Let's Get Physical About Climate Change

a reply to: Phage

Well the IPCC clearly stated they were looking for scientific papers that would show man made global warming and the CO2 molecular was going to be their villein . All papers produced have the CO2 component in it and if it didn't have then they were not interested in it . Seems that they produced the straw man ...

a reply to: mc_squared

Lots of great info here. I hope people learns to go to science to see what science says rather than pundits. The greatest conspiracy of all time and conspiracy theorists flock to the wrong side of it, this kind of irony isn't delicious at all.

originally posted by: mc_squared
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Great - good point.

Millions of people dead or displaced due to rising seas, extreme weather, agriculture changes, etc. God knows how many species extinct - but YOU get to grow bananas & oranges now, wheeeeee!

And this is why it is equally impossible to have a conversation with MMGW zealots.

Millions displaced due to sea level rise? Where?

Increasing extreme weather? Where?

I see the same weather pattern variations we have always had with one exception - if it fits the MMGW dogma, it is Climate Change but anything else is just weather.

Heck, we only have three seasons and Climate Change anymore. Right now, we are leaving Climate Change for fall.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Lack of resources has been the greatest cause of war throughout history. Syria was relatively peaceful until it was struck with severe drought, that's when trouble started between the people and Assad and now look at what's going on over there.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Rich hippies! Oh noes!

a reply to: ketsuko

Uh...

a reply to: ketsuko

originally posted by: ketsuko
Millions displaced due to sea level rise? Where?

The other thread that inspired this whole bit already explained some 150 million people live at an elevation within 3 feet of sea level.

Increasing extreme weather? Where?

Extreme weather becoming more common, study says

It's simple physics again - we know we are adding more energy into the system. That energy will manifest itself in more and more disruptive ways. Just because you don't want to look at it doesn't mean it's not there.

a reply to: Nathan-D

I think the estimated value of 0.25% for the mass of water vapour in the atmosphere might be a little low.

You know that temperatures drive atmospheric water vapor content, right?

A study a few years ago found a decrease in cloud cover of around 1.56% over 39 years which

Are you talking about the study you cite in your blog? This one?

Global-average trends of cloud cover suggest a small decline in total cloud cover, on the order of 0.4% per decade. Declining clouds in middle latitudes at high and middle levels appear responsible for this trend.

www.atmos.washington.edu...&Warren_2013.pdf


Doesn't the data show an increasing trend in cloud cover for Arctic regions? Aren't Arctic regions showing the greatest increase in temperatures? If changes in cloud coverage are driving temperatures, shouldn't the Arctic show falling temperatures?

I have a couple of questions... and possible answers.

How long have we kept records of climate? I believe we have kept records at least since 1800's to 1900.

We do not have a clear definition of trends and or patterns before the actual data. Its all assumed or collected and assumed based on knowledge and tools of modern day.

The climate has changed enough over the years to migrate cultures. We learn this in History class early on in school.

How do we know man made is the root cause? My opinion is we do not know for sure the root cause. If we knew for sure we wouldn't be discussing it.

Past history shows us volcanic activity, oceans warming and rising have been a problem in the past causing humans to relocate to another place and or higher ground.

Patterns are emerging suggesting solar weather plays a huge roll here on Earth.

We are in an Ice age still... One that may indeed get worse

Time will most certainly tell us and there wont be a question.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Well the IPCC clearly stated they were looking for scientific papers that would show man made global warming and the CO2 molecular was going to be their villein .

Where did they clearly state that?
Or did you make it up?

I just realised I gave CO2's mass insteasd of H2O's. Duh. That 44 should be 18 instead. I am so used to saying 44. So, the mass, assumimg NASA's estimates are correct, I imagine would probably come out a little over 1%.

a reply to: MamaJ

Time will most certainly tell us and there wont be a question.

So. Let's just sit on our hands and wait.
While ignoring the science because, well, it's just science after all and what has science ever gotten right?

a reply to: ketsuko

How can we expect to have an intelligent conversation with someone like you when you write off those of us who understand AGW as zealots, without actually examining any evidence?

It's like we have a viewpoint backed by a plethora of data, yet you dismiss it because....well that is what I do not get with the denier crowd....Why do you dismiss blindly dismiss AGW, without any doing homework on the topic?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MamaJ

Time will most certainly tell us and there wont be a question.

So. Let's just sit on our hands and wait.
While ignoring the science because, well, it's just science after all and what has science ever gotten right?

What are you doing to change it?

Which Science community are you referring to? The side that agrees with you?

a reply to: MamaJ

What are you doing to change it?

For one thing, I'm not denying that it's happening. For one thing, I'm not waving my arms about taxes and how much change is going to cost me. I've always used as little fuel and electricity as possible.

Which Science community are you referring to?

I'm not referring to any "community." I'm talking about the science itself.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nathan-D

I think the estimated value of 0.25% for the mass of water vapour in the atmosphere might be a little low.

You know that temperatures drive atmospheric water vapor content, right?

Sure, temperature is a factor in determining atmospheric water vapour, but it is not the only factor. Anyway my objection was simply the calculated mass of water vapour in the atmosphere of 0.25% being too small. That was all.

Doesn't the data show an increasing trend in cloud cover for Arctic regions? Aren't Arctic regions showing the greatest increase in temperatures? If changes in cloud coverage are driving temperatures, shouldn't the Arctic show falling temperatures?

I don't know the trend in cloud cover for Arctic regions in the study. I can't access PDfs through my Xbox. But a general decrease in cloud cover would increase temperatures since clouds have net-cooling effect on the planet. The other albedo study cited in the post estimates an increase of 6.8W/sq.m. Admittedly that post of mine is rather lazy, I have seen other albedo studies over the years and not added them. That's something I'll have to do.

a reply to: Phage


Basically you aren't doing much ... you are wanting something done but not willing to do more than watch fuel and electricity??

It's a start I guess but thought you would be doing more by the way you reacted.

The science itself? So the science that differs from your stance on this issue is called what?

I'm more worried of the chemistry that is going into the water from multiple sources and putting our food supply at risk. We are also depleting our ground water supplies, that will cause a lot of chaos and migration of people. We are wasting much of this water and when it is put back into the environment it is laced with chemistry that shouldn't be there.

We are hurting the ecosystems ability to repair itself and putting ourselves into a position of being totaly reliant on a small group of people for which some people will do anything for food and shelter.

At the present rate of change, I expect that this will be happening within twenty years. A great world war will be fought over water and food which will correct the population problem. None of us will probably survive this war and famine.

a reply to: Nathan-D

I don't know the trend in cloud cover for Arctic regions in the study.

I told you what the study says.

But a general decrease in cloud cover would increase temperatures since clouds have net-cooling effect on the planet.

That would depend on the cloud type, yes?

But in order for a regional effect (cloud cover) to produce a global effect it must first have a regional effect. More clouds in the Arctic, higher temperatures in the Arctic. It seems to indicate that the small change in cloud coverage does not have the forcing effect you think it may.

I am watching two sides fighting about something that they will never see.
We will all be rotted to dust and the Earth will be essentially the same.
You all should put your energy into something that might kill us all sooner, like a tiny virus.