CERN's CLOUD Experiment Highlights Pre-Industrial Climate and GCR's

[Deuce]

I doubt it. Your #39 and #41 exhibit real ignorance, and now you've fallen back on the universal fail-safe: "just joking." Sorry, but I'm not buying.

It's humorous that you believe "Only Svensmark et al read it" was a literal statement.

Buy what you like, my friend.

 

[Threegoofs]

Buy what you like, my friend.

That he does that in spades is clearly self evident.

 

[Jack Hays]

It's humorous that you believe "Only Svensmark et al read it" was a literal statement.

Buy what you like, my friend.

Now you're just flailing. It's unbecoming, really.

 

[Deuce]

Now you're just flailing. It's unbecoming, really.

Your increasingly wild accusations tell me you should take a break and cool down a bit.

 

[Jack Hays]

Your increasingly wild accusations tell me you should take a break and cool down a bit.

Not wild at all. Merely my assessment of this posting episode.

 

[Deuce]

Not wild at all. Merely my assessment of this posting episode.

I've given you all the help I can. Perhaps your revolutionary hero Svensmark can read the thread and illuminate your life.

 

[Russell797]

The argument from the alarmist side is that all the warming since the temperature records became numeric in about 1850 has been due to human release of CO2.

No that not true at all. There has been a small, non-trivial increase in solar radiative forcing, but none since about 1970.

If that is not the case then the expected warming due to more CO2 will be lowered.

Thus no billion dollar budgets for research etc.

No that's not true either. CO2 will do what CO2 will do regardless of other factors. A doubling of CO2 will induce a radiative forcing of 3.7W/m^2 (+- 0.4/m^2).

 

[Lord of Planar]

A doubling of CO2 will induce a radiative forcing of 3.7W/m^2 (+- 0.4/m^2).

Please source the paper that says that, and see their methodology of coming up with that figure.

 

[Tim the plumber]

No that not true at all. There has been a small, non-trivial increase in solar radiative forcing, but none since about 1970.

Thus no billion dollar budgets for research etc.

No that's not true either. CO2 will do what CO2 will do regardless of other factors. A doubling of CO2 will induce a radiative forcing of 3.7W/m^2 (+- 0.4/m^2).

The 3.7w/m2 figure is greatly contested. There is a very wide range of values for it and you have chosen the top end of that range.

Also 3.7W/m2 of increased thermal energy due to a doubling of CO2 will increase the temperature by about 1c. We are at about 400ppm now with a 2ish ppm increase per year. AT this rate it will be 200 years before this +1c temperature increase actually happens. Is this actually any cause for concearn?

 

[Russell797]

The 3.7w/m2 figure is greatly contested. There is a very wide range of values for it and you have chosen the top end of that range.

Also 3.7W/m2 of increased thermal energy due to a doubling of CO2 will increase the temperature by about 1c. We are at about 400ppm now with a 2ish ppm increase per year. AT this rate it will be 200 years before this +1c temperature increase actually happens. Is this actually any cause for concearn?

3.7W/m^2 is not greatly contested. It's the accepted value with margin for error included. Is it contested at all? Of course, just like anything else. There remain those who contest the accepted expansion of the Universe. They are outliers who have not demonstrated their case sufficiently to warrant a shift to their stance.

A doubling of CO2 is over that of the pre-industrial concentration at 280ppm. Currently it's at 407ppm which will drop over the next few months to about 404ppm. That a 45% increase overall. The doubling will occur sometime mid century with the full Planck temperature response to that forcing equalized some several decades later. From that temperature response a 1.5C to 4.5C ECS is estimated for a total response at radiative/thermal equilibrium.

The global temperature has climbed to over 1C anomaly for the first time in the instrumental record in just the past year. Nearly half way to the internationally agreed to 2C limit as a line not to be crossed. A warming climate system like any other physical system becomes destabilized during a period of transition. The change is not smooth and linear in character. Chaos and turbulence will be induced until the system settles down to a new equilibrium point.

Now, 125,000 years ago the global temperature was about 1C warmer than today and sea levels stood 20-30 feet higher than today. I'd say that's very much cause for concern since global ice amount is directly related to temperature on the planet given it's current ocean/continent configuration.

 

[Tim the plumber]

3.7W/m^2 is not greatly contested. It's the accepted value with margin for error included. Is it contested at all? Of course, just like anything else. There remain those who contest the accepted expansion of the Universe. They are outliers who have not demonstrated their case sufficiently to warrant a shift to their stance.

A doubling of CO2 is over that of the pre-industrial concentration at 280ppm. Currently it's at 407ppm which will drop over the next few months to about 404ppm. That a 45% increase overall. The doubling will occur sometime mid century with the full Planck temperature response to that forcing equalized some several decades later. From that temperature response a 1.5C to 4.5C ECS is estimated for a total response at radiative/thermal equilibrium.

The global temperature has climbed to over 1C anomaly for the first time in the instrumental record in just the past year. Nearly half way to the internationally agreed to 2C limit as a line not to be crossed. A warming climate system like any other physical system becomes destabilized during a period of transition. The change is not smooth and linear in character. Chaos and turbulence will be induced until the system settles down to a new equilibrium point.

Now, 125,000 years ago the global temperature was about 1C warmer than today and sea levels stood 20-30 feet higher than today. I'd say that's very much cause for concern since global ice amount is directly related to temperature on the planet given it's current ocean/continent configuration.

The quoted sensitivity of climate to a doubling of CO2 of 3.7 W/m2 is for any doubling from any starting point.

The result of adding 3.7 W/m2 to present conditions is about a +1c temperature change.

It will, at present rates, take about 200 years to get there.

125,000 years ago there was not the vast ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland and a 1c, or 2c or 10c risde in temperature is going to melt any significant proportion of them.

 

[Threegoofs]

The quoted sensitivity of climate to a doubling of CO2 of 3.7 W/m2 is for any doubling from any starting point.

The result of adding 3.7 W/m2 to present conditions is about a +1c temperature change.

It will, at present rates, take about 200 years to get there.

125,000 years ago there was not the vast ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland and a 1c, or 2c or 10c risde in temperature is going to melt any significant proportion of them.

How would you know?

You can't even figure out the mass loss of Greenland melting when it's given to you in three separate papers!

 

[Tim the plumber]

How would you know?

You can't even figure out the mass loss of Greenland melting when it's given to you in three separate papers!

This is why I know;

The energy budget for the earth, in the simplified way of this basic thing, is that there is about 340 W/m2 of heat comming in. If you add 3.7 to that you have an additional 1% or so. The temperature of the earth is about 300K. That is about 300 degrees k or c above absolute zero. The amount of heat radiated out is proportional to the temperature above absolute zero, or there abouts, and thus about 1c will result from an adding of 3.7 W/m2.

High school stuff.

The rate at which we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere is about 2 ppm per year.

To double the amount of CO2 from now will take an additional 400ppm, there being that much about at the moment. Thus 200 years.

Really basic stuff.

 

[katzgar]

Two of your links are indeed the same article. I'll concede this point. Of course they may be proven right . . . .

right wingers are rarely proven right

 

[Threegoofs]

This is why I know;

The energy budget for the earth, in the simplified way of this basic thing, is that there is about 340 W/m2 of heat comming in. If you add 3.7 to that you have an additional 1% or so. The temperature of the earth is about 300K. That is about 300 degrees k or c above absolute zero. The amount of heat radiated out is proportional to the temperature above absolute zero, or there abouts, and thus about 1c will result from an adding of 3.7 W/m2.

High school stuff.

The rate at which we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere is about 2 ppm per year.

To double the amount of CO2 from now will take an additional 400ppm, there being that much about at the moment. Thus 200 years.

Really basic stuff.

Dunning Kruger personified!

 

[Tim the plumber]

Dunning Kruger personified!

No. Sums.

I know you KNOW without any shadow of doubt that the world is threatened by the specter of disaster from human use of fossil fuels. It's just very saad that you do so without any ability to do any sort of sums what so ever.

 

[Threegoofs]

No. Sums.

I know you KNOW without any shadow of doubt that the world is threatened by the specter of disaster from human use of fossil fuels. It's just very saad that you do so without any ability to do any sort of sums what so ever.

I know you're proud of your ability to do sums. You repeatedly tell us.

But reality....

Sea Level Rise -- National Geographic

 

[Tim the plumber]

I know you're proud of your ability to do sums. You repeatedly tell us.

But reality....

Sea Level Rise -- National Geographic

Scientific research indicates sea levels worldwide have been rising at a rate of 0.14 inches (3.5 millimeters) per year since the early 1990s

I am not worried about a 1 foot sea level increase per century.

If you are you are in need of more actual risk in your life to get a sense of proportion.

 

[Threegoofs]

I am not worried about a 1 foot sea level increase per century.

If you are you are in need of more actual risk in your life to get a sense of proportion.

Funny how you missed the part about a rise being between .8-2 meters.

Again, the concept of acceleration confuses you.

 

[Russell797]

The quoted sensitivity of climate to a doubling of CO2 of 3.7 W/m2 is for any doubling from any starting point.

The result of adding 3.7 W/m2 to present conditions is about a +1c temperature change.

It will, at present rates, take about 200 years to get there.

125,000 years ago there was not the vast ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland and a 1c, or 2c or 10c risde in temperature is going to melt any significant proportion of them.

The pre-industrial atmospheric concentration of CO2 was about 280ppm. That's the period being referred to when assessing a doubling due to the human contribution.

125,000 years ago the global ice mass would have been less than today and the oceans were 20-30 feet higher. That's the point don't you think. There would have been less ice BECAUSE of the warmer temperatures. And no the ice sheets over Greenland and Antarctica where not significantly reduced due to a mere 1C above the Holocene temperature, but what melting did occur created sea levels 20-30 feet higher than today. Learn from history or be destined to repeat it.

 

[Russell797]

I am not worried about a 1 foot sea level increase per century.

If you are you are in need of more actual risk in your life to get a sense of proportion.

Well you should be. A single foot of sea level rise will imperil coastal cities and communities everywhere and cost trillions of dollars to mitigate.

 

[Russell797]

No. Sums.

I know you KNOW without any shadow of doubt that the world is threatened by the specter of disaster from human use of fossil fuels. It's just very saad that you do so without any ability to do any sort of sums what so ever.

Get your "sums" peer-reviewed" so that we can have confidence that your methodology is sound despite your conclusions being in sharp contrast to other peer-reviewed works. Otherwise you have no more credibility than the people you argue with. If you are to overturn the apple cart you had better bring convincing, credible evidence to the table.

Also, it's not "sad" that the average Joe does not have at his/her fingertips all relevant information and appropriate techniques that trained scientists who directly work in the field do. What a ridiculous assertion. Why the hell do people go through the trouble of attaining a PhD when all they have to do is scribble a few numbers on the back of an envelope?

 

[Tim the plumber]

The pre-industrial atmospheric concentration of CO2 was about 280ppm. That's the period being referred to when assessing a doubling due to the human contribution.

125,000 years ago the global ice mass would have been less than today and the oceans were 20-30 feet higher. That's the point don't you think. There would have been less ice BECAUSE of the warmer temperatures. And no the ice sheets over Greenland and Antarctica where not significantly reduced due to a mere 1C above the Holocene temperature, but what melting did occur created sea levels 20-30 feet higher than today. Learn from history or be destined to repeat it.

The way CO2 works in a greenhouse sense is that for each doubling there is the same effect on temperature. For a doubling from 280 to 560 there is a (proposed) 3.7 W/m2 heating. For a doubling from now at 400ppm to 800ppm there would be expected to be the same sensitivity level. At least that is the hypothesis.

There was less ice 125,000 years ago because Antarctica had been over the pole for less time. Similarly for Greenland. Ice has been building up in these places for many millions of years. It is secure from a tiny amount of warming. There will not be a 20 foot sea level rise.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Well you should be. A single foot of sea level rise will imperil coastal cities and communities everywhere and cost trillions of dollars to mitigate.

Wrong. It will require an extra foot on the sea defences. This will cost less than those cities spend on traffic lights.

Go to the seaside and have a think about how difficult it would be to protect that bit of coast from a foot of sea level rise.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Get your "sums" peer-reviewed" so that we can have confidence that your methodology is sound despite your conclusions being in sharp contrast to other peer-reviewed works. Otherwise you have no more credibility than the people you argue with. If you are to overturn the apple cart you had better bring convincing, credible evidence to the table.

High school physics does not require peer review by professors. It utterly basic stuff.

There are those who are oft' found of putting pretty graphs up showing the number of Zeta Joules of energy that the oceans have absorbed due to the global warming catastrophy. Those of us who understand what a Joule is and how you would measure how many had been absorbed also understand what a load of drivel it is.

I was not the first to start quoting the 3.7W/m2 figure on this thread. That I am the one who explains what that actually means to your chorus of "How do you know that???!!!??!" shows only that you have no clue as to what you are talking about.