maddogdrivethru.net
http://maddogdrivethru.net/

2 Questions to Shut Up Nauseating Global Warming Prosletysts
http://maddogdrivethru.net/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=18715
Page 28 of 42

Author:  nero [ Tue Jan 16, 2018 6:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2 Questions to Shut Up Nauseating Global Warming Proslet

Anthropoid wrote:
Instead of "So it goes," you should sign every post with "Goracle be praised."

I like Vonnegut. ;)

So it goes.

Author:  abradley [ Thu Jan 18, 2018 7:20 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 2 Questions to Shut Up Nauseating Global Warming Proslet

Quote:
Worst-case global warming scenarios not credible: study
AFP/File / Thomas B. Shea With a single degree Celsius of warming so far, the Earth is already coping with a crescendo of climate impacts including deadly droughts, erratic rainfall, and storm surges engorged by rising seas

Earth's surface will almost certainly not warm up four or five degrees Celsius by 2100, according to a study released Wednesday which, if correct, voids worst-case UN climate change predictions.

A revised calculation of how greenhouse gases drive up the planet's temperature reduces the range of possible end-of-century outcomes by more than half, researchers said in the report, published in the journal Nature.
(Continued)
https://www.afp.com/en/news/2265/worst- ... doc-wx0de1

Author:  mdiehl [ Fri Jan 19, 2018 12:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2 Questions to Shut Up Nauseating Global Warming Proslet

Good news for many.

Author:  nero [ Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2 Questions to Shut Up Nauseating Global Warming Proslet

abradley wrote:
Quote:
Worst-case global warming scenarios not credible: study
AFP/File / Thomas B. Shea With a single degree Celsius of warming so far, the Earth is already coping with a crescendo of climate impacts including deadly droughts, erratic rainfall, and storm surges engorged by rising seas

Earth's surface will almost certainly not warm up four or five degrees Celsius by 2100, according to a study released Wednesday which, if correct, voids worst-case UN climate change predictions.

A revised calculation of how greenhouse gases drive up the planet's temperature reduces the range of possible end-of-century outcomes by more than half, researchers said in the report, published in the journal Nature.
(Continued)
https://www.afp.com/en/news/2265/worst- ... doc-wx0de1

One more study on the issue of climate sensitivity.

Quote:
By how much will Earth's average surface temperature go up if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is doubled?

That "known unknown" is called equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), and for the last 25 years the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- the ultimate authority on climate science -- has settled on a range of 1.5 C to 4.5 C (2.7 to 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit).

Cox and colleagues, using a new methodology, have come up with a far narrower range: 2.2 C to 3.4 C, with a best estimate of 2.8 C (5 F).

If accurate, it precludes the most destructive doomsday scenarios.


Certainly not so bad as the IPCC estimate.

But how realistic it really is?

Certainly one can reduce uncertainty range by excluding the uncertainty. :roll:

Quote:
One wild card not taken into consideration by the new model is the possibility of rapid shifts in climate brought on by the planet itself.

"There is indeed evidence that the climate system can undergo abrupt changes or 'tipping points'," Cox told AFP.

The collapse of the gulf stream, the thawing of carbon-rich permafrost, or the melting of ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica -- any of these could quickly change the equation, and not in the Earth's favour.


But the permafrost is thawing and Greenland ice sheet is losing mass.

Methane sinkholes on Siberian tundra:

Image

Methane craters on the Artic Sea floor:

Image

When I find more informed comments on Cox's study, I will post them, naturally.

PS. I am not criticizing Cox's study of equilibrium climate sensitivity (I have not seen the paper, and I doubt my ability to understand it anyway), just pointing out that it is not a prediction about future temperature on Earth.

Author:  Anthropoid [ Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2 Questions to Shut Up Nauseating Global Warming Proslet

Factors not considered: desertification, runoff (of myriad sorts) into oceans, changes to the albedo and heat sink of large swaths of land as a result of human structures and machines (even short of their exhaust products), 7.5 billion large brained apes and multiple billions of domesticated animals: all generating heat, farting, and dying; major changes to physiography and ecosystems; every other form of airborne pollutant which might have some direct or indirect effect on Earth's albedo or heat retention.

Just what I can think of off the top of my head.

But CO^2, which plants can fucking EAT, is what we need to be worried about.

Meanwhile, last I checked White Nose Syndrome has reduced many populations of critically important North American bats by 90 even 95% . . . Fucking Goreacle Retards. Honestly not even worth engaging with them: even when faced with mountains of sound skepticism, they refuse to shut their traps and incessant repeat the same tired mantras and engage in the same useless evasion and chicanery. For the true believers like Nero, it has never been about understanding Earth, its climate or other dynamic systems and how human population growth and industrial development have impacted natural ecology and Earth systems.

They are some of the most willfully wicked and excoriable cretins ever to pass breath between their lips in the form of words. Calling true-believers in the simple Goreacle versions of "climate change" "scientists" is like calling the Taliban secular humanitarian rerformers.

Author:  nero [ Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2 Questions to Shut Up Nauseating Global Warming Proslet

Anthropoid wrote:
Factors not considered: desertification, runoff (of myriad sorts) into oceans, changes to the albedo and heat sink of large swaths of land as a result of human structures and machines (even short of their exhaust products), 7.5 billion large brained apes and multiple billions of domesticated animals: all generating heat, farting, and dying; major changes to physiography and ecosystems; every other form of airborne pollutant which might have some direct or indirect effect on Earth's albedo or heat retention.

Just what I can think of off the top of my head.

But CO^2, which plants can fucking EAT, is what we need to be worried about.

Meanwhile, last I checked White Nose Syndrome has reduced many populations of critically important North American bats by 90 even 95% . . . Fucking Goreacle Retards. Honestly not even worth engaging with them: even when faced with mountains of sound skepticism, they refuse to shut their traps and incessant repeat the same tired mantras and engage in the same useless evasion and chicanery. For the true believers like Nero, it has never been about understanding Earth, its climate or other dynamic systems and how human population growth and industrial development have impacted natural ecology and Earth systems.

They are some of the most willfully wicked and excoriable cretins ever to pass breath between their lips in the form of words. Calling true-believers in the simple Goreacle versions of "climate change" "scientists" is like calling the Taliban secular humanitarian rerformers.

During Christmas I was more suffering from the Red Nose Syndrome. :lol:

Author:  jollypillager [ Sat Jan 20, 2018 2:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2 Questions to Shut Up Nauseating Global Warming Proslet

It is clear that enhanced greenhouse warming is a failed prediction and the true climate response is in the vicinity of 1 degree per doubling.

This issue is no longer about science, but is now 100% political.

Author:  Anthropoid [ Sat Jan 20, 2018 2:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2 Questions to Shut Up Nauseating Global Warming Proslet

The meteroric rise of human dominance of Earth has CLEARLY impacted natural ecologies and may be exerted influence(s) on climatic processes. CO^2 might even be one of the contributors.

But it is basic science that CO^2 is one of the WEAKEST green house gases, and that combined with its minuscule concentrations (even at its geological maxima during the Mesozoic) all suggest at a glance that any model of acute, rapid anthropogenic climate change that hinged totally and completely on CO^2 pollution was always a weak contender. This is on top of the fact that CO^2 is consumed by photoautotrophs and as such, MORE CO^2 output may actually PROMOTE ecological health by promoting plant growth; a reasonable starting hypothesis at least, a detailed and careful analysis might reveal a much more complicated story.

Being interested in anthropogenic impacts on natural ecology and Earth systems more broadly is wonderful. I applaud it.

But most "climate change" protagonists belie ANY real interest by virtue of drumming an overly-simplified, empirically-suspect, and causally-questionable model with limited (and even specious) empirical support and which also shows a profoundly clear political/economic agenda: carbon tax.

Author:  NefariousKoel [ Sun Jan 21, 2018 1:34 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 2 Questions to Shut Up Nauseating Global Warming Proslet

jollypillager wrote:

This issue is no longer about science, but is now 100% political.


Been that way for awhile.

Once big money changing hands became part & parcel, it quickly became it's own realm of politics, profit, and belief.

Author:  nero [ Sun Jan 21, 2018 7:52 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 2 Questions to Shut Up Nauseating Global Warming Proslet

jollypillager wrote:
It is clear that enhanced greenhouse warming is a failed prediction and the true climate response is in the vicinity of 1 degree per doubling.

This issue is no longer about science, but is now 100% political.

Obviously you did read the article about the climate sensitivity study at all.

Doubling the CO2 in in the atmosphere will rise that 1°C is physics, professor Cox's study science.

BTW the study shows that the “equilibrium climate sensitivity” (ECS) is 2.8°C, not so far from the IPCC estimate 3°C.

The politics comes from denier side. :twisted:

Page 28 of 42 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/