Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Big Bad Voodoo

Dire climate warnings not happening

28 posts in this topic

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.mysanantonio.com/opinion/commentary/article/Dire-climate-warnings-not-happening-4846810.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

well it looks exactly like a molehill on top of a mountain :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

eh?

no, did you read carefully?

"cook et al is a bait and switch - "man has caused global warming" has no equivalence to "man has caused most of the global warming"

http://www.unexplain...40#entry4933385

from cook's own data only ~1% of 4,000 claim man caused most of the warming.

cook gets 97% by including everyone that think co2 will cause warming (which would include monckton himself)

belief in co2 warming is meaningless without quantification.

cook's paper is a propaganda piece to wave the doom mongering 97% flag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you, Little Fish, for pointing out that even small changes in CO2 levels can have huge consequences
and where did i do that?

or do you make the assumption that all the warming is due to co2.

they call that circular reasoning, you have used your conclusion as an assumption to derive your conclusion.

I call it deriving your facts from your faith.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and where did i do that?

doug, can a molehill crush a mountain?

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow just read Monckton.

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

do you think he has made a mistake somewhere?

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.
i did not notice anything childish at all. are you looking at the same article as me?

http://theclimatesce...monckton_1.html

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.
that's not correct. from the the cook study

"..reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and?

where did I "point out that even small changes in CO2 levels can have huge consequences" ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think give it another 15 years and the real debate will begin. One of two things are going to happen.

1. The climate does start changing and the scientists can give us a big old 'Told you so'.

2. It stays stagnant and the scientists will struggle to convince people they are right. At the moment I think a large majority believe them although I can see that reversing no matter how many graphs and charts they produce to say the opposite.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think give it another 15 years and the real debate will begin. One of two things are going to happen.

1. The climate does start changing and the scientists can give us a big old 'Told you so'.

2. It stays stagnant and the scientists will struggle to convince people they are right. At the moment I think a large majority believe them although I can see that reversing no matter how many graphs and charts they produce to say the opposite.

Option 3: Additional research reveals unsuspected nuances in our understanding of climate. I'll bet that this is what happens.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think give it another 15 years and the real debate will begin. One of two things are going to happen.

1. The climate does start changing and the one percent of scientists can give us a big old 'Told you so'.

2. It stays stagnant and the one percent of scientists will struggle to convince people they are right. At the moment I think a large majority believe them although I can see that reversing no matter how many graphs and charts they produce to say the opposite.

fixed that for you.

not all scientists would be saying "told you so".

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LF regarding Monckton's paper.

What's not correct that most of the papers which are in cook study are not dealing with migration due to climate change? If that's the case then you are incorrect

Most of the papers in cooks study are about migration due to climate change and Monckton didn't include these papers is his calculations.

The only papers Monckton included was papers which stated they believe In AGW and not papers which sees AGW as fact and therefore don't need to put in their abstract and they support the theory of AGW.

I still stand by my earlier statement what Monckton have done is misleading and clearly shows he has an agenda.

Edited by BFB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LF regarding Monckton's paper.

What's not correct that most of the papers which are in cook study are not dealing with migration due to climate change? If that's the case then you are incorrect

Most of the papers in cooks study are about migration due to climate change and Monckton didn't include these papers is his calculations.

The only papers Monckton included was papers which stated they believe In AGW and not papers which sees AGW as fact and therefore don't need to put in their abstract and they support the theory of AGW.

monckton's paper is a criticism of cook's analysis.

the cook paper's 97% figure was derived from those abstracts that only expressed an opinion in the abstract. those were the papers that monckton was looking at, monckton used cook's own method, their own data, and their own categorization of papers.

http://iopscience.io..._8_2_024024.pdf

monckton is saying based on cook's own methods and cook's own categories, only 0.3% (1%) express an opinion that AGW is causing most of the warming.

from monckton's conclusion:

"only 41 papers – 0.3% of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0% of the 4014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1% – had been found to endorse the quantitative hypothesis, stated in the introduction to Cook et al."

http://theclimatesce...monckton_1.html

the quantitative hypothesis is significant AGW. (which is the only thing that counts anyway).

I still stand by my earlier statement what Monckton have done is misleading and clearly shows he has an agenda.
I would say that cook is misleading since his paper is implying that 97% of those that expressed an opinion believe man is the cause for significant GW (when most of those he counted don't state a quantity, as I said before, monckton would be included in cook's 97% but his position is that AGW is negigible) Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.