There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

[ChrisD2.0 2]

rushmc

To all of those that keep saying "nearly all scientists agree....."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

https://news.yahoo.com/marshall-islands-nation-fears-brink-extinction-213504489--abc-news-topstories.html

Brett Bickford Did Not Commit Suicide.

He is the victim of ignorance and faulty gear. AND as in the movie: "12 Angry Men," of an ignorant and callous jury.

[richravizza 25]

Can a Believer please explain to a denier
How a warmer wetter Co2 rich environment bad for life?
If the science is settled, what is the optimum temperature and the optimum co2 concentration?
I thought human life was the priority or is the non-conscious state of our planet the new priority?
Do you have any reservations about the idea that a trace compound essential for life, is the driving forces of temperature on the planet.
the only reason I ask is the legal pot growers inject 1250 PPM into greenhouses to nearly double yields.

[gowlerk 1,905]

Quote

Can a Believer please explain to a denier
How a warmer wetter Co2 rich environment bad for life?

It's not bad for life. It's bad for our current civilization as we know it. And it's very bad for most lifeforms in the oceans. But life itself will be fine.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[Phil1111 910]

richravizza

Can a Believer please explain to a denier
How a warmer wetter Co2 rich environment bad for life?
If the science is settled, what is the optimum temperature and the optimum co2 concentration?
I thought human life was the priority or is the non-conscious state of our planet the new priority?
Do you have any reservations about the idea that a trace compound essential for life, is the driving forces of temperature on the planet.
the only reason I ask is the legal pot growers inject 1250 PPM into greenhouses to nearly double yields.

No this is not for Ron, he will always be a skeptic. No this is not for Marc. He never reads what anybody posts.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

At 3000 ppm it is dangerous to people and at 5000 ppm its lethal. Co2 is heavier than air.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Well, there's nothing so bad that it has no good effects.
And there's nothing so good that it has no bad effects.

Increasing the CO2 will help plants grow. And increasing temps will allow crops to be grown at higher latitudes, which have more daylight in the summer months. If you've ever seen what comes out of a garden in Alaska, this idea has a lot of appeal.

But I would think that the downsides are worse.

Increasing temps allow insects to survive winters where extreme cold used to kill many off. Pine beetles are a good example. Pine forests in the Northern Rockies are dying off rather quickly because the pests that used to be largely killed off by temps that were well below zero for a week or more at a time are surviving when the temps don't go and stay that low.

Increasing temps are pretty bad for some types of ocean life. Coral is one. The Great Barrier Reef in Australia is in big trouble. Other reefs in other places are too, but the GBR gets the press.

If the sea rises significantly, large areas will be under water. There will be huge numbers of people displaced. Where will they go?

And, if the lower latitudes become too hot and dry for crops to be grown on a large scale, then there will be BIG problems.

One of the more frightening scenarios is India. They have over a billion people. What would happen if much of the sub-continent becomes inhospitable? Are those people going to just stay there and die? Or are they going to try to migrate north. To China, Pakistan & Russia?

And if C, P & R say "no, you can't come here" and start killing off the migrants, will the remainders just stay where they are and die? Or will they use the nukes that India has to fight back?

And what sort of consequences would a nuclear exchange have?

Personally, I think we're pretty much screwed. We (as in the overall human race) won't do anything substantive until it becomes very obvious that the problems are serious. At which time it will be too late.

The planet will survive, humans will likely survive. But a lot of individual humans will die. And so will a lot of species currently living on earth.
It will be a very, very different planet in a couple hundred years.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[billvon 2,395]

>Can a Believer please explain to a denier
>How a warmer wetter Co2 rich environment bad for life?

Well, "warmer wetter" is bad for plants and animals that are already near the top end of their temperature range. And less CO2 is always better for people.

But the larger answer is that you have to define "bad" first. Is "bad" the end of all life on Earth? Then more CO2 isn't bad. Is "bad" mass extinctions? Then more CO2 is very bad indeed. CO2 is driving warmer temperatures, and every time we've seen temperature changes this rapid in the fossil record there have been mass extinctions, as organisms fail to adapt fast enough to the new normal.

>If the science is settled, what is the optimum temperature and the optimum co2
>concentration?

In terms of preventing mass extinctions? A temperature and CO2 concentration that is close to 10,000 year averages. Ideal temperature depends on location of course. Ideal CO2 concentration is around 280ppm.

>I thought human life was the priority or is the non-conscious state of our planet the
>new priority?

?? We used to think "humans first and only, fuck everything else." Then we discovered that messing with the ecosystem has some very bad effects, including mass starvation and large numbers of fatalities. (Google the dust bowl.) So nowadays we take both into account.

>Do you have any reservations about the idea that a trace compound essential for life,
>is the driving forces of temperature on the planet.

"Reservations?" No. But it's not the driving force of temperature on the planet. It's just one of the many greenhouse gases. Water has a much stronger effect overall. Methane and ozone play significant roles as well.

>the only reason I ask is the legal pot growers inject 1250 PPM into greenhouses to
>nearly double yields.

Of course. And if growing pot is the only goal, then those CO2 concentrations would make a lot of sense. But we want people to be able to live on the planet too. And those levels of CO2 cause headaches and drowsiness in people in the long term.

[jakee 1,254]

richravizza

Can a Believer please explain to a denier
How a warmer wetter Co2 rich environment bad for life?
If the science is settled, what is the optimum temperature and the optimum co2 concentration?
I thought human life was the priority or is the non-conscious state of our planet the new priority?

It's not about what the 'optimum' conditions for life are. Within a certain bound there's really no such thing, because life is about adaptation. Over a very long time different creatures have adapted to function best in the conditions that exist for them. From a sheer biodiversity standpoint of course you could say that very hot, very humid rainforest conditions are the optimum - but take all the polar bears and put them in the jungle and very soon you'll find that polar bears are extinct. It's continuity that is more important than a theoretical ideal.

Take sea level, for instance. Is there a sea level that reflects 'optimum' conditions for life across the planet? I have no idea - I don't think it even makes sense as a question. But here's the thing - we've built cities on the coast using the sea level as it is now. We live on islands that exist with the sea level as it is now. If global warming causes a significant change in sea level it doesn't matter if there's some way of calculating whether the new level reflects objectively better or worse conditions for life in general, it's the change itself that will be catastrophic.

Quote

Do you have any reservations about the idea that a trace compound essential for life, is the driving forces of temperature on the planet.

The phrasing of your question implies that you think there is some exclusivity between the two. Is there a reason why you think a molecule used in essential biological processes can't be a major factor in climate as well?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[gowlerk 1,905]

The last time Earth had a thermal maximum was indeed a time of very lush vegetation. It was a time that large mammals thrived and diversified incredibly. It was also a time of the largest ever mass extinction in the ocean. Because there was very little free oxygen in the warmer water. It is thought to be largely caused by CO2 released by volcanic activity, combined with a runaway feedback loop involving melting methane hydrates. It's really pretty interesting. Just Google "thermal maximum" and there is lots of information if you really want to learn.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[richravizza 25]

Thanks, It takes me a couple days to digest.

[richravizza 25]

In terms of preventing mass extinctions? A temperature and CO2 concentration that is close to 10,000 year averages. Ideal temperature depends on location of course. Ideal CO2 concentration is around 280ppm.

You do realize that at about 170 ppm plant life begin to choke off,
production decreases significantly?
We, as in the planet nearly died off in the ice ages and co2 was at a critical low,so my assent is more optimistic on co2 and hope to hell we don't experience another Maunder minimum for humanity sake, But that would prove helpful to others.
I'll agree with you on your other points
thanks for your input,

[richravizza 25]

jakee

*** Can a Believer please explain to a denier
How a warmer wetter Co2 rich environment bad for life?
If the science is settled, what is the optimum temperature and the optimum co2 concentration?
I thought human life was the priority or is the non-conscious state of our planet the new priority?

It's not about what the 'optimum' conditions for life are. Within a certain bound there's really no such thing, because life is about adaptation. Over a very long time different creatures have adapted to function best in the conditions that exist for them. From a sheer biodiversity standpoint of course you could say that very hot, very humid rainforest conditions are the optimum - but take all the polar bears and put them in the jungle and very soon you'll find that polar bears are extinct. It's continuity that is more important than a theoretical ideal.

Take sea level, for instance. Is there a sea level that reflects 'optimum' conditions for life across the planet? I have no idea - I don't think it even makes sense as a question. But here's the thing - we've built cities on the coast using the sea level as it is now. We live on islands that exist with the sea level as it is now. If global warming causes a significant change in sea level it doesn't matter if there's some way of calculating whether the new level reflects objectively better or worse conditions for life in general, it's the change itself that will be catastrophic.

Quote

Do you have any reservations about the idea that a trace compound essential for life, is the driving forces of temperature on the planet.

The phrasing of your question implies that you think there is some exclusivity between the two. Is there a reason why you think a molecule used in essential biological processes can't be a major factor in climate as well?

Not at all exclusive, sure its a GHG and it contributes to the GHG effect,

Sorry to have phased it as the loaded question.
But hope you'll agree CO2 is not the only thing contributing to the dire straight of the planet?

Regarding sea level rise,
by my best account if we double Co2 from preindustrial levels the increase in temperature is about a 3ft. rise in sea level in 300 years , I don't think thats as catastrophic as Al Gores predictions.
Thanks for your insight and introspect

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

Sorry to have phased it as the loaded question.
But hope you'll agree CO2 is not the only thing contributing to the dire straight of the planet?

Of course. But what's your point?

Quote

by my best account if we double Co2 from preindustrial levels the increase in temperature is about a 3ft. rise in sea level in 300 years

That's a lot.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[gowlerk 1,905]

jakee

Quote

Sorry to have phased it as the loaded question.
But hope you'll agree CO2 is not the only thing contributing to the dire straight of the planet?

Of course. But what's your point?

Quote

by my best account if we double Co2 from preindustrial levels the increase in temperature is about a 3ft. rise in sea level in 300 years

That's a lot.

That is phrased a little awkwardly. It would seem to say the 3 ft rise will occur 300 years from now. But actually it is the approximate figure for the year 2100, with most of the rise happening between now and then.

Sea level rise is not possible to predict with a high rate of confidence at this time. It is rising now, and the rate is increasing, that much is known for sure.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

gowlerk

That is phrased a little awkwardly. It would seem to say the 3 ft rise will occur 300 years from now. But actually it is the approximate figure for the year 2100, with most of the rise happening between now and then.

Sea level rise is not possible to predict with a high rate of confidence at this time. It is rising now, and the rate is increasing, that much is known for sure.

And even the small amount of rise we've experience so far has had some pretty impressive effects on coastal flooding.

Norfolk VA is a good example.

A big part of the problem is that the land is sinking, but rising sea levels play their part.

And even though the flooding isn't due entirely (or even mostly) to actual rising sea levels, it shows what even a modest increase can do.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[DJL 232]

According to the article the current rate is 1" per 4 years. That is increasing but useful for the purposes of the most conservative estimate.

At that rate my girlfriend's 75 acre Chesapeake Bay property will a marshland by 2050 and underwater by 2100.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[billvon 2,395]

Quote

by my best account if we double Co2 from preindustrial levels the increase in temperature is about a 3ft. rise in sea level in 300 years

Well, right now it's rising by 3.2mm a year (1.2 inches) which matches your estimates. However, odds are that that rate will increase, since a warmer climate increases melting rates.

And 3ft is nothing for someone in Denver. For people near the water in Bangladesh, it means you lose your home.

[Phil1111 910]

wolfriverjoe

***

That is phrased a little awkwardly. It would seem to say the 3 ft rise will occur 300 years from now. But actually it is the approximate figure for the year 2100, with most of the rise happening between now and then.

Sea level rise is not possible to predict with a high rate of confidence at this time. It is rising now, and the rate is increasing, that much is known for sure.

And even the small amount of rise we've experience so far has had some pretty impressive effects on coastal flooding.

Norfolk VA is a good example.

A big part of the problem is that the land is sinking, but rising sea levels play their part.

And even though the flooding isn't due entirely (or even mostly) to actual rising sea levels, it shows what even a modest increase can do.

Very poorly written article with outright wrong information.

"A new NASA-led study shows that land in the Hampton Roads, Virginia, metropolitan area is sinking at highly uneven rates, with a few trouble spots subsiding 7 to 10 times faster than the area average. Whereas earlier estimates had suggested the area is subsiding evenly, the new study found that major differences in subsidence rates occur only a few miles apart.

Hampton Roads has one of the highest rates of relative sea level rise -- the combined effects of sinking land and rising seas -- along the U.S. East Coast, about an inch (23 millimeters) every five years. It has experienced a steady and dramatic increase in high-tide flooding over the last 90 years. Accurate, local subsidence maps are necessary for the area to prepare for increasing flood risks in the future. The region comprises seven Virginia cities, including Norfolk and Virginia Beach, as well as Naval Station Norfolk, the country's largest naval base."
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=7010

Below for climate.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

If the local coast is slumping for some reason. It is also a factor. But virtually all measurements are made at mean sea level. With ground including the height of Everest above that.

Obviously the sea level(mean) in Norfolk is the same as anywhere else. I find NASA and NOAA the best sources of information. With solid science behind the representations.

[kallend 1,623]

Phil1111

Obviously the sea level(mean) in Norfolk is the same as anywhere else. I find NASA and NOAA the best sources of information. With solid science behind the representations.

That which is obvious is not always correct.

In the absence of external factors the mean sea level would coincide with an equipotential surface of the Earth's gravitational field.

In reality, due to currents, air pressure variations, temperature and salinity variations, etc., this does not occur, not even as a long-term average. The global variation is ± 2 meters.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[gowlerk 1,905]

kallend

***

Obviously the sea level(mean) in Norfolk is the same as anywhere else. I find NASA and NOAA the best sources of information. With solid science behind the representations.

That which is obvious is not always correct.

In the absence of external factors the mean sea level would coincide with an equipotential surface of the Earth's gravitational field.

In reality, due to currents, air pressure variations, temperature and salinity variations, etc., this does not occur, not even as a long-term average. The global variation is ± 2 meters.


And don't tell the moon that its movements are for naught.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[Phil1111 910]

kallend

***

Obviously the sea level(mean) in Norfolk is the same as anywhere else. I find NASA and NOAA the best sources of information. With solid science behind the representations.

That which is obvious is not always correct.

In the absence of external factors the mean sea level would coincide with an equipotential surface of the Earth's gravitational field.

In reality, due to currents, air pressure variations, temperature and salinity variations, etc., this does not occur, not even as a long-term average. The global variation is ± 2 meters.

So what you're saying is that the calculation for a MSL arises from a parameter of a 2m variation, usually?

https://www.esri.com/news/arcuser/0703/geoid1of3.html

"MSL is usually described as a tidal datum that is the arithmetic mean of hourly water elevations observed over a specific 19-year cycle. This definition averages out tidal highs and lows caused by the changing effects of the gravitational forces from the moon and sun."

[gowlerk 1,905]

Quote

So what you're saying is that the calculation for a MSL arises from a parameter of a 2m variation, usually?

https://www.esri.com/.../0703/geoid1of3.html

"MSL is usually described as a tidal datum that is the arithmetic mean of hourly water elevations observed over a specific 19-year cycle. This definition averages out tidal highs and lows caused by the changing effects of the gravitational forces from the moon and sun."

I interpret that as the sea level calculated in a specific place. The 2M variation would be the potential over the entire ocean system.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[richravizza 25]

wolfriverjoe

Well, there's nothing so bad that it has no good effects.
And there's nothing so good that it has no bad effects.I
But I would think that the downsides are worse.





One of the more frightening scenarios is India. They have over a billion people. What would happen if much of the sub-continent becomes inhospitable? Are those people going to just stay there and die? Or are they going to try to migrate north. To China, Pakistan & Russia?

And if C, P & R say "no, you can't come here" and start killing off the migrants, will the remainders just stay where they are and die? Or will they use the nukes that India has to fight back?

And what sort of consequences would a nuclear exchange have?

Personally, I think we're pretty much screwed. We (as in the overall human race) won't do anything substantive until it becomes very obvious that the problems are serious. At which time it will be too late.

The planet will survive, humans will likely survive. But a lot of individual humans will die. And so will a lot of species currently living on earth.
It will be a very, very different planet in a couple hundred years.

THIS TYPE OF TRIPE Is the shit I can't stand
Do you have any conception of what ONE nuclear device has on human life?
One nuke at altitude will likely kill 10's of millions!!
No trucks tractors phones or electricity, all electrical systems will be completely destroyed in ONE nuclear EMP .
and somehow you equate AGW with nuclear war?
You obviously have no Idea of the deviation such actions would imply.
Then imply AGW would come close to the death and destruction of Nuclear weapons.

My daughter came to me with tears in her eyes.
I'm afraid of the future she said, what about Global warming?
I said, we had global warming when I grew up ,but we had a different name for it.
She asked what we called it, I told her
We called it Unilateral Thermo nuclear war.

Bark beetles really ? how about the KILLER BEES oh no !

How about having a positive attitude,
Perhaps you think Im am an optimist, I do.

As far as the coral reefs. do you realize that the the amount of co2 needed to decimate is nearly lethal to the mammals that evolved as that result?
I am a believer in AWG, but Damn it is not, the end all.
I love nature, love the mountains and hike regularly
But for one moment imagine the beauty in the glacial national park.
The once barren ice covered lifeless prison that is now..
Full of alpine lakes, birds, trees and a vast ecosystem of Co2 capturing species ? The grasses and flowers are amazing along with all that comes with such beauty.

[richravizza 25]

Where is all the research on the Milankovitch cycle,The true driver of temperature and climate?
Shhh, don't you ask about such blasphemy
and if we do go into a low another Ice age cycle
What then, of our environmental diversity,
perhaps I'm buzzed and completely off base.
BUT what if ....
The unintended consequence of burning fossil fuels is a warmer fertilized planet of CO2 and mammalians saving accident.
{ please don't respond to the "solar activity hasn't changed but Temp. has, its known, and an obvious part of the AGW theory}

[richravizza 25]

1" every 4 years is ridiculous!! Why hasn't Al sold his beachfront property?
The inconvenient truth!

[headoverheels 291]

billvon

... 3.2mm a year (1.2 inches) ...

You might want to fix that.