What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Study finds 4C increase will put 1/3rd of all Antarctic shelves at risk of collapse

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
82,590
Reaction score
8,161
Points
2,055
Location
Houston
Why do you all make such stupid arguments? Could it be because there are no valid ones for you to make?

The argument is that the relationship between CO2 concentration and SB's graybody "emissivity" factor is unknown ... seems that even demonstrating this relationship is beyond human ability ... the question remains unanswered ... how much does CO2 raise temperatures in isolation? ... and show your math please, this is physics, not astrology ...

You were making the argument that because human GHG emissions did not exist in the past when CO2 levels and temperatures were high, they could not be responsible for warming today. That is patently ignorant nonsense. Mamooth had a good analogy. There were forest fires in the past, long before the appearance of modern humans. Therefore humans cannot be responsible for forest fires today. Right?
The azolla event drew down atmospheric CO2 from ~3500ppm to ~1000ppm. This should have resulted in a decrease in associated temperature from radiative forcing of ~5C. How fast do you suppose that decrease in temperature should have taken?

1618776816440.png
 

Sunsettommy

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
9,058
Reaction score
6,575
Points
2,050
You were making the argument that because human GHG emissions did not exist in the past when CO2 levels and temperatures were high, they could not be responsible for warming today. That is patently ignorant nonsense. Mamooth had a good analogy. There were forest fires in the past, long before the appearance of modern humans. Therefore humans cannot be responsible for forest fires today. Right?

I've never claimed humans can't effect climate ... I ask by how much ... I don't know the relationship between carbon and emissivity, and I'm guessing neither do you ... and it appears no one does ... I have absolutely no idea why it's so difficult to shine IR light into a vessel of gas and measure the temperature ...

Forest fires in The West are investigated and a cause determined ... there's a few website that tabulate this data and posts the percentages ... don't do it, it's very depressing ... can you provide this same precision data for all the components of AGW theory? ... can you even demonstrate all these components? ... I'll bring the vodka, you bring the cigarettes, I'll fully demonstrate how an embarrassing number of forest fires are started every year ... or round up some Californians and give them matches to play with ...

I suggest you make the supreme effort of asking Google to show you experiments demonstrating the Greenhouse Effect. If Google comes up empty, you let us know. If you think warming from GHGs can't be demonstrated, it can only be because you've never looked.

You are full of shit, YOU keep dodging ReinyDays questions and request for evidence, you ignore it all.

It is clear YOU have NOTHING!

AGW by itself CAN NOT generate a big warming trend, even warmist/alarmist scientists have said the same for years now. It is the POSITIVE feedback that is claimed to make that possible but has been a long time failure.

I think Crick put me on ignore for retaliating over my REPORTS to the moderator about his continual failure to post links to his charts, most of his posts I have reported been removed.

I have put you on ignore but if anyone has removed any of my posts, they didn't bother to tell me about it.

Thank you for letting me know.

About 4 of your posts were removed, they don't have to tell you anything, that is not their way in THIS forum.

Wish you would post the links with the charts as you are supposed to do as per copyright and forum rules.
 

Sunsettommy

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
9,058
Reaction score
6,575
Points
2,050
Why do you all make such stupid arguments? Could it be because there are no valid ones for you to make?

The argument is that the relationship between CO2 concentration and SB's graybody "emissivity" factor is unknown ... seems that even demonstrating this relationship is beyond human ability ... the question remains unanswered ... how much does CO2 raise temperatures in isolation? ... and show your math please, this is physics, not astrology ...

You were making the argument that because human GHG emissions did not exist in the past when CO2 levels and temperatures were high, they could not be responsible for warming today. That is patently ignorant nonsense. Mamooth had a good analogy. There were forest fires in the past, long before the appearance of modern humans. Therefore humans cannot be responsible for forest fires today. Right?
The azolla event drew down atmospheric CO2 from ~3500ppm to ~1000ppm. This should have resulted in a decrease in associated temperature from radiative forcing of ~5C. How fast do you suppose that decrease in temperature should have taken?

View attachment 481371

Link please.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
82,590
Reaction score
8,161
Points
2,055
Location
Houston
Why do you all make such stupid arguments? Could it be because there are no valid ones for you to make?

The argument is that the relationship between CO2 concentration and SB's graybody "emissivity" factor is unknown ... seems that even demonstrating this relationship is beyond human ability ... the question remains unanswered ... how much does CO2 raise temperatures in isolation? ... and show your math please, this is physics, not astrology ...

You were making the argument that because human GHG emissions did not exist in the past when CO2 levels and temperatures were high, they could not be responsible for warming today. That is patently ignorant nonsense. Mamooth had a good analogy. There were forest fires in the past, long before the appearance of modern humans. Therefore humans cannot be responsible for forest fires today. Right?
The azolla event drew down atmospheric CO2 from ~3500ppm to ~1000ppm. This should have resulted in a decrease in associated temperature from radiative forcing of ~5C. How fast do you suppose that decrease in temperature should have taken?

View attachment 481371

Link please.
It's from a slide pack I got from a colleague on why there are hydrocarbons in the arctic circle but this link will show the same thing.

 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
6,090
Reaction score
2,471
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
You were making the argument that because human GHG emissions did not exist in the past when CO2 levels and temperatures were high, they could not be responsible for warming today. That is patently ignorant nonsense. Mamooth had a good analogy. There were forest fires in the past, long before the appearance of modern humans. Therefore humans cannot be responsible for forest fires today. Right?

I've never claimed humans can't effect climate ... I ask by how much ... I don't know the relationship between carbon and emissivity, and I'm guessing neither do you ... and it appears no one does ... I have absolutely no idea why it's so difficult to shine IR light into a vessel of gas and measure the temperature ...

Forest fires in The West are investigated and a cause determined ... there's a few website that tabulate this data and posts the percentages ... don't do it, it's very depressing ... can you provide this same precision data for all the components of AGW theory? ... can you even demonstrate all these components? ... I'll bring the vodka, you bring the cigarettes, I'll fully demonstrate how an embarrassing number of forest fires are started every year ... or round up some Californians and give them matches to play with ...

I suggest you make the supreme effort of asking Google to show you experiments demonstrating the Greenhouse Effect. If Google comes up empty, you let us know. If you think warming from GHGs can't be demonstrated, it can only be because you've never looked.

Google comes up empty ... I even tried Google Scholar ... zip ... nothing ... look yourself and you'll see ...
 
OP
Crick

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,812
Reaction score
1,745
Points
290
Location
N/A
Larsen C, Shackleton, Pine Island and Wilkins ice shelves at greatest risk



Your title is wrong. It doesn't say "will", it says "at risk". Two very different things.

The problem with science reports is most people are unable to understand what is being said. They see "may" or "might" and they think "will".

And also, there might not be a 4 degree increase.

Or, there might be a natural 4 degree increase and no matter what humans do or don't do, it'll increase anyway.

What would the world temperature be today if humans never existed and industrialization never happened?

We don't know. So how can we know if it's higher now than it "should be"?

And also, there might not be a 4 degree increase.

Holy shit ... that much increase is insane ... the most recent IPCC report only gives half that much increase (AR5 1WG Fig 12-5 and associated text) over the next 100 years, and 3ºC increase over the next 500 years ... the 4ºC increase is click-bait ... and all of this is strictly theoretical, no one to date has been able to demonstrate CO2 having more than a trivial effect on global temperatures ...

it's a problem, because there really is an issue out there, which is humans living in balance with their world.

The coronavirus is an example of humans not living in balance. The next big thing is anti-biotics. The Chinese are using antibiotics like crazy. We're going to wake up on day and we're not going to be able to use antibiotics, and that's going to kill a lot of people.

Pollution is killing people, mostly in second and third world countries, it destroys your lungs.

There are problems, but for some reason people like man made global warming, feel there's money to be made there. And the other side like it because they find it easy to turn into a conspiracy theory. It's a good issue for people to attack each other in the typical Rep-Dem partisan warfare.

We do have lots of problems. We need to work on all of them. One of them is global warming. One of the difficulties in working on the global warming problem is idiots like you.

Global warming has been happening for a long time. Way before industrialization.

How do you work on that problem when it's a natural process?

You're quick with your insults, so if I'm an idiot because I can't tell you what the world average temperature would have been had humans not industrialized, then you as a fucking genius can tell me.

So, tell me, what would the world average temperature have been without human intervention?

About 1.5C lower than the present. Did you actually think that was a difficult question? Have you not seen graphs like this before?
View attachment 480892

Have you ever heard of the Industrial Revolution? Do you not understand what it had to do with the combustion of fossil fuels?

Problem is you're making the assumption that temperatures would remain the same. Why?


Based on what you've written, we can assume that in the Pleistocene era, there must have been some human industrialization going on, because temperatures were going from a -4 degree to a 0 degree range on this chart. Then all of a sudden this changed about 7 peaks in, and rose, and even got to +3 degrees before then dropping for 10,000 years.

Also we could assume that 500,000 years ago we were polluting the atmosphere like crazy.

But we know there was no industrialization then. So....
Because it varied very little in the centuries prior and there has been no other change since the 1760s that would dramatically affect temperature.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
82,590
Reaction score
8,161
Points
2,055
Location
Houston
Why do you all make such stupid arguments? Could it be because there are no valid ones for you to make?

The argument is that the relationship between CO2 concentration and SB's graybody "emissivity" factor is unknown ... seems that even demonstrating this relationship is beyond human ability ... the question remains unanswered ... how much does CO2 raise temperatures in isolation? ... and show your math please, this is physics, not astrology ...

You were making the argument that because human GHG emissions did not exist in the past when CO2 levels and temperatures were high, they could not be responsible for warming today. That is patently ignorant nonsense. Mamooth had a good analogy. There were forest fires in the past, long before the appearance of modern humans. Therefore humans cannot be responsible for forest fires today. Right?
The azolla event drew down atmospheric CO2 from ~3500ppm to ~1000ppm. This should have resulted in a decrease in associated temperature from radiative forcing of ~5C. How fast do you suppose that decrease in temperature should have taken?

View attachment 481371

Link please.
This paper shows it too. And the thresholds for northern and southern hemisphere continental glaciation.

 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
82,590
Reaction score
8,161
Points
2,055
Location
Houston
Why do you all make such stupid arguments? Could it be because there are no valid ones for you to make?

The argument is that the relationship between CO2 concentration and SB's graybody "emissivity" factor is unknown ... seems that even demonstrating this relationship is beyond human ability ... the question remains unanswered ... how much does CO2 raise temperatures in isolation? ... and show your math please, this is physics, not astrology ...

You were making the argument that because human GHG emissions did not exist in the past when CO2 levels and temperatures were high, they could not be responsible for warming today. That is patently ignorant nonsense. Mamooth had a good analogy. There were forest fires in the past, long before the appearance of modern humans. Therefore humans cannot be responsible for forest fires today. Right?
The azolla event drew down atmospheric CO2 from ~3500ppm to ~1000ppm. This should have resulted in a decrease in associated temperature from radiative forcing of ~5C. How fast do you suppose that decrease in temperature should have taken?

View attachment 481371

Link please.
And here is pearson and palmer.

 
OP
Crick

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,812
Reaction score
1,745
Points
290
Location
N/A
You were making the argument that because human GHG emissions did not exist in the past when CO2 levels and temperatures were high, they could not be responsible for warming today. That is patently ignorant nonsense. Mamooth had a good analogy. There were forest fires in the past, long before the appearance of modern humans. Therefore humans cannot be responsible for forest fires today. Right?

I've never claimed humans can't effect climate ... I ask by how much ... I don't know the relationship between carbon and emissivity, and I'm guessing neither do you ... and it appears no one does ... I have absolutely no idea why it's so difficult to shine IR light into a vessel of gas and measure the temperature ...

Forest fires in The West are investigated and a cause determined ... there's a few website that tabulate this data and posts the percentages ... don't do it, it's very depressing ... can you provide this same precision data for all the components of AGW theory? ... can you even demonstrate all these components? ... I'll bring the vodka, you bring the cigarettes, I'll fully demonstrate how an embarrassing number of forest fires are started every year ... or round up some Californians and give them matches to play with ...

I suggest you make the supreme effort of asking Google to show you experiments demonstrating the Greenhouse Effect. If Google comes up empty, you let us know. If you think warming from GHGs can't be demonstrated, it can only be because you've never looked.

Google comes up empty ... I even tried Google Scholar ... zip ... nothing ... look yourself and you'll see ...

http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/content/teacher-materials/greenhouse-effect.docx (fm my alma mater)

Okay, that's enough. I am required to make the following snide remark at this point: Google much?
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
6,090
Reaction score
2,471
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
...
Okay, that's enough. I am required to make the following snide remark at this point: Google much?

This first paper I read is only the case of 1,000,000 ppm ... and the grey trace in Fig 6 is nearly identical to the normal air trace ... if the energy transfer is trivial with an additional 999,720 ppm, why would you think the addition 125 ppm would be any more than trivial? ...

This does show that carbon dioxide has the quality of slowing this transfer ... but it doesn't demonstrate how much ... what happens when 98% of the gas inside the balloon is completely inert to IR radiation? ...

Go ahead and read these other papers you linked to ... make sure they support the claim your making ...
 
OP
Crick

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,812
Reaction score
1,745
Points
290
Location
N/A
I'm sorry you're not familiar with scale modeling in experimentation.
 

frigidweirdo

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
32,949
Reaction score
3,477
Points
1,130
Larsen C, Shackleton, Pine Island and Wilkins ice shelves at greatest risk



Your title is wrong. It doesn't say "will", it says "at risk". Two very different things.

The problem with science reports is most people are unable to understand what is being said. They see "may" or "might" and they think "will".

And also, there might not be a 4 degree increase.

Or, there might be a natural 4 degree increase and no matter what humans do or don't do, it'll increase anyway.

What would the world temperature be today if humans never existed and industrialization never happened?

We don't know. So how can we know if it's higher now than it "should be"?

And also, there might not be a 4 degree increase.

Holy shit ... that much increase is insane ... the most recent IPCC report only gives half that much increase (AR5 1WG Fig 12-5 and associated text) over the next 100 years, and 3ºC increase over the next 500 years ... the 4ºC increase is click-bait ... and all of this is strictly theoretical, no one to date has been able to demonstrate CO2 having more than a trivial effect on global temperatures ...

it's a problem, because there really is an issue out there, which is humans living in balance with their world.

The coronavirus is an example of humans not living in balance. The next big thing is anti-biotics. The Chinese are using antibiotics like crazy. We're going to wake up on day and we're not going to be able to use antibiotics, and that's going to kill a lot of people.

Pollution is killing people, mostly in second and third world countries, it destroys your lungs.

There are problems, but for some reason people like man made global warming, feel there's money to be made there. And the other side like it because they find it easy to turn into a conspiracy theory. It's a good issue for people to attack each other in the typical Rep-Dem partisan warfare.

We do have lots of problems. We need to work on all of them. One of them is global warming. One of the difficulties in working on the global warming problem is idiots like you.

Global warming has been happening for a long time. Way before industrialization.

How do you work on that problem when it's a natural process?

You're quick with your insults, so if I'm an idiot because I can't tell you what the world average temperature would have been had humans not industrialized, then you as a fucking genius can tell me.

So, tell me, what would the world average temperature have been without human intervention?

About 1.5C lower than the present. Did you actually think that was a difficult question? Have you not seen graphs like this before?
View attachment 480892

Have you ever heard of the Industrial Revolution? Do you not understand what it had to do with the combustion of fossil fuels?

Problem is you're making the assumption that temperatures would remain the same. Why?


Based on what you've written, we can assume that in the Pleistocene era, there must have been some human industrialization going on, because temperatures were going from a -4 degree to a 0 degree range on this chart. Then all of a sudden this changed about 7 peaks in, and rose, and even got to +3 degrees before then dropping for 10,000 years.

Also we could assume that 500,000 years ago we were polluting the atmosphere like crazy.

But we know there was no industrialization then. So....
Because it varied very little in the centuries prior and there has been no other change since the 1760s that would dramatically affect temperature.

Oh right. Great science. It's kind of like "it's not raining here now, so it never rains" kind of argument.

You're literally talking about the world's temperatures as if "it hasn't changed much since the 1760s.... when we're already on a 100,000 year temperature cycle that is NATURAL.

And you're talking less than 300 years.

Are you kidding me?
 
OP
Crick

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,812
Reaction score
1,745
Points
290
Location
N/A
No I am not. If you think global temperatures would have changed dramatically since 1760 without increasing GHGs, tell us why. Events need causes.
 

Sunsettommy

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
9,058
Reaction score
6,575
Points
2,050
No I am not. If you think global temperatures would have changed dramatically since 1760 without increasing GHGs, tell us why. Events need causes.

It warmed slowly as the LIA faded from the cold peak around the late 1600's to the mid 1800's when it was mostly gone.
 
OP
Crick

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,812
Reaction score
1,745
Points
290
Location
N/A
What caused the warming you claim has taken place since the last ice age. I hope we all know the actual answer. It starts with a capitol M.
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
6,090
Reaction score
2,471
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
I'm sorry you're not familiar with scale modeling in experimentation.

The article doesn't mention SB or emissivity ... I'm sorry you don't know what those are ...

How does CO2 concentration effect emissivity? ... which of these articles you posted deal with my question? ...
 
OP
Crick

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,812
Reaction score
1,745
Points
290
Location
N/A
Your complaint that one of the linked experiments (the ones you suggested weren't physically possible and didn't exist) used a very high CO2 concentration indicates that you are unfamiliar with actual experiments. Your repeated attempts to steer the conversation to dead ends tells me you have little to nothing to say about the actual topic: the increased risk of collapse in the Antarctic ice sheets. It is my understanding that discussions of radiative physics are all to be sequestered to the single thread on the topic at the top of the page.

And I have a BSc degree in Ocean Engineering and over 35 years working as a systems engineer. Back i my college days I had two semesters of thermodynamics and two of heat transfer. I understand and have used both the Stefan-Boltzman equation and the concept of emissivity. If you think that either refutes the greenhouse effect or AGW, you'll have to explain it to me because I and 99+% of the world's scientists say it does not.

I'll give you a hint: the Earth's atmosphere is not a black body.
 

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
6,239
Reaction score
1,430
Points
140
The last time levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide were this high came during the Pliocene Epoch, which extended from about 5.3 million to 2.6 million years ago. During that period, average sea levels were about 50 feet higher than they are today and forests grew as far north as the Arctic, said Rob Jackson, a professor of earth system science at Stanford University.
 
Last edited:

Sunsettommy

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
9,058
Reaction score
6,575
Points
2,050
The last time levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide were this high came during the Pliocene Epoch, which extended from about 5.3 million to 2.6 million years ago. During that period, average sea levels were about 50 feet higher than they are today and forests grew as far north as the Arctic, said Rob Jackson, a professor of earth system science at Stanford University.

You falling for this obvious lie?


"But there is evidence to suggest the planet is headed in that direction. If the current trajectory continues, levels of CO2 could hit 500 ppm within 30 years, a number that could mean an increase in global temperatures of at least 2 degrees Celsius (about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).

“At the present pace, we could reach that well within a lot of people’s lifetimes,” Keeling said of the grim milestone ahead."

It has been established that CO2 doesn't have that kind of warm forcing power, this is the old warming estimates that have been long shown to absurd. With no existing hotspot to show the Positive feedback side, warming will continue to be ordinary.
 
OP
Crick

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,812
Reaction score
1,745
Points
290
Location
N/A
Prove to us it is a lie Tommy.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top