|
Post by graywolf on Nov 11, 2016 11:38:22 GMT
My point is the natural carbon cycle and any peturbations we might set up within it? Deforestation of the planets rain forests are one such thing and melting ice, around Antarctica, and its knock on in the southern ocean or the melting of the permafrost.
Our industrial emission are nothing compared to what mother N. has at her disposal! Just the reserves of GHG's across the northern tundra would dwarf all of our puny attempts at adding GHG's into the atmosphere!
The past 3 years of 3+ ppm rises were put at the door of mother N. ( two years of excess permafrost emission and one of drought from the nino) so it appears that She is rousing and wants to join the fun...... " Call that a GHG emission?.....Now that's a GHG emission......."
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 11, 2016 16:01:35 GMT
My point is the natural carbon cycle and any peturbations we might set up within it? Deforestation of the planets rain forests are one such thing and melting ice, around Antarctica, and its knock on in the southern ocean or the melting of the permafrost. Our industrial emission are nothing compared to what mother N. has at her disposal! Just the reserves of GHG's across the northern tundra would dwarf all of our puny attempts at adding GHG's into the atmosphere! The past 3 years of 3+ ppm rises were put at the door of mother N. ( two years of excess permafrost emission and one of drought from the nino) so it appears that She is rousing and wants to join the fun...... " Call that a GHG emission?.....Now that's a GHG emission......." Now that is entirely a SPECULATION! If you are just guessing why does your guess have to have a bad result? Is it that you see man violating some law of nature and so surely he will be punished or is it a belief in the sandpile theory espoused by Al Gore?
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Nov 11, 2016 17:47:09 GMT
I cannot see why feed-backs should not be expected ? We're still at quite elevated global temps and plenty of warmth still sat around the surfaces of the worlds oceans to keep things just that way? Folk need to accept that the Nino's 'record year' was not far above the previous years record warmth and then we have this year which looks like crowning that record with even higher global temps even with most of the year non Nino? Warmer Oceans absorb less CO2 , warmer permafrost releases more CO2, drier forests absorb less CO2? that's the way it works my friend.
I'm finding that I'm a bit turned round myself over what we are seeing in the Arctic? I'd got it straight that another blazing 07' was what we needed to fear but it wasn't was it? and here we sit watching the pack organise itself as if it had just melted out and that next summer is the first year after melt out with a pack so weak that it no longer demands a blazing 07' summer to finish it!
I'm sure if I can be so hoodwinked by mother Nature, and her ways, that you may also find yourself blindsided by Her as she unloads a large chunk of our old Carbon Cycle into today's whilst we're busy arguing over whether we need reduce our additional imputs of CO2.....
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Nov 11, 2016 19:08:43 GMT
Or even negative feedback's as evidenced by the existence of the current ecosystem through vast perturbations in the past.
All arguments point to the heads I win tails you loose process. Free you mind.
Trump will expose the full hand of data that is out there and the debate will move forward based on a balanced discussion, something I am sure that the science based thinkers will welcome.
And yes both positions can be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 11, 2016 20:37:02 GMT
It seems to me that to ignore Paleo evidence while proclaiming imminent doom is foolish.
A warmer world is NOT a bad place to live.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Nov 12, 2016 2:14:48 GMT
As much as I enjoy skiing I agree with you Sig.
The entire debate on CAGW has to be focused on runaway temperature rise, just that. Storms are only getting stronger in the spin doctors tweets and a meter of sea level rise over 200 years is largely manageable within the context of infrastructure life cyle and reconstruction.
I have little regard for Trump and his seriously questionable view of the world but there will be some very big dividends to flow from the rethink of the Global warming debate lets hope it happens in a rational way.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 12, 2016 3:12:28 GMT
I cannot see why feed-backs should not be expected ? We're still at quite elevated global temps and plenty of warmth still sat around the surfaces of the worlds oceans to keep things just that way? Folk need to accept that the Nino's 'record year' was not far above the previous years record warmth and then we have this year which looks like crowning that record with even higher global temps even with most of the year non Nino? Warmer Oceans absorb less CO2 , warmer permafrost releases more CO2, drier forests absorb less CO2? that's the way it works my friend. I'm finding that I'm a bit turned round myself over what we are seeing in the Arctic? I'd got it straight that another blazing 07' was what we needed to fear but it wasn't was it? and here we sit watching the pack organise itself as if it had just melted out and that next summer is the first year after melt out with a pack so weak that it no longer demands a blazing 07' summer to finish it! I'm sure if I can be so hoodwinked by mother Nature, and her ways, that you may also find yourself blindsided by Her as she unloads a large chunk of our old Carbon Cycle into today's whilst we're busy arguing over whether we need reduce our additional imputs of CO2..... Of course there are going to be feedbacks, both negative and positive. Fact is we have very little evidence as to what climate sensitivity is to a single warming influence. What we had from the IPCC in 2000 where the climate sensitivity was guessed to be between 1.5 to 4.5 times the primary influence was built on an obviously incorrect assumption that all variability longer than an ENSO cycle was due to CO2 variation. Since that time the IPCC has become aware of the papers on multi-decadal ocean oscillations that can involve somewhere between 50 and 100% of the observed warming over the period of time that the 1.5 to 4.5 sensitivity estimate was made. So as expected the IPCC kept the original assumption and allowed for the possibility that 50% of the observed warming was due to multi-decadal ocean cycles and only acknowledged a reduction of CO2's contribution from 100% of the warming observed between 1980 and 1997 to at least 50%. this is always a big red flag for auditors. The client originally guessed wrong and when it been proven beyond just about any reasonable doubt they are at least 1/2 wrong they will acknowledge it and then try to maintain that the other half of the guess was correct despite the possibility that the reason for the loss of half of the original estimate might also be the correct explanation for the rest of the original warming. But of course the client is going to get balky here and try to make you prove it to them. Which fortunately auditors who are mandated to work by the hour and not the job will be happy to oblige with at least until the auditors are satisfied. But in political science there is no requirement for a full audit.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Dec 24, 2016 6:42:42 GMT
OK. Well, maybe not abrupt ...... but still something new we should all be worried about! Are hydrogen-powers cars doomed?
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jan 8, 2017 6:25:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 8, 2017 10:36:34 GMT
The major problem is that the statistical sampling rate from the proxies is at best centuries. So the best that can be seen is a smoothed average. The instrumental period is wholly contained within 80 years the figures are not comparable. That said, it is obvious that CO2 has been considerably higher than now and for some reason the oceans didn't boil, thus falsifying the CAGW hypothesis.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 8, 2017 14:17:45 GMT
Back atcha Ratty. Baby Ph.D catching a snooze between bursts of inspiration. What? Me worry?
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jan 8, 2017 23:04:12 GMT
Where are the matching boxer shorts?
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 9, 2017 1:02:11 GMT
Where are the matching boxer shorts? Needy family.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 20, 2017 10:33:44 GMT
A response by Don Easterbrook to a thread on the Sun's slump... "Don Easterbrook March 19, 2017 at 1:29 pm Neither Jupiter’s orbital variation nor other orbital fluctuations (e.g., Milankovitch) can explain how the Earth went from full glacial to full non-glacial in 100 yrs, then back to full glacial in a 100 years years, and then back to full non-glacial in 100 years. Orbital variations just don’t work–they can’t bounce back and forth so quickly with such high intensity."wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/19/solar-update-march-2017-still-slumping/#comment-2455203Don is probably referring to the Younger Dryas, but from non-glacial to full glacial in 100 years - that would make people's eyes water.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Mar 20, 2017 11:07:08 GMT
A response by Don Easterbrook to a thread on the Sun's slump... "Don Easterbrook March 19, 2017 at 1:29 pm Neither Jupiter’s orbital variation nor other orbital fluctuations (e.g., Milankovitch) can explain how the Earth went from full glacial to full non-glacial in 100 yrs, then back to full glacial in a 100 years years, and then back to full non-glacial in 100 years. Orbital variations just don’t work–they can’t bounce back and forth so quickly with such high intensity."wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/19/solar-update-march-2017-still-slumping/#comment-2455203Don is probably referring to the Younger Dryas, but from non-glacial to full glacial in 100 years - that would make people's eyes water. My eyes watered when I read that ... then I realised I was wearing my distance glasses.
|
|