2017 Co2 watch thread--How high will it go?

[Old Rocks]

Matthew posted two pairs of values, each pair exactly one year apart. Your criticism is in error and unwarranted.

Certainly NOT in the post above that I replied to.. Do you not use the quote function -- so you can get these little digs in without alerting me to a response? Or are you lazy?

There are no "pairs" of data in Post #4 that I responded to.

In other words, I don't want to face the reality of the increasing CO2 that we are putting into the atmosphere. I would rather pretend like nothing is happening, and go along with the orange clown and shut down science in the USA.

BTW -- My bet is the orange clown will actually PROMOTE debate and open discussion of the GW science. A good start would be replacing Gavin Schmidt with Judith Curry. I recommended that the LParty pledge to conduct a series of high level lightly moderated debates at the Whitehouse. HIGHLY advertised and televised. I'd be thrilled if that happened.

Consensus doesn't happen without DEFENDING theories and practices. 'Bout time for that to happen.

You'd be in favor of letting the cards play out --- wouldn't you?

You have confidence what the results of open public debate would be --- DON'T YOU??

Gavin Schmidt ADMITTED he lost he ass in the ONLY public debate he was a part of. You wouldn't be worried or anything right????

GSA Position Statement
Adopted in October 2006
Please let us know how you used this GSA Position Statement.
Click on the questionnaire link at www.geosociety.org/aboutus/position.htm.

Global Climate Change

Contributors:

Mark Peters — Chair Sally Benson, Thure Cerling, Judith Curry, Yehouda Enzel, Jim Finley, Alan Gillespie, Mickey Glantz, Lynn Soreghan

Position Statement

The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning. GSA also supports statements on the global climate change issue made by the joint national academies of science (June, 2005), American Geophysical Union (December, 2003), and American Chemical Society (2004). GSA strongly encourages that the following efforts be undertaken internationally: (1) adequately research climate change at all time scales, (2) develop thoughtful, science-based policy appropriate for the multifaceted issues of global climate change, (3) organize global planning to recognize, prepare for, and adapt to the causes and consequences of global climate change, and (4) organize and develop comprehensive, long-term strategies for sustainable energy, particularly focused on minimizing impacts on global climate.

Background

The geologic record provides a direct measure of the frequency, range, and duration of significant global climate changes throughout Earth’s history. Natural phenomena and processes have caused significant alterations of Earth’s climate. Of significance to the issue of modern global climate change are the interpretations of the geologic record showing that the rate of change in atmospheric composition, especially with respect to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, is unprecedented in Earth’s recent history. Specifically, the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is higher than at any time in the past 650,000 years, and probably higher than at any time in the past 30 million years. In addition, the geologic record shows that global climate change can have significant consequences to Earth’s life systems, with effects ranging from global modification of ecosystem distribution to large-scale extinctions. Because the geologic record provides the important archive of the consequences of global climate changes and harbors examples of icehouse-greenhouse transitions potentially analogous to modern climate change, the current nature and magnitude of global climate change should be evaluated in the context of Earth’s full geologic record.

Many earth-science disciplines contribute to the scientific and public understanding of the complex, global climate change issue, including sedimentary geology, Quaternary geology, geochemistry, paleontology, and paleohydrology, in addition to oceanography and atmospheric sciences. The understanding of the full spectrum of magnitudes and rates of climate change over geologic time provides boundary conditions for evaluating any human impacts on climate and for producing more reliable predictions of the extent of future climate change. In addition, understanding of active geologic processes provides invaluable information to better understand and monitor ongoing climate change and to develop approaches for adapting to the consequences of climate change. Earth scientists also contribute to research on carbon capture and storage — potential methods for preventing atmospheric carbon dioxide from building up as a result of the burning of fossil fuels and biomass and the production of cement and lime.

Current predictions of the consequences of global climate change include: (1) rising sea level, (2) significant alteration of global and regional climatic patterns with an impact on water availability, (3) fundamental changes in global temperature distribution, (4) melting of polar ice, and (5) major changes in the distribution of plant and animal species. While the precise magnitude and rate of climate change cannot be predicted with absolute certainty, significant change will affect the planet and stress its inhabitants. GSA Position Statement Adopted in October 2006 Please let us know how you used this GSA Position Statement. Click on the questionnaire link at www.geosociety.org/aboutus/position.htm. co

Mr. Flaccaltenn, Dr. Curry's position is that AGW is real. She just objects to scientists participating in the political fights that are inevitable in preventing the worst of the damage that will cause. She thinks that the scientists should be little virginal adolescents when it comes to politics. Unfortunetly for her, most scientists have children and grandchildren, and worry about the world they will inherit.

"The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities;"

Committee statements are not science. They are political propaganda. Truth isn't determined by majority vote. End of story.

As always, you employ logical fallacies rather than logic and science.

Now Pattycake, virtually every Scientific Society of every country in the world has such statements. So what you are saying is that there is some monstrous worldwide conspiracy among over 90% of the scientists from all the different nations and cultures to fool the rest of us? Better stock up on tinfoil for your little hats.

 

[flacaltenn]

Certainly NOT in the post above that I replied to.. Do you not use the quote function -- so you can get these little digs in without alerting me to a response? Or are you lazy?

There are no "pairs" of data in Post #4 that I responded to.

In other words, I don't want to face the reality of the increasing CO2 that we are putting into the atmosphere. I would rather pretend like nothing is happening, and go along with the orange clown and shut down science in the USA.

BTW -- My bet is the orange clown will actually PROMOTE debate and open discussion of the GW science. A good start would be replacing Gavin Schmidt with Judith Curry. I recommended that the LParty pledge to conduct a series of high level lightly moderated debates at the Whitehouse. HIGHLY advertised and televised. I'd be thrilled if that happened.

Consensus doesn't happen without DEFENDING theories and practices. 'Bout time for that to happen.

You'd be in favor of letting the cards play out --- wouldn't you?

You have confidence what the results of open public debate would be --- DON'T YOU??

Gavin Schmidt ADMITTED he lost he ass in the ONLY public debate he was a part of. You wouldn't be worried or anything right????

GSA Position Statement
Adopted in October 2006
Please let us know how you used this GSA Position Statement.
Click on the questionnaire link at www.geosociety.org/aboutus/position.htm.

Global Climate Change

Contributors:

Mark Peters — Chair Sally Benson, Thure Cerling, Judith Curry, Yehouda Enzel, Jim Finley, Alan Gillespie, Mickey Glantz, Lynn Soreghan

Position Statement

The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning. GSA also supports statements on the global climate change issue made by the joint national academies of science (June, 2005), American Geophysical Union (December, 2003), and American Chemical Society (2004). GSA strongly encourages that the following efforts be undertaken internationally: (1) adequately research climate change at all time scales, (2) develop thoughtful, science-based policy appropriate for the multifaceted issues of global climate change, (3) organize global planning to recognize, prepare for, and adapt to the causes and consequences of global climate change, and (4) organize and develop comprehensive, long-term strategies for sustainable energy, particularly focused on minimizing impacts on global climate.

Background

The geologic record provides a direct measure of the frequency, range, and duration of significant global climate changes throughout Earth’s history. Natural phenomena and processes have caused significant alterations of Earth’s climate. Of significance to the issue of modern global climate change are the interpretations of the geologic record showing that the rate of change in atmospheric composition, especially with respect to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, is unprecedented in Earth’s recent history. Specifically, the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is higher than at any time in the past 650,000 years, and probably higher than at any time in the past 30 million years. In addition, the geologic record shows that global climate change can have significant consequences to Earth’s life systems, with effects ranging from global modification of ecosystem distribution to large-scale extinctions. Because the geologic record provides the important archive of the consequences of global climate changes and harbors examples of icehouse-greenhouse transitions potentially analogous to modern climate change, the current nature and magnitude of global climate change should be evaluated in the context of Earth’s full geologic record.

Many earth-science disciplines contribute to the scientific and public understanding of the complex, global climate change issue, including sedimentary geology, Quaternary geology, geochemistry, paleontology, and paleohydrology, in addition to oceanography and atmospheric sciences. The understanding of the full spectrum of magnitudes and rates of climate change over geologic time provides boundary conditions for evaluating any human impacts on climate and for producing more reliable predictions of the extent of future climate change. In addition, understanding of active geologic processes provides invaluable information to better understand and monitor ongoing climate change and to develop approaches for adapting to the consequences of climate change. Earth scientists also contribute to research on carbon capture and storage — potential methods for preventing atmospheric carbon dioxide from building up as a result of the burning of fossil fuels and biomass and the production of cement and lime.

Current predictions of the consequences of global climate change include: (1) rising sea level, (2) significant alteration of global and regional climatic patterns with an impact on water availability, (3) fundamental changes in global temperature distribution, (4) melting of polar ice, and (5) major changes in the distribution of plant and animal species. While the precise magnitude and rate of climate change cannot be predicted with absolute certainty, significant change will affect the planet and stress its inhabitants. GSA Position Statement Adopted in October 2006 Please let us know how you used this GSA Position Statement. Click on the questionnaire link at www.geosociety.org/aboutus/position.htm. co

Mr. Flaccaltenn, Dr. Curry's position is that AGW is real. She just objects to scientists participating in the political fights that are inevitable in preventing the worst of the damage that will cause. She thinks that the scientists should be little virginal adolescents when it comes to politics. Unfortunetly for her, most scientists have children and grandchildren, and worry about the world they will inherit.

Then she and I agree. And she'd be the perfect person to put a REALISTIC public policy position on the SCIENCE. Note -- that there were hysterics, no real projections in that statement. AND -- that statement is TEN years old. It was BEFORE Judith Curry was FORCEFULLY PURGED from her profession.

Why don't you ask her TODAY -- what climate change REALISTS believe??? And how POLITICAL POWER has abused the science?? She'll tell you. And so will the respondents to the Bray/von Storch polls. Where OVER HALF of the folks in the field of climate science say that politics has TOO MUCH influence on the work..

Why yes, they are correct. Politics has far too much influence on their work. They find themselves threatened with lawsuits for publishing the results of their research in scientific journals. They get personal threats from the locos influenced by the wackos that are saying that the scientists are in the employ of people seeking the destruction of our nation. They are pilloried in Congress by whores like Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma. In fact, what we need now is a massive push back from the people are honest enough, and smart enough, to realize the meaning of the events we are seeing right now due to AGW.

You have that exactly bass-ackwards. It's the mafia of a small minority in the community enforcing rigor and adhesion to "the cause" that are paid patrons of Govt largess that is stifling "consensus" and resolution of what to TELL the policy planners in a realistic assessment of CC effects. And the front office staff who WRITES those "resolutions" for AGU and others who are espousing party line politics instead of "consensus" within their own ranks.

 

[flacaltenn]

Certainly NOT in the post above that I replied to.. Do you not use the quote function -- so you can get these little digs in without alerting me to a response? Or are you lazy?

There are no "pairs" of data in Post #4 that I responded to.

In other words, I don't want to face the reality of the increasing CO2 that we are putting into the atmosphere. I would rather pretend like nothing is happening, and go along with the orange clown and shut down science in the USA.

BTW -- My bet is the orange clown will actually PROMOTE debate and open discussion of the GW science. A good start would be replacing Gavin Schmidt with Judith Curry. I recommended that the LParty pledge to conduct a series of high level lightly moderated debates at the Whitehouse. HIGHLY advertised and televised. I'd be thrilled if that happened.

Consensus doesn't happen without DEFENDING theories and practices. 'Bout time for that to happen.

You'd be in favor of letting the cards play out --- wouldn't you?

You have confidence what the results of open public debate would be --- DON'T YOU??

Gavin Schmidt ADMITTED he lost he ass in the ONLY public debate he was a part of. You wouldn't be worried or anything right????

GSA Position Statement
Adopted in October 2006
Please let us know how you used this GSA Position Statement.
Click on the questionnaire link at www.geosociety.org/aboutus/position.htm.

Global Climate Change

Contributors:

Mark Peters — Chair Sally Benson, Thure Cerling, Judith Curry, Yehouda Enzel, Jim Finley, Alan Gillespie, Mickey Glantz, Lynn Soreghan

Position Statement

The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning. GSA also supports statements on the global climate change issue made by the joint national academies of science (June, 2005), American Geophysical Union (December, 2003), and American Chemical Society (2004). GSA strongly encourages that the following efforts be undertaken internationally: (1) adequately research climate change at all time scales, (2) develop thoughtful, science-based policy appropriate for the multifaceted issues of global climate change, (3) organize global planning to recognize, prepare for, and adapt to the causes and consequences of global climate change, and (4) organize and develop comprehensive, long-term strategies for sustainable energy, particularly focused on minimizing impacts on global climate.

Background

The geologic record provides a direct measure of the frequency, range, and duration of significant global climate changes throughout Earth’s history. Natural phenomena and processes have caused significant alterations of Earth’s climate. Of significance to the issue of modern global climate change are the interpretations of the geologic record showing that the rate of change in atmospheric composition, especially with respect to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, is unprecedented in Earth’s recent history. Specifically, the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is higher than at any time in the past 650,000 years, and probably higher than at any time in the past 30 million years. In addition, the geologic record shows that global climate change can have significant consequences to Earth’s life systems, with effects ranging from global modification of ecosystem distribution to large-scale extinctions. Because the geologic record provides the important archive of the consequences of global climate changes and harbors examples of icehouse-greenhouse transitions potentially analogous to modern climate change, the current nature and magnitude of global climate change should be evaluated in the context of Earth’s full geologic record.

Many earth-science disciplines contribute to the scientific and public understanding of the complex, global climate change issue, including sedimentary geology, Quaternary geology, geochemistry, paleontology, and paleohydrology, in addition to oceanography and atmospheric sciences. The understanding of the full spectrum of magnitudes and rates of climate change over geologic time provides boundary conditions for evaluating any human impacts on climate and for producing more reliable predictions of the extent of future climate change. In addition, understanding of active geologic processes provides invaluable information to better understand and monitor ongoing climate change and to develop approaches for adapting to the consequences of climate change. Earth scientists also contribute to research on carbon capture and storage — potential methods for preventing atmospheric carbon dioxide from building up as a result of the burning of fossil fuels and biomass and the production of cement and lime.

Current predictions of the consequences of global climate change include: (1) rising sea level, (2) significant alteration of global and regional climatic patterns with an impact on water availability, (3) fundamental changes in global temperature distribution, (4) melting of polar ice, and (5) major changes in the distribution of plant and animal species. While the precise magnitude and rate of climate change cannot be predicted with absolute certainty, significant change will affect the planet and stress its inhabitants. GSA Position Statement Adopted in October 2006 Please let us know how you used this GSA Position Statement. Click on the questionnaire link at www.geosociety.org/aboutus/position.htm. co

Mr. Flaccaltenn, Dr. Curry's position is that AGW is real. She just objects to scientists participating in the political fights that are inevitable in preventing the worst of the damage that will cause. She thinks that the scientists should be little virginal adolescents when it comes to politics. Unfortunetly for her, most scientists have children and grandchildren, and worry about the world they will inherit.

"The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities;"

Committee statements are not science. They are political propaganda. Truth isn't determined by majority vote. End of story.

As always, you employ logical fallacies rather than logic and science.

Now Pattycake, virtually every Scientific Society of every country in the world has such statements. So what you are saying is that there is some monstrous worldwide conspiracy among over 90% of the scientists from all the different nations and cultures to fool the rest of us? Better stock up on tinfoil for your little hats.

Those resolutions aren't the paper they were written on. There was no polling of membership. No period of accepting input from the membership. They are just "policy statements" to put those organizations in line with the "general wisdom".. Call us when they VOTE on resolutions like that. In Australia, where they DID THAT -- it turned into a 2 year battle with the "resolution" permanently tabled.

In the meantime --- Bray and von Storch is the BEST source for any "opinion" from the Climate Community..

 

[Old Rocks]

In other words, I don't want to face the reality of the increasing CO2 that we are putting into the atmosphere. I would rather pretend like nothing is happening, and go along with the orange clown and shut down science in the USA.

BTW -- My bet is the orange clown will actually PROMOTE debate and open discussion of the GW science. A good start would be replacing Gavin Schmidt with Judith Curry. I recommended that the LParty pledge to conduct a series of high level lightly moderated debates at the Whitehouse. HIGHLY advertised and televised. I'd be thrilled if that happened.

Consensus doesn't happen without DEFENDING theories and practices. 'Bout time for that to happen.

You'd be in favor of letting the cards play out --- wouldn't you?

You have confidence what the results of open public debate would be --- DON'T YOU??

Gavin Schmidt ADMITTED he lost he ass in the ONLY public debate he was a part of. You wouldn't be worried or anything right????

GSA Position Statement
Adopted in October 2006
Please let us know how you used this GSA Position Statement.
Click on the questionnaire link at www.geosociety.org/aboutus/position.htm.

Global Climate Change

Contributors:

Mark Peters — Chair Sally Benson, Thure Cerling, Judith Curry, Yehouda Enzel, Jim Finley, Alan Gillespie, Mickey Glantz, Lynn Soreghan

Position Statement

The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning. GSA also supports statements on the global climate change issue made by the joint national academies of science (June, 2005), American Geophysical Union (December, 2003), and American Chemical Society (2004). GSA strongly encourages that the following efforts be undertaken internationally: (1) adequately research climate change at all time scales, (2) develop thoughtful, science-based policy appropriate for the multifaceted issues of global climate change, (3) organize global planning to recognize, prepare for, and adapt to the causes and consequences of global climate change, and (4) organize and develop comprehensive, long-term strategies for sustainable energy, particularly focused on minimizing impacts on global climate.

Background

The geologic record provides a direct measure of the frequency, range, and duration of significant global climate changes throughout Earth’s history. Natural phenomena and processes have caused significant alterations of Earth’s climate. Of significance to the issue of modern global climate change are the interpretations of the geologic record showing that the rate of change in atmospheric composition, especially with respect to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, is unprecedented in Earth’s recent history. Specifically, the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is higher than at any time in the past 650,000 years, and probably higher than at any time in the past 30 million years. In addition, the geologic record shows that global climate change can have significant consequences to Earth’s life systems, with effects ranging from global modification of ecosystem distribution to large-scale extinctions. Because the geologic record provides the important archive of the consequences of global climate changes and harbors examples of icehouse-greenhouse transitions potentially analogous to modern climate change, the current nature and magnitude of global climate change should be evaluated in the context of Earth’s full geologic record.

Many earth-science disciplines contribute to the scientific and public understanding of the complex, global climate change issue, including sedimentary geology, Quaternary geology, geochemistry, paleontology, and paleohydrology, in addition to oceanography and atmospheric sciences. The understanding of the full spectrum of magnitudes and rates of climate change over geologic time provides boundary conditions for evaluating any human impacts on climate and for producing more reliable predictions of the extent of future climate change. In addition, understanding of active geologic processes provides invaluable information to better understand and monitor ongoing climate change and to develop approaches for adapting to the consequences of climate change. Earth scientists also contribute to research on carbon capture and storage — potential methods for preventing atmospheric carbon dioxide from building up as a result of the burning of fossil fuels and biomass and the production of cement and lime.

Current predictions of the consequences of global climate change include: (1) rising sea level, (2) significant alteration of global and regional climatic patterns with an impact on water availability, (3) fundamental changes in global temperature distribution, (4) melting of polar ice, and (5) major changes in the distribution of plant and animal species. While the precise magnitude and rate of climate change cannot be predicted with absolute certainty, significant change will affect the planet and stress its inhabitants. GSA Position Statement Adopted in October 2006 Please let us know how you used this GSA Position Statement. Click on the questionnaire link at www.geosociety.org/aboutus/position.htm. co

Mr. Flaccaltenn, Dr. Curry's position is that AGW is real. She just objects to scientists participating in the political fights that are inevitable in preventing the worst of the damage that will cause. She thinks that the scientists should be little virginal adolescents when it comes to politics. Unfortunetly for her, most scientists have children and grandchildren, and worry about the world they will inherit.

Then she and I agree. And she'd be the perfect person to put a REALISTIC public policy position on the SCIENCE. Note -- that there were hysterics, no real projections in that statement. AND -- that statement is TEN years old. It was BEFORE Judith Curry was FORCEFULLY PURGED from her profession.

Why don't you ask her TODAY -- what climate change REALISTS believe??? And how POLITICAL POWER has abused the science?? She'll tell you. And so will the respondents to the Bray/von Storch polls. Where OVER HALF of the folks in the field of climate science say that politics has TOO MUCH influence on the work..

GSA Position Statement

Adopted in October 2006; revised April 2010; March 2013; April 2015

Climate Change

Position Statement.

Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (Melillo et al., 2014) that global climate has warmed in response to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases. The concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are now higher than they have been for many thousands of years. Human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013). If the upward trend in greenhouse‐gas concentrations continues, the projected global climate change by the end of the twenty‐first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species. The tangible effects of climate change are already occurring. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.

Purpose.

This position statement (1) summarizes the scientific basis for the conclusion that human activities are the primary cause of recent global warming; (2) describes the significant effects on humans and ecosystems as greenhouse‐gas concentrations and global climate reach projected levels; and (3) provides information for policy decisions guiding mitigation and adaptation strategies designed to address the current and future impacts of anthropogenic warming.

RATIONALE

Scientific advances have greatly reduced previous uncertainties about recent global warming. Ground‐station measurements have shown a warming trend of ~0.85 °C since 1880, a trend consistent with (1) retreat of northern hemisphere snow and Arctic sea ice; (2) greater heat storage in the ocean; (3) retreat of most mountain glaciers; (4) an ongoing rise in global sea level; and (5) proxy reconstructions of temperature change over past centuries from archives that include ice cores, tree rings, lake sediments, boreholes, cave deposits, and corals. Both instrumental records and proxy indices from geologic sources show that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries (National Research Council, 2006). Earth’s surface has been successively warmer in each of the last three decades and each of those has been warmer than any decade since 1850. The period from 1983 to 2012 is likely the warmest 30 years in the northern hemisphere during the last 1,400 years (IPCC, 2013). This recent warming of Earth’s surface is now consistently supported by a wide range of measurements and proxies, including land‐ and satellite‐based measurements.

OK, there is the present statement. Has Dr. Curry disavowed this statement? It is just an update of the 2006 statement.,

Won't know til someone gives her a new job. The Climate Change mafia destroyed her old one. You need to read this ENTIRE article to understand why she probably WOULD disavow that POLITICAL statement you're selling.

Climate heretic: Judith Curry turns on her colleagues : Nature News

Well now, Dr. Curry thought the IPCC was overly alarmist on their statements. Now we have just had three record warm years in a row, each warmer than the prior year. And both the Arctic and Antarctic Sea Ice are way below normal for this time of year. Nature has just published articles that show observational evidence that both the Greenland Ice Cap, and the Antarctic Ice Cap are more vulnerable to rapid breakup than previously thought. Based on present observations of ice movements and paleo data.

So, she calls them alarmist, and they turn out to be way too conservative in their estimates. Pretty poor predictive abilities for someone that is supposed to be a climate scientist. Allowing herself to be used by whore like Inhofe and Watts is hardly endearing to anyone doing serious research in climate science.

 

[Old Rocks]

In other words, I don't want to face the reality of the increasing CO2 that we are putting into the atmosphere. I would rather pretend like nothing is happening, and go along with the orange clown and shut down science in the USA.

BTW -- My bet is the orange clown will actually PROMOTE debate and open discussion of the GW science. A good start would be replacing Gavin Schmidt with Judith Curry. I recommended that the LParty pledge to conduct a series of high level lightly moderated debates at the Whitehouse. HIGHLY advertised and televised. I'd be thrilled if that happened.

Consensus doesn't happen without DEFENDING theories and practices. 'Bout time for that to happen.

You'd be in favor of letting the cards play out --- wouldn't you?

You have confidence what the results of open public debate would be --- DON'T YOU??

Gavin Schmidt ADMITTED he lost he ass in the ONLY public debate he was a part of. You wouldn't be worried or anything right????

GSA Position Statement
Adopted in October 2006
Please let us know how you used this GSA Position Statement.
Click on the questionnaire link at www.geosociety.org/aboutus/position.htm.

Global Climate Change

Contributors:

Mark Peters — Chair Sally Benson, Thure Cerling, Judith Curry, Yehouda Enzel, Jim Finley, Alan Gillespie, Mickey Glantz, Lynn Soreghan

Position Statement

The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning. GSA also supports statements on the global climate change issue made by the joint national academies of science (June, 2005), American Geophysical Union (December, 2003), and American Chemical Society (2004). GSA strongly encourages that the following efforts be undertaken internationally: (1) adequately research climate change at all time scales, (2) develop thoughtful, science-based policy appropriate for the multifaceted issues of global climate change, (3) organize global planning to recognize, prepare for, and adapt to the causes and consequences of global climate change, and (4) organize and develop comprehensive, long-term strategies for sustainable energy, particularly focused on minimizing impacts on global climate.

Background

The geologic record provides a direct measure of the frequency, range, and duration of significant global climate changes throughout Earth’s history. Natural phenomena and processes have caused significant alterations of Earth’s climate. Of significance to the issue of modern global climate change are the interpretations of the geologic record showing that the rate of change in atmospheric composition, especially with respect to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, is unprecedented in Earth’s recent history. Specifically, the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is higher than at any time in the past 650,000 years, and probably higher than at any time in the past 30 million years. In addition, the geologic record shows that global climate change can have significant consequences to Earth’s life systems, with effects ranging from global modification of ecosystem distribution to large-scale extinctions. Because the geologic record provides the important archive of the consequences of global climate changes and harbors examples of icehouse-greenhouse transitions potentially analogous to modern climate change, the current nature and magnitude of global climate change should be evaluated in the context of Earth’s full geologic record.

Many earth-science disciplines contribute to the scientific and public understanding of the complex, global climate change issue, including sedimentary geology, Quaternary geology, geochemistry, paleontology, and paleohydrology, in addition to oceanography and atmospheric sciences. The understanding of the full spectrum of magnitudes and rates of climate change over geologic time provides boundary conditions for evaluating any human impacts on climate and for producing more reliable predictions of the extent of future climate change. In addition, understanding of active geologic processes provides invaluable information to better understand and monitor ongoing climate change and to develop approaches for adapting to the consequences of climate change. Earth scientists also contribute to research on carbon capture and storage — potential methods for preventing atmospheric carbon dioxide from building up as a result of the burning of fossil fuels and biomass and the production of cement and lime.

Current predictions of the consequences of global climate change include: (1) rising sea level, (2) significant alteration of global and regional climatic patterns with an impact on water availability, (3) fundamental changes in global temperature distribution, (4) melting of polar ice, and (5) major changes in the distribution of plant and animal species. While the precise magnitude and rate of climate change cannot be predicted with absolute certainty, significant change will affect the planet and stress its inhabitants. GSA Position Statement Adopted in October 2006 Please let us know how you used this GSA Position Statement. Click on the questionnaire link at www.geosociety.org/aboutus/position.htm. co

Mr. Flaccaltenn, Dr. Curry's position is that AGW is real. She just objects to scientists participating in the political fights that are inevitable in preventing the worst of the damage that will cause. She thinks that the scientists should be little virginal adolescents when it comes to politics. Unfortunetly for her, most scientists have children and grandchildren, and worry about the world they will inherit.

Then she and I agree. And she'd be the perfect person to put a REALISTIC public policy position on the SCIENCE. Note -- that there were hysterics, no real projections in that statement. AND -- that statement is TEN years old. It was BEFORE Judith Curry was FORCEFULLY PURGED from her profession.

Why don't you ask her TODAY -- what climate change REALISTS believe??? And how POLITICAL POWER has abused the science?? She'll tell you. And so will the respondents to the Bray/von Storch polls. Where OVER HALF of the folks in the field of climate science say that politics has TOO MUCH influence on the work..

Why yes, they are correct. Politics has far too much influence on their work. They find themselves threatened with lawsuits for publishing the results of their research in scientific journals. They get personal threats from the locos influenced by the wackos that are saying that the scientists are in the employ of people seeking the destruction of our nation. They are pilloried in Congress by whores like Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma. In fact, what we need now is a massive push back from the people are honest enough, and smart enough, to realize the meaning of the events we are seeing right now due to AGW.

You have that exactly bass-ackwards. It's the mafia of a small minority in the community enforcing rigor and adhesion to "the cause" that are paid patrons of Govt largess that is stifling "consensus" and resolution of what to TELL the policy planners in a realistic assessment of CC effects. And the front office staff who WRITES those "resolutions" for AGU and others who are espousing party line politics instead of "consensus" within their own ranks.

I see. So, all these governments, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, all those in the EU, Great Britain, Brazil, Japan, and many more, are all conspiring together and forcing their scientists to go along with those statements. And none of the scientists are revealing this international conspiracy. Mr. Flacaltenn, you are venturing into tinfoil hat territory.

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW -- My bet is the orange clown will actually PROMOTE debate and open discussion of the GW science. A good start would be replacing Gavin Schmidt with Judith Curry. I recommended that the LParty pledge to conduct a series of high level lightly moderated debates at the Whitehouse. HIGHLY advertised and televised. I'd be thrilled if that happened.

Consensus doesn't happen without DEFENDING theories and practices. 'Bout time for that to happen.

You'd be in favor of letting the cards play out --- wouldn't you?

You have confidence what the results of open public debate would be --- DON'T YOU??

Gavin Schmidt ADMITTED he lost he ass in the ONLY public debate he was a part of. You wouldn't be worried or anything right????

GSA Position Statement
Adopted in October 2006
Please let us know how you used this GSA Position Statement.
Click on the questionnaire link at www.geosociety.org/aboutus/position.htm.

Global Climate Change

Contributors:

Mark Peters — Chair Sally Benson, Thure Cerling, Judith Curry, Yehouda Enzel, Jim Finley, Alan Gillespie, Mickey Glantz, Lynn Soreghan

Position Statement

The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning. GSA also supports statements on the global climate change issue made by the joint national academies of science (June, 2005), American Geophysical Union (December, 2003), and American Chemical Society (2004). GSA strongly encourages that the following efforts be undertaken internationally: (1) adequately research climate change at all time scales, (2) develop thoughtful, science-based policy appropriate for the multifaceted issues of global climate change, (3) organize global planning to recognize, prepare for, and adapt to the causes and consequences of global climate change, and (4) organize and develop comprehensive, long-term strategies for sustainable energy, particularly focused on minimizing impacts on global climate.

Background

The geologic record provides a direct measure of the frequency, range, and duration of significant global climate changes throughout Earth’s history. Natural phenomena and processes have caused significant alterations of Earth’s climate. Of significance to the issue of modern global climate change are the interpretations of the geologic record showing that the rate of change in atmospheric composition, especially with respect to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, is unprecedented in Earth’s recent history. Specifically, the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is higher than at any time in the past 650,000 years, and probably higher than at any time in the past 30 million years. In addition, the geologic record shows that global climate change can have significant consequences to Earth’s life systems, with effects ranging from global modification of ecosystem distribution to large-scale extinctions. Because the geologic record provides the important archive of the consequences of global climate changes and harbors examples of icehouse-greenhouse transitions potentially analogous to modern climate change, the current nature and magnitude of global climate change should be evaluated in the context of Earth’s full geologic record.

Many earth-science disciplines contribute to the scientific and public understanding of the complex, global climate change issue, including sedimentary geology, Quaternary geology, geochemistry, paleontology, and paleohydrology, in addition to oceanography and atmospheric sciences. The understanding of the full spectrum of magnitudes and rates of climate change over geologic time provides boundary conditions for evaluating any human impacts on climate and for producing more reliable predictions of the extent of future climate change. In addition, understanding of active geologic processes provides invaluable information to better understand and monitor ongoing climate change and to develop approaches for adapting to the consequences of climate change. Earth scientists also contribute to research on carbon capture and storage — potential methods for preventing atmospheric carbon dioxide from building up as a result of the burning of fossil fuels and biomass and the production of cement and lime.

Current predictions of the consequences of global climate change include: (1) rising sea level, (2) significant alteration of global and regional climatic patterns with an impact on water availability, (3) fundamental changes in global temperature distribution, (4) melting of polar ice, and (5) major changes in the distribution of plant and animal species. While the precise magnitude and rate of climate change cannot be predicted with absolute certainty, significant change will affect the planet and stress its inhabitants. GSA Position Statement Adopted in October 2006 Please let us know how you used this GSA Position Statement. Click on the questionnaire link at www.geosociety.org/aboutus/position.htm. co

Mr. Flaccaltenn, Dr. Curry's position is that AGW is real. She just objects to scientists participating in the political fights that are inevitable in preventing the worst of the damage that will cause. She thinks that the scientists should be little virginal adolescents when it comes to politics. Unfortunetly for her, most scientists have children and grandchildren, and worry about the world they will inherit.

Then she and I agree. And she'd be the perfect person to put a REALISTIC public policy position on the SCIENCE. Note -- that there were hysterics, no real projections in that statement. AND -- that statement is TEN years old. It was BEFORE Judith Curry was FORCEFULLY PURGED from her profession.

Why don't you ask her TODAY -- what climate change REALISTS believe??? And how POLITICAL POWER has abused the science?? She'll tell you. And so will the respondents to the Bray/von Storch polls. Where OVER HALF of the folks in the field of climate science say that politics has TOO MUCH influence on the work..

GSA Position Statement

Adopted in October 2006; revised April 2010; March 2013; April 2015

Climate Change

Position Statement.

Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (Melillo et al., 2014) that global climate has warmed in response to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases. The concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are now higher than they have been for many thousands of years. Human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013). If the upward trend in greenhouse‐gas concentrations continues, the projected global climate change by the end of the twenty‐first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species. The tangible effects of climate change are already occurring. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.

Purpose.

This position statement (1) summarizes the scientific basis for the conclusion that human activities are the primary cause of recent global warming; (2) describes the significant effects on humans and ecosystems as greenhouse‐gas concentrations and global climate reach projected levels; and (3) provides information for policy decisions guiding mitigation and adaptation strategies designed to address the current and future impacts of anthropogenic warming.

RATIONALE

Scientific advances have greatly reduced previous uncertainties about recent global warming. Ground‐station measurements have shown a warming trend of ~0.85 °C since 1880, a trend consistent with (1) retreat of northern hemisphere snow and Arctic sea ice; (2) greater heat storage in the ocean; (3) retreat of most mountain glaciers; (4) an ongoing rise in global sea level; and (5) proxy reconstructions of temperature change over past centuries from archives that include ice cores, tree rings, lake sediments, boreholes, cave deposits, and corals. Both instrumental records and proxy indices from geologic sources show that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries (National Research Council, 2006). Earth’s surface has been successively warmer in each of the last three decades and each of those has been warmer than any decade since 1850. The period from 1983 to 2012 is likely the warmest 30 years in the northern hemisphere during the last 1,400 years (IPCC, 2013). This recent warming of Earth’s surface is now consistently supported by a wide range of measurements and proxies, including land‐ and satellite‐based measurements.

OK, there is the present statement. Has Dr. Curry disavowed this statement? It is just an update of the 2006 statement.,

Won't know til someone gives her a new job. The Climate Change mafia destroyed her old one. You need to read this ENTIRE article to understand why she probably WOULD disavow that POLITICAL statement you're selling.

Climate heretic: Judith Curry turns on her colleagues : Nature News

Well now, Dr. Curry thought the IPCC was overly alarmist on their statements. Now we have just had three record warm years in a row, each warmer than the prior year. And both the Arctic and Antarctic Sea Ice are way below normal for this time of year. Nature has just published articles that show observational evidence that both the Greenland Ice Cap, and the Antarctic Ice Cap are more vulnerable to rapid breakup than previously thought. Based on present observations of ice movements and paleo data.

So, she calls them alarmist, and they turn out to be way too conservative in their estimates. Pretty poor predictive abilities for someone that is supposed to be a climate scientist. Allowing herself to be used by whore like Inhofe and Watts is hardly endearing to anyone doing serious research in climate science.

The IPCC has a HISTORY of being alarmist. EVERY ONE of their ARs is a revision DOWNWARDS in the projections. To the point that they won't even MAKE predictions anymore and their whole "rented scientist" process may just "go away".. Serious talk about discontinuing it..

Antarctic Ice Cap is NOT "in danger of breaking up" because of 1degC global avg change. THERE is your alarmism in a nutshell right there.

 

[bripat9643]

I really couldn't care less about what any of you anti-science assholes think.

I'll keep posting data. I know you want to shut it all down and that tells me exactly what you're all about...

You're the anti-science asshole, Mathew. You don't even know what science is. Government subsidized "science" is often nothing more than propaganda.

 

[flacaltenn]

None of this is really "on-topic"

How about we quit re-fighting this and give Matthew his thread back. BREATHLESSLY awaiting tomorrow's CO2 number from Mauna Loa. I say we get a 403.something before Christmas..

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, on that topic, the year that all of us fear, is the one where the world anthropogenic output of GHGs is actually down, but the level of GHGs in the atmosphere continues to go up. At that time we will know that the feedbacks are kicking in.

 

[flacaltenn]

Well, on that topic, the year that all of us fear, is the one where the world anthropogenic output of GHGs is actually down, but the level of GHGs in the atmosphere continues to go up. At that time we will know that the feedbacks are kicking in.

You could get feedbacks all the way to 1120ppm and not raise the surface more than another 1.5 or 2 degC..
And how did the four Ice thaws STOP !!! Why didn't the feedbacks kick in then to finish us off before we got started? The permafrost was melting for MILLENIA in each of those thaws -- wasn't it? About 40% of the total land surface came out of solid ice, melted and the feedbacks STOPPED? WTF?

So you're saying the last 20 or 25% of the thaw -- is gonna finish us off? Or HALF of what's left?

 

[Old Rocks]

Millenia versus decades. That is the difference. And we have not had a full meltout at any time in the present ice ages. Nor a release from the clathrates in the last 55 million years. Will that happen? The problem is, we don't know that it won't. If it does, the human species will survive, but there will be a major die off.

 

[ScienceRocks]

For 2016, Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations are Rising at the Fastest Rate Ever Seen
“The MMCO [Middle Miocene Climate Optimum] was ushered in by CO2 levels jumping abruptly from around 400ppm to 500 ppm, with global temperatures warming by about 4°C and sea levels rising about 40m (130 feet) as the Antarctic ice sheet declined substantially and suddenly. ” — Skeptical Science



(Fossil fuel carbon emissions are about 100 times that of volcanoes during any given year. And so much heat trapping carbon dumped into the atmosphere is forcing the world’s climate to rapidly change. Image source: The Union of Concerned Scientists.)

Human beings have never seen atmospheric CO2 values that are so high as they are today. They significantly predate our species — even preceding our distant relative Australopithecus by about 7 million years. And weather and climate conditions to which we are not adapted — either as individuals or as a civilizations — are well on the way as atmospheric CO2 levels are ramping up into the lower range of those last seen during the Middle Miocene of 14-16 million years ago at 404 parts per million during 2016.

Record Rate of CO2 Increase for 2016

As we reported in November, 2016 is on track to see a record rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) increase. A key heat-trapping gas, CO2 is the primary driver of the big temperature increases seen around the world recently. And with new figures out from NOAA for the month of November, we have a clearer picture than ever of just how unprecedented the jump will be.

For the first 11 months of the year, 2016 atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations exceeded those of 2015 by an average of 3.45 parts per million. With no sign evident that the pace of increase has slackened — despite a transition to La Nina during the fall — it now appears that the world is set to experience a 3.3 to 3.5 part per million jump in the atmospheric CO2 measure for this year.



(Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations will rise by a record rate during 2016 to an annual average of around 404 parts per million. Levels during 2017 could peak at around 410 to 411 parts per million in April and May before averaging between 406 and 407 parts per million. Image source: NOAA.)

The past two record jumps were 2015 — with a 3.05 ppm annual increase and 1998 with a 2.93 ppm annual increase. But 2016 now appears set to exceed these two values by a pretty hefty margin.

More and More Toward the Middle Miocene Range of 400 to 500 Parts Per Million CO2

Such rapid rates of atmospheric carbon dioxide increase are primarily caused by global fossil fuel burning — which now produces an emission that is more than 100 times greater than all the volcanoes that erupt across the Earth during any given year. And recent reports have found that US automobile emissions alone equal the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the Mount St. Helens eruption every three days. This is a heavy insult to the Earth’s climate system. One that is unprecedented for millions of years.

All this fossil fuel burning has largely helped to push atmospheric CO2 values for 2016 into an average range of 404 parts per million. This is 124 parts per million higher than the pre-industrial value of 280 parts per million. Meanwhile, peak monthly values during April-May of 2017 could strike as high as 410 to 411 parts per million.



(15 million years ago, atmospheric CO2 levels in the range of 400-500 parts per million produced Antarctic melt resulting in substantial sea level rise. The above image shows the estimated location of the U.S. eastern coastline at the time. Image source: Colorado Geosystems.)

These atmospheric concentrations are now roughly equivalent to the lower range CO2 levels of the Middle Miocene climate epoch of 14-16 million years ago. Meanwhile, atmospheric CO2 equivalent concentrations, which include other greenhouse gasses like methane, averaged 485 parts per million in 2015 and likely were around 490 parts per million during 2016. These CO2e values approach the upper Middle Miocene range.

During the Miocene of 14-16 million years ago, atmospheric CO2 levels, which had hovered around 400 parts per million for about 10 million years jumped higher due to volcanic activity. Global temperatures rose from about 2-3 C hotter than Holocene values to around 4 C hotter. Antarctic ice melted and seas which were around 60 feet higher than today lifted to around 130 feet above present day levels.

 

[flacaltenn]

Millenia versus decades. That is the difference. And we have not had a full meltout at any time in the present ice ages. Nor a release from the clathrates in the last 55 million years. Will that happen? The problem is, we don't know that it won't. If it does, the human species will survive, but there will be a major die off.

Who says there's been no release of the calthrates? Oceans warmed 6 or 8DegC during those interglacials. The land even more. Does that not "release calthrates"?? And it WOULD be centuries at least before a 2degC rise (like in the trigger theory) caused anywhere NEAR a "complete meltout".

You really didn't answer the question. Cleveland under 1/2 mile of ice. COMPLETE meltout. Same for over 40% of the land mass. Exposing decayed or preserved carbon that hadn't seen the sun in millenia. WHY did the feedbacks not kick in and cause runaway climate change? Likely PEAK CO2 during those interglacials was pretty close to current conditions. Since the Ice Record is pretty incapable of reproducing PEAK data on anything. And the few HI RES proxies suggest CO2 during the "melt-outs" was much closer to 350ppm than it was to the 280ppm that's widely tossed about flippantly.

Every tick of the atmos CO2 upwards during the interglacial warm-ups produced MASSIVE amounts of previously sequestered CO2. If the feedback effect is so persistent, pernicious and powerful -- WHY did it STOP then??

 

[Old Rocks]

Millenia versus decades. That is the difference. And we have not had a full meltout at any time in the present ice ages. Nor a release from the clathrates in the last 55 million years. Will that happen? The problem is, we don't know that it won't. If it does, the human species will survive, but there will be a major die off.

Who says there's been no release of the calthrates? Oceans warmed 6 or 8DegC during those interglacials. The land even more. Does that not "release calthrates"?? And it WOULD be centuries at least before a 2degC rise (like in the trigger theory) caused anywhere NEAR a "complete meltout".

You really didn't answer the question. Cleveland under 1/2 mile of ice. COMPLETE meltout. Same for over 40% of the land mass. Exposing decayed or preserved carbon that hadn't seen the sun in millenia. WHY did the feedbacks not kick in and cause runaway climate change? Likely PEAK CO2 during those interglacials was pretty close to current conditions. Since the Ice Record is pretty incapable of reproducing PEAK data on anything. And the few HI RES proxies suggest CO2 during the "melt-outs" was much closer to 350ppm than it was to the 280ppm that's widely tossed about flippantly.

Every tick of the atmos CO2 upwards during the interglacial warm-ups produced MASSIVE amounts of previously sequestered CO2. If the feedback effect is so persistent, pernicious and powerful -- WHY did it STOP then??

Who says there's been no release of the calthrates? Oceans warmed 6 or 8DegC during those interglacials. The land even more. Does that not "release calthrates"?? And it WOULD be centuries at least before a 2degC rise (like in the trigger theory) caused anywhere NEAR a "complete meltout".

Why yes, it did warm up that much in the previous interglacial, just as it did in this one. So, the clathrates were not coming out in this one, either. At least not until we added over 40% more CO2 and 250% more CH4. The last time there was this much GHGs in the atmosphere, there was no ice cap on Greenland, and just high altitude glaciers on Antarctica.

You really didn't answer the question. Cleveland under 1/2 mile of ice. COMPLETE meltout. Same for over 40% of the land mass. Exposing decayed or preserved carbon that hadn't seen the sun in millenia. WHY did the feedbacks not kick in and cause runaway climate change? Likely PEAK CO2 during those interglacials was pretty close to current conditions. Since the Ice Record is pretty incapable of reproducing PEAK data on anything. And the few HI RES proxies suggest CO2 during the "melt-outs" was much closer to 350ppm than it was to the 280ppm that's widely tossed about flippantly.

Really? I have not seen those estimates. Link. Milankovic Cycles. Why do you think that the downslope is so much slower than the warming?

Every tick of the atmos CO2 upwards during the interglacial warm-ups produced MASSIVE amounts of previously sequestered CO2. If the feedback effect is so persistent, pernicious and powerful -- WHY did it STOP then??

Because the warming of the oceans stopped, and as they cooled, they absorbed CO2. Milankovic Cycles.

 

[flacaltenn]

Millenia versus decades. That is the difference. And we have not had a full meltout at any time in the present ice ages. Nor a release from the clathrates in the last 55 million years. Will that happen? The problem is, we don't know that it won't. If it does, the human species will survive, but there will be a major die off.

Who says there's been no release of the calthrates? Oceans warmed 6 or 8DegC during those interglacials. The land even more. Does that not "release calthrates"?? And it WOULD be centuries at least before a 2degC rise (like in the trigger theory) caused anywhere NEAR a "complete meltout".

You really didn't answer the question. Cleveland under 1/2 mile of ice. COMPLETE meltout. Same for over 40% of the land mass. Exposing decayed or preserved carbon that hadn't seen the sun in millenia. WHY did the feedbacks not kick in and cause runaway climate change? Likely PEAK CO2 during those interglacials was pretty close to current conditions. Since the Ice Record is pretty incapable of reproducing PEAK data on anything. And the few HI RES proxies suggest CO2 during the "melt-outs" was much closer to 350ppm than it was to the 280ppm that's widely tossed about flippantly.

Every tick of the atmos CO2 upwards during the interglacial warm-ups produced MASSIVE amounts of previously sequestered CO2. If the feedback effect is so persistent, pernicious and powerful -- WHY did it STOP then??

Who says there's been no release of the calthrates? Oceans warmed 6 or 8DegC during those interglacials. The land even more. Does that not "release calthrates"?? And it WOULD be centuries at least before a 2degC rise (like in the trigger theory) caused anywhere NEAR a "complete meltout".

Why yes, it did warm up that much in the previous interglacial, just as it did in this one. So, the clathrates were not coming out in this one, either. At least not until we added over 40% more CO2 and 250% more CH4. The last time there was this much GHGs in the atmosphere, there was no ice cap on Greenland, and just high altitude glaciers on Antarctica.

You really didn't answer the question. Cleveland under 1/2 mile of ice. COMPLETE meltout. Same for over 40% of the land mass. Exposing decayed or preserved carbon that hadn't seen the sun in millenia. WHY did the feedbacks not kick in and cause runaway climate change? Likely PEAK CO2 during those interglacials was pretty close to current conditions. Since the Ice Record is pretty incapable of reproducing PEAK data on anything. And the few HI RES proxies suggest CO2 during the "melt-outs" was much closer to 350ppm than it was to the 280ppm that's widely tossed about flippantly.

Really? I have not seen those estimates. Link. Milankovic Cycles. Why do you think that the downslope is so much slower than the warming?

Every tick of the atmos CO2 upwards during the interglacial warm-ups produced MASSIVE amounts of previously sequestered CO2. If the feedback effect is so persistent, pernicious and powerful -- WHY did it STOP then??

Because the warming of the oceans stopped, and as they cooled, they absorbed CO2. Milankovic Cycles.

Milankovic cycles are no where NEAR the answer. The melting side of interglacial period is VERY steep. THAT is CO2 coming out of sequestration. Probably does has a feed back effect with that kind of magnitude. But reaching near current temperatures for several millenia -- will melt as much ice and unfreeze ocean sediments JUST AS MUCH as a couple hundred years (our experience) at slightly higher temperatures. No real indication of M-cycle Cooling for THOUSANDS of years at those previous interglacials. That will do the same trick with the same or MORE energy put into the thermodynamic system.

As for the Hi-Res proxies on CO2 -- I've posted them SO many times -- I've sure you've seen them. And since they WARPED your religious faith on the "common knowledge" and showed that CO2 were likely HIGHER than the usual propaganda -- you just flush it... I think 4 or 5 times is enough.. Trust me on the numbers this time. When I start outright fabricating shit and quoting junk sources -- I'll feel compelled to repost them for 6th or 7th time.. Just like Charlie Brown and the football.

 

[flacaltenn]

Given the same shape of Summer temperature distribution above 0degC (melting point of ice) a peak of 2degC for a 100 years will have the same melting energy as 0.2degC for 1000 years. When you look at the time scale on the interglacials -- a thousand years is an small instant of time.

Same as saying the glaciers were doomed as soon as we left the last Maunder Minimum. It was only the length of time that it would take to melt them. And HONESTLY man, I don't WANT to live thru a Maunder Minimum. I can barely stand TONIGHT in Tennessee..

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Week beginning on November 13, 2016: 403.74 ppm

Some predictions
1. We'll have a daily high of >= 412ppm
2. Weekly high of over 411ppm
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_weekly_mlo.txt

3. Peak Monthly around 409.75-410.25ppm

This thread is for data and the discussion of such...I aint replying to you if you make a remark outside of this...

Who cares, and for those who do, why?

Friends of Science | The Myths and Facts of Global Warming

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I really couldn't care less about what any of you anti-science assholes think.

Someone who gives any credence to “transgenderism” is in no position to accuse anyone else of being “anti-science”.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I really couldn't care less about what any of you anti-science assholes think.

I'll keep posting data. I know you want to shut it all down and that tells me exactly what you're all about...

I really couldn't care less about what any of you easily led, anti-economics assholes think.

 

[bripat9643]

I really couldn't care less about what any of you anti-science assholes think.

I'll keep posting data. I know you want to shut it all down and that tells me exactly what you're all about...

I really couldn't care less about what any of you easily led, anti-economics assholes think.

I get a kick out of Mathew because he thinks he understands science.