Expert: We must act fast on warming

Expert: We must act fast on warming

There are 28465 comments on the Kansas.com story from Sep 24, 2008, titled Expert: We must act fast on warming. In it, Kansas.com reports that:

Droughts, melting ice caps and glaciers, rising sea levels and mass extinctions will all be a reality unless the U.S. and the world cut back on carbon emissions dramatically, said James Hansen, director of ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Kansas.com.

Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#26835 Apr 25, 2013
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>Sounds like Man's "pollution" started just in time to keep the little Ice age from becoming the next Ice Age.
Or the sun had a surge of activity that prevented the Little Ice Age from becoming the next glacial period.

http://www.google.com/search...

http://www.google.com/search...
SpaceBlues

United States

#26836 Apr 25, 2013
The denier above repeats its lies for years and years. Here's science again saying otherwise:

"There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age."

Also:

When Keeling first began his measurements, the amount of carbon dioxide (also known as CO2) was 316 parts per million (ppm). As of Tuesday this week, the measurement was 398.44 ppm as measured at Mauna Loa.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#26837 Apr 25, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Or the sun had a surge of activity that prevented the Little Ice Age from becoming the next glacial period.
http://www.google.com/search...
http://www.google.com/search...
What does The Milankovitch Theory say about future climate change?
Orbital changes occur over thousands of years, and the climate system may also take thousands of years to respond to orbital forcing. Theory suggests that the primary driver of ice ages is the total summer radiation received in northern latitude zones where major ice sheets have formed in the past, near 65 degrees north. Past ice ages correlate well to 65N summer insolation (Imbrie 1982). Astronomical calculations show that 65N summer insolation should increase gradually over the next 25,000 years, and that no 65N summer insolation declines sufficient to cause an ice age are expected in the next 50,000 - 100,000 years ( Hollan 2000, Berger 2002).

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#26838 Apr 25, 2013
I'm happy CO2 is steadily increasing as our economies grow. We need a better policy, so we can emit more carbon dioxide by removing regulations and taxes.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#26839 Apr 25, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
What does The Milankovitch Theory say about future climate change?
Orbital changes occur over thousands of years, and the climate system may also take thousands of years to respond to orbital forcing. Theory suggests that the primary driver of ice ages is the total summer radiation received in northern latitude zones where major ice sheets have formed in the past, near 65 degrees north. Past ice ages correlate well to 65N summer insolation (Imbrie 1982). Astronomical calculations show that 65N summer insolation should increase gradually over the next 25,000 years, and that no 65N summer insolation declines sufficient to cause an ice age are expected in the next 50,000 - 100,000 years ( Hollan 2000, Berger 2002).
I read that in the IPCC report too. Not something I think will happen based on precession alone.

Easily stated, an ice age is when the summer sun does not melt the winter's ice at 65*N. Spring precession will move 65*N is a more favorable position for solar energy but obliquity and eccentricity will still move 65*N further from the sun than precession will be able to overcome. At least that's what has happened in the past.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#26840 Apr 25, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Or the sun had a surge of activity that prevented the Little Ice Age from becoming the next glacial period.
http://www.google.com/search...
http://www.google.com/search...
No, the CO2 we put in the atmosphere prevented it.
Human emissions of carbon dioxide will defer the next Ice Age, say scientists.

The last Ice Age ended about 11,500 years ago, and when the next one should begin has not been entirely clear.

Researchers used data on the Earth's orbit and other things to find the historical warm interglacial period that looks most like the current one.

In the journal Nature Geoscience, they write that the next Ice Age would begin within 1,500 years - but emissions have been so high that it will not.
Continue reading the main story

"At current levels of CO2, even if emissions stopped now we'd probably have a long interglacial duration determined by whatever long-term processes could kick in and bring [atmospheric] CO2 down," said Luke Skinner from Cambridge University.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment...

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#26841 Apr 25, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
I read that in the IPCC report too. Not something I think will happen based on precession alone.
Easily stated, an ice age is when the summer sun does not melt the winter's ice at 65*N. Spring precession will move 65*N is a more favorable position for solar energy but obliquity and eccentricity will still move 65*N further from the sun than precession will be able to overcome. At least that's what has happened in the past.
I would be interested in exactly what you base your prediction upon.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#26844 Apr 25, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Historical activity as illustrated in the ice core data. The closest previous cycle that looks most like our current was 400,000 years ago.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nma...
Until you can provide the mechanism that caused that cycle and correlate it with a similar mechanism today, you are whistling in the dark.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#26845 Apr 25, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Until you can provide the mechanism that caused that cycle and correlate it with a similar mechanism today, you are whistling in the dark.
Gravity.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#26846 Apr 26, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Gravity.
The gravity of the situation is that you have no cloue what you are blathering.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#26847 Apr 26, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
The gravity of the situation is that you have no cloue what you are blathering.
You asked for the mechanism that produces the Milankovitch Cycles. The mechanism is gravity.

The cycle is determined by the various gravitational pulls from all objects in our solar system and their relative position to each other.

The last time the same relative values existed was in the cycle 400,000 years ago.

We call eccentricity a 100,000 year cycle but it really isn't. Sometimes it's as little as 95,000 and some speculation has it as long as 125,000, altho I've seen 112,000 more frequently cited.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#26848 Apr 26, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
The gravity of the situation is that you have no cloue what you are blathering.
I made a statement that the sun had a surge of activity. Nothing in my statement had anything to do with the Milankovitch Cycles.

You brought up the Milankovitch Cycles. You asked what mechanism controlled the cycles and if that could be applied to today's activity. The answer is yes, but it has nothing to do with the solar energy we experienced in the last half of the 20th century.

We had a Grand Solar Maxima in the last half of the 20th century. Our sun produced more energy than we had observed at any time in the last 400 years. Some estimates are that the amount of energy generated by our sun in the last half of the 20th century was in the top 10% of all holocene activity.

Our earth is in a time of declining temps. Not even the warming of the last 30 years changes that, but a very hot sun may have given us a warmer climate to remember.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#26849 Apr 26, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
You asked for the mechanism that produces the Milankovitch Cycles. The mechanism is gravity.
The cycle is determined by the various gravitational pulls from all objects in our solar system and their relative position to each other.
The last time the same relative values existed was in the cycle 400,000 years ago.
We call eccentricity a 100,000 year cycle but it really isn't. Sometimes it's as little as 95,000 and some speculation has it as long as 125,000, altho I've seen 112,000 more frequently cited.
I understand the Milankovitch Cycles. There are some questions about the correlation with climate change. However, even if they would explain all the past "cycles" how does that explain the rapid warming today? Unless you can show that the warming today is a result of the Milankovitch effects, your "cycle" theory is kaput.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#26850 Apr 26, 2013
Has global warming really stopped?

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gr...
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#26851 Apr 26, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand the Milankovitch Cycles. There are some questions about the correlation with climate change. However, even if they would explain all the past "cycles" how does that explain the rapid warming today? Unless you can show that the warming today is a result of the Milankovitch effects, your "cycle" theory is kaput.
Again, I didn't bring up the Milankovitch cycles. I'm not using them to explain climate change.

You brought up the idea of an extended holocene. I said that precession alone would not stop us from entering the next period of glaciation, you asked why I thought that, I explained.

Never said anything about the Milankovitch Cycles being responsible for climate change.

If you don't have something valuable to add to the conversation, it's OK not to say anything.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#26852 Apr 26, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Has global warming really stopped?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gr...
AGW scientists are still looking for that 'missing heat'.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#26853 Apr 26, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
AGW scientists are still looking for that 'missing heat'.
They found it.

Please try and keep up.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#26854 Apr 26, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
They found it.
Please try and keep up.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...
They found the 'missing heat'? I don't think so.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#26855 Apr 26, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
They found the 'missing heat'? I don't think so.
Not surprising: you're a denier.

Let me point you to something more specific:

Abstract

A recent paper by Douglass and Knox (hereafter DK12) states that the global flux imbalance between 2002 and 2008 was approximately &#8722;0.030.06 W/m2&#8722;0.030.06 W/m2, from which they concluded the CO2 forcing feedback is negative. However, DK12 only consider the ocean heat content (OHC) increase from 0 to 700 meters, neglecting the OHC increase at greater depths. Here we include OHC data to a depth of 2000 meters and demonstrate this data explains the majority of the discrepancies between DK12 and previous works, and that the current global flux imbalance is consistent with continued anthropogenic climate change.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#26856 Apr 26, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Not surprising: you're a denier.
Let me point you to something more specific:
Abstract
A recent paper by Douglass and Knox (hereafter DK12) states that the global flux imbalance between 2002 and 2008 was approximately &#8722;0.030.06 W/m2&#8722;0.030.06 W/m2, from which they concluded the CO2 forcing feedback is negative. However, DK12 only consider the ocean heat content (OHC) increase from 0 to 700 meters, neglecting the OHC increase at greater depths. Here we include OHC data to a depth of 2000 meters and demonstrate this data explains the majority of the discrepancies between DK12 and previous works, and that the current global flux imbalance is consistent with continued anthropogenic climate change.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...
The above reference is a rebuttal to another paper. Altho you may think it supports your position, it doesn't address it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Alternative Energy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Just don't call it 'climate change': How the go... 14 hr USA Today 1
News Gov. Branstad leaves Iowa with new voter ID, an... May 26 he a sell out 1
News Halton Council leader given new city region gre... May 26 Halton Canada eh 1
News TVA customers expected to see savings in June s... May 25 Pay real price 30
News 800 employees at Oregon solar company receive l... May 24 Solarman 1
News Nevada Assembly passes solar-energy consumer ri... May 24 Solarman 1
News PG&Ea s Solar Choice Program Brings Clean Energ... May 20 Solarman 1
More from around the web