I understand it much better after reading groggy and your posts in this thread
Interesting read re. Global warming
- Thread starter Moraff
- Start date
I understand it much better after reading groggy and your posts in this thread
So you've made up your mind, don't confuse you with the facts.
I"m pretty sure that GW is a real phenomenon viewing it on a 16 year period though is probably a dangerous concept as changes can be slow and other factors may be in play to help confuse the matter.
The increase in greenhouse gas production is real.
What the effects are..... depends on who you listen to.
But the key here is even if the effects of those gases are not as predicted we still need to think about the impact of burning of fossil fuels, deforestation and agriculture.
The increase in greenhouse gas production is real.
What the effects are..... depends on who you listen to.
But the key here is even if the effects of those gases are not as predicted we still need to think about the impact of burning of fossil fuels, deforestation and agriculture.
He also endorsed oil, coal and gas production.If Obama didn't care about the environment why did he make a decision that was quite unpopular regarding the pipeline?
Indeed, there is a new story out today that has some Green groups wondering whether they should go after Obama for his "climate silence."
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2...ded-on-whether-to-hit-obama-on-climate-change
expressed way more proficiently than Blackrock could ever capture his thoughts... Blackrock...take note....,,
Could he not have endorsed oils, gas, and coal? Doubt it. As I understand he endorsed responsible oil gas and goal, along with greener energy as are a number of states in the union. I understand he's not saying stop drilling. Hasn't the been more drill heads and pipe laid in his tenure than during Shrubs. The bottleneck in oil and gas is the refining, fires, explosions, maintenance and the like.He also endorsed oil, coal and gas production.
Indeed, there is a new story out today that has some Green groups wondering whether they should go after Obama for his "climate silence."
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2...ded-on-whether-to-hit-obama-on-climate-change
More barks from the kennel, lost your bong again?expressed way more proficiently than Blackrock could ever capture his thoughts... Blackrock...take note
Apparently, Obama's not the only one who lost his enthusiasm for the global-warming issue. According to Martin Regg Cohn of the Toronto Star, so did Dalton McGuinty.
http://www.thestar.com/columnists/article/1274904--cohn-mcguinty-resignation-is-a-mismanaged-retreatClean environment? Promises to eliminate coal-fired power plants had to be postponed twice; pledges to reduce global warming fizzled as enthusiasm waned.
I agree with this.But the key here is even if the effects of those gases are not as predicted we still need to think about the impact of burning of fossil fuels, deforestation and agriculture
The sooner we find a clean energy source, the better. Maybe 'bloomboxes' are the answer
As I figured, you aren't smart enough to know the answer or to be able to find it out.Thats what I thought. Groggy cant answer my simple question.
I'll repeat it again:
Can you explain the science behind this delay?? And can you also please tell us how many years/decades we have until the delay is over and the warming kicks in??
I'm waiting for a detailed response, groggy
Here, I'll give you a hint.
lag time.
Now I'll even give you a link to an article by Eric Steig on your hero, Michael Mann's site, and he can explain it in a way that you have no hope of understanding because its probably way above your head. Instead I expect you'll come back and say 'I won't read him he's partisan' or some other excuse because honestly I don't think you are smart enough to understand it. Really. In every point you've tried to make all you've been able to do is copy and paste from some very dubious site.
So I give you a challenge.
Read the post and distill the central idea into one sentence of explanation and one sentence of another example of lag time.
Because, just as you couldn't figure out the answer before, I don't think you can figure out the answer even when its given to you.
Go ahead, show me how smart you are.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/
^^^^^^ Nice try, groggy. You still havent answered my 2 questions
Answer my questions first, and then I'll answer yours.
Here they are again. And I want your personal words, not links to a website:
Answer my questions first, and then I'll answer yours.
Here they are again. And I want your personal words, not links to a website:
Can you explain the science behind this delay?? And can you also please tell us how many years/decades we have until the delay is over and the warming kicks in??
He may not be able to, but I can give it a shot.^^^^^^ Nice try, groggy. You still havent answered my 2 questions
Answer my questions first, and then I'll answer yours.
Here they are again. And I want your personal words, not links to a website:
A close examination of the CH4, CO2 and temperature fluctuations recorded in the Arctic ice core does in fact reveal that yes, the temperature moved first in what is, when viewed coarsely, a very tight correlation, but what it is not correct, is to say the temperature rose and then hundreds of years later the CO2 rose. These warming periods lasted for 5,000 to 10,000 years (the cooling periods lasted more like 100,000 years!) so for the majority of that time (90% and more) temperature and CO2 rose together. This means that this remarkably detailed archive of climatological evidence clearly allows for CO2 acting as a cause for rising temperatures while also revealing it can be an effect of them.
The current understanding of those cycles is that changes in orbital parameters (Milankovich) caused greater amounts of summer sunlight to fall in the northern hemisphere. This is actually a very small forcing, but it caused ice to retreat in the north which changed the albedo. This change, reducing the amount of white, reflective ice surface, led to increasing the warmth more in a feedback effect. Some number of centuries after that process started, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere began to rise and this also amplified the warming trend even further as an additional feedback mechanism.
So, it is correct that CO2 did not trigger the warmings, but it definitely did contribute to them, and according to climate theory and model experiments, greenhouse gas forcing was the dominant factor in the magnitude of the ultimate change.
One warning that this gives us for the future is that we may well see additional natural CO2 come out of the woodwork as whatever process that took place repeatedly over the last 650K years begins to play out again. The likely candidates are out gassing from warming ocean waters, carbon from warming soils and methane from melting permafrost.
From 'How To Talk To A Skeptic' by Colby Beck.
Phil, you can also go to http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13 for discussions by climate scientists of exactly this question, but with greater technical detail and full references to the scientific literature, but I though the Cole Notes version was more your level.
“CO2 Lags Not Leads” was first published here, where you can still find the original comment thread. This updated version is also posted on the Grist Website, where additional comments can be found, though the author, Colby Beck, does not monitor or respond there
I gave you the answer in two words, but you aren't smart enough to understand that.^^^^^^ Nice try, groggy. You still havent answered my 2 questions
Answer my questions first, and then I'll answer yours.
Here they are again. And I want your personal words, not links to a website:
Then, I gave you a link to an article that gives you the technical details, but you aren't smart enough to understand that either.
Now you want a third answer?
All you've done is gone and fulfilled my expectations and predictions that you would not be able to understand the science.
So I'll give you a third answer, in fact an answer to the question that I posed, since you are not able.
But you will have to accept that I now feel fully justified in describing you as too stupid to understand the debate, that you are only smart enough to fool yourself.
Sadly you, like most of the deniers I have ever talked with exhibit all the signs of Dunning-Kruger, which I expect will also go right over your head.
Answer #1
lag time (though perhaps the term thermal inertia should have been used here)
The time delay between the introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere and the effects to take effect.
(answer in one sentence)
Similar in effect to the amount of time it takes a pot of water to boil once the stove has been turned on, also known as thermal inertia.
(example/comparison in one sentence)
I'm not going to do the technical explanation, because I understand that both my understanding and clarity of language in the sciences is not as strong as the link I previously posted from Eric Steig, and indeed the links blackrock supplied are also better then I could do. But note what I've done (and blackrock for that matter) that you are incapable of doing:
Understand the mechanics
identify the issue
distill the concept into simple language
read complicated answers and understand them
identified my own level of understanding and acknowledged others who have better understanding.
I've given you the answer three times now.
Do you understand it yet?
Now, before you go and tell me I didn't give you how many years/decades, I'm not going to give you one number, because the problem is more complex then that. Historically, the previous times CO2 has risen to the levels we are at now, its happened very slowly compared to what we are experiencing, meaning there is no historical evidence that will give us a number based on the time frame we are experiencing. Previously its taken thousands of years to add as much CO2 as we've done in a century or two. So that leaves climatologists modelings to give us the best answers, and theirs will be a range of numbers (similar to their predictions for global temperature change).
I'll even give you one more link that has a bit easier language for you to understand.
http://skepticalscience.net/Earth-expected-global-warming.htm
They also add in arguments for some cooling effects as well, but largely we are talking of thermal inertia here.
you aren't smart enough to understand
you would not be able to understand the science
I now feel fully justified in describing you as too stupid to understand the debate
I gave you the answer in two words, but you aren't smart enough to understand that
I've given you the answer three times now. Do you understand it yet?
I'll even give you one more link that has a bit easier language for you to understand
LOL @ groggy
You know how I know you're full of shit, groggy. Its because you got defensive when I asked you a simple question.
So insults towards me aside, this is your answer in a nutshell:
Right groggy, but a pot of water gets warmer and warmer before it reaches boiling point. So far earth is not warming, at least not statistically significant. The Met office and Phil Jones have admitted thislag time (though perhaps the term thermal inertia should have been used here)
The time delay between the introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere and the effects to take effect.
(answer in one sentence)
Similar in effect to the amount of time it takes a pot of water to boil once the stove has been turned on, also known as thermal inertia
Last edited:
Some scientists claim there is no relationship between rising CO2's and temperatures.
He may not be able to, but I can give it a shot.
A close examination of the CH4, CO2 and temperature fluctuations recorded in the Arctic ice core does in fact reveal that yes, the temperature moved first in what is, when viewed coarsely, a very tight correlation, but what it is not correct, is to say the temperature rose and then hundreds of years later the CO2 rose. These warming periods lasted for 5,000 to 10,000 years (the cooling periods lasted more like 100,000 years!) so for the majority of that time (90% and more) temperature and CO2 rose together. This means that this remarkably detailed archive of climatological evidence clearly allows for CO2 acting as a cause for rising temperatures while also revealing it can be an effect of them.
The current understanding of those cycles is that changes in orbital parameters (Milankovich) caused greater amounts of summer sunlight to fall in the northern hemisphere. This is actually a very small forcing, but it caused ice to retreat in the north which changed the albedo. This change, reducing the amount of white, reflective ice surface, led to increasing the warmth more in a feedback effect. Some number of centuries after that process started, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere began to rise and this also amplified the warming trend even further as an additional feedback mechanism.
So, it is correct that CO2 did not trigger the warmings, but it definitely did contribute to them, and according to climate theory and model experiments, greenhouse gas forcing was the dominant factor in the magnitude of the ultimate change.
One warning that this gives us for the future is that we may well see additional natural CO2 come out of the woodwork as whatever process that took place repeatedly over the last 650K years begins to play out again. The likely candidates are out gassing from warming ocean waters, carbon from warming soils and methane from melting permafrost.
From 'How To Talk To A Skeptic' by Colby Beck.
Phil, you can also go to http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13 for discussions by climate scientists of exactly this question, but with greater technical detail and full references to the scientific literature, but I though the Cole Notes version was more your level.
“CO2 Lags Not Leads” was first published here, where you can still find the original comment thread. This updated version is also posted on the Grist Website, where additional comments can be found, though the author, Colby Beck, does not monitor or respond there
Watch this (pay attention to Piers Corbin):
Some scientists claim there is no relationship between rising CO2's and temperatures.
Watch this (pay attention to Piers Corbin):
'Some' scientists also think that humans and dinosaurs lived on this earth at the same time. That doesn't make it true. You will always be able to find 'someone'. You've been shown how a major aspect of climate warming works, something I suspect you didn't think someone on TERB could do, and why your flippin' graph doesn't fit your idea of how it should and yet you still put forwards yet another one of this relatively small group deniers or skeptics.
Piers 'Corbyn' in an infamous skeptic and there have been a number articles, reports and discussions over the years to show he's out of gourd. Read some of them. At a conference I once heard him compared head to head with the Farmers Almanac for very general weather forecast, he lost. I didn't want to spend 10 minutes watching the report, although I suspect 10 minutes is less than you spent reading the sources i gave you, but thought your special guest Corbyn might be entertaining. Entertaining was the wright adjective. I particularly like, we should have more CO2 as it make plants grow faster making farming better and wind is not worth it as for every wind mill generator we need a coal fire plant to support it. His hysterical understand ing about malaria and it recent occurrences in Russia (and much of southern Europe). Explanations about the conspiracy to keep prices high and 3rd world nations down, tells me he's never been to africa. There are major program using new technology to give countries there an economy and technical base never dreamed of years ago.
I wonder about the Russia Today's report when they can't even get his simple name correct, it's Corbyn.
You realized it was a weak, so now you replaced it with another one '90 minutes long'. No thanks. You initially thought the first one was good, so what makes you think your opinion of the second video nine times longer will be better. No thanks, you're just trolling throwing onesies out trying to 'maybe' get a hit on something members here can't answer and then you yell, SEE!
Except there's more more scientists turning against global warming now, rockie.'Some' scientists also think that humans and dinosaurs lived on this earth at the same time. That doesn't make it true. You will always be able to find 'someone'
Its not just one, there's a whole laundry list of people now
I hear you.'Some' scientists also think that humans and dinosaurs lived on this earth at the same time. That doesn't make it true.
One of the best examples of that type of scientist would be James Hansen, NASA's lead guy on global warming, who wrote in the New York Review of Books that Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth was "scientifically accurate."
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2006/jul/13/the-threat-to-the-planet/?page=3
Yikes! :Eek:
