
MattH
| #
My Bad. I should not have included the word temperature in “global oceanic current temperature maps” .
Herb Rpse
| #
Hi Matt,
I watched the animation again. It begins when the directly overhead sun crosses over the equator and ends when it is over The tropic of Capricorn. The sun is heating the southern hemisphere. I have scuba dived at both Cancun off the Yucatan and near Acapulco. on the west coat of Mexico. The water in the Caribbean is warm so you don’t need a wet suit. The west cast water is cold and you do need a wet suit. If geothermal is heating the water why is the water shown to be cold off Hawaii and Iceland which are hot spots and why is Japan cold in winter? Why are there palm trees in Ireland? If geothermal why don’t they happen yearly or monthly if caused by the Moon? When something happens in a regular pattern over a long period of time one needs to look at that pattern and what coincides within if there is a connection.
Have a good holiday Matt,
Herb
Purple People Eater
| #
https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
Misleading since the rapid release of energy from the waters of the middle pacific consistently occurs with the onset of a significant El-Nino phase a reality you keep overlooking.
When El-Nino fades so does the temperature as it drops to a lower level from the peak.
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
https://honestclimatescience.blogspot.com/
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Richard,
CO2 has no feedback that effect the ocean temperature. It is very soluble in water and the oceans contain more of the CO2 (limestone, marble, which are deposits from past oceans are 50% by weight CO2) than the atmosphere. If you took a piece of coral or mollusk shell and chemically decomposed it every 88 grams would produce a volume of 19.4 liters (STP). Compare the weight of this precipitated CO2 to the .0442 % of the troposphere and you will see the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is minuscule compared to the CO2 in the water and on the land.
It is the temperature of the oceans that dictate the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (Henry’s law). Try opening a warm can of soda and a cold can of soda and you will see that it is not the CO2 affecting the temperature but the temperature of the water that determines whether the CO2 is dissolved in water or a gas.
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
I removed a post that was openly PROMOTING a PERSONAL blog website elsewhere which isn’t acceptable, a link to some presentation in an outside blog website that is on topic to here is acceptable but please don’t abuse it.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Sunset,
Because of problems I have been having in connecting with PSI; I conclude you are in a battle with a longtime opponent of the founders of PSI. Because I am able to write this comment, you appear to be winning.
Good work and continue to have a good day
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
I haven’t noticed anyone having connection problems here.
I am not in a battle with anyone as there is nothing going on out of the ordinary as I have no idea who this supposed longtime opponent is while I am the Administrator here which means you can relax.
Thank you for the kind words.
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Sunset. I have had ongoing connection problems since 4.30 PM , 19th December. A comment has been lost in the ether.
Cheers.
Reply
Howdy
| #
The site is at times not loading at all. I have also seen the Cloudflare cache at one time.
Not a database issue, but loss of server connection.
sunsettommy
| #
Thank you for posting these problems which will be passed on to the Webmasters.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt and Howdy,
Thank you both for verifying the problems that I had experienced. Do either of you know who the opponent of the science of the PSI founders was and obviously still is? I do not mention his name and website because it is apparent the battle is still continues. And I also question the science of both this person and that of the PSI founders.
And at one time John O’Sullivan agreed it was best that he as editor did not post my essays. Then he and Psi founders agreed that they would publish (post) any thing submitted to them. This was before advertising became a source of funding for the websites.
Have a good day
Reply
Howdy
| #
Presumably you are pointing at a third party taking PSI down Jerry. I have no knowledge of the battle you mentioned.
Other than direct infiltration, or hacking, A denial of service attack is the usual way of doing it. This uses many compromised machines continually making multiple requests to the site such that the server is bogged down, crashes, corrupts the database etc,
https://www.paloaltonetworks.co.uk/cyberpedia/what-is-a-denial-of-service-attack-dos
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Howdy and Sunset,
This is from the beginning of Howd’s link. “A Denial-of-Service (DoS) attack is an attack meant to shut down a machine or network, making it inaccessible to its intended users. DoS attacks accomplish this by flooding the target with traffic, or sending it information that triggers a crash. In both instances, the DoS attack deprives legitimate users (i.e. employees, members, or account holders) of the service or resource they expected.”
Demetris Koutsoyiannis, Christian Onof, Zbigniew Kundzewicz, Antonis Christofides, the author of the article, is clearly associated with this other website and JaKo, I, Charles, Herb, Sunset, and MarrH became innocent contributors to this attack. You can check out those not named to determine for yourselves if they might be associated with this other website.
Have a good day
Reply
Howdy
| #
OK Jerry, I found a site that lists 3 of them, along with quite a few others.
Are you telling me the machines of yourself, and the other PSI users were compromised as robots?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Howdy,
I am quite old and have common old age problems but I can understand much of what I read. And I have read many books and articles because I am curious and have had many unique experiences and have the talent to comprehend what I read relative to these experiences. And I agree with Einstein who is said to have stated: “The only source of knowledge is experience.”
However I have no answer to your question.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Howdy,
I just noticed Purple’s link to Dr Spenser’s website.. I was an active commenter on his site until I discover PSI In 2016.. His specialty was the reporting of satellite data and its analysis . No longer remember the details, but I believe that the data was averaged for the whole planet Earth.
As you may know I believe most every word of The Holy Bible which for the first page of Genesis is a human history book with human authors. not unlike those of autobiographies or biographies.
Have a good day
Reply
Howdy
| #
Jerry, when you say innocent contributors. How did you contribute? Were the computers of the PSI people you mentioned compromised, or taken control of and used to attack PSI?
You didn’t tell me what the attack consisted of.
sunsettommy
| #
Come on you guys there isn’t any DOS attacks going on and there aren’t any other attacks going on at all, as I have access to see what is going on and it doesn’t show up.
Please let it go and stick with the topic instead.
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Sunset.
Maybe it was something, such as AI, messing with things our end.
After I informed you of my variable connection issues, only with PSI, the issues ceased.
Co-incidence?
Good on yuh Sunset.
Howdy
| #
I was just interested in Jerry’s claim, but be aware, it doesn’t have to be just PSI server.
Anyway, the site has picked up speed again, so something was going on over an extended period.
OK I’ll drop it now.
sunsettommy
| #
I and the webmaster didn’t do anything, because there was nothing to fix or adjust as there was no problems to respond to.
The connection problems are usually at the browser end which may have been worked on without your knowledge.
Herb Rosr
| #
Hi Sunsettommy,
I also had difficulty accessing the cite and when I fidget on it was a list of the topics (like an outline) with Red titles and a list under it in blue No graphics at all. Don’t know if this helps identify the cause but I thought I’d add my Nickel (2 cents after inflation)..
Herb
sunsettommy
| #
Herb,
It appears the problem is at your end since the problems mentioned isn’t coming from the server or the blog end which I NEVER see in the year I have been here.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Sunset,
When you removed this persons’ post, what might this person, with a history, reasonably considered ‘PSI was doing?
Have a good day
Reply
Eduardo Ferreyra
| #
This theory was advanced 23 years ago by Eric Monin et al, 2000. It was not refuted or questioned.
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
Thank you, Mr. Ferreyra, I had forgotten about Monin et al.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Commenters,
Three 2017 PSI articles have bout to our attention. One of them was posted by Perrie Goaaelin. In it read the number of weather station was decreasing at that time. Recently he posted an article about Russian weather station data. (https://principia-scientific.com/leading-russian-scientist-predicts-global-cooling-begins-in-2030/). I doubt if these many weather stations have been established;ished in the past 6 years. And in recent posting you can find my comment in which I refer to the USA RAWS (Remote Automated Earth Stations).).
To date I have not found of any of you referring to this RAWS data which I have written articles about. The problem is not misinformation, the problem is you who do not take advantage of the weather data which easily available and don’t answer questions to which only you individually know the answer.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
The Holy Bible is a history book. Some might question if this history is fictional. I call attention to Genesis Chapters 6 though 8. And specifically to Genesis 7;17 to 7:14. There are now many translations of the Bible and I ask one to read these few verses. Then go to a museum which has the fossil bones of the land animals which died in the flood..
The point I want one to note is the 150 days of verse 7:17. If the physical evidence of the amazing history described in The Holy Bible does not convince one of this valid history, one must be as brain dead as the bones of the fossils.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
If you want to see brain dead just look in a mirror.
In order to cover Mt Ararat with water by it raining for 40 days and nights, it must rain at a rate of 24 inches an hour all over the world. Where did this water one from? Not from the oceans, you can’t raise sea level by taking water out of the ocean and pouring back in. When the waters receded where. did it go?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You are obviously assuming that Mt Ararat existed at that time. We must remember that Moses is composing Genesis long after the flood. At times I have forgotten that Moses lived after the Egyptian pyramids had been built. For there is no record of anyone observing this or being told this. But thank you for your comment because I had been pondering th fact when Moses wrote this. For Genesis did not need to be an oral history.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Since Genesis says the ark landed on Mt Ararat it seems like a valid assumption that it existed or don’t you believe what Genesis says.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
In Genesis 10:25 I read (NIV) Two sons were born to Eber. One was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was divided; his brother was named Joktan. Then In Genesis 11 begins an account of certain dissidents of Noah’s son Shem. From which one can calculate that Peleg was born 109 years after the flood.
So I believe that Continental Drift within little more then after the brith of Peleg which I believe was the surface of the Earth was drastically and the mountain we now observe began to be formed.
Have a good day.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Jerry
You will believe anything that can be construed to support your belief and ignore any other evidence or different interpretation of evidence. You are not a scientist but an egotist who believes in his own infallibility. You start off with Genesis being undeniable history and anyone who doesn’t accept that the bones in a museum are proof of this is brain dead. You now say that when Genesis states that the ark rested near the top of Mt Ararat it wasn’t a mountain with an olive tree on it.
Nobody has been able to answer your question, “How Stupid Am I” because you keep making comments that show any estimate they had guessed of your stupidity was grossly below the correct answer.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Have you forgotten I tried to remind you and a reader that Moses’s audience was only familiar with Mt. Ararat as a mountain when it it was still a mole hill just after the earth’s surface had dried.
..
I only care what the Creator God knows what I do and I do not try to please humans.
Have a good day
.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Have you forgotten I tried to remind you and a reader that Moses’s audience was only familiar with Mt. Ararat as a mountain when it it was still a mole hill just after the earth’s surface had dried.
..
I only care what the Creator God knows what I do and I do not try to please humans.
Have a good day
.
Reply