The Complexity of Climate Change

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > The Complexity of Climate Change > Page 4

Page 4 of 4

07-04-2017 18:48
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	James_ wrote: @All, The link is about historical ice floe in the Atlantic. It also has a map based on observations and shows the extent of pack ice in 1906. The Greenland Sea was frozen over while the Gulf Stream had no icing. Of which any Norwegian knows that no waters around Norway froze during winter because of the Gulf Stream. And why the maps on the linked page and what the article is about is important is because of what was to follow as far as a retreating ice pack goes. And as everyone knows by now I do believe volcanoes and hydrothermal vents are contributing a lot of heat. Jim http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2004JC002851/full Jim, your data reference seems to show no changes whatsoever beyond normal variation from 1750 to 2002. Now the question is if there has been any change between 2002 and the last 15 years. By the looks of those charts my guess is that there hasn't been any other changes beyond the cycles they noted.
07-04-2017 19:26
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" wished: ...no changes whatsoever beyond normal variation from 1750 to 2002..... the question is if there has been any change between 2002 and the last 15 years. "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" doesn't wake up fer da real data: Arctic sea ice extent was the same(13.46 million KM2) for the dates, May 10, 1980 AND March 23, 2017. Also, Arctic sea ice VOLUME is much less in to date 2017 (~18,000+ KM3) than the average of the to date 1980's decade(~30000+ KM3). All this major break from the past, while solar TSI has been low: For 387(?) straight months, Earth temperatures have been over the 20th century average, altho solar TSI has been languid for decades, & solar TSI has been sub-average for 10 years (including 3+ years setting a 100 year record low). 2017 Arctic sea ice extent maximum did NOT reach 13.9 million square kilometers.... just remarkable.... the last three years have been below 14 million square kilometer mark. All other recorded years have been OVER 14 million KM2 & even to 15.5 million. Of course, March 2017 Arctic sea ice VOLUME was 9600 cubic kilometers less than the average of the 1980's, & 11,000(+?) cubic kilometers less than 1980... It is good that AGW denier liar whiners double-down & triple-down(?) on their bets that Earth is returning to an ice age. 2017 Arctic sea ice maximum extent was well LESS THAN 2 million square kilometers than for the year 1979. As mentioned above, 2+million KM2 is water that was sea ice in 1979 & readily absorbing solar energy, instead of reflecting solar heat to space. Yeah, already excess AGW energy has a strong feedback, causing more solar energy to be absorbed. Wherever there are downwellings in that 2 million extra KM2 of water, solar energy is transported to bottom of continental shelves or into the deep Arctic Ocean for storage. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content From the article: More than 90 percent of the warming that has happened on Earth over the past 50 years has occurred in the ocean. Recent studies estimate that warming of the upper oceans accounts for about 63 percent of the total increase in the amount of stored heat in the climate system from 1971 to 2010, and warming from 700 meters down to the ocean floor adds about another 30 percent. Though the atmosphere has been spared from the full extent of global warming for now, heat already stored in the ocean will eventually be released, committing Earth to additional warming in the future. Edited on 07-04-2017 19:57
12-04-2017 05:56
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	Robert Scribbler's articles belong here, too: Robert Scribbler on coral bleaching, flooding, icebergs..... : https://robertscribbler.com/
12-04-2017 17:26
James_ ★★★★☆ (1655)	Wake wrote: James_ wrote: @All, The link is about historical ice floe in the Atlantic. It also has a map based on observations and shows the extent of pack ice in 1906. The Greenland Sea was frozen over while the Gulf Stream had no icing. Of which any Norwegian knows that no waters around Norway froze during winter because of the Gulf Stream. And why the maps on the linked page and what the article is about is important is because of what was to follow as far as a retreating ice pack goes. And as everyone knows by now I do believe volcanoes and hydrothermal vents are contributing a lot of heat. Jim http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2004JC002851/full Jim, your data reference seems to show no changes whatsoever beyond normal variation from 1750 to 2002. Now the question is if there has been any change between 2002 and the last 15 years. By the looks of those charts my guess is that there hasn't been any other changes beyond the cycles they noted. This link uses different data sets. With myself I have no doubt the Arctic is warming. I tend to believe that the fault that runs into the Arctic controls much of the warming and cooling of the northern hemisphere. At the same time such a change can be accelerated. Since we don't have all of the information we need, it's difficult to say how much natural warming has been affected by industrialization. Jim They show 4 different eras of Arctic ice. https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-piecing-together-arctic-sea-ice-history-1850 edited to add; the maps are near the bottom of the page. What started interest for some was that in 1920 White whales disappeared from around Greenland below the Arctic Circle because those waters warmed suddenly. Edited on 12-04-2017 17:33
21-04-2017 04:32
Frescomexico ★★☆☆☆ (179)	Jim, A quick read article on the NW Passage: I'm reading The Elusive Northwest Passage via the Scientific American app http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-northwest-passage-remains-treacherous-despite-ice-retreat/?wt.mc=SA_App-Share Don
21-04-2017 17:12
James_ ★★★★☆ (1655)	Frescomexico wrote: Jim, A quick read article on the NW Passage: I'm reading The Elusive Northwest Passage via the Scientific American app http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-northwest-passage-remains-treacherous-despite-ice-retreat/?wt.mc=SA_App-Share Don Don, I'm not sure if the link was to the entire article but 30 ships having made the passage is significant. The Northwest Passage has been pursued since at least the 1800's. Now it's becoming like Mt. Everest. Mt. Everest has become the world's highest landfill because of all the traffic to it's summit. Myself I'd wonder why the U.S. would need to import so much from China ( a communist country) when Mexico (not a communist country) would be just as capable of manufacturing the same goods. Then maybe we could cap/cave in a deep fault or 2 and cool the Arctic some. Jim
22-04-2017 11:05
Frescomexico ★★☆☆☆ (179)	James_ wrote: Frescomexico wrote: Jim, A quick read article on the NW Passage: I'm reading The Elusive Northwest Passage via the Scientific American app http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-northwest-passage-remains-treacherous-despite-ice-retreat/?wt.mc=SA_App-Share Don Don, I'm not sure if the link was to the entire article but 30 ships having made the passage is significant. The Northwest Passage has been pursued since at least the 1800's. Now it's becoming like Mt. Everest. Mt. Everest has become the world's highest landfill because of all the traffic to it's summit. Myself I'd wonder why the U.S. would need to import so much from China ( a communist country) when Mexico (not a communist country) would be just as capable of manufacturing the same goods. Then maybe we could cap/cave in a deep fault or 2 and cool the Arctic some. Jim If I read correctly, the plate tectonics in the northern Atlantic is characterized by a widening of the plates (plates moving apart), so the vents will become more numerous and larger in the far future.
22-04-2017 18:04
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	"frenziedmex" muffed: Jim, A quick read article on the NW Passage: I'm reading The Elusive Northwest Passage via the Scientific American app http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-northwest-passage-remains-treacherous-despite-ice-retreat/?wt.mc=SA_App-Share Left unsaid in the article was the knowledge that solar TSI has remained languid for many decades & the last 10+ years has had a low solar TSI (including a 3+ year period, setting a 100 year record TSI low). Certainly, low TSI has affected High Arctic temperatures downward during the highest sun positions of the year..... despite the HIGHER THAN NORMAL High Arctic temperatures during the FALL & WINTER & EARLY SPRING, due to AGW GHGs warming Earth's bio-sphere & flooding into the HIGH ARCTIC. Edited on 22-04-2017 18:14
22-04-2017 18:54
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14212)	James_ wrote: And so everyone will understand my position there is what NOAA has posted on it's website and it seems or appears to be that they are quoting the IPCC. The IPCC is a dishonest organization with an extreme leftist political agenda. This alone is sufficient to get your "position" summarily dismissed. James_ wrote: Why this specific information is something that I find interesting is because I have been pursuing an experiment for the last couple of years that would help scientists to understand the link in Atmospheric Chemistry that is missing. There is no "atmospheric chemistry" component in Stefan-Boltzmann. You're barking up the wrong tree. James_ wrote: And as I think everyone knows the current belief is that Atmospheric Forcing does not occur in the tropopause. I think successfully demonstrating this would change the discussion about climate change. Explain how this would change anything. Have you been able to falsifiably define "climate"? Unless you have a formal specification of "climate" with no ambiguity, none of what you are discussing makes any sense. James_ wrote: Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing There's no such thing in science as a "climate" and there is no such thing in science as a "forcing." You might be able to conclude that there is no such thing as a "climate forcing" in science either. Those are all terms used in Global Warming dogma. At the moment, I don't see you changing discussions on "Climate Change" but rather keeping them exactly as they are, i.e. unfalsifiable religious nonsense. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-04-2017 19:29
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner i b da no sigh-ants mann" muffed: ... dishonest organization... "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner i b da no sigh-ants mann" is a dishonest dis-organization.
24-04-2017 12:46
Frescomexico ★★☆☆☆ (179)	James_ wrote: @All, This is the link that I was talking about. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wvm4hurlock I know history can be boring but with climate change, etc. it might help us to better understand how we can help change to come about. And why the ionospshere is being discussed in this thread I don't know. It's completely off topic and is rude. Why does max Planck's work matter ? This let's us know that when solar radiation is absorbed and the emitted that those frequencies can effect the weather. And what the experiment I did let's us know is that there is more energy in the color blue than found in brown. Between the black ring and the white hot center was blue (the 15 second mark). At the same time plants whose leaves are darker green might be better for cooling a region than plants with lighter colored green leaves. after all, when land becomes arid that is because it happens over time. And with climate and geologic change, those can be improved upon over time as well. @Don, there are ways that desalination might be made more affordable. If so then that can help places that have little rainfall. One such example is where the Dust Bowl happened in the U.S. And in the U.S. every aquifer west of the Mississippi is in danger of going dry. http://www.history.com/topics/dust-bowl Jim, Is that black ring to be considered a black body? And, if so, how does heating cause it to become so, and how does further heating cause it to stop being so? Don
24-04-2017 19:51
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	James_ wrote: Wake wrote: James_ wrote: @All, The link is about historical ice floe in the Atlantic. It also has a map based on observations and shows the extent of pack ice in 1906. The Greenland Sea was frozen over while the Gulf Stream had no icing. Of which any Norwegian knows that no waters around Norway froze during winter because of the Gulf Stream. And why the maps on the linked page and what the article is about is important is because of what was to follow as far as a retreating ice pack goes. And as everyone knows by now I do believe volcanoes and hydrothermal vents are contributing a lot of heat. Jim http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2004JC002851/full Jim, your data reference seems to show no changes whatsoever beyond normal variation from 1750 to 2002. Now the question is if there has been any change between 2002 and the last 15 years. By the looks of those charts my guess is that there hasn't been any other changes beyond the cycles they noted. This link uses different data sets. With myself I have no doubt the Arctic is warming. I tend to believe that the fault that runs into the Arctic controls much of the warming and cooling of the northern hemisphere. At the same time such a change can be accelerated. Since we don't have all of the information we need, it's difficult to say how much natural warming has been affected by industrialization. Jim They show 4 different eras of Arctic ice. https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-piecing-together-arctic-sea-ice-history-1850 edited to add; the maps are near the bottom of the page. What started interest for some was that in 1920 White whales disappeared from around Greenland below the Arctic Circle because those waters warmed suddenly. James - look at these pictures. This was taken of the USS Skate Nuclear Submarine in open water at the North Pole in the winter of 1958-1959 I believe. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/ The USS Sargo surfaced in 1960 through an extremely thin layer of ice. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/334673816029664600/ The human life is short and it is easy to make a man believe that things are peculiar when in fact they are normal.
14-11-2023 01:56
James_ ★★★★☆ (1655)	James_ wrote: Hi All, Am new here but have my own thoughts based on research that I have done. And so everyone will understand my position there is what NOAA has posted on it's website and it seems or appears to be that they are quoting the IPCC. Why this specific information is something that I find interesting is because I have been pursuing an experiment for the last couple of years that would help scientists to understand the link in Atmospheric Chemistry that is missing. And as I think everyone knows the current belief is that Atmospheric Forcing does not occur in the tropopause. I think successfully demonstrating this would change the discussion about climate change. Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases. For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases. Latitudinal and altitudinal responses are expected to vary. Note that scenarios used in IPCC consider a future with all three major greenhouse gases increasing and thus it is important to assess the net balance of these perturbations on stratospheric ozone. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html This part is especially interesting because fluorocarbons were banned in 1987 because of how much they damaged the ozone layer. >> The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases. For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases. << edited to add; this link is to some of the reasons we need to protect the ozone layer. https://www.epa.gov/ozone-layer-protection/health-and-environmental-effects-ozone-layer-depletion When I joined the forum. See Alan, my work and discussions in this forum are well documented. March 21, 2017. And when you add on to that from June 20, 2016; https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-co2-h2o-ch2o-o2-possible.876215/ And with science, spending 8 years learning something can lead to a PhD. I have put in the time Alan. And what have you done? You went to church. And Alan, psychologists will be able to review 6 years of postings on this website and then consider what you post. While this forum might be toxic Alan, no one tries to force themself on someone. Why you might have a nice stay waiting for you where there will be people who want to get to know you better because you're such a wonderful person. Edited on 14-11-2023 02:03

Page 4 of 4

Join the debate The Complexity of Climate Change: