Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
wanna-b-fanboy

The Anthropogenic Climate Change Thread

Recommended Posts

A little light reading for you,

http://www.co2science.org/subject/other/clim_hist_2million.php

Quote

In Greenland, rapid warming - approximately 7°C in a few decades - was observed around 11,500 years ago (Dansgaard et al., 1989; Johnsen et al., 1992; Grootes et al., 1993). Alley et al. (1993) also report evidence of even more rapid shifts in precipitation patterns, and other authors have noted swift changes in atmospheric circulation (Taylor et al., 1993; Mayewski et al., 1993).  Sea surface temperature changes of around 5°C, associated with sudden changes in oceanic circulation, also occurred in a few decades in the Norwegian Sea (Lehman and Keigwin, 1992).  Similar warming following the latest deglaciation occurred in regions of the Southern Hemisphere, though the warming there was less abrupt (Suggate, 1990; Denton and Hendy, 1994; Salinger, 1994; Jouzel et al., 1995).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, pigseye said:

image69.png

 

 

This is climate glacial - interglacial, the scale is about 100,000 years, everything else is just noise, so excuse me if I don't sound the alarm bells. 

Interesting- if you take what you posted relating temperature and compare it to this graph of CO2...

 

24_co2-graph-021116-768px.jpg

 

... If you correlate those peaks of temperatue (2 - 2.75 C) add in that last peak and we might be looking at... what 4-7 degress? Maybe you should sound those alarm bells.

Edited by wanna-b-fanboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sigh.....CO2 is logarithmic, after the first doubling, the effects are virtually negligible due to the increased radiance of the earth. In fact, you get about 70% of the warming out of the first 40% of doubling CO2. You would need close 1200 ppm of CO2 to generate 7.4 W/mm for another 1C in temperature which would take you about 500 years to reach.

Like I said, nothing to see here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, pigseye said:

sigh.....all previous interglacial periods had a mean average temperature of 2+ C above the running average, how do you expect to change this current one? 

Thanks for your views on this. Keep up the great work.

21 minutes ago, pigseye said:

sigh.....CO2 is logarithmic, after the first doubling, the effects are virtually negligible due to the increased radiance of the earth. In fact, you get about 70% of the warming out of the first 40% of doubling CO2. You would need close 1200 ppm of CO2 to generate 7.4 W/mm for another 1C in temperature which would take you about 500 years to reach.

 Like I said, nothing to see here. 

That is really interesting- I would love to see the moath on this- could you please point me in the right direction of your support?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:
54 minutes ago, pigseye said:

sigh.....all previous interglacial periods had a mean average temperature of 2+ C above the running average, how do you expect to change this current one? 

Thanks for your views on this. Keep up the great work.

Why not answer the question?

3 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:
26 minutes ago, pigseye said:

igh.....CO2 is logarithmic, after the first doubling, the effects are virtually negligible due to the increased radiance of the earth. In fact, you get about 70% of the warming out of the first 40% of doubling CO2. You would need close 1200 ppm of CO2 to generate 7.4 W/mm for another 1C in temperature which would take you about 500 years to reach.

 Like I said, nothing to see here. 

That is really interesting- I would love to see the moath on this- could you please point me in the right direction of your support?

Any first year radiative physics textbook or

https://knowledgedrift.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/co2-is-logarithmic-explained-3/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/

https://www.skepticalscience.com/C02-emissions-vs-Temperature-growth.html

https://climateaudit.org/2008/01/07/more-on-the-logarithmic-formula/

https://motls.blogspot.com/2008/01/why-is-greenhouse-effect-logarithmic.html

https://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide_19.html

https://skepticalscience.com/why-global-warming-can-accelerate.html

https://geosciencebigpicture.com/2017/12/03/is-the-saturation-of-co2-logarithmic/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

I wonder what he is going to find. 

Another fox guarding hen house Trump appointment.

Wait till he's gone and people are no longer afraid to speak.

Environmental concerns are non existent at the present time in the US federal government

Edited by Mark F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2019-02-11 at 2:55 PM, pigseye said:

sigh.....CO2 is logarithmic, after the first doubling, the effects are virtually negligible due to the increased radiance of the earth. In fact, you get about 70% of the warming out of the first 40% of doubling CO2. You would need close 1200 ppm of CO2 to generate 7.4 W/mm for another 1C in temperature which would take you about 500 years to reach.

Like I said, nothing to see here. 

Even if we were to concede that the CO2 effect on global warming does take on a logarithmic effect, you're admitting we'll eventually get to the point where temperatures significantly impact life on Earth. Why not curb bad habits now, whilst they're still manageable?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Eternal optimist said:

Even if we were to concede that the CO2 effect on global warming does take on a logarithmic effect, you're admitting we'll eventually get to the point where temperatures significantly impact life on Earth. Why not curb bad habits now, whilst they're still manageable?

 

I'm taking with issue with the alarmism and the sky is falling narrative that we only have 30 - 100 years left before everything goes nuclear. If we don't run out of fossil fuels or can't find an alternative in the next 500 years, then we probably don't deserve to continue as a species. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, pigseye said:

I'm taking with issue with the alarmism and the sky is falling narrative that we only have 30 - 100 years left before everything goes nuclear. If we don't run out of fossil fuels or can't find an alternative in the next 500 years, then we probably don't deserve to continue as a species. 

Then logically, a carbon tax (or similar economic policy), would curb global usage of limited resources (i.e. fossil fuels). Limiting usage would allow the human race a longer period of time to find an alternative, how could that be a bad thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eternal optimist said:

Then logically, a carbon tax (or similar economic policy), would curb global usage of limited resources (i.e. fossil fuels). Limiting usage would allow the human race a longer period of time to find an alternative, how could that be a bad thing?

How do you fairly tax pollution? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

Evidence for man-made global warming has reached a “gold standard” level of certainty, adding pressure for cuts in greenhouse gases to limit rising temperatures, scientists said on Monday.

“Humanity cannot afford to ignore such clear signals,” the U.S.-led team wrote in the journal Nature Climate Change of satellite measurements of rising temperatures over the past 40 years.

They said confidence that human activities were raising the heat at the Earth’s surface had reached a “five-sigma” level, a statistical gauge meaning there is only a one-in-a-million chance that the signal would appear if there was no warming..

The alternative explanation of natural factors dominating has got even less likely.

 

Quote

Super Typhoon Wutip underwent an impressive burst of rapid intensification on Saturday morning, topping out as Category 4 super typhoon with a central pressure of 925 mb and sustained winds of 155 mph—just short of Category 5 strength. This makes Wutip the strongest Northwest Pacific typhoon ever observed in February, as well as the strongest tropical cyclone anywhere north of the equator in February.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Mark F said:

 

Evidence for man-made global warming has reached a “gold standard” level of certainty, adding pressure for cuts in greenhouse gases to limit rising temperatures, scientists said on Monday.

“Humanity cannot afford to ignore such clear signals,” the U.S.-led team wrote in the journal Nature Climate Change of satellite measurements of rising temperatures over the past 40 years.

They said confidence that human activities were raising the heat at the Earth’s surface had reached a “five-sigma” level, a statistical gauge meaning there is only a one-in-a-million chance that the signal would appear if there was no warming..

The alternative explanation of natural factors dominating has got even less likely.

You know there is going to be that dough-head be all like:

giphy.gif

 

ANyways, it's nice to see that the mounting evidence is getting to the point where even the diehard deniers will no longer have any social licence to spout their lies. 

Edited by wanna-b-fanboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Mark H. said:

How do you fairly tax pollution? 

From a purely economic perspective, a carbon tax (a.k.a end user tax) is the most logical way to do it. People will be forced to use less, as a direct result of the goods that are taxed costing more. The exact same logic has been used by our government in the past with so-called "sin-taxes" (tobacco tax, which adds about 50% to the cost of cigarettes, and additional levies on alcohol, for example). Of course, the disadvantages of applying this to carbon, is it's often an additional tax on essentials - such as your Hydro bill... this hurts the working poor the most. As always, raising taxes is also generally an unpopular move by politicians.

The other problem with the current plan is lots of commercial emitters are exempt, which to be honest kind of defeats the purpose. The Liberals have implemented the Carbon Action Incentive (CAI) on personal tax returns - which gives money back to people on their taxes, to offset against increased expenses from the incoming carbon tax levies. The CAI is a blatant attempt at buying votes by the Liberals, and further muddies the water with where Trudeau really stands on climate change.

The last thing that makes carbon tax schemes so difficult is determining how much carbon actually went into an item... for example, if an organic widget is home-grown in Winnipeg, and no trucks etc. are used to bring it to market (also in Winnipeg), it could conceivably have produced less carbon than a similar organic widget trucked into Winnipeg from North Dakota. However, if that same widget was made more efficiently in North Dakota, it could actually have less of a carbon footprint. How do you even track that? It get particularly problematic when you consider imports from overseas, especially with foreign countries that don't currently have a carbon plan.

tldr; I don't know how to fairly tax it best - but economists generally agree that a tax like this curbs consumer usage, which is the supposed goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Eternal optimist said:

From a purely economic perspective, a carbon tax (a.k.a end user tax) is the most logical way to do it. People will be forced to use less, as a direct result of the goods that are taxed costing more. The exact same logic has been used by our government in the past with so-called "sin-taxes" (tobacco tax, which adds about 50% to the cost of cigarettes, and additional levies on alcohol, for example). Of course, the disadvantages of applying this to carbon, is it's often an additional tax on essentials - such as your Hydro bill... this hurts the working poor the most. As always, raising taxes is also generally an unpopular move by politicians.

The other problem with the current plan is lots of commercial emitters are exempt, which to be honest kind of defeats the purpose. The Liberals have implemented the Carbon Action Incentive (CAI) on personal tax returns - which gives money back to people on their taxes, to offset against increased expenses from the incoming carbon tax levies. The CAI is a blatant attempt at buying votes by the Liberals, and further muddies the water with where Trudeau really stands on climate change.

The last thing that makes carbon tax schemes so difficult is determining how much carbon actually went into an item... for example, if an organic widget is home-grown in Winnipeg, and no trucks etc. are used to bring it to market (also in Winnipeg), it could conceivably have produced less carbon than a similar organic widget trucked into Winnipeg from North Dakota. However, if that same widget was made more efficiently in North Dakota, it could actually have less of a carbon footprint. How do you even track that? It get particularly problematic when you consider imports from overseas, especially with foreign countries that don't currently have a carbon plan.

tldr; I don't know how to fairly tax it best - but economists generally agree that a tax like this curbs consumer usage, which is the supposed goal.

The play is... Add the carbon tax now but return the proceeds back via a credit. Slowly lower that credit and leave only the tax. 

Why not take any carbon tax revenue and invest heavily in existing and emerging "green" technology? We quickly catch up to Europe and develop technology that we can export. In a relatively short time, we replace the worse carbon polluting technology. 

I mean, if they were TRULY serious. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clouds’ cooling effect could vanish in a warmer world

High concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide can result in the dispersal of cloud banks that reflect about 30% of Earth’s sunlight.

 

As the article and the research explains, stratocumulus clouds are very hard to replicate in computer programs. It would be interesting to see alternative models used to help prove/disprove this model. This is certainly an area that will receive more attention now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, JCon said:

The play is... Add the carbon tax now but return the proceeds back via a credit. Slowly lower that credit and leave only the tax.

Sure, if you're buying what the Liberals are selling, I think it's very telling that they plan to just add carbon tax proceeds to the general coffers. I agree on your other points though, if they were sincere about it, they could invest in credits for more charging stations for electric vehicles, stuff like that...unfortunately the very nature of our democratic system has forced every party to look at most 4 years into the future..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well look at that, the Aussie's have done it, a way to turn CO2 back into coal, at room temperature and it's scalable, problem solved.

https://www.thegwpf.com/carbon-dioxide-the-newest-form-of-renewable-energy/

Link to the paper

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08824-8

This should be all over every front page in the world, we're saved, hoorah! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎04‎/‎03‎/‎2019 at 1:46 PM, pigseye said:

Counterpoint:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/greenpeace-exposes-sceptics-cast-doubt-climate-science

Edited by TrueBlue4ever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Counter punch and KNOCKOUT! 

nice article. thanks for that.

Not really, all it shows is that the money trail could be hidden. What they were paid to say was what they had been saying all along. Greenpeace isn't exactly a reliable source either unless you support eco-terrorism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pigseye said:

Not really, all it shows is that the money trail could be hidden. What they were paid to say was what they had been saying all along. Greenpeace isn't exactly a reliable source either unless you support eco-terrorism. 

Totally does. They are paid to lie. Those 'eco terrorist" are much more reliable than those big oil paid shills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...