Global warming discussion IV

[logger]

Thanks

Have to remember where I am.

 

[macdoc]

Yeah - you are in a science forum where opinion without science papers to back it is worth squat.

Still no science backed explanation as the cause of these observations I see.

No surprise there.

Meanwhile at time still far far away....

Warning that Antarctic ice sheet a 'sleeping giant'
March 11, 2016
West Antarctic Ice Sheet

A map of West Antarctica. Credit: Wikipedia

New research has led to a warning from a leading Antarctic expert that the world is on track for massive sea level rises resulting from the melting of an ice sheet.
The research, involving Victoria University of Wellington scientists, has revealed that if carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere continue increasing as predicted, the giant East Antarctic ice sheet will melt.

"Our study shows that this ice sheet becomes unstable and melts if carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere reach 600 parts per million—levels which may be reached by the end of the century if emissions reductions targets agreed to recently in Paris are not met," says Professor Tim Naish, Director of Victoria University's Antarctic Research Centre.

"If the Antarctic ice sheet completely melted, global sea level would rise about 60 metres. It's a sleeping giant."

The research, published this week in prestigious international journal Science, documents the growth of the first continent-wide ice sheet on Antarctica 34 million years ago.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-03-antarctic-ice-sheet-giant.html#jCp

600 ppm not all that far away given what we are putting out.....

 

[CapelDodger]

Thanks

Have to remember where I am.

Well outside your comfort zone.

 

[logger]

Well outside your comfort zone.

Lol

Surely you jest. This has got to be the most exciting place.

 

[Trakar]

Yeah - you are in a science forum where opinion without science papers to back it is worth squat.

Still no science backed explanation as the cause of these observations I see.

[qimg]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/--ifiMCrfLOo/VuJqb0uYpZI/AAAAAAAAQKA/K7EL-HUNY1gRj29JCVFypiFoyYfL-UR2wCCo/s672-Ic42/Velicogna-2013-fig2.png[/qimg]

No surprise there.

Meanwhile at time still far far away....

600 ppm not all that far away given what we are putting out.....

Many suggest the end of century ratio will be in the range of 700-1200ppm Depending upon how the near surface sinks respond.

 

[Steve001]

Great questions!

I don't believe human beings living their lives in normal ways hurts anything. The warmist believes humans can change the climate even though they can't tell us what the weather will be tomorrow yet their models tell us what its going to be 30 years from now. Its laughable.

I'll take this opportunity to address all the insults too. Posters on here constantly talk about people like me getting educated to the hoax of AGW, granted I certainly don't know as much as you fine fellas about the science of AWG, but there are plenty of scientist who disagree with you.

Certainly capitalism is under attack from this hoax, this whole hoax can be summed up in one word, money. Most of you posting here are probably on the take just as the next corrupt scientist. And yes, I'm not changing my lifestyle for any hoax, if you believe this crap so much, you need to do much more to lessen your own carbon footprint, that way they'll be more carbon for me to burn at a cheaper price.

Which is why most of the old communist are with you, its a great way to seize power.

Thank you for showing us what really is the crux of your position, a position which has nothing to do with the science behind climate change. Make sure all those disagreeing scientists are experts in climate science. As revealed by your own admission you know little about the science of climate change why not educate yourself. Surely there's nothing to be lost.

 

[Reality Check]

Business and corporations have been completely abused trying to live up to the regulations, many were sorely needed, many have put people out of business, not that that matters to you.

It you want to talk about the economics of climate change mitigation, logger, then you should learn about the economics of climate change mitigation !
When US states implemented carbon pricing schemes, jobs were generated. Economists looking at the costs/benefits of climate change mitigation agree that the benefits outweigh the costs. Even just looking at the costs shows that they are small.
The economic impacts of carbon pricing

Climate economics research shows that in reality, we are harming the economy by failing to implement CO2 limits.

I do not know where you are getting these myths from, logger. The links you have cited suggest ignorant or even lying climate change denier blogs. I suggest you start to read credible sources. Start with
RealClimate where the bloggers are working climate scientists or
Skeptical Science which has a good dictionary of climate skeptic myths and plenty of articles about climate science.

 

[Reality Check]

I don't believe human beings living their lives in normal ways hurts anything.

Maybe you should ask the dodo or passenger pigeon whether this is true, logger - whoops you cannot .
The evidence for AGW is complex but is basically:

• We can measure the global surface temperature and it is increasing. Thus global warming is happening.
• The physics of CO2 means that increasing CO2 increases the temperature of the Earth (the greenhouse effect).
• We can measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and it is increasing.
• We can determine how much of the increase is due to our bringing of fossil fuels, etc. (the ratio of carbon isotopes is a signature and we can calculate a CO2 budget for emissions and absorption).
  The result is the increase is due to us - thus anthropomorphic greenhouse warming (AGW).

Then we have computer modelling. Computer models are tested by seeing if they predict past temperatures. They cannot do this correctly without the addition of the CO2 that we emit.

Someone who wants to learn about climate should not just repeat climate change myths without checking them out. They should earn things such as climate is not weather, the simple physics behind the greenhouse effect, what climate models predict, etc.

You need to get educated about the science of AGW and not fall for the lies on the Internet about a AGW "hoax". There are credible sources for climate science (see my last post).

 

[Trakar]

Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change

Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/21852/at...ather-events-in-the-context-of-climate-change
You may read it online, or download as a PDF

Description


As climate has warmed over recent years, a new pattern of more frequent and more intense weather events has unfolded across the globe. Climate models simulate such changes in extreme events, and some of the reasons for the changes are well understood. Warming increases the likelihood of extremely hot days and nights, favors increased atmospheric moisture that may result in more frequent heavy rainfall and snowfall, and leads to evaporation that can exacerbate droughts.

Even with evidence of these broad trends, scientists cautioned in the past that individual weather events couldn’t be attributed to climate change. Now, with advances in understanding the climate science behind extreme events and the science of extreme event attribution, such blanket statements may not be accurate. The relatively young science of extreme event attribution seeks to tease out the influence of human-cause climate change from other factors, such as natural sources of variability like El Niño, as contributors to individual extreme events.

Event attribution can answer questions about how much climate change influenced the probability or intensity of a specific type of weather event. As event attribution capabilities improve, they could help inform choices about assessing and managing risk, and in guiding climate adaptation strategies. This report examines the current state of science of extreme weather attribution, and identifies ways to move the science forward to improve attribution capabilities.

Nice read

 

[a_unique_person]

Great questions!

I don't believe human beings living their lives in normal ways hurts anything. The warmist believes humans can change the climate even though they can't tell us what the weather will be tomorrow yet their models tell us what its going to be 30 years from now. Its laughable.

I don't know why you say that when the accuracy of weather forecasting is incredibly accurate for the next day and they can even predict the week with reasonable accuracy.

 

[macdoc]

though they can't tell us what the weather will be tomorrow yet their models tell us what its going to be 30 years from now. Its laughable

what's laughable is your ignorance of how your only planet works.
Climate is not weather and until you get past that basic mental block you will continue to be laughed at for your ignorance of basics.

BTW most of what we are discussing have little to do with models and are based on observation.

As before - do you have a science based and supported explanation for the observed and accelerating decline in global ice mass???

It's a science forum ....put up ...or....well you know...

 

[macdoc]

This jump in CO2 recorded in 2015

Record leap in carbon dioxide seen in 2015 - Phys.org
phys.org › Earth › Environment
4 days ago - March 10, 2016 ... "The annual growth rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide... jumped by 3.05 parts per million during 2015, the largest ...

.....I'm wondering given the insanely warm Arctic ...are we seeing a feedback kicking in?? .....global emissions have leveled off

Global greenhouse-gas emissions set to fall in 2015 - Nature
www.nature.com/.../global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-set-to-fall-in-2015-1....
Dec 7, 2015 - Global emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels and industry are on track to level off or perhaps even dip slightly this year,

...then this jump recorded

 

[Mikemcc]

Probably in part due to El Nino affecting the balance. We'll see when it reverts back to a neutral or La Nina phase.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[macdoc]

Why would El Nino affect CO2 release - the heat is emerging from the ocean into the atmosphere so actually cooling the ocean ....= more CO2 capacity.

That said ...the surface temps in the Pacific are still insane so perhaps it is a timing issue....I'm not sure how quickly CO2 disperses globally ....given the monitoring station is in the Pacific.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Thanks

Have to remember where I am.

Yes. You really should come back when you have something thread-related to discuss and not some sort of religious-like belief involving AGW doesn't exist and everybody talking about it is either a moron or a conspirator.

Your confusion about denying AGW and being sceptic about it (and being sceptic as a whole) is outstanding and it basically consists in considering that "I'm sceptic about it" is an education-feigning replacement for "I don't believe it".

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by macdoc View Post

600 ppm not all that far away given what we are putting out.....

Trakar
Many suggest the end of century ratio will be in the range of 700-1200ppm Depending upon how the near surface sinks respond

.

Ouch ....any chance this 2015 SPIKE in CO2 is related to CO2 sink degradation??
Since Anthro releases appear down.

 

[Mikemcc]

Why would El Nino affect CO2 release - the heat is emerging from the ocean into the atmosphere so actually cooling the ocean ....= more CO2 capacity.

That said ...the surface temps in the Pacific are still insane so perhaps it is a timing issue....I'm not sure how quickly CO2 disperses globally ....given the monitoring station is in the Pacific.

AFAIK it's to do with were the water has moved from. The equatorial band is the primary source of oceanic CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. The water moved by the El Nino is relatively warm and CO2 rich and is forced to upwell in areas that are relatively poorer. This causes more CO2 to be emitted during the El Nino phase. An old paper here (Feely et al 1999)

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel1868/text.shtml

I'll try and find something more recent.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[lomiller]

Not sure if this has been mentioned but NASA has released their surface temperature anomaly for Dec – Feb, and it shattered the previous record.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt
This D-F anomaly is 1.49 Deg C above the 1951 – 1980 average.

The next highest values for D-F are
2007 – 1.04 Deg C
2015 – 1.01 Deg C
2010 – 0.93 Deg C
2006 – 0.87 Deg C
2002 – 0.87 Deg C

 

[Belz...]

First, the whole subject has been politicized and of course you warmists are LOSING the public opinion BADLY!!!

Is the data politicized? Where's your data?

 

[foophil]

February data is in and it is predictably bad. In fact, bad is rather an understatement:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

Also:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_t...ocking_global_warming_temperature_record.html

February 2016 was not only the warmest month ever measured globally, at 1.35 degrees Celsius above the long-term average—it was more than 0.2 degrees Celsius warmer than the previously most unusually warm month ever measured: January 2016

That means February 2016 was the first month in history that global average temperatures passed the 1.5 degree Celsius mark