|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 14, 2015 10:14:08 GMT
Flea, What? You don't once a week go down the to the local tarot card reader and plunk down a c note? A discount tarot reader? Isn't it usually 2 C notes? Last time I saw an establishment like that it was closed 'due to unforeseen circumstances'
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Feb 14, 2015 11:47:57 GMT
Amazing how that 800+ year lag keeps getting forgotten isn't it Birder? I thought science had settled all that and shown near synchronous temp increases ( initial rises followed by decades of further warming until equilibrium is reached)? What we need to find is an analogue where the sun is not driving the show? ( CH4 surge or volcanics dumping huge... human forced scales... of CO2 into the atmosphere? With Orbital forcings you have to wait for the magic moment where the ice sheet has become so thin that one season throws it from 90% plus rejection of incoming solar to a 90% plus acceptance of incoming solar as ice becomes land surface/sea surface, much the same as where we are across parts of Greenland and most of the high arctic? If you look at the surges in temps for areas that have lost summer sea ice or ice sheet coverage you can see just what an 'instant' impact this change has. From there either warming drives changes in ocean circulation leading to massive expulsion of CO2 from the depths or we restart the carbon cycle on the land now free of ice. Only then can the CO2 work its magic. Our case shows the fastest increases in atmospheric CO2 so our experience of its impacts must surely be unique? We know the end result but not the pathway to reach that 'end point'. We further queer the deal by introducing the 'flip side' of Fossil fuel addiction namely particulates and sulphates. through the 20th century we saw the impacts that this pollution drove ( dimming) and the surge once those levels of impact were lessened as the clean air acts hit home. The Chinese explosion in fossil fuel use is now being 'cleaned up' as the health impacts of pollution on major population centers drive the need for a 'clean up' ( but they can buy technology off the shelf and not have to do all the R&D we had to before we could clean up our acts). Over the next 20yrs we face parts of the planet acting like a deglaciation uncovering old portions of the carbon cycle and re-animating them, the clean up of China's emissions ( Nasa put it as reducing , by 50% the impacts of AGW forcing currently) and the change to positive natural forcings. I do not foresee 80ft of sea level rises for the U.S. but I do see a serious ramp up of warming rates and extreme weather events driven by this ramp up!
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Feb 14, 2015 12:08:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 14, 2015 14:56:51 GMT
With Orbital forcings you have to wait for the magic moment where the ice sheet has become so thin that one season throws it from 90% plus rejection of incoming solar to a 90% plus acceptance of incoming solar as ice becomes land surface/sea surface, much the same as where we are across parts of Greenland and most of the high arctic? If you look at the surges in temps for areas that have lost summer sea ice or ice sheet coverage you can see just what an 'instant' impact this change has. From there either warming drives changes in ocean circulation leading to massive expulsion of CO2 from the depths or we restart the carbon cycle on the land now free of ice. Only then can the CO2 work its magic. I think the question must be answered if this effect results in an excess of heat loss from polar seas due to the stripping of ice insulation off the top of the ocean. 90% reflection of sunlight is a function of fresh snow not ice. Ice often has the same absorption rate of sunlight that the ocean has if its not topped with snow. Since it is believed that up to 90% of sunlight is sequestered, sometimes deeply into water and ice, it seems the main variable is precipitation which has varied greatly over the centuries and may be closely associated with variations in temperature. Our case shows the fastest increases in atmospheric CO2 so our experience of its impacts must surely be unique? We know the end result but not the pathway to reach that 'end point'. We further queer the deal by introducing the 'flip side' of Fossil fuel addiction namely particulates and sulphates. through the 20th century we saw the impacts that this pollution drove ( dimming) and the surge once those levels of impact were lessened as the clean air acts hit home. The Chinese explosion in fossil fuel use is now being 'cleaned up' as the health impacts of pollution on major population centers drive the need for a 'clean up' ( but they can buy technology off the shelf and not have to do all the R&D we had to before we could clean up our acts). It should be a mighty job to sell that the public after telling the public for 25 years that the pathway was well known. Brings into question credibility of science in general. . . .which is my greatest concern. There has been way too much propaganda coming out of the science community for decades ever since the rise of great environmental corporations. As I see it the only cure is for legislation to mandate integrity in the science community. In the meantime I suspect the public is not buying any pigs in the poke from the science community. What is required at this point in time is some of that missing warming to reassert itself for a couple of decades to make up for the hiatus. If we have to wait for China to clean up their act that probably won't be happening real soon now
|
|
|
Post by greyviper on Feb 14, 2015 16:16:20 GMT
Still, we've got a long way to go before we reach an irreversible point of this current situation. By that, arguments would be futile.
|
|
|
Post by hrizzo on Feb 14, 2015 16:18:21 GMT
I thought science had settled all that and shown near synchronous temp increases ( initial rises followed by decades of further warming until equilibrium is reached)? Nope. Pseudo explanations from GIGO models with no evidence are not science. Specially when you have that at the middle of the wave the (almighty) CO2 levels remain at full force and nevertheless temperatures start to fall... and fall ... and fall...
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 14, 2015 18:19:35 GMT
Amazing how that 800+ year lag keeps getting forgotten isn't it Birder? I thought science had settled all that and shown near synchronous temp increases ( initial rises followed by decades of further warming until equilibrium is reached)? What we need to find is an analogue where the sun is not driving the show? ( CH4 surge or volcanics dumping huge... human forced scales... of CO2 into the atmosphere? With Orbital forcings you have to wait for the magic moment where the ice sheet has become so thin that one season throws it from 90% plus rejection of incoming solar to a 90% plus acceptance of incoming solar as ice becomes land surface/sea surface, much the same as where we are across parts of Greenland and most of the high arctic? If you look at the surges in temps for areas that have lost summer sea ice or ice sheet coverage you can see just what an 'instant' impact this change has. From there either warming drives changes in ocean circulation leading to massive expulsion of CO2 from the depths or we restart the carbon cycle on the land now free of ice. Only then can the CO2 work its magic. Our case shows the fastest increases in atmospheric CO2 so our experience of its impacts must surely be unique? We know the end result but not the pathway to reach that 'end point'. We further queer the deal by introducing the 'flip side' of Fossil fuel addiction namely particulates and sulphates. through the 20th century we saw the impacts that this pollution drove ( dimming) and the surge once those levels of impact were lessened as the clean air acts hit home. The Chinese explosion in fossil fuel use is now being 'cleaned up' as the health impacts of pollution on major population centers drive the need for a 'clean up' ( but they can buy technology off the shelf and not have to do all the R&D we had to before we could clean up our acts). Over the next 20yrs we face parts of the planet acting like a deglaciation uncovering old portions of the carbon cycle and re-animating them, the clean up of China's emissions ( Nasa put it as reducing , by 50% the impacts of AGW forcing currently) and the change to positive natural forcings. I do not foresee 80ft of sea level rises for the U.S. but I do see a serious ramp up of warming rates and extreme weather events driven by this ramp up! Graywolf: Yes, orbital forcings that have flaws in the long term observation verses and effect. CO2 influence? This is not a slam dunk at all. From previous interglacials, it is obvious that CO2 continues to rise as the temperature tanks. And that tanking happens pretty durn fast. Couple of centuries and we are well on our way. With that tho, let's examine the Eemian, at least as well as proxy data allows us to. The Eemian was the last interglacial. Temps appear to have been several degrees C warmer than the warmest temps of the Holocene, our current interglacial. Help me out here and tell us why? This is important to know.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 14, 2015 19:46:28 GMT
We know the end result but not the pathway to reach that 'end point'. One further point. 15 years ago the end point was 3 degrees warming with at most 1 degree arising directly from CO2. The other 2 degrees were "assumed" on the basis of no known other mechanism that could explain recent warming and labeled as feedback. But in your post above you allow for the potential existence of a myriad of unknown mechanisms to explain the complete failure of models to predict the "pathway". Thus by logic alone, its true the end point is no longer supportable on the basis of a positive claim that no other mechanism exists that could explain recent warming. You have been reduced to cherry picking potential explanations to explain away this complete failure of the models and continue to advocate for the "end point". No science exists at all to support the claim that failure of the models was due to either temporary or a limited selection of causes. Quite the reverse, claims of knowledge of model failure simply magnifies and clarifies a continued lack of integrity on the part of the CAGW science community. The 17 years of near continuous warming was documented by Ben Santer and that became the basis of a claim for a new normal driven by CO2. However, the next 18 years showed Ben Santer's work was no more than an illusion and was in complete error. By complete I do not mean that CO2 does not amount to any "averaged" warming, but what was in complete error was the fingerprinting conclusion that all the warming was due to mankind. Yes I know Graywolf, you believe Chinese emissions during the 17 years documented by Santer were clean and only got dirty in the last 18 years. LOL! Just because there remains a remote possibility that the original end point was right that does not provide a scientist with integrity a basis to argue for it under the color of science. The prosecutors that do FDA and SEC cases eyes would light up if presented such a case in their scope of authority. Both of those agencies were formed to stomp out a lack of integrity in those industries to protect the health (physical and financial) of the public.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Feb 14, 2015 19:49:23 GMT
It's almost as if CO2 is a coolant which increases in quantity as temps rise....lol foolish thought ?
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Feb 14, 2015 22:20:04 GMT
It's almost as if CO2 is a coolant which increases in quantity as temps rise....lol foolish thought ? Should I try some in my radiator?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 15, 2015 4:51:45 GMT
It's almost as if CO2 is a coolant which increases in quantity as temps rise....lol foolish thought ? Should I try some in my radiator? Dry Ice perhaps? Circulation problems tho Ratty. Unless you are down under......then all the ice will be at the bottom...........right?
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Feb 15, 2015 12:17:23 GMT
Should I try some in my radiator? Dry Ice perhaps? Circulation problems tho Ratty. Unless you are down under......then all the ice will be at the bottom...........right? May be a sublime solution (sorry, weak attempt at a pun).
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Feb 15, 2015 16:51:41 GMT
We know the end result but not the pathway to reach that 'end point'. One further point. 15 years ago the end point was 3 degrees warming with at most 1 degree arising directly from CO2. The other 2 degrees were "assumed" on the basis of no known other mechanism that could explain recent warming and labeled as feedback. But in your post above you allow for the potential existence of a myriad of unknown mechanisms to explain the complete failure of models to predict the "pathway". Thus by logic alone, its true the end point is no longer supportable on the basis of a positive claim that no other mechanism exists that could explain recent warming. You have been reduced to cherry picking potential explanations to explain away this complete failure of the models and continue to advocate for the "end point". No science exists at all to support the claim that failure of the models was due to either temporary or a limited selection of causes. Quite the reverse, claims of knowledge of model failure simply magnifies and clarifies a continued lack of integrity on the part of the CAGW science community. The 17 years of near continuous warming was documented by Ben Santer and that became the basis of a claim for a new normal driven by CO2. However, the next 18 years showed Ben Santer's work was no more than an illusion and was in complete error. By complete I do not mean that CO2 does not amount to any "averaged" warming, but what was in complete error was the fingerprinting conclusion that all the warming was due to mankind. Yes I know Graywolf, you believe Chinese emissions during the 17 years documented by Santer were clean and only got dirty in the last 18 years. LOL! Just because there remains a remote possibility that the original end point was right that does not provide a scientist with integrity a basis to argue for it under the color of science. The prosecutors that do FDA and SEC cases eyes would light up if presented such a case in their scope of authority. Both of those agencies were formed to stomp out a lack of integrity in those industries to protect the health (physical and financial) of the public. I do not think we've yet experienced 'clean' air that was not tainted by particulate/sulphate emmisions just varying levels of 'dimming'? The uptick in Chinese coal fired power stations coming online is not a difficult stat to research but I think you'll see that it is the latter part of the 90's that they really got going with their programme (many new stations every year coming on line?). The particulates wash out pretty fast but the sulphates take over 7 years so we are only beginning the process but it will be far faster than our ( western worlds) efforts as we had to develop the scrubbers etc. to do the job before we could implement them. China is not only able to use our technologies but nations , like the UK , actively donate the technologies to the power companies. The death rates from urban pollution only started to force the clean up in 08' so there is a long way to go but with more and more renewables being employed to meet energy demands than they initially planned for China will be nearing our levels of 'cleanliness' by 2022 ( at current rates of 'clean up but this may change as they develop our technologies....... we know how clever they are at developing ideas that are already in existence). The removal of particulates will have more of an immediate impact with the Pacific able to gain more of the suns energy from now on ( keep an eye on Pacific sst's over the coming years!) . It does appear ironic that the uptick in china's dirty pollution coincided with both a flip to negative naturals and a poor solar cycle and now their cleaning up of their outputs looks likely to coincide with a flip to positive naturals....... seems like mother N. is having a laugh at our expense! All we need to do now is figure how much the ongoing albedo flip across the Arctic will also drive excess temps in the coming years? Looks like January has come in with a second highest global temp for the series ( behind the crazy high of Jan 2002) so we appear to have continued the run of record/near record months that we have seen recently? what do we have to come once the 'dimming' drops back and we no longer see 50% of possible warming from GHG's lost to dimming esp. over a period of positive naturals?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 15, 2015 17:42:05 GMT
One further point. 15 years ago the end point was 3 degrees warming with at most 1 degree arising directly from CO2. The other 2 degrees were "assumed" on the basis of no known other mechanism that could explain recent warming and labeled as feedback. But in your post above you allow for the potential existence of a myriad of unknown mechanisms to explain the complete failure of models to predict the "pathway". Thus by logic alone, its true the end point is no longer supportable on the basis of a positive claim that no other mechanism exists that could explain recent warming. You have been reduced to cherry picking potential explanations to explain away this complete failure of the models and continue to advocate for the "end point". No science exists at all to support the claim that failure of the models was due to either temporary or a limited selection of causes. Quite the reverse, claims of knowledge of model failure simply magnifies and clarifies a continued lack of integrity on the part of the CAGW science community. The 17 years of near continuous warming was documented by Ben Santer and that became the basis of a claim for a new normal driven by CO2. However, the next 18 years showed Ben Santer's work was no more than an illusion and was in complete error. By complete I do not mean that CO2 does not amount to any "averaged" warming, but what was in complete error was the fingerprinting conclusion that all the warming was due to mankind. Yes I know Graywolf, you believe Chinese emissions during the 17 years documented by Santer were clean and only got dirty in the last 18 years. LOL! Just because there remains a remote possibility that the original end point was right that does not provide a scientist with integrity a basis to argue for it under the color of science. The prosecutors that do FDA and SEC cases eyes would light up if presented such a case in their scope of authority. Both of those agencies were formed to stomp out a lack of integrity in those industries to protect the health (physical and financial) of the public. I do not think we've yet experienced 'clean' air that was not tainted by particulate/sulphate emmisions just varying levels of 'dimming'? The uptick in Chinese coal fired power stations coming online is not a difficult stat to research but I think you'll see that it is the latter part of the 90's that they really got going with their programme (many new stations every year coming on line?). The particulates wash out pretty fast but the sulphates take over 7 years so we are only beginning the process but it will be far faster than our ( western worlds) efforts as we had to develop the scrubbers etc. to do the job before we could implement them. China is not only able to use our technologies but nations , like the UK , actively donate the technologies to the power companies. The death rates from urban pollution only started to force the clean up in 08' so there is a long way to go but with more and more renewables being employed to meet energy demands than they initially planned for China will be nearing our levels of 'cleanliness' by 2022 ( at current rates of 'clean up but this may change as they develop our technologies....... we know how clever they are at developing ideas that are already in existence). The removal of particulates will have more of an immediate impact with the Pacific able to gain more of the suns energy from now on ( keep an eye on Pacific sst's over the coming years!) . It does appear ironic that the uptick in china's dirty pollution coincided with both a flip to negative naturals and a poor solar cycle and now their cleaning up of their outputs looks likely to coincide with a flip to positive naturals....... seems like mother N. is having a laugh at our expense! All we need to do now is figure how much the ongoing albedo flip across the Arctic will also drive excess temps in the coming years? Looks like January has come in with a second highest global temp for the series ( behind the crazy high of Jan 2002) so we appear to have continued the run of record/near record months that we have seen recently? what do we have to come once the 'dimming' drops back and we no longer see 50% of possible warming from GHG's lost to dimming esp. over a period of positive naturals? Its should be comforting to CAWG alarmists that mitigation is so easy. I suppose if we actually detect net negative effects from the modest warming we have been experiencing we actually could easily do something about it. However, I am not so sure as you. Coal use has been outstripping growth in petroleum since before Dr Santer's 17 year fingerprint emerged.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 15, 2015 17:52:04 GMT
One further point. 15 years ago the end point was 3 degrees warming with at most 1 degree arising directly from CO2. The other 2 degrees were "assumed" on the basis of no known other mechanism that could explain recent warming and labeled as feedback. But in your post above you allow for the potential existence of a myriad of unknown mechanisms to explain the complete failure of models to predict the "pathway". Thus by logic alone, its true the end point is no longer supportable on the basis of a positive claim that no other mechanism exists that could explain recent warming. You have been reduced to cherry picking potential explanations to explain away this complete failure of the models and continue to advocate for the "end point". No science exists at all to support the claim that failure of the models was due to either temporary or a limited selection of causes. Quite the reverse, claims of knowledge of model failure simply magnifies and clarifies a continued lack of integrity on the part of the CAGW science community. The 17 years of near continuous warming was documented by Ben Santer and that became the basis of a claim for a new normal driven by CO2. However, the next 18 years showed Ben Santer's work was no more than an illusion and was in complete error. By complete I do not mean that CO2 does not amount to any "averaged" warming, but what was in complete error was the fingerprinting conclusion that all the warming was due to mankind. Yes I know Graywolf, you believe Chinese emissions during the 17 years documented by Santer were clean and only got dirty in the last 18 years. LOL! Just because there remains a remote possibility that the original end point was right that does not provide a scientist with integrity a basis to argue for it under the color of science. The prosecutors that do FDA and SEC cases eyes would light up if presented such a case in their scope of authority. Both of those agencies were formed to stomp out a lack of integrity in those industries to protect the health (physical and financial) of the public. I do not think we've yet experienced 'clean' air that was not tainted by particulate/sulphate emmisions just varying levels of 'dimming'? The uptick in Chinese coal fired power stations coming online is not a difficult stat to research but I think you'll see that it is the latter part of the 90's that they really got going with their programme (many new stations every year coming on line?). The particulates wash out pretty fast but the sulphates take over 7 years so we are only beginning the process but it will be far faster than our ( western worlds) efforts as we had to develop the scrubbers etc. to do the job before we could implement them. China is not only able to use our technologies but nations , like the UK , actively donate the technologies to the power companies. The death rates from urban pollution only started to force the clean up in 08' so there is a long way to go but with more and more renewables being employed to meet energy demands than they initially planned for China will be nearing our levels of 'cleanliness' by 2022 ( at current rates of 'clean up but this may change as they develop our technologies....... we know how clever they are at developing ideas that are already in existence). The removal of particulates will have more of an immediate impact with the Pacific able to gain more of the suns energy from now on ( keep an eye on Pacific sst's over the coming years!) . It does appear ironic that the uptick in china's dirty pollution coincided with both a flip to negative naturals and a poor solar cycle and now their cleaning up of their outputs looks likely to coincide with a flip to positive naturals....... seems like mother N. is having a laugh at our expense! All we need to do now is figure how much the ongoing albedo flip across the Arctic will also drive excess temps in the coming years? Looks like January has come in with a second highest global temp for the series ( behind the crazy high of Jan 2002) so we appear to have continued the run of record/near record months that we have seen recently? what do we have to come once the 'dimming' drops back and we no longer see 50% of possible warming from GHG's lost to dimming esp. over a period of positive naturals? Graywolf: Sorry to burst your bubble, but the earth's atmosphere continues to be clearer and clearer. Has been on going since 1993, and really started kicking in by 1996. The trend in Earth Brightness has continued to this day. The trend has not only been measured via satellite, but also in the amount of SW radiation reaching the surface, which confirms the clearing trend. You can have your ideas, but they actually have to be backed up by facts, not what you "believe". You are too smart to put out "mis-information".
|
|