donsutherland1 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 The idea that the elevated atmospheric concentration of CO2 would last a long time (barring geo-engineering progress toward technologies that don't exist today e.g., "carbon scrubbing" for lack of a better term, or natural phenonomena) is not disputed. In fact, most of the non-AGW arguments I have read don't dispute the issue of a peristence of atmospheric CO2. Instead, they suggest that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is so small relative to other factors, that its recent increase has had little discernible impact and that its projected future increase will also have little impact. Instead, those lines or argument proceed, natural factors will continue to play the dominant role in shaping the Earth's climate.That the oceans cool/warm more slowly than land is also well-established. Hence, the paper's conclusion that today's CO2 emissions would have effects that linger for an extended timeframe appears to be reasonable. Finally, will the warming, especially in the Southern Hemisphere, be of a magnitude sufficient to precipitate the direst consequences suggested in the article? That's an entirely different question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 The idea that the elevated atmospheric concentration of CO2 would last a long time (barring geo-engineering progress toward technologies that don't exist today e.g., "carbon scrubbing" for lack of a better term, or natural phenonomena) is not disputed. In fact, most of the non-AGW arguments I have read don't dispute the issue of a peristence of atmospheric CO2. Instead, they suggest that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is so small relative to other factors, that its recent increase has had little discernible impact and that its projected future increase will also have little impact. Instead, those lines or argument proceed, natural factors will continue to play the dominant role in shaping the Earth's climate.That the oceans cool/warm more slowly than land is also well-established. Hence, the paper's conclusion that today's CO2 emissions would have effects that linger for an extended timeframe appears to be reasonable. Finally, will the warming, especially in the Southern Hemisphere, be of a magnitude sufficient to precipitate the direst consequences suggested in the article? That's an entirely different question. Exactly. Well put. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted January 22, 2011 Author Share Posted January 22, 2011 I would like to know why there would be a need to put out a forecast for the year 3000. Even the most pessimistic of people are about 99% certain that we'll have global climate engineering far before then (if our species is still around lol.) Secondly, our supply of fossil fuel will run out before then (hopefully!) We should be on fusion or maybe higher end technology (particle collider assisted perhaps-- antimatter?) much before then. Just to reiterate, the point is that even if fossil fuels run out around 2100, the effect will likely continue till 3000 and beyond. This again is due to the retention of CO2 and heat by the ocean/atmosphere system. Even today's level of warming would be locked in till 3000 or so if we shut off all CO2 emissions completely right now. Personally I think geoengineering is dubious because of side effects. It seems easier to control the source of emissions, or at least try to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hambone Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 C'mon! Ted Turner, noted America's Cup Captain, Cable Network Maven and Amateur Climatologist is already all over this stuff! On not taking drastic immediate action to correct global warming: "Not doing it will be catastrophic. We'll be eight degrees hotter in ten, not ten but 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hambone Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 Just to reiterate, the point is that even if fossil fuels run out around 2100, the effect will likely continue till 3000 and beyond. This again is due to the retention of CO2 and heat by the ocean/atmosphere system. Even today's level of warming would be locked in till 3000 or so if we shut off all CO2 emissions completely right now. Personally I think geoengineering is dubious because of side effects. It seems easier to control the source of emissions, or at least try to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere. Just spread a little charcoal around your yard. Things will be fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted January 23, 2011 Author Share Posted January 23, 2011 Yes I agree things like biochar are a good idea. I'm unsure though if this can do the whole job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 You are a massive tool. mods? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 mods? What? He is. Like Carson Daly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 What? He is. Like Carson Daly. Hint: when your posts are deleted, stop posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 This whole thread is a joke... literally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 This whole thread is a joke... literally. Not if you recognize basic physical realities about our planet. It's very sad that you don't. Really.. it makes me very concerned about the future of humanity that people can be so willfully ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaguars Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 So wait, we're all gonna die? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 So wait, we're all gonna die? Yep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 So wait, we're all gonna die? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted March 5, 2011 Author Share Posted March 5, 2011 Here's a relatively new paper with more perspectives on long term climate commitment, even if all emissions stop right now. One point is that aerosols are somewhat masking the warming effect of GHGs at present. To improve the estimates of climate sensitivity it is important to understand the aerosols better. http://www.agu.org/p...0GL045850.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocoAko Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 Here's a relatively new paper with more perspectives on long term climate commitment, even if all emissions stop right now. One point is that aerosols are somewhat masking the warming effect of GHGs at present. To improve the estimates of climate sensitivity it is important to understand the aerosols better. http://www.agu.org/p...0GL045850.shtml Cool stuff. I'll have to take a look. This thread is pathetic, especially coming from people within the scientific community. It makes it seem completely worthless to even read these threads. And I'm sure many others can cite other papers completely refuting this too. Let's see them, then. The peer review process, especially for such respected journals, isn't something to just toss aside as no big deal or irrelevant. So let me ask you this: Do you think that this computer model that was designed to predict Earth's temperature in 3000 is any better than the CFS? This is irrelevant as they are not the same type of model. The GFS is operational and tries to predict small-scale weather processes. GCMs are statistical and deal with anomalies, etc. One's accuracy does not have to correlate with the other's. I'm not really in believing anything unless it's supported by a rational argument that outweighs the contrary evidence. I'd instead like to hear a rational argument that points in another direction. Let's try keep this forum at a high level of information by presenting some reasoning or evidence. It seems there's some type of instinctual aversion to thinking about something that can extend beyond one's lifetime? Don't bother. Why would you when they can refute peer reviewed journals by simply declaring it alarmist? It's so simple! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.