Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[nwdiver]

You are conflating two issues, but I think you know that.
As for the rapid increase in CO2, the only reason why we think this is unprecedented because we have a resolution for measurement that is much better than the historical records (reconstructions)

But there is no doubt that CO2 levels have been MUCH higher in the distant past, and do not show much correlation with temperatures overall.

... our ICE core resolution is sufficient to distinguish 280 and 400ppm. No where does a >100ppm rise in <100 years occur.

 

[nwdiver]

View attachment 423600

Cool; So back to the modern world. Why is sea level rise accelerating?

You think we've been cooling since 2016? So why did sea level rise accelerate?

 

[Swampgator]

There has not been any cooling since 2016; If there had been then sea level rise would not be accelerating. ~90% of thermal energy goes into the oceans. If this shifts to ~93% briefly this can be misinterpreted as 'cooling' if you're only counting land temperatures.

ok... so why is sea level rise accelerating now? Why is there a steep increase in the rate of sea level rise especially in the last 50 years?

View attachment 423589

You can post that, and I would counter that we do not have a long enough time series to even know that. “While technically correct that these multidecadal changes represent acceleration/ deceleration of sea level, they should not be interpreted as change in the longer-term rate of sea level rise, as a time series longer than the variability is required to detect those trends.” [IPCC AR5 WGI Section 3.7.4]

Here is a really good paper on the subject written by the former chair of the Georgia Tech school of Earth and Atmospheric sciences:

https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/special-report-sea-level-rise3.pdf

 

[nwdiver]

You can post that, and I would counter that we do not have a long enough time series to even know that. “While technically correct that these multidecadal changes represent acceleration/ deceleration of sea level, they should not be interpreted as change in the longer-term rate of sea level rise, as a time series longer than the variability is required to detect those trends.” [IPCC AR5 WGI Section 3.7.4]

Here is a really good paper on the subject written by the former chair of the Georgia Tech school of Earth and Atmospheric sciences:

https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/special-report-sea-level-rise3.pdf

You're conflating global with local.

.... which is why we use global tide data AND satellites to average out the sea level rise. We're using the ocean as a giant thermometer. As water warms it expands. If we're cooling then why is the ocean expanding?

 

[SageBrush]

If you would, please answer these 3 simple questions

My only contribution is to get you to quote IPCC correctly and to understand the most basic of stats when stated in English.

 

[winfield100]

You bring no evidence to this discussion. You can call me names like Baghdad Bob all you want.
You do realize that when Irma hit in 2017 that broke a 12 year record of no landfalling major US hurricanes? That is the longest period in recorded history without a major hurricane hitting the US. .

Atlantic hurricanes are trending northwards over the last 1/4 century, however, i cannot spoon feed you information you have chosen to refuse to consider.
Global warming may send more hurricanes to Northeast U.S.
numerous other references, google is your friend

 

[ggr]

The Co2 came from natural sources, and from us. IPCC even agrees with that. When temperature increases, CO2 levels increase lagging the temperature increase. Henry's law.

That's the second time you've invoked Henry's Law, but I don't think you understand it. Is the global average air pressure decreasing? No, so Henry's Law doesn't apply. In fact the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, which means that the oceans absorb more, which is also an observed effect, oceanic acidification.

Also warmer liquid dissolves more stuff in general, so warming the oceans also takes CO2 out of the atmosphere.

I knew I would regret engaging. "Natural sources", but you fail to cite any. My question was simple, your answer is handwaving.

 

[SageBrush]

When temperature increases, CO2 levels increase lagging the temperature increase. Henry's law.

When temperature increases the partial pressure of each constituent gas rises. CO2 molecules do not have babies because it is warmer.

I expect Merkins to be uneducated and uninformed but you stand out.

 

[ggr]

The Co2 came from natural sources, and from us. IPCC even agrees with that.

Oh, forgot to mention the other inaccuracy. No, the IPCC doesn't agree with that. They say that they can trace with reasonable certainty that we are responsible for more than half. But they do not say anything about where the rest of it, if indeed there is a rest of it, comes from.

BTW I know one of the scientists on the IPCC. He is definitely not a politician. Just because the funding comes from governments doesn't mean that you're a politician.

 

[JRP3]

It's not the Earths orbit (we should be cooling).

"It's not the Earths orbit (we should be cooling)."

We are:


View attachment 423571

What is rarely discussed is the fact that we are in an extended period of lower sunspot activity, which should equate to lower temperatures. Your graph may simply be reflecting this, meaning the low sunspot activity is hiding the effects of increased CO2, and we could be seeing a huge temperature spike when sunspot activity starts increasing again.

 

[nwdiver]

What is rarely discussed is the fact that we are in an extended period of lower sunspot activity, which should equate to lower temperatures. Your graph may simply be reflecting this, meaning the low sunspot activity is hiding the effects of increased CO2, and we could be seeing a huge temperature spike when sunspot activity starts increasing again.

Yes. The rate of warming is not as high as it would be if the energy we were receiving from the sun wasn't below average. But even with that additional 'help' the rate of warming is still accelerating. CO2 is the dominant forcing agent on Earth. H2O is just a feedback.

 

[SR22pilot]

mvdriver - The ice ages were driven by orbital mechanics. Here is a good explanation including the reason for the lag between temperature and CO2 CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

swamp gator - The reason higher CO2 concentrations in the past didn't overheat the earth was due to decreased solar output. Try hereDo high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?

What I continue to find amazing is the hubris. It's as if people with no background in physics were arguing how relativity was incorrect and all of the physicists were idiots in a grand conspiracy and that the skeptics knew better because the Heartland Institute had told them Einstein was wrong. I enjoy digging into the questions but in the end I defer to people who have spent their lives studying the subject. Do people really believe that, when they present their objections, that they are onto something that climate scientists haven't looked at?

As an aside, it reminds me of when people used an nVidea simulation to justify their belief that we hadn't been to the moon. Then nVidea realized they hadn't taken int account light reflecting off of the photographer's spacesuit. When that was put in, the shadows were lightened to look just like the actual photographs.

 

[Swampgator]

... our ICE core resolution is sufficient to distinguish 280 and 400ppm. No where does a >100ppm rise in <100 years occur.

They do not have the temporal resolution to capture decadal or century level chan

My only contribution is to get you to quote IPCC correctly and to understand the most basic of stats when stated in English.

So that's a No then. That's what I figured.

 

[nwdiver]

They do not have the temporal resolution to capture decadal or century level chan

If the largest change observed is ~50ppm over 1000 years because that's the resolution they have... they know that there was never a >100ppm change in <100 years.... you don't need resolution of 100 years to know that there was never a change as rapid as we've observed...

We don't need higher resolution ice core data to know this is completely unprecedented outside mass extinction events caused by flood basalts and comets....

Why are sea levels rising?

 

[Swampgator]

... our ICE core resolution is sufficient to distinguish 280 and 400ppm. No where does a >100ppm rise in <100 years occur.

They do not have the temporal resolution to capture decadal or century level chan

Atlantic hurricanes are trending northwards over the last 1/4 century, however, i cannot spoon feed you information you have chosen to refuse to consider.
Global warming may send more hurricanes to Northeast U.S.
numerous other references, google is your friend

Atlantic hurricanes are trending northwards over the last 1/4 century, however, i cannot spoon feed you information you have chosen to refuse to consider.
Global warming may send more hurricanes to Northeast U.S.
numerous other references, google is your friend

uh, okkie dokie. The actual paper (not the climate news blog you reference) is here: Persistent northward North Atlantic tropical cyclone track migration over the past five centuries

They used a single stalagmite proxy sample taken from a single location in Belize.
There overall conclusion was that over 450 years the tracks have moved more northward. The data ends with the year 1983, well before the last "1/4 century" you mentioned.. So maybe you need to make reading your friend.

 

[SageBrush]

So that's a No then.

Of course it is. You have to learn to crawl before you can walk.

 

[nwdiver]

They do not have the temporal resolution to capture decadal or century level chan

It's enough to know that >100 ppm in <100 years has never occurred outside flood basalts and comet strikes...

 

[Swampgator]

... our ICE core resolution is sufficient to distinguish 280 and 400ppm. No where does a >100ppm rise in <100 years occur.

They do not have the temporal resolution to capture decadal or century level chan

That's the second time you've invoked Henry's Law, but I don't think you understand it. Is the global average air pressure decreasing? No, so Henry's Law doesn't apply. In fact the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, which means that the oceans absorb more, which is also an observed effect, oceanic acidification.

Also warmer liquid dissolves more stuff in general, so warming the oceans also takes CO2 out of the atmosphere.

I knew I would regret engaging. "Natural sources", but you fail to cite any. My question was simple, your answer is handwaving.

I understand it quite well. Colder water holds more CO2 than warmer water. When water warms, it releases CO2 into the atmosphere. Try this with your favorite beer someday to confirm.

 

[nwdiver]

They do not have the temporal resolution to capture decadal or century level chan

LOL; Unless magic happened and CO2 spiked ~100ppm and dropped ~100ppm... but since that kind of magic probably fits with your warped perception of physics.... sure dude...

 

[Swampgator]

... our ICE core resolution is sufficient to distinguish 280 and 400ppm. No where does a >100ppm rise in <100 years occur.

They do not have the temporal resolution to capture decadal or century level chan

Oh, forgot to mention the other inaccuracy. No, the IPCC doesn't agree with that. They say that they can trace with reasonable certainty that we are responsible for more than half. But they do not say anything about where the rest of it, if indeed there is a rest of it, comes from.

BTW I know one of the scientists on the IPCC. He is definitely not a politician. Just because the funding comes from governments doesn't mean that you're a politician.

Oh, forgot to mention the other inaccuracy. No, the IPCC doesn't agree with that. They say that they can trace with reasonable certainty that we are responsible for more than half. But they do not say anything about where the rest of it, if indeed there is a rest of it, comes from.

BTW I know one of the scientists on the IPCC. He is definitely not a politician. Just because the funding comes from governments doesn't mean that you're a politician.

Yawn....As Charles Munger stated so well : "Show me the incentive and I will show you the outcome. "