independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Sat 23rd Sep 2017 7:25am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Trump's PC Police Purging The Term 'Climate Change'
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 4 of 4 <1234
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #90 posted 09/04/17 9:48am

benni

Regarding the water vapor feedback not being observed in nature:


Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

With new observations, the scientists confirmed experimentally what existing climate models had anticipated theoretically. The research team used novel data from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite to measure precisely the humidity throughout the lowest 10 miles of the atmosphere. That information was combined with global observations of shifts in temperature, allowing researchers to build a comprehensive picture of the interplay between water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other atmosphere-warming gases. The NASA-funded research was published recently in the American Geophysical Union's Geophysical Research Letters.


AIRS is the first instrument to distinguish differences in the amount of water vapor at all altitudes within the troposphere. Using data from AIRS, the team observed how atmospheric water vapor reacted to shifts in surface temperatures between 2003 and 2008. By determining how humidity changed with surface temperature, the team could compute the average global strength of the water vapor feedback.

“This new data set shows that as surface temperature increases, so does atmospheric humidity,” Dessler said. “Dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere makes the atmosphere more humid. And since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, the increase in humidity amplifies the warming from carbon dioxide."

Specifically, the team found that if Earth warms 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, the associated increase in water vapor will trap an extra 2 Watts of energy per square meter (about 11 square feet).

"That number may not sound like much, but add up all of that energy over the entire Earth surface and you find that water vapor is trapping a lot of energy," Dessler said. "We now think the water vapor feedback is extraordinarily strong, capable of doubling the warming due to carbon dioxide alone."

Because the new precise observations agree with existing assessments of water vapor's impact, researchers are more confident than ever in model predictions that Earth's leading greenhouse gas will contribute to a temperature rise of a few degrees by the end of the century.

"This study confirms that what was predicted by the models is really happening in the atmosphere," said Eric Fetzer, an atmospheric scientist who works with AIRS data at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. "Water vapor is the big player in the atmosphere as far as climate is concerned."

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #91 posted 09/04/17 9:59am

benni

Another water vapor feedback done in nature:


Positive water vapour feedback in climate models confirmed by satellite data

D. RIND*, E.-W. CHIOU, W. CHU, J. LARSEN, S. OLTMANS, J. LERNER*, M. P. MCCORMKK & L. MCMASTER

*NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, New York 10025, USA
NASA/Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia 23665-5225, USA
NOAA CMDL, Boulder, Colorado, 80302, USA

CHIEFamong the mechanisms thought to amplify the global climate response to increased concentrations of trace gases is the atmospheric water vapour feedback. As the oceans and atmosphere warm, there is increased evaporation, and it has been generally thought that the additional moisture then adds to the greenhouse effect by trapping more infrared radiation. Recently, it has been suggested that general circulation models used for evaluating climate change overestimate this response, and that increased convection in a warmer climate would actually dry the middle and upper troposphere by means of associated compensatory subsidence1. We use some new satellite-generated water vapour data to investigate this question. From a comparison of summer and winter moisture values in regions of the middle and upper troposphere that have previously been difficult to observe with confidence, we find that, as the hemispheres warm, increased convection leads to increased water vapour above 500 mbar in approximate quantitative agreement with the results from current climate models. The same conclusion is reached by comparing the tropical western and eastern Pacific regions. Thus, we conclude that the water vapour feedback is not overestimated in models and should amplify the climate response to increased trace-gas concentrations.

------------------

References

1. Lindzen, R. S. Bull. Am. met. Soc. 71, 288−299 (1990).
2. Hansen, J. et al. Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity (eds Hansen, J. & Takahashi, T.) 130−163 (Am. Geophys. Un., Washington, DC, 1984).
3. Raval, A. & Ramanathan, V. Nature 342, 758−761 (1989). | Article |
4. Mauldin, L. E. III, Zaun, N. H., McCormick, M. P., Guy, J. H. & Vaughn, W. R. Opt. Engng 24, 307−312 (1985). | ChemPort |
5. Rind, D. et al. J. geophys. Res. (submitted).
6. Reeves, R., Williams, S., Rasmusson, E., Acheson, D., Carpenter, T. & Rasmussen, J. NOAA tech. rep., EDS 20 (US Dept of Commerce, Washington, D.C., 1976).
7. Schutz, C. & Gates, W. L. Rand Rep. R-915-ARPA, R.-1029-ARPA, Santa Monica, California, 1971, 1972.
8. Cess, R. D. Nature 342, 736−737 (1989). | Article |
9. Rind, D., Goldberg, R., Hansen, J., Rosenzweig, C. & Ruedy, R. J. geophys. Res. 95, 9983−10004 (1990).
10. Houze, R. A. Jr & Bates, A. K. Rev. Geophys. Space Phys. 19, 541−576 (1981).

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #92 posted 09/04/17 10:22am

benni

And regarding solar influx:


TvsTSI.png

Figure 1: Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance(thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007. TSI from 1979 to 2015 from the World Radiation Center (see their PMOD index page for data updates). Plots of the most recent solar irradiance can be found at the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics LISIRD site. The solar fluctuations since 1870 have contributed a maximum of 0.1 °C to temperature changes. In recent times the biggest solar fluctuation happened around 1960. But the fastest global warming started in 1980.


Sun's impact on history

Scientists have also often speculated whether the Maunder Minimum, a 70-year dearth of sunspots in the late 17th to early 18th century, was linked with the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America experienced bitterly cold winters. This regional cooling might be linked with a drop in the sun's extreme ultraviolet radiation. In fact, the sun could currently be on the cusp of a miniature version of the Maunder Minimum, since the current solar cycle is the weakest in more than 50 years.

"If the sun really is entering an unfamiliar phase of the solar cycle, then we must redouble our efforts to understand the sun-climate link," said researcher Lika Guhathakurta at NASA's Living with a Star Program, which helped fund the NRC study.

Although the sun is the main source of heat for Earth, the researchers note that solar variability may have more of a regional effect than a global one. As such, solar variability is not the cause of the global warming seen in recent times.

"While the sun is by far the dominant energy source powering our climate system, do not assume that it is causing much of recent climate changes. It's pretty stable," Kopp said. "Think of it as an 800-pound gorilla in climate — it has the weight to cause enormous changes, but luckily for us, it's pretty placidly lazy. While solar changes have historically caused climate changes, the sun is mostly likely responsible for less than 15 percent of the global temperature increases we've seen over the last century, during which human-caused changes such as increased greenhouse gases caused the majority of warming."


The scientists detailed their findings Jan. 8 in a report, "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate," issued by the National Research Council.


Solar irradiance

It's reasonable to assume that changes in the sun's energy output would cause the climate to change, since the sun is the fundamental source of energy that drives our climate system.

Indeed, studies show that solar variability has played a role in past climate changes. For example, a decrease in solar activity is thought to have triggered the Little Ice Age between approximately 1650 and 1850, when Greenland was largely cut off by ice from 1410 to the 1720s and glaciers advanced in the Alps.

But several lines of evidence show that current global warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the sun:

  • Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the sun either remained constant or increased slightly.
  • If the warming were caused by a more active sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gases are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.
  • Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases.

[Edited 9/4/17 10:24am]

And here is a paper from Stanford University regarding solar activity and climate parameters.


http://stephenschneider.s...ut2004.pdf

[Edited 9/4/17 10:35am]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #93 posted 09/04/17 9:11pm

TweetyV6

avatar

benni said:

"Water vapor is the big player in the atmosphere as far as climate is concerned."


I was talking the CO2 feedback mechanism. I always said that water (vapor) is the biggest player in the greenhouse effect. Not CO2 as many people believe.

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #94 posted 09/04/17 9:23pm

TweetyV6

avatar

benni said:


Sun's impact on history

Scientists have also often speculated whether the Maunder Minimum, a 70-year dearth of sunspots in the late 17th to early 18th century, was linked with the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America experienced bitterly cold winters. This regional cooling might be linked with a drop in the sun's extreme ultraviolet radiation. In fact, the sun could currently be on the cusp of a miniature version of the Maunder Minimum, since the current solar cycle is the weakest in more than 50 years.

"If the sun really is entering an unfamiliar phase of the solar cycle, then we must redouble our efforts to understand the sun-climate link," said researcher Lika Guhathakurta at NASA's Living with a Star Program, which helped fund the NRC study.

Although the sun is the main source of heat for Earth, the researchers note that solar variability may have more of a regional effect than a global one. As such, solar variability is not the cause of the global warming seen in recent times.

"While the sun is by far the dominant energy source powering our climate system, do not assume that it is causing much of recent climate changes. It's pretty stable," Kopp said. "Think of it as an 800-pound gorilla in climate — it has the weight to cause enormous changes, but luckily for us, it's pretty placidly lazy. While solar changes have historically caused climate changes, the sun is mostly likely responsible for less than 15 percent of the global temperature increases we've seen over the last century, during which human-caused changes such as increased greenhouse gases caused the majority of warming."


The scientists detailed their findings Jan. 8 in a report, "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate," issued by the National Research Council.


Solar irradiance

It's reasonable to assume that changes in the sun's energy output would cause the climate to change, since the sun is the fundamental source of energy that drives our climate system.

Indeed, studies show that solar variability has played a role in past climate changes. For example, a decrease in solar activity is thought to have triggered the Little Ice Age between approximately 1650 and 1850, when Greenland was largely cut off by ice from 1410 to the 1720s and glaciers advanced in the Alps.

But several lines of evidence show that current global warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the sun:

  • Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the sun either remained constant or increased slightly.
  • If the warming were caused by a more active sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gases are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.
  • Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases.

[Edited 9/4/17 10:24am]

And here is a paper from Stanford University regarding solar activity and climate parameters.


http://stephenschneider.s...ut2004.pdf

[Edited 9/4/17 10:35am]


Can we agree that we don't understand exactly how the climate works?
There is more to it then we currently know.

It is too simple to say that only CO2 causes climate change. That's a political message, not a scientific one.

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #95 posted 09/05/17 4:15am

benni

TweetyV6 said:

benni said:


Sun's impact on history

Scientists have also often speculated (This speculation is about what you stated earlier, whether sun spots caused Maunder Minimum which you used in your argument against climate change being a result of mankind.) whether the Maunder Minimum, a 70-year dearth of sunspots in the late 17th to early 18th century, was linked with the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America experienced bitterly cold winters. This regional cooling might (Again, this is regarding the Maunder Minimum) be linked with a drop in the sun's extreme ultraviolet radiation. In fact, the sun could currently be on the cusp of a miniature version of the Maunder Minimum, since the current solar cycle is the weakest in more than 50 years.

"If the sun really is entering an unfamiliar phase of the solar cycle, then we must redouble our efforts to understand the sun-climate link," (This is true, if the sun is entering a similar phase, then we really should try to understand the sun-climate link. Given that our sun provides some of our heat, the distance from earth impacts upon our seasonal changes, then it's right to ASSUME the sun plays a part in our climate.) said researcher Lika Guhathakurta at NASA's Living with a Star Program, which helped fund the NRC study.

Although the sun is the main source of heat for Earth, the researchers note that solar variability may (They say "may" here because while the Maunder Minimum - or Little Ice Age occurred in some spots on earth, in the Northeast USA, they were having warmer than normal temperatures during that time. So unless there was another factor involved, that caused the warmer than normal temperatures, then solar variability MAY be more regional than national.) have more of a regional effect than a global one. As such, solar variability is not the cause of the global warming seen in recent times.

"While the sun is by far the dominant energy source powering our climate system, do not assume that it is causing much of recent climate changes. It's pretty stable," Kopp said. "Think of it as an 800-pound gorilla in climate — it has the weight to cause enormous changes, but luckily for us, it's pretty placidly lazy. While solar changes have historically caused climate changes, the sun is mostly likely responsible for less than 15 percent of the global temperature increases we've seen over the last century, during which human-caused changes such as increased greenhouse gases caused the majority of warming."


The scientists detailed their findings Jan. 8 in a report, "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate," issued by the National Research Council.


Solar irradiance

It's reasonable to assume that changes in the sun's energy output would cause the climate to change, since the sun is the fundamental source of energy that drives our climate system. (This is an argument for what you said earlier, and it is saying that it is a reasonal argument - however...)

Indeed, studies show that solar variability has played a role in past climate changes. For example, a decrease in solar activity is thought to have triggered the Little Ice Age between approximately 1650 and 1850, when Greenland was largely cut off by ice from 1410 to the 1720s and glaciers advanced in the Alps.

But several lines of evidence show that current global warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the sun:

  • Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the sun either remained constant or increased slightly.
  • If the warming were caused by a more active sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gases are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.
  • Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases. (Yes, in this situation, one would have to use models to determine solar irradiance changes, since we can't exactly make the sun do what we want it to do in order to observe the impact those changes would have on the earth and climate. But interesting to note that you were using, as an argument, that sun spots caused the Maunder minimum and the medeival warm period, when we were not there to observe those changes either and cannot verify if that was the cause or not. However, note that in order to reproduce the kinds of temperature changes we've been seeing over the past century, a rise in greenhouse gases has to be included to reproduce those changes.)

[Edited 9/4/17 10:24am]

And here is a paper from Stanford University regarding solar activity and climate parameters.


http://stephenschneider.s...ut2004.pdf

[Edited 9/4/17 10:35am]


Can we agree that we don't understand exactly how the climate works?
There is more to it then we currently know.

It is too simple to say that only CO2 causes climate change. That's a political message, not a scientific one.


I agree that there is still more that we need to learn. I also agree that it's not only CO2 that causes climate change, however, experiments done with an increase in CO2 in smaller enclosed spaces does cause a rise in temperature. (However, I don't like those experiments as proof of CO2 causing global warming, because it doesn't take into account the earth's ability to remove some of the CO2, the impact of the sun on our climate, the other gases involved in global warming, etc.) The other greenhouse gases are also on the rise; methane, nitrous oxide, and the increase in CO2 is also causing an increase in water vapors. But Tweety, the ideal that mankind is not at fault, that the earth has undergone periods of warm and cold in the past, does not sit well with me. We are in a terrarium, if you will, and if you introduce a change to that environment (such as the increase of CO2 that man definitely has done over the last 150 years into this Goldilocks planet) it is going to have an impact on the conditions of that terrarium. There is no way that it cannot have an impact, and a dangerous one. Our technological rise may have greater consequences than we realized, besides the impact it has had on our society in general.

[Edited 9/5/17 5:15am]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #96 posted 09/05/17 4:35am

benni

TweetyV6 said:

benni said:

"Water vapor is the big player in the atmosphere as far as climate is concerned."


I was talking the CO2 feedback mechanism. I always said that water (vapor) is the biggest player in the greenhouse effect. Not CO2 as many people believe.


These long lived gases then feed into the water vapor cycle or feedback. So while water vapors tend to evaporate quickly, the continuous feedback of the warming of the earth caused by CO2, Methane, Nitrous oxide, and other gases, causes more water vapor in the troposphere, which results in the earth warming.

The above is what you had responded to and stated that it had not been observed in nature, only in a laboratory setting.


The research team used novel data from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite to measure precisely the humidity throughout the lowest 10 miles of the atmosphere. That information was combined with global observations of shifts in temperature, allowing researchers to build a comprehensive picture of the interplay between water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other atmosphere-warming gases. The NASA-funded research was published recently in the American Geophysical Union's Geophysical Research Letters.

This was the first to show that it had been observed in nature, not in a laboratory setting.

Regardless, CO2 is the biggest player if it is causing MORE water vapor. Without the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, there would not be an increase in water vapor. The increased water vapor is the disease if you will, but not the cause.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #97 posted 09/05/17 7:31am

TweetyV6

avatar

benni said:

TweetyV6 said:


Can we agree that we don't understand exactly how the climate works?
There is more to it then we currently know.

It is too simple to say that only CO2 causes climate change. That's a political message, not a scientific one.


I agree that there is still more that we need to learn. I also agree that it's not only CO2 that causes climate change, however, experiments done with an increase in CO2 in smaller enclosed spaces does cause a rise in temperature. (However, I don't like those experiments as proof of CO2 causing global warming, because it doesn't take into account the earth's ability to remove some of the CO2, the impact of the sun on our climate, the other gases involved in global warming, etc.) The other greenhouse gases are also on the rise; methane, nitrous oxide, and the increase in CO2 is also causing an increase in water vapors. But Tweety, the ideal that mankind is not at fault, that the earth has undergone periods of warm and cold in the past, does not sit well with me. We are in a terrarium, if you will, and if you introduce a change to that environment (such as the increase of CO2 that man definitely has done over the last 150 years into this Goldilocks planet) it is going to have an impact on the conditions of that terrarium. There is no way that it cannot have an impact, and a dangerous one. Our technological rise may have greater consequences than we realized, besides the impact it has had on our society in general.

[Edited 9/5/17 5:15am]


I rather stick to facts then assumptions, laboratory experiments and model predictions.
And fact is that the earth has seen CO2 levels of 7000 ppmv
Another fact is that the climate changes constantly
And from ice core proxy data we know that is has been significantly warmer and significantly colder
Another fact is that the temperature record we have is completely useless if you want to make statements about the temperature when it comes to tenths of a degree.

Yes, there is a relation between temperature and CO2 concentration. But that doesn't say that there is a causality, that more CO2 means a higher temperature.
Latest data, both CO2 concentration and temperature (from the RSS) do not show that the observed increase of CO2 (from 360 -> 400 ppmv) has led to an increased temperature.

I go with Svensmark. It's cosmic rays / solar acitivity.
It has been observed during on short term occasions like the Forbush decreases.
Why should it not have any long term effects?


___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #98 posted 09/05/17 9:18am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Puts a dunce cap on Tweets.

"2freaky is a complete stud." DJ
"2freaky is very down." 2Elijah.
"2freaky convinced me to join Antifa: OnlyNDA
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #99 posted 09/05/17 12:09pm

benni

TweetyV6 said:

benni said:


I agree that there is still more that we need to learn. I also agree that it's not only CO2 that causes climate change, however, experiments done with an increase in CO2 in smaller enclosed spaces does cause a rise in temperature. (However, I don't like those experiments as proof of CO2 causing global warming, because it doesn't take into account the earth's ability to remove some of the CO2, the impact of the sun on our climate, the other gases involved in global warming, etc.) The other greenhouse gases are also on the rise; methane, nitrous oxide, and the increase in CO2 is also causing an increase in water vapors. But Tweety, the ideal that mankind is not at fault, that the earth has undergone periods of warm and cold in the past, does not sit well with me. We are in a terrarium, if you will, and if you introduce a change to that environment (such as the increase of CO2 that man definitely has done over the last 150 years into this Goldilocks planet) it is going to have an impact on the conditions of that terrarium. There is no way that it cannot have an impact, and a dangerous one. Our technological rise may have greater consequences than we realized, besides the impact it has had on our society in general.

[Edited 9/5/17 5:15am]


I rather stick to facts then assumptions, laboratory experiments and model predictions.
And fact is that the earth has seen CO2 levels of 7000 ppmv
Another fact is that the climate changes constantly
And from ice core proxy data we know that is has been significantly warmer and significantly colder
Another fact is that the temperature record we have is completely useless if you want to make statements about the temperature when it comes to tenths of a degree.

Yes, there is a relation between temperature and CO2 concentration. But that doesn't say that there is a causality, that more CO2 means a higher temperature.
Latest data, both CO2 concentration and temperature (from the RSS) do not show that the observed increase of CO2 (from 360 -> 400 ppmv) has led to an increased temperature.

I go with Svensmark. It's cosmic rays / solar acitivity.
It has been observed during on short term occasions like the Forbush decreases.
Why should it not have any long term effects?



lol - The earth saw CO2 levels of 7000 ppmv during the Cambrian period (500 million years ago). There was no land plant life and macroscopic marine plants. There were trilobites and anthropods on the surface. To say that this was during a time when the earth was still forming and still evolving is an understatement. Yes, the earth saw 7000 ppmv but at least be honest and say that there were no life forms (as we know them today) that were in existence during that time. I would expect the CO2 to be high during that time. I can't imagine any one that wouldn't expect it. During that time, we had a planet whose land masses were still separating and moving at a dramatic rate. I'm sure that our atmosphere was not as evolved as it is today.

The climate does change constantly. The only constant there is in life is change. That does not exclude the fact that warmer temperatures across the world is harmful for man.

And yes, it has been significantly warmer and colder per ice core readings. What kind of life was in existence during that time?

And tenths of degrees do matter when it comes to weather. A tenth of a degree increase in temperature can mean more powerful tornadoes and hurricanes, drought (which can result in famine since crops can fail), it is what decides whether a storm will form or not (and how powerful that storm will be), it can decide what goes extinct and what doesn't. And the amount of degrees do matter:

A 2010 report by the National Research Council, to which Pierrehumbert contributed, breaks down a series of incremental changes. Each one degree increase could mean up to 10 percent less rainfall during the Mediterranean, southwest North American and southern African dry seasons, and a corresponding increase in Alaska and other high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. It also could mean up to 10 percent less stream flow in some river basins, including the Arkansas and the Rio Grande, and an up to 15 percent reduction in the corn crop in the U.S., Africa and wheat in India. Each degree could also bring up to a 400 percent increase in area burned by wildfire in parts of the western U.S. And the dizzying array of impacts the authors project widens as the increases rise above two degrees.

The Copenhagen Accord set the cap at 2 degrees Celsius in global warming, meaning that we would need to decrease our CO2 emissions to not go above the 2 degree threshold. However, scientists are now looking at a possibility that the actual rate of increase in temperature will be 4 degrees Celsius (7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) within this century due to the continued rise in greenhouse gases, that even if we cut back on CO2 emissions and other gases going into the environment we may still see this rise.

The thing to keep in mind is that we live on a Goldilocks planet, meaning that everything is "just right" for life, but if we start messing with that mixture, we stand the chance of making it "not right". I mean, whether you believe in global warming being caused by man or not, the fact remains that what we do this earth, what we put into the environment, into the atmosphere, does mess with the perfect mix that was in place without man's interference. What we put out has to go somewhere Tweety, and we live in a bubble, a terrarium, so what we do effects the entire system. That is only common sense. Unless, you truly believe that what we do has no impact on the environment, on the atmosphere, in which case....this debate is moot.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #100 posted 09/05/17 1:10pm

herb4

avatar

TweetyV6 said:

benni said:


Sun's impact on history

stuff


Can we agree that we don't understand exactly how the climate works?


Can you?

You're positing yourself as an expert and calling other posters stupid (including myself) by cherry picking things that support your skeptism, which I deem to be arguing in bad faith. You also post WALLS of "information" as if the sheer quantity and mass makes you more correct.

The science is in and the people reaching the conclusions have ZERO reasons to lie about it.

I don't portain to understand how it works but I am humble enough to conceed the point to those that do.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #101 posted 09/05/17 10:56pm

TweetyV6

avatar

herb4 said:

TweetyV6 said:


Can we agree that we don't understand exactly how the climate works?


Can you?

You're positing yourself as an expert and calling other posters stupid (including myself) by cherry picking things that support your skeptism, which I deem to be arguing in bad faith. You also post WALLS of "information" as if the sheer quantity and mass makes you more correct.

The science is in and the people reaching the conclusions have ZERO reasons to lie about it.

I don't portain to understand how it works but I am humble enough to conceed the point to those that do.


No I can't. My statement made that obvious.

And I surely am not an expert, but I do know a bit about chemistry and physics. And I do look a bit more in depth into this issue for about the last 11 yrs. Ever since that idiot Al Gore came with is movie where he told things that did not match with what I learned at the university 25 yrs ago.

But I use some common sense:

There is only one source of energy - our sun.
Climate has changed when there were no humans arround.
CO2 has a very limited UV absorption bandwith.
The 'global' temperature data record referred to is useless. Anybody who knows a bit about data (robustness) will agree.
The CO2 issue is heavily politicized; taxes are based on CO2 emmission
There is a CO2 cap & trade market. Emmissions trading. WTF
There is more money going round in 'sustainable /renewable' energy market then there is in the fossil fuels based energy market

And foremost: Skepticism is a fundamental corner stone of the scientific process.

The climate alarmism has become like a religion. Apocaliptic outcome if you don't comply, one truth, no place for facts and demonisation of people with different views.
A religion with Al Gore as pope and disciples in the likes of Micheal Mann and Dana Nuccitelli and all other 'scientists' who became rich & famous from this.

It's all about power & money. On both sides.

Edit: corrected some typo's

[Edited 9/5/17 23:29pm]

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #102 posted 09/05/17 11:23pm

TweetyV6

avatar

benni said:

The Copenhagen Accord set the cap at 2 degrees Celsius in global warming, meaning that we would need to decrease our CO2 emissions to not go above the 2 degree threshold. However, scientists are now looking at a possibility that the actual rate of increase in temperature will be 4 degrees Celsius (7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) within this century due to the continued rise in greenhouse gases, that even if we cut back on CO2 emissions and other gases going into the environment we may still see this rise.

Exactly. Predictions by climate models.
But 'unfortunately' nature decided not to stick to these predictions.
There is only one somewhat trustworthy temperature data set: RSS. Sattelite registered temperatures with a 100% coverage of the earths surface. Recordings started in 1979.
Trend: +0.135K per decade. Not 'unprecedented, not catastophical.




The thing to keep in mind is that we live on a Goldilocks planet, meaning that everything is "just right" for life, but if we start messing with that mixture, we stand the chance of making it "not right". I mean, whether you believe in global warming being caused by man or not, the fact remains that what we do this earth, what we put into the environment, into the atmosphere, does mess with the perfect mix that was in place without man's interference. What we put out has to go somewhere Tweety, and we live in a bubble, a terrarium, so what we do effects the entire system. That is only common sense. Unless, you truly believe that what we do has no impact on the environment, on the atmosphere, in which case....this debate is moot.

Our activity is insignificant.
To put it in perspective: The current Cat. 5 hurricane 'Irma' going through the carribean, has an energy potential which exeeds all the energy produced/used by 7 billion humans in a year.


Our activity is merely like a fart in the WTC tower in NYC.
We account only for about 15 ppmv of CO2.
15ppmv. Homeopathic levels. If you believe in Homeopathy, then please continue worrying. Forgive me if I don't.

Earth will survive us humans. We won't survive ourselves.

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #103 posted 09/06/17 8:55am

jamesholver

So what? Nothing special

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 4 of 4 <1234
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Trump's PC Police Purging The Term 'Climate Change'