Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well it wasn't. I was specifically talking in the context of a change in the amount of carbon in our carbon cycle leading to a warming factor, which was the topic. Maybe you should start over from post #1 and try to understand the OP's error and my response to it.Sounded like a pretty universal statement when you made it.
So, having lived nearly 3/4's of a century already, and expecting to make a century, I will only see 0.6 C? Your own figure states 1.4 C. And it will be more than that.Fuck. Mr. Flacaltenn, the severe damage or loss of 500,000 homes in just this nation is not a problem? Firestorms in the West that have destroyed so much of the forests. Firestorms caused by the increasing heat, and bug kills from warmer winters. Snap droughts and freezes killing significant percentages of the our crops. These are not major problems? Whenever we spend money to rebuild, that is money that we do not have to build new and needed infrastructure.
You have bigger scientific problems than witchdoctoring around with blaming every natural disaster on 0.6degC in your lifetime. As the problem gets exponentially less fatal -- you seem to up the ante on FEAR and unbacked hysteria about forest fires.
Of course, when it's "per century", it actually is a VERY large number. That's why people who actually dedicate their lives to these sciences (and taught you anything and everything you will ever know about climate, past, present, and future) are sounding the alarms.It's actually not.
I have already said that in this thread. I apologize for not ordering my comments in a way that does not offend your delicate sensibilities.If you had said CO2 was one factor in a complex system, instead of claiming it was simple,
Far out, man!!!yes the climate changes all the time
heh heh ... sure they are. All they need is a guy like you to set them all straight.They are misrepresenting most EVERYTHING about what they know about past "whole earth" surface temperature means.
Very funny Frankie boi. Here is the latest, for December of last year. Readily available, but you did not want people to see the real situation.At no time in the interglacials did the CO2 reach anywhere near 400+ ppm, nor the CH4 reach anywhere near 1800 ppb. And what does it take to be considered catastrophic? Is the total destruction or severe damage of 500,000 homes in just the US in one year not considered catastrophic? How about the amount of trees we have lost to fire and drought in the last decade? The loss of 300,000,000 trees in just one state in one drought is not considered catastrophic?No, but then there's no need for me to do so because tipping points are just that, points, not magnitudes.
But they have to be relevant in magnitude.
No fulcrum point is relevant if it can hold only 0.001% of the total weight.
The way the CATASTROPHIC theory elements are offered, this 2deg tipping point leverages itself to higher magnitude by a series of all positive feedbacks. Like -- increasing the melting of tundra permafrost that then releases a holocaust of ADDITIONAL GHouse gases. Which is proffered as an exponential ACCELERATION of warming.
So it's NOT just the magnitude of the tipping point energy. It's a "non-linear" trigger to bigger events.
Several problems with that. One is that the warming power of CO2 is increasingly limited as the concentration in the atmos increases.. Takes TWICE as much to get the NEXT degree increase as it did the last time. So -- THAT is a huge NEGATIVE feedback.
Second, when the earth came out of each Glacial Period of 4 consecutive Ice Ages -- that trigger was exceeded by FAR each time. And EACH TIME, there was no "runaway" global warming. EVEN THO -- the permafrost was melting at horrendous rates and the mile thick glaciers in Indiana melted to expose the GH Gas laden ground beneath them. Those FEEDBACKS STOPPED each time. After melting and exposing the MAJORITY of planet.
What's left to expose TODAY --- is a minute FRACTION of what was buried during all 4 of those Ice Age cycles.
We're living in a climatic catastrophe because an arsonists, fueled by global warming rage, started wildfires in CA. Got it. That's caused by the 2 decade pause, right?
UAH Global Temperature Update for December, 2017: +0.41 deg. C « Roy Spencer, PhD
Sorry Francis, there was no pause in global warming.Very funny Frankie boi. Here is the latest, for December of last year. Readily available, but you did not want people to see the real situation.At no time in the interglacials did the CO2 reach anywhere near 400+ ppm, nor the CH4 reach anywhere near 1800 ppb. And what does it take to be considered catastrophic? Is the total destruction or severe damage of 500,000 homes in just the US in one year not considered catastrophic? How about the amount of trees we have lost to fire and drought in the last decade? The loss of 300,000,000 trees in just one state in one drought is not considered catastrophic?But they have to be relevant in magnitude.
No fulcrum point is relevant if it can hold only 0.001% of the total weight.
The way the CATASTROPHIC theory elements are offered, this 2deg tipping point leverages itself to higher magnitude by a series of all positive feedbacks. Like -- increasing the melting of tundra permafrost that then releases a holocaust of ADDITIONAL GHouse gases. Which is proffered as an exponential ACCELERATION of warming.
So it's NOT just the magnitude of the tipping point energy. It's a "non-linear" trigger to bigger events.
Several problems with that. One is that the warming power of CO2 is increasingly limited as the concentration in the atmos increases.. Takes TWICE as much to get the NEXT degree increase as it did the last time. So -- THAT is a huge NEGATIVE feedback.
Second, when the earth came out of each Glacial Period of 4 consecutive Ice Ages -- that trigger was exceeded by FAR each time. And EACH TIME, there was no "runaway" global warming. EVEN THO -- the permafrost was melting at horrendous rates and the mile thick glaciers in Indiana melted to expose the GH Gas laden ground beneath them. Those FEEDBACKS STOPPED each time. After melting and exposing the MAJORITY of planet.
What's left to expose TODAY --- is a minute FRACTION of what was buried during all 4 of those Ice Age cycles.
We're living in a climatic catastrophe because an arsonists, fueled by global warming rage, started wildfires in CA. Got it. That's caused by the 2 decade pause, right?
UAH Global Temperature Update for December, 2017: +0.41 deg. C « Roy Spencer, PhD
^ This is what a 2 decade pause looks like
Sorry Francis, there was no pause in global warming.Very funny Frankie boi. Here is the latest, for December of last year. Readily available, but you did not want people to see the real situation.At no time in the interglacials did the CO2 reach anywhere near 400+ ppm, nor the CH4 reach anywhere near 1800 ppb. And what does it take to be considered catastrophic? Is the total destruction or severe damage of 500,000 homes in just the US in one year not considered catastrophic? How about the amount of trees we have lost to fire and drought in the last decade? The loss of 300,000,000 trees in just one state in one drought is not considered catastrophic?The way the CATASTROPHIC theory elements are offered, this 2deg tipping point leverages itself to higher magnitude by a series of all positive feedbacks. Like -- increasing the melting of tundra permafrost that then releases a holocaust of ADDITIONAL GHouse gases. Which is proffered as an exponential ACCELERATION of warming.
So it's NOT just the magnitude of the tipping point energy. It's a "non-linear" trigger to bigger events.
Several problems with that. One is that the warming power of CO2 is increasingly limited as the concentration in the atmos increases.. Takes TWICE as much to get the NEXT degree increase as it did the last time. So -- THAT is a huge NEGATIVE feedback.
Second, when the earth came out of each Glacial Period of 4 consecutive Ice Ages -- that trigger was exceeded by FAR each time. And EACH TIME, there was no "runaway" global warming. EVEN THO -- the permafrost was melting at horrendous rates and the mile thick glaciers in Indiana melted to expose the GH Gas laden ground beneath them. Those FEEDBACKS STOPPED each time. After melting and exposing the MAJORITY of planet.
What's left to expose TODAY --- is a minute FRACTION of what was buried during all 4 of those Ice Age cycles.
We're living in a climatic catastrophe because an arsonists, fueled by global warming rage, started wildfires in CA. Got it. That's caused by the 2 decade pause, right?
UAH Global Temperature Update for December, 2017: +0.41 deg. C « Roy Spencer, PhD
^ This is what a 2 decade pause looks like
Sorry Francis, there was no pause in global warming.Very funny Frankie boi. Here is the latest, for December of last year. Readily available, but you did not want people to see the real situation.At no time in the interglacials did the CO2 reach anywhere near 400+ ppm, nor the CH4 reach anywhere near 1800 ppb. And what does it take to be considered catastrophic? Is the total destruction or severe damage of 500,000 homes in just the US in one year not considered catastrophic? How about the amount of trees we have lost to fire and drought in the last decade? The loss of 300,000,000 trees in just one state in one drought is not considered catastrophic?The way the CATASTROPHIC theory elements are offered, this 2deg tipping point leverages itself to higher magnitude by a series of all positive feedbacks. Like -- increasing the melting of tundra permafrost that then releases a holocaust of ADDITIONAL GHouse gases. Which is proffered as an exponential ACCELERATION of warming.
So it's NOT just the magnitude of the tipping point energy. It's a "non-linear" trigger to bigger events.
Several problems with that. One is that the warming power of CO2 is increasingly limited as the concentration in the atmos increases.. Takes TWICE as much to get the NEXT degree increase as it did the last time. So -- THAT is a huge NEGATIVE feedback.
Second, when the earth came out of each Glacial Period of 4 consecutive Ice Ages -- that trigger was exceeded by FAR each time. And EACH TIME, there was no "runaway" global warming. EVEN THO -- the permafrost was melting at horrendous rates and the mile thick glaciers in Indiana melted to expose the GH Gas laden ground beneath them. Those FEEDBACKS STOPPED each time. After melting and exposing the MAJORITY of planet.
What's left to expose TODAY --- is a minute FRACTION of what was buried during all 4 of those Ice Age cycles.
We're living in a climatic catastrophe because an arsonists, fueled by global warming rage, started wildfires in CA. Got it. That's caused by the 2 decade pause, right?
UAH Global Temperature Update for December, 2017: +0.41 deg. C « Roy Spencer, PhD
^ This is what a 2 decade pause looks like
OK, Mr. Flacceltenn, are you paid to lie? I have to ask, because the move from 280 ppm to 400+ ppm is hardly a 2% to 4% move. It is well over 40% and larger than the move from the depths of the glacial to the heights of the interglacial.Goddamn it. Every time I begin to think that you do have a brain, you go and repeat some fucking stupid meme like 'Nature puts in far more than man does every year'. Yes, stupid ass, and nature takes out far more than man does every year. Problem is, as long as it was just nature putting in and taking out, the GHG levels were in balance. But as man started adding massive amounts of CO2, it is now out of balance. That is why we have the Keeling Curve. And that is why our oceans and atmosphere are rapidly warming. And, as the oceans and atmosphere warm rapidly, the atmosphere holds more water vapor, which warms the atmosphere even more. And as the oceans warm, they can absorb less and less CO2. And, of course, this leads to the warming of the permafrost on land and the clathrates in the oceans.Meh, you are speaking in the abstract, I am speaking real world tipping points, i.e. fulcrums usually.
The energy, potential and otherwise has to be within a reasonable range of the total system or the fulcrum just gets blown through.you are speaking in the abstract
I most certainly am not. What I've done is apply the idea of limits to the tolerance for change that Earth's climatic ecosystem, as humanity has experienced it for the whole of recorded history, possesses. That tolerance is defined by some discrete quantity of one or more factors. In other words, there is a limit to how much anthropogenically induced climate changes the planet can withstand before becoming irrevocably (in the span of human lifetimes) and dissatisfying altered. I don't know what be the exact "coordinates" of that limit, but I know it exists and that it does exist, regardless of whether we know precisely what be its "coordinates" is no abstraction.
A "tipping point" is not simply "saturating" the Carbon Cycle by man-made contributions of CO2. Even IF that was what is meant by tipping point. As I explained, it refers to a trigger point that sets off a NON - linear series of consequences that behave like an underdamped UNSTABLE system and causes the surface temps to "runaway" -- irreparably out of control ..
Your "spill-over" comparison is more like the general concept that the 30GTon of CO2 that MAN puts into the atmos every year causes the Carbon Cycle bottom line to go thru "zero balance". Where the source amounts are now incrementally larger than the Planet's natural ability to SINK CO2 back into short/long term sequestration.. But this "accounting" has SEVERAL problems. Not the least of which is --- that NATURE herself puts TWENTY TIMES what man does into the atmos every year. And nature SEEMS to sink MOST of that back into sequestration. Even sinks 1/2 or more of what "man puts up there"..
We also notice that the ACCOUNTING for what fraction is CHARGED to mankind is corrupt. A large part of "man's emissions" are literally domestic animals and farming. And YET -- before domestication of cattle, prairies were DARK with buffalo and woods filled with deer and smaller game. No "offset" is given there for replacement of buffalo with cows. NOR is it recognized that any farming that required deforestation might be fairly efficient at sinking CO2 itself. A corn field can completely clear it's volume in CO2 in a matter of hours for instance.
We are in a La Nina right now. Why the hell is this year and last year so warm if the the GHGs don't have that much effect?
So before SUVs and 2Kwatt houses, the CO2 Carbon cycle NEVER VARIED by 2 or 4% ?? Incredibly muddled thinking. We don't even KNOW the annual Carbon sinking ability of the planet. In fact, when Arctic MELTS -- it creates a POWERFUL carbon sinking ability at the Arctic Ocean that did not EXIST -- when it was iced. That couldn't be ---- A NEGATIVE feedback on warming now could it O-Rocks???
In fact -- this is what happened during the last 4 Ice Ages. The carbon cycle "seized up". Virtually came to a halt. I'd call THAT a massive change compared to mankinds 2 or 4% meddling..
And you damned well know this. So what you wrote is a purposeful lie. Why? Are you that greedy? Are you that politically driven? What the hell is driving you to lie?
However, as it turns out, "global warming" does not just refer to the atmosphere, or just to surface temperatures.There was in the satellite record.
However, as it turns out, "global warming" does not just refer to the atmosphere, or to surface temperatures.There was in the satellite record.
haha... so fucking what? what an silly comment. what charts do or do not appear in this thread neither defines "global warming" nor constrains it.Really? Do tell.. All of the charts in this thread show EXACTLY atmospheric or near surface temperatures.
"Do tell"? Well, as it turns out, 2/3 of the Earth is covered by water.
Invincible ignorance is named for a reason.There's not a thing we can do about true climate change and I will continue to fight against the EnviroMarxism known as AGW.
In a nutshell, the scientists didn't look there. They admitted their mistake. Dude, have you been in a coma for the last 5 years?Well then you got to explain WHY all that Energy storage into the oceans was LEFT OUT of the primary analysis of the "energy balance" by Trenberth back 15 years ago.
Invincible ignorance is named for a reason.There's not a thing we can do about true climate change and I will continue to fight against the EnviroMarxism known as AGW.
I have already said that in this thread. I apologize for not ordering my comments in a way that does not offend your delicate sensibilities.If you had said CO2 was one factor in a complex system, instead of claiming it was simple,
It is simple, insomuch as adding carbon to our carbon cycle results in a change. That change is warming, due to an increased greenhouse effect. That's a fact. You obviously agree and have run out of things to complain about.
