• Member Statistics

    15,571
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Stephan Klempner
    Newest Member
    Stephan Klempner
    Joined
Sign in to follow this  
Jonger

Climate Change Banter

Recommended Posts

What a load of BS. This is due to arctic amplification and a continuation of AGW/El Nino. So everything that is not in your favor is just latent heat and the sun?

 

I was right about you all along, your not an objective moderator altho you fooled me a few times too many. Even if it's true, why is the latent heat release higher than usual?

 

In hindsight, we see the same thing just for different reasons. As nflwxman pointed out, it's a direct result of losing so much ice which is an AGW driven phenomenon predominantly (greater than 50%).

 

I mentioned the spike in temps is in significant part due to ice refreezing...which is true. And you call it "a load of BS".

 

There is less ice at the minimum than years ago, so we get more refreezing around this time than years ago (hey remember the negative feedback I mentioned dozens of times in the arctic sea ice thread over the past 4 years?)...hence we get a larger spike than we used to. This is the same rapid refreezing you keep claiming won't happen because of high sfc temp anomalies...not realizing that part of those are because the ice is refreezing. And also because the water is losing immense amounts of heat through the surface after the sun sets.

 

I never claimed AGW had nothing to do with it. You just made that part up on your own.

 

 

Next time (or how about for once when you post in here), try and understand the facts before you make disparaging comments. Read the literature. Understand the physics. Do something that offers contribution to the threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are so dense it is comical!!! :lmao:

Contribute and stop trolling. This place is a one-sided mess.

 

ORH, you didn't elaborate enough and the ignorant will miss the AGW influence. I only have one goal in this forum, and that is to defend the livelihood of my future. Don't count on me to be Michael Mann or Kevin Trenberth part 2, altho you guys probably still wouldn't give two ****s about what I have to say/type.

 

Listen to the professionals, and to claim you are a professional would be a sad miscalculation, if not a gross explosion of ego. We are both hobbyists and prospective learners here.

 

I never mentioned anything about a lagged refreeze. My main point was that this does not diminish the threat we face nor does it change the outcome in any way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Contribute and stop trolling. This place is a one-sided mess.

 

ORH, you didn't elaborate enough and the ignorant will miss the AGW influence. I only have one goal in this forum, and that is to defend the livelihood of my future. Don't count on me to be Michael Mann or Kevin Trenberth part 2, altho you guys probably still wouldn't give two ****s about what I have to say/type.

 

Listen to the professionals, and to claim you are a professional would be a sad miscalculation, if not a gross explosion of ego. We are both hobbyists and prospective learners here.

 

I never mentioned anything about a lagged refreeze. My main point was that this does not diminish the threat we face nor does it change the outcome in any way.

 

 

Why do I need to elaborate further that a bunch of heat is being released from rapid refreeze? Does everything need some sort of alarmist AGW spin on it to satisfy you? I've posted multiple times in the past that we get more rapid refreeze in the fall due to less ice because of AGW.

 

This forum is becoming a joke in that anyone who talks about pretty classic thermodynamics and not AGW in the most alarmist light is crucified by posters like you. I also never claimed I was a professional climate scientist. Keep spouting libel and you can find a new forum to post on.

 

 

P.S.: You aren't "defending the livlihood of your future" by posting a bunch of inaccurate junk in this forum. Even if it was accurate, it wouldn't be doing anything. Policy makers in the government don't get their information in the climate forum of a weather board...and most certaintly not from anyone making arguments without solid scientific evidence. They get it from the scientific literature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What in the hell are you talking about? I'm not implying anything by my question other than asking a simple question.

I guess my question was meant to imply global warming is over. Some of you people are seriously overprotective of AGW. Good grief!!!! Get a life!

Well hold on a sec. I'm somewhat upset that I'm causing you this much emotional distress. We are approaching a critical junction for public policy making. We can't afford to have false pictures of the situation. I know we have already proven that what goes on here has no impact on public policy.

 

At this point, I defend AGW so deeply in order to live up my high moral code and principles. I don't want to die knowing I contributed to the problem. For me, AGW is the ultimate example of crime that one can surmise. The premature death of an entire planet, and possibly the only planet with advanced life.

 

This is just my poor attempt at repaying my debts. I hope to double down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never mentioned anything about a lagged refreeze.

 

This is another lie.

 

You mentioned it early in September when you said we were in a "new era"...that there's no way we'd reach 5 million sq km by the end of the month.

 

Then again on the wx side, you posted that the ice would hit a wall around 76N due to higher SSTs....didn't happen. Not only did the ice not slow down as it approached 76N, we've blown past that on the entire Pacific side where the highest SST anomalies were to begin with. Only the Laptev is lagging behind, and that is mainly due to winds.

 

Ice expansion may hit a brick wall for a long time around 76N due to the elevated SSTA.

It's fine to disagree about something, but at least be honest about what you said in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using specifcs as a prediction benchmark never works. At least I made a call in the end. There will be a wall somewhere, I'm not sure where it will setup. Depends on how cloudy it becomes in the Arctic.

 

Notice I said it 'may' hit a wall, not that it would.

 

 

 

This is another lie.
 
You mentioned it early in September when you said we were in a "new era"...that there's no way we'd reach 5 million sq km by the end of the month.
 
Then again on the wx side, you posted that the ice would hit a wall around 76N due to higher SSTs....didn't happen. Not only did the ice not slow down as it approached 76N, we've blown past that on the entire Pacific side where the highest SST anomalies were to begin with. Only the Laptev is lagging behind, and that is mainly due to winds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Contribute and stop trolling. This place is a one-sided mess.

 

ORH, you didn't elaborate enough and the ignorant will miss the AGW influence. I only have one goal in this forum, and that is to defend the livelihood of my future. Don't count on me to be Michael Mann or Kevin Trenberth part 2, altho you guys probably still wouldn't give two ****s about what I have to say/type.

 

Listen to the professionals, and to claim you are a professional would be a sad miscalculation, if not a gross explosion of ego. We are both hobbyists and prospective learners here.

 

I never mentioned anything about a lagged refreeze. My main point was that this does not diminish the threat we face nor does it change the outcome in any way.

I'm not trolling....I'm stating facts in a banter thread...you are dense!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using specifcs as a prediction benchmark never works. At least I made a call in the end. There will be a wall somewhere, I'm not sure where it will setup. Depends on how cloudy it becomes in the Arctic.

 

Notice I said it 'may' hit a wall, not that it would.

 

It doesn't matter if you said "may" or not. That is irrelevant. You claimed you "never mentioned anything about a lagged refreeze"....that is false. You did. Twice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a sidebar to this discussion; my favorite Met from the UK issued his (early) winter forecast ahead of time due to the 'ice-age panic' that's developing over there due to the cold N. Atlantic. He's a straightforward traditionalist not given to hyperbole, and is willing to 'blame' the AMO even though we're not really due to flip yet, but...he gave up! He forecast exactly....nothing!

 

Looking back over years of analogue data, and going over all the tele's and models, he doesn't see any way to get a reasonable forecast out of it, and said to wait until November. :lmao:

 

Now look, we can argue the minutiae and pedantry of any individual posts hyperbole, or we can exaggerate the reserve of others into a claim of 'denial', but neither path leads anywhere positive. Would it be possible to agree that we're beyond the realm of easy understanding of current phenomena and their relationships to one another based on easy attribution to past experience?

 

We're NOT going to ascribe causation for anything deemed new here in this forum- no one of us will do that- so from that perspective we're all just B.S.'ing, or agglomerating our opinions around unproven science, but can we agree that 'things are different'?

 

I think they are, and I've yet to hear anyone credible say otherwise. To admit that means that sometimes we'll have to admit to simply 'not knowing'! ( ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I'm right in that 'AMOC induced' ice age compensatory reaction zone, I'll report. Those damn Wooly Bears are reporting the same winter forecast they've done for the past two (frigid) winter seasons. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over here in North America, AGW should continue but there will be SLR issues. Europe will need to worry about abrupt seasonal damages especially in agriculture. It's not that extreme when you look at the big picture.

 

The paper above seemingly fails to account for what a AMOC collapse at the current/future GHG forcing does to equatorial temperatures. It's a truely nutty situation that we should have avoided at all costs (which is unlikely at this point baring some massive geo-engineering), or you can look forward to some serious unraveling and environmental incompatibility with our current coastal communities and economic shipping routes.

 

The most important realization is that there should be doubts over the AMOC completely shutting down from 1.0C of GMT warming. This is why I am so skeptical of large NH cooling. We could perhaps see a fast taper down that mirrors GMT increase and ice discharge, something more linear but abrupt on geological timescales regardless.

 

Whatever scenario occurs, we should expect extreme storminess and unstable seasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over here in North America, AGW should continue but there will be SLR issues. Europe will need to worry about abrupt seasonal damages especially in agriculture. It's not that extreme when you look at the big picture.

The paper above seemingly fails to account for what a AMOC collapse at the current/future GHG forcing does to equatorial temperatures. It's a truely nutty situation that we should have avoided at all costs (which is unlikely at this point baring some massive geo-engineering), or you can look forward to some serious unraveling and environmental incompatibility with our current coastal communities and economic shipping routes.

The most important realization is that there should be doubts over the AMOC completely shutting down from 1.0C of GMT warming. This is why I am so skeptical of large NH cooling. We could perhaps see a fast taper down that mirrors GMT increase and ice discharge, something more linear but abrupt on geological timescales regardless.

Whatever scenario occurs, we should expect extreme storminess and unstable seasons.

And 90% extinction, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The premature death of an entire planet, and possibly the only planet with advanced life.

A) Global warming isn't going to kill the Earth. It, and the life it supports, has survived a few years in the past without mankind, and it will do it again.

B) There is a possibility that Earth is the only planet with advanced life, yes, but it is a pretty slim one. Heck, who says advanced life has to live on a planet? Or within the confines of our universe, or in a universe at all? Throughout our history, humans have overestimated the relative prominence of the world that was known to them vs. the world that was not. It may very well be a mistake to think that this tiny ball of dust is more important and unique on a cosmic level than it really is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could warm the planet up 15C more and life wouldn't go extinct. It would just spread north and half of the current animal life would vanish. 

 

1,000 years later, equilibrium would be reached with the surviving life forms.

 

1,000,000 years later and you would never have known a die off happened.

 

This is just a moment time time. As long as Earth remains in the Goldilocks zone of habitability, nothing short of an asteroid will wipe out life to the point that it wouldn't recover. Even then it would still recover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could warm the planet up 15C more and life wouldn't go extinct. It would just spread north and half of the current animal life would vanish. 

 

1,000 years later, equilibrium would be reached with the surviving life forms.

 

1,000,000 years later and you would never have known a die off happened.

 

This is just a moment time time. As long as Earth remains in the Goldilocks zone of habitability, nothing short of an asteroid will wipe out life to the point that it wouldn't recover. Even then it would still recover.

 

I don't disagree in principle, but there is a bit of a wildcard when it comes to runaway global warming; Hydrogen Sulfide.  During the Permian Extinction, it is thought that this toxic gas wiped out 95% of life on earth, due to acidification of the oceans.  While it would not lead to a complete bio-extinction event, it would set mammals back millions of years more than likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

70+% extinction is a total reset/wipeout. All you are left with is simple Eukaryota and Fungi. We have a decent amount of buffer in regards to temperature but deep down I don't think the Holocene biosphere is well-equipped to deal with a hothouse Earth.

 

Everything is correct in principle Jonger, but it's simply not worth it just to keep an economic system going for one species when there are more productive alternatives.

 

Global warming could conceivably kill the Earth but it's the least likely outcome at this point. There is just too much sequestered carbon in the Arctic from the Azolla event to rule it out tho. It would be like simultaneously dumping all sequestered CO2/CH4 to ever exist into one time interval. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event

 

This won't happen if we stop short of say....750ppm? Which is very likely to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the general public recognizes the ENSO connection, and 2014 was warm without strong ENSO forcing. Nobody can stop an idea whose time has come, and it expands way beyond AGW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

70+% extinction is a total reset/wipeout. All you are left with is simple Eukaryota and Fungi. We have a decent amount of buffer in regards to temperature but deep down I don't think the Holocene biosphere is well-equipped to deal with a hothouse Earth.

 

Everything is correct in principle Jonger, but it's simply not worth it just to keep an economic system going for one species when there are more productive alternatives.

 

Global warming could conceivably kill the Earth but it's the least likely outcome at this point. There is just too much sequestered carbon in the Arctic from the Azolla event to rule it out tho. It would be like simultaneously dumping all sequestered CO2/CH4 to ever exist into one time interval. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event

 

This won't happen if we stop short of say....750ppm? Which is very likely to happen.

 

I'm not sure there is enough remaining hydrocarbons to achieve 750ppm.

 

Lets say we were able to get co2 up to 1000ppm. Lets say the earth was 8C warmer, are you saying that animals in the temperate zone wouldn't migrate north? Fish would migrate north easily.

 

I'm only discussing this for the sake of interest, I'm not trying to advocate some position that we allow that to happen.

 

There has been several wipe outs since vertebrates have come on the scene and it has been complex life, not pond scum and plankton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the general public recognizes the ENSO connection, and 2014 was warm without strong ENSO forcing. Nobody can stop an idea whose time has come, and it expands way beyond AGW.

 

Most of the general public probably thinks el nino is AGW driven. It's not. 

 

If it changes policy, I'm fine with it.

 

The best thing about AGW mitigation is that it drives innovation and increases the pace of technology. I'm a technology geek more than a weather geek.... bring it on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

They should be ashamed telling them such bull****. Climate change can be solved and life (high consumption) can more or less continue with low density alt energies that cannot be created (mined, transported, manufactured and installed) without fossil fuels? It's simply a matter of political will? Ya, physics doesn't count. The pin on the AGW grenade has been pulled and it will go off no matter what.

Solar is at a whopping 1% of global electricity generation after 40 years or so. Is there any mining for the needed raw materials that is done with non carbon solutions? Nope, all diesel. How much heavy transport is solar? Every manufactured piece of hardware and/or all raw materials from overseas are delivered via bunker fuel – the dirtiest on the planet, then there are diesel powered trains and tractors. How much manufacturing is solar? Do solar panels, the accompanying hardware and the workers get transported to the site in electric vehicles? How can something that cannot be produced without fossil fuels be called a solution to fossil fuels? Maybe for a shrinking portion of privileged westerners and only for some of their residential electricity demands. Certainly not for any of the electrical energy embedded in their never ending piles of consumer crap. Then there is the fact that all this tech generates a waste stream that is an environmental holocaust all of it’s own. Attempting to replace massive amounts of infrastructure with low energy density solar and wind will continue to destroy more habitat and speed up the 6th mass extinction. There is no such thing as a green, eco friendly industrial consumer civilization. Prue fantasy. Pure ****ing horse****. This was written by and for people who wish to retain their status and privilege and do not care about the truth. Use anyone.

DarthHarper 2 points 

14 hours ago  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can say is well-said Rob...

 

This mountain of scientific proof that global warming is indeed real, worsening, and ongoing is probably greater than any other proof for any other science in existence. And yet the Republican House Committee has the temerity to single out NOAA as some kind of sacrificial offering to their demonic fossil fuel masters. And to imply what is basically the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American public — that climate change somehow isn’t real and that NOAA, somehow, is hiding something in its email that proves that.

What a ridiculous pile of festering nonsense!

 

Republicans Fighting Against the Public Welfare

 

The real reason Republicans are conducting a witch hunt against the faithful public servants at NOAA is due to the fact that the corporations who have supported their election campaigns simply cannot continue to exist as they are now in a world that responds to climate change. They would be forced to switch to new energy sources or to learn how to effectively capture the carbon emitted by their operations. Doing this would cost them money and put them in a position where they no longer dominate markets. Where consumers start to have more and more choice regarding what forms of energy they use.

 

Having enjoyed market dominance for more than a Century, these entities are not at all enamored with the prospect of having to compete or to allow energy customers a broader range of choices or freedoms. They have therefore made the cynical and ridiculously amoral decision to attempt to deceive the public. To generate doubt about the veracity of climate science reports. And to use this doubt to block government policies that address the issue of human-forced climate change.

 

Since a failure by government to enact effective climate policies will result in a growing risk of inflicting damage to an ever larger group of the US and global populace, those companies, media figures, and politicians involved in this effort are complicit in what amounts to a vast campaign to inflict harm on individuals, communities, and nations. It does not matter if their original intent is simply to preserve the profits of powerful fossil fuel corporations, the net result is the same — the inflicting of harm on the public.

House Republicans and the fossil fuel companies they serve are therefore complicit in a heinous act. And their actions over the past month in their leveling of trumped up charges against NOAA, is a stark proof for what they’re doing — committing themselves to inflicting climate atrocities upon the public for the benefit of fossil fuel companies which they represent.

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Guest
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.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.