Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Once again, a warmist confuses the fact that the planet has been warming since 1750 with the theory that this warming is caused by humans. If you had the slightest interest in honest science you all wouldn't keep making that mistake.

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)

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

True, but only one of us was able to grab post #1, post #3000 and post #4000 on this thread.

fryewe got #1000 and you nabbed #2000 when I was out of town. Jack has yet to score despite over what must be 1000 posts by now.

Hey mabey jack will score the coveted 5k by June

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Perhaps you are not familiar with the concept of cause and effect. If entity A is alleged to cause entity B, the when A intensifies, logically so should B. Increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 should cause an increase in the rate of warming. That isn't happening. The reverse is happening. In statistics, that makes these two entities negatively correlated, because as one (CO2) goes up, the other (rate of warming) goes down, which is just one way of saying you have a belief in something that is poorly supported by reality.

Now, one possibility is that as CO2 increases, the negative feedbacks within the climate system also increase, putting the brakes on further warming. That would be consistent with what is observed, but sadly for warmists, would also blow their belief system out of the water.

Per usual, your knowledge of atmospheric physics is lacking. The relation between CO2 increase and temperature increase is not linear, but instead is logarithmic. That means that the temperature increase as CO2 increased from 200ppm (deep into the ice ages) to 400ppm (current levels) is much greater than the anticipated temperature increase should CO2 double again from 400ppm to 800ppm.

Translated into actual numbers, it is calculated that a doubling of current CO2 levels will eventually increase temperatures 2-4.5°C. The calculations to arrive at these values are shown below:

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming? | Skeptical Science

[...] Radiative Transfer Models

Radiative transfer models use fundamental physical equations and observations to translate this increased downward radiation into a radiative forcing, which effectively tells us how much increased energy is reaching the Earth's surface. Studies have shown that these radiative transfer models match up with the observed increase in energy reaching the Earth's surface with very good accuracy (Puckrin 2004). Scientists can then derive a formula for calculating the radiative forcing based on the change in the amount of each greenhouse gas in the atmosphere (Myhre 1998). Each greenhouse gas has a different radiative forcing formula, but the most important is that of CO2:

dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co)

Where 'dF' is the radiative forcing in Watts per square meter, 'C' is the concentration of atmospheric CO2, and 'Co' is the reference CO2concentration. Normally the value of Co is chosen at the pre-industrial concentration of 280 ppmv.

Now that we know how to calculate the radiative forcing associated with an increase in CO2, how do we determine the associated temperature change?

Climate sensitivity

As the name suggests, climate sensitivity is an estimate of how sensitive the climate is to an increase in a radiative forcing. The climate sensitivity value tells us how much the planet will warm or cool in response to a given radiative forcing change. As you might guess, the temperature change is proportional to the change in the amount of energy reaching the Earth's surface (the radiative forcing), and the climate sensitivity is the coefficient of proportionality:

dT = λ*dF

Where 'dT' is the change in the Earth's average surface temperature, 'λ' is the climate sensitivity, usually with units in Kelvin or degrees Celsius per Watts per square meter (°C/[W/m2]), and 'dF' is the radiative forcing.

So now to calculate the change in temperature, we just need to know the climate sensitivity. Studies have given a possible range of values of 2-4.5°C warming for a doubling of CO2 (IPCC 2007). Using these values it's a simple task to put the climate sensitivity into the units we need, using the formulas above:

λ = dT/dF = dT/(5.35 * ln[2])= [2 to 4.5°C]/3.7 = 0.54 to 1.2°C/(W/m2)

Using this range of possible climate sensitivity values, we can plug λ into the formulas above and calculate the expected temperature change. The atmospheric CO2 concentration as of 2010 is about 390 ppmv. This gives us the value for 'C', and for 'Co' we'll use the pre-industrial value of 280 ppmv.

dT = λ*dF = λ * 5.35 * ln(390/280) = 1.8 * λ

Plugging in our possible climate sensitivity values, this gives us an expected surface temperature change of about 1–2.2°C of global warming, with a most likely value of 1.4°C. However, this tells us the equilibrium temperature. In reality it takes a long time to heat up the oceans due to their thermal inertia. For this reason there is currently a planetary energy imbalance, and the surface has only warmed about 0.8°C. In other words, even if we were to immediately stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere, the planet would warm another ~0.6°C until it reached this new equilibrium state (confirmed by Hansen 2005). This is referred to as the 'warming in the pipeline'.

Of course this is just the temperature change we expect to observe from the CO2 radiative forcing. Humans cause numerous other radiative forcings, both positive (e.g. other greenhouse gases) and negative (e.g. sulfate aerosols which block sunlight). Fortunately, the negative and positive forcings are roughly equal and cancel each other out, and the natural forcings over the past half century have also been approximately zero (Meehl 2004), so the radiative forcing from CO2 alone gives us a good estimate as to how much we expect to see the Earth's surface temperature change.


Figure 4: Global average radiative forcing in 2005 (best estimates and 5 to 95% uncertainty ranges) with respect to 1750 (IPCC AR4).

We can also calculate the most conservative possible temperature change in response to the CO2 increase. Some climate scientists who are touted as 'skeptics' have suggested the actual climate sensitivity could be closer to 1°C for a doubling of CO2, or 0.27°C/(W/m2). Although numerous studies have ruled out climate sensitivity values this low, it's worth calculating how much of a temperature change this unrealistically low value would generate. Using the same formulas as above,

dT = 1.8 * λ = 1.8 * 0.27 = 0.5°C.

Therefore, even under this ultra-conservative unrealistic low climate sensitivity scenario, the increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 150 years would account for over half of the observed 0.8°C increase in surface temperature.[...]

Please note that the original article contains many hyperlinks to reference sources.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Excellent!

Actually, your knowledge of atmospheric physics is even worse than Delfin's.

[Delfin]

Since I have another hour or so before making the harbor, just this once I will take the time to demonstrate how utterly clueless you are about this subject.

Originally Posted by jackdale

Let's get started.


The MWP was a northern hemisphere phenomenon. This has been documented by Brian Fagan in The Great Warming. It is also quite clear in the paleoclimatology record.

False. You again grab onto whatever source of information is available to you to make a declarative statement. The correct statement would that the global extent of the MWP is supported by research, while other research suggests it was a northern hemisphere phenomenon. But if it was a northern hemisphere only phenomena, why are global temperatures today global, yet back then, we are to believe that some kind of climate fence was built around the equator? Pacific Ocean Heat Content During the Past 10,000 Years | Science

Originally Posted by jackdale

You are quote mining and misinterpreting von Storch. This is him in an interview 2 weeks ago. (Google translated the text.)

False. I quoted what von Storch said. Something he endured a complete **** storm over from warmist loons who thought he had committed heresy. Your reading of the link you posted is delusional. Von Storch notes in that link: "I often see rather the problem of over Sell the results of climate research : Some researchers have the robustness of our results is exaggerated and too little attention to uncertainties in the findings " . The findings are uncertain to von Storch, who is a scientist. They are a matter of faith to you, which is why you keep posting links that state the opposite of what you would like them say. Again, I suggest an optometrist.

Originally Posted by jackdale

H2O is recognized by pretty much evryone as the dominant GHG.


I have no idea where you dug up the cooling phenomenon.

Who said it wasn't? You apparently know so little about this subject that you have completely missed the point. The point is whether water vapor in the atmosphere is a positive forcing or a negative feedback, not whether it is a greenhouse gas. Although you didn't understand what the IPCC wrote that I posted earlier, they have identified that their models are all based on water vapor being only a positive forcing, which is not well supported in the data even if it is embedded in the models.

Any child that knows you cool hot soup by blowing across it can explain to you what evaporative cooling is all about, since you seem confused about that basic physical phenomenone.

Originally Posted by jackdale

Your tide calculations are linear. The sea levels rises are accelerating.

False, and not according to the PSMSL data taken from tidal stations. The raw data for the last 70 years shows some stations increasing mean sea level while others decrease. An average across the planet for 70 years, the rate of increase is .8mm/decade. That would 8mm per century or enough to get your tootsies damp. Big effing deal.

Originally Posted by jackdale

CO2 was leader in the last ice age.

False again. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/...years-at-most/
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture10915.html Your preference for one research finding does not make it a fact worthy of a declarative statement.

Originally Posted by jackdale

And CO2 was is a leading factor in the current warming.

Transparently false. The current warming began in 1750, long before CO2 became enriched.

Originally Posted by jackdale

Richard Tol is an economist, not a climate scientist.

Delusional, as I didn't mention Richard Tol.

Originally Posted by jackdale

Solar scientists, like Mike Lockwood" have told us not to expect a new age.

Actually what you mean is "some" climate scientists say that. Others say the opposite. Once again, you confuse your preferred reality with reality.

Originally Posted by jackdale

John Holdren made his comment in 1971.

False. Someone needs to show you how to use Google. Holdren said it two years ago. Climate Change Preventing A New Ice Age, White House Science Advisor Claims [Video]

Really Jack, you are starting to be an embarrassment to yourself. I'm going to leave you alone now, as I feel like I am picking on a very confused person. Doesn't seem fair.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Hey mabey jack will score the coveted 5k by June

Who gives a rat's ass?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Who gives a rat's ass?

Calm down jack I'm just having a bit o fun. Damn you really need to go sailing.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Calm down jack I'm just having a bit o fun. Damn you really need to go sailing.

May 7 -16. Meeting my Lahaina -> Vancouver crew at the boat. Then doing a intermediate / advanced course in Georgia Strait.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Interrupting this hate-in to post something interesting on fusion development.

BBC - Future - The secretive, billionaire-backed plans to harness fusion

You may now resume the inanity.

For sure high net worth investors can advance the technology. Fusion is clearly the only "non-fossil" fuel based energy resource that mathematically has any chance to displace a majority of the present day uses and support future growth (and thus wealth). There will be some uses we can't replace. We may never be able to fusion power an airliner for example. We will need some oil until we can perfect a matter transporter.

What I believe is needed is more and better cooperation between government and private investors. Private industry could "divide and conquer" the many technological hurdles with government entities like ITER coordinating the efforts. But there are also non-technical hurdles such as arcane patent laws that are not written for a technology like fusion. So government(s) must be a big part of the solution.

Also, some of the best companies that could contribute technology and make large investments are demonized by the MMGW side. This should stop. Oil, gas and electricity supply companies are not the cause of the problem. Human desire to live an easy, low risk life is what keeps these companies in business. But it's easier for the left-leaning person to lash out at "big business" than preach into a mirror which is a useless exercise anyway.

Also, the article ignores an obvious but often overlooked aspect of government funded efforts like ITER. The actual components and subsystems within ITER are usually built by private companies. So it is wrong to say that only these long shot efforts are supported by private investment. The "mainstream" fusion developments are in fact based on a significant private investment in technology.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

May 7 -16. Meeting my Lahaina -> Vancouver crew at the boat. Then doing a intermediate / advanced course in Georgia Strait.

Sounds like a blast. Weather should be good to if you believe the weather guessers.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Per usual, your knowledge of atmospheric physics is lacking.....

Actually, your knowledge of atmospheric physics is even worse than Delfin's.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t5c2Ojk9LiM

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Sounds like a blast. Weather should be good to if you believe the weather guessers.

Too far out for weather I go out 4-5 days using NOAA weatherfax and grib files.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Really Jack, you are starting to be an embarrassment to yourself. I'm going to leave you alone now, as I feel like I am picking on a very confused person. Doesn't seem fair.

No fears. You are not picking on me. You have a classic case of unconscious incompetence, which leads you to be an AGW denier; you, like others here, really do deny the "A" part.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Too far out for weather I go out 4-5 days using NOAA weatherfax and grib files.

I do that plus I tend to look further out into the pacific for the later part of the time frame. On passageweather
There appears to be a good high moving our way from around Hawaii that will begin to build here for us around mid day on the tenth and should hold for two to three days after that. Just hope I'm correct . Time will tell should be more apparent by weeks end

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Per usual, your knowledge of atmospheric physics is lacking. The relation between CO2 increase and temperature increase is not linear, but instead is logarithmic. That means that the temperature increase as CO2 increased from 200ppm (deep into the ice ages) to 400ppm (current levels) is much greater than the anticipated temperature increase should CO2 double again from 400ppm to 800ppm.

No sale, because you don't actually understand the stuff you are posting, just like Jack. Here is the logarithmic function of CO2 you are referring to:



Please note that the pre-industrial level of CO2 - 280 ppm as shown by the red line is separated from the green line of today by (drum roll please) a straight line, or so nearly a straight line as to make no difference. So, no, you cannot explain the slow down in warming with significantly increased atmospheric CO2 by an appeal to a logarithmic function. Good smoke screen though, I give you that.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Delfin

No sale, because you don't actually understand the stuff you are posting, just like Jack. Here is the logarithmic function of CO2 you are referring to:



Please note that the pre-industrial level of CO2 - 280 ppm as shown by the red line is separated from the green line of today by (drum roll please) a straight line, or so nearly a straight line as to make no difference. So, no, you cannot explain the slow down in warming with significantly increased atmospheric CO2 by an appeal to a logarithmic function. Good smoke screen though, I give you that.

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