Jump to content

Americans Believe climate Change is Real, and a Real Problem


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Waldo, you gave up on page 29. If you want to discuss climate change again then stop hiding and respond to my earlier posts.

step up and state what's misleading about the video graphic that highlights the historical rise of atmospheric CO2... waiting!

vertical axis starts at 280 ppm and the data starts in the 1970s.

and again, we see further evidence of your comprehension difficulties. I clearly emphasized the distinction between a baseline year and a baseline period... I clearly spoke of the baseline period associated with Arctic sea ice analysis (1979-2000)... and I clearly stated the 2 reasons why that baseline period was chosen/existed. And, I clearly stated why that baseline period has now been shifted (this year) to 1981-2010.

Climate alarmists will always chose the 1970s as a base line (cause there was cooling before this period so it exaggerates the amount of global warming) or will use 1850s (cause it is the end of the mini-ice age).

you keep stumbling and bumbling over jet stream changes... notably the more northward & southward reaching jet stream waves being attributed to climate change impacts that I've referenced in several posts within this thread. You have this "old school" view of polar/equatorial temperature gradients. Somehow you manage to discount/avoid/ignore the large localized temperature gradients associated with shifting jet stream waves... and related large pressure gradients that result in extreme/unstable weather regions. Throw into that same mix the "blocking, stalling" effects being seen and voila! You do claim to be the "science guy", right?

It would help your argument a lot if you didn't write gibberish.

If you are referring to the resonance pressure effect for the mid latitudes of the northern hemisphere, you still have know responded to my request for you to provide me with a scientific theoretical model that explains why we should expect that the frequency of this resonance effect will increase with a decrease in the global temperature gradient (it would also be nice if I could see this theoretical model so that this effect can be quantified with a corresponding chance in atmospheric CO2 concentrations).

you and your sockpuppet keep making unsubstantiated IPCC references... over and over again. You keep making the references, but somehow never quite manage to actually provide a direct quote from an IPCC report. Care to actually step up and quote the IPCC AR5 reference that speaks to both a reduction in severity as well as frequency of hurricanes.

I've provided citations earlier in this thread. You even provided citations that state this.

More importantly, just providing random out-of-context statements from conclusions of scientific reports without explaining the scientific model used or the methodology isn't useful. Unlike you, I need to understand wtf the theoretical models are. With respect to reduction in hurricanes, it actually doesn't take much to understand why this would occur.

Increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere increases the amount of black body radiation from the earth and sun that the atmosphere absorbs. This warms the atmosphere. Since the radiative greenhouse effect is a result of the atmosphere re-emitting some of that radiation back to the earth's surface (and not all of the additional energy absorbed by the atmosphere is re-emitted back to the earth's surface; some is re-emitted to outer space and some warms the atmosphere itself) the atmosphere must warm more than the earth's surface. Hurricane's act as heat engines that transfer heat from near the earth's surface towards the earth's upper atmosphere. A reduction in the temperature gradient between the earth's surface and the earth's upper atmosphere means that the efficiency of a hurricane and reduce the available workable energy of the hurricane. The result is less frequent hurricanes and less severe hurricanes.

what recent cooling?

Meant lack of warming; sorry for the error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... over 95% of which have over-estimated the effect of CO2 in warming the planet - leading to predictions that have been embarrassingly inaccurate as shown with a 17 year absence of increasing warming.

Interestingly, you seem to accept that warming is happening here.

I have been debating this on here for years, and it seems like there's been a subtle shift towards acceptance of the most basic fact that we have on this: that warming is happening. But that at least is a change.

I think I posted about this when the skeptics and deniers started to quote the MET press release of mid 2013:

" Global mean surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s, but have been relatively flat over the most recent 15 years to 2013. "

...and I speculated that these people, by using MET data, had now joined the substantive debate, ie. at least they weren't getting their information from blogs of unknown origin.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been debating this on here for years, and it seems like there's been a subtle shift towards acceptance of the most basic fact that we have on this: that warming is happening. But that at least is a change.

As I have said before: there has been no shift in skeptical thinking. The only thing that has changed is some alarmists are actually listening to what skeptics think instead of making up bogus strawmen. The shift has likely occurred because at least some alarmists are finally accepting that they cannot persuade people by demonizing skeptics because the public is seeing through the ruse. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Waldo, you gave up on page 29. If you want to discuss climate change again then stop hiding and respond to my earlier posts.

:lol: what! Where's your previous bravado, chest beating and multiple claims of victory? Check that page again... as I did many times over, I took the trouble to actually respond at length to your continued nonsense... you came back with nothing original, nothing new, nothing to add to the discussion. Your one consistent act was to repeatedly state your unsubstantiated opinion..... and nothing but... your unsubstantiated opinion. As I said on that page 29:

I've responded to you at length, numerous times --- you either completely ignore the statements/positions/references, repeatedly throw stoopid strawmen up, continue your CO2 is plant food nonsense, continue your fixation and isolation with non-real world enclosure growth mediums, ignore the findings/statements from reputable organizations like the IPCC, the USGCRP, NASA, NAS, etc, claim bias in papers you can't refute, ignore direct questions/challenges to you... or you simply come back with nothing more than your own continued bluster & fluster (i.e., your personal unsubstantiated opinion), etc., etc., etc.. C',mon... take your self-declared victory and go relish in your denial! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol @ waldo, trying to justify the use of the misleading hockey stick graph

step up and state what's misleading about the video graphic that highlights the historical rise of atmospheric CO2... waiting!

vertical axis starts at 280 ppm and the data starts in the 1970s.

it's a shame you couldn't be bothered to actually review the video before you decided to beak-off with your continued nonsense...

287q2yx.jpg

if you have continued false/fake concerns over the video graphic, I'd suggest you take it up with NOAA - Time history of atmospheric carbon dioxide from 800,000 years ago until January, 2012., hey!

Edited by waldo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol @ waldo, trying to justify the use of 1979 as the baseline year (cause it's not like this year maximizes the perceived warming or anything).

and again, we see further evidence of your comprehension difficulties. I clearly emphasized the distinction between a baseline year and a baseline period... I clearly spoke of the baseline period associated with Arctic sea ice analysis (1979-2000)... and I clearly stated the 2 reasons why that baseline period was chosen/existed. And, I clearly stated why that baseline period has now been shifted (this year) to 1981-2010.

your misinformation concerning 1979 stems from the typical past practice followed by scientists studying Arctic sea ice. In that regard, a baseline period of 1979-2000 was used for two reasons:

- 30 years of the most representative (satellite) data were not available; instead, scientists used a 22-year period 1979 to 2000 when comparing current sea ice extent to past conditions.

- useful satellite data concerning sea ice began in late 1978 with the launch of NASA’s Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR) satellite.

just this year, coincident with the availability of a more representative 30 years of reference data, NSIDC adjusted its practice to use the baseline reference period from 1981 to 2010

Climate alarmists will always chose the 1970s as a base line (cause there was cooling before this period so it exaggerates the amount of global warming) or will use 1850s (cause it is the end of the mini-ice age).

step-up and show where 1970s is being used as a baseline... I detailed the previous baseline chosen/used in regards Arctic sea ice analysis. Step-up and support your statement, "always chose the 1970s as a base line". I quoted you directly from the IPCC... does this read to you as "the 1970s"?

nonsense! You're speaking to reference baseline periods... the state against which change is measured... the period relative to which anomalies are computed. A 30-year baseline period typically defines a climatology (comparsion period) and is the standard used by organizations such as the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)... 30 years is considered long enough to average out most year-to-year variability, but short enough to ensure longer-term climate trends are not obscured.

per the IPCC:

Observed Climate Data

Q. Should I take 1961-90 or 1990 as my baseline?

A. IPCC have usually taken the year '1990' as the baseline year for the presentation of emissions scenarios and for calculations of future climate and sea-level change. '1990' has also been adopted by the UN FCCC in their definition of emissions reductions targets. Choosing a single year as a baseline is appropriate for some applications, but not for others.

With regard to climate, for example, a single year is not appropriate to use as the baseline. Climate variability means that a single year may be unusually warm or cold or dry or wet and does not therefore make a useful reference point for measuring climate change. More common in climatological applications is the use of the average climate over a 30-year period to define the reference or baseline climate. A 30-year climatic average smoothes out many of the year-to-year variations in climate, while the individual 30 years of such a period captures much of the interannual and short time-scale variability of climate that may be relevant for an impact application. It is also desirable to use such a multi-year period rather than a single year to define climate change fields extracted from GCM simulations.

For these reasons, we suggest the period 1961-90 generally be used as the baseline period. This period has generally good observed data availability (e.g. the observed climatology described by the DDC), it represents the recent climate to which many present-day human or natural systems are likely to be reasonably well adapted, and the period ends in 1990, the year adopted by many IPCC and UN FCCC applications.

again, step-up and support your statement, "always chose the 1970s as a base line".

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and by the by, "Mr. Thermodynamics"... you've got an outstanding post waiting for you - here:

you keep stumbling and bumbling over jet stream changes... notably the more northward & southward reaching jet stream waves being attributed to climate change impacts that I've referenced in several posts within this thread. You have this "old school" view of polar/equatorial temperature gradients. Somehow you manage to discount/avoid/ignore the large localized temperature gradients associated with shifting jet stream waves... and related large pressure gradients that result in extreme/unstable weather regions. Throw into that same mix the "blocking, stalling" effects being seen and voila! You do claim to be the "science guy", right?

It would help your argument a lot if you didn't write gibberish.

If you are referring to the resonance pressure effect for the mid latitudes of the northern hemisphere, you still have know responded to my request for you to provide me with a scientific theoretical model that explains why we should expect that the frequency of this resonance effect will increase with a decrease in the global temperature gradient (it would also be nice if I could see this theoretical model so that this effect can be quantified with a corresponding chance in atmospheric CO2 concentrations).

have you figured out what Rossby waves are yet? :lol: Talk about (your) gibberish! Somehow you keep perpetually fixated on the global gradient... purposely avoiding localized (i.e., weather focused) gradients, particularly those associated with the shifting jet stream I've spoken of numerous times. I thought the discussion here was on weather... extreme weather. Just what is it you're stumbling over now? I've provided several references... studies... related videos... all speaking to climate change impacts on melting Arctic sea ice, on Arctic/Polar amplification (i.e., the greater north-south shifting jet stream), on a possible underlying physical mechanism that speaks to the stalling out of the shifted jet stream's moving waves and the greater amplification of those waves during extreme weather events. What have you provided... other than your continued unsubstantiated opinion?

and... just a few short posts back I put up a related reference to this most recent study. Again, about your unsubstantiated opinion!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you and your sockpuppet keep making unsubstantiated IPCC references... over and over again. You keep making the references, but somehow never quite manage to actually provide a direct quote from an IPCC report. Care to actually step up and quote the IPCC AR5 reference that speaks to both a reduction in severity as well as frequency of hurricanes.

I've provided citations earlier in this thread. The result is less frequent hurricanes and less severe hurricanes.

I certainly don't recall you ever quoting directly from any IPCC report... if you claim to have done so, it should be easy for you to either provide a MLW link reference to your claimed IPCC quotations or to simply restate your supposed/claimed IPCC quotes. As before, please provide an IPCC quotation reference that speaks to both a reduction in severity as well as a reduction in the frequency of hurricanes.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I posted about this when the skeptics and deniers started to quote the MET press release of mid 2013:

" Global mean surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s, but have been relatively flat over the most recent 15 years to 2013. "

...and I speculated that these people, by using MET data, had now joined the substantive debate, ie. at least they weren't getting their information from blogs of unknown origin.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming

you give the "fake skeptics" too much credit... I mean, c'mon... other than the fringe of the fringe, who could really deny warming has occurred/is occurring?

document sub-links within your referenced MET office link go into the required detail to emphasize ocean warming, OHC, short-term trending, etc.; however, in your extract quotes, you play into the "pause" charade when you continue to speak of a reduced rate of warming in the isolated context of surface temperatures only... while you ignore (or don't mention/emphasize) ongoing increased ocean warming. More significantly, you also play right into the hands of the short-term trending cherry-pickers... you clearly have the MLW history to appreciate short-term trends are not climatic scale trends... you clearly have the MLW history to appreciate what targeting 1998 as a starting date means (i.e., purposeful cherry-pick). Even if you accept the purposeful isolation game being played by deniers, start that trend earlier... just a few years earlier... say 1994, and the resulting annual surface temperature rise mirrors the fastest rise in the instrumental record from 1976 to 1997. Notwithstanding, as I've highlighted earlier, there is an anomaly in the number of La Nina years in the past decade (more than the "norm"), so natural variability is playing an increased role.

and... of course, until the study is countered, I will continue to play-up the relatively recent study that speaks to the very MET office reliance on the Hadcrut4 temperature dataset... and the known/recognized areas of reduced coverage, particularly the Arctic area where most of the earth's warming has occurred/is occurring. As before, if the study holds up, this is a real "game changer" for the denier/fake skeptic crew that so relishes and continues to perpetuate the so-called "pause"... which doesn't even exist in the first place!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I have said before: there has been no shift in skeptical thinking. The only thing that has changed is some alarmists are actually listening to what skeptics think instead of making up bogus strawmen. The shift has likely occurred because at least some alarmists are finally accepting that they cannot persuade people by demonizing skeptics because the public is seeing through the ruse.

:lol: no, sorry... your ever present, go-to fevered dreams of the acceptance of "post-normal" (denier) blog-science, doesn't reach beyond your denialsphere haunts! Demonizing skeptics??? Ah yes, your perpetual theme of legitimate scientists keeping the poor denier-man down!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

citation request

You want him to prove a negative? I think it's up to you to prove the positive. What could we do to drastically curtail a warming climate and what would the price be?

Btw, that last part is the part almost everyone even remotely related to the climate change movement refuses outright to even consider, mostly, I think, because they believe it will be other people paying it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

however, in your extract quotes, you play into the "pause" charade when you continue to speak of a reduced rate of warming in the isolated context of surface temperatures only...

The quote is taken from the page itself. I do not mean to comment on the issue, other to say that the skeptics now are using some of the same sources that climate science is using - which is a significant change, if it is a small one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone have a graph of the ARGO buoy data from 2003 to current? My understanding is that these last 10 years have shown little or no increase in deep ocean heat content. As I've mentioned before, its the last bastion for alarmists who claim that the excessive human-caused heat (that which is beyond natural climate change)is being "accumulated" in the deep ocean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Waldo, in proper discussions people respond to what other people write. So if you want a proper discussion then either respond to my posts on page 29 (when you ran away from discussion) or concede that you were wrong. Though, I'm aware that you have a psychological issue against conceding even a single point to an opponent or admitting ever being wrong about anything, so you will probably just respond to this with another nonsense remark that it was justified to run away from the discussion.

it's a shame you couldn't be bothered to actually review the video before you decided to beak-off with your continued nonsense...

So your response to me saying that the vertical access starts at 280 ppm is to go to the end of the video where another graph starts at 175 ppm? Look, if the graph doesn't start at 0 ppm then it is misleading towards people that are bad at math/suck at graphs (I'm not one of these people but there are many out there). Furthermore, going back to 800,000 kya is again carefully chosen to maximize the perception of 'unnaturally' high CO2 levels as the past few million years have had extremely low temperatures and CO2 levels compared to the vast majority of the earth's history during which multi-cellular life has flourished. As I've stated many times, we should consider the entire period since the Cambrian explosion when looking at historic CO2 levels and temperatures.

step-up and show where 1970s is being used as a baseline... I detailed the previous baseline chosen/used in regards Arctic sea ice analysis. Step-up and support your statement, "always chose the 1970s as a base line". I quoted you directly from the IPCC... does this read to you as "the 1970s"?

You are your strawman arguments. By 1970s as a baseline, I meant that climate alarmists will often pick various years from the 1970's as a baseline as this decade was cooler than temporally close decades and helps their alarmist arguments.

have you figured out what Rossby waves are yet? :lol: Talk about (your) gibberish! Somehow you keep perpetually fixated on the global gradient... purposely avoiding localized (i.e., weather focused) gradients, particularly those associated with the shifting jet stream I've spoken of numerous times. I thought the discussion here was on weather... extreme weather. Just what is it you're stumbling over now? I've provided several references... studies... related videos... all speaking to climate change impacts on melting Arctic sea ice, on Arctic/Polar amplification (i.e., the greater north-south shifting jet stream), on a possible underlying physical mechanism that speaks to the stalling out of the shifted jet stream's moving waves and the greater amplification of those waves during extreme weather events. What have you provided... other than your continued unsubstantiated opinion?

Look, I just want to see the equations and theoretical models that explain how a reduction in global temperature gradient leads to an increase in either the resonance effect or the Rossby waves (which are btw 2 different phenomenon). The link you provided doesn't even contain the word Rossby; it talks about the resonance effects such as here: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/02/28/1222000110. Anyway, I have yet to see a scientific explanation as to how increasing atmospheric CO2 leads to more frequent & severe heat waves / cold waves. Not even the wikipedia entry on Rossby waves gives me any indication of evidence for your claims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rossby_wave).

and... just a few short posts back I put up a related reference to this most recent study. Again, about your unsubstantiated opinion!

This has nothing to do with Rossby waves or the pressure resonance effect. The study in the link talks about how global warming and loss of glaciers/sea ice leads to warmer summers in the northern hemisphere (duh).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

snapback.png

I've provided citations earlier in this thread. The result is less frequent hurricanes and less severe hurricanes.

I certainly don't recall you ever quoting directly from any IPCC report... if you claim to have done so, it should be easy for you to either provide a MLW link reference to your claimed IPCC quotations or to simply restate your supposed/claimed IPCC quotes. As before, please provide an IPCC quotation reference that speaks to both a reduction in severity as well as a reduction in the frequency of hurricanes.

.

Lol, I love how you ignore 90% of my response and pretend it doesn't exist because it's convenient for you. Even the way you quote me is a misleading strawman. Please respond to what I wrote.

What could we do to drastically curtail a warming climate and what would the price be?

Btw, that last part is the part almost everyone even remotely related to the climate change movement refuses outright to even consider, mostly, I think, because they believe it will be other people paying it.

Yep. For climate alarmists, the reasoning is:

Increasing atmospheric CO2 warms the planet as it makes the atmosphere more opaque to blackbody radiation from the earth.

-> Therefore we must implement significant CO2 emission mitigation policies to stop global warming.

For a reasonable person, the reasoning should be:

Increasing atmospheric CO2 warms the planet as it makes the atmosphere more opaque to blackbody radiation from the earth.

IF the amount of warming from increasing CO2 concentrations is significant relative to climate change due to other causes

IF increased CO2, global warming and the associated climate change have a net negative impact on humanity

IF the costs of implementing mitigation policies out weight the net benefit of having lower CO2 levels so that mitigation is a better policy than the do nothing approach

IF CO2 mitigation policies are shown to be a more cost effective solution than alternatives (such as increasing the earth's albedo using giant space mirrors or pumping sea-water into the atmosphere to increase cloud formation, such as reducing atmospheric CO2 by promoting algae growth by dispersing iron into the oceas or by replanting trees/forests, etc.)

IF CO2 mitigation is shown to be a feasible global policy that can be successfully negotiated upon by all major CO2 producing nations (this includes nations run by people who believe in magic fairy tales and think the earth is 6000 years old)

Then we can conclude that we must implement significant CO2 emission mitigation policies to stop global warming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2) Can we actually do anything significant about CO2 emissions even if we wanted to?

In my opinion, the answer to 2) is emphatically no. CO2 reduction technologies are expensive and often ineffective. There are a few things that could be done to reduce emissions by 10% or so but that is about it. Reducing to 0% by 2050 is not on the table. This means that the only policy worth discussing is adaption.

citation request

You want him to prove a negative? I think it's up to you to prove the positive. What could we do to drastically curtail a warming climate and what would the price be?

Btw, that last part is the part almost everyone even remotely related to the climate change movement refuses outright to even consider, mostly, I think, because they believe it will be other people paying it.

what negative? MLW member 'TimG', as is his perpetual way, continually drops these 'Adapt-R-Us' only bleats... but somehow... has never, as I recall, actually qualified any of his claims. When you manage to actually corner him, he reverts into this "every country for themselves" ass-covering..... which, of course, fits quite snuggly with his overall aversion to any semblance of binding mitigation emissions reduction treaties... cause, like, uhhh..... that there be, "wealth transfer/distribution", dontcha know!

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone have a graph of the ARGO buoy data from 2003 to current? My understanding is that these last 10 years have shown little or no increase in deep ocean heat content. As I've mentioned before, its the last bastion for alarmists who claim that the excessive human-caused heat (that which is beyond natural climate change)is being "accumulated" in the deep ocean.

your understanding? Is there a problem in having you actually put some effort into qualifying "your understanding"... and presenting support for your denialist claim?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Waldo, you gave up on page 29. If you want to discuss climate change again then stop hiding and respond to my earlier posts.

:lol: what! Where's your previous bravado, chest beating and multiple claims of victory? Check that page again... as I did many times over, I took the trouble to actually respond at length to your continued nonsense... you came back with nothing original, nothing new, nothing to add to the discussion. Your one consistent act was to repeatedly state your unsubstantiated opinion..... and nothing but... your unsubstantiated opinion. As I said on that page 29:

I've responded to you at length, numerous times --- you either completely ignore the statements/positions/references, repeatedly throw stoopid strawmen up, continue your CO2 is plant food nonsense, continue your fixation and isolation with non-real world enclosure growth mediums, ignore the findings/statements from reputable organizations like the IPCC, the USGCRP, NASA, NAS, etc, claim bias in papers you can't refute, ignore direct questions/challenges to you... or you simply come back with nothing more than your own continued bluster & fluster (i.e., your personal unsubstantiated opinion), etc., etc., etc.. C',mon... take your self-declared victory and go relish in your denial! :lol:

Waldo, in proper discussions people respond to what other people write. So if you want a proper discussion then either respond to my posts on page 29 (when you ran away from discussion) or concede that you were wrong. Though, I'm aware that you have a psychological issue against conceding even a single point to an opponent or admitting ever being wrong about anything, so you will probably just respond to this with another nonsense remark that it was justified to run away from the discussion.

put up something other than your continued unsubstantiated opinion, your strawmen, your CO2 is nothing more than plant food idiocy, your stoopid fixation and isolation on non-real world enclosure growth mediums, your ignoring of findings/statements from reputable organizations, your wild unsubstantiated claims of bias in papers you can't refute, your ignoring of direct questions/challenges put to you, etc., etc., etc.. Do that... and I might actually consider giving your nonsense another look.

.

Edited by waldo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

step up and state what's misleading about the video graphic that highlights the historical rise of atmospheric CO2... waiting!

vertical axis starts at 280 ppm and the data starts in the 1970s.

it's a shame you couldn't be bothered to actually review the video before you decided to beak-off with your continued nonsense...

287q2yx.jpg

if you have continued false/fake concerns over the video graphic, I'd suggest you take it up with NOAA - Time history of atmospheric carbon dioxide from 800,000 years ago until January, 2012., hey!

So your response to me saying that the vertical access starts at 280 ppm is to go to the end of the video where another graph starts at 175 ppm? Look, if the graph doesn't start at 0 ppm then it is misleading towards people that are bad at math/suck at graphs (I'm not one of these people but there are many out there). Furthermore, going back to 800,000 kya is again carefully chosen to maximize the perception of 'unnaturally' high CO2 levels as the past few million years have had extremely low temperatures and CO2 levels compared to the vast majority of the earth's history during which multi-cellular life has flourished. As I've stated many times, we should consider the entire period since the Cambrian explosion when looking at historic CO2 levels and temperatures.

it's not a "different graph"... it's a video... of the same graphic evolving over the described time history. As for your fake concern over the absence of a "zero axis" starting point... gee, I guess the ppm doesn't actually fall to that level going back... 800,000 years! Of course, you can bluster & fluster all you'd like. You can purposely refuse to address the other end of the graphic and the most dramatic rise of atmospheric CO2 in the shortest of periods. You can do all that cause, apparently, you claim not to "suck at graphs"! :lol:

.

Edited by waldo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

step-up and show where 1970s is being used as a baseline... I detailed the previous baseline chosen/used in regards Arctic sea ice analysis. Step-up and support your statement, "always chose the 1970s as a base line". I quoted you directly from the IPCC... does this read to you as "the 1970s"?

You are your strawman arguments. By 1970s as a baseline, I meant that climate alarmists will often pick various years from the 1970's as a baseline as this decade was cooler than temporally close decades and helps their alarmist arguments.

interesting... notwithstanding you've backpedaled from "always chose" to "will often pick"... I still don't see you providing any support for your statement/claim. Is there a problem? Of course, your biggest strawman is to continually throw down this bizarro "alarmist" label and attach your broad-based (unsubstantiated) generalizations. Keep the faith, hey!

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

have you figured out what Rossby waves are yet? :lol: Talk about (your) gibberish! Somehow you keep perpetually fixated on the global gradient... purposely avoiding localized (i.e., weather focused) gradients, particularly those associated with the shifting jet stream I've spoken of numerous times. I thought the discussion here was on weather... extreme weather. Just what is it you're stumbling over now? I've provided several references... studies... related videos... all speaking to climate change impacts on melting Arctic sea ice, on Arctic/Polar amplification (i.e., the greater north-south shifting jet stream), on a possible underlying physical mechanism that speaks to the stalling out of the shifted jet stream's moving waves and the greater amplification of those waves during extreme weather events. What have you provided... other than your continued unsubstantiated opinion?

gee... within the linked article, there's a link labeled "planetary waves" and there's a whole section titled "Planetary waves". What could this mean, what could this mean! Try the link... see Rossby waves! That wasn't so hard now, was it! Again, this line of study/research presumes to have found a... possible... underlying physical basis/mechanism... as to why the shifted jet stream is "stalling out" and, accordingly, keeping storms in place for extended periods of time.

clearly, you can't follow a defined statement and make the association to the referenced linked article. Too much for ya, hey!

Look, I just want to see the equations and theoretical models that explain how a reduction in global temperature gradient leads to an increase in either the resonance effect or the Rossby waves (which are btw 2 different phenomenon). The link you provided doesn't even contain the word Rossby; it talks about the resonance effects such as here: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/02/28/1222000110. Anyway, I have yet to see a scientific explanation as to how increasing atmospheric CO2 leads to more frequent & severe heat waves / cold waves. Not even the wikipedia entry on Rossby waves gives me any indication of evidence for your claims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rossby_wave).

nice... I've directly included the previous Nov 26, 2013 quote that included the very pointed references within the article that speak to planetary waves (aka Rossby waves... aka waves within the jet stream). And now, you have the audacity to actually link to the very PNAS study that my linked article reference is addressing... as if you're providing some new revelation. :lol: Clearly, you can't follow the very clear bread crumb trail; a trail I've precisely laid out for you several times now. Again, rising atmospheric CO2, increased warming, accelerated Arctic sea ice melting, Arctic/Polar amplification, a more northerly-southerly shifting jet-stream... and a possible underlying physical basis/mechanism (re: the PNAS study) behind the "stalling out" of the shifted jet stream and, accordingly, the resultant impact keeping storms in place for extended periods of time.

and... just a few short posts back I put up a related reference to this most recent study. Again, about your unsubstantiated opinion!

This has nothing to do with Rossby waves or the pressure resonance effect. The study in the link talks about how global warming and loss of glaciers/sea ice leads to warmer summers in the northern hemisphere (duh).

uhhh... do you need to be handheld through this... even more so? It's a study that reinforces the Arctic/Polar amplification effect. See the same breadcrumb trail repeatedly laid our for you. As you say, duh!

.

Edited by waldo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,431
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Elvis98
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...