Expert: We must act fast on warming

Sep 24, 2008 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Kansas.com

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 ...

Comments (Page 1,299)

Showing posts 25,961 - 25,980 of26,817
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26845
Apr 25, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

2

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

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26846
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26847
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26848
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26849
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26850
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Has global warming really stopped?

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

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26851
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

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

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26852
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26853
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26854
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26855
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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;0.03±0.06 W/m2&#8722;0.03±0.06 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

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26856
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

2

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;0.03±0.06 W/m2&#8722;0.03±0.06 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.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26857
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
The above reference is a rebuttal to another paper. Altho you may think it supports your position, it doesn't address it.
"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."

Your ability to ignore what is written in black and white is incredible.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26858
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Abstract

[1] The elusive nature of the post-2004 upper ocean warming has exposed uncertainties in the ocean's role in the Earth's energy budget and transient climate sensitivity. Here we present the time evolution of the global ocean heat content for 1958 through 2009 from a new observational-based reanalysis of the ocean. Volcanic eruptions and El Niño events are identified as sharp cooling events punctuating a long-term ocean warming trend, while heating continues during the recent upper-ocean-warming hiatus, but the heat is absorbed in the deeper ocean. In the last decade, about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700&#8201;m, contributing significantly to an acceleration of the warming trend. The warming below 700&#8201;m remains even when the Argo observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced. Sensitivity experiments illustrate that surface wind variability is largely responsible for the changing ocean heat vertical distribution.

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

When even the man who says there was missing heat says they've found it, it's time to concede.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26859
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
"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."
Your ability to ignore what is written in black and white is incredible.
Yes and .... What does that have to do with the heat energy location in the ocean?

This is a rebuttal to another paper. It is specifically pointing out what the current author think the author of the other paper did wrong. No where in this paper is there anything to support your position that the 'missing heat' is in the lower ocean.

Read it.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26860
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Then how do you correlate your statement? "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"

What IS the driver????

Until you can explain the mechanism, you are simply blowing out the kazoo.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26861
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Fun Facts wrote:
Read it.
Bite me.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26862
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Bite me.
No thanks.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26863
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Then how do you correlate your statement? "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"
What IS the driver????
Until you can explain the mechanism, you are simply blowing out the kazoo.
Precession is the earth's wobble. We are right now leaving winter precession and entering spring precession. Insolation values will increase for the next 10 to 12,000 years until they begin to decrease in fall precession. All that's true.

What I am saying is that obliquity is already 9 years into it's 20+ year decline and eccentricity is already 15,000 years into it's decline. The impacts of obliquity and eccentricity individually are greater than precession and together will cause the onset of glaciation regardless of the spring precession value.

That's what the chart I posted previously illustrates.

Imbrie 1982 does not make the jump to an extended holocene. Imbrie is the first of three papers the IPCC cites as evidence for an extended holocene. I studied them years back when I first started this endeavor. The extended holocene is the hypothesis of the third paper, if I remember correctly. I don't remember where they got the increase in insolation for 25,000 years from because that's the entire precession cycle.

If you're interested, within the greenland ice core data you can 'see' precession in both the glacial and interglacial periods. You really can't see much of it in the antarctic ice core data because the wobble is more like a top with the northern hemisphere having a larger swing than the southern.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26864
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Opps typo

obliquity is already 9000 years into it's 20,000+ decline...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 25,961 - 25,980 of26,817
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

20 Users are viewing the Science / Technology Forum right now

Search the Science / Technology Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 1 hr shinningelectr0n 5,032
How to Transfer Contacts & SMS from Nokia to An... (Mar '13) 1 hr Anonymous 3
How to recover deleted files on iPhone 5 iOS 6?... (Oct '12) 1 hr Sophia 43
Good sexual intercourse lasts minutes, not hour... (Mar '08) 2 hr HumanSpirit 645
U.S. Arrests Suspected Hacker; Russia Calls It ... 5 hr bilal 1
Wind turbine to be installed Thursday in Wartburg (Apr '10) 9 hr cool 6
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 10 hr Ooogah Boogah 171,199
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••