Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

For the past 800,000 years CO2 levels never exceeded 300 ppm. During the ice ages they bottomed out about 180 ppm.


https://youtu.be/Roa73Q8qZtA

So when you say that 180 ppm to 300 ppm is the ideal we should be shooting for, that ideal includes Canada no longer being having a patch of soil anywhere in it not buried under 300 meters of ice where you could plant a flag, as well as periods when it was 3 degree warmer than today.

Not terribly sure many would agree with you. So perhaps there is some other "perfect" concentration and time period you would like to point to?

I also find it curious that during the first half of the 20th century the rate of warming was quite a bit more per decade than it was during the second half of that century even though CO2 significantly increased, and that during the last 15 years the rate of warming per decade has decreased further while CO2 continues to increase. You can see this in the Hadcrut4 data for land/sea temps. Apparently something must be amiss with the climate sensitivity values used by the IPCC given these anomalies, which I guess would explain why their computer models have been so far off the mark in predicting what is actually going to happen.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

So when you say that 180 ppm to 300 ppm is the ideal we should be shooting for, that ideal includes Canada no longer being having a patch of soil anywhere in it not buried under 300 meters of ice where you could plant a flag, as well as periods when it was 3 degree warmer than today.

Not terribly sure many would agree with you. So perhaps there is some other "perfect" concentration and time period you would like to point to?

I also find it curious that during the first half of the 20th century the rate of warming was quite a bit more per decade than it was during the second half of that century even though CO2 significantly increased, and that during the last 15 years the rate of warming per decade has decreased further while CO2 continues to increase. You can see this in the Hadcrut4 data for land/sea temps. Apparently something must be amiss with the climate sensitivity values used by the IPCC given these anomalies, which I guess would explain why their computer models have been so far off the mark in predicting what is actually going to happen.

I actually said 350 ppm.

As to your last paragraph. You fail to understand the cooling role of industrial aerosols during the 40 - 70's. The the 70 onwards temperatures have continued to climb.

CO2 IS NOT THE ONLY FACTOR. IT IS THE ONLY FACTOR OVER WHICH WE HAVE SOME CONTROL.

[jackdale]

Six years old - but good stuff

https://youtu.be/1771KJRxThc

https://youtu.be/SAvb6Yiicjw

https://youtu.be/KIpMKRagRTs

https://youtu.be/KIpMKRagRTs

Before anyone quote mines Schneider read:

https://judithcurry.com/2011/07/21/s...communication/

[TurninTurtle]

If the climate scare people of the 1970's had been right... we would have frozen to death by 2000.

If Al Gore had been right, Miami would only be able to be toured by glass bottom boat by now.

The climate scare people don't have a very good record for accuracy.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by TurninTurtle

If the climate scare people of the 1970's had been right... we would have frozen to death by 2000.

If Al Gore had been right, Miami would only be able to be toured by glass bottom boat by now.

The climate scare people don't have a very good record for accuracy.

In the 1970's science was 6:1 warming:cooling. The MSM, especially Peter Gwynne of Newsweek, got it wrong.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/...2008BAMS2370.1

Meanwhile in Miami.

The Siege of Miami - The New Yorker

And

16 accurate predictions from climate science:

That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.
Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.
They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
The expansion of the Hadley cells.
The poleward movement of storm tracks.
The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.

Keep trying. Eventually you will get something right.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I actually said 350 ppm.

As to your last paragraph. You fail to understand the cooling role of industrial aerosols during the 40 - 70's. The the 70 onwards temperatures have continued to climb.

CO2 IS NOT THE ONLY FACTOR. IT IS THE ONLY FACTOR OVER WHICH WE HAVE SOME CONTROL.

So no answer on whether you think ice ages might not be part of an ideal environment. Ok, maybe you're a snow boarder.

Your comment on aerosols is a bit of a red herring. Aerosols have a negative feedback of about half the forcing of CO2, at least according to the IPCC. https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and...ure-spm-2.html . Given that, and given that CO2 has continued to build since 1900 we shouldn't see a slow down in the warming trend, which we do. The trend from 2000 to 2014 was LESS than the trend from 1950 to 2000, which was LESS than the trend from 1900 to 1950. If aerosols were cooling things down from 1950 to 1970 why was its warming trend GREATER than we see today?

Your last statement reminds me of the guy looking for his lost car keys under the street lamp because even though that wasn't where he probably dropped them that is the only place with any light. Since Lomborg has shown that the impact of us DOING SOMETHING with CO2 since that is the only factor we can influence will still have zero effect, that would seem to argue against spending trillions to accomplish nothing when a few billion diverted to useful things, like say, cancer research might do a lot of good.

But then again, the warmist position has never been one that likes to take into account cost/benefit.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by TurninTurtle

The climate scare people don't have a very good record for accuracy.

They got this one really wrong.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

In the 1970's science was 6:1 warming:cooling. The MSM, especially Peter Gwynne of Newsweek, got it wrong.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/...2008BAMS2370.1

Meanwhile in Miami.

The Siege of Miami - The New Yorker

And

16 accurate predictions from climate science:

That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.
Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.
They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
The expansion of the Hadley cells.
The poleward movement of storm tracks.
The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.

Keep trying. Eventually you will get something right.

And eventually you may make a civil response to someone you disagree with.

But thanks for the cut and paste list from someone named Judy Byatt - https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-mo...climate-change. I'm sure she must know what she's talking about. After all, she's on the Internet. I found her answer to this question particularly profound:

To qualify as a climate change advocate, do you need to have looked at the science and verified its validity?



Judy Byatt 47 Views

mostly you just need to care about people, the temperature data verifies the anomalies, the law of conservation of matter verifies that the cause is human carbon dioxide emissions, that does not require you to be climatologist nor even to have studied science. we choose to be honorable ancestors,

Brilliant. Especially the bit about conservation of matter.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

oh all right.

In order to not increase temperature by more than 2 C, the target is to put less than one trillion tons of carbon from fossil-fuels into the atmosphere.

That does not answer the question either. We can't accurately measure how many tons of carbon from fossil fuel we put into the atmosphere. All we can measure is the resultant(?) atmospheric concentration of CO2

So. what level do we need to keep below to maintain global temperature 1.5 and 2°C below the temperature at the end of the LIA?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

That does not answer the question either. We can't accurately measure how many tons of carbon from fossil fuel we put into the atmosphere. All we can measure is the resultant(?) atmospheric concentration of CO2

You might want to take that up with the CDIAC.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2013.ems

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

But thanks for the cut and paste list from someone named Judy Byatt -

Judy is not my source. But nice try.

Models

He has a nice list, but some of his references are outdated. I use more current ones.

For example

"That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool."





RSS / MSU and AMSU Data / Time Series Trend Browser

[Kenomac]

I wonder how many megatons of Jack's CO2 is produced by manufacturing all of the unnecessary plastic packaging we chuck in the trash every day?

Me thinks the Chinese are going to take America by causing millions of tiny (and some large) cuts caused by us attempting to remove items encased in the clear plastic. I just purchased a FoodSaver device earlier today, and boy was it a challenge to remove it from the packaging without cutting myself.

Maybe if we can reduce the plastic packaging, Jack will be able to enjoy living in an igloo?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.

Keep trying. Eventually you will get something right.

Presumably you have verified the science behind your list of accurate predictions as opposed to simply copying it off the internet, so maybe you can analyze this one for us. I wouldn't want you to get something wrong, after all.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by StuM

That does not answer the question either. We can't accurately measure how many tons of carbon from fossil fuel we put into the atmosphere.

( I thought you had this stuff down cold)

Um, yes we can.

The chemical conversion of burning... just about anything... is well understood. The idealized reaction for fossil fuels is




...and it's well known how much CO2 is produced when X units of a given fuel is burned, (conservation of mass and all that) and the percentage that's actually carbon is known for all the common fuels...

So yeah, we can totally work out how much CO2 is being emitted simply by knowing how much of each fuel is being burnt.

And it's equally simple to turn a target CO2 concentration into an equivalent mass of CO2, and from the above then work out the amount of fuel that would produce that additional amount of CO2 necessary to hit that concentration.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

I wonder how many megatons of Jack's CO2 is produced by manufacturing all of the unnecessary plastic packaging we chuck in the trash every day?

Me thinks the Chinese are going to take America by causing millions of tiny (and some large) cuts caused by us attempting to remove items encased in the clear plastic. I just purchased a FoodSaver device earlier today, and boy was it a challenge to remove it from the packaging without cutting myself.

Maybe if we can reduce the plastic packaging, Jack will be able to enjoy living in an igloo?

I just put a yogurt container in my recycling bin. Almost all plastic here is recycled. My polar tech jackets are made from pop bottles.

I am finding that most packaging is now recycled materials which can be recycled themselves.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app