Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating - no "lull"

[Toddsterpatriot]

I know, you never said how much the $10s of trillions in spending would reduce temps.
Here's your chance.

The number of unanswered questions is a great deal longer on YOUR side than on mine. I'll resume answering some of your questions when you've answered some of mine.

Additionally, I'm really not all that enthusiastic about participating in your red herring. You reject human causation. You therefore don't want to see a penny spent. Thus, your 'inquiry' on the economics is a pointless waste of my time. You don't put much value on the lives of others, do you.

I do value the lives of others. That's why I'm reluctant to spend $10s of trillions, to reduce temps in 2080 by some unknown amount.

If you're really worried about CO2, you'd support a giant expansion of nuclear energy.
Most greens claim CO2 is the worst thing ever, except for nuclear.
Where do you stand?

 

[Abraham3]

The article (from not one of your more objective blogs)

(NZZ AM SONNTAG): The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

(NZZ): That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

(EDENHOFER): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

(NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

*********************************************************************************

Edenhoffer is not saying that it is IPCC policy to redistribute wealth. He is saying that the world's climate policies - both what has existed in the past and what is hoped to exist in the future - redistribute wealth. Did you note his comment that the policies of the developed nations have appropriated the world's atmosphere while the new regime will appropriate the world's carbon by, in essence, paying resource rich nations to keep it in the ground. Did you note his many comments about the equivalence of environmental policy and economic policy?

Eh?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The article (from not one of your more objective blogs)

(NZZ AM SONNTAG): The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

(NZZ): That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

(EDENHOFER): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

(NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

*********************************************************************************

Edenhoffer is not saying that it is IPCC policy to redistribute wealth. He is saying that the world's climate policies - both what has existed in the past and what is hoped to exist in the future - redistribute wealth. Did you note his comment that the policies of the developed nations have appropriated the world's atmosphere while the new regime will appropriate the world's carbon by, in essence, paying resource rich nations to keep it in the ground. Did you note his many comments about the equivalence of environmental policy and economic policy?

Eh?

Is English not your first language?

The "Blog" I posted it from merely reported the interview, what the **** is your problem with that?

Find a grown up to read this to you, and switch off your Obama Context Filter, its ******* up your capacity to understand the written word

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."

 

[flacaltenn]

Oh quite clearly that would have to be the leap to hysteria.. Going from basic principles of a 1.1degC results for doubling CO2 to a whopping 3 or 4 degC by evoking a fragile climate climate theory that says we are sitting on a junker of a planet that will turn itself into a literal fuel-air bomb because of a 1.1degC "TRIGGER".. That's the AGW hysteria in a nutshell..

I already addressed this in a post above, but let me give you another opportunity to explain what the effect will be of our reduced albedo (loss of ice cover) and the increase of water vapor, methane and formerly sequestered CO2 released to the atmosphere by warming?

I've already told you what I believe a doubling of CO2 would do.. I do believe that man is OVERCHARGED for his contribution. Since we get the bill for cow farts and forest fires. But when Hansen switches from CO2 forcing to giving the AGW circus ammunition for claiming that ANY weather induced news event is scientific PROOF of "Global Weirding" --- that shows the desparation of his cause.. I just watched a Senate hearing with your comrades blaming the death of 19 firefighters in Arizona on CO2.. You don't think Hansen gave them that gun to shoot themselves in the foot?

Where does the energy that drives our weather come from?

1st point discussion..

So you are fan of the fragile earth litany? So life did not flourish when CO2 and GHgas concentrations were 10 times what they are today? While your science whores are pushing this fantasy of a GLOBAL Climate Sensitivity to explain all --- the reality is that different zones have different CLimate Sensitivities and that these vary hour to hour, season by season and by location.. Doesn't prevent warmers from invoking LOCAL effects when trying to bury evidence of a Med Warm Period does it?

Guess I just don't believe that winter weather in Tenn is gonna change much because there's an albedo effect from a foot of snow on the ground. Probably best to look at 8 other variables first..

2nd point discussion...

Where does the energy come from? Certainly not from the 1degF of warming in your lifetime.. And certainly not even as a sole function of temp. What does 1degF mean to a building thunderstorm? Will it force formation of tornadoes in the absence of a jet stream or high/low pressure flows? In the absence of humidity and a dry inflow? In the absence of skewed sources of winds?

We'd see a much higher effect on tropical storm formation if a 1degF change was all it took.. We know that from AMO and PDO events. There is SOME LIMITED effect. To make a 1degF change the immediate killer of 19 firefighters in Arizona takes a complete suspension of science..

BTW:: Where's my manners. Welcome to USMB.. As Westwall kinda implied.. We VALUE more of your persuasion here. It adds to our enjoyment and increases the rewarding humor that results.. (LOL)....

 

[Abraham3]

If you're really worried about CO2, you'd support a giant expansion of nuclear energy.
Most greens claim CO2 is the worst thing ever, except for nuclear.
Where do you stand?

You're still not answering my questions.

But, just to keep your ego in check, I strongly favor nuclear power.

 

[flacaltenn]

I know, you never said how much the $10s of trillions in spending would reduce temps.
Here's your chance.

The number of unanswered questions is a great deal longer on YOUR side than on mine. I'll resume answering some of your questions when you've answered some of mine.

Additionally, I'm really not all that enthusiastic about participating in your red herring. You reject human causation. You therefore don't want to see a penny spent. Thus, your 'inquiry' on the economics is a pointless waste of my time. You don't put much value on the lives of others, do you.

I do value the lives of others. That's why I'm reluctant to spend $10s of trillions, to reduce temps in 2080 by some unknown amount.

If you're really worried about CO2, you'd support a giant expansion of nuclear energy.
Most greens claim CO2 is the worst thing ever, except for nuclear.
Where do you stand?

Odds are --- he is more afraid of nuclear power than he is of condemning his offspring to "Global Weirding".

<<Edited>>

Oooopss. That's why I'm not a gambler... Ok -- then why dont' we drop the pretense that there IS a list of alternative energy and just build a couple 100 nuke plants today?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The number of unanswered questions is a great deal longer on YOUR side than on mine. I'll resume answering some of your questions when you've answered some of mine.

Additionally, I'm really not all that enthusiastic about participating in your red herring. You reject human causation. You therefore don't want to see a penny spent. Thus, your 'inquiry' on the economics is a pointless waste of my time. You don't put much value on the lives of others, do you.

I do value the lives of others. That's why I'm reluctant to spend $10s of trillions, to reduce temps in 2080 by some unknown amount.

If you're really worried about CO2, you'd support a giant expansion of nuclear energy.
Most greens claim CO2 is the worst thing ever, except for nuclear.
Where do you stand?

You're still not answering my questions.

But, just to keep your ego in check, I strongly favor nuclear power.

Excellent! You're not the typical lefty idiot.

So after we spend your recommended $10s of trillions, how much lower will CO2 be in 2080, versus doing nothing?

How much lower the temp, versus doing nothing?
Show me what we're buying with your watermelon spending.

 

[westwall]

Yet another sock.

Are you always that rude?

How many do you clowns need to make you feel better about yourselves?

I seem to be doing quite well all by myself thank you. How many deniers am I debating today?

Doesn't matter though, the population of the world has pretty much figured out you're not relevant anymore so are ignoring you.

They never were paying sufficient attention. I hope, however, you're not getting the idea that they're now listening to you.

Now it's just the fraudsters and the anti-science religious fanatics who support AGW now.

I don't know who you're talking about, but I share views with 97% of the world's active climate scientists. How many scientists agree with you?

Yes, I am always that rude to anti-science religious fanatics. I can't stand twerps like you. We have 30 years of data now that shows AGW "theory" to be false. Further we have ten years of outright data manipulation and falsification by clowns like you in a vain attempt to prop up your fraud. You have done incalculable damage to science because of your lack of ethics.

I don't give a toss about your pathetic appeals to authority. The 97% figure is a fraud (as you bloody well know) and who cares what they say, they pushed a paper through peer review that was destroyed in 10 hours by a mere statistician. With that sort of record who would ever listen to idiots like that.

You, and idiots like you..that's who.

 

[Abraham3]

Is English not your first language?

Why, yes it is. You?

The "Blog" I posted it from merely reported the interview, what the **** is your problem with that?

It was the "Blog" that reported the comment to reflect IPCC policy. Do you actually think you can get objective information from a source with such an open and severe bias?

Find a grown up to read this to you, and switch off your Obama Context Filter, its ******* up your capacity to understand the written word

So, you missed the comments about the equivalence of economic and environmental policy, didn't you. You misunderstood that Edenhoffer was talking about the world's environmental policy and not the IPCC's. Got it.

 

[Abraham3]

1st point discussion..

So you are fan of the fragile earth litany?

I have no idea what you mean by that term, but I think it very likely you're incorrect but that will not slow you in the least from trying to put words into my mouth.

So life did not flourish when CO2 and GHgas concentrations were 10 times what they are today?

Not unexpectedly, I never said any such thing.

While your science whores are pushing this fantasy of a GLOBAL Climate Sensitivity to explain all --- the reality is that different zones have different CLimate Sensitivities and that these vary hour to hour, season by season and by location.. Doesn't prevent warmers from invoking LOCAL effects when trying to bury evidence of a Med Warm Period does it?

I don't understand your point nor the anger with which you present it. What is the value of regional parameters in a long view of global climate? Our atmosphere knows no boundaries.

Guess I just don't believe that winter weather in Tenn is gonna change much because there's an albedo effect from a foot of snow on the ground. Probably best to look at 8 other variables first..

My apologies that the world and the processes it hosts are as complex as they are. Life's a *****, ain't it.

2nd point discussion...

Where does the energy come from? Certainly not from the 1degF of warming in your lifetime.. And certainly not even as a sole function of temp. What does 1degF mean to a building thunderstorm? Will it force formation of tornadoes in the absence of a jet stream or high/low pressure flows? In the absence of humidity and a dry inflow? In the absence of skewed sources of winds?

The energy for all weather comes from the sun. It gets into our storms and hurricanes, typhoons and gentle zephyrs by warming the atmosphere and, more importantly, the oceans. The items you mention are the details. The only point I would make here is that if you increase the thermal energy content of the atmosphere and the ocean, you will increase the energy content of the world's weather. The point is not debatable. The reason it is not more obvious than it is is that we're just getting started and the weather is a system with an enormous amount of natural variation - chaos embodied.

By the way, have you ever figured out how much energy is contained in a 1F change in the temperature of the world's oceans and seas?

To make a 1degF change the immediate killer of 19 firefighters in Arizona takes a complete suspension of science.

I have not seen the event to which you refer, but the effect on the world's precipitation and fire risk indices that global warming has produced have been significant. There HAS been an increase in the number of wildfires over the last 50 years. What I wonder is why you get so hot under the collar at this statement.

BTW:: Where's my manners. Welcome to USMB.. As Westwall kinda implied.. We VALUE more of your persuasion here. It adds to our enjoyment and increases the rewarding humor that results.. (LOL)....

You're welcome. And much obliged for the argument.

 

[Abraham3]

Excellent! You're not the typical lefty idiot.

But you, on the other hand... (please pardon my lack of appreciation for your condescension)

So after we spend your recommended $10s of trillions, how much lower will CO2 be in 2080, versus doing nothing? How much lower the temp, versus doing nothing?
Show me what we're buying with your watermelon spending.

You answer my questions, then I answer your questions. That's how it works. Otherwise, it doesn't.

 

[Abraham3]

Yes, I am always that rude to anti-science religious fanatics.

Well, forewarned is forearmed.

I can't stand twerps like you.

I, on the other hand, love running into ignorant fools like you.

We have 30 years of data now that shows AGW "theory" to be false.

No, you do not,

Further we have ten years of outright data manipulation and falsification by clowns like you in a vain attempt to prop up your fraud.

No, you do not. For one, I am not a climate scientist. And... I take it neither are you.

You have done incalculable damage to science because of your lack of ethics.

Says the Luddite with the hand grenade.

I don't give a toss about your pathetic appeals to authority. The 97% figure is a fraud (as you bloody well know) and who cares what they say, they pushed a paper through peer review that was destroyed in 10 hours by a mere statistician. With that sort of record who would ever listen to idiots like that.

Hmm... other scientists?

You, and idiots like you..that's who.

Odd that you hold such an opinion of the world's scientists but seek to defend them from the harm you perceive them suffering at the hands of the climatologists. Are the world's scientists smart or stupid? Are they honest people or scamming crooks? And, just out of curiosity, what might be the qualifications that allow you to come to valid conclusions on these questions? Why should we take your word for it when you've not presented one iota of evidence for any of the host of absurd charges you've made?

Eh?

 

[flacaltenn]

Why do you stop at 22,000 yrs??

That is the beginning of the Holocene Epoch; a good representation of the era of the "modern human" and, more specifically, the era since the end of the last full up ice age. It is also the period covered by two works: A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years at A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years and Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

Both these works use a broad range of proxies to do a thorough and very careful temperature reconstruction: the former from the present back to 11,300 years, the latter between 22,000 and 11,000 year BP. That's why I chose 22,000 years.

A series of iceball events are TYPICAL for CO2 forcing?? Is that your contention? That's the almost absolute ice/thaw condition of the past 22,000 yrs is similiar to today's climate?

My apologies for any confusion, but I never said any such thing. What I said is that evidence (those studies) indicate that the Earth has not experienced the warming rate we've seen over the last 150 years, at any time in the prior 22,000. The current warming rate is unprecedented in that period. Is that more clear?



Thank you for bringing that up. The temporal resolution of the two studies are approximately 300 years. Obviously, that is greater than 150 years and an increase such as we have experienced in the last century and a half would go unnoted in such a record... save for one thing. What goes up must come back down. For an event such as the current warming to be indiscernible in Shakun and Marcott's records, temperatures would have to rise AND FALL in less than 300 years. That, I'm afraid, violates several laws of physics. CO2, whether the initiating cause or driven out of natural sequestration by temperatures raised by other means, has a mean lifetime of many centuries. Even if all radiative forcing could be instantly terminated by some means, the world's mass will simply not cool off that fast.

A bunch of signal processing expertise says you're wrong about devining stuff from a 300 yr resolution record. If temperatures rose and fell within 300 yrs, you STILL would have no knowledge of them. That would be called aliasing. You might even see transients shorter than that period in the data that don't really exist. Which is the main prob with using ice cores to make your assertion. As for the physics of it -- perhaps the dinosaurs were massively deforesting and farting simultaneously. We'll never know from the ice cores.. But you have NO basis to imply that physics THEN limited the rate of rise but does not do so today.


As you know, that would be forcing SOLELY from Greenhouse effects of increased CO2. That does not take into account the very real world effects that serve to amplify warming via positive feedback mechanism: increased temps increase evaporation and water vapor is a potent GHG. Reduced ice cover world wide lead to reduced albedo and increased absorption off solar radiation. Increased temperatures are melting the world's tundra - exposing an ENORMOUS supply of methane (another potent GHG) and CO2. And, as you already know, taking those into account give a climate sensitivity closer to 3C/doubling.



Do you reject the existence and function of these amplifying mechanisms? If so, explain what is happening to solar radiation that strikes earth, rock and deep water where it used to strike ice and snow. Please explain why the water vapor, methane and CO2 released by warming does not enhance the Greenhouse Efffect already taking place.

When we complete the current doubling to 500ppm or thereabouts --- say in 2040 --- are you suggesting we get to 1000ppm by 2080 because of the giant fuel-air bomb theory? Thankfully we don't argue about the net product of the CURRENT doubling being 1.1degC (approx).. So have you calculated the NEXT doubling? How does that get us to 4degC rise? I doubt the higher Clim. Sens. numbers intensely. You KNOW that a major debate point is STILL TODAY the role of water vapor and ionic activation of clouds. Or even IF increased water vapor is net positive..

My skepticism was bolstered by observing the uncomfortable manuevering currently goin on in the Warmer camp about "natural forcings" and "thermal storage".. Runaway warming implies it should have happened before. Unless, it happened at such an early phase in the planet history that the "bomb" didn't exist. Highly unlikely then --- unlikely now.

What I believe is we have only had space platforms for doing an accurate analysis of the climate up for 30 years.. Good REALTIME platforms for about 1/2 of that time. I doubt the accuracy of the proxies to make the current claims I'm hearing. And my bet is that we have wasted much time on proxy arguments. A simple shift in solar spectral output would modulate the GreenHouse ENOUGH to explain the diff between TSI and the 300 yr temp rise. We have only had 15 years of observation. And with the "REVELATION" that earth has abundant thermal inertia ---- the "pause" in TSI matching the pause in temp rise is just as good handwaving as the fuel-air bomb theory...




These are not new concepts and they are certainly not being used in an ad hoc basis. Did someone put forth a theory that the deep ocean was storing heat before it was found there? Was it theorized that the current hiatus was due to vulcanism and ENSO before the data were examined?

If you think the current hiatus is some make-or-break event for the theory of AGW, please look at the 1941-1979 period I have noted before. The current behavior of the current climate is NOT unprecedented; it is NOT outside the range of normal variation.



Do you have some sort of problem with dendrochronology. Have you done any paleoclimatological reconstructions yourself? Why, precisely, do you make this remark?



I am unfamiliar with this specific reference but surely you understand that data of all sort is frequently corrected and adjusted for known or discovered errors in the collection systems. Are you under the impression that every measuring device ever created produces perfect results? Are you opposed to calibration in general or simply when it provides you something about which to complain?

Emailing each other to rig the publication process??

I believe you will find that the discussion to which you refer was intended to improve the quality of information available. And if we are not allowed to gripe, *****, moan and complain about that for which we do not care, where would places like this forum go?

What took this LONG to get them to THINK like scientists???
That's what enquiring minds want to know...

The problem is manifold: they ARE scientists but they are also quite human. They are opposed by a very well funded disinformation campaign put on by the fossil fuel industry which has no problem whatsoever taking advantage of the public's general ignorance of science. Research scientists are not accustomed to the jobs of spokesman, advocate, salesman or live debater. Thus they suffer from a great deal of frustration and it occasionally shows up. I also get frustrated. I look at the world we are going to leave my children and it makes me very, very unhappy. When folks, like you and others, actively work against doing what the human race so obviously needs to do, it makes me very frustrated as well. I occasionally lose my temper. My apologies in advance if it should come to that.

BTW, to all of you, thanks for the debate

Run out of ability to parse the discussion with the nesting here. Comments in Red above.

Dendochronology?? LOL... I don't argue about ice.. And I don't argue about trees being thermometers..

What's the phrase? "I think that I shall never see, a thermometer as bad as a tree."
The length of mud holes due to snails also cracks me up when divining a couple degrees of temp...

 

[flacaltenn]

1st point discussion..

So you are fan of the fragile earth litany?

I have no idea what you mean by that term, but I think it very likely you're incorrect but that will not slow you in the least from trying to put words into my mouth.



Not unexpectedly, I never said any such thing.



I don't understand your point nor the anger with which you present it. What is the value of regional parameters in a long view of global climate? Our atmosphere knows no boundaries.



My apologies that the world and the processes it hosts are as complex as they are. Life's a *****, ain't it.



The energy for all weather comes from the sun. It gets into our storms and hurricanes, typhoons and gentle zephyrs by warming the atmosphere and, more importantly, the oceans. The items you mention are the details. The only point I would make here is that if you increase the thermal energy content of the atmosphere and the ocean, you will increase the energy content of the world's weather. The point is not debatable. The reason it is not more obvious than it is is that we're just getting started and the weather is a system with an enormous amount of natural variation - chaos embodied.

By the way, have you ever figured out how much energy is contained in a 1F change in the temperature of the world's oceans and seas?

To make a 1degF change the immediate killer of 19 firefighters in Arizona takes a complete suspension of science.

I have not seen the event to which you refer, but the effect on the world's precipitation and fire risk indices that global warming has produced have been significant. There HAS been an increase in the number of wildfires over the last 50 years. What I wonder is why you get so hot under the collar at this statement.

BTW:: Where's my manners. Welcome to USMB.. As Westwall kinda implied.. We VALUE more of your persuasion here. It adds to our enjoyment and increases the rewarding humor that results.. (LOL)....

You're welcome. And much obliged for the argument.

Don't know why you suddenly don't know much... LOL...

There were actual questions in there --- which you ignored..

Yes I'm aware of how many Hiroshima bombs AGW temp rise is equivalent to --- your circus has already tried that frightening tactic on me and failed..

I guess even tho you deflected on what ACTUALLY drives weather --- you should know why I'm angry about a Global Climate Sensitivity.. Same reason I'm angry about a Global Mean Surface Temp number driving the ENTIRE public discussion as tho no textbooks on Atmos Physics was ever written.. It's a silly and stupid ploy intended to pkg this farce for public consumption.. A Global Climate sensitivity makes NO SENSE in defining the weather resulting from a 1degC rise. That GLOBAL 1degC temp rise --- tells you NOTHING about identifying the COSTS of AGW that (could) happen REGIONALLY. (your current debate with Toddster shows you not to be TOO concerned about that $Trill is redistributed to UN welfare cases).

But to come up a with a GLOBAL NUMBER varying between 1.5 and 4 or 5 is actually hysterically funny considering what that ONE NUMBER purports to represent.. If you don't get the scientific humor in that attempt.. You're not thinking hard enough..

 

[flacaltenn]

See now Abraham?? This is what Toddster is trying to school you about.. ^^^^^^^^

3 or 4 of MY quotes are GONE from the post above. Because they are not HARD LINKED back to the source.. Damned if I'm gonna spend my time retrieving and remarking them.. Not preparing a draft for pub. here.. Don't want to have to mess with tracking formatting...


"fragile earth theory" --- the belief that a 1.1degC change in temp forcing will trigger catastrophic events due to multiplication of the temperature forcing power of GreenHouse conditions. The idea that all feedbacks are net HIGHLY positive.. That this planet is a giant fuel-air bomb and a marginal increase in CO2 ALONE is the trigger..

Why didn't this happen when life flourished on the planet and atmos CO2 levels were 10 times higher than today?

 

[itfitzme]

Odd that you hold such an opinion of the world's scientists but seek to defend them from the harm you perceive them suffering at the hands of the climatologists. Are the world's scientists smart or stupid? Are they honest people or scamming crooks? And, just out of curiosity, what might be the qualifications that allow you to come to valid conclusions on these questions? Why should we take your word for it when you've not presented one iota of evidence for any of the host of absurd charges you've made?

You may wish to torture yourself through the threads linked below. They are busily mangling scence, in a feable attempt to "prove" AWG and climate change is not a fact.

One doesn't think plants get their carbon from CO2, after all, it isn't the CO2 cycle, it is the CARBON cycle. Then there is an attempt at applying thermodynamics to individual atoms and molecules.

Of course, you may have caught a clue that one member's entire schtick is to ask non-sequiter questions while having little actual information to provide. He "thinks" he is magically beaming the answer into your head.

You'll love it.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...dioxide-to-the-atmosphere-is-what-we-155.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/297165-the-global-warming-thread-is-it-for-real.html

 

[Abraham3]

A bunch of signal processing expertise says you're wrong about devining stuff from a 300 yr resolution record. If temperatures rose and fell within 300 yrs, you STILL would have no knowledge of them.

My point was that such a blip could not take place within 300 years. A thousand would be a good MINIMUM. There is no mechanism to rid the atmosphere of GHGs nor for the oceans to cool in anywhere near enough time.

I am a former submarine sonar technician with a degree in Ocean Engineering. I've been working in naval sensor system performance analysis for many years. I have some familiarity with signal processing.

That would be called aliasing. You might even see transients shorter than that period in the data that don't really exist. Which is the main prob with using ice cores to make your assertion.

Shakun and Marcott used a large number of disparate proxies and assembled their data with some very sophisticated functions. The 300 year resolution of their data is quite robust.

As for the physics of it -- perhaps the dinosaurs were massively deforesting and farting simultaneously.

22,000 years does not take us back to the dinosaurs. It doesn't even take us out of homo sapiens.

We'll never know from the ice cores.

The ice cores tell us what they tell us. Their resolution is limited by diffusion which increases with age, even at the bottom of Vostok, there is meaningful data.

But you have NO basis to imply that physics THEN limited the rate of rise but does not do so today.[/COLOR]

That's not what I said. Physics limits the rebound. The world could not have experienced a climb like the one we've seen and then cool off, all in less than 300 years.

When we complete the current doubling to 500ppm or thereabouts --- say in 2040 --- are you suggesting we get to 1000ppm by 2080 because of the giant fuel-air bomb theory?

No. I'm suggesting logarithmic warming from the multiple positive reinforcement mechanisms.

Thankfully we don't argue about the net product of the CURRENT doubling being 1.1degC (approx)..

I'm afraid we do. The reinforcement mechanisms are already in swing. Data indicate that the actual, real world climate sensitivity is approximately 3C/doubling. Calculating the sensitivity parameter solely of CO2 has no value outside the lab.

So have you calculated the NEXT doubling? How does that get us to 4degC rise? I doubt the higher Clim. Sens. numbers intensely. You KNOW that a major debate point is STILL TODAY the role of water vapor and ionic activation of clouds. Or even IF increased water vapor is net positive..

Really? I have no doubt that water vapor produces an increase in radiative forcing. It absorbs infrared radiation at a tremendous rate.

My skepticism was bolstered by observing the uncomfortable manuevering currently goin on in the Warmer camp about "natural forcings" and "thermal storage".

You have mentioned these terms before. How about explaining to what they refer?

Runaway warming implies it should have happened before. Unless, it happened at such an early phase in the planet history that the "bomb" didn't exist. Highly unlikely then --- unlikely now.

The last time the amount of carbon we now emit to the atmosphere was released from sequestration at the rate we now do so was the KT boundary incident. The evidence available indicates that was not a good time for the biota of ol' Planet Earth

What I believe is we have only had space platforms for doing an accurate analysis of the climate up for 30 years.. Good REALTIME platforms for about 1/2 of that time.

Are you a Roy Spencer fan?

I doubt the accuracy of the proxies to make the current claims I'm hearing.

Why? And if you reject them then you have NO data past the instrumented record. Do you find that preferable?

And my bet is that we have wasted much time on proxy arguments.

So do I, but likely for different reasons. I keep hearing arguments about climate conditions in the past from folks on your side of the argument. The point they try to make with it (without hardly EVER coming out and saying it) is that if temperatures were high in the prehuman past, the current situation couldn't be caused by humans. I certainly hope you're smart enough to see the gaping logical hole in that position.

A simple shift in solar spectral output would modulate the GreenHouse ENOUGH to explain the diff between TSI and the 300 yr temp rise.

No it wouldn't.

We have only had 15 years of observation.

Space based observations of TSI began in 1978 - 34 years ago. And as soon as we had direct, unobstructed observations, the accuracy of proxy data went up dramatically.

And with the "REVELATION" that earth has abundant thermal inertia ---- the "pause" in TSI matching the pause in temp rise is just as good handwaving as the fuel-air bomb theory...

I'm afraid this is something else upon which you will have to elaborate. I am unfamiliar with the concept (at least as you seem to be using it) of thermal inertia.

 

[Abraham3]

Don't know why you suddenly don't know much... LOL...

Because I am new to this board and we do not have a common set of experiences.

There were actual questions in there --- which you ignored..

I think most of the ones I ignored were based on misconceptions of my positions. For instance, because I believe climate sensitivity is closer to 3.0C than the 1.1C you suggest, I do not require insane levels of CO2 to get the warming I fear is going to take place. Thus all your questions as to where all that CO2 is going to come from were moot.

Yes I'm aware of how many Hiroshima bombs AGW temp rise is equivalent to --- your circus has already tried that frightening tactic on me and failed.

I wasn't attempting to frighten you. I was attempting to counter your contention that a 1F rise in temperature was trivial. You tried to suggest that a 1F change could not affect the weather. Come back down to Florida and compare hurricane intensity to sea surface temperature and see what you get.

I guess even tho you deflected on what ACTUALLY drives weather --- you should know why I'm angry about a Global Climate Sensitivity.. Same reason I'm angry about a Global Mean Surface Temp number driving the ENTIRE public discussion as tho no textbooks on Atmos Physics was ever written.. It's a silly and stupid ploy intended to pkg this farce for public consumption..

I have never seen anyone in the climatology field attempt to define global warming solely on surface temperature. It is certainly very common knowledge in the field that the ocean, by a large margin, is the most significant player and all the major data references push combined land/sea indices. The only person I've ever noted using that sort of chicanery is Roy Spencer, who constantly attempts to use the Tropospheric numbers his satellites give him as a stand in for a true global temperature. As you may know, Spencer is a climate change denier of the first water.

And I didn't "DEFLECT" jack.

A Global Climate sensitivity makes NO SENSE in defining the weather resulting from a 1degC rise. That GLOBAL 1degC temp rise --- tells you NOTHING about identifying the COSTS of AGW that (could) happen REGIONALLY. (your current debate with Toddster .

I'm uncertain what you're saying here. I did not use climate sensitivity in my attempt to calculate the cost of global warming harm. However, you would use sensitivity to predict a temperature given a specific emissions scenario and from that could estimate effects and the cost thereof.

As to your comment concerning "UN welfare cases", I choose not to go there. Yet.

But to come up a with a GLOBAL NUMBER varying between 1.5 and 4 or 5 is actually hysterically funny considering what that ONE NUMBER purports to represent.. If you don't get the scientific humor in that attempt.. You're not thinking hard enough..

Perhaps because I don't find humorous what that number tells us is going to happen, particularly if we continue to be distracted and deceived by people passing along bad information, denigrating good science and good scientists and, apparently, being more concerned about the welfare of their own checkbooks than the very lives of their children and their children's children.

 

[Gardener]

most of the hotest years on record are during the 21st century.

 

[Abraham3]

See now Abraham?? This is what Toddster is trying to school you about.. ^^^^^^^^

All that's required is that you retain the number at the tail end of the QUOTE tag.

"fragile earth theory" --- the belief that a 1.1degC change in temp forcing will trigger catastrophic events due to multiplication of the temperature forcing power of GreenHouse conditions. The idea that all feedbacks are net HIGHLY positive.. That this planet is a giant fuel-air bomb and a marginal increase in CO2 ALONE is the trigger..

Why didn't this happen when life flourished on the planet and atmos CO2 levels were 10 times higher than today?

I am unfamiliar with anyone pushing 1.1C as a threshold value for temperature change or for climate sensitivity - I'm not sure which you mean. I have always heard 2C as the change we should try to avoid and 3C has been the centroid of the accepted climate sensitivity for a great long while.

There are large differences between the current situation and what has happened on this planet in the past. In the majority of occasions, global temperature rises have been caused by orbital fluctuations or, perhaps, by solar variances. The rate at which temperatures have altered have been far, far lower than what we are currently experiencing. The slow rates of change have allowed significant adaptation to take place. And, as I pointed out earlier about the LIA, the effect of these changes were not typically as benign to the biosphere as some folks would like to believe. The first evidence of many of these events was not temperature data from proxies but evidence of mass extinctions in the fossil record.