TimG Posted May 31, 2015 Report Share Posted May 31, 2015 that anything to do with alternate energy is big government looming.Prove me wrong: get rid of the renewable mandates. Until they are gone renewables are nothing but a government make work project. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted May 31, 2015 Report Share Posted May 31, 2015 Prove me wrong: get rid of the renewable mandates. Until they are gone renewables are nothing but a government make work project. To the extent that government is involved, don't you think they should have a duty to assist in moving toward less environmentally damaging ways of keeping the lights on, or should they just standby and keep the fracking going until its all gone... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted May 31, 2015 Report Share Posted May 31, 2015 don't you think they should have a duty to assist in moving toward less environmentally damaging ways of keeping the lights onLike I said, the only corporations that lefies like are those which can be tools of the government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 1, 2015 Report Share Posted June 1, 2015 Like I said, the only corporations that lefies like are those which can be tools of the government. Certain corps are tools of certain governments. I don't think lefties like the Koch brothers much. Apparently you righties do though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted June 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 establishes with 95-per cent certainty that nearly all warming seen since the 1950s is man-made. Nearly all = at least 50%? The way the alarmist media spins things is amazing. Perhaps after you have to suffer with drought after that glacier fades away you will change your mind. Except the Earth will become on average wetter due to global warming. I already explained this in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 Nearly all = at least 50%? The way the alarmist media spins things is amazing. Except the Earth will become on average wetter due to global warming. I already explained this in this thread. It will due to SL rise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted June 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 It will due to SL rise. That's not the dominant reason. The main reason is the Clausius-Clapeyron relation and moisture transfer between oceans and continents. Another reason is the CO2 fertilization effect, which increases vegetation cover. SL rise has an effect to, although that occurs on longer timescales. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 (edited) That's not the dominant reason. The main reason is the Clausius-Clapeyron relation and moisture transfer between oceans and continents. Another reason is the CO2 fertilization effect, which increases vegetation cover. SL rise has an effect to, although that occurs on longer timescales. The major cause of the SL rise is, and will be, the deterioration of the glaciers as they slip into the oceans. Edited June 2, 2015 by On Guard for Thee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted June 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 Or melt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 Or melt. One particularly humorous suggestion I heard for a fix was to build some sort of a dam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 Nearly all = at least 50%? The way the alarmist media spins things is amazing. are you having trouble with the full related IPCC attribution statement? (re: AR5 WG1 10.3) It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. Except the Earth will become on average wetter due to global warming. I already explained this in this thread. which has nothing to do with the expressed localized concerns over regional drought. Another reason is the CO2 fertilization effect, which increases vegetation cover. particularly in those isolated enclosed greenhouse glass hood/enclosures you so favour, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socialist Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 are you having trouble with the full related IPCC attribution statement? (re: AR5 WG1 10.3) It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. which has nothing to do with the expressed localized concerns over regional drought. particularly in those isolated enclosed greenhouse glass hood/enclosures you so favour, right? Waldo, you and I agree 100% that humans are driving climate change. But I do have an elementary question for you. During the last ice age, most of Canada and a good part of the USA was covered by an approx. 2 km glacier. This glacier melted before humans had an impact. What caused the glacier to melt thousands of years ago? Thanks, and I look forward to your reply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 During the last ice age, most of Canada and a good part of the USA was covered by an approx. 2 km glacier. This glacier melted before humans had an impact. What caused the glacier to melt thousands of years ago? Heat...and now we're cranking up the thermostat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 Heat...and now we're cranking up the thermostat. Well then let's just turn that 'ol thermostat down and bring back all the Canadian glaciers. Nature is so wonderful ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 Heat...and now we're cranking up the thermostat. Good on ya for explaining that without a myriad of meaningless formulae. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted June 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. I agree with the IPCC's statement. But more than half != nearly all. The use of 'nearly all' in the article is spin. This glacier melted before humans had an impact. What caused the glacier to melt thousands of years ago? Milankovitch cycles amplified by the positive greenhouse gas and albedo (ice, sea level rise, vegetation) feedbacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 But more than half != nearly all.The != operator is likely meaningless to anyone who has never written software. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socialist Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 I agree with the IPCC's statement. But more than half != nearly all. The use of 'nearly all' in the article is spin. Milankovitch cycles amplified by the positive greenhouse gas and albedo (ice, sea level rise, vegetation) feedbacks. So a natural cycle? Could that be happening today? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 So a natural cycle? Could that be happening today?There are natural cycles overlaid with human induced warming. The natural cycles likely amplified the warming in the 1980-2000 time period and now attenuating the warming. What this means is the planet will continue to warm but will do so at a rate much slower than the alarmists claim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socialist Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 There are natural cycles overlaid with human induced warming. The natural cycles likely amplified the warming in the 1980-2000 time period and now attenuating the warming. What this means is the planet will continue to warm but will do so at a rate much slower than the alarmists claim. A 2 km massive sheet of ice would take a long time to melt. Does the sun play any role in global warming? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 Waldo, you and I agree 100% that humans are driving climate change. But I do have an elementary question for you. During the last ice age, most of Canada and a good part of the USA was covered by an approx. 2 km glacier. This glacier melted before humans had an impact. What caused the glacier to melt thousands of years ago? Thanks, and I look forward to your reply. Further to that the continuing melting of parts of Greenland, Antarctica and the Arctic Ice pack may be from the ending of the Ice Age. It takes a while for accumulated ice to melt under temperatures that warmed after the last Ice Age. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted June 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 So a natural cycle? Could that be happening today? Yes but on a long timescale. There are 3 Milankovitch cycles, precession (changes in whether the Earth is closest to the Sun at winter or summer; has a 21000 year period), obliquity (changes in the tilt of the Earth; has a 41000 year period) and eccentricity (changes in how 'oval' the shape of the Earth's orbit is; has a 100000 year period). All 3 Milankovitch cycles have been moving in the direction of a cooler Earth since the Holocene optimum about 8000 years ago (the Earth was on a gradual cooling trend until human greenhouse gas emissions). Obliquity and eccentricity will continue to move in the direction of a cooler Earth, although precession is starting to move in the direction of a warmer Earth. If humans don't intervene then the Earth will plunge into another ice age in ~3000 years. So yes, Milankovitch cycles matter, but the time scale is very large. There are more immediate sources of natural climate variation. A 2 km massive sheet of ice would take a long time to melt. Does the sun play any role in global warming? I calculated that the ice-albedo feedback has a decay time (the time it takes to move within 38% of equilibrium) of about 500 years at the poles; although not all glaciers are at the poles and some climate models I have looked at suggest a decay time of about 400 years. Does the sun play any role in global warming? Yes, the sun probably caused the majority of the global warming from 1700 to 1950. Although since 1950, solar activity hasn't changed much and human greenhouse gases have caused the majority of global warming. Solar activity is now in decline and the without human intervention would cause another little ice age in a century or two. But the effect of increased greenhouse gas levels should dominate declines in global temperatures due to lower solar activity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socialist Posted June 4, 2015 Report Share Posted June 4, 2015 Yes but on a long timescale. There are 3 Milankovitch cycles, precession (changes in whether the Earth is closest to the Sun at winter or summer; has a 21000 year period), obliquity (changes in the tilt of the Earth; has a 41000 year period) and eccentricity (changes in how 'oval' the shape of the Earth's orbit is; has a 100000 year period). All 3 Milankovitch cycles have been moving in the direction of a cooler Earth since the Holocene optimum about 8000 years ago (the Earth was on a gradual cooling trend until human greenhouse gas emissions). Obliquity and eccentricity will continue to move in the direction of a cooler Earth, although precession is starting to move in the direction of a warmer Earth. If humans don't intervene then the Earth will plunge into another ice age in ~3000 years. So yes, Milankovitch cycles matter, but the time scale is very large. There are more immediate sources of natural climate variation. I calculated that the ice-albedo feedback has a decay time (the time it takes to move within 38% of equilibrium) of about 500 years at the poles; although not all glaciers are at the poles and some climate models I have looked at suggest a decay time of about 400 years. Yes, the sun probably caused the majority of the global warming from 1700 to 1950. Although since 1950, solar activity hasn't changed much and human greenhouse gases have caused the majority of global warming. Solar activity is now in decline and the without human intervention would cause another little ice age in a century or two. But the effect of increased greenhouse gas levels should dominate declines in global temperatures due to lower solar activity. You definitely know your material. So you believe humans are driving climate change, which is what I suspected. do you feel humans are causing all the strange weather the globe is experiencing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted June 4, 2015 Report Share Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) do you feel humans are causing all the strange weather the globe is experiencing?The actual science (meaning peer reviewed literature) says that there is no evidence that current weather patterns are different from historical norms. This includes droughts, rain events and storms. The only weather events which have increased are high temperature extremes but those extremes are matched by a corresponding decrease in cold weather extremes (which are much worse for humans which means warming is actually good for humans). Edited June 4, 2015 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 4, 2015 Report Share Posted June 4, 2015 are you having trouble with the full related IPCC attribution statement? (re: AR5 WG1 10.3) It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. which has nothing to do with the expressed localized concerns over regional drought. particularly in those isolated enclosed greenhouse glass hood/enclosures you so favour, right? Its OK Waldo. All we have to do is build some dams. I heard it right here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
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.