The Complexity of Climate Change

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

"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.

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.

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

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

"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

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.

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.

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.

James_ wrote: Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing

"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...

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

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_ 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

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

Im a BM wrote:
In March, 2017, James_ WAS "new here"

Seven years later, it isn't so new anymore.

So, James_, were you ever able to prove that "..successfully demonstrating this would change the discussion about climate change."?

Are you accomplishing your goals here?

Have you just become another internet troll, looking for another opportunity to insult someone and try to provoke some kind of response?

And this all has something to do with "science", right?

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

Im a BM wrote:
25 years ago I taught an environmental science class at a community college.

Im a BM wrote:
I have read a lot of literature about stratospheric chemistry, particularly how dentrification and polar stratospheric cloud formation influence ozone loss or recovery.

Im a BM wrote:
I can't begin to imagine where the claims about CO2 and CH4 somehow protecting against ozone loss come from.

James_ wrote:
I think the IPCC and NOAA would qualify as reputable sources.

James_ wrote:I think the IPCC and NOAA would qualify as reputable sources.

IBdaMann wrote:

James_ wrote:I think the IPCC and NOAA would qualify as reputable sources.

Why do you think this? If the IPCC were instead named the Joseph Goebbles institute for political transparency, would that change your mind somewhat?

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.
https://csl.noaa.gov/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html

James_ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James_ wrote:I think the IPCC and NOAA would qualify as reputable sources.

Why do you think this? If the IPCC were instead named the Joseph Goebbles institute for political transparency, would that change your mind somewhat?

Can you define "transparency" in an unambiguous way? Also Mantra 44D, paragraph 33, subsection 238LLC.

James_ wrote:
The IPCC did place the information in their 2013 report on climate change.

James_ wrote:
NOAA quoted the IPCC's report in its 2014 report on the Assessment of Ozone Depletion, how I found it and everyone knows I say ozone depletion.

James_ wrote:
[quote]Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing

James_ wrote:
and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2).

James_ wrote:
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.

James_ wrote:
Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4.

James_ wrote:
The net impact on ozone recovery

James_ wrote:
and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases.

James_ wrote:
For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013),

James_ wrote:
global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases.

James_ wrote:
As I've said for quite a while, how can the IPCC tell us we need to reduce CO2 and CH4

James_ wrote:
when the ozone layer is more important than global warming?

James_ wrote:
Just no way to live without the ozone layer.

James_ wrote:
This requires a long term solution

James_ wrote:
and it is not an immediate threat but it is a long term threat.

James_ wrote:
What's being done to lower ODSs has bought the necessary time so there's no panic, just enough time to work out a solution.

James_ wrote:
For anyone who cares, that's my real position yet taking care of smalller sustainability problems will help to be a part of the solution. I call it nickel and diming the problem.

p.s., With the comments being in 2 reports is being transparent. Why I might be the only person mentioning these reports, ask the media why they're silent on this part of the climate change debate.

James_ wrote:
p.s.s. U.V. radiation is a part of the solar energy budget

James_ wrote:
but is not considered as a source of heat

James_ wrote:
when the oceans absorb 100% of all UV radiation that reaches the ocean's surface.

James_ wrote:
100% and all means the same thing but was stressing the point.
There's no refraction of UV radiation by the ocean.

James_ wrote:
And 90% or more of all excess global warming heat is found in the oceans.

James_ wrote:
And with my Father being from Norway, it is a part of both Europe and Scandinavia. Why the distinctions? Way back when, Vikings fought the Holy Roman Empire. What is known as Europe is actually the Holy Roman Empire and Scandinavia is the land of the Vikings. And that comes with these guys;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpR2v98qZGE

And now English speaking countries seem to becoming Eastern Holy Roman Empire going back to The Crusades of 1,000 years ago. Why the fight for Zion today. All historical boundaries.
This is why if much of what I do is worth anything it will go through Norway (5th commandment) which means Scandinavia. Then with Greece not being a democracy, this will show what the the Holy Roman Empire and its unadulterated capitalism allows for, deciding what people will be allowed to vote for.
And this last part is a part of Bessler's Wheel and is to be taken somewhat seriously. And with Scandinavia, it is Norway, Sweden and Denmark. Finland has taken on Scandinavian culture so I'll include them in my definition of Scandinavia.
If my inventions turn out to be worth something then they need to be put in the right hands and as Adam Sandler showed in his movie 8 Crazy Nights, you can go wrong by looking to the land of ice and snow.....

p.s., All patents for Bessler's inventions will be donated to charity or their patent rights in a way along what Bessler might have wanted. And yet the law will recognize myself as the inventor because Bessler never revealed what he did and there is more than one way to interpret his clues.
And if my inventions are worth anything then I might add to what is done in Bessler's name. Bessler does deserve credit and recognition for his work just as any person deserves credit for their work. Kind of a Viking thing there.

Into the Night wrote:

NONE of the many Bessler wheels you have constructed has worked. Why?

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

NONE of the many Bessler wheels you have constructed has worked. Why?

It's possible that if I wasn't stalked then I might've done 10 years ago what I'm doing now. Research and Development is a necessary part of understanding something new or previously unknown. The church didn't allow for that.

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

NONE of the many Bessler wheels you have constructed has worked. Why?

It's possible that if I wasn't stalked then I might've done 10 years ago what I'm doing now. Research and Development is a necessary part of understanding something new or previously unknown. The church didn't allow for that.

Nope. You don't get to claim paranoia for your failed wheels.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote: NONE of the many Bessler wheels you have constructed has worked. Why?

It's possible that if I wasn't stalked then I might've done 10 years ago what I'm doing now. Research and Development is a necessary part of understanding something new or previously unknown. The church didn't allow for that.

keepit wrote:
ibd,
Who wouldn't like to pay off 10 trillion dollars of national debt by printing 10 trillion dollars and sending it to china?

keepit wrote: ibd, Who wouldn't like to pay off 10 trillion dollars of national debt by printing 10 trillion dollars and sending it to china?

GasGuzzler wrote: Did [you] see the price of baloney?

IBdaMann wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote: Did [you] see the price of baloney?

He probably couldn't see the price through all of the baloney.

keepit apparently still thinks that dollars printed to pay debt simply disappear into nothing. There's no helping him.

keepit wrote: Well, the interest on that 10 trillion of national debt would disappear forever.

keepit wrote:
Well, the interest on that 10 trillion of national debt would disappear forever. You can see that, right. We're paying interest and then we're paying interest on the interest.

Paying interest on interest and then repeating it and again is a parabolic disaster that doesn't end well.
Desperate problems call for desperate measures. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail.
O migosh. I'm a slogan lover!