U.S. summer a global warming preview, scientists say

[EagleSmack]

How is this not trolling, plain and simple?

How is it trolling?

Sorry Red, CanCon doesn't ban or censor forum members because they disagree with you.

 

[L Gilbert]

Based on what, the basic Quantum Electrodynamics demand that as you increase the concentration of atmospheric GHGs the raditiave balance will shift to a more energetic state. Where do you think all the new energy that in the past would simply pass through the atmsopheric envelope that is now redirected is going to go. Keep in mind that we're dealing with probabilities here which underlies all of physics. By signifcantly increasing the concentration of GHGs we also increase the probability that longwave photons will interact with and be redirected by molecules in the atmosphere. It's not hypothesis, it's been well established by extensive experimentation over a century and a half.

Based upon good sense. What you seem to be implying is that the natural cycles of colling and warming has stopped and we've suddenly taken over what causes warming and cooling. Get a grip.

Two orders of magnitude over geological emissions of CO2 is rapid.

Well, more rapid anyway.

And if it was just CO2 alone forcing the radiative balance the there would be less cause for concern, but there are strong direct and indirect feedbacks that multiply the effects of relatively small changes in CO2 concentration.

I used the term snowballing.

We are not in a normal cycle of warming and cooling,

Not now we aren't.

we probably left that over 8,000 years ago as wet agricuture of rice and taro increased the amount of atmospheric methane.

I'd like to see you prove that. lol We all know that there wasn't much of vegetation, vegetation rot, water, etc. on the planet before then, yeah.

The planet will not cool again as long as we're producing massive amounts of GHGs, the relative radiative forcing mean we're already out pacing the natural forcings by a factor of 10 or more. The most important forcing of the Milanchovitch Cycles is about -0.2 w/m^2, we're already over +4 w/m^2 from increased concentration of GHGs.

You're clairvoyant? There is an abundance of stuff we don't know about the climate yet, and yet you make claims with such certainty. And apparently have no confidence in nature to adapt to and remedy bizarre circumstances. Werll, good luck with your doom and gloom. I'll keep a positive outlook and become as adaptable as I can to whatever is in the future.

This makes no sense. We have significantly altered the radiative balance of the entire globe, much more energy that in the past would have simply passed through the atmosphere into space is now redirected back to the Earth's surface where it warms the planet.

You have evidence for this claim that we've surpassed any previous events? I mean besides increasing the rate of warming.

petros was going on about some bizarre psuedoscience that claims that CO2 levels and the magnetosphere are somehow linked.

I read that yes. Yet Cabbagefarts claimed that climate is not influenced by the magnetosphere.

The Eart's magnetic field is produced by helical currents in the Earth's outer liquid iron core, thousands of feet under the crust. The magentosphere redirects ionized radiation from the sun, not electromagnetic radiation which has no charge.

I read about it before, thanks.

I'm posting it, we know the differences and they're significant. We won't have another glacial period on Earth as long as there are people producing GHGs, the effect of which is far more important in forcing the radiative balance than the Milanchovitch cycles or the Solar Sunspot cycles, which while they are important lack the amount of forcing that GHGs do.



Posters claiming the recent warming is the result of something other than increases in the concentration of GHGs. Unless you can somehow account for all that new energy being rapidly transmitted back into space then by increasing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere is going to have a significant effect on the global environment....just as we've been seeing.

Oh, I have no doubt that GHGs have been significant and will continue to be so. But, I have already accepted the idea that I doubt we can have any significant impact that will reverse the event anytime soon. So here in our little corner of the Kootenays, we've been reducing our own impact and preparing for whatever eventualities we can think of or read about.

Yes, I do. And I also think that trying to come up with unlikely scenarios about how it's not us driving the changes is blind.

How about focusing totally on negative aspects and ignoring things like unknowns, that plants love more moisture in the air warmer climates, and filter a lot of crap out of the air, that we humans will likely be the cause of a massive reduction in human population, which will result in a massive reduction in GHGs which will result in ...... gee whiz .......... COOLING

and so on. Like I said, we've been expecting this and so we've been reducing our own impact and preparing for whatever eventualities we can think of or read about.
I have a saying, hope for the best but expect the worst. There's no disappointments then, and you can be optimistic about the future.

 

[Redmonton_Rebel]

How is it trolling?

Sorry Red, CanCon doesn't ban or censor forum members because they disagree with you.

He's talking about things that aren't related and constantly disrupting the discussion.

The issue isn't about too much ionized radiation entering the Earth's atmosphere due to some hole in the magnetosphere, it's about the electromagnetic shortwave radiation from the sun that reaches and warms the Earth's surface and then is re-emitted as longerwave radiation that is then re-absorbed and re-emitted by GHGs gases in the atmosphere warming the planet.

The subject is complex enough without some poster coming in and perpetually throwing a monkey wrench into the process.

And I kind of doubt telling me to stick sequestered CO2 up my ass has any real relevance to the discussion. Or any of the other truly bizarre stuff he keeps posting. If he has psychological issues then I feel bad about that, but that shouldn't be the limiting factor in this discussion.

Based on the seriousness of this subject, it kind of says something about this forum and our country in general that someone is allowed to turn it into their version of comedy.

Based upon good sense. What you seem to be implying is that the natural cycles of colling and warming has stopped and we've suddenly taken over what causes warming and cooling. Get a grip.

Science is good sense and the basic science behind climate change indicates a strong link between human activites and the warming global environment as I've already demonstrated, you haven't indicated anything based on fundamental scientific principles that contradicts that. Your gut feelings may inform your world, they don't inform mine.

At which point I'll leave this discussion with you.

 

[petros]

Yeah, that's pretty high. It would be even more impressive if the ranks weren't smoothed.

It's still interesting, but you're reaching too far with your extrapolations. Even the authors noted they could not link the SAA to global warming.

In fact if you read the discussion in that paper you'll note that one speculative causal relationship would not even have an effect on surface temperatures. Other reserachers have investigated for correlations between geomagnetic activity and temperature, and found that the relationships were not significant at all:

Recent studies have led to speculation that solar-terrestrial interaction, measured by sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, has played an important role in global temperature change over the past century or so. We treat this possibility as an hypothesis for testing. We examine the statistical significance of cross-correlations between sunspot number, geomagnetic activity, and global surface temperature for the years 1868–2008, solar cycles 11–23. The data contain substantial autocorrelation and nonstationarity, properties that are incompatible with standard measures of cross-correlational significance, but which can be largely removed by averaging over solar cycles and first-difference detrending. Treated data show an expected statistically-significant correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, Pearson p < 10−4, but correlations between global temperature and sunspot number (geomagnetic activity) are not significant, p = 0.9954, (p = 0.8171). In other words, straightforward analysis does not support widely-cited suggestions that these data record a prominent role for solar-terrestrial interaction in global climate change. With respect to the sunspot-number, geomagnetic-activity, and global-temperature data, three alternative hypotheses remain difficult to reject: (1) the role of solar-terrestrial interaction in recent climate change is contained wholly in long-term trends and not in any shorter-term secular variation, or, (2) an anthropogenic signal is hiding correlation between solar-terrestrial variables and global temperature, or, (3) the null hypothesis, recent climate change has not been influenced by solar-terrestrial interaction.
​

Long-term signal seems very unlikely, if you accept that in the first paper they found significant signal in the correlation between sea level and the SAA once they smoothed the data with 5-year averages.

As I've stated above I don't discount the necessity of GHG reduction and especially sulfur emissions (not trying for anthro source abatement like the wing nuts think we need to do) when there is such a strong link magentosphere anomilies (shift and SAA) and climate change. More definitive research iinto this would be a great idea.

In the mean time enjoy the Northern Lights!

 

[L Gilbert]

Good luck with combating the effects of ionized(not ionizing) radiation as the issue with Anthropogenic Global warming is due to increases in the rate of transmission of electromagnetic radiation of different wavelengths within the Earth's atmosphere. The shorter wavelength radiation coming from the sun isn't absorbed to the same degree the outgoing longerwave radiation emitted from the Earth's surface.

We can only do what we can. After that **** happens so we try to adapt. You can get all panicky about it if you want, but we won't. We have no intention on even attempting to live forever.

It has nothing to do with the magnetosphere,

So?

it has to do with the effect of increased concentrations of molecules in the air like carbon dioxide that absorb and re-radiate energy that otherwise would have passed into space.

uhuh Did you know that there's been a significant increase in natural things that use up or trap stuff like CO2? Like green algae for instance.

 

[Redmonton_Rebel]

We can only do what we can. After that **** happens so we try to adapt. You can get all panicky about it if you want, but we won't. We have no intention on even attempting to live forever.

So? uhuh Did you know that there's been a significant increase in natural things that use up or trap stuff like CO2? Like green algae for instance.

I don't think you're dealing with the facts behind the issue, there's no point in going around and around with you to inevitably end up in the same place.

 

[L Gilbert]

Science is good sense and the basic science behind climate change indicates a strong link between human activites and the warming global environment as I've already demonstrated,

And I never argued that we haven't impacted the climate. Yet you carry on as if I had. Get a grip.

you haven't indicated anything based on fundamental scientific principles that contradicts that.

It was never my intention to do so. It seems to be your intention to assume I think that there's no such thing as AGW. Get a grip and quit ASSuming crap.

Your gut feelings may inform your world,

Who said anything about gut feelings? I told you, I read stuff. get a grip.

they don't inform mine.

So what?

At which point I'll leave this discussion with you.

Fine. Run along then.

I don't think you're dealing with the facts behind the issue, there's no point in going around and around with you to inevitably end up in the same place.

Well, here I thought you'd toddled off, but at any rate, I don't particularly care what you think I am dealing with or not.

Good luck expecting any significant drops in GHGs anytime soon (at least any drops before a significant drop in human population).

 

[lone wolf]

You are embarrassing yourself. Jonathan Swift was a Dean. Give it up before you get too deep.
[/FONT][/FONT]

Good thing he wasn't a Mason too

 

[CDNBear]

I am not posting evidence for you.

That's OK, you have never done so. Why start now.

Bear can't help it.

I have a penchant for emphasizing your ignorance, I can't help it.

If you try very hard to find out something about what you are posting before doing so, on this matter you will observe that ethanol from corn was a political project and not one put forth by those searching for alternatives. It is impractical and not very emission friendly.

But that does not matter to the deniers. It was a sop to them in the first place.

Do you just make this up as you go along?

It was a policy pushed by greenies, and forced on farmers, by a gov't bowing to greenie pressure.

Oh moving the goal posts now? LMAO

He had them tattooed on his back to make it easier for him.

PWNED

Repeatedly, without mercy, Semper Fi!

 

[Cabbagesandking]

That's OK, you have never done so. Why start now.

I have a penchant for emphasizing your ignorance, I can't help it.

Do you just make this up as you go along?

It was a policy pushed by greenies, and forced on farmers, by a gov't bowing to greenie pressure.

He had them tattooed on his back to make it easier for him.

Repeatedly, without mercy, Semper Fi!

Nothing gets through, it seems. No wonder the world is iin a mess if you represent humanity.

 

[petros]

. No wonder the world is iin a mess if you represent humanity.

I'll represent humanity if you want and I'll fix it.

 

[CDNBear]

Nothing gets through, it seems.

Finally you admit it, good for you. Now work on it.

 

[Redmonton_Rebel]

And I never argued that we haven't impacted the climate. Yet you carry on as if I had. Get a grip.




It was never my intention to do so. It seems to be your intention to assume I think that there's no such thing as AGW. Get a grip and quit ASSuming crap. Who said anything about gut feelings? I told you, I read stuff. get a grip. So what?

Fine. Run along then.

Well, here I thought you'd toddled off, but at any rate, I don't particularly care what you think I am dealing with or not.

Good luck expecting any significant drops in GHGs anytime soon (at least any drops before a significant drop in human population).

You're still dodging the issue and doing it with little or no factual basis.

The contention of a sizable number of physicists is that by changing a very important component of the atmosphere we've fundamentally changed the radiative balance of the global environment which has already had a major impact on the climate. It's very unlikely that natural cycles and other human impacts have resulted in the massive lose of ice cover on the planet for instance, or the warming of the oceans which have already had a significant impact on biotas like coral reefs and the timing and strength of atmospheric-ocean oscillations like ENSO.

We can continue business as usual and force the global system into a highly unstable and potentially catastrophic phase and it will be in spite of the work being done by some very dedicated and qualified researchers, not because of them.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

And I never argued that we haven't impacted the climate. Yet you carry on as if I had. Get a grip. It was never my intention to do so. It seems to be your intention to assume I think that there's no such thing as AGW. Get a grip and quit ASSuming crap. Who said anything about gut feelings? I told you, I read stuff. get a grip. So what?

Fine. Run along then.

Well, here I thought you'd toddled off, but at any rate, I don't particularly care what you think I am dealing with or not.

Good luck expecting any significant drops in GHGs anytime soon (at least any drops before a significant drop in human population).

And yet there have already been very significant drops in several countries. Germany, the UK, Sweden come to mind but there are several more. All while their populations are increasing.

Significant reductions are easy. They just need political will. Adequate reductions in the time available are another matter.

 

[taxslave]

Lunar panels....there is fortune to be made.

The moonbeams are causing global warming!

Vancouver's mayor is the problem?

The single biggest problem the truthers have is that they insist on relying on computer models. COmputer models that they have made themselves. What it boils down to is garbage in, garbage out. About as accurate as the computer models that those flogging financial products use to predict future earnings of certain companies.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

Vancouver's mayor is the problem?

The single biggest problem the truthers have is that they insist on relying on computer models. COmputer models that they have made themselves. What it boils down to is garbage in, garbage out. About as accurate as the computer models that those flogging financial products use to predict future earnings of certain companies.

You have had modelling explained to you. No garbage in: just the facts of historical research. Consequently, no garbage out.

 

[petros]

You have had modelling explained to you. No garbage in: just the facts of historical research. Consequently, no garbage out.

It's far easier to maodel the past than it is the future. With modelling the past, you already know the outcome.

 

[EagleSmack]

He's talking about things that aren't related and constantly disrupting the discussion.

The issue isn't about too much ionized radiation entering the Earth's atmosphere due to some hole in the magnetosphere, it's about the electromagnetic shortwave radiation from the sun that reaches and warms the Earth's surface and then is re-emitted as longerwave radiation that is then re-absorbed and re-emitted by GHGs gases in the atmosphere warming the planet.

The subject is complex enough without some poster coming in and perpetually throwing a monkey wrench into the process.

And I kind of doubt telling me to stick sequestered CO2 up my ass has any real relevance to the discussion. Or any of the other truly bizarre stuff he keeps posting. If he has psychological issues then I feel bad about that, but that shouldn't be the limiting factor in this discussion.

He is not disrupting anything. He is participating in this forum. That is what it is here for.

Based on the seriousness of this subject, it kind of says something about this forum and our country in general that someone is allowed to turn it into their version of comedy.

.

Again, many of us including Petros have been here for many years. You are welcome to leave the forum if it does not suit you. This is not your playground... in fact you're a NOOB here. Nobody is going to bend to you so get used to it or get moving.

 

[Johnnny]

Anyone been paying attention to the solar weather and notice that the sun has been flaring up like a hoochie coo lately? Mabye the suns dance has something to do with it|?

 

[petros]

And I kind of doubt telling me to stick sequestered CO2 up my ass has any real relevance to the discussion. Or any of the other truly bizarre stuff he keeps posting.

LMFAO!!! Need a crying towel? Reality is bizzare? Who knew?