Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
Anything positive,apparently.
Denier.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
Denier.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
You have no idea what an increase in temperature on the average, of 1.4C Can do to the Earth ,Do you?
Denier of AGW.
.
.
.
.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
From the very first post:
Just wondering, are there any more climate change skeptics out there?
I think the answer is mostly "no." What we have here are mostly climate change cranks.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Sometimes I feel kind of sorry for you Chief. You have to resort to misquoting people to make some point.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
LOL, Sketch. BaU in AR1 was exponentially increasing emissions.
That's basically linear.
Take another swing?
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Must be your AGW ignorance and total dedication to the political ideology that goes with it.
Yep, that's totally me. You nailed it.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
Scenario A, Sketch? Surely you have radiative forcing data to support that.
Got any radiative forcing data to support your arguments Sketch?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 6, 2014 - 08:09am PT
|
Sketch, are you getting all your "information" and arguments from anti-science blogs again?
It's interesting how sciency-sounding mumbo jumbo makes sense to folks who don't understand the science. Here, Sketch is trying to sound like he knows what he's talking about. Heck, those anti-science blogs sure make it sound easy.
The only trouble is he hasn't put the time into scientific study to actually see how flimsy the arguments are on those anti blogs.
But I could be wrong--maybe he does have the research on radiative forcing to back up his claims.
Let's give him the benefit of the doubt. After all, the thousands of scientists pouring over the IPCC reports might not know the things that Sketch knows.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
it's good you've found a place where you can be yourself...
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
The actual radiative forcing is the result of all effects, Sketch, including ghg's, landuse, aerosols, etc.
It is the best single measure of the warming pressure on our planet.
Sure, climate science in 1990 was not as advanced as today, and you can find discrepancies, so good for you, Sketch.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
What's wrong with this picture?
what is a "forcing" and how does it relate to the dynamics of the climate?
|
|
crunch
Social climber
CO
|
|
sketch, thanks for the helpful link to the NASA article:
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/october/nasa-study-finds-earth-s-ocean-abyss-has-not-warmed/#.VDLyjr6bGS0
"The cold waters of Earth’s deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study .... during the same period warming in the top half of the ocean continued unabated."
Some clarification:
"Some recent studies reporting deep-ocean warming were, in fact, referring to the warming in the upper half of the ocean but below the topmost layer, which ends about 0.4 mile (700 meters) down."
This new research sheds light on what's going on the deepest depths, below 1.24 miles.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
A reason temperature changes before 1950-1965 are not very predictive for the future is that there was less manmade CO2 at that time.
The added immediate greenhouse effect is related to the difference between the long term CO2 level of (280-300) and the present level which was 310ppm in 1950, 320 in 1965, 400 in 2014.
There is a very slow increase for the first 200 years of the industrial revolution of 280ppm in 1750 to 310 in 1950. After that time, GHGs increase at a faster rate. Looking at the typical CO2 time graph, the added greenhouse effect increases each year. So recent years - the last 30 for example, would have a much higher effect than the previous 30 years.
And it is misguided to expect a linear graph of warming extending before 1960 to have much usefulness.
Additionally, cumulative long term feedbacks (melting, changes in surface reflectivity, release of stored GHGs, etc.) will delay equilibrium, which is why temperature will continue to increase long after GHG levels stabilize.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
Reasons why arctic melting is more important than antarctic ice extent:
1) Arctic ice mostly lasts through the summer, when the sun is shining in the north. If Arctic ice is melted in the summer, it can't reflect sunlight very well. The albedo of ice is ~ .6 (where 1 = perfect white reflector) , but the albedo of open water is only .06, so less Arctic ice in summer makes a big difference to global albedo.
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/processes/albedo.html
Antarctic sea ice mostly melts in the southern summer Dec-March. So when the sun is shining on the southern sea, it is not ice. So there is no significant change in albedo during the sunny months, which are the more significant months.
The total combined effect is that the decrease in the northern ice extent is 4 times as significant as the increase in the south.
Compare Feb in the south, to Aug in the north at
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/snow-and-ice/extent/sea-ice/S/2
2) Antarctic land ice is still melting, as is Greenland. Antarctic sea ice maximum extent is not a good indicator of global trends.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Norton did you read your alarmist link?
If you had, surely you would have noticed that they were claiming ocean warming for several decades prior to 2005.
When was Argo fully deployed Norton?
Not in those decades they are claiming catastrophic accelerated warming.
How did they determine this catastrophic warming Norton? Was it the result of model output that isn't worth the electrons expended on the runs since they are nearly universally tuned to be oversensitive to CO2 forcing and ignore or under value natural processes?
What I get out of this little pile of steaming press release excrement is that actual observations show no warming since 2005.
By 2005 the effects of reduced short wave solar radiation and magnetic flux didn't allow for the warming of the vast mass of the ocean. Sure, there was a little surface warming from long wave radiation backscattered from water vapor and CO2 but it doesn't penetrate more than a few centimeters.
The only thing currently keeping us from a distinct cooling of the upper levels of the ocean and land surface is the weak double peak of solar cycle 24. Within months this should conclude and the cycle will dropoff over a period of years to a deep and prolonged minimum not seen in over a 150 years.
There will be a severe winter in large parts of the NH this season. The Arctic ice melt for 2015, starting from a higher total extent and thickness, will be less than 2014. The Antarctic will continue to add more land ice mass, as some satellite measurements show, and the sea ice will again reach new records. The El Nino of 2014/2015 will be weak. The climate liars will be even less credible in sept. 2015 than in 2014.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!