how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[gslack]

Skeptics are not objective. They are closed minded. Why would anyone pay them any attention? People who have a legitimate question raise it. With no bias as to it's answer. The answer will support, or deny, but will move mankind closer to the truth. That's science. Skepticism is faith. Of no use in finding truth.

I can assure you that I am, at the very least, as objective as you.

Skepticism is the polar opposite of objectivism.

Ithink I will add that little gem to the list of PMZ stupid quotes on my sig...

WTH? They are complimentary to one another moron....

Objectivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Objectivism, or Objectivist, may refer to:
Any standpoint that stresses objectivity, including:
Objectivity (philosophy), realism, the conviction that reality is mind-independent
Moral objectivism, the view that some ethics are absolute
Objectivism (Ayn Rand), the philosophy of Ayn Rand (1905-82) whose tenets are presented as metaphysically objective
The Objectivist movement, a movement formed by followers of Rand's philosophy
The Objectivist Party, an American political party espousing Rand's philosophy
The Objectivist poets, a group of Modernist writers who emerged in the 1930s

So I assume you were referring to; "realism, the conviction that reality is mind-independent."

If not and you were referring to some concept that all of us seem to follow the teachings of the very strange Ayn Rand, I can only laugh at you and tell you to get a grip.

The problem with an unending supply of information like the internet, is two-fold. First we have information without discipline or perspective. Lefty PR sites disguisedf as "truth" telling ignorant mentally untrained children, that Ayn Rand is the right wing philosophy, is a fine example..

It may seem true, her philosphies were popular with a certain type, and they do seem to fit in with the lefty view of right-wing mentality, but the reality is, not many even care what Ayn Rand thought. She adopted her philosophy from the behavior she had seen in her life. Her belief that all people were basically selfish and driven by nothing more than self preservation and promotion, came from her experiences as a young wealthy child and watching that life taken away by the Bolsheviks. Oddly enough the same Bolsheviks who ruined her wealthy life, also gave women the opportunity to attend college, where she studied Friedrich Nietzsche, another selfish asshole who felt he could justify it with thought.. She felt all people were selfish in nature because that's what she saw at an age when she was most impressionable...

Her philosophy came after the behavior she saw, and she used it to justify any and all behavior she witnessed after that. To her any acts of kindness or charity were in reality selfish acts.

That is a person who is about as negative as it gets. And not really indicative of what most people might thing or behave, or their reasons for their actions..Beleiver it or not many people give to charity for good and proper reasons.

I give to St. Judes every month, and I dont do it just because I like the feeling, I do it because it's a good and decent, and proper thing to do with some of the extra money I have left. Sure I could do other things with it that would be more self oriented and give a good feeling, but I don't..I have a friend who gives 10% of his income to the catholic church, simply because his mother was a devout catholic...He isn't BTW...

Those are not selfish acts, and despite what you have read on lefty PR sites, they are the acts of what most would consider conservative or right-wing individuals.

In fact do some checking and you will see a marked pattern of charity among the regualar citizen conservatives.. Ayn Rand is not a philosopher many actually follow. That is the BS told by internet "documentaries" and other garbage..

I bet you watch "Zeitghesit" and others like it for your knowledge... It shows...

 

[PMZ]

"Westwall wins the prize today with "Science is never "settled" as anyone with even a passing understanding would know. Furthermore, when scientists who are ethically challenged (to put it mildly)are the source of that assertion, and they aren't credible, their opinion doesn't matter one iota save to those who have a political or monetary dog in the hunt."

So this dittohead with demonstrably little understanding of even basic science has been given authority to charge those who've devoted their lives and careers to learning science and studying climatology with being "ethically challenged".

Ethically challenged.

They, apparently, didn't have his approval to publish the findings of their life's work. Not that he's capable of understanding even the most basic of that work. Not that he contributed anything to that work. Not that he invested even a tiny fraction of the time and work that they have in addressing the most critical problem of our era.

No, Rush told him that he's entitled to be critical of science because he is a full member of the dittohead cult. That political hacks and science quacks have Rush's authority to question those who have invested themselves in solving mankind's sustainability.

And other dittoheads jump in in unison saying that people who don't understand even basic science are called upon by science to criticize the findings of science.

Don't tell me that America's intelligence is not being compromised by those who don't invest in learning and doing, declaring that they are entitled to be more knowledgable than those that do.

Science has no need to be credible with you Westwall. You chose to run your life in a way that science is beyond you. Accept the limitations that you chose.

 

[itfitzme]

Yeah....

 

[PMZ]

I can assure you that I am, at the very least, as objective as you.

Skepticism is the polar opposite of objectivism.

Ithink I will add that little gem to the list of PMZ stupid quotes on my sig...

WTH? They are complimentary to one another moron....

Objectivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Objectivism, or Objectivist, may refer to:
Any standpoint that stresses objectivity, including:
Objectivity (philosophy), realism, the conviction that reality is mind-independent
Moral objectivism, the view that some ethics are absolute
Objectivism (Ayn Rand), the philosophy of Ayn Rand (1905-82) whose tenets are presented as metaphysically objective
The Objectivist movement, a movement formed by followers of Rand's philosophy
The Objectivist Party, an American political party espousing Rand's philosophy
The Objectivist poets, a group of Modernist writers who emerged in the 1930s

So I assume you were referring to; "realism, the conviction that reality is mind-independent."

If not and you were referring to some concept that all of us seem to follow the teachings of the very strange Ayn Rand, I can only laugh at you and tell you to get a grip.

The problem with an unending supply of information like the internet, is two-fold. First we have information without discipline or perspective. Lefty PR sites disguisedf as "truth" telling ignorant mentally untrained children, that Ayn Rand is the right wing philosophy, is a fine example..

It may seem true, her philosphies were popular with a certain type, and they do seem to fit in with the lefty view of right-wing mentality, but the reality is, not many even care what Ayn Rand thought. She adopted her philosophy from the behavior she had seen in her life. Her belief that all people were basically selfish and driven by nothing more than self preservation and promotion, came from her experiences as a young wealthy child and watching that life taken away by the Bolsheviks. Oddly enough the same Bolsheviks who ruined her wealthy life, also gave women the opportunity to attend college, where she studied Friedrich Nietzsche, another selfish asshole who felt he could justify it with thought.. She felt all people were selfish in nature because that's what she saw at an age when she was most impressionable...

Her philosophy came after the behavior she saw, and she used it to justify any and all behavior she witnessed after that. To her any acts of kindness or charity were in reality selfish acts.

That is a person who is about as negative as it gets. And not really indicative of what most people might thing or behave, or their reasons for their actions..Beleiver it or not many people give to charity for good and proper reasons.

I give to St. Judes every month, and I dont do it just because I like the feeling, I do it because it's a good and decent, and proper thing to do with some of the extra money I have left. Sure I could do other things with it that would be more self oriented and give a good feeling, but I don't..I have a friend who gives 10% of his income to the catholic church, simply because his mother was a devout catholic...He isn't BTW...

Those are not selfish acts, and despite what you have read on lefty PR sites, they are the acts of what most would consider conservative or right-wing individuals.

In fact do some checking and you will see a marked pattern of charity among the regualar citizen conservatives.. Ayn Rand is not a philosopher many actually follow. That is the BS told by internet "documentaries" and other garbage..

I bet you watch "Zeitghesit" and others like it for your knowledge... It shows...

'' So, I assume you were referring to; "realism, the conviction that reality is mind-independent."''

Correct. I frankly have no idea what the rest of your post means.

 

[itfitzme]

"I give to St. Judes every month, and I dont do it just because I like the feeling, I do it because it's a good and decent, and proper thing to do with some of the extra money I have left. Sure I could do other things with it that would be more self oriented and give a good feeling, but I don't..I have a friend who gives 10% of his income to the catholic church, simply because his mother was a devout catholic...He isn't BTW...

Those are not selfish acts, and despite what you have read on lefty PR sites, they are the acts of what most would consider conservative or right-wing individuals."

10% doesn't mean anything, really, not in and of itself, for a host of reasons. For a little old lady on SSI and Medicare, that would be 10% more than she can even afford and it means she eats 10% less or goes without DirectTV, a marvilous thing. For someone else, it would be nothing more than a feel good effort as they already bring in 200% more than granny on SSI. Its kinda relative. If it were Bill Gates, that is a lot of money and still chump change because he should be donating about 95% of his wealth for it to be really meaningful (which he may or may not be doing).

Then the other issue is that, if your the average earner, you should actually be bringing in twice what your salary is, because that is what your real output contribution is. Then, that ten percent would be twice what it is now and you would easily be donating 20% without even noticing a change in living standards.

So, really, 10% doesn't mean much, by itself. Sounds more like an ego stroking.

 

[gslack]

Skepticism is the polar opposite of objectivism.

Ithink I will add that little gem to the list of PMZ stupid quotes on my sig...

WTH? They are complimentary to one another moron....

Objectivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Objectivism, or Objectivist, may refer to:
Any standpoint that stresses objectivity, including:
Objectivity (philosophy), realism, the conviction that reality is mind-independent
Moral objectivism, the view that some ethics are absolute
Objectivism (Ayn Rand), the philosophy of Ayn Rand (1905-82) whose tenets are presented as metaphysically objective
The Objectivist movement, a movement formed by followers of Rand's philosophy
The Objectivist Party, an American political party espousing Rand's philosophy
The Objectivist poets, a group of Modernist writers who emerged in the 1930s

So I assume you were referring to; "realism, the conviction that reality is mind-independent."

If not and you were referring to some concept that all of us seem to follow the teachings of the very strange Ayn Rand, I can only laugh at you and tell you to get a grip.

The problem with an unending supply of information like the internet, is two-fold. First we have information without discipline or perspective. Lefty PR sites disguisedf as "truth" telling ignorant mentally untrained children, that Ayn Rand is the right wing philosophy, is a fine example..

It may seem true, her philosphies were popular with a certain type, and they do seem to fit in with the lefty view of right-wing mentality, but the reality is, not many even care what Ayn Rand thought. She adopted her philosophy from the behavior she had seen in her life. Her belief that all people were basically selfish and driven by nothing more than self preservation and promotion, came from her experiences as a young wealthy child and watching that life taken away by the Bolsheviks. Oddly enough the same Bolsheviks who ruined her wealthy life, also gave women the opportunity to attend college, where she studied Friedrich Nietzsche, another selfish asshole who felt he could justify it with thought.. She felt all people were selfish in nature because that's what she saw at an age when she was most impressionable...

Her philosophy came after the behavior she saw, and she used it to justify any and all behavior she witnessed after that. To her any acts of kindness or charity were in reality selfish acts.

That is a person who is about as negative as it gets. And not really indicative of what most people might thing or behave, or their reasons for their actions..Beleiver it or not many people give to charity for good and proper reasons.

I give to St. Judes every month, and I dont do it just because I like the feeling, I do it because it's a good and decent, and proper thing to do with some of the extra money I have left. Sure I could do other things with it that would be more self oriented and give a good feeling, but I don't..I have a friend who gives 10% of his income to the catholic church, simply because his mother was a devout catholic...He isn't BTW...

Those are not selfish acts, and despite what you have read on lefty PR sites, they are the acts of what most would consider conservative or right-wing individuals.

In fact do some checking and you will see a marked pattern of charity among the regualar citizen conservatives.. Ayn Rand is not a philosopher many actually follow. That is the BS told by internet "documentaries" and other garbage..

I bet you watch "Zeitghesit" and others like it for your knowledge... It shows...

'' So, I assume you were referring to; "realism, the conviction that reality is mind-independent."''

Correct. I frankly have no idea what the rest of your post means.

Oh really? LOL, got caught bullshitting again didn't you.. You were skirting around trying to make another one of your retarded generalizations and once again were found lacking..

Pathetic..

 

[gslack]

"I give to St. Judes every month, and I dont do it just because I like the feeling, I do it because it's a good and decent, and proper thing to do with some of the extra money I have left. Sure I could do other things with it that would be more self oriented and give a good feeling, but I don't..I have a friend who gives 10% of his income to the catholic church, simply because his mother was a devout catholic...He isn't BTW...

Those are not selfish acts, and despite what you have read on lefty PR sites, they are the acts of what most would consider conservative or right-wing individuals."

10% doesn't mean anything, really, not in and of itself, for a host of reasons. For a little old lady on SSI and Medicare, that would be 10% more than she can even afford and it means she eats 10% less or goes without DirectTV, a marvilous thing. For someone else, it would be nothing more than a feel good effort as they already bring in 200% more than granny on SSI. Its kinda relative. If it were Bill Gates, that is a lot of money and still chump change because he should be donating about 95% of his wealth for it to be really meaningful (which he may or may not be doing).

Then the other issue is that, if your the average earner, you should actually be bringing in twice what your salary is, because that is what your real output contribution is. Then, that ten percent would be twice what it is now and you would easily be donating 20% without even noticing a change in living standards.

So, really, 10% doesn't mean much, by itself. Sounds more like an ego stroking.

LOL, you dumbass... 10% of an income is still 10%... Now no matter how you look at it, it's 10%,.. Only an idiot thinks 10% of a persons income is inconsequential if they make more..

You just tried to claim you didn't know what I was talking about and yet here you are trying to belittle 10% of a persons income donated charity based on how wealthy or poor they are... Fraud... Phony ass leftist BS artist...

You keep letting your nature show scumbag.. !0% of a persons income is still 10% whether it's 10% of 100k or 20K..

You let us know one thing for sure.. You have never given anythingof substance to any charity. If you had you wouldn't be making such a retarded claim...

The fact is a donation of 10% of ones income is generous by any measure. For you to try and make it seem lees is pathetic and a sign of a true selfish user.. You don't think it'smuch because you have never done anything like it.. Another fine example of lefty BS.. Give to the poor but only if it's someone else's money.. None of you ever truly care for anybody other than yourselves, you just pat one anothers backs and tell us all how selfless you are, but it's all nonsense. Because everyone else is doing the giving, all you do is tell people to do it, and take credit for the thought..

 

[PMZ]

Slacksack insists that he is entitled to credibility. That credibility in all things is granted by his media heroes instead of earned through contribution.

It is a bizarre worldview. A cultural dysfunction.

Plutocracy is rule by the most qualified. It has always failed because those that impose it believe, demonstrably in error, that they are the most qualified, and they get to choose the measure. Usually wealth or family.

Slacksack believes in the cultural opposite. Credibility granted to the least qualified.

Culture is supposed to be humanity's behavioral adaptation to environment. That it's passing from one generation to the next, is learning about what behaviors enhance our ability to thrive in the environment that we inherited.

Slacksack believes in a culture where the least educated, the least knowledgable, the smallest contributors, those that have invested least in the betterment of mankind should be given not their due, but are entitled to dictate to their opposites the terms of success.

Wow. How's that going to work?

People earn their place in society by their accomplishments. There is a place for everyone, and that place entitles them to respect in proportion to the degree to which they benefit all.

Those that devote their time and energy to expanding mankind's knowledge in critical fields have earned their place and our respect and speak a language most of us can only aspire to understand better through hard work. That's called specialization and it's the basis for civilization.

As the amount of education required in all fields continues to expand in proportion to the magnitude of what is known, specialization becomes ever more specific. And our individual reliance on others for knowledge and action in areas that others choose to specialize in becomes more acute. And our personal choice for specialization becomes more narrow.

I'm sure that Slacksack has capabilities that we don't see demonstrated here. But, what we have seen are mostly demonstrations of areas where he isn't qualified in the least. But he feels entitled to criticize those who are. Cultural rule by the least qualified justified by the notion that science should be as politics. That we are all equally qualified to judge it.

I can't imagine a less functional culture.

 

[orogenicman]

Slacksack believes in a culture where the least educated, the least knowledgable, the smallest contributors, those that have invested least in the betterment of mankind should be given not their due, but are entitled to dictate to their opposites the terms of success.

That explains why he believes that McIntyre (despite having no science degrees, or no advanced degrees whatsoever, and despite the fact that he has done no real scientific research) is more qualified to do climate science than a whole host of highly trained and published climate scientists.

I can't imagine a less functional culture.

Indeed.

 

[gslack]

Slacksack insists that he is entitled to credibility. That credibility in all things is granted by his media heroes instead of earned through contribution.

It is a bizarre worldview. A cultural dysfunction.

Plutocracy is rule by the most qualified. It has always failed because those that impose it believe, demonstrably in error, that they are the most qualified, and they get to choose the measure. Usually wealth or family.

Slacksack believes in the cultural opposite. Credibility granted to the least qualified.

Culture is supposed to be humanity's behavioral adaptation to environment. That it's passing from one generation to the next, is learning about what behaviors enhance our ability to thrive in the environment that we inherited.

Slacksack believes in a culture where the least educated, the least knowledgable, the smallest contributors, those that have invested least in the betterment of mankind should be given not their due, but are entitled to dictate to their opposites the terms of success.

Wow. How's that going to work?

People earn their place in society by their accomplishments. There is a place for everyone, and that place entitles them to respect in proportion to the degree to which they benefit all.

Those that devote their time and energy to expanding mankind's knowledge in critical fields have earned their place and our respect and speak a language most of us can only aspire to understand better through hard work. That's called specialization and it's the basis for civilization.

As the amount of education required in all fields continues to expand in proportion to the magnitude of what is known, specialization becomes ever more specific. And our individual reliance on others for knowledge and action in areas that others choose to specialize in becomes more acute. And our personal choice for specialization becomes more narrow.

I'm sure that Slacksack has capabilities that we don't see demonstrated here. But, what we have seen are mostly demonstrations of areas where he isn't qualified in the least. But he feels entitled to criticize those who are. Cultural rule by the least qualified justified by the notion that science should be as politics. That we are all equally qualified to judge it.

I can't imagine a less functional culture.

Oh joy! another of those rambling posts that drone on and on and not actually saying anything of meaning.. God man, you are love with your own text.. ROFL

no silly socko, unlike you and your non-working but highly qualified clone (ROFL), I don't think I am entitled to anything...

I earn what I get shithead, be it an income I make myself, OR posting here. I don't expect anything from you or anybody else.. Again unlike you mr. Grandstander... YOU and clones seem to think yoiu can win a debate simply buy stating some made up credentials and expecting everyone to accept you as experts.. Sorry socko but life doesn't work that way.. Maybe it's working well for you home-schooled and unsupervised children, but for contributing members of society it's not so easy...

Got any more gems? How about telling us about your issue with CO2 again? LOL, we love that one.. The CO2 cycle is what you said... ROFL... See why I call you a liar socko? because you and your clones are simple as that.. You don't know squat, so you try and pull some made up credentials out of your butts when you get caught.. ROFL

 

[gslack]

Slacksack believes in a culture where the least educated, the least knowledgable, the smallest contributors, those that have invested least in the betterment of mankind should be given not their due, but are entitled to dictate to their opposites the terms of success.

That explains why he believes that McIntyre (despite having no science degrees, or no advanced degrees whatsoever, and despite the fact that he has done no real scientific research) is more qualified to do climate science than a whole host of highly trained and published climate scientists.

I can't imagine a less functional culture.

Indeed.

I beleive that you and your altrer egos have no such degrees, and whats more you prove it with every post..

LOL, a list of BS credentials and you can't do anything but sit on your ass and post on web forums? BULLSHIT... People with far less education than you claim and with far worse health conditions do jobs everyday.

BTW, Mcintyre has every right to do anything he can. Just like anybody else, even you. If his corrections were wrong so be it, the ones he corrected were and they were so-called "experts".. You think claiming he had no educational background for the task, shows anything but how utterly incompetent the original work was?.

If you had half the education you claim, you would have seen this and STFU.. But no, like all self absorbed sock-puppets on here as of late, you would rather appear right.. MORON..

Please keep talking, you do far more damage to the warmer side, than any of us ever could...

 

[PMZ]

The evidence of my assertions.

Slacksack believes that he is entitled to credibility. The most dysfunctional culture ever.

What he is entitled to is to babble on, claiming that someone should pay some attention to what he wishes was true.

If someone out there wants to grant him the respect on science issues due someone with such obvious shortcomings in the world of science feel free to join his science for dummies cult.

I think that you would deserve each other.

Me, I want to understand what people who are qualified to do the research have uncovered. No better source than the IPCC.

While the cult is whining, the doers of the world move on to solutions. As it always has been.

 

[gslack]

The evidence of my assertions.

Slacksack believes that he is entitled to credibility. The most dysfunctional culture ever.

What he is entitled to is to babble on, claiming that someone should pay some attention to what he wishes was true.

If someone out there wants to grant him the respect on science issues due someone with such obvious shortcomings in the world of science feel free to join his science for dummies cult.

I think that you would deserve each other.

Me, I want to understand what people who are qualified to do the research have uncovered. No better source than the IPCC.

While the cult is whining, the doers of the world move on to solutions. As it always has been.

No once again silly socko, I don't think I am entitled to anything... That would be you and the clone who doesn't do shit....

I have to earn anything I get, I know this because I have a life.. And life is like that... YOU have a fictitional persona (actually many of them) that you try and live vacariously through in a web forum... One minute you're a former navy nuke, or a finnish journalist, or even an out of work but overly qualified expert on climate science, and the next you're a rambling BS fountain.. Too funny..

Please if you want to respond to my posts, man up and do so. Just repeating yourself and avoiding my response to it, is childish...

 

[PMZ]

What's interesting about both your science, and your insistence that everybody who disagrees with you, which is everybody, are what you want them to be....

That you are entitled to the absence of AGW, and your imaginary sock attack.

I come by my knowledge the hard way. I earn it. There are no free rides in my life.

Try that someday.

 

[gslack]

What's interesting about both your science, and your insistence that everybody who disagrees with you, which is everybody, are what you want them to be....

That you are entitled to the absence of AGW, and your imaginary sock attack.

I come by my knowledge the hard way. I earn it. There are no free rides in my life.

Try that someday.

LOL, you did it again.. You wrote a paragraph and did not make a coherent statement at any point.. You have several broken sentences there silly socko and not one is a complete thougt..

Sure ya did socko, and your posting shows what a terrible earmer you are..

BTW, repeating the same nonsense doesn't make it true... Especially when you habitually ignore any posts to the contrary.. Also, what's up with your sudden belief that I want or need anything from you? ROFL, oh that's you projecting again. YOU seem to think you are valued here, or more importantly; here you can be whatever you say you are and get respect... Whereas in reality you are just you...

You see socko, that's the problem with your latest nonsense.. ANyone who reads my posts will know one thing for certain right away whether they agree with them or not. That is I obviously and quite plainly give two-shits what 90% of the internet forum oposters think of me or my posts.. Hence the way I don't care about mincing worlds or sparing feelings... LOL Schmuck

 

[PMZ]

What's obvious to me is that you've nothing to say and express that at great length and in mind numbing detail.

 

[PMZ]

IanC was the originator of this thread, wondering how much warming can be expected given the GHG concentration that we have created in the atmosphere. Of course accuracy in that answer is subject to some real unknowns like what will the peak concentration be when we finally stop adding.

Hopefully what people have gathered up here in answer to his question is:

A. Systems earth is a body, in a deep vacuum, which must maintain energy balance between the incoming solar short wave radiation, which effective falls on an area equal to a diametrical cross section of the earth, 24 hours a day, and outgoing long wave radiation projecting out into space from the entire surface area of the top of the atmosphere. If incoming is greater than outgoing the system must warm until balance is restored.

B. Fossil fuels are the remains of life from millions of years ago (the Carboniferous Period) that were not allowed to decompose, but subject to great pressure and temperature from the evolving planet. The process of their creation removed trillions of tons of carbon dioxide from our atmosphere. The process of recovering the energy from them will put that CO2 back into our atmosphere.

C. As the concentration of atmospheric CO2 builds, it, like all greenhouse gasses, absorbs long wave radiation emitted from earth, and immediately re-radiates it in all directions, allowing half to continue going out, and half to return to earth. This process happens with every photon/GHG molecule collision.

D. The consequent reduction in outgoing longwave radiation unbalances systems earth's energy balance, leading to the recreation of the pre-Carboniferous Period climate to a large degree.

E. Of course the resolution of the energy exchange between all of the thermal systems that comprise our land, oceans, ice, atmosphere, water vapor, etc creates weather, is so complex as to be unpredictable except in the short term. All that can be predicted for sure, and observed and measured already, is that weather will change from what we're used to, and have built civilization around, during the transition period, as well as when stability has returned.

F. So sciences best narrow answer to IanC's question is a 1.1 degree increase for each doubling of effective GHG concentration. However, several positive feedbacks will increase that. For instance, the initial temperature rise will melt many cubic miles of arctic and Antarctic ice that has been created during millions of years of the former climate. And the thawing of permafrost that has sequestered as much CO2 as fossil fuels have, will add that to the fossil fuels load. Considering all of this the actual temperature increase in the final analysis will be 4 to 12 degrees C per GHG concentration doubling.

G. There are three major and nobody knows how many other impacts these changes will cause for life on earth. 1) Rising sea levels into our cities which have been largely built as deep water ports. 2) A redistribution of rainfall that will cause dessertifacation of agricultural land and aquifers. And flooding. And change the availability of water for much of the world's population. 3) Probably an increase in extreme, violent weather.

H. Most experts believe that we have consumed about half of the fossil fuel reserve that we were given. The cheapest, highest quality half. Also the rate of consumption increases every year due to increased population and enhanced quality of life. During our consumption of the second half of our fossil fuel reserve we must engineer and build a complete sustainable replacement energy infrastructure. And, of course, if that can be done before we use all of the fuels we can reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by leaving it sequestered in the ground.

I. Much work is underway to address this entire situation. The only question is, are we progressing at the optimum rate? Optimum considering the economics and impact on life.

 

[westwall]

IanC was the originator of this thread, wondering how much warming can be expected given the GHG concentration that we have created in the atmosphere. Of course accuracy in that answer is subject to some real unknowns like what will the peak concentration be when we finally stop adding.

Hopefully what people have gathered up here in answer to his question is:

A. Systems earth is a body, in a deep vacuum, which must maintain energy balance between the incoming solar short wave radiation, which effective falls on an area equal to a diametrical cross section of the earth, 24 hours a day, and outgoing long wave radiation projecting out into space from the entire surface area of the top of the atmosphere. If incoming is greater than outgoing the system must warm until balance is restored.

B. Fossil fuels are the remains of life from millions of years ago (the Carboniferous Period) that were not allowed to decompose, but subject to great pressure and temperature from the evolving planet. The process of their creation removed trillions of tons of carbon dioxide from our atmosphere. The process of recovering the energy from them will put that CO2 back into our atmosphere.

C. As the concentration of atmospheric CO2 builds, it, like all greenhouse gasses, absorbs long wave radiation emitted from earth, and immediately re-radiates it in all directions, allowing half to continue going out, and half to return to earth. This process happens with every photon/GHG molecule collision.

D. The consequent reduction in outgoing longwave radiation unbalances systems earth's energy balance, leading to the recreation of the pre-Carboniferous Period climate to a large degree.

E. Of course the resolution of the energy exchange between all of the thermal systems that comprise our land, oceans, ice, atmosphere, water vapor, etc creates weather, is so complex as to be unpredictable except in the short term. All that can be predicted for sure, and observed and measured already, is that weather will change from what we're used to, and have built civilization around, during the transition period, as well as when stability has returned.

F. So sciences best narrow answer to IanC's question is a 1.1 degree increase for each doubling of effective GHG concentration. However, several positive feedbacks will increase that. For instance, the initial temperature rise will melt many cubic miles of arctic and Antarctic ice that has been created during millions of years of the former climate. And the thawing of permafrost that has sequestered as much CO2 as fossil fuels have, will add that to the fossil fuels load. Considering all of this the actual temperature increase in the final analysis will be 4 to 12 degrees C per GHG concentration doubling.

G. There are three major and nobody knows how many other impacts these changes will cause for life on earth. 1) Rising sea levels into our cities which have been largely built as deep water ports. 2) A redistribution of rainfall that will cause dessertifacation of agricultural land and aquifers. And flooding. And change the availability of water for much of the world's population. 3) Probably an increase in extreme, violent weather.

H. Most experts believe that we have consumed about half of the fossil fuel reserve that we were given. The cheapest, highest quality half. Also the rate of consumption increases every year due to increased population and enhanced quality of life. During our consumption of the second half of our fossil fuel reserve we must engineer and build a complete sustainable replacement energy infrastructure. And, of course, if that can be done before we use all of the fuels we can reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by leaving it sequestered in the ground.

I. Much work is underway to address this entire situation. The only question is, are we progressing at the optimum rate? Optimum considering the economics and impact on life.

So, alcohol or cannabis? You level of coherence is plummeting....

 

[PMZ]

I see that you remain unable to debate any of my conclusions. You just wish that reality was different. I don't blame you. I'd hate reality too if I were you.

 

[PMZ]

I want everybody here to know that I'm an arithmetic skeptic. I mean that I doubt if mathematicians have actually laid out 36,542 apples, and taken away 15,652 of them, so how do they know for certain? How do they know that their stupid rules always work? It's just a guess. Better to be careful than right. Skeptical. Always questioning, never deciding.

Rush has told me that he trusts addition, just not multiplication. That's good enough for me.