ice sheet losses in Greenland and Antarctica reach new highs

Ratking. OK. So explain to me how you can add 30 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere each year and NOT have a warming effect. Calculating how much energy is being accumulated IS relatively simple and easily proven using first principles of physics---that is the LAWS (not theories) of thermodynamics and conservation of energy. The complicated part is trying to model how that energy gets distributed between land, atmosphere, and oceans, and the resulting effects, but rest assured it is easily provable that the earth is warming at an accelerated rate. So the models are complicated and produce a range of results, but are unanimous is predicting a warming trend as a direct result of increased GHG concentrations. Observations all around the earth are consistent with the range or effects predicted by the models--if anything, we are trending closer to the worst-case models. I'm not sure what are your credentials in Earth science other than what you read, but I have a Masters degree in Earth Science with a focus on the hydrologic cycle. I spent three summers doing research on the Greenland Ice sheet where the deep cores were drilled. I have closely followed the accumulating body of evidence for over 20 years. It is a complicated subject and the truth is easily obfuscated by those with an agenda to keep the truth hidden.
 
Ratking said:
It depends on your point of view and what kind of people you are around I guess...I know for a fact that the south pole is covered in more ice than we ever have seen

Yes, if ignore the loss of ice in the Arctic and concentrate on the Antarctic there does appear to be more sea ice in recent years, but consider the following:

1) jimw mentioned noise in the data allowing deniers to cherry-pick. Well, if you check the long-term ice coverage you'll likely see the recent increase is a relatively small upward blip in and others downward long-term (decades) trend of less ice.

2) Is all sea ice equal? Is the current "growth" in ice of the same quality as before? Is it possibly much thinner? Honestly, I can't recall the answer to this one.

3) There is a convincing theory that the extra ice is due to extra freshwater runoff due to ice-melt on the land. This reduces salinity of the sea water at the coast, causing it to freeze at higher temperature than normal.

4) Global warming causes climate change, which is varied around the world. It's quite possible for the world, on average, to get warmer, but for a specific region, like the Antarctic to get colder. At least for a time.

Someone on here put it nicely: They said that global warming doesn't mean it's warmer everywhere: Weather is driven by heat and more heat just means more *weather*.
 
jimw1960 said:
Ratking. OK. So explain to me how you can add 30 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere each year and NOT have a warming effect. .....
.... So the models are complicated and produce a range of results, but are unanimous is predicting a warming trend as a direct result of increased GHG concentrations. .....
First , let me say, I accept that there is climate change, and the earth is probably in a warming phase .....though the causes and hard evidence are difficult to pinpoint through all the "red herrings" being thrown around !
... But, you do realise that the. "GHG" effect on the planet is only a theory ?
...and hence saying warming is a direct result of GHG concentrations is an unsupported statement.
..and I assume you also know that your "30 billion tons of CO2". Actually means that the amount of CO2 increased from 0.58% to 0.59%. ( by weight) of the atmosphere .
Or to put it in absolute terms the CO2 concentration increased by 0.01% .
I wonder what the experimental measurement error is on data like that ?? :roll:
 
Might want to check the scientific definition of "theory". It does not mean "hunch" or speculation unsupported by evidence. That you say it is a bit odd, it's usually the refuge of Christian Creationists attempting to dismiss the theory of Evolution.

0.01% absolute increase adds up with the 100 PPM rise that has occurred (300-400 PPM). Experimental error? Yeah, I don't think you have to worry about that. I couldn't guess how many measurements are available for averaging but the number will be enormous. Measurement accuracy to 1 PPM should be trivial. Gas detectors work in the parts-per-billion and even parts-per-trillion range. Include sophisticated analytical methods and measurement in the parts-per-quadrillion is possible: First google result (and it's CO2): http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.270802

This is another ridiculous argument that assumes thousands of scientists must be morons. Like not considering that some weather stations are located near air conditioners, it's incredible to suggest they must all have shared a faulty, uncalibrated CO2 detector.
 
Hillhater said:
... But, you do realise that the. "GHG" effect on the planet is only a theory ?
...
Or to put it in absolute terms the CO2 concentration increased by 0.01% .
I wonder what the experimental measurement error is on data like that ?? :roll:

OK. I assume you don't have much training in physics or Earth science or the scientific method, so I'll try to explain. GHG effect is NOT a theory any more than the LAWS of Thermodynamics are theories. Just like the fact that your car will get warm on a sunny day with the windows rolled up is not a theory. It's the result of known physical processes. The warming effect due to known and easily measurable change in atmospheric properties can be calculated with first principles of physics. The only theory involved is how it may vary around the globe and how the additional energy that is not being reflected back to space will be distributed around the Earth and what the observable effects will be.

There is very little experimental error in the measurement of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere because it is not an experiment, it is a measurement. The measurement is simple and the instruments are pretty accurate to within fractions of a ppb. Also might want to check your math on the 0.01% increase. The CO2 concentration at the Mauna Loa measurement site has increased from 390 ppm in 2010 to a current concentration of 401. That's a 2.8% increase in just 5 years,an average of 0.5% per year, but the rate of increase is accelerating.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
 
"Antarctic ice shelf collapse and unstoppable sea level rise 'very likely' without tough climate action, say scientists"
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-15/antarctic-ice-shelf-sea-level-rise-warning/6853780

Warming of 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius above current levels could lead to "unstoppable" sea level rise that would last for thousands of years, according to a new model of Antarctic ice sheets.

The new model, published today in Nature, shows that such temperatures would result in 80 to 85 per cent loss of major Antarctic ice shelves, something that is possible by the end of the century under existing IPCC scenarios.

Collapse of the ice shelves would trigger a rapid melt of the Antarctic ice sheets, releasing vast amounts of Earth's freshwater stores into the ocean, said the researchers.

By 2100 this would add up to 40 centimetres to sea levels, melt rate would continue to accelerate until 2300, and sea levels would continue to rise after that for thousands of years.

The good news, said the scientists, is that their research suggests it's not too late to stop this, if we're prepared to take tough action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

"A lot of people are out there saying there's no point -- we're in that world now where it's all going to happen," said researcher Dr Chris Fogwill of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales.

"But actually, what this modelling shows is there is still an opportunity, even now, to keep below these thresholds, where we avoid that long-term commitment."

Antarctic contribution to sea level rise underestimated
The Earth is currently experiencing one of the highest rates of sea level rise for thousands of years, linked to global warming.

According to the IPCC global sea levels could rise over current levels by about 30 to 100 centimetres by 2100, depending on emission scenarios, with the main contributors being expansion of the warming oceans and melting of the Greenland icesheet and other land glaciers.
[youtube]fFfyy7QQC0E[/youtube]

To date it has been thought that melting of Antarctic ice sheet would contribute very little to future sea-level rise -- just 4 to 5 centimetres at most.

But, said Dr Fogwill, these conclusions were reached using models that were not sophisticated enough to show major ice shelf collapse.

Dr Fogwill and a team led, by Dr Nicholas Golledge, from Victoria University in New Zealand, have developed the best model yet of the response of Antarctica to different scenarios of global warming. They have found the IPCC has been underestimating the contribution of Antarctica to sea level rise.

"The IPCC reports have said the collapse of the ice shelves was unlikely whereas we're showing it's actually a very likely scenario."

Unlike most climate models, which are run over centuries at most, the new model was run over 5,000 years to estimate the full impact of global warming on ice sheets.

The model showed that Antarctic ice would remain "incredibly stable" over 5,000 years at the lowest IPCC emission scenario, but ice shelves would collapse under all the other scenarios.

"In those higher concentration pathways we destabilise those ice shelves," said Dr Fogwill.

Collapse of the ice shelves under such scenarios would lead to Antarctic ice sheets contributing around 40 centimetres rather than 4 centimetres to sea level by 2100, said Dr Fogwill.

But, he said, it would not be until 2300 that the Antarctic ice melt rate would peak. By that stage the not-so-frozen continent would be contributing as much as 3 metres to sea level rise.

Unstoppable sea-level rise under high emission scenarios

Due to the very slow response of the massive Antarctic ice sheets to global warming, Antarctic contribution to sea level rise would be "unstoppable" for thousands of years, and could be as much as 10 metres by 5000, according to the model.

These estimates are most conservative, said Dr Fogwill, not taking into account "polar amplification", which is the extra warming occurring at the poles.

The last time Earth experienced CO2 levels similar to today's was 3 million years ago and at that time sea levels at that time were a staggering 20 metres higher, said the researchers.

The emission controls required to prevent Antarctic ice shelf collapse are tougher than most are willing to consider, said Dr Fogwill.

But he and colleagues point to socioeconomic and ethical implications for future generations given the number of people who live within metres of sea level.

The findings will inform discussions at the upcoming Paris climate negotiations.

IPCC emission scenarios
The IPCC gives four scenarios, called RCPs, of how the planet will heat by 2100, according to the amount of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere.

RCP 2.6 - Low emissions
Emissions peak at 2020; are halved by 2050 and are zero by 2100. Temperatures do not exceed 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels.

RCP 4.5 - Intermediate emissions
Emissions peak 2040. Temperatures reach 2.5 degrees C above pre-industrial levels by 2100.

RCP 6 - Intermediate emissions
Emissions peak in 2060. Temperatures reach 3 degrees C above pre-industrial levels by 2100.

RCP 8.5 - High emissions
Business as usual - emissions continue to increase. Temperatures reach 4.3 degrees C above pre-industrial levels by 2100.
 
jimw1960 said:
Hillhater said:
... But, you do realise that .. ?
...
Or to put it in absolute terms the CO2 concentration increased by 0.01% .
I wonder what the experimental measurement error is on data like that ?? :roll:

OK. I assume you don't have much training in physics or Earth science or the scientific method, so I'll try to explain. GHG effect is NOT a theory any more than the LAWS of Thermodynamics are theories. Just like the fact that your car will get warm on a sunny day with the windows rolled up is not a theory. It's the result of known physical processes. The warming effect due to known and easily measurable change in atmospheric properties can be calculated with first principles of physics. The only theory involved is how it may vary around the globe and how the additional energy that is not being reflected back to space will be distributed around the Earth and what the observable effects will be.

Sorry, but you seem to have a problem understanding what i said..."the. "GHG" effect on the planet is only a theory".
key words being " effect on the planet" .
The laws of thermodynamics are tested and proven, the temp in my car is measurable ( but seems to reach a peak strangely ??) but again proven.
GHG effects on the planet are not yet proven, just speculated
GHG effects may well be established on human scale experiments, but to extrapolate those results to a planetary effect is more than a little presumptuous.
..its making a whole bunch of assumptions...and until there is conclusive proof, it just a Theory .!

jimw1960 said:
Also might want to check your math on the 0.01% increase. The CO2 concentration at the Mauna Loa measurement site has increased from 390 ppm in 2010 to a current concentration of 401. That's a 2.8% increase in just 5 years,an average of 0.5% per year,...

Again you are not reading and understanding the statement..
your "30 billion tons of CO2". Actually means that the amount of CO2 increased from 0.58% to 0.59%. ( by weight) of the atmosphere .
Or to put it in absolute terms the CO2 concentration increased by 0.01%
..key words.. %,.."of atmosphere", .."absolute terms"..!
so in terms of the total atmosphere, your quoted 11ppm increase (over 5 years) is actually a 0.001% TOTAL over 5 years, or 0.0002 % per year !
i sure hope your instruments are more accurate than your maths .!
 
Hillhater said:
GHG effects may well be established on human scale experiments, but to extrapolate those results to a planetary effect is more than a little presumptuous.
..its making a whole bunch of assumptions...and until there is conclusive proof, it just a Theory .!

Please define for us what you consider "conclusive proof" :)

Hillhater said:
in terms of the total atmosphere, your quoted 11ppm increase (over 5 years) is actually a 0.001% TOTAL over 5 years, or 0.0002 % per year ! i sure hope your instruments are more accurate than your maths .!

This seems to be an argument from incredulity: "small things can't have large effects!". Well, if your 0.01% increase in total atmospheric mass had been HCN rather than CO2 half of us would be dead already. Small change, big effect. The electron flow in a micro-controller seems inconsequential until, through a cascading series of effects, it's controlling the flight of an ICBM with a 50 MT warhead.
 
Hillhater said:
Again you are not reading and understanding the statement..
your "30 billion tons of CO2". Actually means that the amount of CO2 increased from 0.58% to 0.59%. ( by weight) of the atmosphere .
Or to put it in absolute terms the CO2 concentration increased by 0.01%
..key words.. %,.."of atmosphere", .."absolute terms"..!
so in terms of the total atmosphere, your quoted 11ppm increase (over 5 years) is actually a 0.001% TOTAL over 5 years, or 0.0002 % per year !
i sure hope your instruments are more accurate than your maths .!

Percent of the total atmosphere is completely irrelevant. The relevant thing is at what concentrations does CO2 impede the ability for energy to radiate back to space in the infrared spectrum and we have well exceeded that concentration and the concentration continues to increase at an accelerating rate as a DIRECT RESULT of fossil fuel burning. Ozone is present in even tinier concentrations but in the upper atmosphere it is enough to greatly reduce the amount of harmful UV rays that reach the surface. You are trying to imply that, because it is a tiny percentage, that somehow it gets drowned out by uncertainty. But the fact is we can measure those tiny percentages with great accuracy, the properties of those gases are known and the effects they have on trapping heat in the atmosphere is also well understood.
 
Please define for us what you consider "conclusive proof" :)
Classily, you would want to run a controlled, full scale, trial, isolating any other influences, ...and compare the results to the theory......then test for repeatability, ideally multiple times, to ensure you have a statistically sound set of data.
...Some how I doubt that has been done..on a PLANETARY scale ?
.. But I would be satisfied if it has even been done once !

This seems to be an argument from incredulity: ......
No. Simply a statement of fact 0.001% increase in CO2 total over 5 years .
Why does presenting facts in such a truthful way annoy you.?
Using the distortion of compounded percentages is a cheap scare tactic intended to influence the uneducated.

Percent of the total atmosphere is completely irrelevant.
Really, ? .. So why are you so concerned then ?.. I thought the whole basis of this debate is concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere ?

, ....the properties of those gases are known and the effects they have on trapping heat in the atmosphere is also well understood.
.. Ahh !, a circular argument . OK...... "Well understood"... Sounds a lot like a "Theory"...!
Honestly, do you really believe we understand how the Planetary Eco systems will respond in the future 10, 50, years ?....let alone in a few thousand !
Remember again.. We have difficulty forecasting the local weather for tomorrow !
..I bet you hate hearing that old snippet !
 
So, despite that, arguably, no experiment is ever fully controlled, you demand as minimum proof of AGW, that in addition to a full scale, exact replica of planet Earth? Presumably the experiment should also run for a geologically-significant period of time?

That would just be a less honest way of saying "I have my beliefs and opinions and no amount of evidence to the contrary with cause me to change my mind".

Perhaps you could explain to us why you believe a 0.001% absolute increase in CO2 concentration in five years is not significant?
 
Punx0r said:
So, despite that, arguably, no experiment is ever fully controlled, you demand as minimum proof of AGW, that in addition to a full scale, exact replica of planet Earth? Presumably the experiment should also run for a geologically-significant period of time?
Actually ,using a replica of the planet would immediately invalidate any results !
but this is semantics... as you asked me to define " conclusive proof" of the GHG effect on a Planetary scale,...i replied with what i believed that would require.
....and i also added that i was prepared to accept substantially less convincing evidence.

Punx0r said:
That would just be a less honest way of saying "I have my beliefs and opinions and no amount of evidence to the contrary with cause me to change my mind".
No, it just an honest way of saying we dont have " conclusive proof" of the GHG effect on a Planetary scale

Punx0r said:
Perhaps you could explain to us why you believe a 0.001% absolute increase in CO2 concentration in five years is not significant?
i cannot explain something i did not say. Please dont tell me what i believe.
Maybe when you saw the data presented in that way, you started to think it is not significant?
 
You implied that the rise over the last ~100 years (0.01%) is small enough to be lost in the measurement uncertainty (literally, not statistically significant).

The CHG effect is simple physics. It's effects can be derived from theory or measured in a small-scale laboratory test. Less solar radiation reflected to space = heat accumulates on earth. Heat drives climate and weather. Shit happens.
 
This is what generally happens to people that try to speak against global warming, that is a tell tale sign that something is not right. I have been alive long enough to see how politics works, and this is it. Every time someone try to speak against global warming they get ridiculed or just shut out of the debate. If they proof where conclusive, then scientist would not have any problems proving it.

http://www.thegwpf.com/bbc-in-trouble-again-for-green-bias/

As people have asked before, how come there have been no significant warming since 1987, but the co2 concentration have increased steadily. Satellite data is proof enough for no increased temperature for me and others. Please do not tell me that this is because the global climate change don't necessary means increased temperature, because that is the main selling point of IPCC. The dreaded 3 degree celcius increase :shock: :p
 
jimw1960 said:
Hillhater said:
... But, you do realise that the. "GHG" effect on the planet is only a theory ?
...
Or to put it in absolute terms the CO2 concentration increased by 0.01% .
I wonder what the experimental measurement error is on data like that ?? :roll:

OK. I assume you don't have much training in physics or Earth science or the scientific method, so I'll try to explain. GHG effect is NOT a theory any more than the LAWS of Thermodynamics are theories. Just like the fact that your car will get warm on a sunny day with the windows rolled up is not a theory. It's the result of known physical processes. The warming effect due to known and easily measurable change in atmospheric properties can be calculated with first principles of physics. The only theory involved is how it may vary around the globe and how the additional energy that is not being reflected back to space will be distributed around the Earth and what the observable effects will be.

There is very little experimental error in the measurement of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere because it is not an experiment, it is a measurement. The measurement is simple and the instruments are pretty accurate to within fractions of a ppb. Also might want to check your math on the 0.01% increase. The CO2 concentration at the Mauna Loa measurement site has increased from 390 ppm in 2010 to a current concentration of 401. That's a 2.8% increase in just 5 years,an average of 0.5% per year, but the rate of increase is accelerating.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/


Tell me, how accurate was the tools for reading parts per million hundred years ago. What third party did the calibration of the instruments, and how do we know that the repeatability was good enough to use the data?
What many climate critics say is that the data before 1940'ish is not accurate enough to use. If the total warming so far is less than [strike]1.5degree[/strike](edit, only 0.7 degree last hundred year) with questionable data as a starting point and we see no additional warming the last two decades, why is it so hard to believe that global climate change is not due to human intervention.

But since you have your own theories and don't answer my question I see further discussion fruitless. Keep being the politicians tool, see how far that gets the world. Nothing keeps the planets healthy better than paying more climate tax to the government as is so popular in Norway these days :?
 
Punx0r said:
The CHG effect is simple physics. It's effects can be derived from theory or measured in a small-scale laboratory test. Less solar radiation reflected to space = heat accumulates on earth. Heat drives climate and weather. Shit happens.
All true !
but, its all just speculation as to how that will translate on a global scale !
and you are ignoring any other potential global effects and influences that may or may not yet be known.
..hence its still only a theory. :cry:
 
jimw1960 said:
Ratking said:
And to add a graph explaining why an increase in co2 is not a threat:

http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/radiative-forcing.png

That graph is one of the more ingenious anti-AGW arguments. It almost had me until I did a little reading and dusted off my calculus books. The theory represented in that graph purports that, once there is enough CO2 in the atmosphere to block IR spectrum from reflecting back to space, then the addition of any more CO2 (or any other GHGs for that matter) will have negligible added effect. Seems to make sense on the surface, but a simple understanding of integral calculus and thermodynamics is all you need to debunk it. When you look at the Earth's energy balance, the energy that comes in from the sun has to either reflect back to space or something on the Earth (oceans, atmosphere, land surface) will have to get warmer. In a GHG-free atmosphere, the sunlight comes in in the visible spectrum and it heats the surface until it can reflect an equal amount of energy back into space in the infrared (IR) spectrum, at which point no additional warming will occur. You have energy balance: energy in = energy reflected out + energy stored in heated surface. The laws of thermodynamics are satisfied. All is right with the world.

Now let's add just enough GHG to block the IR spectrum from getting back to space. What happens? Surface warms as before, but before the IR can get back to space, it is absorbed by the atmosphere. What does that mean? It means the atmosphere got warmer. Now, to achieve energy balance, it is the warmed atmosphere acting as middle man that is ultimately radiating the IR energy back into space. Can we agree on this?

Now let's test the theory that adding any additional GHG won't have a greater warming effect on the atmosphere. So let's double the GHG concentration and divide the atmosphere into lower and upper slices: sunlight comes in, surface warms, tries to reflect IR back to space, but now the IR is absorbed just by the lower part of the atmosphere. So what happens then? The amount of energy that the atmosphere is trapping from the same amount of sunlight is now absorbed just by the lower atmosphere. Same energy absorbed by less mass means that lower atmosphere has to be warmer than it was with the lower GHG concentration. That means that the lower slice of the atmosphere must be warmer to radiate IR to the upper slice so that the energy can eventually get back to space (unless you want to void the laws of thermodynamics).

So, if you know your integral calculus, which I'm sure you do, you understand that you can slice the atmosphere into an infinite number of small slices, and it becomes a relatively simple integration problem. Integrating the energy balance equation from land surface to the edge of space can be used to compute the temperature at elevation in the atmosphere given a fixed solar input and GHG absorption properties. The math shows that with a fixed solar input, the atmosphere must necessarily get warmer as GHGs are added in order for the energy to be reflected back to space, regardless of whether some radiative forcing threshold has been exceeded.

Of course the people who publish that graph know this very well. But they also know that 95% of the population doesn't have a clue about laws of thermodynamics and calculus. So why would they push such misinformation on the uneducated masses? I think you can figure the answer to that yourself.

I promised to get back to you on this one.
My first question to you is essential that you answer. What influence the heating contribution the most of water vapor/damp and skies or co2? Remember that we measure co2 in ppm, it does not contribute nearly enough compared to water vapor, it is defined as a trace gas compared to other gases in the atmosphere. So when we have several factors that could change the climate, why do we choose to look at the one with little to no impact? My guess is that it's nearly impossible to do any change to water vapor, so they had to come up with something that they could control, co2. If you say that co2 have a larger impact than water vapor, please explain with sources.

Here is a link that explain my view on the case quite clearly, it is translated from Norwegian, so be a bit flexible.

https://translate.google.no/transla...-at-co2-gir-en-farlig.html&edit-text=&act=url
 
Ratking said:
This is what generally happens to people that try to speak against global warming, that is a tell tale sign that something is not right. I have been alive long enough to see how politics works, and this is it. Every time someone try to speak against global warming they get ridiculed or just shut out of the debate. If they proof where conclusive, then scientist would not have any problems proving it.

The same situation could be seen if a flat-Earth believer tried to interrupt a geology conference. Trust me it's not the Geologists playing politics who would be at fault...

Ratking said:
As people have asked before, how come there have been no significant warming since 1987, but the co2 concentration have increased steadily. Satellite data is proof enough for no increased temperature for me and others.

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Ratking said:
Tell me, how accurate was the tools for reading parts per million hundred years ago. What third party did the calibration of the instruments, and how do we know that the repeatability was good enough to use the data?

We ask questions to obtain information we need. What on Earth would you do with an enormous list of laboratories that calibrated hundreds or thousands of pieces of analytical test equipment? You can safely assume that equipment with calibrated by an accredited test house with full traceability back to national or international standards. This is how the world works. Otherwise mass-production of anything would not be possible.

Furthermore, what you're intimating is that all these instruments are incorrectly calibrated and their readings wrong. The neat thing about random error is that with a large number of measurements it cancels out and you arrive at a more accurate measurement. A basic understanding of statistics goes a long toward understanding the world and what is possible with measurement data.

The main problem here is that there are hundreds/thousands of scientists, who are intelligent, well-educated and have worked for many years in a certain field. They are experts: they know a particular subject better than almost anyone else in the World. And most have arrived at the same conclusion. Yet, in a display on supreme (but unintentional) arrogance, a lay person with no education or experience in that field, comes along after having spent a few hours reading questionable articles on the internet, and declares that they know better: the experts are all wrong.

Why employ scientists and then second-guess their findings? Why go to hospital, ignore the doctors and decide to take homeopathic "medicine" instead? Why seek legal advice, ignore it and represent yourself in court? Why have a dog and bark yourself?

Hillhater said:
Punx0r said:
but, its all just speculation as to how that will translate on a global scale !
and you are ignoring any other potential global effects and influences that may or may not yet be known.
..hence its still only a theory. :cry:

"Speculation" means to theorise without evidence. Maths and small-scale experimentation are both legitimate evidence. You are asking for certainty in an uncertain world. You assertion seems to be that we reject the best working hypothesis we have, which is supported by the available (if imperfect) evidence on the assumption (wild guess?) that global warming might be caused by some effect as-yet unknown (spooky ghosts?). This is not acceptable to me in any aspect of my life.
 
Oh, and permafrost is melting, which I guess means it is now miss-named: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34540414
 
Ratking said:
Tell me, how accurate was the tools for reading parts per million hundred years ago. What third party did the calibration of the instruments, and how do we know that the repeatability was good enough to use the data?

It doesn't matter what the instruments were 100 years ago because we can measure today the atmospheric gasses that have been trapped in ice sheets as long ago as one million years. I personally worked on the Greenland Ice Sheet project and that record goes back over 200,000 years. Present day CO2 concentrations are off the charts compared to anything in the past million years. But even if that was not the case, it is a trivial process to measure with high accuracy, even without modern instruments. Because CO2 is fairly soluble in water simple titration of pH indicator solution with distilled water that has been bubbled with atmospheric gasses can be used to measure carbonic acid concentrations down to ppb levels.
 
Ratking said:
My first question to you is essential that you answer. What influence the heating contribution the most of water vapor/damp and skies or co2? Remember that we measure co2 in ppm, it does not contribute nearly enough compared to water vapor, it is defined as a trace gas compared to other gases in the atmosphere. So when we have several factors that could change the climate, why do we choose to look at the one with little to no impact? My guess is that it's nearly impossible to do any change to water vapor, so they had to come up with something that they could control, co2. If you say that co2 have a larger impact than water vapor, please explain with sources.

At current atmospheric concentrations, it is true that water vapor has about double the greenhouse effect compared to CO2: 75 watt per square meter radiative flux for water; and about 32 watts per square meter for CO2. Let's do a little thought experiment. At a given fixed global average temperature the water vapor in the atmosphere is relatively constant because whenever it exceed the saturation level, it falls out as rain. Now, lets start adding 30 billion tons of CO2 every year. This increase in CO2 concentration does not get rained out of the atmosphere and, while you may not like to admit it, has the effect of increasing the net radiative flux of the atmosphere significantly, despite being a tiny fraction of the total atmospheric volume. The net increase in radiative flux means the atmosphere must get warmer by some incremental amount. In a simple one-dimensional system with known boundary conditions, the amount of warming is a trivial thing to calculate--this part of the GHG effect is NOT a theory: for a given solar input, if you increase the radiative flux of the atmosphere, something has to get warmer. It is more complicated in the Earth's three-dimensional system because the stored energy gets moved around by weather and stored in oceans and land surface. In fact so much focus on atmospheric warming is a distraction for the high rate at which oceans are storing most of this the additional heat, which also has big effects on climate and sea level. Turning back to our thought experiment: what happens to the atmosphere's capacity to store water vapor when it gets warmer? It increases. So, CO2 causes warming, that warming increases the amount of water vapor that the atmosphere can hold, and so you have an amplifying effect of increasing both CO2 and water vapor concentration. One estimate based on satellite data shows that atmospheric water vapor has increased by nearly half a kg/m² per decade since 1988 when the observations began.

You might find these videos informative, as they explains the process in a little more detail. The first is a more simplistic explanation, the second gives a lot more detail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9L49p9Y8Mg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2i1xJ68SREQ&feature=youtu.be

The second video makes a profound point beginning at 24:35. That is, if you think we can add this much CO2 to the atmosphere and not cause warming, then show me your model.

I hope that answers your question.
 
^^^ Good stuff San Antonio TX! (Doesn't yet seen to be a "Thumb Up" here.) Ain't chemistry grand. :)
 
A very interesting series of videos on this UQX-Denial 101x Youtube channel. Mostly direct interviews with climate researchers covering all sorts of different aspects. A few of these folks I have met personally back in my Greenland research days. A lot of good insights and despite the poorly chosen name of the youtube channel, you can see how genuine and intelligent these people are.

https://www.youtube.com/user/denial101x/videos

Another good video to watch is Merchants of Doubt in case you ever wondered about why climate science is constantly under attack, who is funding those attacks, and why.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXRuxuTyrxo
 
Hehe... Rude of me probably, but if I were King I would require a college or university degree just for the privilege to vote in elections. :wink: (Currently/apparently only an adequate sperm count will do.)
 
Back
Top