Gulf Stream

[homersapien 11,549]

2 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

Ultimately there’s 2 parts to being right in a democracy; 1) being right 2) convincing other people youre right. Otherwise it’s pointless mental maturation. When you’ve got a significant portion of people and politicians denying there’s even a problem - and don’t trust gov - you can either just call them stupid and paralyze, or maybe it’s time to try another approach.

Here's the polling as of August, 2023:

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/09/what-the-data-says-about-americans-views-of-climate-change/

It all depends on how you define "significant" but I think the numbers reflect pretty strong support considering the time aspects of the problem (frog sitting in a slowly heating pot of water). 

The deniers and skeptics don't trust the government and they don't trust the scientists with their data and models. 

They apparently need to experience the full consequences when they arrive. By then it will be far too late - if it's not already.

 

Edited May 11 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,549]

Here's a list of 10 examples of global warming which have been objectively accounted for with data by scientists:

Diminishing Arctic Sea Ice Extent

In the past 30 years, the Arctic sea ice has been decreasing at a faster pace, leading to significant impacts on the environment, weather patterns, and ecosystems. The recent record low extent of sea ice highlights the pressing need to address this urgent situation.

Rising Ocean Heat Content

The oceans are currently absorbing a higher amount of heat than ever before. This is leading to warmer waters which are having a detrimental effect on coral reefs, marine life, and global fisheries. These changes in ocean heat content can cause shifts in ocean circulation patterns, which in turn can impact climate conditions and contribute to extreme weather events worldwide.

Increasing Air Temperature over Oceans

When the ocean temperature increases, it causes more evaporation. This results in higher levels of water vapor in the atmosphere, which can cause more warming and lead to heavy rainfall. The warming ocean also provides energy for potential hurricanes and tropical storms.

Elevated Sea Surface Temperatures

The increase in temperature is not limited to just the air. The oceans' surface is also experiencing a heat rise. This has far-reaching effects, including harm to coral reefs, growth of algal blooms, and intensification of the destruction caused by tropical cyclones and hurricanes.

Global Sea Level Rise

Sea levels have been steadily rising due to thermal expansion and the melting of land ice. This poses various threats, including permanent flooding and increased flooding during seasons and storms. Both freshwater resources and coastal infrastructure are in danger.

Escalating Humidity

Higher temperatures lead to increased evaporation and atmospheric humidity. The resulting boost in water vapor intensifies warming, creating a feedback loop that exacerbates the global warming crisis.

Temperature Increase in the Lower Atmosphere

The warming of the Earth's atmosphere is not consistent across all its layers. The troposphere, which is the lower part, is undergoing the most significant warming. This warming is mainly caused by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels. As a result, it is evident that human actions have contributed to the rising temperature of the planet.

Rising Air Temperature over Land

Land areas are warming faster than the oceans, with the Arctic region witnessing particularly rapid temperature increases. This has a cascade of effects, from heatwaves and the expansion of insect pests to the spread of tropical diseases.

Reduced Snow Cover and Earlier Melting

The Northern Hemisphere is experiencing a decrease in snow coverage, with premature melting of snowpacks caused by increased temperatures. This has significant consequences for the water supply and ecosystems that rely on seasonal meltwater, possibly leading to extended periods of drought and disturbances.

Melting Glaciers

he retreat of glaciers is happening at an alarming pace, which is putting the water supplies of many regions in danger and causing instability in the soil. The disappearance of these iconic natural formations not only affects the availability of water but is also culturally significant to communities that deeply value their beauty.

https://group.met.com/en/mind-the-fyouture/mindthefyouture/examples-of-global-warming

[homersapien 11,549]

Here's a piece that provides a good prospect for the time aspect of the problem (graphs only):

https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/

 

(Already posted)

Fig b2. Measurements of atmospheric CO₂ since 1958 from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii (black) and from the South Pole (red) show a steady annual increase in atmospheric CO₂ concentration. The measurements are made at remote places like these because they are not greatly influenced by local processes, so therefore they are representative of the background atmosphere. The small up-and-down saw-tooth pattern reflects seasonal changes in the release and uptake of CO₂ by plants. Source: Scripps CO2 Program

 

igure b3. CO₂ variations during the past 1,000 years, obtained from analysis of air trapped in an ice core extracted from Antarctica (red squares), show a sharp rise in atmospheric CO₂ starting in the late 19th century. Modern atmospheric measurements from Mauna Loa are superimposed in gray. Source: figure by Eric Wolff, data from Etheridge et al., 1996; MacFarling Meure et al., 2006; Scripps CO₂ Program. 

 

Figure b4. Earth’s global average surface temperature has risen, as shown in this plot of combined land and ocean measurements from 1850 to 2019 derived from three independent analyses of the available data sets. The top panel shows annual average values from the three analyses, and the bottom panel shows decadal average values, including the uncertainty range (grey bars) for the maroon (HadCRUT4) dataset. The temperature changes are relative to the global average surface temperature, averaged from 1961−1990. Source: Based on IPCC AR5, data from the HadCRUT4 dataset (black), NOAA Climate.gov; data from UK Met Office Hadley Centre (maroon), US National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies (red), and US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Centers for Environmental Information (orange). 

 

Figure b5. The amount and rate of warming expected for the 21st century depends on the total amount of greenhouse gases that humankind emits. Models project the temperature increase for a business-as-usual emissions scenario (in red) and aggressive emission reductions, falling close to zero 50 years from now (in blue). Black is the modelled estimate of past warming. Each solid line represents the average of different model runs using the same emissions scenario, and the shaded areas provide a measure of the spread (one standard deviation) between the temperature changes projected by the different models. All data are relative to a reference period (set to zero) of 1986-2005. Source: Based on IPCC AR5

[Leftfield 2,746]

58 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

If the U.S. is 13% of the carbon emissions and we reduce to net zero we have spent $50 for 13% of the problem, our deficit is $34 trillion now, where does that put us by 2050?  

Disingenuous again. The 50 trillion number was for worldwide. Not just the US.

And you once ignore ignore the costs of coping with the problem if it's not avoided.

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Yes, and my carbon footprint has reduced significantly since I retired.  I do not apologize for burning so much fossil fuels when I was gainfully employed though.  It is virtually impossible to *leave no trace*.

Didn't ask you to apologize. I don't expect anyone to have to apologize for not knowing there was a problem. Now, willfully ignoring the problem after you've been made aware of it....

 

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

This is an assumption not all agree with.

"Assumption"  

[I_M4_AU 8,111]

52 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Disingenuous again. The 50 trillion number was for worldwide. Not just the US.

And you once ignore ignore the costs of coping with the problem if it's not avoided.

Listen to the clip again, they start talking about how much spending $50 trillion to obtain carbon neutrality by 2050 in the U.S. how much will it reduce the increase in world temps.  The Deputy Sec is the one that brings up we are 13% reduction.  The conversation starts about the 3:30 mark.

56 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Now, willfully ignoring the problem after you've been made aware of it....

There in lies the rub, there are plans to require everyone to comply with something that is not irrefutably proven, its a guess, yes an assumption.

[auburnatl1 5,326]

 

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

 

 

 

Good, it’s finally scam time for the thread!

 

Edited May 11 by auburnatl1

[I_M4_AU 8,111]

Just now, auburnatl1 said:

Good, it’s finally scam time for the thread!

 

The content is the questioning the Deputy Sec. of Energy, if you want to focus on what is the lead, go ahead,

[auburnatl1 5,326]

10 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The content is the questioning the Deputy Sec. of Energy, if you want to focus on what is the lead, go ahead,

Sorry. When I read the word scam I went into pure muscle memory.

[I_M4_AU 8,111]

This seems to be important:

 

 

[Leftfield 2,746]

9 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

This seems to be important:

 

 

This. Has. Already. Been. Pointed. Out.

Many times. 

CO2 is usually a lagging indicator. The very fact it isn't now is the whole damn point.

You really don't read anything, do you?

[I_M4_AU 8,111]

44 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

This. Has. Already. Been. Pointed. Out.

Many times. 

CO2 is usually a lagging indicator. The very fact it isn't now is the whole damn point.

You really don't read anything, do you?

Sure I do, as Gore mentioned in the intro to the clip, CO2 is the culprit and forgets to mention is a lagging indicator, but is the cause of the increase in temp.  You guys keep on pushing CO2 is the dirty villain in climate change.

When did you change your mind about CO2?  or have you?  59 said CO2 isn’t the cause just a week or so ago, but goes to greenhouse gasses as the mechanism.  I don’t recall you making the same sort of statement.

The boogie man has always been fossil fuels because man uses a lot of it.  Are we just afraid of *man made* climate change and abandoning CO2 as the cause?

You guys are changing again and blaming the deniers.  What is the true scoop?  Are you just going to show more charts that show CO2 increasing from .03% of the atmosphere and now it is .04% with the correlating temp raise.  Are you trying to say *something* change in science that now makes CO2 a leading indicator?

You guys must be confused, or you really don’t know and you’re guessing.  Now Gates wants to put out chemicals to block the sun’s rays from hitting the earth.  This guy has more money for his and our own good.

And you’re in favor of killing the fossil fuel industry just because.  Do you think maybe things are moving too fast?

 

 

Edited May 13 by I_M4_AU

[Leftfield 2,746]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Sure I do, as Gore mentioned in the intro to the clip, CO2 is the culprit and forgets to mention is a lagging indicator, but is the cause of the increase in temp.  You guys keep on pushing CO2 is the dirty villain in climate change.

When did you change your mind about CO2?  or have you?  59 said CO2 isn’t the cause just a week or so ago, but goes to greenhouse gasses as the mechanism.  I don’t recall you making the same sort of statement.

The boogie man has always been fossil fuels because man uses a lot of it.  Are we just afraid of *man made* climate change and abandoning CO2 as the cause?

You guys are changing again and blaming the deniers.  What is the true scoop?  Are you just going to show more charts that show CO2 increasing from .03% of the atmosphere and now it is .04% with the correlating temp raise.  Are you trying to say *something* change in science that now makes CO2 a leading indicator?

You guys must be confused, or you really don’t know and you’re guessing.  Now Gates wants to put out chemicals to block the sun’s rays from hitting the earth.  This guy has more money for his and our own good.

And you’re in favor of killing the fossil fuel industry just because.  Do you think maybe things are moving too fast?

 

 

I was typing up a point by point response, then realized there was no use. You clearly didn't understand the responses to your posts with the studies on CO2's enthalpy, because @Aufan59never said CO2 wasn't the cause. 

I usually take people at their word when they tell me something, but I just can't believe you're reading everything we're posting. It's better to believe you're not, because the alternative is that you're a moron. You are not comprehending any of this, and you're jumping to completely incorrect conclusions.

Once again, temperature increases lead to release of CO2 into the atmosphere - release from oceans, ice, soil, plants, etc. That extra CO2 amplified the warming of the Earth, but was not the main cause. Now, we're dumping a huge amount of excess CO2 into the atmosphere, which wouldn't normally be there, so we've begun the warming process earlier than it would if just left to nature. 

Of course, the information in the previous paragraph can easily be found with a simple Google search, but please tell me again how I only believe what I want to believe.

[Aufan59 83]

8 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

59 said CO2 isn’t the cause just a week or so ago, but goes to greenhouse gasses as the mechanism.  I don’t recall you making the same sort of statement.

This is news to me!

[I_M4_AU 8,111]

On 5/4/2024 at 3:28 AM, Aufan59 said:

I am convinced they are correct, CO2 doesn’t impact the temperature of the earth by way of enthalpy increases.  

 

However, this is like saying that umbrellas don’t absorb much water, therefore they don’t protect you from rain.  It is true that umbrellas don’t absorb much water.  But that isn’t the mechanism they use to protect you from rain.

 

5 hours ago, Aufan59 said:

This is news to me!

I’m sure I misunderstood.

Edited May 14 by I_M4_AU

[I_M4_AU 8,111]

14 hours ago, Leftfield said:

You really don't read anything, do you?

 

11 hours ago, Leftfield said:

I usually take people at their word when they tell me something, but I just can't believe you're reading everything we're posting

Typical of you isn’t it.

11 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Once again, temperature increases lead to release of CO2 into the atmosphere - release from oceans, ice, soil, plants, etc. That extra CO2 amplified the warming of the Earth, but was not the main cause. Now, we're dumping a huge amount of excess CO2 into the atmosphere, which wouldn't normally be there, so we've begun the warming process earlier than it would if just left to nature

This is the part that is disputed by many.  You state it as fact, it is a theory perpetrated by an echo chamber that is very popular with the environmental cult and media.

Only time will tell.

[johnnyAU 3,668]

12 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Once again, temperature increases lead to release of CO2 into the atmosphere - release from oceans, ice, soil, plants, etc

Finally a true statement. However, you immediately jump to claims immediately afterwards. You have no idea how much CO2 amplifies warming, and you have no idea when the current warming would have started without increases in CO2.  

[I_M4_AU 8,111]

Here is two experts in the field believing the polar ice caps will be ice free in the summer months. This was 15 years ago.  Will any of the scientists ever be correct in their predictions?

 

*The science* is getting better at predicting, they just push their predictions beyond anybodies life time.

[I_M4_AU 8,111]

Here is another denier:

 

But [the scientists] who are pushing global warming are doing their damnedest to make sure that those who believe the opposite don't get heard in the public."

[arein0 993]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Here is another denier:

 

But [the scientists] who are pushing global warming are doing their damnedest to make sure that those who believe the opposite don't get heard in the public."

At least you realize he's a denier

[Leftfield 2,746]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

 

Typical of you isn’t it.

This is the part that is disputed by many.  You state it as fact, it is a theory perpetrated by an echo chamber that is very popular with the environmental cult and media.

Only time will tell.

It's a theory backed up by ample evidence. Feel free to post evidence to the contrary.

[Leftfield 2,746]

1 hour ago, johnnyAU said:

Finally a true statement. However, you immediately jump to claims immediately afterwards. You have no idea how much CO2 amplifies warming, and you have no idea when the current warming would have started without increases in CO2.  

Feel free to post evidence of other reasons the climate is warming.

[Leftfield 2,746]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Here is another denier:

 

But [the scientists] who are pushing global warming are doing their damnedest to make sure that those who believe the opposite don't get heard in the public."

Sowell is completely wrong in saying scientists can't confront the lead/lag issue. No idea why he would say that, other than he was clearly on a sympathetic program and wouldn't get pushback.

Also, Sowell is an economist. Tell me why his opinion is more valid than thousands of climate scientists?

I will agree with him that any legitimate science that counters the prevailing opinion should not be suppressed. Science should always be questioned, and if contrary evidence is found, theories revised.

Unfortunately that's not what deniers are doing. Deniers simply shout that not everyone believes the prevailing opinion or that the prevailing opinion is only there because scientists are bought. They never present any legitimate evidence as to why it's wrong, or what other factors are causing warming.

[Aufan59 83]

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

 

I’m sure I misunderstood.

You did. 

[homersapien 11,549]

4 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

Finally a true statement. However, you immediately jump to claims immediately afterwards. 1) You have no idea how much CO2 amplifies warming, and 2) you have no idea when the current warming would have started without increases in CO2.  

The actual implications of Leftfield's post flew right over your head.

 

15 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Once again, temperature increases lead to release of CO2 into the atmosphere - release from oceans, ice, soil, plants, etc

 

First, the two (numbered) statements you made are false: 

1) Climate scientists can predict how much warming additional CO2 added to the atmosphere will cause.  Valid scientific theory is predictive.  It's the very basis of modeling. 

2) Had there been no increase in the release of CO2 as a result of the industrial age and population growth, temperature would not have increased since then. (Or at least it would be consistent with the natural geologic, epochal time frame, which practically amounts to the same thing.)

What Leftfield is describing, is called in climate science an "amplifying feedback loop":

"In climate science, amplifying feedback loops are situations where a climate-caused alteration can trigger a process that causes even more warming, which in turn intensifies the alteration."

(I mentioned another amplifying feedback loom earlier in this - or perhaps a different - AGW thread consisting of the release of vast quantities of methane being released in the arctic tundra in Siberia and elsewhere. The point then was also misunderstood and quickly devolved in an irrelevant  discussion of the relative merits of methane as a greenhouse gas.)

The point is, such amplifying feedback loops (I don't know how many there are) act to accelerate the effects of greenhouse warming which is fundamentally caused by the emission of CO2 currently stored in the ground by burning fossil fuels.

The existence of these accelerating feedback loops means that the the ultimate rate and extent of global warming is not simply limited to the amount of CO2 released by continuing to burn fossil fuels, but in addition, the amount of CO2 released by all the feedback loops created by those increased temperatures.

Bottom line, the increase of greenhouse gases will not only continue, but possibly continue at an increasing rate. Temperature will almost certainly continue to increase at an increasing rate, as the data shows.

To people that actually understand the science of AGW, this should be very concerning, if not terrifying. (At least if they are young and/or have progeny they care about.)

Edited May 14 by homersapien

[johnnyAU 3,668]

7 minutes ago, homersapien said:

1) Climate scientists can predict how much warming additional CO2 added to the atmosphere will cause.  Valid scientific theory is predictive.  It's the very basis of modeling. 

Predict incorrectly. The models clearly show considerably more warming than is actually occurring. Why? Because of the assumed climate sensitivity due to doubling of CO2 baked in the models are too high. 

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

2) Had there been no increase in the release of CO2 as a result of the industrial age and population growth, temperature would not have increased since then. (Or at least it would be consistent with the natural geologic, epochal time frame, which practically amounts to the same thing.)

What Leftfield is describing is called in climate science an "amplifying feedback loop":

You, or anyone else for that matter, have no idea what the temperature would be without CO2 increases since the dawn of the industrial age. We all know what a feedback loop is. However, there is no real scientific data showing the climate to be significantly altered due to increases of CO2 above the signal of natural variability. Unsubstantiated claims and unverifiable computer models are garbage science used as propaganda for the ignorant, like yourself.