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?
Study finds 4C increase will put 1/3rd of all Antarctic shelves at risk of collapse
- Thread starter Crick
- Start date
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 15,354
- 12,936
- 2,400
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
- Mar 19, 2018
- 15,354
- 12,936
- 2,400
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
Google comes up empty ... I even tried Google Scholar ... zip ... nothing ... look yourself and you'll see ...
- Thread starter
- #106
Because it varied very little in the centuries prior and there has been no other change since the 1760s that would dramatically affect temperature.Larsen C, Shackleton, Pine Island and Wilkins ice shelves at greatest risk
One-third of Antarctic ice shelf area at risk of collapse as planet warms: Fractures from melting and run-off will indirectly lead to sea level rise
Study shows highest warming scenario would put 34% of Antarctic's ice shelf area at risk of fracture and collapse from melting and run-off - including 67% of the Antarctic Peninsular ice shelf area. This would allow glaciers to flow freely into the sea causing sea level rise.www.sciencedaily.com
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?
Global surface temperature reconstruction reveals cooling preceded shift to 100,000-year glacial/deglacial cycles 800,000 years ago » Environment Counts
In this study the global average surface temperature over the past 2 million years has been derived from deep sea cores. The results reveal that global cooling occurred about 300,000 years before the rapid ice sheet growth and the development of the first 100,000-year glacial/deglacial cycle...environmentcounts.org
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....
This paper shows it too. And the thresholds for northern and southern hemisphere continental glaciation.
(PDF) Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciation
PDF | The long-standing view of Earth's Cenozoic glacial history calls for the first continental-scale glaciation of Antarctica in the earliest... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate
www.researchgate.net
And here is pearson and palmer.
(PDF) Pearson, P. N. & Palmer, M. R. Atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 60 million years. Nature 406, 695-699
PDF | Knowledge of the evolution of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations throughout the Earth's history is important for a reconstruction of the... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate
www.researchgate.net
- Thread starter
- #109
Modelling the greenhouse effect
Use this demonstration to illustrate the greenhouse effect and the role of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Includes kit list and safety instructions.
edu.rsc.org
A simple experiment on global warming | Royal Society Open Science
A simple experiment has been developed to demonstrate the global warming potential of carbon dioxide (CO2) gas in the Earth's atmosphere. A miniature electric resistance heating element was placed inside an inflatable balloon. The balloon was filled with ...
royalsocietypublishing.org
Modelling the greenhouse effect
Use this demonstration to illustrate the greenhouse effect and the role of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Includes kit list and safety instructions.
edu.rsc.org
A simple experiment on global warming | Royal Society Open Science
A simple experiment has been developed to demonstrate the global warming potential of carbon dioxide (CO2) gas in the Earth's atmosphere. A miniature electric resistance heating element was placed inside an inflatable balloon. The balloon was filled with ...
royalsocietypublishing.org
2D: Greenhouse Gas Lab
Part D: Greenhouse Gas Lab The activity shown here was adapted from the USGS lab: Greenhouse Gases, March 2011 In the previous lab, you read about greenhouse gases and used computer models to investigate the ...
serc.carleton.edu
MetLink - Royal Meteorological Society The Greenhouse Effect -
There are several ways to demonstrate the greenhouse effect in the classroom
www.metlink.org
Okay, that's enough. I am required to make the following snide remark at this point: Google much?
ReinyDays
Gold Member
...A simple experiment on global warming | Royal Society Open Science
A simple experiment has been developed to demonstrate the global warming potential of carbon dioxide (CO2) gas in the Earth's atmosphere. A miniature electric resistance heating element was placed inside an inflatable balloon. The balloon was filled with ...royalsocietypublishing.org
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 ...
frigidweirdo
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2014
- 50,382
- 12,253
- 2,180
Because it varied very little in the centuries prior and there has been no other change since the 1760s that would dramatically affect temperature.Larsen C, Shackleton, Pine Island and Wilkins ice shelves at greatest risk
One-third of Antarctic ice shelf area at risk of collapse as planet warms: Fractures from melting and run-off will indirectly lead to sea level rise
Study shows highest warming scenario would put 34% of Antarctic's ice shelf area at risk of fracture and collapse from melting and run-off - including 67% of the Antarctic Peninsular ice shelf area. This would allow glaciers to flow freely into the sea causing sea level rise.www.sciencedaily.com
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?
Global surface temperature reconstruction reveals cooling preceded shift to 100,000-year glacial/deglacial cycles 800,000 years ago » Environment Counts
In this study the global average surface temperature over the past 2 million years has been derived from deep sea cores. The results reveal that global cooling occurred about 300,000 years before the rapid ice sheet growth and the development of the first 100,000-year glacial/deglacial cycle...environmentcounts.org
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....
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?
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 15,354
- 12,936
- 2,400
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.
ReinyDays
Gold Member
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? ...
- Thread starter
- #117
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.
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
- Oct 16, 2017
- 15,431
- 5,227
- 210
Carbon dioxide hits a level not seen for 3 million years. Here's what that means for climate change — and humanity.
Scientists are sounding the alarm over the potential for catastrophic changes to our environment.
www.nbcnews.com
Last edited:
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 15,354
- 12,936
- 2,400
Carbon dioxide hits a level not seen for 3 million years. Here's what that means for climate change — and humanity.
Scientists are sounding the alarm over the potential for catastrophic changes to our environment.
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.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
When you say that the death penalty is cruel, you obviously have no idea what life in prison is like.- Started by the watcher
- Replies: 3
-
-
-
-
