oldsoul
Gold Member
Could you rephrase that without the insults, please? I trust this won't be a problem for a self described "grown-up".
Climate Scientist: We Don't Need Data, You Can See Global Warming on TV
- Thread starter Weatherman2020
- Start date
- Banned
- #102
oldsoul
Gold Member
Still waiting.....
mamooth
Diamond Member
Grow up. If you're going to be so insulting by being so patronizing, you have no grounds to cry about getting it back.
Now, let's get back to the issue you're trying so hard to run from.
The directly observed stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation, and decrease in outgoing longwave radiation have no conceivable natural causes, and show that the current global warming is not natural.
Hence, your "It's a natural cycle!" theory has been conclusively disproved.
And if you don't want to discuss that, feel free to deflect again by crying. I'll take that as your surrender.
mamooth
Diamond Member
If mankind hadn't altered it, CO2 would be around 280 ppm.
It's currently at 400 ppm and rising.
Climate has currently warmed by about 1.0C since the start of the industrial age.
If we stabilize at 450 ppm, we _might_ be able to hold it at a final 2.0C temperature rise.
2.0C is not good, but it's not catastrophic. Economic costs start going up exponentially above 2.0C, so it's not something we want to blow through.
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 151,658
- 35,202
- 2,180
So how do you know such a thing when it was much higher in the past. So just more boredom from liars who wish they had a crystal ball. Instead you have manic eight ball and I laugh.
Then after all that you can't even show it affects anything to even be discussing global warming. Hahahaha
- Banned
- #107
... and not one net molecule of ice melt, as 90% of Earth ice on Antarctica has grown straight through Algore's FRAUD, and the highly correlated satellite and balloon raw data continue to show precisely NO WARMING in the atmosphere.
Evidence CO2 causes warming = cherry picking, fudge, and FRAUD
oldsoul
Gold Member
I refuse to attempt to have a grown-up discussion with a person who is apparently incapable of disagreement without insult. Thanks for your input, and good bye.
Wyatt earp
Diamond Member
- Apr 21, 2012
- 69,975
- 16,424
- 2,180
Seriously crick trying to bullshit again?
We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” ~Edenhofer.
IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World’s Wealth”
Wyatt earp
Diamond Member
- Apr 21, 2012
- 69,975
- 16,424
- 2,180
I forgot to quote my favorite AGW cult nut job...
"Meeting science-based [carbon] targets will mean forcing some of the most profitable companies on the planet to forfeit trillions of dollars of future earnings by leaving the vast majority of fossil fuel reserves in the ground. It will also require coming up with trillions more to pay for zero-carbon, disaster-ready societal transformations... if climate justice carries the day, theeconomic costs to our elites will be real." ~ Naomi klien
.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
OK, you pose and interesting question. It is not just the numbers for the GHGs that are a problem, but the rate of change. A rapid delta v does not give the biology of this planet time to adapt. That is why we see extinction events in prior times when there were rapid changes in the GHGs, both up and down.
Now, with over 7 billion mouths to feed, our agriculture is even more vulnerable to a rapid changing climate than the natural flora and fauna. Accurately, we don't know at what point that the change will become a danger to the survival of a great many people. The insurance companies in the world have already issued warnings that we are seeing more serious and extreme weather events. And the real kicker is that what we are seeing today is not the result of the GHGs in the atmosphere at present, but is the result of the GHGs in the atmosphere 30 to 50 years ago.
mamooth
Diamond Member
Does that mean you're not going to address the directly observed hard data that shows your "It's a natural cycle!" theory is totally wrong?
How convenient.
I can see why you're so flustered. You're not used to being called out on your patronizing jackass routine. Insulting people and then crying about insults had always worked for you before, but it's backfiring on you, so now we're seeing your backside vanishing in the distance.
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 151,658
- 35,202
- 2,180
A rapid delta v does not give the biology of this planet time to adapt. That is why we see extinction events in prior times when there were rapid changes in the GHGs, both up and down.
Where's your evidence of that? do you have a historical record to show how CO2 can control anything? you know you don't. Thanks for opening the door for me.
The OP is not proven.
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 151,658
- 35,202
- 2,180
what is it you see on TV about global warming? Explain your position on this.
I see weatherpersons using temperature index rather than temperatures to show how warm they think it is. Funny stuff. So yours?
oldsoul
Gold Member
Now, I am confused. How does change in GHGs 30-50 years ago affect our climate, and therefore weather, today? You state that there is an increase in severity and quantity of weather events. So where was the energy for these stored? What evidence, as in links, do you have to substantiate your claims?
oldsoul
Gold Member
I will discuss your points when you can prove that you are capable of such a discussion without further insults.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economics 7004/The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect.pdf
A final nail in the coffin of scientific skepticism came in 2005, when a team compiled accurate long-term measurements of temperatures in all the world's ocean basins. It was not in the air but the massive oceans, after all, that most of any heat added would soon wind up. Indeed natural fluctuations had kept air temperatures roughly the same since the late 1990s; the significant question was whether the oceans were continuing to warm. The team found that over many decades the planet's content of heat-energy had been rising, and was rising still (this continued after 2005 as well). There was only one remotely plausible source of the colossal addition of energy: the Earth must be taking in more energy from sunlight than it was radiating back into space. Simple physics calculated that to heat all that sea water required nearly an extra watt per square meter, averaged over the planet's entire surface, year after year. The number was just what the elaborate greenhouse effect computations had been predicting for decades. James Hansen, leader of one of the studies, called the visible increase of the planet's heat content a "smoking gun" proof of greenhouse effect warming (see graph below). Moreover, in each separate ocean basin there was a close match between the pattern of rising temperatures measured at each location and depth and detailed model calculations of where the greenhouse effect warming should appear. Warming from other sources, for example a change in the Sun's output, could not produce these patterns. Evidently the modelers were on the right track.(56)
Very simply, most of the heat goes into the ocean. And then the oceans warm the atmosphere. That is one source of the lag. Another is that it takes time to melt permafrost and ice. And the results of that melting are more GHGs in the atmosphere, and more warming of the polar waters.
The site, by the way, is a product of the American Institute of Physics, the largest scientific society on earth.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Time-dependent climate sensitivity and the legacy of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions
Author Affiliations
- Edited by Robert E. Dickinson, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, and approved July 9, 2013 (received for review February 8, 2013)
Abstract
Climate sensitivity measures the response of Earth’s surface temperature to changes in forcing. The response depends on various climate processes that feed back on the initial forcing on different timescales. Understanding climate sensitivity is fundamental to reconstructing Earth’s climatic history as well as predicting future climate change. On timescales shorter than centuries, only fast climate feedbacks including water vapor, lapse rate, clouds, and snow/sea ice albedo are usually considered. However, on timescales longer than millennia, the generally higher Earth system sensitivity becomes relevant, including changes in ice sheets, vegetation, ocean circulation, biogeochemical cycling, etc. Here, I introduce the time-dependent climate sensitivity, which unifies fast-feedback and Earth system sensitivity. I show that warming projections, which include a time-dependent climate sensitivity, exhibit an enhanced feedback between surface warming and ocean CO2 solubility, which in turn leads to higher atmospheric CO2 levels and further warming. Compared with earlier studies, my results predict a much longer lifetime of human-induced future warming (23,000–165,000 y), which increases the likelihood of large ice sheet melting and major sea level rise. The main point regarding the legacy of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions is that, even if the fast-feedback sensitivity is no more than 3 K per CO2 doubling, there will likely be additional long-term warming from slow climate feedbacks. Time-dependent climate sensitivity also helps explaining intense and prolonged warming in response to massive carbon release as documented for past events such as the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum.
Time-dependent climate sensitivity and the legacy of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions
A paper from the National Academies of Science.
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 151,658
- 35,202
- 2,180
CO2
Abstract:
"In the official bogus "Greenhouse" theory with the "opaque to IR" glass, there is no stated mechanism by which a greenhouse can achieve equilibrium because as long as there is daylight, the ground will absorb SW energy and re-emit that as LW energy and the "greenhouse gases" will continue to absorb. This is explained away by the use of other fallacious terms such as "non-participating gases" and "logarithmic absorption". The sticking point with such fallacies is simply that any substance above 0 K is emitting IR. Infra-red is emitted at the speed of light. If a substance emits energy at the speed of light, it must be absorbing energy at the speed of light because if it were not then the "energy budget" for that substance would be net negative and the substance in question would quickly become frozen. This has been substantiated by experiments with solar ovens, which show how they can be used to make ice as well as cook food.
Logarithmic absorption by "Greenhouse Gases" is simply another device employed by the AGW fraud wizards to confuse the unsuspecting, it cannot be applied to a variable energy source such as the Sun."
Abstract:
"In the official bogus "Greenhouse" theory with the "opaque to IR" glass, there is no stated mechanism by which a greenhouse can achieve equilibrium because as long as there is daylight, the ground will absorb SW energy and re-emit that as LW energy and the "greenhouse gases" will continue to absorb. This is explained away by the use of other fallacious terms such as "non-participating gases" and "logarithmic absorption". The sticking point with such fallacies is simply that any substance above 0 K is emitting IR. Infra-red is emitted at the speed of light. If a substance emits energy at the speed of light, it must be absorbing energy at the speed of light because if it were not then the "energy budget" for that substance would be net negative and the substance in question would quickly become frozen. This has been substantiated by experiments with solar ovens, which show how they can be used to make ice as well as cook food.
Logarithmic absorption by "Greenhouse Gases" is simply another device employed by the AGW fraud wizards to confuse the unsuspecting, it cannot be applied to a variable energy source such as the Sun."
Similar threads
