Global Warming

[SpidermanTuba]

When anyone wants to talk about the science of global warming, please chime in here.

Note that by science I do not mean any of the following:

The politics of global warming

News articles written about a journalists interpretation of something a global warming said or wrote

Blogs, for or against, global warming

Articles written by PR firms or political think tanks

 

[Old Rocks]

The science of global warming. A good place to start, from the American Institute of Physics;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[code1211]

Another rock is turned over and another IPCC report goes down.

Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels | Environment | guardian.co.uk

 

[Oddball]

Gullible warming is all about the politics.

That's why those pushing the scam have to use duplicitous semantics, cherry pick data, destroy data they don't like, threaten and blackball publications that print authors and information they don't like, browbeat energy producers and pump politicians for more funding, so they don't have to go out and get real jobs producing something useful.

 

[Old Rocks]

Another rock is turned over and another IPCC report goes down.

Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Bullshit. What they said was they found an error in calculations, and a misinterpretation of data. And that they did not, at present, know whether the IPCC prediction was too high or too low.

Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels | Environment | guardian.co.uk

The paper – entitled "Constraints on future sea-level rise from past sea-level change" – used fossil coral data and temperature records derived from ice-core measurements to reconstruct how sea level has fluctuated with temperature since the peak of the last ice age, and to project how it would rise with warming over the next few decades.

In a statement the authors of the paper said: "Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work.

"One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes."

A study done by the authors of the Copenhagen Diagnosis, in real time observations, states that right now the sea level rise is right at the upper limit of the probability cone of the IPCC prediction.

The Copenhagen Diagnosis

 

[Old Rocks]

Gullible warming is all about the politics.

That's why those pushing the scam have to use duplicitous semantics, cherry pick data, destroy data they don't like, threaten and blackball publications that print authors and information they don't like, browbeat energy producers and pump politicians for more funding, so they don't have to go out and get real jobs producing something useful.

Right. Dooodeee..... knows all about real jobs

And the vast majority of the scientists in the world state that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger. But ol' Dooodeee..... knows better. Sure.........

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can someone please perform the following scientific experiment:

Take 2 100,000 gallon fishtanks, in the first fill it with Earth's current atmosphere, in the second Earth atmosphere then add a generous 100/PPM extra CO2, fuck it, let's go ape shit and add 200PPM of CO2

See what, if anything, happens in the second tank.

Can we do that? Is that so fucking difficult?

Shouldn't the second tank generate spontaneous mini hurricanes and tornadoes and melt the glass?

 

[Old Rocks]

Frank, you silly retard, the experiment has been done repeatedly with the whole of the Earth's atmosphere. And when vast amounts of GHGs were added rapidly, the weather, indeed, went 'apeshit'.

Methane Catastrophe

Permian global warming would have had several additional consequences. It would have increased the rate of evaporation, making the continents more dry even while making the atmosphere more humid. It also would have increased the amount of water that the atmosphere could hold, and, because water itself is the dominant greenhouse gas, that water would have contributed to still further global warming. Cloud cover would have increased, but the role of clouds in determining climate is a matter of continuing discussion and much serious investigation among scientists, because clouds on one hand increase Earth's albedo (thus reflecting more solar radiation back into space) and cool the planet, and, on the other, increase the amount of warmth trapped beneath them. It is still unknown whether, on balance, clouds contribute more to planetary warming or cooling, though the answer is sure to be different for different types of clouds. As we have already seen, some clouds -- polar stratospheric clouds -- may have helped warm the polar regions at the beginning of the Eocene.

More water vapor in the atmosphere, however, would have meant more precipitation, and this precipitation would have come in the form of more severe storms. Some continental areas therefore may have been subject to a kind of double whammy: drying out more because of increased evaporation, and then periodically getting hit by powerful storms. This is a prescription for drought punctuated by flash floods and rapid erosion, and would have imposed difficult living conditions on the many of the creatures of the affected areas. Other areas simply received more precipitation, which ameliorated harsher climates and made arid climates less so (Retallack, 2003).

In South Africa's Karroo Basin, the additional precipitation may have been responsible for changing river dynamics and altering meadering rivers (which sweep in great curves across their valleys) to braided rivers (which are comprised of many interwoven strands). Although numerous factors control the specific shapes of rivers, the amount of flow is an important one, and braided rivers tend to indicate higher flow rates than meandering ones. The major extinction of terrestrial plants, whose root systems tend to anchor soils, is also a likely factor in altering river shape (Ward, 2000).


Though the study of the effects of warming on terrestrial species (the Thomas, 2004, study) examines only present-day global warming, its application to the end-Permian is obvious. While the initial triggering mechanism is different -- the anthropogenic production of carbon dioxide in the present versus direct oceanic warming and indirect CO^2-induced global warming caused by Traps volcanism at the end of the Permian -- the effects would have been the same. The atmosphere warmed, and the ocean and the terrestrial surface with it. Huge numbers of species were not able to survive the changed conditions, and they died.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, you silly retard, the experiment has been done repeatedly with the whole of the Earth's atmosphere. And when vast amounts of GHGs were added rapidly, the weather, indeed, went 'apeshit'.

Methane Catastrophe

Permian global warming would have had several additional consequences. It would have increased the rate of evaporation, making the continents more dry even while making the atmosphere more humid. It also would have increased the amount of water that the atmosphere could hold, and, because water itself is the dominant greenhouse gas, that water would have contributed to still further global warming. Cloud cover would have increased, but the role of clouds in determining climate is a matter of continuing discussion and much serious investigation among scientists, because clouds on one hand increase Earth's albedo (thus reflecting more solar radiation back into space) and cool the planet, and, on the other, increase the amount of warmth trapped beneath them. It is still unknown whether, on balance, clouds contribute more to planetary warming or cooling, though the answer is sure to be different for different types of clouds. As we have already seen, some clouds -- polar stratospheric clouds -- may have helped warm the polar regions at the beginning of the Eocene.

More water vapor in the atmosphere, however, would have meant more precipitation, and this precipitation would have come in the form of more severe storms. Some continental areas therefore may have been subject to a kind of double whammy: drying out more because of increased evaporation, and then periodically getting hit by powerful storms. This is a prescription for drought punctuated by flash floods and rapid erosion, and would have imposed difficult living conditions on the many of the creatures of the affected areas. Other areas simply received more precipitation, which ameliorated harsher climates and made arid climates less so (Retallack, 2003).

In South Africa's Karroo Basin, the additional precipitation may have been responsible for changing river dynamics and altering meadering rivers (which sweep in great curves across their valleys) to braided rivers (which are comprised of many interwoven strands). Although numerous factors control the specific shapes of rivers, the amount of flow is an important one, and braided rivers tend to indicate higher flow rates than meandering ones. The major extinction of terrestrial plants, whose root systems tend to anchor soils, is also a likely factor in altering river shape (Ward, 2000).


Though the study of the effects of warming on terrestrial species (the Thomas, 2004, study) examines only present-day global warming, its application to the end-Permian is obvious. While the initial triggering mechanism is different -- the anthropogenic production of carbon dioxide in the present versus direct oceanic warming and indirect CO^2-induced global warming caused by Traps volcanism at the end of the Permian -- the effects would have been the same. The atmosphere warmed, and the ocean and the terrestrial surface with it. Huge numbers of species were not able to survive the changed conditions, and they died.

Do you know what an experiment is?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, you silly retard, the experiment has been done repeatedly with the whole of the Earth's atmosphere. And when vast amounts of GHGs were added rapidly, the weather, indeed, went 'apeshit'.

Methane Catastrophe

Permian global warming would have had several additional consequences. It would have increased the rate of evaporation, making the continents more dry even while making the atmosphere more humid. It also would have increased the amount of water that the atmosphere could hold, and, because water itself is the dominant greenhouse gas, that water would have contributed to still further global warming. Cloud cover would have increased, but the role of clouds in determining climate is a matter of continuing discussion and much serious investigation among scientists, because clouds on one hand increase Earth's albedo (thus reflecting more solar radiation back into space) and cool the planet, and, on the other, increase the amount of warmth trapped beneath them. It is still unknown whether, on balance, clouds contribute more to planetary warming or cooling, though the answer is sure to be different for different types of clouds. As we have already seen, some clouds -- polar stratospheric clouds -- may have helped warm the polar regions at the beginning of the Eocene.

More water vapor in the atmosphere, however, would have meant more precipitation, and this precipitation would have come in the form of more severe storms. Some continental areas therefore may have been subject to a kind of double whammy: drying out more because of increased evaporation, and then periodically getting hit by powerful storms. This is a prescription for drought punctuated by flash floods and rapid erosion, and would have imposed difficult living conditions on the many of the creatures of the affected areas. Other areas simply received more precipitation, which ameliorated harsher climates and made arid climates less so (Retallack, 2003).

In South Africa's Karroo Basin, the additional precipitation may have been responsible for changing river dynamics and altering meadering rivers (which sweep in great curves across their valleys) to braided rivers (which are comprised of many interwoven strands). Although numerous factors control the specific shapes of rivers, the amount of flow is an important one, and braided rivers tend to indicate higher flow rates than meandering ones. The major extinction of terrestrial plants, whose root systems tend to anchor soils, is also a likely factor in altering river shape (Ward, 2000).


Though the study of the effects of warming on terrestrial species (the Thomas, 2004, study) examines only present-day global warming, its application to the end-Permian is obvious. While the initial triggering mechanism is different -- the anthropogenic production of carbon dioxide in the present versus direct oceanic warming and indirect CO^2-induced global warming caused by Traps volcanism at the end of the Permian -- the effects would have been the same. The atmosphere warmed, and the ocean and the terrestrial surface with it. Huge numbers of species were not able to survive the changed conditions, and they died.

1. You still don't know what an experiment is.

2. You didn't even bother to read your article which blows up whatever stupid argument you thought you were making

"It may be that Erwin realized that his model was severely limited by the great length of time over which he believed the extinction to have taken place. He thought that the extinction had taken place over a period of about three million years, "and perhaps as many as 8 million years" (1993, p. 226). Over such extended lengths of time, neither methane nor additional carbon dioxide would have had much effect -- if any -- on atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide or ocean chemistry."

3. We talked here at USMB and were going to send you a sunlamp so you can pretend you're always subject to Global Warming.

 

[Old Rocks]

Frank, do you have any idea how real science is done? Do you think that Geologist construct a whole river delta system to see if that matches the rocks they see that are the results of such systems? No, the observe the present delta systems and extrapolate the results of the system being buried, heated, and hardened.

There are many areas of science that deal with natural phenomona on a scale too vast to do actual lab type experiments. The insistance that you and others have that it is not real science to use what nature has provided us with as the experiments is either evidence of vast ignorance of how science is done, or deciet.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hmmm..... Very large font, as in yelling. Cannot make a real arguement, so resort to yelling. Very adolescent of you, old boy.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, do you have any idea how real science is done? Do you think that Geologist construct a whole river delta system to see if that matches the rocks they see that are the results of such systems? No, the observe the present delta systems and extrapolate the results of the system being buried, heated, and hardened.

There are many areas of science that deal with natural phenomona on a scale too vast to do actual lab type experiments. The insistance that you and others have that it is not real science to use what nature has provided us with as the experiments is either evidence of vast ignorance of how science is done, or deciet.

What crap. It's your contention that de minimus increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 are responsible for cataclysmic, near instantaneous changes on Earth and I'm challenging you to show me how that's possible.

But you did slip a grain of truth into your rant. The scale is too vast and certainly subject to far too many variables for any reasonable person to take your Glacier Eating CO2 Spaghetti Monster seriously

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hmmm..... Very large font, as in yelling. Cannot make a real arguement, so resort to yelling. Very adolescent of you, old boy.

Read the fucking article. It's right there in black and white. I highlighted the section you overlooked

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, do you have any idea how real science is done? Do you think that Geologist construct a whole river delta system to see if that matches the rocks they see that are the results of such systems? No, the observe the present delta systems and extrapolate the results of the system being buried, heated, and hardened.

There are many areas of science that deal with natural phenomona on a scale too vast to do actual lab type experiments. The insistance that you and others have that it is not real science to use what nature has provided us with as the experiments is either evidence of vast ignorance of how science is done, or deciet.

One mo' time.

It is your contention that deminimus increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 are the proximate cause of instantaneous, cataclysmic changes here on Earth.

Prove it.

 

[Oddball]

Gullible warming is all about the politics.

That's why those pushing the scam have to use duplicitous semantics, cherry pick data, destroy data they don't like, threaten and blackball publications that print authors and information they don't like, browbeat energy producers and pump politicians for more funding, so they don't have to go out and get real jobs producing something useful.

Right. Dooodeee..... knows all about real jobs

And the vast majority of the scientists in the world state that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger. But ol' Dooodeee..... knows better. Sure.........

Speaking of duplicitous semantics, I never ever hear any credible quantification as to what constitutes "the vast majority" of scientists (well, besides completely absurd claims of 95% made by some). Likewise, the "clear and present danger" thing turns up with alarming regularity in the circular logic of dimwits like Algore and Bobby Kennedy jr.

Thanks for breathing some credibility into my post.

 

[Avatar4321]

When science is actually involved, i think about it. Till then, i dont see the point.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Another rock is turned over and another IPCC report goes down.

Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels | Environment | guardian.co.uk

"Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels" - they did't, actually, the title is misleading. if you read further you'll see its just one group withdrawing their estimate of what that rise will be. But I guess, that would require work on your part, so never mind.

 

[Foxfyre]

Gullible warming is all about the politics.

That's why those pushing the scam have to use duplicitous semantics, cherry pick data, destroy data they don't like, threaten and blackball publications that print authors and information they don't like, browbeat energy producers and pump politicians for more funding, so they don't have to go out and get real jobs producing something useful.

Yes. There is little or no point in discussing global warming separate from the politics involved, because there is little or no scientific data out there that is unaffected by the politics. Unless you follow the money, there is no way to evaluate whether the data is colored by somebody who wants a particular result. And yes, the energy industry has done its own research and has contributed to the mix, but those who are not willing to be taken down by those who hate them and are defending their own turf also deserve to be heard. For every industry funded study out there, you will find six that the government and its subsidiaries funds and who will lose that funding if they don't come up with something to keep the global warming scam going.

Conocophillips, a relative small oil company as companies go, stands to lose hundreds of millions if cap & trade passes. General Electric, on the other side, stands to gain hundreds of millions if not billions if cap & trade passes.

To ignore those dynamics is to operate in a vacuum that is unlikely to produce any truth.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Shouldn't the second tank generate spontaneous mini hurricanes and tornadoes and melt the glass?

No. Was it a nail gun or a drill bit that went through your skull at a young age?