U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-12-2018, 02:51 PM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
1,877 posts, read 692,918 times
Reputation: 3789

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjshae View Post

The net contribution of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere's overall greenhouse effect is 55% of the total.

7(h) The Greenhouse Effect

Hence, your assertion would appear to be incorrect. Perhaps I am not understanding what you are communicating?


Most workers in the field say that without co2, our average temp would be ~0*C. The co2 adds about 5*C, but in doing so, it increases water vapor, a much more important GHG by virtue of it's quantity and much wider absorption spectrum, giving us an additional 10*C-- current average temp ~15*C.


I brought the whole thing up because someone in an earlier post gave us the typical "party line" about "Global Warming." Untruths should not go unopposed.


Also please note that over the past 150 yrs, co2 levels have been going up in an unrelenting, monotonic manner. Temperatures, OTOH, have cycled up and down over short periods. (Remember the 60s & 70s?) If co2 were all that important, we would see only warming year after year. Other factors over-power that of co2 in the total picture.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-12-2018, 03:00 PM
 
11,306 posts, read 3,985,481 times
Reputation: 4886
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
Most workers in the field say that without co2, our average temp would be ~0*C. The co2 adds about 5*C, but in doing so, it increases water vapor, a much more important GHG by virtue of it's quantity and much wider absorption spectrum, giving us an additional 10*C-- current average temp ~15*C.


I brought the whole thing up because someone in an earlier post gave us the typical "party line" about "Global Warming." Untruths should not go unopposed.


Also please note that over the past 150 yrs, co2 levels have been going up in an unrelenting, monotonic manner. Temperatures, OTOH, have cycled up and down over short periods. (Remember the 60s & 70s?) If co2 were all that important, we would see only warming year after year. Other factors over-power that of co2 in the total picture.
That is pretty much bad science. The issue of noise on a variable does not prevent tracking the variable.

I would think the case for man made climate change is very strong. The question of whether it is a very bad thing is however weaker. The overall system is complex and its response to the stimulus is not very predictable. You can try and model what is going to happen but such models are very difficult. Mostly they work well on the historic data on which they are based and then do not do well as new data becomes available.

So a worry and to be taken seriously. But not a guarantee of catastrophe. Worth working to fix though...why tempt the fates when you can avoid the issue?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 05:02 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
1,877 posts, read 692,918 times
Reputation: 3789
[quote=lvmensch;53868562]

The overall system is complex and its response to the stimulus is not very predictable. You can try and model what is going to happen but such models are very difficult. Mostly they work well on the historic data on which they are based and then do not do well as new data becomes available.

quote]


Very true--and what makes it worse is that some organizations with an agenda base their conclusions on computer programs that don't even take into account all the important variables.


Along these lines and back to the OP about the Sun's variability-- a timely article https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/...adient-stupid/ It seems the Sun's yearly variability influences the winds, which in turn actually influences the Length of Day (friction on the surface; change in angular momentum) which can be measured quite accurately (and used by astronomers in setting tracking parameters on their telescopes).Thus, the real effect of the LOD changes (ie- variability of the Sun) is to influence the temperature gradient from tropics to poles. The average temp of the planet is determined by how much energy is escaping at the poles (varies cyclically) compared to how much escapes at the tropics (pretty constant).

I like this author's statement about the co2/GHG explanation: "Simple answers are satisfying, but rarely solve complex questions."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:12 AM
 
343 posts, read 511,277 times
Reputation: 509
Funny.. I accurately predicted a link to "what ups with that" web site within 24 hours of GLM first post.

Click bait?

I was in a long discussion last summer here trying to understand global warming Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

I came to the conclusion that WUWT is pretty much a conservative climate change denial blog with mostly poor science.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:35 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 N, 🌄W
10,257 posts, read 4,288,613 times
Reputation: 6512
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
Very true--and what makes it worse is that some organizations with an agenda base their conclusions on computer programs that don't even take into account all the important variables.


Along these lines and back to the OP about the Sun's variability-- a timely article https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/...adient-stupid/ It seems the Sun's yearly variability influences the winds, which in turn actually influences the Length of Day (friction on the surface; change in angular momentum) which can be measured quite accurately (and used by astronomers in setting tracking parameters on their telescopes)….Thus, the real effect of the LOD changes (ie- variability of the Sun) is to influence the temperature gradient from tropics to poles. The average temp of the planet is determined by how much energy is escaping at the poles (varies cyclically) compared to how much escapes at the tropics (pretty constant).

I like this author's statement about the co2/GHG explanation: "Simple answers are satisfying, but rarely solve complex questions."
Why do people who appear to have zero science understanding always link to such rubbish and clearly misinformation biased blogger sites?

Climate Misinformation by Source: Anthony Watts

PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?

Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice

Clearing The PR Pollution That Clouds Climate Science
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:38 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 N, 🌄W
10,257 posts, read 4,288,613 times
Reputation: 6512
Quote:
Originally Posted by waltcolorado View Post
Funny.. I accurately predicted a link to "what ups with that" web site within 24 hours of GLM first post.

Click bait?

I was in a long discussion last summer here trying to understand global warming Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

I came to the conclusion that WUWT is pretty much a conservative climate change denial blog with mostly poor science.
Indeed it is just that!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 03:18 PM
 
20,453 posts, read 15,835,083 times
Reputation: 7729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghengis View Post
while not technically a space "scientist", I can state with certainty that the sun might be entering the rapid expansion phase where things can go awry in just a few days or weeks. All it takes is a break in the crusty material to cause the molten sun lava to shoot out millions of miles and if pointed directly at the earth, well then, Katie bar the door!

another possibility however is that the earth is super heating from within due to the natural cooling characteristics failing. If that is the case, we won't even know it until it blows because who can measure the temperature down there anyway?
Molten Sun lava? I don't know if you're being serious or not. Lava is molten rock. The Sun is not a rock but is a sphere of ionized hydrogen and helium. What you are referring to as 'sun lava' shooting out from the Sun is actually a Coronal mass ejection which is a large-scale solar event involving an ejection of hot plasma mostly from the Sun's surface. A powerful enough Coronal mass ejection striking the earth can cause power outages and fry electrical systems as well as create spectacular aurora borealis and aurora australis.

None of which has anything to do with the Sun entering a rapid expansion phase.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 03:29 PM
 
201 posts, read 46,939 times
Reputation: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch View Post
I would think the case for man made climate change is very strong. The question of whether it is a very bad thing is however weaker. The overall system is complex and its response to the stimulus is not very predictable. You can try and model what is going to happen but such models are very difficult. Mostly they work well on the historic data on which they are based and then do not do well as new data becomes available.

So a worry and to be taken seriously. But not a guarantee of catastrophe. Worth working to fix though...why tempt the fates when you can avoid the issue?

Very true. The current trend in the arctic is a pretty clear indicator of the complexity and potential risks we're facing. We can probably adapt, somewhat painfully, to a slow burn climate change; the bigger risk is the potential for a run-away feedback loop. We're playing with fire, almost literally.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 05:34 PM
 
Location: Ohio
18,345 posts, read 13,457,712 times
Reputation: 14292
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjshae View Post
Very true. The current trend in the arctic is a pretty clear indicator of the complexity and potential risks we're facing.
Such changes are not unprecedented.

It happened during the last Inter-Glacial Period, too. Here are some peer-reviewed scientific articles of interest:

To evaluate the consequences of possible future climate changes and to identify the main climate drivers in high latitudes, the vegetation and climate in the East Siberian Arctic during the last interglacial are reconstructed and compared with Holocen conditions. Our pollen-based climatic reconstruction suggests a mean temperature of the warmest month (MTWA) range of 9-14.5 C during the warmest interval of the last interglacial. The reconstruction from plant macrofossils, representing more local environments, reached MTWA values above 12.5 C in contrast to today's 2.8 C.

https://people.ucsc.edu/~acr/migrate...0al%202008.pdf

From applications of both correspondence analysis regression and best modern analogue methodologies, we infer July air temperatures of the last interglacial to have been 4 to 5 C warmer than present on eastern Baffin Island, which was warmer than any interval within the Holocene.

https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._Arctic_Canada

Just in case you don't get it:

9C - 14.5C = 16.2F - 26.1F

12.5C = 22.5F

4C - 5C = 7.2F - 9.0F

The intelligent person does not ask if or why climate change is occurring, rather the intelligent person asks: Why is this Inter-Glacial Period colder than the all the others?

The reason why temperatures in the East Siberian Arctic and on Baffin Island were much, much warmer than now is because the average global temperature during the last Inter-Glacial Period was 15.3F warmer than the present 58.4F.

Given that CO2 levels peaked during the last Inter-Glacial at 287.1 ppm CO2 (at 128,372 years before present), how do you account for the warmer temperatures during the last Inter-Glacial?

Given that CO2 levels now are 408 ppm CO2 according to the NOAA, why aren't temperatures warmer?

408 ppm CO2 is 121 ppm higher than the peak during the last Inter-Glacial.

The melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet and Western Antarctic Ice Sheet, and sometimes part of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet are not unprecedented, either.

Here we show that the south GIS was drastically smaller during MIS 11 than it is now, with only a small residual ice dome over southernmost Greenland.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13456

If we go back to MIS 11, we find CO2 levels peaked at 283.5 ppm CO2 at 411,071 years before present.

Given those irrefutable facts, can you guarantee with absolute certainty that halting CO2 levels and reducing them will not result in the same outcomes as previous Inter-Glacial Periods?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 06:59 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 N, 🌄W
10,257 posts, read 4,288,613 times
Reputation: 6512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Such changes are not unprecedented.
No one claimed it was.

An intelligent person would understand that these events are not unprecedented and then ask what is different about our current situation vs. these past events?

An intelligent person would conduct some research on what's different today with respect to the Arctic ice melting vs. the past.

New research shows the world’s ice is doing something not seen before
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top