Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by SailOar

So not only did you not know the logarithmic relation between CO2 levels and heating ability, but you still think that temperatures are slowing down! Is it any wonder that there are fewer and fewer outright deniers?

Fascinating. You are given the hard data to show that since 1750 the slope of increased forcing relative to increased CO2 is essentially flat, yet your knowledge of the subject is so thin all you can do is belch up a number of irrelevant graphs you presumably also don't understand. Reminds me of a squid. Expel a bunch of ink, then run away.

Regarding the slow down in the rate of warming, you, or perhaps someone who can explain it to you, can verify that yes, the rate of warming is slowing down. The University of York has a handy tool that will graph for you any period of time and the decadal warming during that time for a number different datasets. The most warmist friendly is the Hadcrut4 Ocean/Land dataset. For the period from 1900 to 1950 the rate of warming was .103 degrees C/decade. This is a reasonable slice of time to set as a baseline since warmists are always saying that you need at least 30 years to see any kind of trend and atmospheric CO2 in 1900 was around 25% less than today. The next 50 years, from 1951 to 2000, the rate of warming had slowed to .082 degrees per decade. Now this would be a time when humanity was really starting to pump out the CO2, right? Yet oddly, the rate of warming had slowed. Now how could that be? And from 2001 to 2014 the rate of warming measured dropped to .054 degrees per decade; more slowing with more CO2. In other words, at least based on the data the effect of CO2 is a declining trend of warming, and that 50% reduction in the rate of warming over 115 years cannot be explained by whatever trivial effect the logarithmic function of CO2 to warming has over that period of time, as my graph clearly shows.

Finally, is it your understanding that if a majority of people vote that gravity doesn't exist, you will float off into space? I was unaware that science was a matter of political consensus, but you apparently believe this to be true. I have debated warmists before but I have never seen a bunch as ignorant of the basics of the science as you lot.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I totaled the emissions from 1751 - 2013.

1,438,395.418 million metric tonnes of CO2; that was responsible for the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2. Prior to the industrial revolution, natural cycles such as Milankovitch cycles and events such as volcanic eruptions triggered the release of CO2. For the past 250 years we have been that trigger as we released sequestered carbon by burning fossil fuels.

Volcanoes emit less than 1% of the CO2 as humans. And because of the aerosols that they release, they have a net cooling. This can be seen in the eruptions of Krakatoa, El Cichon, Pinatubo.

The LIA has also been linked to a series of volcanic eruptions. (Volcanoes May Have Sparked Little Ice Age | Climate Change & Cooling | Volcanoes & Sea Ice)

So prior to the industrial revolution, warming was caused by processes that ceased as soon as man figured out how to make gasoline.

Moronic.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

So not only did you not know the logarithmic relation between CO2 levels and heating ability, but you still think that temperatures are slowing down! Is it any wonder that there are fewer and fewer outright deniers?





NOAA

Actually, your posted graphs confirm that there is something very fishy going on as there is no way those temperature series values correspond to the logarithmic (or is that exponential?) relationship of atmospheric CO2 accumulation over the same period.

BTW, it good to see the Medieval Warming Anomaly has reverted back to being the Medieval Warm Period in discussions. Whilst on the subject, exactly how many temperature stations were present in the Southern Hemisphere in Medieval times? I'm eager to understand how this was determined to be a regional, dare I say, anomaly?

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Actually, your posted graphs confirm that there is something very fishy going on as there is no way those temperature series values correspond to the logarithmic (or is that exponential?) relationship of atmospheric CO2 accumulation over the same period.

BTW, it good to see the Medieval Warming Anomaly has reverted back to being the Medieval Warm Period in discussions. Whilst on the subject, exactly how many temperature stations were present in the Southern Hemisphere in Medieval times? I'm eager to understand how this was determined to be a regional, dare I say, anomaly?

The logarithmic diddly is a red herring. The trend line of any such function is nearly vertical at the start, say from 0 CO2 to 200 ppm CO2, then goes asymptotic to a slope of zero as you extend the function out. Applied to atmospheric CO2, we're at the flattening part of the function, whether you start at pre-industrial levels of CO2 or what we have today.

So the slope of difference in forcing of CO2 between 280 ppm and 400 ppm is essentially linear, which begs the very simple question of why more CO2 isn't causing an increased rather than a decreased rate of warming. Answer - climate sensitivity is less than modeled because of feedbacks in the climate system, which explains the current cessation of warming, the lower warming we are experiencing vs. what the models have predicted, etc.

As Lake Effect said, garbage in, garbage out. AGW theory is the garbage out.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Answer - climate sensitivity is less than modeled because of feedbacks in the climate system

If the employed CO2 models do not 100% match the first few years since their use, it doesn't mean they are seriously wrong, or that the longer-term results won't validate them. It's premature to declare all CO2 models NFG when the time period this will play out over is decades.

In the geologically-insignificant time-period that is how long we've been aware of AGW, there are short-term responses that have mitigated some of the abnormal CO2 load we're adding. Such as enhanced absorption from vegetation, and acidification of the ocean.

We do not yet know how well these observed natural feedback mechanisms will cope long-term with the unnatural amounts of CO2 we continue to pump out. The natural responses have consequences of their own; ocean acidification is hardly a blessing. And the natural responses may have limits that may be exceeded. For example, it is feasible that the Arctic melting could trigger massive release of methane from what was permafrost, which will accelerate warming. This is a positive feedback mechanism and we are in danger of triggering it.

As Lake Effect said, garbage in, garbage out. AGW theory is the garbage out.

You're misrepresenting my use of the quote, and the sense of where that quote originated.

Let me clear that up: you posted empty, fact-free crap and I responded in kind.

The work behind AGW theory isn't garbage; it's the best work to date, and the vast majority of people and institutions involved with science know this. If you can do better, hop to it.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

We do not yet know how well these observed natural feedback mechanisms will cope long-term with the unnatural amounts of CO2 we continue to pump out.

bingo! And given this, on what basis does a warmist justify wasting trillions of $ impoverishing the least among us to fight something we have no clue needs to be fought? Let me be clear. Warmist policies are killing poor people and you have no solid reason to justify the policies doing the killing. As you inadvertantly admit.

[TurninTurtle]

Originally Posted by Delfin

bingo! And given this, on what basis does a warmist justify wasting trillions of $ impoverishing the least among us to fight something we have no clue needs to be fought? Let me be clear. Warmist policies are killing poor people and you have no solid reason to justify the policies doing the killing. As you inadvertantly admit.

It makes them feel better about themselves to ridicule civilization in general while they continue being the people who tend to have the largest "carbon footprints"

[ravinracin]

I haven't been on this topic page for quite some time. I am totally amazed by how many top notch scientists we have on cruisers forum. You guy are really on top of this climate change thing. Thanks so much for your contributions. MY understanding is that every major scientific study, every major investigative arm of any university world wide, every scientist of any repute says global warming is happening, climate change is happening, human activities are a major contributor to these changes. It is preventable and if we don't may of those beloved South Sea Islands that we aspire to cruise to or have cruised to will be gone. Any person with normal intelligence can understand this and if they choose not to then I would conclude that they have something to gain from denying it. Must own oil stock or work at a gas station. Even if all the scientists are wrong, just look at what all the junk we are putting into the air is doing to our children's lungs. For this reason alone, we should be weaning ourselves from burning fossil fuels. If you think I am wrong, just go into your garage, close the door, open your car windows and fire that combustion engine up for an hour. Enjoy!

[sailorchic34]

One point, for the period from 1945 to 1963 both the US and USSR were playing with new toys. That was atmospheric atomic and nuclear tests that put an amazing amount of aerosols into the atmosphere. I suspect that some of the "cooling" during that time period was do it that and a bit of higher then normal volcanic influence.

[TurninTurtle]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

One point, for the period from 1945 to 1963 both the US and USSR were playing with new toys. That was atmospheric atomic and nuclear tests that put an amazing amount of aerosols into the atmosphere. I suspect that some of the "cooling" during that time period was do it that and a bit of higher then normal volcanic influence.

So... you're saying we should set up more nuclear tests in order to mitigate the MMGW.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

bingo!

Not quite. The observations to date do not give full confidence that the natural feedbacks are up to the job, longterm, or would even be beneficial. Helluva science experiment you're planning to run.

And given this, on what basis does a warmist justify wasting trillions of $ impoverishing the least among us to fight something we have no clue needs to be fought?

You have zero concept of what is going to be done to mitigate AGW. Much less the ability to know the price tag. And a complete ignorance of the costs of the negative outcomes.

But that's in line with your overall credibility so far.

Let me be clear. Warmist policies are killing poor people.

Back that up, or stand fully revealed as a card-carrying nutbar.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by ravinracin

MY understanding is that every major scientific study, every major investigative arm of any university world wide, every scientist of any repute says global warming is happening, climate change is happening, human activities are a major contributor to these changes.

Well not every scientists buys into AGW. Or rather that AGW is the primary cause of climate change.

Myself being only an engineer tend to think that as we came out of the little ice age in the 1800's that maybe more then a bit of the warming might have been caused by that. All of it Nope. Is there a AGW impact to climate. Yes. Is it the primary cause. I alas am uncertain, but tend to think no.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...global_warming

Of course the scientists that aren't on the AGW bandwagon, must be a bunch of loosers Eh.

Mind you not every study supports AGW either. But they have a hard time getting published.

While I am not a warmest, I did offset an estimated 70,000 pounds of co2 over the years by being a bicycle commuting hippy in the 70's, 80's and 90's. Plus a bit more from solar hot water back then.

BTW if your a powerboater, I am offering carbon offsets at a very reasonable prices.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by ravinracin

I haven't been on this topic page for quite some time. I am totally amazed by how many top notch scientists we have on cruisers forum. You guy are really on top of this climate change thing. Thanks so much for your contributions. MY understanding is that every major scientific study, every major investigative arm of any university world wide, every scientist of any repute says global warming is happening, climate change is happening, human activities are a major contributor to these changes. It is preventable and if we don't may of those beloved South Sea Islands that we aspire to cruise to or have cruised to will be gone. Any person with normal intelligence can understand this and if they choose not to then I would conclude that they have something to gain from denying it. Must own oil stock or work at a gas station. Even if all the scientists are wrong, just look at what all the junk we are putting into the air is doing to our children's lungs. For this reason alone, we should be weaning ourselves from burning fossil fuels. If you think I am wrong, just go into your garage, close the door, open your car windows and fire that combustion engine up for an hour. Enjoy!

Well, not having any oil stock, nor work at a gas station maybe I am the wrong person to point out the obvious. But the obvious is that climate model are inaccurate, and the policies based on those flawed models are contributing to global poverty. Simple question for you - given that no one thinks the cost of reducing carbon reliance will cost less than quite a few trillion $, do you think it is better to spend those trillions on cancer research, mosquito nets in Africa, fusion research, education, roads, bridges, defense, etc. etc. etc, or to spend those trillions on efforts that look likely to accomplish absolutely nothing? This really is a simple question that isn't based on politics, but on factual data. Consider this:



The trillions mentioned that the Paris Accords will cost will reduce global carbon emissions by 33 gigatonnes, when at least according to the IPCC you would need to reduce carbon by 100 times that amount. Setting aside that the projections of carbon impacts are likely nonsense, even granting the warmist position do you want to spend huge sums to accomplish nothing when a fraction of that expenditure could actually do some good?

[Kenomac]

Or institute building codes which don't allow construction at or below the present day high tide level? 'Seems commonsensical to most of us not living in areas like New Orleans.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by TurninTurtle

So... you're saying we should set up more nuclear tests in order to mitigate the MMGW.

Did not say that at all. But then, I'm not to worried about AGW.