A Serious Question About Climate Change

[Toddsterpatriot]

This is the estimated amount of energy added to the Earth's biosphere from several sources:

From human causes.................18 TW
From Earth's core......................47 TW
From the Sun....................170,000 TW

So what might be the most likely place to look for the cause of Climate Change?

I know; COW FARTS!

roflmao

This is something we might expect a child to say about global warming. The reason there is a change (warming) is because carbon is being added to our carbon cycle, thus increasing atmospheric content.

Wow!
You make it sound so simple.

That's the thing... it is pretty simple. The Greenhouse effect has been well-understood for centuries. The fact that we are taking fixed carbon out of the ground and adding it to our carbon cycle has been understood for over a century.

That's the thing... it is pretty simple

Great.
How much did CO2 levels drop to cause the Little Ice Age?
How much did they rise to cause the Medieval Warm Period?

You tell me. Clearly, given your curiosity you -- being a rational adult who is in no way being a little troll -- have obviously already looked these things up.

So, tell me.

Something so simple, but you don't know? Weird.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This is something we might expect a child to say about global warming. The reason there is a change (warming) is because carbon is being added to our carbon cycle, thus increasing atmospheric content.

Wow!
You make it sound so simple.

That's the thing... it is pretty simple. The Greenhouse effect has been well-understood for centuries. The fact that we are taking fixed carbon out of the ground and adding it to our carbon cycle has been understood for over a century.

That's the thing... it is pretty simple

Great.
How much did CO2 levels drop to cause the Little Ice Age?
How much did they rise to cause the Medieval Warm Period?

You tell me. Clearly, given your curiosity you -- being a rational adult who is in no way being a little troll -- have obviously already looked these things up.

So, tell me.

Something so simple, but you don't know? Weird.

That does not make sense and is not an appropriate response to my comments. My statements did not speak to those things. I only spoke to the simple idea of a warming factor caused by adding carbon to our carbon cycle. That is a universal truth. Just as increased solar activity is also a warming factor.

 

[Old Rocks]

There's not a thing we can do about true climate change

What is the basis for that statement? Science, religion, ignorance, or nihilism?

The basis for Frankie boi's statement is rank stupidity. The denialists simply cannot fathom the simplest of science.

Prove it ...

You already have. You deny that the scientists that have studied the climate for decades have more knowledge than you or the idiots you follow do.

 

[Old Rocks]

No, but then there's no need for me to do so because tipping points are just that, points, not magnitudes.

But they have to be relevant in magnitude.

No fulcrum point is relevant if it can hold only 0.001% of the total weight.

The way the CATASTROPHIC theory elements are offered, this 2deg tipping point leverages itself to higher magnitude by a series of all positive feedbacks. Like -- increasing the melting of tundra permafrost that then releases a holocaust of ADDITIONAL GHouse gases. Which is proffered as an exponential ACCELERATION of warming.

So it's NOT just the magnitude of the tipping point energy. It's a "non-linear" trigger to bigger events.

Several problems with that. One is that the warming power of CO2 is increasingly limited as the concentration in the atmos increases.. Takes TWICE as much to get the NEXT degree increase as it did the last time. So -- THAT is a huge NEGATIVE feedback.

Second, when the earth came out of each Glacial Period of 4 consecutive Ice Ages -- that trigger was exceeded by FAR each time. And EACH TIME, there was no "runaway" global warming. EVEN THO -- the permafrost was melting at horrendous rates and the mile thick glaciers in Indiana melted to expose the GH Gas laden ground beneath them. Those FEEDBACKS STOPPED each time. After melting and exposing the MAJORITY of planet.

What's left to expose TODAY --- is a minute FRACTION of what was buried during all 4 of those Ice Age cycles.

At no time in the interglacials did the CO2 reach anywhere near 400+ ppm, nor the CH4 reach anywhere near 1800 ppb. And what does it take to be considered catastrophic? Is the total destruction or severe damage of 500,000 homes in just the US in one year not considered catastrophic? How about the amount of trees we have lost to fire and drought in the last decade? The loss of 300,000,000 trees in just one state in one drought is not considered catastrophic?

We're living in a climatic catastrophe because an arsonists, fueled by global warming rage, started wildfires in CA. Got it. That's caused by the 2 decade pause, right?

Very funny Frankie boi. Here is the latest, for December of last year. Readily available, but you did not want people to see the real situation.

UAH Global Temperature Update for December, 2017: +0.41 deg. C « Roy Spencer, PhD

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wow!
You make it sound so simple.

That's the thing... it is pretty simple. The Greenhouse effect has been well-understood for centuries. The fact that we are taking fixed carbon out of the ground and adding it to our carbon cycle has been understood for over a century.

That's the thing... it is pretty simple

Great.
How much did CO2 levels drop to cause the Little Ice Age?
How much did they rise to cause the Medieval Warm Period?

You tell me. Clearly, given your curiosity you -- being a rational adult who is in no way being a little troll -- have obviously already looked these things up.

So, tell me.

Something so simple, but you don't know? Weird.

That does not make sense and is not an appropriate response to my comments. My statements did not speak to those things. I only spoke to the simple idea of a warming factor caused by adding carbon to our carbon cycle. That is a universal truth. Just as increased solar activity is also a warming factor.

That does not make sense and is not an appropriate response to my comments.

You said more CO2 is the reason for warming.....simple.
What other reason could there be for the warm MWP or the cold LIA?

I only spoke to the simple idea of a warming factor

A warming factor? Not the only warming factor?
So maybe not so simple.......

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You said more CO2 is the reason for warming.....simple.

Wrong. I did not make such a universal statement.

A warming factor? Not the only warming factor?

Correct, not the only warming factor. But, it is specifically the warming factor mentioned in this thread, which you opened, hopped in swinging with both hands, then fell on your face in.

 

[flacaltenn]

No, but then there's no need for me to do so because tipping points are just that, points, not magnitudes.

But they have to be relevant in magnitude.

No fulcrum point is relevant if it can hold only 0.001% of the total weight.

The way the CATASTROPHIC theory elements are offered, this 2deg tipping point leverages itself to higher magnitude by a series of all positive feedbacks. Like -- increasing the melting of tundra permafrost that then releases a holocaust of ADDITIONAL GHouse gases. Which is proffered as an exponential ACCELERATION of warming.

So it's NOT just the magnitude of the tipping point energy. It's a "non-linear" trigger to bigger events.

Several problems with that. One is that the warming power of CO2 is increasingly limited as the concentration in the atmos increases.. Takes TWICE as much to get the NEXT degree increase as it did the last time. So -- THAT is a huge NEGATIVE feedback.

Second, when the earth came out of each Glacial Period of 4 consecutive Ice Ages -- that trigger was exceeded by FAR each time. And EACH TIME, there was no "runaway" global warming. EVEN THO -- the permafrost was melting at horrendous rates and the mile thick glaciers in Indiana melted to expose the GH Gas laden ground beneath them. Those FEEDBACKS STOPPED each time. After melting and exposing the MAJORITY of planet.

What's left to expose TODAY --- is a minute FRACTION of what was buried during all 4 of those Ice Age cycles.

At no time in the interglacials did the CO2 reach anywhere near 400+ ppm, nor the CH4 reach anywhere near 1800 ppb. And what does it take to be considered catastrophic? Is the total destruction or severe damage of 500,000 homes in just the US in one year not considered catastrophic? How about the amount of trees we have lost to fire and drought in the last decade? The loss of 300,000,000 trees in just one state in one drought is not considered catastrophic?

We're living in a climatic catastrophe because an arsonists, fueled by global warming rage, started wildfires in CA. Got it. That's caused by the 2 decade pause, right?

Very funny Frankie boi. Here is the latest, for December of last year. Readily available, but you did not want people to see the real situation.

UAH Global Temperature Update for December, 2017: +0.41 deg. C « Roy Spencer, PhD

Sure.. Big diff.. The entire SLOPE of that data works out to about 0.14degC per decade. SINCE 1979.. That's 1.4degC per f'ing CENTURY.. Where's your fire?

 

[Old Rocks]

At no time in the interglacials did the CO2 reach anywhere near 400+ ppm, nor the CH4 reach anywhere near 1800 ppb.

Well exactly.. Are you suddenly "getting this"??? If thawing tundra and releasing CH4 CO2 is an UNSTOPPABLE process once it's begun --- WHY did it stop 4 times in the presence of a 14 deg rampage up in temperature? There was PLENTY more GH Gas causing material left to thaw. And what had already been released was MASSIVE compared to what we have "in reserve" frozen and sequestered right now..

And don't tell me Milankovich Cycles. Because the trigger forcing that FROZE all that surface and ocean area was MINOR -- compared to the 14 deg swing into glacial state when all that "Carbon cycle" CO2 was removed from play...

How on earth do you get that what we are seeing today is analogous to what has happened in prior interglacials? And where do you get that I am claiming a 'runaway' condition? We do know that runaway conditions have happened in the past, but the drivers were far in excess of what we are seeing today. It does not require a 'runaway' condition to create a lot of human misery. 500,000 homes severely damaged or destroyed just in this nation this year. As the atmosphere and oceans warm, we will see even larger events.

You stop the warming the same way you started it. The Milankovic Cycles. Except today, the added GHGs are creating a situation that overpowers those cycles.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's 1.4degC per f'ing CENTURY

haha... what? Is that supposed to make us all go, "Gee, 1.4, that's not a very big number, hee haw!"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You said more CO2 is the reason for warming.....simple.

Wrong. I did not make such a universal statement.

A warming factor? Not the only warming factor?

Correct, not the only warming factor. But, it is specifically the warming factor mentioned in this thread, which you opened, hopped in swinging with both hands, then fell on your face in.

You said more CO2 is the reason for warming.....simple.​

​

Wrong. I did not make such a universal statement. ​

Post #56: This is something we might expect a child to say about global warming. The reason there is a change (warming) is because carbon is being added to our carbon cycle, thus increasing atmospheric content.

Sounded like a pretty universal statement when you made it.

 

[Old Rocks]

The relevance of all tipping points is where they be not their size/magnitude. All points on a continuum have the same size.

• Limits intro

To wit, if, say a container holds exactly eight ounces of fluid, the tipping point at which it overflows is any quantity fluid greater than eight ounces, recognizing that "overflowing" and "spilling," in the example, are not the same things. (The quantity of fluid needed to effect spilling is eight ounces plus whatever quantity of fluid cannot be contained by the distance/surface of the container's rim.)

Meh, you are speaking in the abstract, I am speaking real world tipping points, i.e. fulcrums usually.

The energy, potential and otherwise has to be within a reasonable range of the total system or the fulcrum just gets blown through.

you are speaking in the abstract

I most certainly am not. What I've done is apply the idea of limits to the tolerance for change that Earth's climatic ecosystem, as humanity has experienced it for the whole of recorded history, possesses. That tolerance is defined by some discrete quantity of one or more factors. In other words, there is a limit to how much anthropogenically induced climate changes the planet can withstand before becoming irrevocably (in the span of human lifetimes) and dissatisfying altered. I don't know what be the exact "coordinates" of that limit, but I know it exists and that it does exist, regardless of whether we know precisely what be its "coordinates" is no abstraction.

A "tipping point" is not simply "saturating" the Carbon Cycle by man-made contributions of CO2. Even IF that was what is meant by tipping point. As I explained, it refers to a trigger point that sets off a NON - linear series of consequences that behave like an underdamped UNSTABLE system and causes the surface temps to "runaway" -- irreparably out of control ..

Your "spill-over" comparison is more like the general concept that the 30GTon of CO2 that MAN puts into the atmos every year causes the Carbon Cycle bottom line to go thru "zero balance". Where the source amounts are now incrementally larger than the Planet's natural ability to SINK CO2 back into short/long term sequestration.. But this "accounting" has SEVERAL problems. Not the least of which is --- that NATURE herself puts TWENTY TIMES what man does into the atmos every year. And nature SEEMS to sink MOST of that back into sequestration. Even sinks 1/2 or more of what "man puts up there"..

We also notice that the ACCOUNTING for what fraction is CHARGED to mankind is corrupt. A large part of "man's emissions" are literally domestic animals and farming. And YET -- before domestication of cattle, prairies were DARK with buffalo and woods filled with deer and smaller game. No "offset" is given there for replacement of buffalo with cows. NOR is it recognized that any farming that required deforestation might be fairly efficient at sinking CO2 itself. A corn field can completely clear it's volume in CO2 in a matter of hours for instance.

Goddamn it. Every time I begin to think that you do have a brain, you go and repeat some fucking stupid meme like 'Nature puts in far more than man does every year'. Yes, stupid ass, and nature takes out far more than man does every year. Problem is, as long as it was just nature putting in and taking out, the GHG levels were in balance. But as man started adding massive amounts of CO2, it is now out of balance. That is why we have the Keeling Curve. And that is why our oceans and atmosphere are rapidly warming. And, as the oceans and atmosphere warm rapidly, the atmosphere holds more water vapor, which warms the atmosphere even more. And as the oceans warm, they can absorb less and less CO2. And, of course, this leads to the warming of the permafrost on land and the clathrates in the oceans.

We are in a La Nina right now. Why the hell is this year and last year so warm if the the GHGs don't have that much effect?

So before SUVs and 2Kwatt houses, the CO2 Carbon cycle NEVER VARIED by 2 or 4% ?? Incredibly muddled thinking. We don't even KNOW the annual Carbon sinking ability of the planet. In fact, when Arctic MELTS -- it creates a POWERFUL carbon sinking ability at the Arctic Ocean that did not EXIST -- when it was iced. That couldn't be ---- A NEGATIVE feedback on warming now could it O-Rocks???

In fact -- this is what happened during the last 4 Ice Ages. The carbon cycle "seized up". Virtually came to a halt. I'd call THAT a massive change compared to mankinds 2 or 4% meddling..

OK, Mr. Flacceltenn, are you paid to lie? I have to ask, because the move from 280 ppm to 400+ ppm is hardly a 2% to 4% move. It is well over 40% and larger than the move from the depths of the glacial to the heights of the interglacial.

And you damned well know this. So what you wrote is a purposeful lie. Why? Are you that greedy? Are you that politically driven? What the hell is driving you to lie?

 

[Old Rocks]

But they have to be relevant in magnitude.

No fulcrum point is relevant if it can hold only 0.001% of the total weight.

The way the CATASTROPHIC theory elements are offered, this 2deg tipping point leverages itself to higher magnitude by a series of all positive feedbacks. Like -- increasing the melting of tundra permafrost that then releases a holocaust of ADDITIONAL GHouse gases. Which is proffered as an exponential ACCELERATION of warming.

So it's NOT just the magnitude of the tipping point energy. It's a "non-linear" trigger to bigger events.

Several problems with that. One is that the warming power of CO2 is increasingly limited as the concentration in the atmos increases.. Takes TWICE as much to get the NEXT degree increase as it did the last time. So -- THAT is a huge NEGATIVE feedback.

Second, when the earth came out of each Glacial Period of 4 consecutive Ice Ages -- that trigger was exceeded by FAR each time. And EACH TIME, there was no "runaway" global warming. EVEN THO -- the permafrost was melting at horrendous rates and the mile thick glaciers in Indiana melted to expose the GH Gas laden ground beneath them. Those FEEDBACKS STOPPED each time. After melting and exposing the MAJORITY of planet.

What's left to expose TODAY --- is a minute FRACTION of what was buried during all 4 of those Ice Age cycles.

At no time in the interglacials did the CO2 reach anywhere near 400+ ppm, nor the CH4 reach anywhere near 1800 ppb. And what does it take to be considered catastrophic? Is the total destruction or severe damage of 500,000 homes in just the US in one year not considered catastrophic? How about the amount of trees we have lost to fire and drought in the last decade? The loss of 300,000,000 trees in just one state in one drought is not considered catastrophic?

We're living in a climatic catastrophe because an arsonists, fueled by global warming rage, started wildfires in CA. Got it. That's caused by the 2 decade pause, right?

Very funny Frankie boi. Here is the latest, for December of last year. Readily available, but you did not want people to see the real situation.

UAH Global Temperature Update for December, 2017: +0.41 deg. C « Roy Spencer, PhD

Sure.. Big diff.. The entire SLOPE of that data works out to about 0.14degC per decade. SINCE 1979.. That's 1.4degC per f'ing CENTURY.. Where's your fire?

The present slope.

 

[flacaltenn]

At no time in the interglacials did the CO2 reach anywhere near 400+ ppm, nor the CH4 reach anywhere near 1800 ppb.

Well exactly.. Are you suddenly "getting this"??? If thawing tundra and releasing CH4 CO2 is an UNSTOPPABLE process once it's begun --- WHY did it stop 4 times in the presence of a 14 deg rampage up in temperature? There was PLENTY more GH Gas causing material left to thaw. And what had already been released was MASSIVE compared to what we have "in reserve" frozen and sequestered right now..

And don't tell me Milankovich Cycles. Because the trigger forcing that FROZE all that surface and ocean area was MINOR -- compared to the 14 deg swing into glacial state when all that "Carbon cycle" CO2 was removed from play...

How on earth do you get that what we are seeing today is analogous to what has happened in prior interglacials? And where do you get that I am claiming a 'runaway' condition? We do know that runaway conditions have happened in the past, but the drivers were far in excess of what we are seeing today. It does not require a 'runaway' condition to create a lot of human misery. 500,000 homes severely damaged or destroyed just in this nation this year. As the atmosphere and oceans warm, we will see even larger events.

You stop the warming the same way you started it. The Milankovic Cycles. Except today, the added GHGs are creating a situation that overpowers those cycles.

Without runaway conditions and accelerations, trigger points, and imagined positive-only feedbacks -- there IS no crisis. Not of the magnitude that they used to needlessly frighten the public for past 30 years now..

That's WHY it's important to ask WHY the warm-ups after the glacial parts of past Ice Ages just didn't "finish the job" and off the Planet 4 times in our most recent climatological past.. When you've completely UNfrozen the Carbon cycle and are melting calthrates like fucking crazy -- WHY did it stop? Why didn't it runaway and go full commando then?

 

[flacaltenn]

That's 1.4degC per f'ing CENTURY

haha... what? Is that supposed to make us all go, "Gee, 1.4, that's not a very big number, hee haw!"

It's actually not. Not unless you got accurate positive proof that during this InterGlacial, that has never occurred multiple times. And you don't. We've covered that. So don't even bother.

Gee 1.4degC per CENTURY isn't anything like the ORIGINAL 1980s propaganda about 4 to 8degC by 2100 is it genius?? I'd say there was a LOT of hyperventilating and exaggeration to get this Circus Train on the rails...

And the train is now losing traction completely --- aint' it???

 

[Old Rocks]

Fuck. Mr. Flacaltenn, the severe damage or loss of 500,000 homes in just this nation is not a problem? Firestorms in the West that have destroyed so much of the forests. Firestorms caused by the increasing heat, and bug kills from warmer winters. Snap droughts and freezes killing significant percentages of the our crops. These are not major problems? Whenever we spend money to rebuild, that is money that we do not have to build new and needed infrastructure.

 

[flacaltenn]

At no time in the interglacials did the CO2 reach anywhere near 400+ ppm, nor the CH4 reach anywhere near 1800 ppb.

Well exactly.. Are you suddenly "getting this"??? If thawing tundra and releasing CH4 CO2 is an UNSTOPPABLE process once it's begun --- WHY did it stop 4 times in the presence of a 14 deg rampage up in temperature? There was PLENTY more GH Gas causing material left to thaw. And what had already been released was MASSIVE compared to what we have "in reserve" frozen and sequestered right now..

And don't tell me Milankovich Cycles. Because the trigger forcing that FROZE all that surface and ocean area was MINOR -- compared to the 14 deg swing into glacial state when all that "Carbon cycle" CO2 was removed from play...

How on earth do you get that what we are seeing today is analogous to what has happened in prior interglacials? And where do you get that I am claiming a 'runaway' condition? We do know that runaway conditions have happened in the past, but the drivers were far in excess of what we are seeing today. It does not require a 'runaway' condition to create a lot of human misery. 500,000 homes severely damaged or destroyed just in this nation this year. As the atmosphere and oceans warm, we will see even larger events.

You stop the warming the same way you started it. The Milankovic Cycles. Except today, the added GHGs are creating a situation that overpowers those cycles.

Without runaway conditions and accelerations, trigger points, and imagined positive-only feedbacks -- there IS no crisis. Not of the magnitude that they used to needlessly frighten the public for past 30 years now..

That's WHY it's important to ask WHY the warm-ups after the glacial parts of past Ice Ages just didn't "finish the job" and off the Planet 4 times in our most recent climatological past.. When you've completely UNfrozen the Carbon cycle and are melting calthrates like fucking crazy -- WHY did it stop? Why didn't it runaway and go full commando then?

I thought you didnt consider any of this doom/gloom funny. Yet here you are funnying everything in sight. Are you becoming less paranoid and stridently scared shit-less than you USED to be by GW hype and exaggeration?

Here.. Lemme entertain you some more.. Maybe you'll calm the fuck down and live longer..

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sounded like a pretty universal statement when you made it.

Well it wasn't. I was specifically talking in the context of a change in the amount of carbon in our carbon cycle leading to a warming factor, which was the topic. Maybe you should start over from post #1 and try to understand the OP's error and my response to it.

 

[flacaltenn]

Fuck. Mr. Flacaltenn, the severe damage or loss of 500,000 homes in just this nation is not a problem? Firestorms in the West that have destroyed so much of the forests. Firestorms caused by the increasing heat, and bug kills from warmer winters. Snap droughts and freezes killing significant percentages of the our crops. These are not major problems? Whenever we spend money to rebuild, that is money that we do not have to build new and needed infrastructure.

You have bigger scientific problems than witchdoctoring around with blaming every natural disaster on 0.6degC in your lifetime. As the problem gets exponentially less fatal -- you seem to up the ante on FEAR and unbacked hysteria about forest fires.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's actually not.

Of course, when it's "per century", it actually is a VERY large number. That's why people who actually dedicate their lives to these sciences (and taught you anything and everything you will ever know about climate, past, present, and future) are sounding the alarms.

 

[Old Rocks]

Climate Reanalyzer

I have been posting this from the University of Maine about every two days. How many times have you seen minus temperatures in any hemisphere?