Grand solar minimum and global warming

[uscitizen]

Don't you see the problem?

If it's too complex and there are too many variables how can you possibly say you've isolated changes in the de minimus trace element CO2 as "THE" culprit?

I can't, however reducing polloution and such is good for the earth and us as well.
We could still be sucking in lead fumes from automobiles.
Raw sewage in our drinking water?
Acid rain from power plant emissions?
Mercury from power plant emissions.

Vehicle exhaust fumes also contain cancer causing agents.

CO2 is NOT a pollutant!

Water is not a pollutant, and yet it is one of the most deadly substances on earth.

It is all about balance.

 

[Chris]

Don't you see the problem?

If it's too complex and there are too many variables how can you possibly say you've isolated changes in the de minimus trace element CO2 as "THE" culprit?

I can't, however reducing polloution and such is good for the earth and us as well.
We could still be sucking in lead fumes from automobiles.
Raw sewage in our drinking water?
Acid rain from power plant emissions?
Mercury from power plant emissions.

Vehicle exhaust fumes also contain cancer causing agents.

CO2 is NOT a pollutant!

CO2 is toxic in higher concentrations: 1% (10,000 ppm) will make some people feel drowsy.[8] Concentrations of 7% to 10% cause dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour.[9]

Carbon dioxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I can't, however reducing polloution and such is good for the earth and us as well.
We could still be sucking in lead fumes from automobiles.
Raw sewage in our drinking water?
Acid rain from power plant emissions?
Mercury from power plant emissions.

Vehicle exhaust fumes also contain cancer causing agents.

CO2 is NOT a pollutant!

CO2 is toxic in higher concentrations: 1% (10,000 ppm) will make some people feel drowsy.[8] Concentrations of 7% to 10% cause dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour.[9]

Carbon dioxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well thankfully we're talking about concentration of CO2 several orders of magnitude below that.

Progressives can always do their part for the planet and stop exhaling

 

[ScienceRocks]

But you can never replicate this effect in a laboratory setting because....

No matter how elegant the theory, you have to eventually prove it in the lab, unless of course if you and your buddies can claim there's "consensus" and the Science is "settled"

"Water vapour is by far the most important contributor to the greenhouse effect. Pinning down its precise contribution is tricky, not least because the absorption spectra of different greenhouse gases overlap."[/QUOTE]


We can't replicate the effects within earths atmosphere because the Atmosphere is much more complex then any lab we could possibly make. That is true, which is one of the reasons for being uncertain about the true effects of it...Yes some of it overlaps, but some of it don't and can cause warming. There has been studies trying to use the Atmosphere as a "lab"...Research. We need more of it of course.

Also methane has went from 745 to 1800 ppb at the same time and has 72 times the ponenticy of co2 and the percentage of water vapor has also raised some...

The question is why?

Sure we aren't totally certain, but that is what scientist do...We try to figure out things and lower the uncertainty through studies and ever newer knowledge into how things work...And we do know within the side that don't overlap that it does cause a green house effects....The question is how much?

Based on the trend over the last 20 years...I'd say that is pretty likely to have caused some of that warming since the suns solar output has went down. What else can warm the planet if the sun has less output and right now the same as the late 19th and early 20th century??? Green house gasses making the Atmosphere contain more heat is most likely what is causing it.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Predict based on factors of solar output, enso, green house gases, ect how the climate of 10, 20,30 years from now will be. We can come back to this thread hopefully in 2020 in see how we done.


1980–1989 0.176 °C (0.317 °F)
1990–1999 0.313 °C (0.563 °F) which is a rise of .137c+ over the 80's.
2000–2009 0.513 °C (0.923 °F) .2c overall over the 90's


2000 was .4c so x-.4 is the way to find warming over 2000 levels on my prediction.

here is my raw data based on trends.
2010 .55c where we should be based on the trend...
2013, .60c
2020 .7c
2030 .85c
2040 1.00c
2050 1.15c

Now lets add in the fun stuff-I'm thinking that solar cycle 24 will be the lowest in 100 years, so I take some off for that...I also feel that the overall solar output of our star will keep going down...But don't feel that the nino/nina set up will change a lot from the first decade. I also add in a negative amo starting in 2030, but on the other hand forecast a fairly rebust period of solar activity.

So here is what I think...
2020 .65c, .65-.4=.25c over 2000 and .65-.55c=.1c of warming since 2010 avg, yes o yes I'm forecasting less warming for this decade then 1990's and 2000's overall.
2030 .75c
2040 .90c
2050 1.05c

These numbers are all based off of warming since 2000 and are based on different factors. We can check back on them.

Just to make things more interesting here is my data before Matthews nature tricks...AKA predicting for the solar min.
2012 .58c
2013 .595c
2014 .6c
2015 .625

Here is the offical forecast with it added it...I will predict -.1c negative forcing based on solar within the period of 2008-2010, but increase it by .05c as the low solar max should compound on its self.

2011 .56
2012 .575
2013 .590
2014 .595
2015 .62


This way you come back in tell me I busted far earlier then the IPCC. I'm putting the cards on the table. Put yours.

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[ScienceRocks]

So you don't like using science to predict the future and how things might turn out? Why post insults???

 

[skookerasbil]

So you don't like using science to predict the future and how things might turn out? Why post insults???

LMAO........s0n..........when the scientists can tell me they know exactly when a tornado is going to strike or which way a huricane is going to go, then MAYBE I'll take all this prediction jibberish seriously. Anyway....I never was one to buy a bag of dog doo for $1000 a pop if it was packaged just right!!!

Until then...................

 

[uscitizen]

So you don't like using science to predict the future and how things might turn out? Why post insults???

LMAO........s0n..........when the scientists can tell me they know exactly when a tornado is going to strike or which way a huricane is going to go, then MAYBE I'll take all this prediction jibberish seriously. Anyway....I never was one to buy a bag of dog doo for $1000 a pop if it was packaged just right!!!

Until then...................

You need Pat Robertson not a scientist.

 

[Old Rocks]

Mathew, ol' Kookybill is an idiot child troll, not worthy of answer.

 

[Old Rocks]

Far more detailed predictions than I would venture.

So what are the wild cards here. One, large volcanic eruptions. A very large one, Tambora size or larger, could cool things for up to five years. Two, significant outgassing of the permafrost and/or the Arctic Ocean clathrates. Three, and this is the real kicker. A significant change in atmospheric circulation created by the warming we already have. We have already, this year, seen the effects of a short term abberation in the atmospheric circulation in Russia and Pakistan. Four, something that we are not aware of at this time.

Number four is the one that I really have a problem with. All the deniars like to claim this one. Something out of the blue is supposed to come along and provide a negative forcing that will prove the warming predictions were all false. Yet, what we have seen so far is that the unknowns that have been found in the last two decades all were positive feedbacks that have only excaberated the warming. Are there more out there?

 

[IanC]

So you don't like using science to predict the future and how things might turn out? Why post insults???

Personally I like you enthusiasm but your predictions are predicated on realistic temperature trends.

Out of curiosity, have you perused any of the skeptic blogs? They reason things out in the same fashion as you do and I think you may find them very interesting and a source of a lot of information. Check out 'Watts up with that' and read todays article on Nuuk, and tell me if you like it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

But you can never replicate this effect in a laboratory setting because....

No matter how elegant the theory, you have to eventually prove it in the lab, unless of course if you and your buddies can claim there's "consensus" and the Science is "settled"

"Water vapour is by far the most important contributor to the greenhouse effect. Pinning down its precise contribution is tricky, not least because the absorption spectra of different greenhouse gases overlap."

We can't replicate the effects within earths atmosphere because the Atmosphere is much more complex then any lab we could possibly make. That is true, which is one of the reasons for being uncertain about the true effects of it...Yes some of it overlaps, but some of it don't and can cause warming. There has been studies trying to use the Atmosphere as a "lab"...Research. We need more of it of course.

Also methane has went from 745 to 1800 ppb at the same time and has 72 times the ponenticy of co2 and the percentage of water vapor has also raised some...

The question is why?

Sure we aren't totally certain, but that is what scientist do...We try to figure out things and lower the uncertainty through studies and ever newer knowledge into how things work...And we do know within the side that don't overlap that it does cause a green house effects....The question is how much?

Based on the trend over the last 20 years...I'd say that is pretty likely to have caused some of that warming since the suns solar output has went down. What else can warm the planet if the sun has less output and right now the same as the late 19th and early 20th century??? Green house gasses making the Atmosphere contain more heat is most likely what is causing it.[/QUOTE]

There you have it.

The system is too complex but we know for a fact a change in the tiniest variable is the one and only cause.

See how this is not science but homeopathy, phrenology and palmistry?

 

[Old Rocks]

Now Dimbulb, we have already observed what effect a 40% increase in CO2, a 150% increase in CH4, and various powerful industrial GHGs have had. Is there any reason to think that continued increases will do anything other than increase the present temperatures.

As far as you insults toward scientists are concerned, what else is one to expect of a Conservative?

 

[Old Rocks]

So you don't like using science to predict the future and how things might turn out? Why post insults???

Personally I like you enthusiasm but your predictions are predicated on realistic temperature trends.

Out of curiosity, have you perused any of the skeptic blogs? They reason things out in the same fashion as you do and I think you may find them very interesting and a source of a lot of information. Check out 'Watts up with that' and read todays article on Nuuk, and tell me if you like it.

Anthony Watts is an undegreed retired TV weatherman. If one wants real science information you do not go to snake oil salesmen like Watts. You go to peer reviewed scientific journals.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Now Dimbulb, we have already observed what effect a 40% increase in CO2, a 150% increase in CH4, and various powerful industrial GHGs have had. Is there any reason to think that continued increases will do anything other than increase the present temperatures.

As far as you insults toward scientists are concerned, what else is one to expect of a Conservative?

That's what you say.

If it were true even by a fraction, you'd be able to show us in a lab how "40% increase in CO2, a 150% increase in CH4" raise temperatures, but you cannot and will not.

Maybe the temperatures are increasing. What I see is that the name of this malady keeps undergoing major changes "Global Warming" "Climate Change" Climate Disruption" and Phil Jones himself says he can't find any statistically significant warming since the mid 90's.

You have an "Observation" that your head scientist said he did not see, of a condition that has had three major name changes in 5 years and no independent laboratory can verify your claim.

That's not science

 

[IanC]

Did you read the article Old Rocks? Perhaps you could present your criticisms of it to show how it is propaganda.

 

[Chris]

Did you read the article Old Rocks? Perhaps you could present your criticisms of it to show how it is propaganda.

What will be the effect of adding 1,000 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere?

 

[elvis]

So you don't like using science to predict the future and how things might turn out? Why post insults???

Personally I like you enthusiasm but your predictions are predicated on realistic temperature trends.

Out of curiosity, have you perused any of the skeptic blogs? They reason things out in the same fashion as you do and I think you may find them very interesting and a source of a lot of information. Check out 'Watts up with that' and read todays article on Nuuk, and tell me if you like it.

Anthony Watts is an undegreed retired TV weatherman. If one wants real science information you do not go to snake oil salesmen like Watts. You go to peer reviewed scientific journals.

anyone who doesn't fellate Al Gore is a snake oil salesman to you, rockhead.