Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by Iamme View Post
Yeah. So how much have we warmed since say 1960?, so i can make better sense of me both freezing in the winter, and cooking in the summer, whether it be in southern Wisconsin, northern Wisconsin, sothern gulf Florida, or southern gulf Texas, and western Wisconsin...during that span of time.
Click to expand...
some 0.4°C
Click to expand...

which doesn't sound like much but represents an immense amount of additional energy in the atmosphere, the oceans and the glaciers and ice. That energy shows up unevenly as more extremes of weather and and more water vapor in the atmosphere.

There are a series of graphs here that show how this plays out statistically.



The middle one shows how variance applies.

http://www.ipcc.ch

The other thing that you may have noticed personally is the warmer nights which has a large impact on agriculture and the biome but rarely is covered off in reporting.
The drop in out going IR radiation is due to the C02 - more is trapped. We have changed the energy balance of the planet and we keep changing it with C02 emissions.
Even if we stopped cold now - changes would go on until a new equilibrium is reached.

Because C02 remains in the atmosphere as long as 100,000 years ( tho the bulk drops out sooner )....these changes are permanent in human scale terms.

Nature Reports Climate Change
Published online: 20 November 2008 | doi:10.1038/climate.2008.122

Carbon is forever

Carbon dioxide emissions and their associated warming could linger for millennia, according to some climate scientists. Mason Inman looks at why the fallout from burning fossil fuels could last far longer than expected.
Click to expand...

http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html

This will be a good read for you to help understand why the atmosphere is only a small part of the warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/prudent-path.html

this is the key point for you to grasp ....the rest of the article is very worth while.

It's true that the consequences of anthropogenic climate change so far have been manageable. It's also true that global surface air temperatures have only increased about 0.8°C over the past century. On a century timescale, this is actually quite a large and rapid warming, and let's not forget that based on the greenhouse gases we've emitted to this point, we've already committed the planet to an additional 0.6°C warming, nearly twice as much as the "modest warming" thus far.

But we're not particularly concerned about current temperatures or the current climate. In fact, if we could maintain the climate and average global temperature at today's levels, everybody would be thrilled. The consequences of climate change so far have probably been more bad than good, but compared to the warming and climate change to come, our current temperatures and climate are quite manageable.

However, a business-as-usual scenario will not maintain the current temperature or climate. Quite the opposite, in fact. While the planet has only warmed about 0.8°C over the past century, the IPCC projects that in a business-as-usual scenario, the planet will warm 2.5–4°C over the next century. That's a net warming in the ballpark of 3 to 5 times as much as over the 20th century. A major factor that the "skeptics" are missing is the massive amount of heat which is going into the oceans, which is slowing the warming of the surface air, for the time being. But eventually, after atmospheric greenhouse gas levels stabilize, the planet will reach equilibrium and that unrealized surface air warming "in the pipeline" will happen. And to eventually stop global warming, we have to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas levels first!
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I know this is a very long running thread and I haven't really taken part in it. I accept the science on this subject, but I just thought in case no one posted it already, that you chaps might get a chuckle from this short video.

It is the English Comedian David Mitchell on his soap box. If I was Anna Coren, I'd marry this man:



As usual, I think he hits the nail on the head.
 
It's satire, it's comedy.
It's not serious.. It goes like this.

Last week I solved all the problems of the worlds environment.
I was surprised nobody really noticed.
Somebody pointed out that his policy won't work
Unless people believe
The earth needs saving!

It's brilliant satire.

He then goes on to claim what he says is true, and if somebody doesn't believe him, the burden is on them to prove he is wrong.

And he keeps a pretty good straight face the whole time. I love it.
 
Iamme said:
Yeah. So how much have we warmed since say 1960?, so i can make better sense of me both freezing in the winter, and cooking in the summer, whether it be in southern Wisconsin, northern Wisconsin, sothern gulf Florida, or southern gulf Texas, and western Wisconsin...during that span of time.
Click to expand...

I was talking about the data for southern Wisconsin, northern Wisconsin, southern gulf Florida, or southern gulf Texas, and western Wisconsin. You can see exactly how the average temperatures have changed for those locations. Giving a global mean anomaly doesn't tell anyone anything about a location, and how the climate has changed there. Or if it has changed.

It's like asking how is the economy doing since 1960, and being given the world economy figures. (whatever that would even mean)

It doesn't really tell you anything of value to you. Except somebody went to a lot of work to figure out the world economy. Which is still not of much value to the person wanting to know about what effects them.
 
I mean even if you used the NH land only mean to answer, since it is a US question, the answer, .89 degrees C warmer, still doesn't tell you much about the actual climate.

(2012 mean minus the 1960 mean)
 
I think r-j intended "Don't expect an answer to your satisfaction from anyone here.."

Hey r-j, do you want to watch some more "satire" from the same author? (maybe you had already watched it, as you know David Mitchell's style so well :rolleyes:)

 
Last edited:
r-j said:
I mean even if you used the NH land only mean to answer, since it is a US question, the answer, .89 degrees C warmer, still doesn't tell you much about the actual climate.

(2012 mean minus the 1960 mean)
Click to expand...

Yes, a e i o u doesn't tell much about consonants, and I know no literature that is written just with a e i o u.

Sorry, we have to be very concrete with you. You started again to write in your old style, taking a snowflake apart from the avalanche, diminishing it and telling it points to non-existence of winter nor mountains.
 
Last edited:
I assumed that when Iamme asked "So how much have we warmed since say 1960?" (s)he was asking for the global figure, having understood from previous responses that figures for small regions aren't particularly useful or meaningful.
 
r-j said:
He then goes on to claim what he says is true, and if somebody doesn't believe him, the burden is on them to prove he is wrong.
Click to expand...
You must have missed the stuff about serious scientific institutions who also hold this opinion. The other opinion is held by, well, the Oregon Petitioners. As an educated person who likes to know what he's talking about, Mitchell is aware of this. I suspect you're aware of it as well, since you avoid commenting on the matter, preferring to attribute the opinion to one comedian.

And he keeps a pretty good straight face the whole time. I love it.
Click to expand...
Only because it's gone completely over your head.
 
Pixel42 said:
I assumed that when Iamme asked "So how much have we warmed since say 1960?" (s)he was asking for the global figure, having understood from previous responses that figures for small regions aren't particularly useful or meaningful.
Click to expand...
Like you, I don't think Iamme is being deliberately obtuse. Like aleCcowaN, I'm aware that r-j is.
 
r-j said:
It's satire, it's comedy.
It's not serious.. It goes like this.

Last week I solved all the problems of the worlds environment.
I was surprised nobody really noticed.
Somebody pointed out that his policy won't work
Unless people believe
The earth needs saving!

It's brilliant satire.

He then goes on to claim what he says is true, and if somebody doesn't believe him, the burden is on them to prove he is wrong.

And he keeps a pretty good straight face the whole time. I love it.
Click to expand...

Weird.

Laughing at satire that you don't get?

OK.

I'm just stepping outside out for a bit, I may be some time...

Good luck chaps.:)
 
r-j said:
Don't expect an answer from anyone here. But that data is free and available to anyone.
Click to expand...

Dont you feel like crawling in a hole when you consider someone already was kind enough to post the answer...after my post, and before yours?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom