Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Tensen

Why on earth are you wasting space here with data on atmospheric temperatures when it's surface temperatures that are spiking?

Greenhouse gases are supposed to warm the atmosphere. The troposphere is supposed to be warming over equatorial regions and that would prove to be a "smoking gun" for greenhouse effect and so far it aint playing ball. So should the poles as greenhouse theory (aka models) predict increased relative warming over the polar regions. Whilst the Arctic is dutifully complying, the Antarctic is not. Seems the whole link with greenhouse gas emissions to global warming could still be considered somewhat "up in the air".

Here. Let me practice what I preach:


Carbon Planet - The Greenhouse Effect

The (missing) tropical hot spot « Climate Dialogue

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by downunder

And here is the disaster that global warming is wrecking on the maldives.

Hmm, not sure global warming is that particular island's main problem!

[Tensen]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Re: Meteor strike

Re: AGW disasters currently occuring

No clue what you're trying to communicate here.

Righto champ. Your turn to practice what you preach.

With pleasure.

Have you seen all the links to peer reviewed studies and data I, and others, have posted? That's supporting evidence for the assertions we make - something that's conspicuously missing from your posts.

I take it we can assume you won't be posting any evidence to support your bird death claim?

[Tensen]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Greenhouse gases are supposed to warm the atmosphere. The troposphere is supposed to be warming over equatorial regions and that would prove to be a "smoking gun" for greenhouse effect and so far it aint playing ball.

Supposed to be? Says who?

The troposhere not warming has no impact on the fact that the surface is warming rapidly!

So should the poles as greenhouse theory (aka models) predict increased relative warming over the polar regions. Whilst the Arctic is dutifully complying, the Antarctic is not. Seems the whole link with greenhouse gas emissions to global warming could still be considered somewhat "up in the air".

"Extremely likely" in your own words. Not "somewhat up in the air" (you've stepped backed from a straight "up in the air" though, which is promising).

Here. Let me practice what I preach:

Carbon Planet - The Greenhouse Effect

The (missing) tropical hot spot « Climate Dialogue

The first is a simple explanation of AGW, not sure why you felt the need to share.

The second is not a peer reviewed publication. It's a blogger - try again.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Tensen

Supposed to be? Says who?

The troposhere not warming has no impact on the fact that the surface is warming rapidly!

"Extremely likely" in your own words. Not "somewhat up in the air" (you've stepped backed from a straight "up in the air" though, which is promising).

The first is a simple explanation of AGW, not sure why you felt the need to share.

The second is not a peer reviewed publication. It's a blogger - try again.

Ok if you say so.

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Greenhouse gases are supposed to warm the atmosphere. The troposphere is supposed to be warming over equatorial regions and that would prove to be a "smoking gun" for greenhouse effect and so far it aint playing ball. So should the poles as greenhouse theory (aka models) predict increased relative warming over the polar regions. Whilst the Arctic is dutifully complying, the Antarctic is not. Seems the whole link with greenhouse gas emissions to global warming could still be considered somewhat "up in the air".

Here. Let me practice what I preach:


Carbon Planet - The Greenhouse Effect

The (missing) tropical hot spot « Climate Dialogue

The solar constant is the amount of radiation arriving just outside the earths atmosphere perpendicular to a flat plate. So something odd in this illustration because the solar constant or solar irradiance is 1361 W/m2.

So what is the 342 W/m2 emitted by the sun value? The average insolation, solar energy making it to the earths surface and accounting for the spherical shape of the planet and atmosphere is approx. 250 W/m2.

The 342 W/m2 be the average extra-terrestrial solar insulation.

All-in-all, a very sloppy illustration.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Tensen

No clue what you're trying to communicate here.


With pleasure.

Have you seen all the links to peer reviewed studies and data I, and others, have posted? That's supporting evidence for the assertions we make - something that's conspicuously missing from your posts.

I usually try and explain my stance and understanding of the point I am making, rather than simply slap up link after link, peer reviewed or not.

But if you insist: New peer-reviewed paper finds the ‘hot spot’ predicted by climate models doesn’t exist — Published in Geophysical Research Letters | Climate Depot

I take it we can assume you won't be posting any evidence to support your bird death claim?

Because you appear to be the last one to figure it out, the whole bird / windmill thing was an off the cuff remark that has somehow become a major issue with some people aka you. I guess that means that all the other stuff I have referred or argued against represents a strong argument. So thanks for confirming that.

Anyway, I think you want me to prove or disprove how many birds have died as a result of AGW? The best I can do in short time is below. The lack of hard numbers, however usually indicates that the article is a "fluff"piece.

http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/..._factsheet.pdf

WWF - Climate change impacts on bird species

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

The solar constant is the amount of radiation arriving just outside the earths atmosphere perpendicular to a flat plate. So something odd in this illustration because the solar constant or solar irradiance is 1361 W/m2.

So what is the 342 W/m2 emitted by the sun value? The average insolation, solar energy making it to the earths surface and accounting for the spherical shape of the planet and atmosphere is approx. 250 W/m2.

The 342 W/m2 be the average extra-terrestrial solar insulation.

All-in-all, a very sloppy illustration.

I know the numbers are wrong. I thought it was a nice pretty and simple picture for my other friend that graphically illustrated the concept.

Edit: Evidence. A day or two ago I posted the actual value very close to yours. So there.

[downunder]

Have to agree with that.

However Maldives is one of the global warming alarmist will raise sea level hotspots as used in these examples.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SailOar View Post
Miami, Florida is in the beginning phases of a slow-motion disaster.

Goodbye, Miami | Rolling Stone Magazine
Sea Level Rise Threatens to Drown Miami Even Faster Than Feared, UM Researcher Finds | Miami New Times

Before sea level rises, Miami Beach officials want to raise West Avenue 1½ to 2 feet | Miami Herald Miami Herald

Treading Water - National Geographic Magazine

Scientist: 'Miami, As We Know It Today, Is Doomed. It's Not A Question Of If. It's A Question Of When.' | ThinkProgress

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by downunder

And here is the disaster that global warming is wrecking on the maldives.

Yep, islands sinking everywhere (Borat accent......) NOT!

Welcome to Australia's newest islands, thrust from the sea by a raging cyclone Nathan | Environment | The Guardian

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Out of context. I'm explaining how "extremely likely" isn't equivalent to "will occur" ...

The IPCC has defined/quantified the terms they use to reflect confidence & uncertainty.
Virtually certain = 99 - 100% probability
Very likely = 90 - 100% probability
etc.
➥ http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-ma...dance-note.pdf

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by GordMay

The IPCC has defined/quantified the terms they use to reflect confidence & uncertainty.
Virtually certain = 99 - 100% probability
Very likely = 90 - 100% probability
etc.
➥ http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-ma...dance-note.pdf

Something I read somewhere quotes in the 2013 report as 95%

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by lordgeoff

........999,400 Parts Per Million are not CO2...... Friggin enormous according to lake-effect......apparently.

Fun with math:

The concentration of C02 in the atmosphere has increased by 40% in the last 200 years, and half of that increase was just in the last 50 years.

(I'd cut'n'paste something, but you'd just get irritable)

40% increase in atmospheric CO2, caused by us. And more to come. Is that not friggin enormous?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

... the whole bird / windmill thing was an off the cuff remark that has somehow become a major issue with some people aka you. I guess that means that all the other stuff I have referred or argued against represents a strong argument.

... not exactly.

I recall that the bird windmill/AGW remark was a 'claim' from you, suggesting some level of confidence. If you're going to 'claim' something so weak and easily disproved, it kind of undermines our confidence in your other arguments, doesn't it?

Something I read somewhere quotes in the 2013 report as 95%

If your dr told you there's a 95% chance you have a malignent tumour, you'd get naked and jump up on the operating room table before the dr looks up from their clipboard.

[Kenomac]

The global warming believers have it all bass-ackwards. I just finished shoveling 2 inches of fresh snow out front...about an hour north of Boston. Temps below freezing. Please splainme how the Ice is going to open up with temps decreasing like this? The ponds and lakes around here are still frozen over on April 9th, and no Spring flowers are coming up.

Maybe the believers should be the ones labeled as "deniers," since they seem to be the ones denying what's actually coming down and hitting them on the head.... In the form of snow.