As Climate Worsens, a Cascade of Tipping Points Looms

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by skepticalmike, Dec 15, 2019.

  1. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    It started to take off in 1970 when CO2 emissions became more significant and a major effort began was under way to reduce air pollution, lowering stratospheric aerosols that have a cooling effect.

    [​IMG]
     
  2. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Iceland has a volcanic eruption every ~ 4 years.
     
  3. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The slopes from 1900 to 1940 and 1980 to the present are practically the same. You really believe that the surface temperature data can produce average global temperaures with three significant digits ?? And where is the warming pause shown by the satellite data for the ~20 years starting ~ 2000 ??
     
  4. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    TLDR...

    Try forming your own arguments next time.
     
    AFM likes this.
  5. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Define "tipping point".
     
    AFM likes this.
  6. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    PNAS is not science.

    Try forming your own arguments next time.
     
  7. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I've addressed the science with you numerous times. YOU are the one who is rejecting it.
     
  8. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The IPCC is not science either. It is a government agency.
     
    AFM likes this.
  9. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Citations are not science either.

    Science is simply a set of falsifiable theories. My sources are the theories of science themselves, along with the axioms of logic and mathematics themselves, all of which you choose to reject.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2019
  10. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ... which is not science...

    ... which is not science...

    RandU Fallacy. That article is just making up numbers. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

    And guess what... last year, my State of Wisconsin (just going from Winter to Summer) experienced an over 100degF temperature increase in a six month time period, and here I am, still alive to tell the tale...

    Greenland is just fine.

    RandU Fallacy. That article is also making up numbers. Define "pre-industrial".

    You are scared over nothing.
     
    AFM likes this.
  11. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I am not making an argument with this post. I am presenting facts with the hope of spreading knowledge.

    I don't believe that it is possible to carry on an intelligent conversation with you on this particular subject. You don't believe in the greenhouse effect because you claim it

    violates the second law of thermodynamics even though there is empirical evidence to prove that the GH effect exists. Your science definition is way to restrictive and therefore

    you reject peer-reviewed scientific research. Science is all about creating models and verifying them through experiments and empirical evidence..

    from Merriam-Webster
    Definition of science


    1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
    2a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study the science of theology
    b: something (such as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge have it down to a science
    3a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
    b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
    4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws cooking is both a science and an art

    Another definition:

    the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
    "the world of science and technology"

    • a particular area of science.
      plural noun: sciences
      "veterinary science"
    • a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.
      "the science of criminology"
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2019
  12. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All you are doing is cutting and pasting.
     
  13. william kurps

    william kurps Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2019
    Messages:
    5,041
    Likes Received:
    1,872
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I just read steam boat geyser in Yellowstone is on a record, Yellowstone is about ready to blow , Wyoming is about to land on Minnesota


    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cn...mboat-geyser-record-eruptions-trnd/index.html


     
  14. william kurps

    william kurps Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2019
    Messages:
    5,041
    Likes Received:
    1,872
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Where does the empirical scientific
    evidence proves a correlation between CO2 and climate change?
     
  15. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is a correlation in the current warming period but none of the other 9 warmings in the Holocene. There is no proof of causation in the current warming period.
     
  16. william kurps

    william kurps Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2019
    Messages:
    5,041
    Likes Received:
    1,872
    Trophy Points:
    113

    I disagree, it takes along time for ice to melt that's a mile thick




    download (54).jpeg
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2019
  17. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Holocene is the time period after the mile thick ice from the last ice age melted. The Holocene is ~ 10,000 years long.
     
  18. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    The abstract below compares experimental evidence with theoretical evidence for the radiative forcing effects of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The theoretical evidence is incorporated in

    the FASCOD3 radiation code and this is based on the absorption spectra for greenhouse gas molecules deriving from quantum theory. It follows that the earth should warm if atmospheric carbon dioxide is

    increasing and assuming natural variability doesn't some how nullify this effect. There is no evidence for that and there is recent evidence that natural variability has had no significant effect on the long term trend in GMT during the past 150 years.

    Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate

    W.F.J. Evans, North West Research Associates, Bellevue, WA; and E. Puckrin

    The earth's climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth's surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850. This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.

    The graphs and the first paragraph are from: https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm

    The temperatures are going up, just like the theory predicted. But where’s the connection with CO2, or other greenhouse gases like methane, ozone or nitrous oxide?
    The connection can be found in the spectrum of greenhouse radiation. Using high-resolution FTIR spectroscopy, we can measure the exact wavelengths of long-wave (infrared) radiation reaching the ground.

    The measurements are of downward radiation made in the region near Peterborough, Ontario (44N, 78W) in the winter.
    [​IMG]
    Figure 1: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapour is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

    The wintertime measured flux for CO2 was 26.0 watts/sq. meter and the simulated flux using radiation code was 24.8 watts/sq. meter.
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2019
  19. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    What evidence is there for 9 warmings in the Holocene. I don't know how you can prove this or even show that it is reasonable. Proxy evidence doesn't support this idea.
     
  20. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is no proof of causation between the increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration and our current warming.
     
  21. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure it does.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    "Inconvenient Facts" - Wrightstone - 2017
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2019
  22. Robert E Allen

    Robert E Allen Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2018
    Messages:
    12,041
    Likes Received:
    5,750
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Don't care, most people don't care, they are just trying to do right be their families.
     
  23. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    You have presented evidence for 9 warming periods in one location on Greenland and probably for much of the Northern Hemisphere, but not evidence for 9 warming periods in the Holocene.
    The Southern Hemisphere was cooling when the Northern Hemisphere was warming and vice versa. The graph I present of Vostok, Antarctica shows that it tends to cool when Greenland warms
    and warms when Greenland cools. There is more thermal inertia in the Southern Hemisphere than in the N. Hemisphere and that is why we don't see the magnitude of temperature swings in
    the S. Hemisphere.
    [​IMG]
    Fig 2 - Six Bond events identified through Ice-Rafted Debris
     
  24. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nevertheless there have been 9 warming and cooling periods in the Holocene previous to the current warming. The magnitude of these previous warnings have been greater than our current warming.
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2019
  25. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    The only way to know if there were 9 global warming and cooling periods is from analyzing proxy data. The graph below uses the best data available from 73 globally distributed records.
    The climate was in a cooling tend starting 6000 years ago and that can be explained by the Milankovitch cycles and a reduction in solar insolation. The recent rapid rise in global mean temperature
    has no natural explanation but is expected from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases. Notice in both the graph and in the discussion that global meant temperature has risen from coldest to
    the warmest levels in the Holocene within the past century.

    The text and graph below are from Science Magazine, https://science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198
    A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years
    1. Shaun A. Marcott1,
    2. Jeremy D. Shakun2,
    3. Peter U. Clark1,
    4. Alan C. Mix1
    Science 08 Mar 2013:
    Vol. 339, Issue 6124, pp. 1198-1201
    DOI: 10.1126/science.1228026

    • Exceptional Now
    The climate has been warming since the industrial revolution, but how warm is climate now compared with the rest of the Holocene? Marcott et al. (p. 1198) constructed a record of global mean surface temperature for more than the last 11,000 years, using a variety of land- and marine-based proxy data from all around the world. The pattern of temperatures shows a rise as the world emerged from the last deglaciation, warm conditions until the middle of the Holocene, and a cooling trend over the next 5000 years that culminated around 200 years ago in the Little Ice Age. Temperatures have risen steadily since then, leaving us now with a global temperature higher than those during 90% of the entire Holocene.

    Our results indicate that global mean temperature for the decade 2000–2009 (34) has not yet exceeded the warmest temperatures of the early Holocene (5000 to 10,000 yr B.P.). These temperatures are, however, warmer than 82% of the Holocene distribution as represented by the Standard5×5 stack, or 72% after making plausible corrections for inherent smoothing of the high frequencies in the stack (6) (Fig. 3). In contrast, the decadal mean global temperature of the early 20th century (1900–1909) was cooler than >95% of the Holocene distribution under both the Standard5×5 and high-frequency corrected scenarios. Global temperature, therefore, has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century, reversing the long-term cooling trend that began ~5000 yr B.P. Climate models project that temperatures are likely to exceed the full distribution of Holocene warmth by 2100 for all versions of the temperature stack (35) (Fig. 3), regardless of the greenhouse gas emission scenario considered (excluding the year 2000 constant composition scenario, which has already been exceeded). By 2100, global average temperatures will probably be 5 to 12 standard deviations above the Holocene temperature mean for the A1B scenario (35) based on our Standard5×5 plus high-frequency addition stack.



    [​IMG]
    Global temperature anomalies over the past 11,300 years compared to historic average (1961-1990). The purple line shows the annual anomaly, and the light blue band shows the statistical uncertainty (one standard deviation). The gray line shows temperature from a separate analysis spanning the past 1,500 years. Image adapted from Figure 1(b) in Marcott et al.
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2019

Share This Page