Global warming discussion IV

[macdoc]

Good analysis on the paper .. Robert is thorough

Dr James Hansen — Human Warming Pushing Seas Toward Exponential Rise of Several Meters This Century
Continued high fossil fuel emissions this century are predicted to yield … nonlinearly growing sea level rise, reaching several meters over a timescale of 50–150 years. — Statement from a new scientific study led by Dr James Hansen entitled Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise, and Superstorms.

******

This week, Dr James Hansen and colleagues published one hell of a groundbreaking bit of scientific research. It’s a multi-disciplinary study incorporating the work of 19 top climate scientists, glaciologists, paleoclimatologists, and other Earth Systems researchers. Scientists from NASA, GEOMAR, JPL, and other top research agencies including recognized names like Dr Eric Rignot and Dr Makiko Sato all appear on the contributors list.

continues
http://robertscribbler.com/2016/03/...entially-rise-by-several-meters-this-century/

I'ts a two part analysis.

This aspect was new to me

A Heinrich Event for the 21st Century

For those not familiar with a Heinrich Event — it’s one of those disastrous climate change related incidents that you really don’t want to see emerge. One that drives rapid sea level rise, wrenching climate dislocations, and is likely also a trigger for regional and possibly hemispheric superstorms. Something that’s occurred numerous times in the geological past when the great Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets warmed enough to disgorge armadas of ice bergs into the North Atlantic and/or Southern Ocean. The kind of thing that scientist Steve Pascala called a Climate Monster in the Closet. And Dr. James Hansen and colleagues’ new study is the first of its kind to scientifically explore the potential occurrence of just such a freak and dangerous event during the 21st Century.

Because the paper covers such a broad range of topics related to Heinrich Events, I’ve decided to write a two-blog post covering it. This post will focus on the ice melt and sea level rise issues. The superstorm-generating aspect of Heinrich Events — which Dr Hansen and colleagues found was capable of producing waves powerful enough to pluck 1,000 ton boulders from the sea floor and deposit them upon hillsides in the Bahamas 130 feet above sea level 115,000 years ago — is something we’ll cover in a second related post over the next few days.

 

[logger]

Logger,

I wonder if it's possible t begin to build some bridges here, to try to establish some basic points on which we all here agree?

With that said, I would suggest starting with the Greenhouse Effect.

Do you understand that the Greenhouse Effect (outside of greenhouses) exists and is a real phenomenon?

Sure, what is the % of our contribution?

 

[logger]

Good analysis on the paper .. Robert is thorough



continues
http://robertscribbler.com/2016/03/...entially-rise-by-several-meters-this-century/

I'ts a two part analysis.

This aspect was new to me

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com...peating-his-identical-lies-from-30-years-ago/

 

[Reality Check]

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com...peating-his-identical-lies-from-30-years-ago/

A climate change denial blog rants about climate scientists lying and you think this is science, logger !
That is an idiotic article with images from old newspaper reports! The author is so deluded that he thinks that 30 old predictions are lies. If he cited the actual predictions rather than remarks in newspapers then they would be incorrect predictions from what we knew 30 years ago.

ETA: It is Steven Goddard who is lying to you or extremely ignorant, logger.
10 March 2016 logger: Steven Goddard joined two different sets of radiosonde data to create the illusion of "NOAA Radiosonde Data Shows No Warming For 58 Years" !

ETA: Did you read Goddard's rant at Who Is Steven Goddard?, logger?

• He claims that surveys of climate papers stating an opinion about AGW resulting in a 97% agreement with AGW are "a massive lie". His evidence - 52% of the American Meteorological Society believe in AGW!
• The radiative transfer models predict that 550 PPM or even 1000 PPM CO2 will have a large effect on global temperatures - which ignorant text does not change.
• Abysmal ignorance and paranoia about the adjustment of temperature records for changes in instruments.
• The delusion that climate scientists do not know about past rises in sea level.
• The weather is getting more severe. The science is that there are more severe hurricanes rather than more hurricanes.

 

[Reality Check]

What other Steven Goddard ignorance or rants can I find with a few minutes research?

1. Steven Goddard does not know that climate is weather over the long term (30 years is standard) !
   March 23 2016 Falling Sea Level: "Sea level has been falling on the Atlantic seaboard for the past six years." (my emphasis added)
2. Steven Goddard idiocy of a graph of global (not just US) annual surface temperatures compared with US summer temperatures.
   March 22 2016 The Heatwaves Of March 1907 And 1910
3. February shatters heat records, becomes hottest month for planet – CNN.com was a report that the global temperatures for February were the highest on record.
   March 22 2016 Steven Goddard ignorantly comments on this global temperature with graphs of Greenland, Arizona, Indiana and Australia temperatures !
4. March 20, 2016 Hottest Year Ever
   Actually a paranoid rant not about the hottest year ever! It is about his fantasy that "global warming causes drought", i.e. every drought that happens. Global warming produces an increase in the frequency of droughts.
   Irrelevant newspaper images from 1988 and 1989. A lie about scientists "getting paid by Al Gore to lie".
5. March 18, 2016 No Trend In Arctic Sea Ice For Ten Years
   At last - a bit of truth from Steven Goddard! The Arctic sea ice surface area since 2006 has even increased a little from its 2007 level. The Arctic sea ice volume has been decreasing since 1980.
   Of course there is a lie here - by selecting 2006 as his starting point Goddard is including the record low extent in 2007.
   Has Arctic sea ice returned to normal?
   

   Arctic sea ice has been steadily thinning, even in the last few years while the surface ice (eg - sea ice extent) increased slightly. Consequently, the total amount of Arctic sea ice in 2008 and 2009 are the lowest on record.

 

[Warmer1]

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com...peating-his-identical-lies-from-30-years-ago/

Thank you logger! The article you provided shows that James Hansesn's predictions were correct!

From your link

"James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies said global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20 years"

We easily surpassed a 2 degrees F increase

“This is the first time we’ve temporarily breached the 2° Celsius warming threshold, but it will become more common and eventually perpetual if we do nothing to stem the tide,” Mann noted

http://sustainnovate.ae/en/innovators-blog/detail/nasa-february-2016-most-anomalously-warm-month-in-135-years-of-record-keeping"

 

[macdoc]

Thirty five years go James Hansen published a global temperature forecast.....how did that work out??

Very well thanks.

Given the many uncertainties at the time, notably the role of aerosols, the agreement is very good indeed. They only underestimated the observed trend by about 30%, similar or better in magnitude than the CMIP5 models over the same period (although these tend to overestimate the trend, still mainly due to problems related to aerosols).

To conclude, a projection from 1981 for rising temperatures in a major science journal, at a time that the temperature rise was not yet obvious in the observations, has been found to agree well with the observations since then, underestimating the observed trend by about 30%, and easily beating naive predictions of no-change or a linear continuation of trends. It is also a nice example of a statement based on theory that could be falsified and up to now has withstood the test. The “global warming hypothesis” has been developed according to the principles of sound science.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/

Of course if you read any climate science logger ...you would know this

 

[Warmer1]

I was reading an article about Donald Trump's climate change denial at Mashable where over 90% of the respondents were calling the science a hoax and a denier posted this

"Where exactly did National Academy of Sciences receive their training in climate science? It's strange, how some people think non cognitive entities can somehow form official opinions."

Unreal

 

[OCaptain]

Sure, what is the % of our contribution?

Great question. I looked this up some time ago in response to a local TV news interview about climate change.

A study from 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010) reveals that human activity accounts for 33.6 gigatons of CO2.

This article is cited here: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n12/full/ngeo1022.html

 

[foophil]

Great question. I looked this up some time ago in response to a local TV news interview about climate change.

A study from 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010) reveals that human activity accounts for 33.6 gigatons of CO2.

This article is cited here: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n12/full/ngeo1022.html

I'm afraid that is behind a paywall, but even if it weren't, I'm quite sure most of us here know what Logger's next point would be:

"Human CO2 is a tiny % of all CO2 emissions"

This has been brought up many times in this long series of threads. I doubt he'd spend time going back and reading it to find the answer, so I'll go ahead and preempt him if I can:

Natural CO2 emissions (from the ocean and vegetation) are balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Human CO2 emissions upsets the natural balance a little at a time, compounded year after year after year. That added CO2 can't be absorbed by quickly. It adds up, exponentially in some cases.

About 40% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed, mostly by vegetation and the oceans. The rest remains in the atmosphere. We know this because we can literally measure it. Natural changes on the scale of what humans have done usually take tens of thousands of years to accomplish (and recover from). We've done it in a century and are continuing to add to it.

 

[logger]

A climate change denial blog rants about climate scientists lying and you think this is science, logger !
That is an idiotic article with images from old newspaper reports! The author is so deluded that he thinks that 30 old predictions are lies. If he cited the actual predictions rather than remarks in newspapers then they would be incorrect predictions from what we knew 30 years ago.

Well then Reality Check, you shouldn't be getting so upset about it.

 

[logger]

I'm afraid that is behind a paywall, but even if it weren't, I'm quite sure most of us here know what Logger's next point would be:

"Human CO2 is a tiny % of all CO2 emissions"

Would you like to throw the % out? I so desperately want to see you post it.

It is very important for people to know this.

 

[logger]

I'm afraid that is behind a paywall, but even if it weren't, I'm quite sure most of us here know what Logger's next point would be:

"Human CO2 is a tiny % of all CO2 emissions"

This has been brought up many times in this long series of threads. I doubt he'd spend time going back and reading it to find the answer, so I'll go ahead and preempt him if I can:

Natural CO2 emissions (from the ocean and vegetation) are balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Human CO2 emissions upsets the natural balance a little at a time, compounded year after year after year. That added CO2 can't be absorbed by quickly. It adds up, exponentially in some cases.

It looks like Volcanoes may be the wild card with your opinion. The Earth does seem to handle those quite well.

About 40% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed, mostly by vegetation and the oceans. The rest remains in the atmosphere. We know this because we can literally measure it. Natural changes on the scale of what humans have done usually take tens of thousands of years to accomplish (and recover from). We've done it in a century and are continuing to add to it.

How do you know its going to take tens of thousands of years, especially to recover from?

 

[ehcks]

Would you like to throw the % out? I so desperately want to see you post it.

It is very important for people to know this.

Wrong question.

The correct questions are "What would the atmospheric CO2 level trend look like if humans didn't exist?" and "How far off from that are we?"

 

[macdoc]

Because carbon is forever

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.

www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/f…

Logger

How do you know its going to take tens of thousands of years, especially to recover from?

You would know that if you followed climate science.
Methane is a much more powerful GWG but drops out in a decade or so....carbon persists.

Volcanos are a smidgeon of the contribution these days tho at one time they rivalled ( tho did not best for speed of contribution ) what we are doing.
They are one reason we understand the consequences of very high CO2 levels.

Volcanoes contribute SO2 ( aerosols ) which slows down global warming for a couple of years and then drops out - they are easy to see in the climate record.

You'd know that if you cared.

I'd show that to you but you think it it's all a big hoax so I can't be bothered dealing with someone drowning in Koch Koolaid....by personal choice.

 

[logger]

Because carbon is forever


www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/f…

Logger


You would know that if you followed climate science.
Methane is a much more powerful GWG but drops out in a decade or so....carbon persists.

Volcanos are a smidgeon of the contribution these days tho at one time they rivalled ( tho did not best for speed of contribution ) what we are doing.
They are one reason we understand the consequences of very high CO2 levels.

Volcanoes contribute SO2 ( aerosols ) which slows down global warming for a couple of years and then drops out - they are easy to see in the climate record.

You'd know that if you cared.

I'd show that to you but you think it it's all a big hoax so I can't be bothered dealing with someone drowning in Koch Koolaid....by personal choice.

I love how you cannot resist the personal attacks, it is a huge reason you're losing public opinion, and of course people don't want to live in tents.

 

[macdoc]

Actually public opinion is strongly acknowledging the reality of AGW - another fact shown to you many posts back which you continue to deny. Stating the obvious is hardly a personl attack....it's well...stating the obvious.

You've amply demostrated your unwillingness to accept climate science and the consequences of adding CO2 to the atmosphere ,,,,someting known for many decades .....even to Exxon who - like you ...tried to deny it.

Change of tune these days ....

ExxonMobil Warns of 'Catastrophic' 9°F to 12°F Global ...
thinkprogress.org/climate/.../12/.../exxonmobil-warns-catastrophic-global...
Dec 7, 2015 - ExxonMobil Warns of 'Catastrophic' 9°F to 12°F Global Warming ...

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/12/07/3728921/exxonmobil-warns-catastrophic-global-warming/

Exxon Warns Climate Inaction Risks Warming Far Beyond 2 Degrees

Blink and you’ll miss it, but one line in a recent Washington Post interview on climate change with experts from fossil fuel giant ExxonMobil offhandedly suggests a nightmarish, desperate future if global leaders don’t act fast—one that centers around a possible average temperature rise of up to 7 or more degrees Celsius.

http://ecowatch.com/2015/12/09/exxon-climate-inaction/

What's your excuse?? Koolaid overdose??

Or unwillingness to accept reality....

It's getting warmer
We're responsible
It has serious consequences that are here now
We're responsible to do something about it.

There are no easy fixes ....the FIRST step is acknowledge the problem ....the majority of the planet and the US is there ....you aren't

and I should bother explaining climate science 101 to you .....??
I don't think so.

 

[Trakar]

I love how you cannot resist the personal attacks, it is a huge reason you're losing public opinion, and of course people don't want to live in tents.

Where do you perceive a loss of public opinion?

 

[logger]

What's your excuse?? Koolaid overdose??

Or unwillingness to accept reality....

The reality is until a cheaper energy source is available, carbon will be the norm

It's getting warmer

So what, warmer is better.

We're responsible

No we're not, you're guessing

It has serious consequences that are here now

According to you

We're responsible to do something about it.

We cannot make it warmer, therefor, we cannot make it colder.

There are no easy fixes ....the FIRST step is acknowledge the problem ....the majority of the planet and the US is there ....you aren't

Those easy fixes would be?

 

[Warmer1]

Sure, what is the % of our contribution?

I really think this is a great presentation on the 4.6 Billion Years of Earth’s Climate History: The Role of CO2
This was presented for the National Academies of Science and it clearly shows the relationship between CO2 and the earth's temperature.

24 minutes long. Published on Jun 1, 2015

By Richard Alley, professor at Penn State Dept. of Geosciences

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujkcTZZlikg


Virtually all of the science that you need is readily available. If you need to research further in depth regarding CO2 then find the peer-reviewed papers that support this presentation.

People get testy because you are obviously not looking into what is now peer-reviewed and globally accepted science. The laws of physics are the same in every country, maths are the same in all countries, and so is the accepted science of climate change. It is a scientific fact now.

As Neil DeGrasse Tyson states "The great thing about science is that it is true whether you believe it or not"

Good luck with your research.

...........................................................

I didn't see the post above until submitting this one. Sheesh!