Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 1

[flacaltenn]

Any body in space must conserve energy. Whatever the energy in is, it must, eventually, if a perturbation occurs, be rebalanced by a change in surface temperature. Excess energy heats and raises surface temperatures, reduced energy cools to a lower surface temperature. There is no other possibility.

We create, every day, by the burning of fossil fuels, such a perturbation, which reduces outgoing energy by the action of GHGs. There is no other possibility.

Nobody knows the exact dynamics of weather and sea levels as they strive to restore energy balance, but they have to. There is no other possibility.

Show me one scrap of science that offers an alternative scenario.

Youve been told this many times before, but ill try once more.. The power of CO2 to create an imbalance is limited waaaaay below the types of numbers for temperature rise that AGW INVENTS out of Magic Multipliers. So heres your quiz bastard troll.. What does physics say the resultant warming from JUST a doubling of CO2 from 250 to 500ppm????????

no magic multipliers......

Ive posted it 100 times... Bet you dont remember do you?

So at last, you accept what I've said all along. The burning of fossil fuels has to result in AGW. No other possibility. That's a start.

How much? The calculations show that the AGW for each doubling of carbon dioxide to be about 2 degrees C.

Virtually nothing in terms of sensible impact on any person. However enough to cause more extreme weather and changes in precipitation patterns that we've already experienced and paid to recover from and mitigate.

However the next question is what other effects will that change cause?

Two very significant ones. The melting of arctic ice and snow which changes the earths albedo, further reducing energy reflected from earths surface and thereby creating it's own AGW in addition to the GHG cause.

And the melting of arctic permafrost which has sequestered it's own supply of GHG by the action of preventing microorganisms from "rotting" organic material deposited before freezing occurred there. This would more than double the addition of fossil fuel GHGs and the resulting AGW.

The IPCC has predicted that these effects together would cause 8 to 12 degrees of AGW.

What's the effect of that cause? Whenever it stabilizes, many years after we stop adding daily to the problem, much higher sea levels, flooding virtually all major coastal cities in the world. Substantial changes in the precipitation pattern, that render the climate in areas that we chose for population and agricultural centers untenable.

The effect of those causes?

Somewhere between the end of mankind and centuries of chaos as the survivors rebuild civilization.

Actually -- the number is more like 1,2 -- 1.5degC.. And THAT ignores the filtering of Long Wave by even MODEST amounts of water vapor..

But Yeah --- THERE'S your problem.. "The IPCC says.. " "The Magic Multipliers vary between 1.2 and 5... And there's no historical basis to believe that high end exists. Your fairty tale above is NOT science.. IT's speculation ABOVE AND BEYOND what we KNOW that CO2 can do to the GreenHouse..

So -- when you smugly try to pass off this IRONCLAD argument about what CO2 COULD do to the temperatures --- it's based on BELIEF --- not on science. And you're 6th grade version of "an energy balance argument" simply LEAVES OUT this important note that CO2 ALONE is not powerful enough to bring about your "end of days" scenario.

And this crap about "somewhere between the end of mankind and centuries of chaos as the survivors rebuild civilization" is your Church's "end of days" warning to build congregation size and compliance..

You've got MUCH less --- than you've been programmed to "believe"..

 

[PMZ]

And, maybe not.

And, maybe he was motivated by other considerations.

We don't know.

Other considerations like actual facts that the numbers weren't there to connect man to global warming.
You are giving yourself waaaay too much credit, dude/dudette/it

just sayin...

More likely political.

There's certainly no evidence that I'm giving you less credit than you've earned.

 

[PMZ]

Youve been told this many times before, but ill try once more.. The power of CO2 to create an imbalance is limited waaaaay below the types of numbers for temperature rise that AGW INVENTS out of Magic Multipliers. So heres your quiz bastard troll.. What does physics say the resultant warming from JUST a doubling of CO2 from 250 to 500ppm????????

no magic multipliers......

Ive posted it 100 times... Bet you dont remember do you?

So at last, you accept what I've said all along. The burning of fossil fuels has to result in AGW. No other possibility. That's a start.

How much? The calculations show that the AGW for each doubling of carbon dioxide to be about 2 degrees C.

Virtually nothing in terms of sensible impact on any person. However enough to cause more extreme weather and changes in precipitation patterns that we've already experienced and paid to recover from and mitigate.

However the next question is what other effects will that change cause?

Two very significant ones. The melting of arctic ice and snow which changes the earths albedo, further reducing energy reflected from earths surface and thereby creating it's own AGW in addition to the GHG cause.

And the melting of arctic permafrost which has sequestered it's own supply of GHG by the action of preventing microorganisms from "rotting" organic material deposited before freezing occurred there. This would more than double the addition of fossil fuel GHGs and the resulting AGW.

The IPCC has predicted that these effects together would cause 8 to 12 degrees of AGW.

What's the effect of that cause? Whenever it stabilizes, many years after we stop adding daily to the problem, much higher sea levels, flooding virtually all major coastal cities in the world. Substantial changes in the precipitation pattern, that render the climate in areas that we chose for population and agricultural centers untenable.

The effect of those causes?

Somewhere between the end of mankind and centuries of chaos as the survivors rebuild civilization.

Actually -- the number is more like 1,2 -- 1.5degC.. And THAT ignores the filtering of Long Wave by even MODEST amounts of water vapor..

But Yeah --- THERE'S your problem.. "The IPCC says.. " "The Magic Multipliers vary between 1.2 and 5... And there's no historical basis to believe that high end exists. Your fairty tale above is NOT science.. IT's speculation ABOVE AND BEYOND what we KNOW that CO2 can do to the GreenHouse..

So -- when you smugly try to pass off this IRONCLAD argument about what CO2 COULD do to the temperatures --- it's based on BELIEF --- not on science. And you're 6th grade version of "an energy balance argument" simply LEAVES OUT this important note that CO2 ALONE is not powerful enough to bring about your "end of days" scenario.

And this crap about "somewhere between the end of mankind and centuries of chaos as the survivors rebuild civilization" is your Church's "end of days" warning to build congregation size and compliance..

You've got MUCH less --- than you've been programmed to "believe"..

"And there's no historical basis to believe that high end exists."

Of course not. We've never had AGW before.

Certainly there has been a great deal of scientific comparison of the climates other times when the carbon that we are now putting back into the atmosphere, was there before. We are returning to the climate of those times when you factor out the other climate drivers different between now and then.

The record from now of arctic ice and snow loss and permafrost melting are very consistent with the amount of excess energy in earths systems from the current GHG load.

 

[flacaltenn]

Skating on the thinner ice there troll.. Big diff between INCONTROVERTABLE science and melting ice..
And you're the one on skates...

 

[ScienceRocks]

About 50 million years ago...Of course we'd have to burn all the carbon under our feet to get back there! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png


http://openyoureyesnews.com/2010/12...hip-between-co2-and-temperature/image002-3-2/

Historical evidence for a high end...Co2 was 1,000 to 4,000 ppm at these times.