Human Induced Climate Change is Real:

Typical "Stuff you, I'm alright Jack" attitude!
Statement on Climate Change from 18 Scientific Associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver."
I have not questioned these claims, so please post something relevant to what I claim if you answer my postings
They can, to some extent, compute the many and various possible distributions of climate zones and local climates for a given global average temperature. There are hundreds of them, of course, depending on other factors. These other factors include matters such as "does human industrial civilization exist?" and "when, exactly, relative to AGW among other factors, are you specifying as the time of optimal temperature?"
...
They can handle the factors that matter, more or less.
Fine. I specify the time as arbitrary large (the optimal temperature is about a stable state). To compute a stable state is always easier than to compute a change in time. Then, the assumption about human civilization is that it is on the actual technical level. So, the two factors you have chosen to name (one could guess because they are the most important ones) have been already specified in my definition.

Of course, there may be others. But, once you acknowledge that they can handle the factors that matter, this is not a big problem. So what? Problem computing averages?


And they can compute the changes in the climate as AGW continues, under various assumed conditions (such as human civilization responses). They are not dealing with a stable climate, of course.
But they can do it, of course.
There is no "the stable climate". There are many possible slowly changing climates, far in the future, that we call "stable" on a human scale.
In computer simulations, one can always compute stable solutions.
There is no climate stability at all under AGW, or for hundreds of years after it ends, on any relevant scale. AGW destabilizes the climate - that's the problem with it, remember?
And the very point of computing the optimal temperature is that this allows distinguishing the problems of the climate itself from the problems with adaptation to the new climate if the change happens too fast.
So you regard the fact that AGW is currently underway, and has never happened before, as "alarmism".
No. Learn to read. And learn how to critizise in a civilized form. That means, "typical alarmism" is not enough, once the reader cannot guess what I have named "typical alarmism". So, a naive reader could guess I have really questioned if some AGW is currently underway, or claimed something completely nonsensical like that some AGW has already happened before.
Sober, ordinary, research and theory established, simple and obvious physical fact; Something anyone can see for themselves, or find with a quick netsearch;
is "alarmism".
No. Your claims, which have never been supported here by a single reference to scientific research, are alarmism. I have no doubt that I can find with a quick net search a lot of alarmist sites.
For starters, you will get hundreds of possible "local distributions" for any given average temperature, depending on other factors.
So what? It means you will get some hundreds of resulting numbers for humans which could possibly survive on Earth. Any problem with computing various averages out of this? Anyway, even if the variations would be large, one could compute maximum, minimum, median, average, and for each of them compute an ideal temperature. I doubt that they will vary very much. And I doubt that even a single one will be below the actual one.
 
Yep. Ice sheet moves into the ocean. Sea level rises. That moves the grounding line (the line where the ice meet land instead of water) inland. Ice sheet moves faster. Sea level rises. Grounding line moves more. Etc.

massive glacial calving is now occurring from those ice sheets breaking up
and Glaciers are receding at rates never seen before in the last 200 years.
the glacial receding has no previous documented rate.
the warming water under the glaciers which now have no ice sheet is probably an exponential ice loss melt event
one the planet has not seen for a million years.

that seems to be the scientific inference
the Co2 levels are now off the chart for any previous melting for the last million years

this clearly suggests we are going to lose the Greenland ice layer which will ad 6 meters to sea level rise

the question is how long.
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html
If the Greenland Ice Sheet melted, scientists estimate that sea level would rise about 6 meters (20 feet). If the Antarctic Ice Sheet melted, sea level would rise by about 60 meters (200 feet). The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets also influence weather and climate.

Has climate change started to affect Earth's ice sheets?

The mass of ice in the Greenland Ice Sheet has begun to decline. From 1979 to 2006, summer melt on the ice sheet increased by 30 percent, reaching a new record in 2007. At higher elevations, an increase in winter snow accumulation has partially offset the melt. However, the decline continues to outpace accumulation because warmer temperatures have led to increased melt and faster glacier movement at the island's edges. To learn more about research on the Greenland Ice Sheet, visit former CIRES Director Konrad Steffen's research Web page (http://cires1.colorado.edu/science/groups/steffen/).
 
I have not questioned these claims, so please post something relevant to what I claim if you answer my postings
Of course they apply to you! Particularly your silly "alarmism" and "so what" useless jibes. It's painfully obvious that with regards to yourself, we apply the "Stuff you Jack, I'm alright" attitude.
 
Of course they apply to you! Particularly your silly "alarmism" and "so what" useless jibes. It's painfully obvious that with regards to yourself, we apply the "Stuff you Jack, I'm alright" attitude.
Paddoboys attitudes are irrelevant. What matters is that his "arguments" are not arguments at all, given that I have never questioned the claims he has posted.

It looks like propagandists are unable to follow arguments, so they do what is easy and accessible to everybody, namely ad hominem and personal attacks. Paddoboy does some useful things, like posting some interesting information about science, but when a discussion starts, it appears that scientific arguments do not matter, all goes back to "attitudes".
 
Paddoboys attitudes are irrelevant. .
No my attitudes particularly in line with human induced climate change, is entirely relevant, and as I have been trying to get you to accept [without dodging] is that even if only the slightest doubt with regards to its validity existed, we are 100% obliged to err on the side of caution. Your "stuff you Jack, I'l alright" is the attitude that should be abhorred.
 
Fine. I specify the time as arbitrary large (the optimal temperature is about a stable state)
And then you quit posting that bs in AGW threads, since anything that for out is not only speculative but irrelevant.
And it's a propaganda ploy of the US AGW denial operations, as funded by Exxon et al.
But they can do it, of course.
Not with any relevance to the US righting propagandist's mythical "optimal temperature".
In computer simulations, one can always compute stable solutions.
If stable, they would not be solutions in any situation involving AGW or its aftermath.
And the very point of computing the optimal temperature is that this allows distinguishing the problems of the climate itself from the problems with adaptation to the new climate if the change happens too fast.
It doesn't.
Earth to bozo: The increasing temperatures, rapid changes, and increased variability, are the "new climate". AGW's effects are predicted to outlast the Little Ice Age, even if it plateaued within the next five years. There is no other "climate itself".

According to the research: AGW is happening too fast for adaptation, there is no stable climate in the foreseeable future, there is no such thing as an "optimal temperature" for it to "reach", torrential rains and severe droughts will become both more common and less geographically fixed, temperature increase and boosted variability will do major harms including destroying agriculture over regions, warming oceans and sea level rise will also do major harms including destruction of reefs and river deltas (depriving about one billion people of their major source of protein) and so forth.

You don't know what you are talking about, because you have never bothered to read up on AGW, learn what we know about it, etc. That's ok. But as long as that is true, you will not be able to post sense and reason about AGW on this forum. Everything you post will be errors of fact and analysis. And if it continues to be parrot versions of US Republican media feeds, that will continue to be not a coincidence.
 
Earth to bozo: The increasing temperatures, rapid changes, and increased variability, are the "new climate". AGW's effects are predicted to outlast the Little Ice Age, even if it plateaued within the next five years. There is no other "climate itself".
The biggest of the "Bozo" like statements made is this false claim of "Alarmist" attitudes by the media. That lie is obvious in my country at least and even more obvious taking into account the following research.....
https://phys.org/news/2019-08-media-world-climate-news.html
extracts:
"The authors argue that the international relations frame being the most widely used reflects the fact that climate change is a problem every nation needs to address. Economic effects being second most popular reflects that fighting climate change will have impacts on every economy and that when natural disasters and climate change were discussed, they were nearly always brought forth in an economic sense. They also contend that richer countries framing the issue as political reflects that climate change skeptics in those nations gaining more media prominence and the efforts of multiple groups trying to politicize the issue, influence media agendas and policymaking."
"The study helps add to the understanding of media influence on climate change coverage, Vu said. Future work will address questions of framing the topic, if it's done on local, national or global levels, if communicators suggest solutions, if such solutions are attributed to individuals, businesses or governments and efficacy of proposed solutions. Three decades of communications on the topic show there is not a sense of immediacy in covering the problem and influencing policy".
. "If we want the public to have better awareness of climate change, we need to have media imparting it in an immediate sense. By looking at how they have portrayed it, we can better understand how to improve it, and hopefully make it a priority that is reflected in policy."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959378019304108?via=ihub

So much "alarmist" lie.
Those spreading that lie should also note.......

"The term alarmist can be used as a pejorative by critics of mainstream climate science to describe those that endorse it. MIT meteorologist Kerry Emanuel wrote that labeling someone as an "alarmist" is "a particularly infantile smear considering what is at stake." He continued that using this "inflammatory terminology has a distinctly Orwellian flavor".
"Some media reports have used alarmist tactics to challenge the science related to global warming by comparing it with a purported episode of global cooling. In the 1970s, global cooling, a claim with limited scientific support (even during the height of a media frenzy over global cooling, "the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature"[35]) was widely reported in the press. Several media pieces have claimed that, since the even-at-the-time-poorly-supported theory of global cooling was shown to be false, that the well-supported theory of global warming can also be dismissed. For example, an article in The Hindu by Kapista and Bashkirtsev wrote: "Who remembers today, they query, that in the 1970s, when global temperatures began to dip, many warned that we faced a new ice age? An editorial in The Time magazine on June 24, 1974, quoted concerned scientists as voicing alarm over the atmosphere 'growing gradually cooler for the past three decades', 'the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland,' and other harbingers of an ice age that could prove 'catastrophic.' Man was blamed for global cooling as he is blamed today for global warming".,[36] and the Irish Independent published an article claiming that "The widespread alarm over global warming is only the latest scare about the environment to come our way since the 1960s. Let's go through some of them. Almost exactly 30 years ago the world was in another panic about climate change. However, it wasn't the thought of global warming that concerned us. It was the fear of its opposite, global cooling. The doom-sayers were wrong in the past and it's entirely possible they're wrong this time as well."[37] Numerous other examples exist."
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

A shame that those with the "stuff you, I'm alright Jack" attitude, needs to resort to such inflammatory false claims.
 
it looks like we are headed for another Pliocene era because of atmospheric Co2 combined with ice sheet melts and glacial speed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliocene

this places global sea levels around 25 meters higher than current levels.

the question i am pondering is, is there an exponential effect to accelerate the sea level rise based on the current level of atmospheric Co2 being higher than the Pliocene period ?
 
Back
Top