Planet-wide tipping point

[meteorologist]

http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/06/06/scientists-uncover-evidence-of-impending-tipping-point-for-earth/

[cyclonebuster]

http://newscenter.be...oint-for-earth/

Co2 is not projected to come down for the next few hundred years or so even if we stopped producing it today. I'd say we are already past the tipping point and are already doomed.

[ben4vols]

Co2 is not projected t come down for the next few hundred years or so even if we stopped producing it today. I'd say we are already past the tipping point and are already doomed.

When will AGW alarmism reach a tipping point? It's got to be getting close.

[cyclonebuster]

When will AGW alarmism reach a tipping point? It's got to be getting close.

Perhaps when summertime Northern Arctic Ice is gone?

[WeatherRusty]

When will AGW alarmism reach a tipping point? It's got to be getting close.

When and if the consensus of scientific opinion is shifted by demonstrable evidence. We are nowhere near close to that. It is going to be darned near impossible to overturn the physical basis behind AGW.

I don't care if it takes 200-300 years to warm an average of 3C. It will happen because it has to happen.

[ben4vols]

When and if the consensus of scientific opinion is shifted by demonstrable evidence. We are nowhere near close to that. It is going to be darned near impossible to overturn the physical basis behind AGW.

I don't care if it takes 200-300 years to warm an average of 3C. It will happen because it has to happen.

LOL, hubris much? It only has to happen if your assumptions are correct. Which they aren't. You don't need 200-300 years to tell your assumptions are incorrect, just look at global temp models vs observations. Also this isn't just cherry picking the last decade, look at the last 100 years. Global models forecasted/hindcasted one 20-30 year period very well but the rest is varying degrees of garbage.

[WeatherRusty]

LOL, hubris much? It only has to happen if your assumptions are correct. Which they aren't. You don't need 200-300 years to tell your assumptions are incorrect, just look at global temp models vs observations. Also this isn't just cherry picking the last decade, look at the last 100 years. Global models forecasted/hindcasted one 20-30 year period very well but the rest is varying degrees of garbage.

What assumptions?

Not hubris, but rather an appreciation for the underlying scientific basis which you lack.

The Planck response to a 3.7W/m^2 radiative forcing is a bit less than 1.2C. That's what you get for a single doubling of CO2, not to mention the addition of other long lived greenhouse gases plus methane. That's not an assumption, it physics. If we do nothing to mitigate, we will significantly exceed the radiative forcing given by a single doubling of CO2.

The consensus of many dozens of climate sensitivity studies place sensitivity to a single doubling of CO2 or it's equivalent forcing at 2C to 4.5C. So, even at low sensitivity, if we substantially exceed the forcing by a single doubling of CO2 we easily approach 3C of warming. That's not an assumption, it's the conclusion (including uncertainty) given from many independent lines of scientific research.

Unless demonstrated otherwise, this is the science as it stands today and you have no valid reason to doubt it.

I don't care about what any models indicate. The scientific basis for AGW has nothing to do with modeling. Physics and sensitivity to known past forcing informs us of what to expect.

[ben4vols]

I don't care about what any models indicate. The scientific basis for AGW has nothing to do with modeling. Physics and sensitivity to known past forcing informs us of what to expect.

The models are scripted with your assumptions and your perceived knowledge of climate science. Modeling have EVERYTHING to do with the scientific basis for AGW. Again I ask, in what other field of science does this fly? Like many of your fellow AGW supporters you are filled with hubris and it isn't warranted.

[PhillipS]

The models are scripted with your assumptions and your perceived knowledge of climate science. Modeling have EVERYTHING to do with the scientific basis for AGW. Again I ask, in what other field of science does this fly? Like many of your fellow AGW supporters you are filled with hubris and it isn't warranted.

You clearly don't understand the difference between physics-based models and statistical models. Climate science is no worse than any scientific discipline. Models are simply the embodiment of the theoretical underpinnings. Biology? - population and ecological models among others. Geology? - models are used throughout to describe erosional and depositional processes, plate tectonics and just about every other aspect. Meteorology? - Puhleeze! If meteorologists couldn't use their models they would be reduced to reading thermometers and checking rain gauges.

Can you name a single branch of science that doesn't use models?

[cyclonebuster]

You clearly don't understand the difference between physics-based models and statistical models. Climate science is no worse than any scientific discipline. Models are simply the embodiment of the theoretical underpinnings. Biology? - population and ecological models among others. Geology? - models are used throughout to describe erosional and depositional processes, plate tectonics and just about every other aspect. Meteorology? - Puhleeze! If meteorologists couldn't use their models they would be reduced to reading thermometers and checking rain gauges.

Can you name a single branch of science that doesn't use models?

Heck even SI has swim suit models....

[PhillipS]

Heck even SI has swim suit models....

But even the SI models have flaws* - that's what photoshop is for.

*except, of course, for Elle MacPherson - she was perfect.

[WeatherRusty]

The models are scripted with your assumptions and your perceived knowledge of climate science. Modeling have EVERYTHING to do with the scientific basis for AGW. Again I ask, in what other field of science does this fly? Like many of your fellow AGW supporters you are filled with hubris and it isn't warranted.

Do you mean to tell me that if there were no modeling of climate we would not understand CO2 to be a long lived greenhouse gas which does not precipitate out of the atmosphere? That the increase in any greenhouse gas increases the opacity of the atmosphere? That this opacity reduces the OLR at the TOA? That the decrease in OLR at TOA given by a doubling of CO2 is 3.7W/m^2? That this will force a temperature response of just under 1.2C at the surface?

Do you understand the radiative physics which provides for these determinations? The Planck Law, the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, the Rayleigh-Jeans Law? The HITRAN database of radiation codes?

Nearly all of the fundamental physics which is the basis for AGW was developed before the advent of computer technology.

Likewise the physics which works so well in every other known arena, indicates that the water vapor feedback to the forced temperature change will augment the adjustment at the TOA. Yes there are negative feedbacks, such as the lapse rate feedback and clouds, but every indication is that net feedback is positive to some degree between 2C to 4.5C to an initial forced temperature change of 1.2C.

[ben4vols]

Do you mean to tell me that if there were no modeling of climate we would not understand CO2 to be a long lived greenhouse gas which does not precipitate out of the atmosphere? That the increase in any greenhouse gas increases the opacity of the atmosphere? That this opacity reduces the OLR at the TOA? That the decrease in OLR at TOA given by a doubling of CO2 is 3.7W/m^2? That this will force a temperature response of just under 1.2C at the surface?

Do you understand the radiative physics which provides for these determinations? The Planck Law, the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, the Rayleigh-Jeans Law? The HITRAN database of radiation codes?

Nearly all of the fundamental physics which is the basis for AGW was developed before the advent of computer technology.

Likewise the physics which works so well in every other known arena, indicates that the water vapor feedback to the forced temperature change will augment the adjustment at the TOA. Yes there are negative feedbacks, such as the lapse rate feedback and clouds, but every indication is that net feedback is positive to some degree between 2C to 4.5C to an initial forced temperature change of 1.2C.

You can repeat that till you are blue in the face but the observations don't match your theory. So instead of putting your head into the sand you need to review your theory and see where you screwed up. I was well versed in physics at the college level so yes I understand your explanation. Yes AGW is an age old theory that still remains largely unproven.

[WeatherRusty]

You can repeat that till you are blue in the face but the observations don't match your theory. So instead of putting your head into the sand you need to review your theory and see where you screwed up. I was well versed in physics at the college level so yes I understand your explanation. Yes AGW is an age old theory that still remains largely unproven.

A 0.8C increase in global temperature in a century does not match the theory? At a net 1.6W/m^2 forcing to this point (which has not been fully equilibrated, ie. TOA imbalance) , I conclude 0.8C is well on track to fall within the range of uncertainty.

[cyclonebuster]

Do you mean to tell me that if there were no modeling of climate we would not understand CO2 to be a long lived greenhouse gas which does not precipitate out of the atmosphere? That the increase in any greenhouse gas increases the opacity of the atmosphere? That this opacity reduces the OLR at the TOA? That the decrease in OLR at TOA given by a doubling of CO2 is 3.7W/m^2? That this will force a temperature response of just under 1.2C at the surface?

Do you understand the radiative physics which provides for these determinations? The Planck Law, the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, the Rayleigh-Jeans Law? The HITRAN database of radiation codes?

Nearly all of the fundamental physics which is the basis for AGW was developed before the advent of computer technology.

Likewise the physics which works so well in every other known arena, indicates that the water vapor feedback to the forced temperature change will augment the adjustment at the TOA. Yes there are negative feedbacks, such as the lapse rate feedback and clouds, but every indication is that net feedback is positive to some degree between 2C to 4.5C to an initial forced temperature change of 1.2C.

I worked 20 years in the control room for Florida Power and Light Company most of the time as a control room operator at the Turkey Point/Cutler Ridge power plants and we burned natural gas, high sulfur and low sulfur Bunker C oil in those furnaces. I can remember the day when we didn't have stack emissions monitoring in place during the first ten years of employment. The second half of my career big changes came in monitoring Co,Nox and Sox. Those monitors are mandated by the resource conservation recovery act otherwise known as (RCRA) to be in perfect working order and are to be calibrated every day. If I were negligent in my job and allowed one of those monitors to stay in an alarm condition for an extended amount of time I could have lost my job and or gone to jail for breaking the law. The reason why we monitor those emissions is to lower GHG's like Co and Nox simply by running an efficient furnace and having the burners combusting the fuel as close to stochiometric as possible in order to reduce those emissions. Problem is these days there is so much fuel being burned it still doesn't matter because the furnaces still produce those GHG's because of the population growth. So why is it you think the government placed those restrictions on every commercial furnace in the country? I'll let you in on a little secret,it is harmful to the environment and to your person. It is harmful in the form of Acid Rain; Nitric Acid,Carbonic Acid, Sulfuric Acid. Surfer dioxide which is a known global cooling GHG, Nitric Oxide and Carbon Dioxide GHG's known for global warming. That's not all of the problems with those compounds. Think about what happens to your body when you breath that crap in and what other nasties that are in the particulate matter that eventually end up in your lungs some of which are radioactive byproducts from burning fossil fuels. Think I am joshing you look here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm....638109/?page=12

After being in Hurricane Andrew's eyewall I began caring about what we do to planet Earth and began thinking of a way to reverse the effects we are causing climate wise.

[Sundog]

Why are you guys wasting your time with ben4vols? Nothing short of god himself personally telling him the warming planet is due to human activities will convince him. Facts do not penetrate the impermeable layer he surrounds himself with. I really do not think he understands the physics at all. There is no debate to weather rusty's posts. You either get it or you don't. Obviously ben4vols doesn't.

[Jonger]

I worked 20 years in the control room for Florida Power and Light Company most of the time as a control room operator at the Turkey Point/Cutler Ridge power plants and we burned natural gas, high sulfur and low sulfur Bunker C oil in those furnaces. I can remember the day when we didn't have stack emissions monitoring in place during the first ten years of employment. The second half of my career big changes came in monitoring Co,Nox and Sox. Those monitors are mandated by the resource conservation recovery act otherwise known as (RCRA) to be in perfect working order and are to be calibrated every day. If I were negligent in my job and allowed one of those monitors to stay in an alarm condition for an extended amount of time I could have lost my job and or gone to jail for breaking the law. The reason why we monitor those emissions is to lower GHG's like Co and Nox simply by running an efficient furnace and having the burners combusting the fuel as close to stochiometric as possible in order to reduce those emissions. Problem is these days there is so much fuel being burned it still doesn't matter because the furnaces still produce those GHG's because of the population growth. So why is it you think the government placed those restrictions on every commercial furnace in the country? I'll let you in on a little secret,it is harmful to the environment and to your person. It is harmful in the form of Acid Rain; Nitric Acid,Carbonic Acid, Sulfuric Acid. Surfer dioxide which is a known global cooling GHG, Nitric Oxide and Carbon Dioxide GHG's known for global warming. That's not all of the problems with those compounds. Think about what happens to your body when you breath that crap in and what other nasties that are in the particulate matter that eventually end up in your lungs some of which are radioactive byproducts from burning fossil fuels. Think I am joshing you look here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm....638109/?page=12

After being in Hurricane Andrew's eyewall I began caring about what we do to planet Earth and began thinking of a way to reverse the effects we are causing climate wise.

NOX emmisions are really going to take a dump after diesel truck emmision reduction gets factored in. We are currently buying a new medium duty truck for out business and the 2010 standards have it almost eliminated, diesel exhaust is now mister by urea liquid and it breaks the NOX up before exiting the exhaust pipe. The exhaust from a diesel truck is smell free and no visible particulate.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW 2