Oceans will be drastically different by 2100

[GHook93]

I thought it was 2010! Now they just want to move the 1 and the 0 around! This BS global warming farse reminds me of the BS hole in the ozone layer. I heard about this for years while in grammer school and it scared the hell out of me. We were told the world was coming to an end if we didn't get rid of air conditioning and aerosol can - LITERALLY! Neither are gone, yet we don't hear a lick about the hole that was set to destroy the world and was inevitably going to kill us!

 

[Abraham3]

I thought it was 2010! Now they just want to move the 1 and the 0 around! This BS global warming farse reminds me of the BS hole in the ozone layer. I heard about this for years while in grammer school and it scared the hell out of me. We were told the world was coming to an end if we didn't get rid of air conditioning and aerosol can - LITERALLY! Neither are gone, yet we don't hear a lick about the hole that was set to destroy the world and was inevitably going to kill us!

Then you might unplug your ears. The ozone hole is actually getting better BECAUSE we did something about it, not because it was never real.

Ozone hole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[polarbear]

I thought it was 2010! Now they just want to move the 1 and the 0 around! This BS global warming farse reminds me of the BS hole in the ozone layer. I heard about this for years while in grammer school and it scared the hell out of me. We were told the world was coming to an end if we didn't get rid of air conditioning and aerosol can - LITERALLY! Neither are gone, yet we don't hear a lick about the hole that was set to destroy the world and was inevitably going to kill us!

Then you might unplug your ears. The ozone hole is actually getting better BECAUSE we did something about it, not because it was never real.

Ozone hole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why do you say "we"?
You were not instrumental in it and the Chinese more than made up for the amount "we" banned.
The only thing that got banned was the "F" in CFC, and you don`t need it to take down ozone. Chlorinated HC`s can do that just as well.
You don`t even need to attach Chlorine to C first to get a Chlorine radical to deplete ozone.
Is bleach banned ?
Why is it that Chlorine production is way up since the F in fluoro-chlorinated hydro carbons got banned ?
What do you think companies like that are making ?
AkzoNobel Selects ThyssenKrupp Uhde for Membrane Cell Technology (Engineeringnet.eu)

ENGINEERINGNET.EU -- AkzoNobel Industrial Chemicals has commissioned ThyssenKrupp Uhde to supply energy-saving membrane cell technology for the conversion of its mercury based electrolysis plant near Frankfurt in Germany.

The extensive project involves replacing the existing amalgam cells with single-element membrane electrolysers. The introduction of this technology will increase annual production capacity in Frankfurt by around 50%.

“And the electricity consumption per ton of product will be improved by nearly 30%”, said Martin Riswick, General Manager of AkzoNobel’s Chlor-Alkali business.

Recently they expanded with huge plants they located in China because of the laxer or lack of environmental restrictions over there
We are using way more chlorinated hydrocarbons now as the CFC`s we have used world wide before the ban !
So what exactly did "we" do that you want to get credit for ?
People like you are so full of shit...it`s time you check your underwear !
A little bleach might help clean it up !

 

[Abraham3]

I thought it was 2010! Now they just want to move the 1 and the 0 around! This BS global warming farse reminds me of the BS hole in the ozone layer. I heard about this for years while in grammer school and it scared the hell out of me. We were told the world was coming to an end if we didn't get rid of air conditioning and aerosol can - LITERALLY! Neither are gone, yet we don't hear a lick about the hole that was set to destroy the world and was inevitably going to kill us!

Then you might unplug your ears. The ozone hole is actually getting better BECAUSE we did something about it, not because it was never real.

Ozone hole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why do you say "we"?
You were not instrumental in it and the Chinese more than made up for the amount "we" banned.
The only thing that got banned was the "F" in CFC, and you don`t need it to take down ozone. Chlorinated HC`s can do that just as well.
You don`t even need to attach Chlorine to C first to get a Chlorine radical to deplete ozone.
Is bleach banned ?
Why is it that Chlorine production is way up since the F in fluoro-chlorinated hydro carbons got banned ?
What do you think companies like that are making ?
AkzoNobel Selects ThyssenKrupp Uhde for Membrane Cell Technology (Engineeringnet.eu)

ENGINEERINGNET.EU -- AkzoNobel Industrial Chemicals has commissioned ThyssenKrupp Uhde to supply energy-saving membrane cell technology for the conversion of its mercury based electrolysis plant near Frankfurt in Germany.

The extensive project involves replacing the existing amalgam cells with single-element membrane electrolysers. The introduction of this technology will increase annual production capacity in Frankfurt by around 50%.

“And the electricity consumption per ton of product will be improved by nearly 30%”, said Martin Riswick, General Manager of AkzoNobel’s Chlor-Alkali business.

Recently they expanded with huge plants they located in China because of the laxer or lack of environmental restrictions over there
We are using way more chlorinated hydrocarbons now as the CFC`s we have used world wide before the ban !
So what exactly did "we" do that you want to get credit for ?
People like you are so full of shit...it`s time you check your underwear !
A little bleach might help clean it up !

Dear Mr Bear,

Get Fucked.

Abraham

 

[westwall]

Then you might unplug your ears. The ozone hole is actually getting better BECAUSE we did something about it, not because it was never real.

Ozone hole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why do you say "we"?
You were not instrumental in it and the Chinese more than made up for the amount "we" banned.
The only thing that got banned was the "F" in CFC, and you don`t need it to take down ozone. Chlorinated HC`s can do that just as well.
You don`t even need to attach Chlorine to C first to get a Chlorine radical to deplete ozone.
Is bleach banned ?
Why is it that Chlorine production is way up since the F in fluoro-chlorinated hydro carbons got banned ?
What do you think companies like that are making ?
AkzoNobel Selects ThyssenKrupp Uhde for Membrane Cell Technology (Engineeringnet.eu)

ENGINEERINGNET.EU -- AkzoNobel Industrial Chemicals has commissioned ThyssenKrupp Uhde to supply energy-saving membrane cell technology for the conversion of its mercury based electrolysis plant near Frankfurt in Germany.

The extensive project involves replacing the existing amalgam cells with single-element membrane electrolysers. The introduction of this technology will increase annual production capacity in Frankfurt by around 50%.

“And the electricity consumption per ton of product will be improved by nearly 30%”, said Martin Riswick, General Manager of AkzoNobel’s Chlor-Alkali business.

Recently they expanded with huge plants they located in China because of the laxer or lack of environmental restrictions over there
We are using way more chlorinated hydrocarbons now as the CFC`s we have used world wide before the ban !
So what exactly did "we" do that you want to get credit for ?
People like you are so full of shit...it`s time you check your underwear !
A little bleach might help clean it up !

Dear Mr Bear,

Get Fucked.

Abraham

Dear abbie... Facts are facts.... why do YOU ignore them?

 

[IanC]

Ian, you aren't really surprised that the British parliament has brouhahas, are you? It could be about the color of Dorothy's ruby slippers, and the political ruckus would be the same.

of course I am not suprised that parliament has brouhahas. what surprises me is that the skeptical side has someone who is willing to force a leading 'warmer' establishment into explaining their position. the Met Office gave a flippant answer to a difficult question, and since then have had to back away from the original reply due to follow-up questions that pointed out just how shallow the reasoning was for the Met.

unlike the Inquiries where any answer would do because it couldnt be analyzed and fact checked in real time, Slingo has been repeatedly pinned down and (somewhat) forced to defend her previous statements and present a revised position.

 

[IanC]

You have not. You have demonstrated a lack of statistical knowledge.

PMZ - you are the one who has demonstrated a lack of any understanding of statistics.

even though some of the warmers here, like abraham and itfitzme, are confused about statistics at least they are working from a base of some statistical knowledge. as some famous physicist (Pauli, Heisenberg?) said, "you arent correct. you're not even wrong".

there has been a brouhaha in the british parliament for the last few months over the Met Office answering whether the warming over the last hundred years is significant. time series statistics is a trecherous pond to wade in, especially when climate scientists are so loathe to seek out advice from statisticians. the same weakness in Slingo's multiple answers, which have steadily backtracked from definitely significant to we can't tell for sure, are also present in the IPCC report. one chapter says significant (95% certain human caused no less), while another chapter states large uncertainty.

I'm waiting for a scientifically supported alternative theory that explains where the energy in excess of incoming, trapped here by higher atmospheric GHG concentrations, goes.

I think that the problem with the IPCC is that their sponsors, politicians, want them to act political. And they try by dumbing down the science.

In the absence of the alternative theory above, I believe that the truth is unquestionable.

I am pretty sure we have been over this before.

you focus on one small piece of the equilibrium and pretend that it is the only one that matters. when I pointed out (according to Trenberth's cartoon) that the bulk of surface energy is lifted by phase change latent heat and themals, then direct escape through the atmospheric window, and finally 23W/m2 bounces about and finally leaves by the method impacted by CO2. 23W out of 396W! or perhaps you would rather consider it 23W out of the 160 that eventually escapes to space. so if you choke off another 1W from that 23W, most of it (~6/7ths) escapes via the other routes, but some warming may still occur.

that is if everything stays the same. in reality every time you change one factor in the equilibrium it affects all the others. most of the Sun's energy come in through the tropics, over water. that energy is predominately used to evaporate water and cause clouds, which in turn cools the ocean. sea water doesnt get above 30C because of the 'air conditioner' effect of clouds and thunderstorms. it is like running the furnace and the air conditioner at the same time. lots of energy movement but little change in temperature. any small increase of available energy caused by CO2 simply turns the air conditioner on a little bit earlier.

another issue is the 'quality' of energy. every watt of highly ordered shortwave radiation from the Sun is actually capable of doing work. completely diffuse longwave backradiation from CO2 is not to any appreciable extent.

PMZ- I am repeating all this for you so that you might put a little more thought into your understanding of CO2 theory. there are many more layers to this onion as well but it certainly isnt the straight forward tally sheet that you think it is.

I am also a liberal employed by govt health care so your political excuses for my 'denial' dont work here.

 

[PMZ]

PMZ - you are the one who has demonstrated a lack of any understanding of statistics.

even though some of the warmers here, like abraham and itfitzme, are confused about statistics at least they are working from a base of some statistical knowledge. as some famous physicist (Pauli, Heisenberg?) said, "you arent correct. you're not even wrong".

there has been a brouhaha in the british parliament for the last few months over the Met Office answering whether the warming over the last hundred years is significant. time series statistics is a trecherous pond to wade in, especially when climate scientists are so loathe to seek out advice from statisticians. the same weakness in Slingo's multiple answers, which have steadily backtracked from definitely significant to we can't tell for sure, are also present in the IPCC report. one chapter says significant (95% certain human caused no less), while another chapter states large uncertainty.

I'm waiting for a scientifically supported alternative theory that explains where the energy in excess of incoming, trapped here by higher atmospheric GHG concentrations, goes.

I think that the problem with the IPCC is that their sponsors, politicians, want them to act political. And they try by dumbing down the science.

In the absence of the alternative theory above, I believe that the truth is unquestionable.

I am pretty sure we have been over this before.

you focus on one small piece of the equilibrium and pretend that it is the only one that matters. when I pointed out (according to Trenberth's cartoon) that the bulk of surface energy is lifted by phase change latent heat and themals, then direct escape through the atmospheric window, and finally 23W/m2 bounces about and finally leaves by the method impacted by CO2. 23W out of 396W! or perhaps you would rather consider it 23W out of the 160 that eventually escapes to space. so if you choke off another 1W from that 23W, most of it (~6/7ths) escapes via the other routes, but some warming may still occur.

that is if everything stays the same. in reality every time you change one factor in the equilibrium it affects all the others. most of the Sun's energy come in through the tropics, over water. that energy is predominately used to evaporate water and cause clouds, which in turn cools the ocean. sea water doesnt get above 30C because of the 'air conditioner' effect of clouds and thunderstorms. it is like running the furnace and the air conditioner at the same time. lots of energy movement but little change in temperature. any small increase of available energy caused by CO2 simply turns the air conditioner on a little bit earlier.

another issue is the 'quality' of energy. every watt of highly ordered shortwave radiation from the Sun is actually capable of doing work. completely diffuse longwave backradiation from CO2 is not to any appreciable extent.

PMZ- I am repeating all this for you so that you might put a little more thought into your understanding of CO2 theory. there are many more layers to this onion as well but it certainly isnt the straight forward tally sheet that you think it is.

I am also a liberal employed by govt health care so your political excuses for my 'denial' dont work here.

Without comment on the accuracy of your numbers, do you agree that if OLR is less than incoming solar, the global system MUST warm to restore required energy balance?

 

[orogenicman]

Ian, you aren't really surprised that the British parliament has brouhahas, are you? It could be about the color of Dorothy's ruby slippers, and the political ruckus would be the same.

of course I am not suprised that parliament has brouhahas. what surprises me is that the skeptical side has someone who is willing to force a leading 'warmer' establishment into explaining their position. the Met Office gave a flippant answer to a difficult question, and since then have had to back away from the original reply due to follow-up questions that pointed out just how shallow the reasoning was for the Met.

unlike the Inquiries where any answer would do because it couldnt be analyzed and fact checked in real time, Slingo has been repeatedly pinned down and (somewhat) forced to defend her previous statements and present a revised position.

That's not all that unusual in such situations. It's politics.

 

[orogenicman]

PMZ - you are the one who has demonstrated a lack of any understanding of statistics.

even though some of the warmers here, like abraham and itfitzme, are confused about statistics at least they are working from a base of some statistical knowledge. as some famous physicist (Pauli, Heisenberg?) said, "you arent correct. you're not even wrong".

there has been a brouhaha in the british parliament for the last few months over the Met Office answering whether the warming over the last hundred years is significant. time series statistics is a trecherous pond to wade in, especially when climate scientists are so loathe to seek out advice from statisticians. the same weakness in Slingo's multiple answers, which have steadily backtracked from definitely significant to we can't tell for sure, are also present in the IPCC report. one chapter says significant (95% certain human caused no less), while another chapter states large uncertainty.

I'm waiting for a scientifically supported alternative theory that explains where the energy in excess of incoming, trapped here by higher atmospheric GHG concentrations, goes.

I think that the problem with the IPCC is that their sponsors, politicians, want them to act political. And they try by dumbing down the science.

In the absence of the alternative theory above, I believe that the truth is unquestionable.

I am pretty sure we have been over this before.

you focus on one small piece of the equilibrium and pretend that it is the only one that matters. when I pointed out (according to Trenberth's cartoon) that the bulk of surface energy is lifted by phase change latent heat and themals, then direct escape through the atmospheric window, and finally 23W/m2 bounces about and finally leaves by the method impacted by CO2. 23W out of 396W! or perhaps you would rather consider it 23W out of the 160 that eventually escapes to space. so if you choke off another 1W from that 23W, most of it (~6/7ths) escapes via the other routes, but some warming may still occur.

that is if everything stays the same. in reality every time you change one factor in the equilibrium it affects all the others. most of the Sun's energy come in through the tropics, over water. that energy is predominately used to evaporate water and cause clouds, which in turn cools the ocean. sea water doesnt get above 30C because of the 'air conditioner' effect of clouds and thunderstorms. it is like running the furnace and the air conditioner at the same time. lots of energy movement but little change in temperature. any small increase of available energy caused by CO2 simply turns the air conditioner on a little bit earlier.

another issue is the 'quality' of energy. every watt of highly ordered shortwave radiation from the Sun is actually capable of doing work. completely diffuse longwave backradiation from CO2 is not to any appreciable extent.

PMZ- I am repeating all this for you so that you might put a little more thought into your understanding of CO2 theory. there are many more layers to this onion as well but it certainly isnt the straight forward tally sheet that you think it is.

I am also a liberal employed by govt health care so your political excuses for my 'denial' dont work here.

Erm, but what about the loss of albedo in the Arctic? Melting Arctic ice and other glaciers? What about warming changes that cause oceanic oscillations to adjust? There is evidence that El Nino has gotten stronger in the past 50 years, and that such an increase has not been seen in hundreds, if not thousands of years. What about acidification of the oceans? What about the oddness of all these things happening in three or four human generations after not ever happening all at once afaik and at such a rapid rate in the last 10,000 years coinciding with a dramatic increase in global atmosphere CO2 levels (most of the increase human-derived) and an increase in global temperatures as well as the increase in the rate of rise? It's all coincidence, eh?

 

[PMZ]

I'm waiting for a scientifically supported alternative theory that explains where the energy in excess of incoming, trapped here by higher atmospheric GHG concentrations, goes.

I think that the problem with the IPCC is that their sponsors, politicians, want them to act political. And they try by dumbing down the science.

In the absence of the alternative theory above, I believe that the truth is unquestionable.

I am pretty sure we have been over this before.

you focus on one small piece of the equilibrium and pretend that it is the only one that matters. when I pointed out (according to Trenberth's cartoon) that the bulk of surface energy is lifted by phase change latent heat and themals, then direct escape through the atmospheric window, and finally 23W/m2 bounces about and finally leaves by the method impacted by CO2. 23W out of 396W! or perhaps you would rather consider it 23W out of the 160 that eventually escapes to space. so if you choke off another 1W from that 23W, most of it (~6/7ths) escapes via the other routes, but some warming may still occur.

that is if everything stays the same. in reality every time you change one factor in the equilibrium it affects all the others. most of the Sun's energy come in through the tropics, over water. that energy is predominately used to evaporate water and cause clouds, which in turn cools the ocean. sea water doesnt get above 30C because of the 'air conditioner' effect of clouds and thunderstorms. it is like running the furnace and the air conditioner at the same time. lots of energy movement but little change in temperature. any small increase of available energy caused by CO2 simply turns the air conditioner on a little bit earlier.

another issue is the 'quality' of energy. every watt of highly ordered shortwave radiation from the Sun is actually capable of doing work. completely diffuse longwave backradiation from CO2 is not to any appreciable extent.

PMZ- I am repeating all this for you so that you might put a little more thought into your understanding of CO2 theory. there are many more layers to this onion as well but it certainly isnt the straight forward tally sheet that you think it is.

I am also a liberal employed by govt health care so your political excuses for my 'denial' dont work here.

Erm, but what about the loss of albedo in the Arctic? Melting Arctic ice and other glaciers? What about warming changes that cause oceanic oscillations to adjust? There is evidence that El Nino has gotten stronger in the past 50 years, and that such an increase has not been seen in hundreds, if not thousands of years. What about acidification of the oceans? What about the oddness of all these things happening in three or four human generations after not ever happening all at once afaik and at such a rapid rate in the last 10,000 years coinciding with a dramatic increase in global atmosphere CO2 levels (most of the increase human-derived) and an increase in global temperatures as well as the increase in the rate of rise? It's all coincidence, eh?

Science seeks to extend our senses to the long gone past, the future, much smaller and much larger than we sense directly, as examples.

But that doesn't mean we should ignore the evidence of our senses.

My senses tell me that climate change is obvious. What science adds is where it's likely to go, both if we do and if we don't act.

 

[polarbear]

Then you might unplug your ears. The ozone hole is actually getting better BECAUSE we did something about it, not because it was never real.

Ozone hole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why do you say "we"?
You were not instrumental in it and the Chinese more than made up for the amount "we" banned.
The only thing that got banned was the "F" in CFC, and you don`t need it to take down ozone. Chlorinated HC`s can do that just as well.
You don`t even need to attach Chlorine to C first to get a Chlorine radical to deplete ozone.
Is bleach banned ?
Why is it that Chlorine production is way up since the F in fluoro-chlorinated hydro carbons got banned ?
What do you think companies like that are making ?
AkzoNobel Selects ThyssenKrupp Uhde for Membrane Cell Technology (Engineeringnet.eu)

ENGINEERINGNET.EU -- AkzoNobel Industrial Chemicals has commissioned ThyssenKrupp Uhde to supply energy-saving membrane cell technology for the conversion of its mercury based electrolysis plant near Frankfurt in Germany.

The extensive project involves replacing the existing amalgam cells with single-element membrane electrolysers. The introduction of this technology will increase annual production capacity in Frankfurt by around 50%.

“And the electricity consumption per ton of product will be improved by nearly 30%”, said Martin Riswick, General Manager of AkzoNobel’s Chlor-Alkali business.

Recently they expanded with huge plants they located in China because of the laxer or lack of environmental restrictions over there
We are using way more chlorinated hydrocarbons now as the CFC`s we have used world wide before the ban !
So what exactly did "we" do that you want to get credit for ?
People like you are so full of shit...it`s time you check your underwear !
A little bleach might help clean it up !

Dear Mr Bear,

Get Fucked.

Abraham

So your mask slipped off and revealed what`s underneath and all it took is letting you paint yourself into a corner.
That was a lot easier than I thought !
You are the type that mis-dial a simple 7 digit phone number and then smash the phone in a rage.
How could losers like you possibly make any sort of progress with something a bit more complex ?

 

[PredFan]

Blah blah blah...they also told us there would be snow-less winters by the year 2010. They keep moving the goalposts and fear mongering the gullible.

 

[Againsheila]

The World's Oceans Will Be Drastically Different by 2100 - weather.com Science Behind Cimate: Oceans

By the end of this century, the world's oceans will undergo drastic changes that will have major impacts both on undersea life and on hundreds of millions of people who depend on them for their food and livelihoods, especially people in poor and developing countries.

The changes are expected to have an impact at just about every point in the ocean food chain, from where fish and other sea animals can live to how big they can grow, and how large their populations can get – even whether they'll survive at all in the places we know them today.

These findings were announced in a study published this week in the scientific journal PLOS Biology, which analyzed more than 30 marine habitats around the world and found that all of them were experiencing shifts that pose a "high risk of degradation of marine ecosystems" and of "human hardship" all at the same time.

“When you look at the world ocean, there are few places that will be free of changes," Camilo Mora, an assistant professor of geography at the University of Hawai‘i at Manoa and the study's lead author, said in a university press release.

The facts make me envy the head-in-the-sand-flat-earthers.

Doesn't even mention Fukishima. IMO, no one should be eating anything from the Pacific Ocean for the foreseeable future.

 

[polarbear]

That is apparently where you went since you still have not cited a single scientific theory that has been overthrown in the past 100 years.

I'm ignoring you because I already did.. Many posts ago.. But as usual -- nobody ever stays with the topic... Can give you many others -- but I work too hard already..

Where does the excess energy go? Physics says it goes to restoring the conservation of global energy by increasing TOA temperatures and therefore out going radiation.

What's your theory?

1.) There is no excess energy in addition to what the sun supplies
2.) "heat" trapped by CO2 does not necessarily raise the temperature by a fixed increment
That can only happen if all the other avenues which use "heat" (energy) are blocked....such as gas expansion, barometric pressure change, evaporation etc
That`s not a theory but a fact which is exploited with steam- internal combustion engines, jet turbines and even refrigerators, air conditioners, cooling towers etc etc.
Nobody disputes that CO2 absorbs heat energy!
We "deniers" dispute what exactly happens after it did so.
The absorption of IR is instantaneous and there is no lengthy time delay.
There is however a quite lengthy time delay before CO2 generated in China can dissipate over the rest of the globe...even as it does the ppm CO2 will at any given time be higher than that over the U.S.
The latest data has it consistently ~ 5% higher...that`s about 20 ppm more CO2 than what`s at any other time anywhere else.
Alright then, now explain why China never shows a higher temperature anomaly on any of these satellite thermal images.
Here are a few typical images, but go knock yourself out and look at all the other ones that have been published:

If you attribute that discrepancy to Chinese smog shielding China from solar radiation then you can`t ignore the fact that the IPCC never did factor in the global effect of overcast with their radiative forcing either.

There are a lot of large cities in the U.S. under smog-domes and none of them are cooler than the surrounding country side!

Most of us skeptics are getting tired of that smog theory the IPCC is blowing at us, trying to use it to "explain" the temperature stall...which is really a misnomer and amounts to no more than the usual rhetoric in order to avoid the admission that their models, which generated these future doomsday projections that were based on radiative forcing were dead wrong...period !

 

[orogenicman]

Blah blah blah...they also told us there would be snow-less winters by the year 2010. They keep moving the goalposts and fear mongering the gullible.

Erm, no they didn't.

 

[Old Rocks]

Blah blah blah...they also told us there would be snow-less winters by the year 2010. They keep moving the goalposts and fear mongering the gullible.

Who is They? And in what scientific journal was this published?

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html


Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

 

[flacaltenn]

Blah blah blah...they also told us there would be snow-less winters by the year 2010. They keep moving the goalposts and fear mongering the gullible.

Erm, no they didn't.

I got a name and a date.. im on afreking tablet toy so look it up. In 2000 david viner , CRU at east anglia said

..... in a few years snowfalls will be a very rare and exciting event. CHILDREN will not know what snow looks like (from memory)

Operative phrase in question " a few years"... I think a rational person considers 10 years to be few.. dont you?

And this guy works in the VATICAN od AGW propaganda. Now repent and pray for forgiveness.


ALL of you doubting sinners.

 

[flacaltenn]

Btw ..... We done with conflicting predictions on CO2 and the ocean? Your theory is very loose and sketchy on the predictions and the science of the RATE of OAcidification.... And the dire consequences of OA dont happen if the ocean uptake of CO2 saturates or slows because of temperature rise.


That was just one of several "issues" I have with the AGW gloomy ocean predictions.

 

[PMZ]

I'm still waiting for a scientifically supported alternative theory that explains where the energy in excess of incoming, trapped here by higher atmospheric GHG concentrations, goes.