Twenty years of two and a half degrees of warming

[Shemjaza]

O henny penny the sky is falling, we must tell the king. The earth has put up different periods of climate & sorry guys the co2 is not going to roast your marshmallows.

Do you know what happens during times of great climate change? Mass extinctions, drought, famine... all terrible things to put up with.

There's a whole spectrum of terrible and miserable that exists without extinction and total anilation.

If every Monday I walk outside with blue shoes & happen to notice that for 4 weeks in a row, it rained on those Mondays, I cannot equate causation with correlation & that is the problem you guys are having.

People have been explicitly describing the mechanisms and causes.

Your arrogance, ignorance and irrationality don't make the evidence go away.

 

[lordjeff]

Goosy Loosy. Yes bad things happen. We don't live in utopia. We've had a Cambrian extinction, a Devonian one, a Silurian one, a Permian one. Species come & go. You're lucky we are not in the Hadean or Archean Eras. Look I know how the carbon cycle works. You can explain the mechanism all you want, there is just not enough convincing evidence to say that a disaster is occurring. You've had 1.6 degrees of temp. increase not 1600. Glaciers melt-hello. Continents move. You guys must be part of some club that what your goal is to visit every website & just hell at people who don't agree with you. I've told you that climate can change. Your premise is that because of this special gas in the atmosphere there is so much of it that the sky is falling when those predictions did not pan out & when there physical structures in place to buffer that effect.

 

[eclipsenow]

Yes bad things happen. We don't live in utopia. We've had a Cambrian extinction, a Devonian one, a Silurian one, a Permian one.

Right - so you're happy to bring on another one?

Species come & go.

You're OK ethically with causing many species extinctions this century?

Look I know how the carbon cycle works.

See - this is where you sound a little ... uninformed.
We're not discussing the 'carbon cycle'. We're describing blackbody radiation physics and the radiative forcing of CO2 in response to that. IE: The sun shoots sunlight at the earth, it bounces off as heat and gets trapped by CO2. You haven't shown that you understand this mechanism - and instead seem to trip over various terms as if you're a complete outsider to what's happening in climate science - worse than my layman's attempts anyway! (I'm an outsider as well.) All while claiming to have degrees in science? Seriously? I just don't believe you!

You can explain the mechanism all you want,

We have - you just haven't addressed the mechanism with any substantive replies...

there is just not enough convincing evidence to say that a disaster is occurring.

...other than reasserting your own ignorant opinion again and again and again.
We just don't care about your 'opinion'. We want data!

You've had 1.6 degrees of temp. increase not 1600.

This response is unimaginably arrogant and ignorant. I don't think you really understand the consequences of 1.5 degrees (which we sadly seem committed to at the moment, but have not hit yet.) No one is saying it has to be 1600 degrees? Try 12 degrees - that's probably the end of most life on earth.

Glaciers melt-hello.

Yes they do when the climate is shifting. Why is the climate shifting? The sunlight is stable - even a bit less than usual. Everything else is in balance. But the CO2 has jumped from 280ppm to 400ppm and we can demonstrate what that means in a backyard physics test.

CO2 traps heat-hello.

Continents move.

Utterly irrelevant. If the climate was changing over that kind of timescale we wouldn't care - it would be too small a change each millennia to even register.

You guys must be part of some club that what your goal is to visit every website & just hell at people who don't agree with you.

Back to attacking our character and not dealing with the subject - how predictable.

I've told you that climate can change.

You've not demonstrated relevance. You go on about irrelevant factoids that you don't really seem to be able to put into any kind of coherent context for relevance to your 'argument' - but just rant stuff. In reality I've told YOU that the climate can and has already changed naturally - and what we learn from earth's much more volcanic early history and the resulting CO2 super-greenhouses should really ALARM us! (Before you say today's warming is the volcanoes again - it's not. They don't produce enough CO2 today - and we know from the CO2 isotopes of carbon in the atmosphere that it's our fossil fuels.)

Your premise is that because of this special gas in the atmosphere there is so much of it that the sky is falling when those predictions did not pan out & when there physical structures in place to buffer that effect.

The 'physical structures' are NOT buffering it as the CO2 keeps climbing! When will the buffer work? Because it's failed. And each year breaks temperature records, the Australian bushfires last year were unlike anyone has ever seen and in places that just don't burn (they're usually rainforests all the local wildlife used to be able to seek refuge in - until last year!) and the predictions ARE PANNING OUT right on schedule!

You honestly don't know what you're talking about do you? What were your 'degrees' in - hair management?

 

[sjastro]

Interesting. So in layman's terms - are they left out because the hydrological cycle which does increase as the planet warms is a feedback of the increased CO2, not a cause?

One of the counterarguments used by climate change deniers is they read about water vapour being a more efficient greenhouse gas than CO₂ and exists in far greater concentrations, so why is CO₂ focused on as being a culprit for AGW?

The reason why the hydrological cycle is not included as a radiative forcing component is water vapour is a very short lived greenhouse gas component.
Increasing temperature increases the rate of evaporation but also increases the rate of precipitation each of which are opposite radiative forcing feedbacks.
While increasing temperature increases the absolute humidity at the expense of precipitation it also aids in cloud formation which reduces the amount of surface heating through solar radiation while at the same time reduces heat loss into outer space.

In isolation the hydrological cycle is considered neutral; in conjunction with CO₂ the picture is different.
Climate scientists can quantify the effect of the water vapor feedback on the climate system, as shown by frequently modeled effects of doubling CO₂.
In the absence of a water vapor feedback, doubled CO₂ would increase global temperatures by around 1⁰ to 1.2⁰ C.
The additional water vapor in the atmosphere triggered by this initial warming will result in roughly 1.6⁰ C more warming, and positive feedbacks caused by changes in cloud formation add around 0.7⁰ C more.
This cloud feedback varies significantly between models, ranging from 0.3⁰ to 1.1⁰ C.

 

[sjastro]

If every Monday I walk outside with blue shoes & happen to notice that for 4 weeks in a row, it rained on those Mondays, I cannot equate causation with correlation & that is the problem you guys are having.

Are you making a late run for the most irrelevant remark of 2020 award?

 

[eclipsenow]

One of the counterarguments used by climate change deniers is they read about water vapour being a more efficient greenhouse gas than CO₂ and exists in far greater concentrations, so why is CO₂ focused on as being a culprit for AGW?

The reason why the hydrological cycle is not included as a radiative forcing component is water vapour is a very short lived greenhouse gas component.
Increasing temperature increases the rate of evaporation but also increases the rate of precipitation each of which are opposite radiative forcing feedbacks.
While increasing temperature increases the absolute humidity at the expense of precipitation it also aids in cloud formation which reduces the amount of surface heating through solar radiation while at the same time reduces heat loss into outer space.

In isolation the hydrological cycle is considered neutral; in conjunction with CO₂ the picture is different.
Climate scientists can quantify the effect of the water vapor feedback on the climate system, as shown by frequently modeled effects of doubling CO₂.
In the absence of a water vapor feedback, doubled CO₂ would increase global temperatures by around 1⁰ to 1.2⁰ C.
The additional water vapor in the atmosphere triggered by this initial warming will result in roughly 1.6⁰ C more warming, and positive feedbacks caused by changes in cloud formation add around 0.7⁰ C more.
This cloud feedback varies significantly between models, ranging from 0.3⁰ to 1.1⁰ C.

Yes - absolutely.
I was just checking your first post was another way of saying the same thing. I had not heard the humidity feedback described in terms of "mass conserving cycle" but it appears to be the same thing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

O henny penny the sky is falling, we must tell the king. The earth has put up different periods of climate & sorry guys the co2 is not going to roast your marshmallows.

If that is the case why are you afraid to learn the science? You still cannot even properly explain the Greenhouse Effect. You cannot convince anyone that you are serious when you run away from the basics.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT


This thread is closed for review. ​

 

[HARK!]

MOD HAT ON

DUE TO MULTIPLE RULE VIOLATIONS

MOD HAT OFF​