Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

My apologies. I should have used <tongue-in-cheek> tags around "data adjusted". I can't read your chart text very well due to size of the graphic. Is the dashed line the raw temperature - as in actually recorded - value?

I think you need glasses or a better monitor.

dashed line = NCDC raw.


Now go read the post from Curry's blog.

BTW - she is a skeptic.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by GordMay

As jackdale pointed out - < 350 ppm; the levels on which civilization developed, and to which life on Earth is adapted.
The last time the concentration of CO2 was as high as 400 ppm was probably in the Pliocene Epoch, between 2.6 and 5.3 million years ago. Until the 20th century, it certainly hadn't exceeded 300 ppm, let alone 400 ppm, for at least 800,000 years. That's how far back scientists have been able to measure CO2 directly in bubbles of ancient air trapped in Antarctic ice cores.

perfect....now give me your plan to bring the evil CO2 down to those levels.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Whoa.. Information overload.
I'm guessing a good many of these hockey sticks made it into the climate models displayed on graphs such as this?



Or perhaps in a data adjusted format such as this:

But but....but....I love my models....how can they be so WRONG?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by capngeo

Certainly the climate is changing; I don't think anyone denies this. I totally dispute the "fact" that humans are responsible for the current change, AND also totally dispute the ability of humans to do anything about it! When Mother Nature has enough of our BS, she will shake us off the planet as (I suspect) she has done with MANY other civilizations (and species) in the past.

For 800,000 years CO2 levels fluctuated between 180 and 300 ppm; natural cycles, like Milankovitch cycles, worked really . During that time homo sapiens and the food crops that sustain us evolved. In fact, our domestic food crops were developed within the past 15,000 years. To find a time in which CO2 was at current levels we have to go back about 3,500,000 years to the Pliocene era, during which temperatures were much warmer. The higher CO2 levels were lowered when carbon was sequestered in the form of oil, gas, and coal - fossil fuels. This allowed for that Goldilocks world of the previous 800,000 years.

Then in the mid 18th century we started started burning those fossil fuels at ever increasing rates.

1751 - 3 million tonnes of anthropogenic carbon emissions per annum.

2010 - 9176 million tonnes of anthropogenic carbon emissions per annum.

And it accumulates.

That has resulted in a 40% increase in CO2 levels, an increase that, using carbon isotope analysis, can be directly traced to the burning of fossil fuels. Humans are the only species that burns fossil fuels.

We have known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas since the 18th century. There are other greenhouse gases, water vapor, methane, CFCs, HFCs, etc.. CO2, CFC and HFC emissions are the ones over which we have some control. As the world warms atmosphere can hold more water and methane emissions rise as the permafrost melts. Even during the PETM, events did not move so quickly.

There is absolutely no evidence that anything other "intelligent" species has occupied this planet.

We may be the first species in the entire history of earth to be responsible for its own extinction. You and I will not be around for this event, but your descendants will be. (I am child free.)

Like the RV bumper stick says "We are spending and our children's inheritance. "

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by jackdale

There are other greenhouse gases, water vapor, methane, CFCs, HFCs, etc.. CO2, CFC and HFC emissions are the ones over which we have some control.

Pssst...
There is this little thing called the SUN, let me tell you about it....

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

perfect....now give me your plan to bring the evil CO2 down to those levels.

Get off coal fired electrical generation. Natural gas can be a short term transitional fuel. I support nuclear, hydro, and geothermal as large scale solutions. Wind, solar and geothermal are viable smaller scale solutions.

Start energy conservation programs. Recycle, reduce, reuse.

Put a real cost on carbon emissions in the form of a revenue neutral carbon tax. I have posted information on this previously.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

For 800,000 years CO2 levels fluctuated between 180 and 300 ppm; natural cycles, like Milankovitch cycles, worked really . During that time homo sapiens and the food crops that sustain us evolved. In fact, our domestic food crops were developed within the past 15,000 years. To find a time in which CO2 was at current levels we have to go back about 3,500,000 years to the Pliocene era, during which temperatures were much warmer. The higher CO2 levels were lowered when carbon was sequestered in the form of oil, gas, and coal - fossil fuels. This allowed for that Goldilocks world of the previous 800,000 years.

Then in the mid 18th century we started started burning those fossil fuels at ever increasing rates.

1751 - 3 million tonnes of anthropogenic carbon emissions per annum.

2010 - 9176 million tonnes of anthropogenic carbon emissions per annum.

And it accumulates.

That has resulted in a 40% increase in CO2 levels, an increase that, using carbon isotope analysis, can be directly traced to the burning of fossil fuels. Humans are the only species that burns fossil fuels.

We have known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas since the 18th century. There are other greenhouse gases, water vapor, methane, CFCs, HFCs, etc.. CO2, CFC and HFC emissions are the ones over which we have some control. As the world warms atmosphere can hold more water and methane emissions rise as the permafrost melts. Even during the PETM, events did not move so quickly.

There is absolutely no evidence that anything other "intelligent" species has occupied this planet.

We may be the first species in the entire history of earth to be responsible for its own extinction. You and I will not be around for this event, but your descendants will be. (I am child free.)

Like the RV bumper stick says "We are spending and our children's inheritance. "

If you're so worried, why don't you dig a hole and..... Plant a tree? Or bring some of the hot air over here to New England?

'Seems to me that by being "child free," you are contributing to the extinction of your own lineage.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Put a real cost on carbon emissions in the form of a revenue neutral carbon tax. I have posted information on this previously.

Of course you have...I just want everyone to see what the MMGW Believers are actually all about....TAXES and increasing the costs of living on the already faltering middle class. I've also posted this before, but at the end of the day it is all that really matters, so it's important to drive the point home:

A) Win the control of Congress
B) Win the control of the White House
then C) enact all the MMGW laws, Taxes, penalties, "you can keep your Carbon if you like your Carbon" laws you want.

Until then.....well.....you have NOT convinced the people who matter, which are the Voters.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Pssst...
There is this little thing called the SUN, let me tell you about it....

While the sun is the source of the vast majority of own energy, currently it is not a significant factor in climate change.

_________________________

During the initial discovery period of global climate change, the magnitude of the influence of the Sun on Earth's climate was not well understood. Since the early 1990s, however, extensive research was put into determining what role, if any, the Sun has in global warming or climate change.

A recent review paper, put together by both solar and climate scientists, details these studies: Solar Influences on Climate. Their bottom line: though the Sun may play some small role, "it is nevertheless much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to anthropogenic changes." That is, human activities are the primary factor in global climate change.

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun...09RG000282.pdf



++++++++++++++++++++++

The sun's activity is in free fall, according to a leading space physicist. But don't expect a little ice age. "Solar activity is declining very fast at the moment," Mike Lockwood, professor of space environmental physics at Reading University, UK, told New Scientist. "We estimate faster than at any time in the last 9300 years."

Lockwood and his colleagues are reassessing the chances of this decline continuing over decades to become the first "grand solar minimum" for four centuries. During a grand minimum the normal 11-year solar cycle is suppressed and the sun has virtually no sunspots for several decades. This summer should have seen a peak in the number of sunspots, but it didn't happen.

But Lockwood says we should not expect a new grand minimum to bring on a new little ice age. Human-induced global warming, he says, is already a more important force in global temperatures than even major solar cycles. "

+++++++++++++++++++

Cosmic rays, solar activity and the climate

OPEN ACCESS FOCUS ON HIGH ENERGY PARTICLES AND ATMOSPHERIC PROCESSES

T Sloan and A W Wolfendale 2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 045022
doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/045022

Abstract
Although it is generally believed that the increase in the mean global surface temperature since industrialization is caused by the increase in green house gases in the atmosphere, some people cite solar activity, either directly or through its effect on cosmic rays, as an underestimated contributor to such global warming. In this letter a simplified version of the standard picture of the role of greenhouse gases in causing the global warming since industrialization is described. The conditions necessary for this picture to be wholly or partially wrong are then introduced. Evidence is presented from which the contributions of either cosmic rays or solar activity to this warming is deduced. The contribution is shown to be less than 10% of the warming seen in the twentieth century.

+++++++++++++++++++

Small influence of solar variability on climate over the past millennium

Andrew P. Schurer, Simon F. B. Tett & Gabriele C. Hegerl

Nature Geoscience (2013) doi:10.1038/ngeo2040
Received 02 August 2013 Accepted 14 November 2013 Published online 22 December 2013

The climate of the past millennium was marked by substantial decadal and centennial scale variability in the Northern Hemisphere. Low solar activity has been linked to cooling during the Little Ice Age (AD 1450–1850; ref. 1) and there may have been solar forcing of regional warmth during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (AD 950–1250; ref. 1). The amplitude of the associated changes is, however, poorly constrained with estimates of solar forcing spanning almost an order of magnitude. Numerical simulations tentatively indicate that a small amplitude best agrees with available temperature reconstructions. Here we compare the climatic fingerprints of high and low solar forcing derived from model simulations with an ensemble of surface air temperature reconstructions for the past millennium. Our methodology also accounts for internal climate variability and other external drivers such as volcanic eruptions, as well as uncertainties in the proxy reconstructions and model output. We find that neither a high magnitude of solar forcing nor a strong climate effect of that forcing agree with the temperature reconstructions. We instead conclude that solar forcing probably had a minor effect on Northern Hemisphere climate over the past 1,000 years, while, volcanic eruptions and changes in greenhouse gas concentrations seem to be the most important influence over this period.

[nimblemotors]

Nothing we can do about it..government is the problem, if they just leave us alone and let us drive 12mpg cars in Los Angeles in 1976..



Oh wait, we DID do something about it, with the car companies kicking and screaming and declaring the end, blah blah blah. Do you want to go back?



Southern California's Air Quality Improves, Cancer Risk Down

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Of course you have...I just want everyone to see what the MMGW Believers are actually all about....TAXES and increasing the costs of living on the already faltering middle class. I've also posted this before, but at the end of the day it is all that really matters, so it's important to drive the point home:

A) Win the control of Congress
B) Win the control of the White House
then C) enact all the MMGW laws, Taxes, penalties, "you can keep your Carbon if you like your Carbon" laws you want.

Until then.....well.....you have NOT convinced the people who matter, which are the Voters.

British Columbia has had a carbon tax since 2008. It isn’t large or onerous; for example, the tax on gasoline is 6.67 cents per litre, and on higher-carbon diesel it’s 7.67 cents. The tax, also covering coal, natural gas and other fuels, has had a big impact. Between 2008 and 2012, per capita consumption of the fuels subject to the carbon tax fell by more than 17 per cent in BC, while rising by 1.5 per cent in the rest of Canada, according to an analysis by Stewart Elgie of the University of Ottawa. Per capita greenhouse-gas emissions from sources subject to the BC carbon tax fell 10 per cent, while the rest of the country’s per capita emissions from the same sources were down 1.1 per cent. And even as BC’s path of carbon use was diverging from the rest of Canada, its economic performance was not. The best measure of economic growth – per capita gross domestic product – shows almost no difference between BC and the rest of Canada between 2008 and 2011. In fact, BC’s economic growth, even with a carbon tax, slightly outperformed the rest of the country.

What’s more, BC has used the carbon tax to reduce personal and business taxes. For middle-class and upper-middle income people, BC is now the province with the lowest income-tax burden – lower than Alberta.

In other words, BC has delivered big results, without taking radical steps. A tax on carbon nudged millions of British Columbians into making small decisions to figure out how to lower their carbon-tax burden. And all of those small steps have added up. There have been millions of tiny evolutions – not one giant revolution. The entire province didn’t give up cars or capitalism.

How to fight global warming without destroying the economy? Use a little Econ 101 - The Globe and Mail

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by jackdale

While the sun is the source of the vast majority of own energy, currently it is not a significant factor in climate change..

We just heard that the Sun isn't as important to the Earths Temperature as man Made CO2.....

Folks....if you believe that pay your Stupid Tax, buy a Coal Powered electric Car, and buy your Lottery Ticket....

That's classic.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by jackdale

How to fight global warming without destroying the economy? Use a little Econ 101 - The Globe and Mail

Voters....convince the Voters or all you have it hot Air.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Get off coal fired electrical generation. Natural gas can be a short term transitional fuel. I support nuclear, hydro, and geothermal as large scale solutions. Wind, solar and geothermal are viable smaller scale solutions.

Start energy conservation programs. Recycle, reduce, reuse.

Put a real cost on carbon emissions in the form of a revenue neutral carbon tax. I have posted information on this previously.

According to the meter on my solar panel invertor which provides electrical power for 60% of our household and business needs, we've saved 56,000 tons of CO2 from being released over the past eight years. What a load of BS. The one thing the manuals for the 46 panel system never stated, was how many tons of CO2 where required to make the damn thing. I guess that would be an "inconvenient truth."

BTW: Do you have a household or business solar array or wind electric generator? Or, are you one of those folks who just likes to preach the gospel to others.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

If you're so worried, why don't you dig a hole and..... Plant a tree? Or bring some of the hot air over here to New England?

I have planted a tree (actually a few), I live in an energy efficient condo, drive an energy efficient car, recycle, etc.. I do what I can.

You are the only place where it is cold.