Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Has Global Warming Peaked?

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Thu 07 Mar 2019, 12:33:34

To take the world's problems in the order I feel they should be ranked.
World population:
Possible solutions,
1. Educate every girl in the world to at least the eight grade. 2. Provide effective free or affordable birth control to every girl-woman for every year they are of child bearing age.3. End arraigned and child marriages worldwide.4. End subsidies and cost incentives to having more then two children.
Financial instability:
Possible solutions,
1. End deficit spending by any government agency anywhere in the world including during times of war. In the US cut federal salaries and or programs by whatever percentage it takes to reach a balanced budget each and every year. If not achieved Congress and executive branch gets zero pay.
2. Have families pay their bills in full once a year and live within their means. Homes and cars shall be worth more then owed at all times, no rolled over credit card balances etc. No such thing as a Jumbo mortgage.
3. End college loans. make colleges compete for available funds.
4. Take old college debt payable by paycheck withholding of 5% until paid.
Climate change:
Possible solutions,
2.Raise fuel taxes on regular pre announced schedule enough to rebuild infrastructure on pay as you go basis and subsidies build out of renewable carbon free energy.
3. Energize third world areas with wind and solar to begin with.
4. Replace every old nuclear plant with a new one and add as many as uranium supply can service.
Migration:
solution,
1. Fix the problems in the country they are migrating from.
2 Shoot to kill at the border. don't need a wall just a clear field of fire and some armed drones. Harsh I know but I'm afraid we will come to it in the end.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9847
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Thu 07 Mar 2019, 13:20:28

Oil depletion is not yet a problem and is not likely to be for some years yet. Just when will depend on how much we switch away from fossil fuels and control the population problem.
Raising the fuel tax would help in that regard depletion or not.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9847
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby Newfie » Thu 07 Mar 2019, 13:53:46

PSTARR,

That’s some pretty harsh words. Back it down a bit, take each day anew.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 13291
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Thu 07 Mar 2019, 16:41:53

Rockdoc123:

So what do you think is happening? What is your theory to explain it? Not just pointing to Judith Curry, who from my understaning does not deny AWG, she questions the degree and wants research in additional factors.


one of the reasons I pointed to Judith Curry in the first place is that my own opinion is somewhat attuned to hers. The whole premise of scientific research is someone proposes a theory based on various supporting factors, other scientists then pick it apart. If it fails that scrutiny the scientist who proposed the theory is expected to either adjust the theory to take into account shortcomings pointed out by critics or abandon the theory altogether and possibly arrive at something new. There is no requirement to have an alternative theory when criticizing a proposed theory, if there was science would never have advanced to where we are today. One of the problems with the current batch of global warming proponents is that when they are faced with criticisms about their supposed grand theory rather than go back and adjust it or completely abandon it they instead attack the critic ...usually using the word "denier" and then proceed to continue their proselytization in an echo chamber. This is not science, certainly not the way I learned it nor the way it was meant to be.

There is not enough work done at this point in time to allow someone to come up with a unifying theory for climate change that doesn't have tremendous holes in it. If that was not the case you would not see scads of papers appearing each year that point to inadequacies in models, measurements, assumptions as they apply to almost every area of the science. Of course, if all you read is certain self-serving blogs or certain news outlet releases you wouldn't be aware of all the uncertainty out there but it is there in the journals for those interested. This is why the research must continue. Curry points out that there is only superficial understanding of all the natural variation in climate with lots of controversy over the true impact of things such as AMO, PDO, etc. as the literature clearly shows. She also points to the very wide variation in ECS and TCS arrived at by more than a dozen authors over the past few years that can mean the difference between very marginal warming due to a doubling of CO2 to something quite impactful with no clear means of determining which is actually correct. To argue that the science is settled is simply to show ones own ignorance I'm afraid.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7290
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby Newfie » Thu 07 Mar 2019, 19:57:00

That’s a whole lotta “I don’t know but you are wrong.”

It’s a nice little trick to put yourself in the cat bird seat so you can criticize anyone else at any time about anything without leaving yourself open to question.

Here’s some recommended reading material for you, since your keeping such an “open mind.”
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 13291
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Thu 07 Mar 2019, 21:50:56

That’s a whole lotta “I don’t know but you are wrong.”

It’s a nice little trick to put yourself in the cat bird seat so you can criticize anyone else at any time about anything without leaving yourself open to question.


As I said a few times....that is the scientific process. It is called critiquing theory. In grad school it is honed into you that is one of your main tasks going forward. If you think science advances by a bunch of folks sitting around and nodding their heads up and down like some bobblehead or instead jumping up and down with pom poms and yelling "go team" then I'm afraid you to rethink that.

and as to your suggested reading list, thanks for that I suspect it has shaped your knowledge on the subject as it is. :roll:
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7290
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby onlooker » Thu 07 Mar 2019, 22:40:39

post1415254.html#p141525
Read the post by Dissudent who I am convinced is more equipped to render an informed opinion on AGW than you Rockdoc.
"There is not enough work done at this point in time to allow someone to come up with a unifying theory for climate  change"

stochastic definition:
randomly determined; having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analyzed statistically but may not be predicted precisely.
Dissident correctly stated the science of CC is deterministic not stochastic
Dissident wrote "Accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere leads to fundamental climate change. "
They're is nothing ambiguous about that or undetermined. We also have a body of records and measurements from over a century that attest to changes in the ocean-atmosphere-land system that clearly show a rise in temperature and accumulation and increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.  The only serious uncertainties lie in  how fast and how much will climate change and real world data is informing us that worse case scenarios are showing to be more likely and that these extremes are constantly  being underestimated by the computer modeling. So whatever uncertainty does exist is invariably pointing to the climate system producing more extreme and faster changes than we had thought
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10517
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Thu 07 Mar 2019, 23:45:07

Dissident correctly stated the science of CC is deterministic not stochastic


OH dear…please tell all of these scientists what they are doing is completely wrong…you can’t apply a probability distribution to climate variables and resulting outcomes…its just wrong, dissident says so!

SEMENOV, M.A. & BARROW, E.M., 1997. Use of a Stochastic weather generator in the development of climate change scenarios. Climatic Change 35: 397. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005342632279

Wilks, D.S. , 1992. Adapting stochastic weather generation algorithms for climate change studies, Climatic Change 22: 67. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00143344

Sigourous, et al, 2018. Statistical and stochastic comparison of climate change vs urbanization. 20th EGU General Assembly, Proceedings. P 18608

Caccamo, M. T and Magazu, S, 2019. A physical-mathematical approach to climate change effects through stochastic resonance. Climate, 7(2), 21; https://doi.org/10.3390/cli7020021

Proistosescu, C et al, 2018. Radiative feedbacks from stochastic variablility in surface temperature and radiative imbalance. Geoph Res Lett,  
https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL077678

Hagos, S et al, 2018. A stochastic framework for modeling the population dynamics of convective clouds. Journal of Advance in Modeling Earth Sciences,  
https://doi.org/10.1002/2017MS001214

Dissident wrote "Accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere leads to fundamental climate change. " 
They're is nothing ambiguous about that or undetermined


Perhaps you need to reread what I said. My comment is that nobody argues that greenhouse gases do not have any effect, the main uncertainty is in how much. This is well established by the widespread of ECS and TCS in the recent literature.

Image

In case you don’t understand what the graph is telling you there is a range of ECS anywhere from 6 degrees down to just above 1.5 degrees based on peer-reviewed papers. For a rise in CO2 from 300 to 600 ppm that is a difference in ~5 degrees, all the way from nothing to see here to oh, that’s quite nasty. That is the definition of an uncertain projection.

We also have a body of records and measurements from over a century that attest to changes in the ocean-atmosphere-land system that clearly show a rise in temperature and accumulation and increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.


Do I have to remind you that correlation does not mean causation? Do I have to repost anyone of hundreds of graphs showing spurious correlations such as the number of movies Nicolas Cage starred in versus the number of deaths by drowning in swimming pools?

The only serious uncertainties lie in  how fast and how much will climate change and real world data is informing us that worse case scenarios are showing to be more likely and that these extremes are constantly  being underestimated by the computer modeling. So whatever uncertainty does exist is invariably pointing to the climate system producing more extreme and faster changes than we had thought


Jesus wept. Do a bit of reading on the subject

Curry, J, and Webster 2011, , Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster, AMS, DOI:10.1175/BAMS-D-10-3139.1
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7290
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby Newfie » Fri 08 Mar 2019, 07:19:52

Rockdoc123,

From what if can see it appears you don’t understand science. Science is meant to be a useful tool. Yes you can find all kinds of unknowns within science, and there is always something more to be studied to perfect the theory. But if you never use it to actually co something then it is pretty useless. To make it useful you need to, at some point say:

“This is the best info we have, it’s pretty good, good enough to move forward on. “

In this case concerning AGW one could add:

“The science is good enough to know that if we don’t move then we are likely to be in a worse position, perhaps one from which we can not recover.”

What I hear from all your argument is a case of “analysis paralysis.”

.Perhaps you need to reread what I said. My comment is that nobody argues that greenhouse gases do not have any effect, the main uncertainty is in how much. This is well established by the widespread of ECS and TCS in the recent literature.


What exactly is your fear of taking steps to mitigate warming?
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 13291
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby onlooker » Fri 08 Mar 2019, 07:34:53

https://thebulletin.org/2018/06/benefit ... igh-costs/

The cost of not doing something about CC far exceeds the cost of doing something
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10517
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Fri 08 Mar 2019, 08:25:55

onlooker wrote:https://thebulletin.org/2018/06/benefits-of-curbing-climate-change-far-outweigh-costs/

The cost of not doing something about CC far exceeds the cost of doing something

I like this quote from the linked article.
For example, a study by Regional Economic Models, Inc. and Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. found that a steadily-rising carbon tax whose revenues were all returned equally to American households would grow the economy, with a net GDP increase of $1.3 trillion over 20 years.

Like any tax ever collected was ever all returned to the people. :lol:
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9847
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby onlooker » Fri 08 Mar 2019, 08:47:59

Ultimately, this is about human survival beyond economic costs. Does anybody think Europe was doing well economically during the Plague? If nothing more health costs will be staggerring as will rebuilding infrastructure. This goes beyond economics and is about the survival of communities and societies.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10517
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Fri 08 Mar 2019, 10:31:45

From what if can see it appears you don’t understand science. Science is meant to be a useful tool. Yes you can find all kinds of unknowns within science, and there is always something more to be studied to perfect the theory. But if you never use it to actually co something then it is pretty useless. To make it useful you need to, at some point say:

“This is the best info we have, it’s pretty good, good enough to move forward on. “

In this case concerning AGW one could add:

“The science is good enough to know that if we don’t move then we are likely to be in a worse position, perhaps one from which we can not recover.”

What I hear from all your argument is a case of “analysis paralysis.”


Once again, being a scientist and having taught at university level I think I understand it pretty well. You are talking about applied science not actual scientific analysis. Applied science refers to the discipline by which individuals take existing scientific knowledge and use it in practical applications. The science of climate change is not applied science persay…that is left up to those who talk about mitigation strategies or engineering climate solutions. But your comment flies in the face of what others are saying here. You suggest well, OK, it isn’t well understood but it is good enough to have some solutions whereas they are saying….it is completely solved, there are virtually no uncertainties. Which is it?
As to why I do not like running out and trying to solve a problem that isn’t well understood our recent history is rife with man interfering in nature because he thought he could solve a problem without actually understanding the issue properly. An example I always point to is the Smoky the Bear policy that really controlled North American forest management for much of the first half of the twentieth century. In Canada the result was the fire successional species of aspen popular stopped growing and they were the main food source for elk. Those elk ended up eating spruce bark from which they got sick and weak and eventually perished. The entire elk population of Alberta was gone in the early part of the twentieth century, what is there now is a result of import of that species and abandonment of the “no fires” policy. In terms of climate change mitigation many scientists have pointed out the dangers in trying to engineer climate, especially when all the potential interactions are not well understood, there is almost no support for this approach. But my main argument is trillions of dollars spent trying to do something about climate change which in the end may either have zero impact or actually may have unknown negative consequences is bad money management. There are a host of issues important to the world that we know can be solved, hunger in various countries, poor education in developing countries, lack of available health care in developing countries, lack of access to clean water etc, etc and using that money to invest in solving those problems instead we know will have immediate benefits. Meanwhile as climate changes (and it will no matter what is done) mankind mitigates and adapts.

I like this quote from the linked article.

For example, a study by Regional Economic Models, Inc. and Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. found that a steadily-rising carbon tax whose revenues were all returned equally to American households would grow the economy, with a net GDP increase of $1.3 trillion over 20 years.


Like any tax ever collected was ever all returned to the people. 


Canada has a carbon tax and in Alberta it has been around for about a year now. Zero impact on driving miles is the first observation and the second observation is there are just as many SUV's and large pickup trucks on the road as there were a year ago. The third observation is that although the provincial government promised to redistribute that tax income as spending on public projects less than 10% has been spent or even approved for projects. Meanwhile, the salaries of government employees continue to increase. Yeah, that worked out about the way I expected. :roll:
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7290
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 08 Mar 2019, 11:13:00

onlooker wrote:Ultimately, this is about human survival beyond economic costs. Does anybody think Europe was doing well economically during the Plague? If nothing more health costs will be staggerring as will rebuilding infrastructure. This goes beyond economics and is about the survival of communities and societies.


If you actually look at the facts vs your beliefs the economy of Europe was going gangbusters from the middle of the Black death onward. See the plague had a total leveling effect, because nobody knew where it came from the effect was distributed pretty evenly across socio-economic indices. As a result the large number of bureacrats and old masters in all the different guilds were as devastated as the youth. As a result of that fact a large portion of the fixed assets, homes, business, trade networks, were transferred from upper levels down the chain to lower levels through inheritance. This sudden influx of wealth by people who had been struggling to feed themselves/family meant there was money for good food for all. Even more so the number of tenant farmers was also cut roughly 30% which meant a lot fewer farmers were out in the fields eating up the crops they were growing.

The sum result of these economic changes became known as 'the renaissance'.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15564
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby yellowcanoe » Fri 08 Mar 2019, 12:11:12

rockdoc123 wrote:Canada has a carbon tax and in Alberta it has been around for about a year now. Zero impact on driving miles is the first observation and the second observation is there are just as many SUV's and large pickup trucks on the road as there were a year ago. The third observation is that although the provincial government promised to redistribute that tax income as spending on public projects less than 10% has been spent or even approved for projects. Meanwhile, the salaries of government employees continue to increase. Yeah, that worked out about the way I expected. :roll:


The story I get from my daughter who works for the Alberta Provincial Archives is that the NDP government has been trying to negotiate zero percent increases. This article would seem to confirm that https://edmontonjournal.com/news/politi ... age-freeze

The carbon tax isn't high enough to generate a noticeable reduction in SUV and large pickup truck usage in the short term. Over a longer time period it helps encourage people to purchase smaller vehicles and if they own more than one vehicle to favour the more fuel efficient vehicle. Fuel taxes are a good thing even if we did not have a climate change problem because oil is a finite resource.
yellowcanoe
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 582
Joined: Fri 15 Nov 2013, 13:42:27
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Fri 08 Mar 2019, 14:12:41

Fuel taxes are a good thing even if we did not have a climate change problem because oil is a finite resource.


I disagree. There were already extensive fuel taxes prior to imposing a carbon tax.

And I'm sure in another years time there will still be pundits saying.....oh we still have to wait some time to see when people stop buying SUV's and big pickup trucks. Not going to happen here, too many ranchers, oil workers, rednecks etc. And as I pointed out they haven't spent hardly any of the tax income, have not allocated it to projects and I'm almost certain have zero intention of doing so. They still need to pay for their increased salaries and the boondoggles they are throwing out to the unions. Those carbon tax revenues are going to disappear into government carrying costs I'm afraid. You shouldn't give cocaine to an addict and equally, you shouldn't give money to a politician.

Meanwhile, in far left British Colombia which also has a carbon tax, transportation emissions have increased by 7% since tax implementation. Food and Water (an environmental group) said:

Greenhouse gas emissions have been rising rapidly in recent years even as the tax rate and total tax revenues have increased, it said. Moreover, the short-term declines in taxed greenhouse gas emissions were more modest and were reversed more quickly than the changes to the untaxed greenhouse gas
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7290
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Fri 08 Mar 2019, 18:54:26

rockdoc123 wrote:
That is how science works. Someone proposes a theory, others pick it apart and point out the shortcomings and the individual who proposed the original theory can choose to adjust his theory, abandon it and/or create a new one.

That is not how we got Relativity, QM and Plate Tectonics. It was other individuals who had a new theory. Your skeptics have no theory.
Facebook knows you're a dog.
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7325
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby dissident » Fri 08 Mar 2019, 20:16:51

rockdoc123 wrote:
Dissident correctly stated the science of CC is deterministic not stochastic


OH dear…please tell all of these scientists what they are doing is completely wrong…you can’t apply a probability distribution to climate variables and resulting outcomes…its just wrong, dissident says so!

SEMENOV, M.A. & BARROW, E.M., 1997. Use of a Stochastic weather generator in the development of climate change scenarios. Climatic Change 35: 397. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005342632279

Wilks, D.S. , 1992. Adapting stochastic weather generation algorithms for climate change studies, Climatic Change 22: 67. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00143344

Sigourous, et al, 2018. Statistical and stochastic comparison of climate change vs urbanization. 20th EGU General Assembly, Proceedings. P 18608

Caccamo, M. T and Magazu, S, 2019. A physical-mathematical approach to climate change effects through stochastic resonance. Climate, 7(2), 21; https://doi.org/10.3390/cli7020021

Proistosescu, C et al, 2018. Radiative feedbacks from stochastic variablility in surface temperature and radiative imbalance. Geoph Res Lett,  
https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL077678

Hagos, S et al, 2018. A stochastic framework for modeling the population dynamics of convective clouds. Journal of Advance in Modeling Earth Sciences,  
https://doi.org/10.1002/2017MS001214

Dissident wrote "Accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere leads to fundamental climate change. " 
They're is nothing ambiguous about that or undetermined


Perhaps you need to reread what I said. My comment is that nobody argues that greenhouse gases do not have any effect, the main uncertainty is in how much. This is well established by the widespread of ECS and TCS in the recent literature.

Image

In case you don’t understand what the graph is telling you there is a range of ECS anywhere from 6 degrees down to just above 1.5 degrees based on peer-reviewed papers. For a rise in CO2 from 300 to 600 ppm that is a difference in ~5 degrees, all the way from nothing to see here to oh, that’s quite nasty. That is the definition of an uncertain projection.

We also have a body of records and measurements from over a century that attest to changes in the ocean-atmosphere-land system that clearly show a rise in temperature and accumulation and increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.


Do I have to remind you that correlation does not mean causation? Do I have to repost anyone of hundreds of graphs showing spurious correlations such as the number of movies Nicolas Cage starred in versus the number of deaths by drowning in swimming pools?

The only serious uncertainties lie in  how fast and how much will climate change and real world data is informing us that worse case scenarios are showing to be more likely and that these extremes are constantly  being underestimated by the computer modeling. So whatever uncertainty does exist is invariably pointing to the climate system producing more extreme and faster changes than we had thought


Jesus wept. Do a bit of reading on the subject

Curry, J, and Webster 2011, , Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster, AMS, DOI:10.1175/BAMS-D-10-3139.1



Your references utterly fail to prove your claim. There is nothing stochastic about the radiative transfer equations and the Navier-Stokes equations. Stochastic by definition means systems that are ergodic and fill phase space. By contrast even energy conserving Hamiltonian versions of the governing equations relevant to the atmosphere and oceans exhibit something called balance and tend to occupy onto a fuzzy slow manifold which is a smaller fraction of the the phase space.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10 ... 0JAS3650.1

That researchers apply statistical analysis to geophysical fluid dynamics problems does not imply that they are studying Gaussian systems for which these tools apply.

Image

The manifestly non-Gaussian nature of the temperature variations in the stratosphere:

http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/S ... _Yoden.pdf

The atmosphere is not in a full bore 3D turbulent regime, it is mostly laminar with baroclinic eddy formation that exhibits an upscale enstrophy cascade instead of a downscale cascade as with 3D turbulence. You can see this clearly for the Jupiter-like system:

http://www.columbia.edu/~lmp/paps/cho-p ... F-1996.pdf

Any deus ex machina initial noise is not amplified and maintained, instead it decays away and forms highly organized structures.

But this discussion is a diversion. The impact of heat trapping gases in the atmosphere are not stochastic. They are purely deterministic. This geology shill is confounding the nonlinearity of the Navier-Stokes equations and the monotonic effect of radiative forcing by green house gas accumulation. It is clear to anyone with a clue that the radiative impact dominates the nonlinear transport "noise". The primary way that the nonlinear transport couples to the radiative transfer part of the system is through cloud and surface albedo. But clouds have shown no capacity to offset warming via low altitude scattering of incoming visible band light. And surface albedo has shown a systematic trend towards reduction. So transport nonlinearity cannot offset the impact of well mixed gases like CO2 and CH4. In fact, it is temperature driven processes that govern surface emissions and sinks that dominate the budget of these chemical species. Transport nonlinearity does not affect the budget of these species since they are well mixed and have sufficiently long residence times in the atmosphere.

But the shill wants you to think that greenhouse gases show intrinsic variability in their effects. No, they do not. The only variation is from surface and cloud albedo in the radiative transfer equations. And as already noted, this variation is not important for surface ice and snow trends and cloud albedo variations are not showing any trends that matter. In fact, the IR trapping by ice clouds (cirrus) in the tropopause region due to the Clausius-Clapeyron relation driven increase of atmospheric H2O is significant and acting to amplify the warming. (Ice clouds are mostly transparent to visible light so their albedo effect is not important, but they are effective at trapping IR).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4136590/
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5633
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby dissident » Fri 08 Mar 2019, 20:23:37

onlooker wrote:Ultimately, this is about human survival beyond economic costs. Does anybody think Europe was doing well economically during the Plague? If nothing more health costs will be staggerring as will rebuilding infrastructure. This goes beyond economics and is about the survival of communities and societies.


You are sounding like a commie to these penny pinchers. They think that national and international action to combat climate change (while killing a second bird with one stone: overcoming the looming fossil fuel crisis) is some epic waste of their precious lucre. You can see how absurd they are when Exxon spends hundreds of millions of dollars to fund clowns like the resident geology shill as if Exxon is going to keep on pumping oil for the next millenium. Exxon is run by the same desiccated brain cretins that also deny global warming. It is time to treat them as the criminals they are.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5633
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests