Global Warming Update

[flacaltenn]

Here is the problem for the deniers. Flat and Walleyes have been predicting a cooling trend. Now with an El Nino imminent, they can see that this year, and next year, also, will be warm. Maybe much warmer than 1998, 2005, or 2010. And there goes not only their 'pause', but also, their cooling trend. So now you see them starting to talk about 100,000 year warming trends and other total nonsense.

Look up the Milankovic Cycles and see where we are in those cycles. We really should be in a cooling trend. Not only a lower Total Solar Irradiance, but also India and China mucking up the atmosphere with particulates that reflect the sunlight ( See Dr. James Hansen's article, The Faustian Bargain). We should be cooling, but we are not.

Do me a favor GoldiRocks -- and quit lying about what I've been saying. Not at all interested in making year by year predictions like you are.. Aint' no cooling trend in my tea leaves unless the solar guys are right and we are heading for another Solar Min. Unlike YOU -- I'll wait 'til that's clear before I join the lemmings..

 

[Old Rocks]

What is clear is that we have had a trend for over 100 years of warming. And that trend is accelerating. Also, the absorption spectrum of the GHGs have been known since 1859. Enough so that Arrhenius predicted the amount of warming from the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere pretty accurately in 1896. Now we are seeing the end of the Arctic Ice, and an increase in the amount of extreme weather events. Much sooner than even the 'alarmists' predicted.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I dont understand why you guys are arguing science with the deniers. First they are not scientists. Second, they dont believe scientists. Third, they base their arguments against scientists on...wait for it....SCIENCE! Yeah, just try and wrap your head around that one.

They believe that since they dont understand the science then that means the science is NOT TRUE. Why? Because their gut says its not.

So they are forced to give you an arguement thats based in science but only some science and gut feelings, mix in some jabs at Al Gore and unproven smears that scientists only science for money. Again not all of them, just the ones their gut tells them.

It's pointless

The study of the sun's activity through sunspots and it's proven effect on the earth's climate is a SCIENCE that is backed by more years of research than climate change. In fact I trust a science that has a longer history of unbiased research over any global warming trend who's study can't seem to separate itself from financial political influence.

You must repeat this but you cannot prove this. Which means you are dismissing science based on your gut. Thats not science works buddy.

Also the length of time of research has nothing to do with anything unless you were planning a birthday party

The length of time through unbiased research, vs political influence has everything to do with a little known word I like to call "credibility" ... something you have a hard time coming to grips with. If you don't think decades of research is science, then I doubt you really have the slightest clue as to what actual science really is. Decades of study is simply more reliable when trying to base your knowledge on actual fact, anything less is merely unproven opinion. Anyone with some common sense knows this to be true.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The study of the sun's activity through sunspots and it's proven effect on the earth's climate is a SCIENCE that is backed by more years of research than climate change. In fact I trust a science that has a longer history of unbiased research over any global warming trend who's study can't seem to separate itself from financial political influence.

You must repeat this but you cannot prove this. Which means you are dismissing science based on your gut. Thats not science works buddy.

Also the length of time of research has nothing to do with anything unless you were planning a birthday party

The length of time through unbiased research, vs political influence has everything to do with a little known word I like to call "credibility" ... something you have a hard time coming to grips with. If you don't think decades of research is science, then I doubt you really have the slightest clue as to what actual science really is. Decades of study is simply more reliable when trying to base your knowledge on actual fact, anything less is merely unproven opinion. Anyone with some common sense knows this to be true.

You forgot to prove your political influence changes the science talking points. I'm sure you just forgot its not like you're lying or anything.

you'll get right around to it any day now

 

[frigidweirdo]

So, you're claiming that CO2 at double the amount in the atmosphere will only be a 1.2 degree rise in temperatures?

Okay, let's see you evidence.

Also, what do you think a 1.2 degree rise will do to the earth?

Current sea level rise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




So, since 1950 we've seen a rise of about 0.6 degrees in temperature and a rise of 3 inches in sea level. So double that and we're looking at a rise of 6 more inches.


What it could be like if it gets way too high.

If the projected temperature from Doubling CO2 was just the "CO2 only" contribution -- it wouldn't even be making the news. Because the NEXT doubling takes CO2 from about 560ppm to 1120ppm --- FAAAAR into the future.

The 1.2degC is the generally agreeded upon number for CO2 only influence.

CO2 no-feedback sensitivity | Climate Etc.

The IPCC TAR adopted the value of 3.7 W/m2 for the direct CO2 forcing, and I could not find an updated value from the AR4. This forcing translates into 1C of surface temperature change. These numbers do not seem to be disputed, even by most skeptics. Well, perhaps they should be disputed.

Even the cult leader James Hansen started this out by saying..

CO2 would directly cause about 1.2ºC of warming if it doubled, without any feedbacks Hansen 1984

This is referred to in GW folklore as "the trigger".. I'll accept the "trigger" or something less than that -- but the rest of the Magic Multiplier are far from "settled science".. Even the latest IPCC report has a HUGE range on the feedback effects from a CO2 doubling. Not an indication of "settled science" either.

No Magic Multipliers -- no crisis. And we'd be spending time fixing REAL PROBLEMS in the environment. We SEEN AND OBSERVED warming more like this simple Doubling number than ANY GW model has projected. About 0.6degC in your lifetime.

Sea level rise since pre-industrial has not accelerated much at all. EVENTUALLY, it will. Because the Climate is rising from the Little Ice Age and the effect of temperature on SLevel rise is highly non-linear. Ice melts at 32degF.. THAT'S when the seas rise. And even at the rate in the 1800s, Greenland would eventually start seeing more months at 32degF or above..

I believe we are in a warming trend, that CO2 is small effect on that rise. And that all those "magic multipliers" are too poorly conceived and modeled to be believed. Because if the Earth Climate System was THAT UNSTABLE -- where a couple degree rise would drive it into Runaway Warming -- we wouldn't be here today to argue about it.[/QUOTE]

You say we're in a heating period. I disagree. I think we should be in a cooling period.

Such a charge shows the ups and down. We should have hit the peak and should be on the way down, not the way up. Never has the temperature gone above the initial peak.

What seems to be the case with natural global warming is, the temperatures rise, CO2 rises, causing more warming. Then it just goes up and up and up and then suddenly stops and temperatures just drop.

The rise in temperatures once the rise in CO2 gets going has seen up to a 12 degrees (Celsius) rise in temperatures within a 10,000 year period.

This happened with a rise in CO2 of from about 180 to 300. That's a rise of 120ppmv.

We peaked at what should have been our maximum CO2 level and temperature level. Things should be going down, not necessarily always going down, but having a downward spiral.

Now, if we were to see a rise of CO2 to say 600ppmv, where would we be?

It's hard to know. This chart suggests that historically it is going to be difficult to predict. Because at times CO2 levels hit 7000ppmv and temperatures were only a few degrees higher than what they are now. There were times when high temperatures saw low CO2 levels.
The problem appears to be understanding why temperatures and CO2 did what they did back then, and now they seem to be more consistent. Either that or we simply have bad data from such a long time ago.

 

[flacaltenn]

So, you're claiming that CO2 at double the amount in the atmosphere will only be a 1.2 degree rise in temperatures?

Okay, let's see you evidence.

Also, what do you think a 1.2 degree rise will do to the earth?

Current sea level rise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




So, since 1950 we've seen a rise of about 0.6 degrees in temperature and a rise of 3 inches in sea level. So double that and we're looking at a rise of 6 more inches.


What it could be like if it gets way too high.

If the projected temperature from Doubling CO2 was just the "CO2 only" contribution -- it wouldn't even be making the news. Because the NEXT doubling takes CO2 from about 560ppm to 1120ppm --- FAAAAR into the future.

The 1.2degC is the generally agreeded upon number for CO2 only influence.

CO2 no-feedback sensitivity | Climate Etc.

The IPCC TAR adopted the value of 3.7 W/m2 for the direct CO2 forcing, and I could not find an updated value from the AR4. This forcing translates into 1C of surface temperature change. These numbers do not seem to be disputed, even by most skeptics. Well, perhaps they should be disputed.

Even the cult leader James Hansen started this out by saying..

CO2 would directly cause about 1.2ºC of warming if it doubled, without any feedbacks Hansen 1984

This is referred to in GW folklore as "the trigger".. I'll accept the "trigger" or something less than that -- but the rest of the Magic Multiplier are far from "settled science".. Even the latest IPCC report has a HUGE range on the feedback effects from a CO2 doubling. Not an indication of "settled science" either.

No Magic Multipliers -- no crisis. And we'd be spending time fixing REAL PROBLEMS in the environment. We SEEN AND OBSERVED warming more like this simple Doubling number than ANY GW model has projected. About 0.6degC in your lifetime.

Sea level rise since pre-industrial has not accelerated much at all. EVENTUALLY, it will. Because the Climate is rising from the Little Ice Age and the effect of temperature on SLevel rise is highly non-linear. Ice melts at 32degF.. THAT'S when the seas rise. And even at the rate in the 1800s, Greenland would eventually start seeing more months at 32degF or above..

I believe we are in a warming trend, that CO2 is small effect on that rise. And that all those "magic multipliers" are too poorly conceived and modeled to be believed. Because if the Earth Climate System was THAT UNSTABLE -- where a couple degree rise would drive it into Runaway Warming -- we wouldn't be here today to argue about it.

You say we're in a heating period. I disagree. I think we should be in a cooling period.

Such a charge shows the ups and down. We should have hit the peak and should be on the way down, not the way up. Never has the temperature gone above the initial peak.

What seems to be the case with natural global warming is, the temperatures rise, CO2 rises, causing more warming. Then it just goes up and up and up and then suddenly stops and temperatures just drop.

The rise in temperatures once the rise in CO2 gets going has seen up to a 12 degrees (Celsius) rise in temperatures within a 10,000 year period.

This happened with a rise in CO2 of from about 180 to 300. That's a rise of 120ppmv.

We peaked at what should have been our maximum CO2 level and temperature level. Things should be going down, not necessarily always going down, but having a downward spiral.

Now, if we were to see a rise of CO2 to say 600ppmv, where would we be?

It's hard to know. This chart suggests that historically it is going to be difficult to predict. Because at times CO2 levels hit 7000ppmv and temperatures were only a few degrees higher than what they are now. There were times when high temperatures saw low CO2 levels.
The problem appears to be understanding why temperatures and CO2 did what they did back then, and now they seem to be more consistent. Either that or we simply have bad data from such a long time ago.

It's difficult to predict because Climate Science has wasted so much time and public arm-twisting on CO2.. Instead of LEARNING TO PREDICT the hows and whens of the natural cycles that take us in and out of Ice Ages. Your view of ANOTHER inevitable "Ice Age" with mile deep glaciers is chilling (pun intended). But from a Systems Theory point of view, a system that oscillating nicely -- tends to stay oscillating nicely or "the ringing" dies out slowly over MANY cycles of up/down..

CO2 could someday be our ONLY defense against City-Eating glaciers -- if you are right. Although we manufacture some REALLY Bad Ass Shit that's 1000s of times more powerful as a GHGas..

 

[Old Rocks]

By the normal cycles, that would be at least another ten thousand years in the future, more than likely 20. If you look at the cycles of glacial and interglacial periods, you will note that the descent into the glacial is slow, while the warming is quite rapid.

But it is not going to happen on schedule, as the GHGs that we have already put into the atmosphere will warm things for hundreds of years.

 

[flacaltenn]

By the normal cycles, that would be at least another ten thousand years in the future, more than likely 20. If you look at the cycles of glacial and interglacial periods, you will note that the descent into the glacial is slow, while the warming is quite rapid.

But it is not going to happen on schedule, as the GHGs that we have already put into the atmosphere will warm things for hundreds of years.

Worried about you a bit Rocks. 2 or 3 of those thermal peaks were LESS than 10,000 yrs. US?? According to that chart and the big guess that history will repeat??? Could happen in the next millenia.... And there is not that much difference in slope on either side for major changes. The total cold periods are longer and more varied in level, but our version of "normal" is dissapointly short and rare.

 

[whitehall]

Mitchell Zuckoff's great true account of the downing and subsequent search for American planes lost over Greenland during WW2 "Frozen in Time" inadvertently touches on the alleged global warming fake statistic agenda. People might well assume that a WW2 plane that went down on a Greenland glacier south of the Arctic Circle 70 years ago might be snow covered and have it's outline vaguely visible if you looked hard enough and with global warming and all, the planes might be shining in the sun. Wrong. The planes were 200 ft deep in the ice after 70 years. The ice didn't melt, the intense cold and fierce winters buried the planes in an ever increasing ice mass. Doesn't that simple but absolute truth fly in the face of global warmers who claim that polar bears are walking on thin ice?

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's difficult to predict because Climate Science has wasted so much time and public arm-twisting on CO2.. Instead of LEARNING TO PREDICT the hows and whens of the natural cycles that take us in and out of Ice Ages. Your view of ANOTHER inevitable "Ice Age" with mile deep glaciers is chilling (pun intended). But from a Systems Theory point of view, a system that oscillating nicely -- tends to stay oscillating nicely or "the ringing" dies out slowly over MANY cycles of up/down..

CO2 could someday be our ONLY defense against City-Eating glaciers -- if you are right. Although we manufacture some REALLY Bad Ass Shit that's 1000s of times more powerful as a GHGas..

It seems to be both sides that are willing to say what needs to be said to get funding, however I do think there are scientists out there who are also doing a good job, and doing what should be done.

Yes, CO2 might stop us from going into another ice age, we also might be dead before then. Who knows?

 

[frigidweirdo]

By the normal cycles, that would be at least another ten thousand years in the future, more than likely 20. If you look at the cycles of glacial and interglacial periods, you will note that the descent into the glacial is slow, while the warming is quite rapid.

But it is not going to happen on schedule, as the GHGs that we have already put into the atmosphere will warm things for hundreds of years.

Yeah, for an ice age it is a long way off. However we should be, I believe, in a period of temperatures dropping.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Mitchell Zuckoff's great true account of the downing and subsequent search for American planes lost over Greenland during WW2 "Frozen in Time" inadvertently touches on the alleged global warming fake statistic agenda. People might well assume that a WW2 plane that went down on a Greenland glacier south of the Arctic Circle 70 years ago might be snow covered and have it's outline vaguely visible if you looked hard enough and with global warming and all, the planes might be shining in the sun. Wrong. The planes were 200 ft deep in the ice after 70 years. The ice didn't melt, the intense cold and fierce winters buried the planes in an ever increasing ice mass. Doesn't that simple but absolute truth fly in the face of global warmers who claim that polar bears are walking on thin ice?

You're talking global warming with an example of a plane in one place? Does it not get cold in the artic in winter then? Sure it does. So, if it melts in summer, freezes in winter, where would you expect the plane to be?

 

[SSDD]

Again, wow, are you out of touch. We should be warming.

No, we finished exiting the ice age 5000 years ago, and have been slowly cooling ever since. According to the natural cycles, the globe should be slowly cooling down into the next ice age right now. Instead, the world is warming fast.

And your junk science fails hard at explaining why the world is now warming quickly instead of cooling slowly.

Do you never tire of being an idiot. We are not out of an ice age as evidenced by ice at the poles. The earth is in the process of exiting an ice age. Here...Look at this graph of the temperature history of the earth and tell me with a straight face that the earth should be cooling.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Logic never convinces cult members that their God is flawed. The AGWCult has their Modern CO2 on a pedestal and there's no chart or experiment or statement we can make that will get them to think otherwise

 

[frigidweirdo]

Again, wow, are you out of touch. We should be warming.

No, we finished exiting the ice age 5000 years ago, and have been slowly cooling ever since. According to the natural cycles, the globe should be slowly cooling down into the next ice age right now. Instead, the world is warming fast.

And your junk science fails hard at explaining why the world is now warming quickly instead of cooling slowly.

Do you never tire of being an idiot. We are not out of an ice age as evidenced by ice at the poles. The earth is in the process of exiting an ice age. Here...Look at this graph of the temperature history of the earth and tell me with a straight face that the earth should be cooling.

I'm going to say yes, we should be cooling. Why?

Historically the world has been much hotter, back in the days of the dinosaurs, however the earth is getting older, and things have changed, become more settled than normal.
I can't say why the Earth was hotter before, but I know now that weather has been much less extreme in the last 400,000 years, and quite settled into a peak of heat and then cooling from that, and we've just been through the peak.

 

[mamooth]

I can't say why the Earth was hotter before,

One big reasons is the continents are in different positions now. Both poles are now isolated from warm ocean currents that would melt ice, which allows ice caps to form. Large ice caps change the global albedo, so less energy is absorbed, resulting in a lower average temperature now.