Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Since increasing levels of CO2 that don't correlate with warming

Absolutely dead wrong. The GHG qualities of CO2 have been known for 200 years.

https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm



Without CO2 the earth would be a ball of ice.


Here is 4.6 billion years worth of CO2 for you. Real science by a real scientist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujkcTZZlikg

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Why isn't this one in the MMGW Cultist library of Cut/paste internet activism folder?

Answer because it doesn't support their theology of Man Made Global warming....so they hide from it....ignore it....cut and paste around it to hide from it.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Why isn't this one in the MMGW Cultist library of Cut/paste internet activism folder?

Answer because it doesn't support their theology of Man Made Global warming....so they hide from it....ignore it....cut and paste around it to hide from it.

Quite true. Narcissistic true believers find objective data to be too troublesome to acknowledge.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by StuM:
Can any of the warmists tell us exactly what maximum concentration of CO2 we need to in order to stay within 1.5 and 2°C above pre-industrial temperature?

Originally Posted by jackdale

Quote:
If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm, but likely less that. The largest uncertainty in the target arises from possible changes of non-CO2 forcings. An initial 350 ppm CO2 target may be achievable by phasing out coal use except where CO2 is captured and adopting agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon.

Pubs.GISS: Hansen et al. 2008: Target atmospheric CO₂: Where should humanity aim?

Happy?

Are you sure you understood the question? I didn't think it was about the optimal or desirable CO2 concentrations (as theorized by Hansen), but whether there is a correlation btwn. CO2 concentrations and increased temperatures that can be quantified. Or did I miss it?

Originally Posted by jackdale

No - not this guy.

What gives with the American predilection for celebrity. Who gives a crap?

Try some science that you claim to do not dispute.

I'm with you on the celebrity thing. An area of rare agreement btwn us. But the article notes that it's not just an American thing, since DiCaprio was "virtue-signaling" and expressing his "moral outrage" before the UN on Earth Day. Last I checked, the UN is comprised of a lot of nations other than the US.

By "trying some science," do you mean finding articles, charts & graphs which support only one side of a complex scientific debate and then posting them on a sailing forum? Whether I - or you for that matter - dispute the science is of no import. The issue is whether your only presenting one side and representing it as gospel is accurate, honest, or credible.

Originally Posted by Exile:
Since increasing levels of CO2 that don't correlate with warming

Originally Posted by jackdale

Absolutely dead wrong. The GHG qualities of CO2 have been known for 200 years.

https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm



Without CO2 the earth would be a ball of ice.

No argument from me, since I never claimed that CO2 had no relationship to warming, or certainly that CO2 was not a vital element to life on earth as we know it. What I was pointing to was evidence of discrepancies over various time periods btwn. increasing amounts of CO2 and temperature, i.e. there are discrepancies btwn. the two that don't always correlate as the warmists assert. Did you miss the pages of thread discourse on this one too? Hopefully you won't demand that I "show you the science" on something that's already been addressed, whether you happen to agree with it or not.

Here is 4.6 billion years worth of CO2 for you. Real science by a real scientist.

I always thought real science by real scientists was about honest & open debate, testing theories & hypotheses, challenging opinions, etc. But apparently it would be a lot less frustrating for some if it could just be "pronounced" and the case could be closed, eh?

[newhaul]

Here ya go its not global warming or ghg's causing warmer temps it is actually the wind or rather the lack of it. Changing wind patterns causing temperatures to rise on America's West Coast | Daily Mail Online
And some on here are doing their best to counter the lack of winds.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Carbon credits is sort of like power boaters paying sailboaters money to sail to offset the power boaters carbon output. Seems legit to me...


Hum..... On second though, this might be a way to supplement the cruising kitty. Any 100+ foot power boaters want to buy carbon credits from me. Boy there might be something to this AGW.

After a bazillion posts on AGW, maybe ya'll just need to outside and sail more.

EDIT: So far people talking and reading this thread have contributed over 33 pounds of co2 to the atmosphere based on my simple calculations. Well minus the part of us with solar power.

Dayum! Now there's a thought. I'm going to make a sign and put it up on the Club noticeboard. Heck - I might even build a website and sell online. (Once I've made my first million, I'll cut you in for 10%)

[TurninTurtle]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Absolutely dead wrong. The GHG qualities of CO2 have been known for 200 years.

https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm



Without CO2 the earth would be a ball of ice.


Here is 4.6 billion years worth of CO2 for you. Real science by a real scientist.

How could we know or relate CO2 to ANYTHING 200 years ago when... WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS?

in the early 1750's they were just figuring out that the gas produced by mixing certain chemicals would put out a fire. They didn't know what the hell it was.
They had no clue what it did other than kill animals and put out fires.

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by TurninTurtle

How could we know or relate CO2 to ANYTHING 200 years ago when... WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS?

in the early 1750's they were just figuring out that the gas produced by mixing certain chemicals would put out a fire. They didn't know what the hell it was.
They had no clue what it did other than kill animals and put out fires.

Why we know about the greenhouse gas effect - Scientific American Blog Network

Fourier described what we call the greenhouse effect nearly 200 years ago.
But, wasn't until 1862 (only about 150 years ago) that Tyndall discovered that CO2 had these properties.

Also worth noting that it wasn't until 1896 (a mere 120 years ago) that the first predictions that burning fossil fuels might alter the climate were made:
http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1...m18-173546.pdf

You know, this science is really in its infancy, or something like that.

[SailOar]

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean? | Skeptical Science

Over the last half million years, our climate has experienced long ice ages regularly punctuated by brief warm periods called interglacials. Atmospheric carbon dioxide closely matches the cycle, increasing by around 80 to 100 parts per million as Antarctic temperatures warm up to 10°C. However, when you look closer, CO2 actually lags Antarctic temperature changes by around 1,000 years. While this result was predicted two decades ago (Lorius 1990), it still surprises and confuses many. Does warming cause CO2 rise or the other way around? In actuality, the answer is both.


Figure 1: Vostok Antarctic ice core records for carbon dioxide concentration (Petit 2000) and temperature change (Barnola 2003).


Interglacials come along approximately every 100,000 years. This is called the Milankovitch cycle, brought on by changes in the Earth's orbit. There are three main changes to the earth's orbit. The shape of the Earth's orbit around the sun (eccentricity) varies between an ellipse to a more circular shape. The earth's axis is tilted relative to the sun at around 23°. This tilt oscillates between 22.5° and 24.5° (oblithis quity). As the earth spins around it's axis, the axis wobbles from pointing towards the North Star to pointing at the star Vega (precession).


Figure 2: The three main orbital variations. Eccentricity: changes in the shape of the Earth’s orbit.
Obliquity: changes in the tilt of the Earth’s rotational axis.
Precession: wobbles in the Earth’s rotational axis.

The combined effect of these orbital cycles causes long term changes in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth at different seasons, particularly at high latitudes. For example, the orbital cycles triggered warming at high latittudes approximately 19,000 years ago, causing large amounts of ice to melt, flooding the oceans with fresh water. This influx of fresh water then disrupted the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC), in turn causing a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres (Shakun 2012). The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago. As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999).

The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming.

CO2 from the Southern Ocean also mixes through the atmosphere, spreading the warming north (Cuffey 2001). Tropical marine sediments record warming in the tropics around 1000 years after Antarctic warming, around the same time as the CO2 rise (Stott 2007). Ice cores in Greenland find that warming in the Northern Hemisphere lags the Antarctic CO2 rise (Caillon 2003).

To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:

• Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles
• CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone
• CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet

Overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occurs after the atmospheric CO2 increase (Figure 3).


Figure 3: The global proxy temperature stack (blue) as deviations from the early Holocene (11.5–6.5 kyr ago) mean, an Antarctic ice-core composite temperature record (red), and atmospheric CO2 concentration (yellow dots). The Holocene, Younger Dryas (YD), Bølling–Allerød (B–A), Oldest Dryas (OD) and Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) intervals are indicated. Error bars, 1-sigma; p.p.m.v. = parts per million by volume. Shakun et al. Figure 2a.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by StuM

OK, third one can't answer the question. Anyone else.

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.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Hmmm...what do we do, the American people are not buying into the MMGW Hype...
Hey here's an Idea...lets Tax their Meat!

Denmark ethics council calls for tax on red meat to fight 'ethical problem' of climate change | Europe | News | The Independent

In a world where grown adults can't take care of themselves...Now we understand the MMGW Cultists.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...s-28-year-old/

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Try some science that you claim to do not dispute.

If you are interested in science, perhaps explain your comment of the ideal amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that existed when the entirety of Canada was under the ice, as was the state of New York.

Or is that science inconvenient?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

If you are interested in science, perhaps explain your comment of the ideal amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that existed when the entirety of Canada was under the ice, as was the state of New York.

Or is that science inconvenient?

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

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Hmmm...what do we do, the American people are not buying into the MMGW Hype...
Hey here's an Idea...lets Tax their Meat!

Denmark ethics council calls for tax on red meat to fight 'ethical problem' of climate change | Europe | News | The Independent

In a world where grown adults can't take care of themselves...Now we understand the MMGW Cultists.

Italy's 'big babies': court orders father to pay for upkeep of 28-year-old son

How about not-yet-grown children being used to sue the federal govt. and the fossil fuel industry for "failing to do enough" to combat climate change.

Climate change: Kids sue on behalf of the future - CNN.com

The irony is that the suit puts the Obama administration and Exxon/Mobil on the same side as co-defendants. I guess if you fail to convince the populace of the merits of your position, then use the courts! (and use the emotional appeal of children as plaintiffs).

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Hmmm...what do we do, the American people are not buying into the MMGW Hype...
Hey here's an Idea...lets Tax their Meat!

Denmark ethics council calls for tax on red meat to fight 'ethical problem' of climate change | Europe | News | The Independent

In a world where grown adults can't take care of themselves...Now we understand the MMGW Cultists.

Italy's 'big babies': court orders father to pay for upkeep of 28-year-old son

Told you pages and pages ago that the problem really was farting cows!