The_Global_Warmer Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 1. The graph you posted shows a significant decrease in OHC in the 1960s and a general flat lining between the 1940s (not shown when OHC was higher as you will see from other graphs) and the 1970s...why does it show that despiincreasing GHGs? 2. You just said you "Don't care where I start"...why not? You are comparing arctic temps to an era when they were colder...why don't you care where you start? Don't you want to compare them to historical averages? Do you only want to compare arctic temps to a period when they were obviously colder than the last 2,000 years? 3. Do you think arctic sea ice was at a max in the 1970s? Obviously you don't...Do you think it was greater in 1850? Do you think it was greater in 1640? What year do you think was the greatest arctic sea ice max in the last 1,000 years? I don't care if ohc didnt rise for a decade or less. None of this changes the current situation of record warmth, sea ice loss, all ice loss, record ohc....inspite the climate indicies. I think natural causes cause the ohc fluctuations. GHGs were far lower hence a far less impact with direct forcing. The co2 ppm in manua loa was like 315 in 1945 then what in 1975? 330 or so I am probably off with that. but the accumulative change has caused more and more heat to be trapped. I fully expect natural variability accounting for 20-50% of the warning post 1976. We flipped cooler around 2003 with -Pdo, then solar, then amo dropping. Now enso. But the arctic warning has amplified while the glkbe had cooled. This makes sense to me maybe the ipcc was off. It seems that they were. But my points arctic inclusive. sometime since the late 90s the ice has continued to decline rapidly and faster faster as the climate indicies say different. thats all I meant. I suppose think it will change. But that will take a large change in the radient body. I dont see it. I think the global temps vs the arctic will continue to widen as the arctic warms and the cold period continues globally Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT450R Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Have you noticed what is becoming of fish stocks? Large mammalian species? Growing water shortages. Sea levels will continue to rise. Agricultural demands will expand even as ideal growing conditions shift to new regions. Will we be a net importer of food stuffs rather than an exporter? Climate change is slow to occur over a given human life time. Since the 1970's? The world is 0.4C warmer than then. What will it be like a century or two from now when it is 3C or 6C warmer than today? This is a slowly developing problem which we solve with ingenuity and forethought. It is not going to turn catastrophic before your very eyes. So who says we cant adapt to the changes that may occur? Some act like humans are all a bunch of morons and will not be able to make changes or come up with new technology's to combat with change that may be needed. The whole sea level rise is something which will take hundreds to thousands of years ask New Orleans how they are doing sitting almost 7' below sea level. Water/drought shortage considering the earth is covered with 70% water not hard to figure that one out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 It is because the far majority of people live in the now, and don't care about 75 years from now. People hear temps have warmed xyz, and really don't care because that increase hasn't changed their life one bit. It isn't about who you vote for or politics for the vast majority. Until people see a huge change in their way of life, not many are going to care or put any effort against AGW. Like capecod said, he isn't misinformed, he just doesn't really care. That is how most think, and why AGW is last or near the bottom when polled. Most people couldn't give two hoots about the space program either, but that was never a reason not to pursue it. Now, granted it was provoked by the Cold War, Russian intimidation and national pride, but what has come out of it in terms of innovation and technology has benefited us tremendous. The mobilization to world war II did much the same. Now, we have a peaceful motivator yet we can't seem come together on a common mission to protect the future against a common destabilizing foe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tropopause_Fold Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 totally debunked myth. probably the 3rd time it's been refuted *this month* in this subforum: i think you misread ginx's post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 For those who may have missed it, the Union of Concerned Scientists back in 2007 produced this report on the underpinnings of the disinformation campaign. Very revealing stuff. Smoke and Mirrors Great Link!! Thanks so much. Some of the amounts paid out are staggering - It's amazing that even with these huge expenditures, not every one was taken in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 So who says we cant adapt to the changes that may occur? Some act like humans are all a bunch of morons and will not be able to make changes or come up with new technology's to combat with change that may be needed. The whole sea level rise is something which will take hundreds to thousands of years ask New Orleans how they are doing sitting almost 7' below sea level. Water/drought shortage considering the earth is covered with 70% water not hard to figure that one out. Rich countries can do what you envision at great cost. The adaptations are not optional, they will have to be undertaken. We can't even update most of our aging infrastructure today due to financial issues and the monumental scales of that problem. The poor countries will be even more challenged to bring about the adaptations required. What about them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tropopause_Fold Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Rich countries can do what you envision at great cost. The adaptations are not optional, they will have to be undertaken. We can't even update most of our aging infrastructure today due to financial issues and the monumental scales of that problem. The poor countries will be even more challenged to bring about the adaptations required. What about them? that sounds bad. question: have we reached the CO2 tipping point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheetah440 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 He has missed the mark on the polar bears plight....and I only remember 1 reference to poodles...not sure how they're doing! Why do you want all the poodles to die? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Most of which are the result of overpopulation, you are blaming all that on GW?. FYI we were supposed to be 1-2 C warmer by 2012 and depleted of fossil fuels, check the alarmists from the 70s thoughts. The avalanche has become a molasses slide subject to other influences which could dam up any further flow. Yes, most of it is due to overpopulation but it is happening nonetheless. AGW is adding pressure to an already overburdened biosphere, a biosphere which is highly tuned to current climate conditions. The biosphere can adapt too, if given sufficient time. There will always be winners and losers, however the pace of current climate change is thought to be outside the capacity of many species' ability to keep up. Many are trapped by the very same human population issues, cutting off and limiting safe havens. Science never projected the world to be 1-2 C warmer by 2012. The average long term rate of warming has been projected at about 0.20 C per decade. Have we reached peak oil yet? Some say we have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 i think you misread ginx's post. Wow What was ginx trying to show? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Why do you want all the poodles to die? Only the 'sexed-crazed' ones....but I digress.... What's this thread about again?? Oh yeah.....stolen, made up, unspectacular bird bedding... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Yes, most of it is due to overpopulation but it is happening nonetheless. AGW is adding pressure to an already overburdened biosphere, a biosphere which is highly tuned to current climate conditions. The biosphere can adapt too, if given sufficient time. There will always be winners and losers, however the pace of current climate change is thought to be outside the capacity of many species' ability to keep up. Many are trapped by the very same human population issues, cutting off and limiting safe havens. Science never projected the world to be 1-2 C warmer by 2012. The average long term rate of warming has been projected at about 0.20 C per decade. Have we reached peak oil yet? Some say we have. Wrong. Hansen "A" did back in 1988 (about 1.2 C by now)....unless Hansen's projections don't represent real science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 that sounds bad. question: have we reached the CO2 tipping point? What is a CO2 tipping point? Radiative forcing increases as we add to the atmospheric concentration. By the time CO2 has been doubled over that of pre-industrial times (280ppm) forcing will have reached 3.7W/m^2. Currently CO2 forcing alone is about 1.6W/m^2 above pre-industrial forcing. If you understand radiative physics at all, you understand that a 3.7W/m^2 forcing will impart a bit less than 1.2C of warming influence to Earth's surface as a consequence of the Planck Law and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. To deny that is to deny very foundational physics. No one, even the most ardent scientific skeptics has serious doubt about that. The issue becomes more debatable when considering the feedback process and the value of equilibrium climate sensitivity. All CO2 does directly is add 3.7W/m^2 to the greenhouse effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT450R Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Rich countries can do what you envision at great cost. The adaptations are not optional, they will have to be undertaken. We can't even update most of our aging infrastructure today due to financial issues and the monumental scales of that problem. The poor countries will be even more challenged to bring about the adaptations required. What about them? You make a valid point about our infrastructure it is in shambles and needs to be addressed i would be more worried about driving over a bridge that may collapse or driving into a sinkhole from a leaking water main to me and most that would be something more important at the moment then a couple degree rise in temps. As for the poor countries there will always be pain and suffering no way around it we can't help the people now so whats going to change in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Wrong. Hansen "A" did back in 1988 (about 1.2 C by now)....unless Hansen's projections don't represent real science. Hansen (A) represented 'Business as usual - fortunately we responded by halting freon usage - hence on to Hansen ( But then you knew that didn't you. Another demonstration of someone posting data the he knows is incorrect, and that he knows will be rebutted almost immediately. We actually discussed this type of behavior some time ago, concluding as I recall that the tactic was merely to disrupt whatever was being discussed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tropopause_Fold Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 What is a CO2 tipping point? Radiative forcing increases as we add to the atmospheric concentration. By the time CO2 has been doubled over that of pre-industrial times (280ppm) forcing will have reached 3.7W/m^2. Currently CO2 forcing alone is about 1.6W/m^2 above pre-industrial forcing. If you understand radiative physics at all, you understand that a 3.7W/m^2 forcing will impart a bit less than 1.2C of warming influence to Earth's surface as a consequence of the Planck Law and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. To deny that is to deny very foundational physics. No one, even the most ardent scientific skeptics has serious doubt about that. The issue becomes more debatable when considering the feedback process and the value of equilibrium climate sensitivity. All CO2 does directly is add 3.7W/m^2 to the greenhouse effect. i understand plank and s-b, yes. so we have about 85 years to reach that doubling based on the current annual CO2 increase? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Wrong. Hansen "A" did back in 1988 (about 1.2 C by now)....unless Hansen's projections don't represent real science. Twenty-four years ago the value for climate sensitivity used in the climate projection models was set at 4.3C per doubling of CO2. If the value had been set to a value of 3.4C then scenario B (the closest emission value) would have turned out right on the mark. This underscores the importance of climate sensitivity which by current estimation centers around 3C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Hansen (A) represented 'Business as usual - fortunately we responded by halting freon usage - hence on to Hansen ( But then you knew that didn't you. Another demonstration of someone posting data the he knows is incorrect, and that he knows will be rebutted almost immediately. We actually discussed this type of behavior some time ago, concluding as I recall that the tactic was merely to disrupt whatever was being discussed. LOL! That is a s.......t........r........e.........t..........c.........h. So tell me how many tenths of a degree of negative forcing can be attributed to the halting of freon?? If it is as much as you imply, then maybe ALL the warming of the 50's and 60's was due to freon production!!! And with the landfills slowly emitting less and less CFC's, maybe the cooling effect will continue. And we are supposed to refer to you as smartypants? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Twenty-four years ago the value for climate sensitivity used in the climate projection models was set at 4.3C per doubling of CO2. If the value had been set to a value of 3.4C then scenario B (the closest emission value) would have turned out right on the mark. This underscores the importance of climate sensitivity which by current estimation centers around 3C. Correct, which is why your original statement was wrong when you included "never".....but I'm quibbling for no reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 LOL! That is a s.......t........r........e.........t..........c.........h. So tell me how many tenths of a degree of negative forcing can be attributed to the halting of freon?? If it is as much as you imply, then maybe ALL the warming of the 50's and 60's was due to freon production!!! And with the landfills slowly emitting less and less CFC's, maybe the cooling effect will continue. And we are supposed to refer to you as smartypants? Actually, my preference would be that you did not refer to me ;.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Srain Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 LOL! That is a s.......t........r........e.........t..........c.........h. So tell me how many tenths of a degree of negative forcing can be attributed to the halting of freon?? If it is as much as you imply, then maybe ALL the warming of the 50's and 60's was due to freon production!!! And with the landfills slowly emitting less and less CFC's, maybe the cooling effect will continue. And we are supposed to refer to you as smartypants? Mensa!!1!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 i understand plank and s-b, yes. so we have about 85 years to reach that doubling based on the current annual CO2 increase? At the current rate (about 2ppm/year) it would be another 80 years or so, but we both know as the world economy grows so will the emission rate. We could slow it down with the rapid additional application of low/zero carbon fuels but we are likely to experience most of a doubling regardless. The world can not just drop the use of fossil fuels. We will have to adapt to a warmer world no matter what at this point. We can only hope to limit the extent of the warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Actually Freons used to represent about 25% of the greenhouse effect: second only to CO2 But then you knew that didn't you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Actually, my preference would be that you did not refer to me ;.) Meh, suit yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Meh, suit yourself. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheetah440 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Wrong. Hansen "A" did back in 1988 (about 1.2 C by now)....unless Hansen's projections don't represent real science. What was scenerio C again??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Only the 'sexed-crazed' ones....but I digress.... What's this thread about again?? Oh yeah.....stolen, made up, unspectacular bird bedding... Do you disagree with the general premise of the thread that companies have a vested interest in the tone of the global warming debate? I mean let's not kid ourselves...misinformation is a huge part of this political debate. Why do you only seem to argue with the most ridiculous proponents of AGW is this forum? Why, over the past few weeks do I constitently see you trolling threads, and never saying anything to people like Cheetah and Turtlehurricane who have made just as many ridiculous statements as those on the other side? You do understand that Cheetah doesn't know a damn thing about AGW, right? He was banned from AP so he's trying to make CC into his own personal AP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Actually Freons used to represent about 25% of the greenhouse effect: second only to CO2 But then you knew that didn't you. No....please teach me more....which is why I asked you a question in the previous post.....or are you trying to hoard all your knowledege? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 What was scenerio C again??? Caves and firefly's...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheetah440 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Caves and firefly's...... I thought it was chariots and rickshaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.