Even if emissions stop, carbon dioxide could warm Earth for centuries

[bigrebnc1775]

It's a predictable annual change in weather. It's not a change in climate.

I said summer was a season it does it once every year.

I agree. My point is that because it happens every year, predictably, it not climate change.

You don't have a valid point, you have an agenda.

 

[PMZ]

I said summer was a season it does it once every year.

I agree. My point is that because it happens every year, predictably, it not climate change.

You don't have a valid point, you have an agenda.

I have both.

My agenda is to accept the reality of science, and prepare for the future that we created and are creating, in a way that minimizes the total cost to humanity.

 

[JWBooth]

CO deuce makes the garden grow.

 

[PMZ]

CO deuce makes the garden grow.

It is one of the ingredients in every plant, and plants are a major ingredient in every animal.

We have plenty of both these days.

 

[PMZ]

From: http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange1/05_2.shtml

Why is the Atmospheric Carbon Reservoir so Small?

The Earth�s Carbon Reservoirs
The amount of carbon in the atmosphere is surprisingly small. What keeps it at a low level? Why is carbon dioxide a trace gas (about 367 ppmv) rather than making up most of the atmosphere, as is the case for the sibling planets of Earth, Venus and Mars? To tackle these questions, we first need a little background.

Sizes of reservoirs are given in mass units. For example, the atmospheric reservoir of carbon (mostly in the form of carbon dioxide) is about 750 GtC (Gigatonnes of carbon � see the glossary of scientific units for further clarification). The ocean is near 40,000 GtC; the biosphere is near 610 GtC; and, depending on how it is defined, soil is almost 1600 GtC. We can immediately see that the ocean is extremely important in the study of atmospheric carbon dioxide since it is so large a reservoir and is in intimate contact with the air.

Also, when considering there is about 5000 GtC in the form of fossil fuels ready to be burned, we immediately realize that the atmosphere could be easily overwhelmed by all the carbon available for industrial use. Also we realize that planting trees, while a good thing, could not solve the problem of carbon emissions for long. While the biosphere (mostly trees) has roughly the same mass as the atmosphere, doubling the mass of trees would help out with about 10 percent of the potential problem. Doubling the mass of trees, of course, would be a major undertaking in itself, especially when considering that deforestation is occurring at a rapid pace in the tropics.

An important point in this scheme of reservoirs and fluxes is that they differ greatly in size and in their ability to respond to changes, a property called �reactivity.� Large reservoirs with small fluxes in and out (called �input� and �output&#65533 are not very reactive. Small reservoirs with relatively large fluxes in and out are very reactive - as far as carbon is concerned, the atmosphere is such a Reservoir. Fortunately, the atmosphere is closely coupled to the ocean, a large Reservoir that can offset this problem and stabilize the atmosphere. Unfortunately, the atmosphere's dependency on the ocean Reservoir has a drawback: if the ocean reacts to climate change by giving off a small proportion of its carbon dioxide, the atmosphere, with its low concentrations of carbon dioxide, greatly amplifies the effect. In other words, what seems a small adjustment for the ocean results in a big change in the atmosphere.

Why So Little Carbon in the Atmosphere?

Reservoirs of carbon (in GtC) in the ocean (blue labels), in biomass in the sea and on land (tan and green labels), in the atmosphere (light blue label) and in anthropogenic emissions. Fluxes of Carbon between Reservoirs are depicted by the arrows, the numbers represent GtC. (From: IPCC)
In the atmospheres of our sister planets, Mars and Venus, carbon dioxide is dominant. On both planets, there is more CO2 in the air than on Earth. On Mars it's about 30 times more, while on Venus it is about 300,000 times more! While the Earth does have enormous amounts of carbon nearly all of it is tied up in carbonate sediments, coal, and other organic matter, rather than being stored in the atmosphere.

Plants, algae and shell-making organisms are ultimately responsible for the large-scale solidification of carbon dioxide within carbonate minerals (stored in limestone rock) and organic materials. Making coal and other organic matter has also led to splitting the carbon from the oxygen, with much of the oxygen staying in the air. This has produced an atmosphere fundamentally different from those of Venus and Mars � one that is chemically out of balance and therefore "unsustainable" were it not for Earth�s ongoing life processes.

When looking at the system in this way, we see that the low carbon dioxide values in the Earth�s atmosphere are a result of the biologically-mediated movement of CO2 from reactive reservoirs (the atmosphere and ocean) to much less reactive reservoirs (limestones and organic matter). Although these long-term reservoirs can be heated (through subduction by plate tectonics) re-releasing the carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, weathering and life processes then cycle them back into the long-term storage, continuously keeping the atmospheric values low.

An Early Approach to Carbon Reservoirs
An early approach to understanding the fundamental process of moving carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and into long-term reservoirs was first formulated by Harold Urey (1893-1981) in his book, �The Planets,� published in 1952. He argued that the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere was governed by an equation:

CO2 + CaSiO4 → CaCO3 + SiO2.

This equation describes the weathering process occurring when slightly acidic rain water brings dissolved carbon dioxide to the surface of fresh igneous rocks, which contain calcium-bearing silicate minerals (whose chemical formula is CaSiO4). In Urey's equation, the calcium in the rocks and carbon dioxide in the water combine to make CaCO3 (calcium carbonate in the limestone rocks) while the silicate is released to make SiO2 (silica in opal and chert minerals). Urey then argued that the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere corresponds to the equilibrium expected for this reaction. Thus, according to Urey, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is set by the presence of the water on Earth.

But is this equilibrium approach valid? Actually, a number of factors have to be considered when determining the atmosphere�s carbon dioxide value. Carbon dioxide also comes out of volcanoes, as a result of reactions within the Earth at high temperatures and pressures. The rate at which this happens is presumably independent from the surface reactions described in Urey�s equation, which occur at low pressures and temperatures. After entering the atmosphere, some of the carbon dioxide is concentrated in the soil by the action of plants and other organisms (bacteria, fungi). The reactions of carbon dioxide with silicate minerals within the soil, therefore, do not proceed according to the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air. In addition, the rate of dissolution of rocks is contingent not only on the presence of water, but also the presence of microscopic organisms on the surface of the rocks, as well as the presence of roots exuding acid. Moreover, the precipitation of the carbonate and silica is made possible not only by inorganic processes but also by organisms (algae, corals, molluscs, and foraminiferans produce carbonate and diatoms, radiolarians and sponges make silica). This analysis of Urey�s chemical equilibrium approach should make clear how important other factors, like life, influence carbon dioxide levels. The reactions that govern the long-term storage of carbon are rate-dependent and these rates are determined mainly by plate tectonics and by life processes, factors not included in Urey�s model.

What we are looking at when we are studying the carbon cycle are carbon atoms in transit between reservoirs: from volcanic sources to limestones and organic matter, with the atmosphere and oceans forming a conduit between the two (as in the figure above). The time that an atom spends in a reservoir is called its �residence time.� The residence time is simply equal to the content of the reservoir divided by the rate of input (or the output, which is the same). The more we can speed the carbon atoms along in the process of turning them into sediment, the fewer there will be in the atmosphere-and-ocean system and the shorter their residence times will be. The less readily we get rid of them, the more they will pile up in the ocean and in the air (increasing their residence times) until they will be so dense that the Earth heats up and speed the reactions. This can be envisioned like a freeway between two cities: when the traffic is moving, there are fewer cars in the freeway �reservoir� that connects the two. However, when traffic is clogged, the freeway �reservoir� fills up quickly. Likewise when carbon is not moving from volcanoes to sediments quickly enough, it will fill up the atmosphere and the ocean reservoirs that transport it, a process we are witnessing today.

 

[westwall]

Sorry, I've been frequenting a forum that required citations for such assertions.

Here's something I found on goggle:


Man-made structure/technology

Associated bird deaths per year (U.S.)

Feral and domestic cats

Hundreds of millions [source: AWEA]

Power lines

130 million -- 174 million [source: AWEA]

Windows (residential and commercial)

100 million -- 1 billion [source: TreeHugger]

Pesticides

70 million [source: AWEA]

Automobiles

60 million -- 80 million [source: AWEA]

Lighted communication towers

40 million -- 50 million [source: AWEA]

Wind turbines

10,000 -- 40,000 [source: ABC]

HowStuffWorks "Do wind turbines kill birds?"

I thought, perhaps, this was your source, and perhaps you inadvertently added a zero to it. But perhaps not.


I noticed you did cite the number of birds found in the first week of BP. Since that number was surprisingly low, it that why you cited anyway?

Like I said, I'm used to having to prove my asserts, particularly in scientific threads... socko.

How stuff works? Sounds like a real credible source

Now that comedy night is dealt with here is a more credible source for you. One of many had you bothered to look on this board.


"The Challenge

Wind power has the potential to be a green, bird-friendly form of power generation, but it can also adversely affect birds. In 2009, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service estimated that 440,000 birds per year were killed by U.S. wind turbines and included this figure in the agency’s 2013 budget request to Congress. But in 2012, the agency changed how it describes the estimate and now says it maintains no official number. More recently, researcher K. Shawn Smallwood, well-known for his work at Altamont Pass, has estimated 573,000 bird fatalities/year (including 83,000 raptor fatalities) from wind turbines in the United States in 2012.
Birds can die in collisions with the turbine blades, towers, power lines, or related structures. They can also be impacted through habitat destruction from the siting of turbines, power lines, and access roads. Some birds, such as sage-grouse, are particularly sensitive to the presence of turbines and can be scared away from their breeding grounds up to several miles away from a wind development."



Birds and Wind Development

First of all, how would I know that I merely had to search the thread for lore that was posted prior to my join date. You gave not a hint.

And my link has a hot link back to ABC that didn't survive my cut and paste.

Now let's talk about your source, which is an estimate. The vast majority of birds killed in your estimate are unseen by human eyes, but are assumed to be carried away by predators.

I guess that would be reasonable, but you only counted birds seen by humans in the first few weeks of the BP spill. No reasonable estimation there!

So your dead bird estimation is proof positive. It's like the Republican proof for voter fraud - the lack of evidence and convictions is proof that voter fraud is a massive left wing conspiracy.

Gotta call it a night.

Au contrair mr. socko. I did tell you to look in the threads. As I said it has been posted many times in many different threads. You just wanted to play dumb. If you had a link back to ABC that didn't survive the cut and paste why bother to bring it up here? There is no proof you had the link and I would have thought you would post their results rather than the one you did.

You keep digging your hole deeper.

The estimate from the BP accident is fairly well documented as is the wind mill casualty rate. The Altamont has been well studied for decades now and only now is some of that work getting out to the public. It has been repressed for years.

I suggest you look at some of the sordid goings on at the Altamont. if you truly care about the environment you will be shocked.

But, I rather doubt the first assumption.

 

[daveman]

You are fleeing reality. That’s not possible.

Summer is not possible?

Wow. Just...wow.

Summer is not climate. It's weather. Easy to confuse.

AGW can only be measured by change in climate as it is a variable on top of all of the other causes of weather. It's only evident with certainly if all of the weather is effected, which we call climate.

On the other hand what we experience from day to day is only weather, not climate.

AGW energizes some combination of water, land, life and atmosphere. It leads to more energetic weather and/or higher sea levels. At least until stability and energy balance return.

How AGW manifests will continually change.

Mankind will be chasing a moving environmental target to adapt to until atmospheric GHG concentrations stabilize, and energy balance is restored.

A very long time.

It's easy to confuse weather for climate when you're an AGW cultist and you post strings of record high temps as "proof" of global warming.

 

[westwall]

It's been posted many times. C'mon socko, do a thread search. They are all in the enviro threads.

Sorry, I've been frequenting a forum that required citations for such assertions.

Here's something I found on goggle:


Man-made structure/technology

Associated bird deaths per year (U.S.)

Feral and domestic cats

Hundreds of millions [source: AWEA]

Power lines

130 million -- 174 million [source: AWEA]

Windows (residential and commercial)

100 million -- 1 billion [source: TreeHugger]

Pesticides

70 million [source: AWEA]

Automobiles

60 million -- 80 million [source: AWEA]

Lighted communication towers

40 million -- 50 million [source: AWEA]

Wind turbines

10,000 -- 40,000 [source: ABC]

HowStuffWorks "Do wind turbines kill birds?"

I thought, perhaps, this was your source, and perhaps you inadvertently added a zero to it. But perhaps not.


I noticed you did cite the number of birds found in the first week of BP. Since that number was surprisingly low, it that why you cited anyway?

Like I said, I'm used to having to prove my asserts, particularly in scientific threads... socko.

Walleyes would not 'inadvertantly' add a zero. He would do it on purpose and only regret that he did not add two zeros.

No, that's YOUR specialty. I used a credible source as opposed to your sockboy. Wow, oroboy, olfraud and impenitent are all the same dude. How unsurprising...

 

[flacaltenn]

Point me out a national government that doesn't work with industry

I like the private sector as it can do things right and the government is the guy with the power to choose where the resources go.

You don't POWER your way to choosing the best engineering solutions and technology.

The govt needs to stay the fuck out of picking particular winners and losers. By screwing with the subsidies and promotion of particular companies and ideas, it ruins the "natural selection" of the process. And they notoriously SUCK AT IT..

Govt should be limited to PROCUREMENT of their particular tech needs and the funding of ONLY the most fundamental and vanilla science research.. Research SOOOO generic that it benefits ALL companies in the field. Not just their political favorites and donors..

You have this view that Nancy Pelosi and Michelle Bachman are gonna create the future in a better image.. They are not. POWER is only important to future technology in places like CHINA where dictates come from the top.. ((and the bottom is too intimidated to think for themselves)).. This works for awhile.. But in short order, you create a nation that can only copy, steal or borrow ideas from others. And China already knows this..

And it beats the hell out of me why YOU and other Big Govt statists want to TRY THIS OUT at this late stage of the game for the USA...

Posting your enormous ignorance of history for all the see, Flat. The 'government' decided that we needed railroads spanning the continent, rather than horse drawn wagons, during the Civil War. And our nation became a continental power with that decision. After WW2, 'Government' decided that we need the nation laced together with the Interstate Highway System, and we became a better and stronger nation because of that.

From organizatons like the USGS to the CDC, government has done many things very well tha private enterprise simply would not do. But your silly ideology will not let you admit any of this. And that is the reason that you 'Conservatives' are held in deep distrust by most, and in contempt by those with a good education.

I must have missed the NATIONALIZING of the transcont. Railroad.. Made some folks very rich.. Railroads during the civil war became a dfensive liability more than a military asset. Since the were almost impossible to completely defend.

Acountry that waits breathlessly for politicians to design the society will eventually become a technological beggar/thief nation...

 

[westwall]

You do realize that you are displaying your willfull ignorance for the whole world to see?

I'm not dumb enough to fall in that bull shit global warming thing you are.

Provide evidence that it is not valid. Things like why most of the glaciers worldwide are not receding. Like the Arctic Ice is not in a death spiral. Why the US has not seen a 1.5 F increase in temps in the last 150 years. Evidence. Proof. Stuff other than mindless flap-yap.

YOU MADE the assertion. It is up to YOU to support it. That's how science works. But, since you left us such an easy duck of a target, here's the truth to your Arctic death spiral horseshit....and horse shit it is...

World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong | Mail Online

 

[Abraham3]

"World's top climate scientists confess..." fer christ's sake, give us a fooking break.

 

[daveman]

"World's top climate scientists confess..." fer christ's sake, give us a fooking break.

Yes, they should be burned at the stake for heresy, shouldn't they?

That's what cultists do to unbelievers.

 

[Impenitent]

How stuff works? Sounds like a real credible source

Now that comedy night is dealt with here is a more credible source for you. One of many had you bothered to look on this board.


"The Challenge

Wind power has the potential to be a green, bird-friendly form of power generation, but it can also adversely affect birds. In 2009, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service estimated that 440,000 birds per year were killed by U.S. wind turbines and included this figure in the agency’s 2013 budget request to Congress. But in 2012, the agency changed how it describes the estimate and now says it maintains no official number. More recently, researcher K. Shawn Smallwood, well-known for his work at Altamont Pass, has estimated 573,000 bird fatalities/year (including 83,000 raptor fatalities) from wind turbines in the United States in 2012.
Birds can die in collisions with the turbine blades, towers, power lines, or related structures. They can also be impacted through habitat destruction from the siting of turbines, power lines, and access roads. Some birds, such as sage-grouse, are particularly sensitive to the presence of turbines and can be scared away from their breeding grounds up to several miles away from a wind development."



Birds and Wind Development

First of all, how would I know that I merely had to search the thread for lore that was posted prior to my join date. You gave not a hint.

And my link has a hot link back to ABC that didn't survive my cut and paste.

Now let's talk about your source, which is an estimate. The vast majority of birds killed in your estimate are unseen by human eyes, but are assumed to be carried away by predators.

I guess that would be reasonable, but you only counted birds seen by humans in the first few weeks of the BP spill. No reasonable estimation there!

So your dead bird estimation is proof positive. It's like the Republican proof for voter fraud - the lack of evidence and convictions is proof that voter fraud is a massive left wing conspiracy.

Gotta call it a night.

Au contrair mr. socko. I did tell you to look in the threads. As I said it has been posted many times in many different threads. You just wanted to play dumb. If you had a link back to ABC that didn't survive the cut and paste why bother to bring it up here? There is no proof you had the link and I would have thought you would post their results rather than the one you did.

You keep digging your hole deeper.

The estimate from the BP accident is fairly well documented as is the wind mill casualty rate. The Altamont has been well studied for decades now and only now is some of that work getting out to the public. It has been repressed for years.

I suggest you look at some of the sordid goings on at the Altamont. if you truly care about the environment you will be shocked.

But, I rather doubt the first assumption.

Each source was itemized in my original responce and are quite visible..they just aren't live.
But here a link almost as trustworthy as watts up with that (politifact) saying:

PolitiFact | Checking George Will on birds and wind turbines

"According to official records, so far there has been one bird killed in the spill," said Steve Rinehart, a spokesman for BP.

It was a northern gannet, he said, and it's the bird many people have seen in TV news reports being cleaned by a veterinarian."

I guess we all owe BP another apology.

But if you read further, this was early on, so more were expected.

""Comparing that to the gulf spill is difficult, if not impossible, for two reasons," said Johns of the American Bird Conservancy. "One, we don’t know when the hole will be plugged – sooner or later; and two, what never gets counted when you think about bird deaths on occasions like this, is how many birds never get born, because their habitat is destroyed (read oiled). So while we would estimate that probably tens of thousands of birds will die from the gulf spill (assuming the well gets shut down quickly), we have perhaps a larger concern about habitat destruction and long terms impacts to future bird generations.

"Regarding the spill, just remember that there will be many, many birds that will die and never make it to land to be counted," Johns said. "They will die at sea. Many types of birds are not land birds, so you won’t see them unless you are in the ocean. The spill is the size of Connecticut. Some birds will land in the goo, others will try to dive through it for food. Others may not dive through it for food and may starve. They won’t fly to land for help because it is not their nature. Sadly, they will simply die in the ocean."

And it goes on to talk about Exxon Valdez killing 250,000 birds. Sorry, I know how tough that will be on you to hear (politically, not environmentally.)

You waving those socks around, I think I just had another déjà vu moment! Oh well.

 

[Foxfyre]

Summer is not possible?

Wow. Just...wow.

Summer is not climate. It's weather. Easy to confuse.

AGW can only be measured by change in climate as it is a variable on top of all of the other causes of weather. It's only evident with certainly if all of the weather is effected, which we call climate.

On the other hand what we experience from day to day is only weather, not climate.

AGW energizes some combination of water, land, life and atmosphere. It leads to more energetic weather and/or higher sea levels. At least until stability and energy balance return.

How AGW manifests will continually change.

Mankind will be chasing a moving environmental target to adapt to until atmospheric GHG concentrations stabilize, and energy balance is restored.

A very long time.

It's easy to confuse weather for climate when you're an AGW cultist and you post strings of record high temps as "proof" of global warming.

And in the relatively very short time we have been tracking and keeping records of global temperatures, I would bet a very nice steak dinner that there hasn't been a single 24 hour period in which several instances of record heat as well as record cold has not been recorded somewhere. I am guessing we will need to keep careful records for probably several hundred more years before record heat or cold becomes more of a rarity.

It seems to me that honorable climate science does not evaluate climate change on a few decades but recognizes that weather patterns vary widely from year to year, decade to decade, and century to century, none of which are any significant factor in overall climate change. And certainly honorable scientists don't make any conclusive declarations based on the 34 years that we have had satellite imaging. That isn't even a blink of an eyelash in overall climate history. However, the arctic sea ice appears to be returning at a record rate this winter, if we base the record on that 34 years, and ice continues to increase in Anartica.

As one scientist I read recently put it, if anthropogenic CO2 production is actually warming the planet, we might want to encourage a lot more of that to delay the next inevitable ice age.

 

[PMZ]

First of all, how would I know that I merely had to search the thread for lore that was posted prior to my join date. You gave not a hint.

And my link has a hot link back to ABC that didn't survive my cut and paste.

Now let's talk about your source, which is an estimate. The vast majority of birds killed in your estimate are unseen by human eyes, but are assumed to be carried away by predators.

I guess that would be reasonable, but you only counted birds seen by humans in the first few weeks of the BP spill. No reasonable estimation there!

So your dead bird estimation is proof positive. It's like the Republican proof for voter fraud - the lack of evidence and convictions is proof that voter fraud is a massive left wing conspiracy.

Gotta call it a night.

Au contrair mr. socko. I did tell you to look in the threads. As I said it has been posted many times in many different threads. You just wanted to play dumb. If you had a link back to ABC that didn't survive the cut and paste why bother to bring it up here? There is no proof you had the link and I would have thought you would post their results rather than the one you did.

You keep digging your hole deeper.

The estimate from the BP accident is fairly well documented as is the wind mill casualty rate. The Altamont has been well studied for decades now and only now is some of that work getting out to the public. It has been repressed for years.

I suggest you look at some of the sordid goings on at the Altamont. if you truly care about the environment you will be shocked.

But, I rather doubt the first assumption.

Each source was itemized in my original responce and are quite visible..they just aren't live.
But here a link almost as trustworthy as watts up with that (politifact) saying:

PolitiFact | Checking George Will on birds and wind turbines

"According to official records, so far there has been one bird killed in the spill," said Steve Rinehart, a spokesman for BP.

It was a northern gannet, he said, and it's the bird many people have seen in TV news reports being cleaned by a veterinarian."

I guess we all owe BP another apology.

But if you read further, this was early on, so more were expected.

""Comparing that to the gulf spill is difficult, if not impossible, for two reasons," said Johns of the American Bird Conservancy. "One, we don’t know when the hole will be plugged – sooner or later; and two, what never gets counted when you think about bird deaths on occasions like this, is how many birds never get born, because their habitat is destroyed (read oiled). So while we would estimate that probably tens of thousands of birds will die from the gulf spill (assuming the well gets shut down quickly), we have perhaps a larger concern about habitat destruction and long terms impacts to future bird generations.

"Regarding the spill, just remember that there will be many, many birds that will die and never make it to land to be counted," Johns said. "They will die at sea. Many types of birds are not land birds, so you won’t see them unless you are in the ocean. The spill is the size of Connecticut. Some birds will land in the goo, others will try to dive through it for food. Others may not dive through it for food and may starve. They won’t fly to land for help because it is not their nature. Sadly, they will simply die in the ocean."

And it goes on to talk about Exxon Valdez killing 250,000 birds. Sorry, I know how tough that will be on you to hear (politically, not environmentally.)

You waving those socks around, I think I just had another déjà vu moment! Oh well.

From http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/...oil_and_gas/gulf_oil_spill/a_deadly_toll.html

" In total, we found that the oil spill has likely harmed or killed approximately 82,000 birds of 102 species, approximately 6,165 sea turtles, and up to 25,900 marine mammals, including bottlenose dolphins, spinner dolphins, melon-headed whales and sperm whales. The spill also harmed an unknown number of fish — including bluefin tuna and substantial habitat for our nation’s smallest seahorse — and an unknown but likely catastrophic number of crabs, oysters, corals and other sea life. The spill also oiled more than a thousand miles of shoreline, including beaches and marshes, which took a substantial toll on the animals and plants found at the shoreline, including seagrass, beach mice, shorebirds and others."

 

[Abraham3]

It seems to me that honorable climate science does not evaluate climate change on a few decades but recognizes that weather patterns vary widely from year to year, decade to decade, and century to century, none of which are any significant factor in overall climate change.

The generally accepted period over which a trend is said to be definitely climatic is 30 years.

 

[PMZ]

Summer is not climate. It's weather. Easy to confuse.

AGW can only be measured by change in climate as it is a variable on top of all of the other causes of weather. It's only evident with certainly if all of the weather is effected, which we call climate.

On the other hand what we experience from day to day is only weather, not climate.

AGW energizes some combination of water, land, life and atmosphere. It leads to more energetic weather and/or higher sea levels. At least until stability and energy balance return.

How AGW manifests will continually change.

Mankind will be chasing a moving environmental target to adapt to until atmospheric GHG concentrations stabilize, and energy balance is restored.

A very long time.

It's easy to confuse weather for climate when you're an AGW cultist and you post strings of record high temps as "proof" of global warming.

And in the relatively very short time we have been tracking and keeping records of global temperatures, I would bet a very nice steak dinner that there hasn't been a single 24 hour period in which several instances of record heat as well as record cold has not been recorded somewhere. I am guessing we will need to keep careful records for probably several hundred more years before record heat or cold becomes more of a rarity.

It seems to me that honorable climate science does not evaluate climate change on a few decades but recognizes that weather patterns vary widely from year to year, decade to decade, and century to century, none of which are any significant factor in overall climate change. And certainly honorable scientists don't make any conclusive declarations based on the 34 years that we have had satellite imaging. That isn't even a blink of an eyelash in overall climate history. However, the arctic sea ice appears to be returning at a record rate this winter, if we base the record on that 34 years, and ice continues to increase in Anartica.

As one scientist I read recently put it, if anthropogenic CO2 production is actually warming the planet, we might want to encourage a lot more of that to delay the next inevitable ice age.

There are not honorable and dishonorable scientists. For climate science, there are the IPCC scientists.

They define the current state of climate science.

You, not at all.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's easy to confuse weather for climate when you're an AGW cultist and you post strings of record high temps as "proof" of global warming.

And in the relatively very short time we have been tracking and keeping records of global temperatures, I would bet a very nice steak dinner that there hasn't been a single 24 hour period in which several instances of record heat as well as record cold has not been recorded somewhere. I am guessing we will need to keep careful records for probably several hundred more years before record heat or cold becomes more of a rarity.

It seems to me that honorable climate science does not evaluate climate change on a few decades but recognizes that weather patterns vary widely from year to year, decade to decade, and century to century, none of which are any significant factor in overall climate change. And certainly honorable scientists don't make any conclusive declarations based on the 34 years that we have had satellite imaging. That isn't even a blink of an eyelash in overall climate history. However, the arctic sea ice appears to be returning at a record rate this winter, if we base the record on that 34 years, and ice continues to increase in Anartica.

As one scientist I read recently put it, if anthropogenic CO2 production is actually warming the planet, we might want to encourage a lot more of that to delay the next inevitable ice age.

There are not honorable and dishonorable scientists. For climate science, there are the IPCC scientists.

They define the current state of climate science.

You, not at all.

I am not paid to scare people into submitting to more and more government authority to save the world from runaway global warming. They are.

 

[PMZ]

And in the relatively very short time we have been tracking and keeping records of global temperatures, I would bet a very nice steak dinner that there hasn't been a single 24 hour period in which several instances of record heat as well as record cold has not been recorded somewhere. I am guessing we will need to keep careful records for probably several hundred more years before record heat or cold becomes more of a rarity.

It seems to me that honorable climate science does not evaluate climate change on a few decades but recognizes that weather patterns vary widely from year to year, decade to decade, and century to century, none of which are any significant factor in overall climate change. And certainly honorable scientists don't make any conclusive declarations based on the 34 years that we have had satellite imaging. That isn't even a blink of an eyelash in overall climate history. However, the arctic sea ice appears to be returning at a record rate this winter, if we base the record on that 34 years, and ice continues to increase in Anartica.

As one scientist I read recently put it, if anthropogenic CO2 production is actually warming the planet, we might want to encourage a lot more of that to delay the next inevitable ice age.

There are not honorable and dishonorable scientists. For climate science, there are the IPCC scientists.

They define the current state of climate science.

You, not at all.

I am not paid to scare people into submitting to more and more government authority to save the world from runaway global warming. They are.

Nor are you paid to understand climate science. They are.

 

[peach174]

It's easy to confuse weather for climate when you're an AGW cultist and you post strings of record high temps as "proof" of global warming.

And in the relatively very short time we have been tracking and keeping records of global temperatures, I would bet a very nice steak dinner that there hasn't been a single 24 hour period in which several instances of record heat as well as record cold has not been recorded somewhere. I am guessing we will need to keep careful records for probably several hundred more years before record heat or cold becomes more of a rarity.

It seems to me that honorable climate science does not evaluate climate change on a few decades but recognizes that weather patterns vary widely from year to year, decade to decade, and century to century, none of which are any significant factor in overall climate change. And certainly honorable scientists don't make any conclusive declarations based on the 34 years that we have had satellite imaging. That isn't even a blink of an eyelash in overall climate history. However, the arctic sea ice appears to be returning at a record rate this winter, if we base the record on that 34 years, and ice continues to increase in Anartica.

As one scientist I read recently put it, if anthropogenic CO2 production is actually warming the planet, we might want to encourage a lot more of that to delay the next inevitable ice age.

There are not honorable and dishonorable scientists. For climate science, there are the IPCC scientists.

They define the current state of climate science.

You, not at all.

I believe the NIPCC who are independent of Government, who are looking at all sides of possibilities, rather than picked by Governments IPCC who are only looking at one side and not looking for all evidence.

Two weeks before the UN-IPCC released its report, an alternative report was released by the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). Unlike the UN-IPCC, NIPCC's charter is to investigate causes and consequences of climate change from all perspectives rather than just to search for a human impact on climate change. This NIPCC report, titled "Climate Change Reconsidered - II: Physical Science" contradicts many of the IPCC's findings. It is available online at Climate Change Reconsidered