Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Cheers, I was actually bouncing around the effects of positive and negative feedbacks hence a constant reference to average global temperatures. For the record I'm in the negative feedback camp. Come to think of it, I'm also in the "wonder if we're still within the error bars" camp as well.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Amen to that bro!

(Or should that be "Barmen" ? )

[StuM]

Originally Posted by conachair

Exxon would be a good start, Willie Soon got over a million.
They didn't really get anything for their money though.
Koch brothers? Though the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study backfired a bit on them as well.

Is that the best you've got? Soon/Exxon and Koch Bros?

They pale into insignificance compared to the billions poured into the other side of the argument.

Maybe you should read Exxon's response to the last attack on them:
http://www.politico.com/f/?id=000001...5-dbca213c0000

[StuM]

Originally Posted by conachair

Where?



Why not?
The atmosphere absorbs something like 2% against the oceans i90 odd %


In laymans terms - are you really saying the planet isn't getting warmer?

Scientifically that is very contentious.

And if not then why is the planet getting warmer?

Take a look at Loehl 2007 printed in the peer reviewed Energy & Environment ( I know how much you guys respect peer review )

http://www.au.agwscam.com/pdf/2000%2...ng%20temps.pdf

which contains the attached graph and tell us why the planet warmed from around 200CE to 1000CE and cooled from around 1000CE to 1600CE. And of course, the causes of the shorter warming, cooling and "pause" periods during those larger scale movements.

If you can answer that, you may well have the answer to your question as well.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by StuM

Why did we see much more rapid and much large heat content variations in the Younger Dryas 12,000 years ago?

And to a lesser extent 8,000 years ago at the start of the Holocene Climate Optimum?

(And why is it called the "Optimum" when it was warmer than today if today's temperatures are so dreadful?)

For those interested, here's an interesting set of lecturers notes for the "Climate of the Holocene" component of the Arizona State University Atmos 336, Weather Climate and Society Course. It presents a fairly evenly balanced view of the questions.

ATMO336 - Spring 2012 (you need to read the following three pages as well as this one).

Back to the question , why is it happening so quickly now?

[StuM]

Originally Posted by conachair

Back to the question , why is it happening so quickly now?

Occam's razor would suggest that it is has similar causes to when it happened on numerous previous occasions.

If I knew those causes, I would be collecting my Nobel Prize next year.
(for science, not the bogus "Peace prize" so beloved by Al Gore and the IPCC authors)

The science is definitely not settled,.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by StuM

Occam's razor would suggest that it is has similar causes to when it happened on numerous previous occasions.

If I knew those causes, I would be collecting my Nobel Prize next year.
(for science, not the bogus "Peace prize" so beloved by Al Gore and the IPCC authors)

The science is definitely not settled,.

OK, so you have no idea.


Science is never settled.

[Simonsays]

Originally Posted by StuM

And to a lesser extent 8,000 years ago at the start of the Holocene Climate Optimum?

the so called 8.2kiloyear event is attributed to the North American continental glacier lake emptying into the North Atlantic, disrupting the heat exchange cycle for about 150 years.

but i think that was a rhetorical question and you knew that.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by conachair

OK, so you have no idea.


Science is never settled.

Correct. I am quite willing to admit my ignorance over the primary causes of climate change on centennial scales. Along with every real scientist.

Unlike the alarmists who don't even consider the question outside of the very narrow confines of anthropogenic causes. After all that is the whole largely forgotten or ignored rationale of the IPCC and their teams of "climate scientists".

"PRINCIPLES GOVERNING IPCC WORK
Approved at the Fourteenth Session (Vienna, 1-3 October 1998) on 1 October 1998, amended at the Twenty-First Session (Vienna, 3 and 6-7 November 2003), the Twenty-Fifth Session (Mauritius, 26-28 April 2006), the Thirty-Fifth Session (Geneva, 6-9 June 2012) and the Thirty-Seventh Session (Batumi, 14-18 October 2013)
...
ROLE
2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of
risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."

Note also that their role is purely to assess "risk". Which is where much of the alarmism comes from. It's all very one sided. There is no body tasked to assess the benefits of climate change.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by StuM

.... Along with every real scientist.

Unlike the alarmists ....... teams of "climate scientists".

"PRI........ much of the alarmism comes from. It's all very one sided. There is no body tasked to assess the benefits of climate change.

There's lots of work on confirmation bias as well...

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by StuM

... Net climate feedbacks must always be negative in the long run. If they weren't we wouldn't be here.

Well written post, as always.
But, I don't understand why Net climate feedbacks must always be negative in the long run. Could you please explain?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Well written post, as always.
But, I don't understand why Net climate feedbacks must always be negative in the long run. Could you please explain?

I'd hazard a guess that if not, the Earth would now either be Venus II or have forever remained a snowball. Imo, net positive feedback not only makes it highly unlikely for recovery from extreme climate changes, it would also result in an extremely unstable planetary climate in general. To put that into context, average global temperatures have "soared" 0.6 to 1.0 deg C (depending on the source) in the last 150 years or so whilst seasonal temperature extremes can often enough exceed around 120 deg C (I believe the actual record is about 150 deg C).

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[StuM]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Well written post, as always.
But, I don't understand why Net climate feedbacks must always be negative in the long run. Could you please explain?

Because if net feedback were positive, once the earth started cooling for any reason, the world would keep cooling more and more and become a solid frozen ball. And if it started warming for some reason, it would keep warming more and more until it became a burnt out rock. Clearly neither of these happens - the climate has stayed in a reasonably stable range of 280-300K over the last 500 million years and a much smaller range of 280 - 290K over the last 5 million. A classic example of negative feedbacks at work.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I'd hazard a guess that if not, the Earth would now either be Venus II or have forever remained a snowball. Imo, net positive feedback not only makes it highly unlikely for recovery from extreme climate changes, it would also result in an extremely unstable planetary climate in general.

What do you think about the gaia hypothesis, life has self limiting long term effects on the climate to keep it within extremes.
& positive feedbacks do happen, within limits. Like melting snowcover/decrease in albedo etc.
Also, the climate *has* been extremely unstable.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by conachair

There's lots of work on confirmation bias as well...

Is that supposed to be a meaningful comment?
If so, I've completely missed your point.

But there is a high degree of confirmation bias displayed by "climate scientists" and their alarmist followers.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by conachair

What do you think about the gaia hypothesis, life has self limiting long term effects on the climate to keep it within extremes.
& positive feedbacks do happen, within limits. Like melting snowcover/decrease in albedo etc.
Also, the climate *has* been extremely unstable.

Gaia? Wasn't that the tree in the Avatar movie?

The key word is "net" aka the summation of positive and negative values. And no, the climate has not been extremely unstable. Google "horseshoe crabs" and go from there.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app