Arctic ice thins dramatically

[Old Rocks]

The lowest ever. lol

You are apparently unaware that in the millions of years the planet has been here, the north pole wasn't even at the current location? That the ice caps have been totally melted from time to time? Your crap stinks dude. Just saying.

And you are not aware that we haven't been here for those millions of years? Perhaps you thought Alley Oop was real history?

Look, silly ass, we are not worried about the state of the planet, we are worried about the nearly 7 billion people that inhabit it. There are ample geological evidences for the chaos that an adrupt climate change creates, even for rather sparse populations.

The present warming and retreat of the glaciers and ice caps is occuring at a time when we have a very large population of humans, with a poorly organized system of distribution of food. A major interuption of that distribution system, and you will see the population decline adruptly and painfully.

 

[Old Rocks]

Still ignoring the fact that this thread PROVES that according to the records since the LOWEST point measured in 31 years that for the last 3 years the ice has gotten thicker. Your thread is absolute proof that the ice is getting THICKER not shrinking.

So much for all the hooey about shrinking ice caps.

So much for your ability to research or even tell the truth.

Polar Ice Cap Shrinks Further and Thins - WSJ.com



Equally troubling to some scientists is that the overall Arctic ice cap is thinning. That has been hard to measure in the past because the Arctic is vast, and because sea ice can move.

Scientists from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., have now used satellite data to create the first map of sea ice over the entire Arctic basin. Their chief finding, based on data from 2005 and 2006, is that older arctic ice is on average nearly nine feet thick. Submarine measurements from the 1980s found that the ice then had been more than 4½ feet thicker, according to Ronald Kwok of NASA's Jet Propulsion lab.

"The sea-ice changes we're seeing go hand-in-hand with temperature changes," says Walt Meier of the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado. "There really isn't another overriding mechanism we see that can cause these long-term changes."

 

[Old Rocks]

New NASA Satellite Survey Reveals Dramatic Arctic Sea Ice Thinning - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

July 07, 2009

PASADENA, Calif. - Arctic sea ice thinned dramatically between the winters of 2004 and 2008, with thin seasonal ice replacing thick older ice as the dominant type for the first time on record. The new results, based on data from a NASA Earth-orbiting spacecraft, provide further evidence for the rapid, ongoing transformation of the Arctic's ice cover.

Scientists from NASA and the University of Washington in Seattle conducted the most comprehensive survey to date using observations from NASA's Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite, known as ICESat, to make the first basin-wide estimate of the thickness and volume of the Arctic Ocean's ice cover. Ron Kwok of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., led the research team, which published its findings July 7 in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans.

 

[Old Rocks]

Uhhhh because we're not. Read my tag line "He who asserts must also prove" Aristotle was a far smarter than you or I and his admonition still holds today. You have to prove your theory without manipulating data. You can't. Climatologists make incredible predictions about what is going to happen in the future and yet they can't reproduce the weather that occured 10 days ago. You expect a thinking person to accept that kind of crapola?

You're dreaming pal. No matter how much drivel you spout the fact remains that if CO2 were a driving force in global temperature it would allready be much warmer than it is. Thus you fail.

No, you are dreaming.

The earth is heating faster than the scientists expected. It turns out that their estimates were low in terms of how fast it would warm up. And then there are the multiplier effects of a melting pole and the arctic methane bomb. No, the hottest year in recorded history and a melting pole are not "drivel." But your posts are.

This is the most laughable assertion I've heard in a looooong time. Hansen's predictions were off by 300% AND the CO2 levels increased FASTER than he predicted. So the temps came nowhere near what he claimed and the CO2 levels were vastly more than he predicted.... Once again you lose.

Once again, Walleyes, you lie when the truth is very easy to find. And you back your lies up with nothing but yap-yap.


Logical Science
Other Climactic Behaviors and Mechanisms Correctly Predicted & Reconstructed by the Models

Most notable is that the models have not only correctly predicted temperature trends but they've predicted how the earth will change. The following is a list of successful predictions made by the models:

Models predict that surface warming should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere, and this has indeed been observed;
Models have long predicted warming of the lower, mid, and upper troposphere. For a while satellite readings seemed to disagree but it turns out the satellite analysis was full of errors due to changing orbit (gravity pulling on satellite), sensor issues, etc and on correction, this warming has been observed;
Mears et al, Santer et al and Sherwood et al show that the discrepancy has been mostly resolved, in favor of the models.
Models predict warming of ocean surface waters, as is now observed.
Models have successfully reconstructed ocean heat content. (Fig 6)

 

[Old Rocks]

‘Hansen has been wrong before’—Maybe, but not about the climate! | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist

Objection: In 1988, Hansen predicted dire warming over the next decade -- and he was off by 300%. Why in the world should we listen to the same doom and gloom from him today?

Answer: While in some instances it is ignorant repetition of misinformation, at its source this story is a plain lie.

In 1988, James Hansen testified before the U.S. Senate on the danger of anthropogenic global warming. During that testimony he presented a graph -- part of a paper published soon after. This graph had three lines on it, representing three scenarios based on three projections of future emissions and volcanism.


Line A was a temperature trend prediction based on rapid emissions growth and no large volcanic event; it was a steep climb through the year 2000 and beyond.

Line B was based on modest emissions growth and one large volcanic eruption in the mid 1990s.

Line C began along the same trajectory as Line B, and included the same volcanic eruption, but showed reductions in the growth of CO2 emission by the turn of the century -- the result of hypothetical government controls.

As it happens, since Hansen's testimony, emissions have grown at a modest rate and Mt. Pinatubo did in fact erupt, though in the early 1990s, not the middle. In other words, the Line B forcings scenario came remarkably close to predicting what actually came to pass.

Not coincidentally, the observed temperature trend has tracked closely with the Line B prediction as well.

 

[saveliberty]

‘Hansen has been wrong before’—Maybe, but not about the climate! | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist

Objection: In 1988, Hansen predicted dire warming over the next decade -- and he was off by 300%. Why in the world should we listen to the same doom and gloom from him today?

Answer: While in some instances it is ignorant repetition of misinformation, at its source this story is a plain lie.

In 1988, James Hansen testified before the U.S. Senate on the danger of anthropogenic global warming. During that testimony he presented a graph -- part of a paper published soon after. This graph had three lines on it, representing three scenarios based on three projections of future emissions and volcanism.


Line A was a temperature trend prediction based on rapid emissions growth and no large volcanic event; it was a steep climb through the year 2000 and beyond.

Line B was based on modest emissions growth and one large volcanic eruption in the mid 1990s.

Line C began along the same trajectory as Line B, and included the same volcanic eruption, but showed reductions in the growth of CO2 emission by the turn of the century -- the result of hypothetical government controls.

As it happens, since Hansen's testimony, emissions have grown at a modest rate and Mt. Pinatubo did in fact erupt, though in the early 1990s, not the middle. In other words, the Line B forcings scenario came remarkably close to predicting what actually came to pass.

Not coincidentally, the observed temperature trend has tracked closely with the Line B prediction as well.

So, if you make a bunch of guesses and one of them is close, your a genius and fricking scientist. Who knew?

 

[IanC]

Yes., within other interglacial periods of the last 500,000 years do have a increase in co2 with them as the worlds warm and the oceans release co2. But only of 300-320 from 210-250 within the peaks of the ice ages to the peak of the interglacial periods.

For your other question above: Yes, but 50/1 is the ability as a whole to take up co2. But with a warming ocean that can take up less and releases a higher percentage of that.. Wouldn't it mean more Atmospheric co2. Remember the extra co2 we're adding is not a big number and so most of the co2 is in fact being removed, but what we're seeing as a increase is just the imbalance.

Before the IPCC announced that atm CO2 remained for ~100 years, research said atm CO2 was recycled every ~10 years. If the shorter term is correct that doesn't leave much time for an imbalance to accumulate.

As far as ice cores to approximate temps and CO2 level- I think they are useful but it is very problematic to compare them to actual direct measurements. The treering data used in preparing the Hockey Stick is a case in point. The proxies were only sensible to the 60's so the later data was discarded, leaving people with the impression that the figures were much more reliable than they are.

What I was stating is that you have a level of co2 being absorbed into the oceans, which maybe 50/1 rate, but the imbalance comes from, 1# more being put into the Atmosphere over a short time scale, which adds a good 100 ppm that other wise would be within the earth within oil shale, ect and 2# warming oceans cause this to slow down even more...Which increases our imbalance. Case and point the co2 may not have a very long time within the Atmosphere, but remember the carbon cycle is a "cycle" it's not only gets absorbed, but goes back into the Atmosphere and so as the oceans warm the oceans ability lowers to absorb carbon becomes less and it releases more of it. If the oceans got colder then the opposite would happen...Yes over time this would balance its self out and likely within a hundred or so years if we switched over to things like Nuclear, which has very little co2 output would start going down.

The climate system is not use to 390 ppm at least not the one that we have grown to love.

This shows that only 3 periods of the last 650 thousand years where the only times to get above 300 ppm. What these periods are the interglacial I was talking about above with the oceans ability to hold onto the co2 as they warm becomes less and releases it. I happen to find the increase of co2 very interesting because we're at a very high level that likely no human being has ever seen in the history of man. The fact that the peaks of co2 in the Atmosphere throughout the last million years happen ever warming of some sort is because of this. Co2 yes warms the planet, but it was very likely solar forcing that caused these other periods; not unlike the Holocene that we love now. But co2 also has the ability to warm if there is enough of it too and cause a warmer period then it might otherwise be.

The climate forcing of co2 is quite low when you think about it. Yes it might warm our planet some, but 4-5c like some believe is not going to happen in 90 years. Warming in the last 20 years has been around .14c to .17c per decade, which is pretty slow.

Decade Annual Rate of Increase (Atmospheric CO2)

2000 – 2009 1.92 ppm

1990 – 1999 1.52 ppm

1980 – 1989 1.61 ppm

1970 – 1979 1.22 ppm

1960 – 1969 0.86 ppm


So lets say F(x)=1.92(x)+389ppm
So this tells us if things remain the same each year will hit 400 ppm around 5.5 years and we will get to 450ppm around 32 years or 2042...Doubling at 89 years from the 280 ppm in 1800 at 560 ppm, which will be 2099. Of course this is more likely to get to this level much faster as this is increasing in its rate.

So a linear increase would cause doubling by 2099. But the truth is a doubling don't have the effect that the hypers believe because co2 has a far lower warming effect on earth...More like 1-1.5c warming by 2100 for that doubling. Which would be good for plant growth and good for humans. More growable lands within Russia, Canada for one. The forcing is has got to be below 2.5 as far as I can see, which is why warming as been so much slower then they expected it to be. They where thinking 3.5-4.5 like forcing for people like Hansen. Also you have lower solar output too.


I agree with you about the ice cores...

I am not sure about how much we agree and disagree on. My position is that CO2 recycles about every 10 years. Because the dissolved CO2 is ~50:1 most of what we put in the air disappears in ten years. I don't know the numbers for how much we emit compared to how much the the atmospheric increase is but I wonder if the difference in pCO2 for warming oceans doesn't account for most of the observed increase. I'll look into it. The lag time in historic temp/CO2 correlations seem to imply that temp increases release CO2 not the other way around.

 

[westwall]

The lowest ever. lol

You are apparently unaware that in the millions of years the planet has been here, the north pole wasn't even at the current location? That the ice caps have been totally melted from time to time? Your crap stinks dude. Just saying.

And you are not aware that we haven't been here for those millions of years? Perhaps you thought Alley Oop was real history?

Look, silly ass, we are not worried about the state of the planet, we are worried about the nearly 7 billion people that inhabit it. There are ample geological evidences for the chaos that an adrupt climate change creates, even for rather sparse populations.

The present warming and retreat of the glaciers and ice caps is occuring at a time when we have a very large population of humans, with a poorly organized system of distribution of food. A major interuption of that distribution system, and you will see the population decline adruptly and painfully.

olfraud if you cared about the 7 billion people on the planet you would be doing everything possible to eliminate the third world. Cousteau wanted to kill 300,000 or so a day so thankfully he didn;t have a say in how those 7 billion are "saved". If you elevate the third world to first world status the population rates will drop out of sight, the pollution they spew will cease, but no your proposal is to make eveyone go back to third world status. That's real good for the wealthy but not so good for the poor folk.

Your policies (well, the ones you pay homage to) will make mankinds life much worse (except for the wealthy, they allways do well) and how about you faux environmentalist...you tell us how we have to live and yet you work in a notoriuosly polluting industry for a notoriously polluting company...you CLEARLY couldn't give a crap about your neighbors.

 

[westwall]

New NASA Satellite Survey Reveals Dramatic Arctic Sea Ice Thinning - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

July 07, 2009

PASADENA, Calif. - Arctic sea ice thinned dramatically between the winters of 2004 and 2008, with thin seasonal ice replacing thick older ice as the dominant type for the first time on record. The new results, based on data from a NASA Earth-orbiting spacecraft, provide further evidence for the rapid, ongoing transformation of the Arctic's ice cover.

Scientists from NASA and the University of Washington in Seattle conducted the most comprehensive survey to date using observations from NASA's Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite, known as ICESat, to make the first basin-wide estimate of the thickness and volume of the Arctic Ocean's ice cover. Ron Kwok of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., led the research team, which published its findings July 7 in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans.

How about some more recent data there olfraud?

Below is a graph of the most recent sea ice extent and you will see we are ABOVE the 2007 and 2008 levels allready (and have been for the WHOLE year so your constant yammering about sea ice loss is exposed as pure and utter horse manure) and the trend is rising fast.

And then there is a image showing the Arctic sea ice xtent in 2007 and today. As you can see...even with your blinders on the ice is significantly greater than 2007. So pull your head out of your sphincter and come up with something new.

 

[westwall]

‘Hansen has been wrong before’—Maybe, but not about the climate! | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist

Objection: In 1988, Hansen predicted dire warming over the next decade -- and he was off by 300%. Why in the world should we listen to the same doom and gloom from him today?

Answer: While in some instances it is ignorant repetition of misinformation, at its source this story is a plain lie.

In 1988, James Hansen testified before the U.S. Senate on the danger of anthropogenic global warming. During that testimony he presented a graph -- part of a paper published soon after. This graph had three lines on it, representing three scenarios based on three projections of future emissions and volcanism.


Line A was a temperature trend prediction based on rapid emissions growth and no large volcanic event; it was a steep climb through the year 2000 and beyond.

Line B was based on modest emissions growth and one large volcanic eruption in the mid 1990s.

Line C began along the same trajectory as Line B, and included the same volcanic eruption, but showed reductions in the growth of CO2 emission by the turn of the century -- the result of hypothetical government controls.

As it happens, since Hansen's testimony, emissions have grown at a modest rate and Mt. Pinatubo did in fact erupt, though in the early 1990s, not the middle. In other words, the Line B forcings scenario came remarkably close to predicting what actually came to pass.

Not coincidentally, the observed temperature trend has tracked closely with the Line B prediction as well.

Let me give you an analogy of the methodology.... a man goes to a horse betting track and there is a guy there with a little sign on his back that says I will pick you a winner guaranteed. There are two possible results. You give him your money and you win. You lose so you go back and get your money back. However the man allways wins because he tells you one horse and he tells somebody else a different horse etc. Eventually he wins and gets to keep that mans money..but you, you just lose.

 

[Chris]

 

[westwall]

‘Hansen has been wrong before’—Maybe, but not about the climate! | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist

Objection: In 1988, Hansen predicted dire warming over the next decade -- and he was off by 300%. Why in the world should we listen to the same doom and gloom from him today?

Answer: While in some instances it is ignorant repetition of misinformation, at its source this story is a plain lie.

In 1988, James Hansen testified before the U.S. Senate on the danger of anthropogenic global warming. During that testimony he presented a graph -- part of a paper published soon after. This graph had three lines on it, representing three scenarios based on three projections of future emissions and volcanism.


Line A was a temperature trend prediction based on rapid emissions growth and no large volcanic event; it was a steep climb through the year 2000 and beyond.

Line B was based on modest emissions growth and one large volcanic eruption in the mid 1990s.

Line C began along the same trajectory as Line B, and included the same volcanic eruption, but showed reductions in the growth of CO2 emission by the turn of the century -- the result of hypothetical government controls.

As it happens, since Hansen's testimony, emissions have grown at a modest rate and Mt. Pinatubo did in fact erupt, though in the early 1990s, not the middle. In other words, the Line B forcings scenario came remarkably close to predicting what actually came to pass.

Not coincidentally, the observed temperature trend has tracked closely with the Line B prediction as well.

I'm going to quote you. that is from a non science blog so you can't use it!


What a tool. And a dull one to boot.

 

[Chris]

Average ice extent for September 2010 was 4.90 million square kilometers (1.89 million square miles), 2.14 million square kilometers (830,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average, but 600,000 square kilometers (230,00 square miles) above the average for September 2007, the lowest monthly extent in the satellite record. Ice extent was below the 1979 to 2000 average everywhere except in the East Greenland Sea near Svalbard.

The U.S. National Ice Center declared both the Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route open for a period during September. Stephen Howell of Environment Canada reported a record early melt-out and low extent in the western Parry Channel region of the Northwest Passage, based on analyses of the Canadian Ice Service. Two sailing expeditions, one Norwegian and one Russian, successfully navigated both passages and are nearing their goal of circumnavigating the Arctic.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

 

[Chris]

 

[Old Rocks]

Before the IPCC announced that atm CO2 remained for ~100 years, research said atm CO2 was recycled every ~10 years. If the shorter term is correct that doesn't leave much time for an imbalance to accumulate.

As far as ice cores to approximate temps and CO2 level- I think they are useful but it is very problematic to compare them to actual direct measurements. The treering data used in preparing the Hockey Stick is a case in point. The proxies were only sensible to the 60's so the later data was discarded, leaving people with the impression that the figures were much more reliable than they are.

What I was stating is that you have a level of co2 being absorbed into the oceans, which maybe 50/1 rate, but the imbalance comes from, 1# more being put into the Atmosphere over a short time scale, which adds a good 100 ppm that other wise would be within the earth within oil shale, ect and 2# warming oceans cause this to slow down even more...Which increases our imbalance. Case and point the co2 may not have a very long time within the Atmosphere, but remember the carbon cycle is a "cycle" it's not only gets absorbed, but goes back into the Atmosphere and so as the oceans warm the oceans ability lowers to absorb carbon becomes less and it releases more of it. If the oceans got colder then the opposite would happen...Yes over time this would balance its self out and likely within a hundred or so years if we switched over to things like Nuclear, which has very little co2 output would start going down.

The climate system is not use to 390 ppm at least not the one that we have grown to love.

This shows that only 3 periods of the last 650 thousand years where the only times to get above 300 ppm. What these periods are the interglacial I was talking about above with the oceans ability to hold onto the co2 as they warm becomes less and releases it. I happen to find the increase of co2 very interesting because we're at a very high level that likely no human being has ever seen in the history of man. The fact that the peaks of co2 in the Atmosphere throughout the last million years happen ever warming of some sort is because of this. Co2 yes warms the planet, but it was very likely solar forcing that caused these other periods; not unlike the Holocene that we love now. But co2 also has the ability to warm if there is enough of it too and cause a warmer period then it might otherwise be.

The climate forcing of co2 is quite low when you think about it. Yes it might warm our planet some, but 4-5c like some believe is not going to happen in 90 years. Warming in the last 20 years has been around .14c to .17c per decade, which is pretty slow.

Decade Annual Rate of Increase (Atmospheric CO2)

2000 – 2009 1.92 ppm

1990 – 1999 1.52 ppm

1980 – 1989 1.61 ppm

1970 – 1979 1.22 ppm

1960 – 1969 0.86 ppm


So lets say F(x)=1.92(x)+389ppm
So this tells us if things remain the same each year will hit 400 ppm around 5.5 years and we will get to 450ppm around 32 years or 2042...Doubling at 89 years from the 280 ppm in 1800 at 560 ppm, which will be 2099. Of course this is more likely to get to this level much faster as this is increasing in its rate.

So a linear increase would cause doubling by 2099. But the truth is a doubling don't have the effect that the hypers believe because co2 has a far lower warming effect on earth...More like 1-1.5c warming by 2100 for that doubling. Which would be good for plant growth and good for humans. More growable lands within Russia, Canada for one. The forcing is has got to be below 2.5 as far as I can see, which is why warming as been so much slower then they expected it to be. They where thinking 3.5-4.5 like forcing for people like Hansen. Also you have lower solar output too.


I agree with you about the ice cores...

I am not sure about how much we agree and disagree on. My position is that CO2 recycles about every 10 years. Because the dissolved CO2 is ~50:1 most of what we put in the air disappears in ten years. I don't know the numbers for how much we emit compared to how much the the atmospheric increase is but I wonder if the difference in pCO2 for warming oceans doesn't account for most of the observed increase. I'll look into it. The lag time in historic temp/CO2 correlations seem to imply that temp increases release CO2 not the other way around.

Climate Change: A Summary of the Science - Publications - The Royal Society

The carbon cycle and climate
31 Once atmospheric CO2 concentrations are increased, carbon cycle models (which
simulate the exchange of carbon between the atmosphere, oceans, soils and plants)
indicate that it would take a very long time for that increased CO2 to disappear; this is
mainly due to well-known chemical reactions in the ocean. Current understanding
indicates that even if there was a complete cessation of emissions of CO2 today from
human activity, it would take several millennia for CO2 concentrations to return to preindustrial
concentrations.

 

[westwall]

What I was stating is that you have a level of co2 being absorbed into the oceans, which maybe 50/1 rate, but the imbalance comes from, 1# more being put into the Atmosphere over a short time scale, which adds a good 100 ppm that other wise would be within the earth within oil shale, ect and 2# warming oceans cause this to slow down even more...Which increases our imbalance. Case and point the co2 may not have a very long time within the Atmosphere, but remember the carbon cycle is a "cycle" it's not only gets absorbed, but goes back into the Atmosphere and so as the oceans warm the oceans ability lowers to absorb carbon becomes less and it releases more of it. If the oceans got colder then the opposite would happen...Yes over time this would balance its self out and likely within a hundred or so years if we switched over to things like Nuclear, which has very little co2 output would start going down.

The climate system is not use to 390 ppm at least not the one that we have grown to love.

This shows that only 3 periods of the last 650 thousand years where the only times to get above 300 ppm. What these periods are the interglacial I was talking about above with the oceans ability to hold onto the co2 as they warm becomes less and releases it. I happen to find the increase of co2 very interesting because we're at a very high level that likely no human being has ever seen in the history of man. The fact that the peaks of co2 in the Atmosphere throughout the last million years happen ever warming of some sort is because of this. Co2 yes warms the planet, but it was very likely solar forcing that caused these other periods; not unlike the Holocene that we love now. But co2 also has the ability to warm if there is enough of it too and cause a warmer period then it might otherwise be.

The climate forcing of co2 is quite low when you think about it. Yes it might warm our planet some, but 4-5c like some believe is not going to happen in 90 years. Warming in the last 20 years has been around .14c to .17c per decade, which is pretty slow.

Decade Annual Rate of Increase (Atmospheric CO2)

2000 – 2009 1.92 ppm

1990 – 1999 1.52 ppm

1980 – 1989 1.61 ppm

1970 – 1979 1.22 ppm

1960 – 1969 0.86 ppm


So lets say F(x)=1.92(x)+389ppm
So this tells us if things remain the same each year will hit 400 ppm around 5.5 years and we will get to 450ppm around 32 years or 2042...Doubling at 89 years from the 280 ppm in 1800 at 560 ppm, which will be 2099. Of course this is more likely to get to this level much faster as this is increasing in its rate.

So a linear increase would cause doubling by 2099. But the truth is a doubling don't have the effect that the hypers believe because co2 has a far lower warming effect on earth...More like 1-1.5c warming by 2100 for that doubling. Which would be good for plant growth and good for humans. More growable lands within Russia, Canada for one. The forcing is has got to be below 2.5 as far as I can see, which is why warming as been so much slower then they expected it to be. They where thinking 3.5-4.5 like forcing for people like Hansen. Also you have lower solar output too.


I agree with you about the ice cores...

I am not sure about how much we agree and disagree on. My position is that CO2 recycles about every 10 years. Because the dissolved CO2 is ~50:1 most of what we put in the air disappears in ten years. I don't know the numbers for how much we emit compared to how much the the atmospheric increase is but I wonder if the difference in pCO2 for warming oceans doesn't account for most of the observed increase. I'll look into it. The lag time in historic temp/CO2 correlations seem to imply that temp increases release CO2 not the other way around.

Climate Change: A Summary of the Science - Publications - The Royal Society

The carbon cycle and climate
31 Once atmospheric CO2 concentrations are increased, carbon cycle models (which
simulate the exchange of carbon between the atmosphere, oceans, soils and plants)
indicate that it would take a very long time for that increased CO2 to disappear; this is
mainly due to well-known chemical reactions in the ocean. Current understanding
indicates that even if there was a complete cessation of emissions of CO2 today from
human activity, it would take several millennia for CO2 concentrations to return to preindustrial
concentrations.

So in other words it is absolutely pointless to do anything about the CO2 in the atmosphere as it would take several THOUSAND YEARS for any effect to be observed. In other words we can rip you off blind, crush your lives under onerous laws and there is no evidence to support what we say.

However, if you're rich....wellllll you can still live your life of excess...

Twits!

Consumption Dwarfs Population as Main Environmental Threat by Fred Pearce: Yale Environment 360

 

[saveliberty]

Climate Change: A Summary of the Science - Publications - The Royal Society

The carbon cycle and climate
31 Once atmospheric CO2 concentrations are increased, carbon cycle models (which
simulate the exchange of carbon between the atmosphere, oceans, soils and plants)
indicate that it would take a very long time for that increased CO2 to disappear; this is
mainly due to well-known chemical reactions in the ocean. Current understanding
indicates that even if there was a complete cessation of emissions of CO2 today from
human activity, it would take several millennia for CO2 concentrations to return to preindustrial
concentrations.

Seems like I mentioned the same thing the other day and you or one of your minions totally discounted it. Now its convenient your back on it. Nice.

P.S. we will all die in months should we stop consuming things that require CO2 discharges.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, asshole, other than stupid statements, what the hell do you have to contribute.

The more CO2 we add, the more severe the results will be. At some point, we will create a situation where the natural reseviours of CO2 and Ch4 are released into the atmosphere. No, we do not know where that point is. My bet is that we will find out. Thanks to idiots like you and Westwall.

 

[westwall]

Climate Change: A Summary of the Science - Publications - The Royal Society

The carbon cycle and climate
31 Once atmospheric CO2 concentrations are increased, carbon cycle models (which
simulate the exchange of carbon between the atmosphere, oceans, soils and plants)
indicate that it would take a very long time for that increased CO2 to disappear; this is
mainly due to well-known chemical reactions in the ocean. Current understanding
indicates that even if there was a complete cessation of emissions of CO2 today from
human activity, it would take several millennia for CO2 concentrations to return to preindustrial
concentrations.

Seems like I mentioned the same thing the other day and you or one of your minions totally discounted it. Now its convenient your back on it. Nice.

P.S. we will all die in months should we stop consuming things that require CO2 discharges.

Oh, please don't confuse them with simple facts, it hurts their heads.

 

[westwall]

Well, asshole, other than stupid statements, what the hell do you have to contribute.

The more CO2 we add, the more severe the results will be. At some point, we will create a situation where the natural reseviours of CO2 and Ch4 are released into the atmosphere. No, we do not know where that point is. My bet is that we will find out. Thanks to idiots like you and Westwall.

Ohhhhh, owwww, seems like olfraud doesn't like getting bitchslapped by his betters so lashes out yet again! Score Saveliberty 1
olfraud 0