onlooker wrote:Ibon, normally I would side with your point of view as it is very sensible and reasonable. However, what I have already read especially from Cid's postings truly sounds catastrophic. Just to list some key points as I see it.
First: Vast methane releases are implicated in most Mass Extinction Events on Earth
Second. We have a humongous world population that we must feed
Third. The Arctic and in particular the East Siberian Shelf has stored very large amounts of methane.
Fourth: This methane is very vulnerable to escape because of shallow ocean depths and solely being imprisoned by the permafrost which NOW is increasingly melting and becoming permeable and ruptured.
Fifth: Experts on that area have sounded the alarm that a release of a catastrophic amount of methane can happen at any time.
Sixth: Because of the GHG properties of methane, it would deliver probably a death blow to many agricultural areas on the planet by rapidly increasing global temperatures.
Seventh: With the methane released the process would play out logically as an extinction level event given the celerity of the warming and the scientific understanding that runaway global warming is a process that has happened and can happen again.
dohboi wrote:As noted above, you don't need models or computing to figure out that AGW is real and dangerous. Arrhenius figured out the basic physics 120 years ago without any computers or models. The electromagnetic wavelength absorption spectrum of CO2 is about as well established as the temperature that water boils at. The further confirmation that this basic physics is now playing out around us is just basic measurements of how much we burn, how much CO2 concentrations have gone up, and how much global temperatures have gone up.
Oh, the other requirements are a tiny amount of honesty and a couple of brain cells to rub together to connect these glaringly obvious dots. Hard to tell which (if not both) are lacking in JK's case!![]()
plantagenet wrote:KaiserJeep wrote:
?...thousands of idiots who are running "climate models" using PC spreadsheets, which are four orders of magnitude too weak for global climate modelling.
Actually global climate models are run on the fastest supercomputers currently available.
AND a next generation "exacomputer" ----faster then any current supercomputer----is being planned to further improve climate modeling.
exacomputer for GCM
Cheers
eugene wrote:I continue to find the "analysis" of people who know zip about what they are talking about who make various claims stating they know more than the people who are actually qualified. If you're against climate change, change models or climatologists in general, just say so. Don't attempt to rattle on proving your point. Long ago, I realized a person doesn't have to know a thing about a subject, they just have to sound like they do. I've been watching climate change for 3 decades and lived in Alaska for yrs where it's in your face. To people in areas where it's not so blatant, it's very easy to laugh it off.
As far as models, I give the climatologist a bit of slack. This has never been observed before so they struggle making models. They know they are not a 100%. But it's the best we got and sure as hell better than some "nerds" sitting around giving opinions which the internet if over full of. I don't need a model to tell me it's going on and that it's accelerating. Untold millions are sitting around with their heads in dark places ranting their own bias.
You may have been a salesman selling computers and you were a salesman. Just because you had an opinion and it was/is an opinion based on nothing but a sales pitch. And if you knew your product was insufficient, it says little for you. In fact, the climatologists may well have seen through your "amusement" but needed to work with what was available. Frankly, the longer I hear/read the bullshit I do, I have even more respect for climatologists. In the face of mockery, amusement, hecklers, political pressure and all the rest, they struggle on. Why don't you do the same.
Hawkcreek wrote:One of my sons has his BS in math and MS in meteorology, and he believes in AGW. He is one of the smartest people I know (even if he is my son), so that would be enough for me, even if I didn't already find it difficult to believe that the rise in CO2, along with the rise in temps and erratic weather, is just a coincidence. I don't believe that coincidence can cover the data coming from many different areas in GW.
Some people build positions on things before they take in enough data, and then it is very hard for them to ever change that position. They have no evil intent, but their sense of self-worth would decline too much if they admit any error.
So don't count on changing any minds via this forum. Just gather data and sources from the many smart people who contribute, and make up your own mind.
KaiserJeep wrote:Hawkcreek wrote:One of my sons has his BS in math and MS in meteorology, and he believes in AGW. He is one of the smartest people I know (even if he is my son), so that would be enough for me, even if I didn't already find it difficult to believe that the rise in CO2, along with the rise in temps and erratic weather, is just a coincidence. I don't believe that coincidence can cover the data coming from many different areas in GW.
Some people build positions on things before they take in enough data, and then it is very hard for them to ever change that position. They have no evil intent, but their sense of self-worth would decline too much if they admit any error.
So don't count on changing any minds via this forum. Just gather data and sources from the many smart people who contribute, and make up your own mind.
I'm in this forum because fossil fuel depletion is a topic that interests me. When it comes to climate, the world's climate is linked to Milankovitch cycles - aka the periodic Ice Ages, aka glacials/interglacials. There have been at least 262 glacials and interglacials recorded in the fossil records. The peak global temperatures of an interglacial (aka the "climatic optimum") are typically 10 degrees C warmer than today. This would seem to indicate that either we are in an uncharacteristically cool interglacial, or that we have not yet reached the peak or climatic optimum for this cycle.
You should ask your son two questions. First, what is it that justifies the words you used "the rise in temps and erratic weather"? Because I don't believe that we have even got recorded weather observations for much of the globe for more than about 100 years, and only isolated point observations from Jesuit monks and the like for the century before that. Which means that we have only observed weather for 0.00002% of one Milankovitch period, which averages about 100,000 years.
Secondly, does an observation period duration of 0.00002% of the cycle justify drawing conclusions about the entire cycle, or calling the weather observed "erratic"? People tend to draw conclusions based on personal experiences, and I much doubt that your son has observed the weather for more than about 40 years - and even that 40 years is 20% of the duration that weather observations have been recorded at all by anybody.
dohboi wrote:jed wrote: "SCORE LEVEL -- This seems to be where we are headed if we take worst case scenarios. Would this give us enough time to do foolish things? Who knows."
OK, I'll bite: Since you consider this the most likely scenario, what do you think the 'foolish things' are that we might have time to do?
dohboi wrote:Ummmm...
Faster global warming is not likely to be a solution to global warming.
Not sure why this isn't blindingly obvious.
I actually do think, though, that, in the long view, Archer's idea that the methane will take a long, long time (hundreds to thousands of years) to dissociate is actually the worst case scenario for the recovery of the earth. That would mean that our forcing will continue to affect the world for a long, long time.
jedrider wrote:dohboi wrote:jed wrote: "SCORE LEVEL -- This seems to be where we are headed if we take worst case scenarios. Would this give us enough time to do foolish things? Who knows."
OK, I'll bite: Since you consider this the most likely scenario, what do you think the 'foolish things' are that we might have time to do?
Glad you asked![]()
I don't know exactly: Geo-engineering? Nuclear exchange on the basis that reduced population and nuclear winter would be GOOD or, at least, BETTER. Certainly, a series of wars over the last remaining resources, especially arable land. Could the wars be contained? Would they always be asymmetrical?
(KJ is a denier. AGW is a F-A-C-T, not a theory. Abrupt Climate Change appears to be a F-A-C-T as well, although it is a relatively newly acquired insight.)
Hawkcreek wrote:Some people build positions on things before they take in enough data, and then it is very hard for them to ever change that position. They have no evil intent, but their sense of self-worth would decline too much if they admit any error.
dissident wrote:If you want quantification of impacts then you need to resort to models. But as we have seen with the ice melt the models are behind the curve. So treat their "predictions" as lower bounds to the coming impact.
We have already had good studies on drought and agricultural impacts done on the basis of previous IPCC round model results (not the current batch):
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/ ... e1633.html
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers ... ES2010.pdf
Ibon wrote:-snip-
My conclusion is that we have unequivocal data with ice melting and co2 levels rising that global warming is happening.
-snip-
I can remain ambiguous at the same time as I recognize the bias that one poster may have over another in terms of their positions.
We have unequivocal data with ice melting and co2 levels rising that global warming is happening.-snip-
The question mark risks that we do nothing or that it will be used by those in denial. Who cares? We are already doing a great job at the moment around the planet of doing absolutely nothing even though there is consensus with the majority that global warming is a real threat.
I remain ambiguous but hopeful.......
Return to Environment, Weather & Climate
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests