Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 2 votes

Dire climate warnings not happening


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 October 2013 - 08:26 PM

The Earth has not warmed for the past 16 years, and has even cooled in some areas, despite an 8 percent increase in atmospheric CO2. Given the preponderance of alarmist climate models that predicted significant warming, this fact alone should be reason enough for regulators and scientists to reassess their conclusions.

http://www.mysananto...ing-4846810.php

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."

#2    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 01 October 2013 - 09:04 PM

a little thought experiment, since 1980 when cnuts and cultists started wetting their beds, co2 rose from 340 to 400ppm, an increase of 60ppm
the increase in co2 since 1980 is equivalent to 60/1,000,000 = 0.00006 of the atmosphere,
putting this into perspective, the troposphere is ~10,000 meters high.
the air pressure at the top of the troposphere is 0.1 atmosphere, so the average pressure is about (1.0-0.1)/2 = 0.45 atmospheres this is equivalent to an atmosphere at standard sea level pressure of 0.45*10,000 = 4,500 meters high, about the height of a mountain.

if the c02 added to the atmosphere since 1980 were stratified out, it would consist of a layer of 4500*0.00006 = 0.27 meters = 27 centimeters, about the height of a molehill.
can you imagine looking at a molehill from the top of a mountain?


#3    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 October 2013 - 09:11 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 01 October 2013 - 09:04 PM, said:

a little thought experiment, since 1980 when cnuts and cultists started wetting their beds, co2 rose from 340 to 400ppm, an increase of 60ppm
the increase in co2 since 1980 is equivalent to 60/1,000,000 = 0.00006 of the atmosphere,
putting this into perspective, the troposphere is ~10,000 meters high.
the air pressure at the top of the troposphere is 0.1 atmosphere, so the average pressure is about (1.0-0.1)/2 = 0.45 atmospheres this is equivalent to an atmosphere at standard sea level pressure of 0.45*10,000 = 4,500 meters high, about the height of a mountain.

if the c02 added to the atmosphere since 1980 were stratified out, it would consist of a layer of 4500*0.00006 = 0.27 meters = 27 centimeters, about the height of a molehill.
can you imagine looking at a molehill from the top of a mountain?

I dont know Little Fish. You tell me! :w00t:

No seriously, I dont follow you first part. But nevertheless, my answer on molehill is No. But somehow I believe in your calculations. I have mines but I rather trust yours. :lol:

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."

#4    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 01 October 2013 - 11:57 PM

View PostBig Bad Voodoo, on 01 October 2013 - 09:11 PM, said:

I dont know Little Fish. You tell me! :w00t:
well it looks exactly like a molehill on top of a mountain :)


#5    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,047 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 02 October 2013 - 12:29 AM

Past climate changes have started with small incremental change - what we're seeing now - followed by sudden shifts back and forth - the "flickering" I spoke of in previous posts - followed by establishment of the new regime, usually suddenly.  In this case, suddenly could mean as little as five years (8200 BP Cold Period) to 40 years (end of the Younger Dryas; snowfall completed the shift in two years) to as long as seven thousand years (deglaciation of North America).

How will it go down this time?  Well, we don't have any continental ice sheets in North America or Europe to melt off, so it's likely to go a little faster.  The melt-off of the Arctic Ocean is the obvious threshhold, but exactly how much ice has to melt to trigger a new regime?  Nobody has that answer.  The more sea ice that melts, the more sunlight warms the water, the faster the remaining ice melts...  Expect the meltoff to accelerate.

Sudden shifts have usually been the result of a shutdown in thermohaline circulation.  Enough cold freshwater flooding the North Atlantic and floating on top of the heavier salt water could do it.  But where is there enough fresh water that could poison the Gulf Stream?  In the Greenland glaciers, maybe.  But will it melt faster than wave action can disrupt the fresh water lens?  Who knows?

Might there be some other threshhold around, perhaps something we haven't even thought of?  Maybe, but if there is, we haven't thought of it.  Something involving gas anhydrides, perhaps?

Lot of unanswered questions.  Should we just do nothing until we have the answers?  Could business as usual entrain some permanent change in the climate or ecosystem that we can't stop?  The meltoff of Artic ice is already entrained.  It's going to happen no matter what we do.  We're conducting a planet-scale experiment to find out what happens when you break your climate system.  I think we're going to learn the answers.  But do we want to?
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#6    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 02 October 2013 - 08:34 AM

doug, can a molehill crush a mountain?
it would be easy to construct logical rhetoric to convince oneself that it could, especially if the rewards for doing so were high enough.


#7    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 13,440 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 02 October 2013 - 09:18 AM

It would be nice if the climate change deniers have it right, but they aren't, and I fear their confusing the issue is allowing politicians and industries an excuse to continue business as usual.  This is morally questionable at best.


#8    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 02 October 2013 - 10:26 AM

View PostFrank Merton, on 02 October 2013 - 09:18 AM, said:

It would be nice if the climate change deniers have it right, but they aren't, and I fear their confusing the issue is allowing politicians and industries an excuse to continue business as usual.  This is morally questionable at best.
is there anyone on the planet that denies that the climate changes? I don't think so.
the cultists simplifying the issue is allowing politicians and industries an excuse to change business as usual for their own enrichment at the expense of everyone else. this is morally questionable at best.


#9    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 13,440 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 02 October 2013 - 10:27 AM

View PostLittle Fish, on 02 October 2013 - 10:26 AM, said:

is there anyone on the planet that denies that the climate changes? I don't think so.
the cultists simplifying the issue is allowing politicians and industries an excuse to change business as usual for their own enrichment at the expense of everyone else. this is morally questionable at best.
Now the vast majority of the scientific community, and all the leading scientific journals, are "cultists."


#10    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 02 October 2013 - 10:29 AM

View PostFrank Merton, on 02 October 2013 - 10:27 AM, said:

Now the vast majority of the scientific community, and all the leading scientific journals, are "cultists."
the "vast majority" of the scientific community and published research do not support your position.


#11    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 13,440 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 02 October 2013 - 10:30 AM

View PostLittle Fish, on 02 October 2013 - 10:29 AM, said:

the "vast majority" of the scientific community and published research do not support your position.
Now that is just flatout fantasy.  You must really be devoted to the oil industry.


#12    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 02 October 2013 - 10:33 AM

View PostFrank Merton, on 02 October 2013 - 10:30 AM, said:

Now that is just flatout fantasy.  You must really be devoted to the oil industry.
we've been over this, you even partook
http://www.unexplain...40#entry4933385

you must be devoted to the renewable industry.


#13    BFB

BFB

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,308 posts
  • Joined:25 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 02 October 2013 - 12:42 PM

Little fish just read your post in the link you provided.

Are you saying only 1 procent of the papers which involves GW believe in AGW?

Edited by BFB, 02 October 2013 - 12:42 PM.

"Its not true, before my brain says so" - BFB

#14    BFB

BFB

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,308 posts
  • Joined:25 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 02 October 2013 - 01:12 PM

Wow just read Monckton.

Where to begin. I really do not hope people believe this.

Firstly he accuse people for being childish, have he read his own "Paper"? He uses childish language him self and use the brain of a child to make his conclusion.

Just one point which debunks Monckton's "Paper" is most of the papers cook reviewed was about migration due to climate change. These papers expect there to be a future warming, and that's due to AGW.

"Its not true, before my brain says so" - BFB

#15    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,047 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 02 October 2013 - 01:33 PM

The low-point in the modern temperature record has several contenders:  globally averaged temps reached lows in the -0.40s in 1904 (-0.44), 1907 (-0.42), 1908 (-0.43), 1909 (-0.46),  1910 (-0.45), 1911 (-0.44), 1912 (-0.41) and 1917 (-0.44).  1917 was the last time global average temps dropped into the -0.40s.  Since 2000, globally averaged temps have fallen below +0.50 only once (2008).  Of course, the climate hasn't changed - only the temperatures.

Here in Oklahoma, our last temperature that fell below -40 degrees F. was in January 1886.  We used to get temperatures of -30 degrees F. about once in 20 years.  The last time was in February 1951.  Temps of -20 degrees used to be quite common.  We haven't had one of those since 1963.  We had a temp of -10 degrees just two years ago, so I'd say we're still getting those.  All these low temps were associated with severe winter storms.  I'd say that something has changed.


Thank you, Little Fish, for pointing out that even small changes in CO2 levels can have huge consequences.  The last time Lake Erie froze over was in 1967 when CO2 was measured by the Scripps Institute at 332 ppmv.  My somewhat dated list shows 2008 at 385 ppmv.  I understand we have just passed 400 ppmv.  That's an increase of 68 ppmv since 1967.  As you pointed out, it's not a very big number.

For the Arctic Ocean I'll have to use 1959 when the measured CO2 level was 316 ppmv, as the Keeling list doesn't go back to 1957 when the first ice thickness measurements were taken - remember the Nautilus?  Since then, we've lost a huge amount of ice cover (I don't have the numbers in front of me.).  The Arctic Ocean is predicted to be "substantially ice free" by 2040 when CO2 levels will be about 443 ppmv, if the current trend continues.  That's an increase in CO2 of 128 ppmv (41%).  You'll point out that it's not a one-to-one correspondence and I'll agree:  the curves don't even have the same shape.  The CO2 curve is a logarithmic curve, while the ice-cover curve is decreasing from an asymptote along a logarithmic decay curve.  Obviously, some other functions need to be in that equation.

Speaking of asymptotes:  the asymptote for the Keeling curve is 305 ppmv.  That would be the lowest level that CO2 ever was if nothing about climate has changed.  But measurements taken from ice cores show the level 20,000 YBP at about 280 ppmv.  Something about the climate changed to get CO2 levels to increase by 25 ppmv all by itself - like, maybe, the deglaciation of the northern hemisphere and a good part of the southern?  But of course, that tiny increase in CO2 couldn't possibly have anything to do with that - could it?
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users