More Proof that it's Getting Warmer---Fast

[Lord of Planar]

I'm going to the gym. I've had enough playing climate scientist for the day. Somebody else take a look at this. What he said directly contradicts everything I've read about it, I'm sure its pretty easy to figure out.

That's because the Alarmists are very good charlatans.

 

[Occam's Razor]

I asked for proof, those sites are all pretty biased by the way.

Back in the day, the catholic church branded all science that contradicted it's dogma as dangerous propaganda and bias towards evil.

The fact is, it is your bias and belief systems that facts don't matter. It doesn't matter who recites the facts... murderers at trial, con artists, pious monks... it doesn't matter... facts are facts regardless of what any belief systems or bias are at play.

Proof: This is a false metric and screams the FACT of your ignorance. Science rarely provides "proof". You can't prove anything... however, you CAN disprove it. That is the scientific method, the foundation of reason and the fount of wisdom and knowledge.

Anytime someone asks for proof, the only proof available is that of your own bias that you cling to like an illiterate dark ages worshiper of sky ghosts.

All that can be provided is evidence. If you ask for evidence, that has been provided.

Can you PROVE that the possibility of global warming doesn't matter? Of course not. Can you provide evidence... we shall see. Opinions in this debate are pointless. Facts and evidence is all that matters.

 

[Verax]

That's because the Alarmists are very good charlatans.

Yet you reference the AR4 in every post then dismiss everything they say in another. Why not cite The Koch brothers? Their study indicated climate change was... real... oh wait that sucks. Well I'm sure there is a reputable source that lays everything out right?

Everyone's Talking About The Koch Brothers-Funded Study That Proves Climate Change Is Real - Business Insider

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yet you reference the AR4 in every post then dismiss everything they say in another. Why not cite The Koch brothers? Their study indicated climate change was... real... oh wait that sucks. Well I'm sure there is a reputable source that lays everything out right?

Yes. That is a very easy way to show them for the fakes they are.

Everyone's Talking About The Koch Brothers-Funded Study That Proves Climate Change Is Real - Business Insider

Who denies that climate change is real?

Only strawman builders like you!

Strawman: You claim us skeptics to deny climate change.

Destroy own strawman: Prove climate change.

Don't you get it? We do not disagree the climate is changing. We do not disagree that temperatures have been rising. What we disagree with is the alarmist gospel of CO2.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Verax, consider the words of that NASA article carefully regaling CH4 vs. CO2:

Molecule per molecule, methane is 22 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide

At under 2 ppm, the slope if grater for a greenhouse gas than it is at 400 ppm. So, at current levels, and given increase by molar measurements, CH4 does warm quicker than CO2. If I add 2 ppm of methane, I am doubling it, but 2 ppm of CO2 is only increasing it by 0.5%.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You know what is comical about bringing this article up blaming man's activities?

Think about this for a few minutes...

All that organic carbon being release, at one time, was living matter! It means there was a warmer time when there was no industrialization, and a cooling earth trapped it.

 

[Morrigi]

Planar, why is it that I've never seen you cite an empirical source? Why don't you, or do you have something to hide?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Planar, why is it that I've never seen you cite an empirical source? Why don't you, or do you have something to hide?

I have been looking into these matters for years. I do not recall the sources of all my gained knowledge, and don't wish to spend time with google to prove such knowledge. I try to put into words so most people can understand what is happening. I have a better question. Why can't warmers state in their words what is happening?

 

[Morrigi]

We have, but you are unwilling or unable to understand or accept them. Now again, cite your source. He who makes extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence. We have evidence straight from NASA, and you have nothing but a bunch of fancy graphs with no backing whatsoever.

 

[Lord of Planar]

We have, but you are unwilling or unable to understand or accept them.

Really? I don't recall someone speaking with their own knowledge on this. Sorry if I missed that.

Now again, cite your source.

Stop badgering me. Are you insane and think my answer will change?

He who makes extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence.

There is nothing extraordinary about my claims. It's all simple science.

We have evidence straight from NASA, and you have nothing but a bunch of fancy graphs with no backing whatsoever.

Did I say I disagree with that NASA article? What part do I disagree with?

This should be good. What did I disagree with?

 

[Lord of Planar]

We have, but you are unwilling or unable to understand or accept them. Now again, cite your source. He who makes extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence. We have evidence straight from NASA, and you have nothing but a bunch of fancy graphs with no backing whatsoever.

Let me ask you something.

Do you understand what I did with posts 21 and 25?

Can you show those graphs to have any significant error?

Post 25 shows the formulas for post 21. That is... If you believe the IPCC...

 

[Morrigi]

"Over hundreds of millennia, Arctic permafrost soils have accumulated vast stores of organic carbon - an estimated 1,400 to 1,850 petagrams of it (a petagram is 2.2 trillion pounds, or 1 billion metric tons). That's about half of all the estimated organic carbon stored in Earth's soils. In comparison, about 350 petagrams of carbon have been emitted from all fossil-fuel combustion and human activities since 1850. Most of this carbon is located in thaw-vulnerable topsoils within 10 feet (3 meters) of the surface."
From the article in the OP, of course.


On average, that is a 15% increase of a known greenhouse gas. It is an empirical fact that this was caused by mankind.

Would you like to explain how a 15% increase in the amount of a known greenhouse gas in our atmosphere could not cause or accelerate the warming of the planet?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Well, if the Sleeping giant awakens, this is a site we may want to go back to:

THE NOAA ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX (AGGI)

I was opening various excel files in the past when I found this site indexed in the file with the data below. I had the data up to 2008, and there is another 3 years now. They modified some of data slightly up to 2003 since i downloaded the csv file, but not by much.

The table at the bottom is claimed forcing by year and chemical since 1750.

 

[Lord of Planar]

"Over hundreds of millennia, Arctic permafrost soils have accumulated vast stores of organic carbon - an estimated 1,400 to 1,850 petagrams of it (a petagram is 2.2 trillion pounds, or 1 billion metric tons). That's about half of all the estimated organic carbon stored in Earth's soils. In comparison, about 350 petagrams of carbon have been emitted from all fossil-fuel combustion and human activities since 1850. Most of this carbon is located in thaw-vulnerable topsoils within 10 feet (3 meters) of the surface."
From the article in the OP, of course.


On average, that is a 15% increase of a known greenhouse gas. It is an empirical fact that this was caused by mankind.

Would you like to explain how a 15% increase in the amount of a known greenhouse gas in our atmosphere could not cause or accelerate the warming of the planet?

Yes, any increased levels of a greenhouse gas helps increase warming.

Your point?

What do I disagree with?

 

[Morrigi]

The empirical fact that mankind is causing a palpable and irreversible effect on the planet's climate and that it will result in further release of arctic Co2 and methane which will have severe implications for humanity within a few decades.

Otherwise you wouldn't be calling us "alarmists". Unless "alarmist" means something entirely different to you and you alone, that is.

EDIT: Oh, and these links.

Carbon Dioxide Emissions | Climate Change | US EPA
Methane Emissions | Climate Change | US EPA

Note the GWP.

 

[Oftencold]

And yet another sign emerges indicating that things are heating up faster than expected. Carbon Dioxide and Methane gases long ago trapped under the Arctic ice caps are beginning to rise up into the atmosphere like weather balloons from hell.

Is a Sleeping Climate Giant Stirring in the Arctic? | NASA

Good! 'Bout time.

GLOBAL WARMING: A Boon to Humans and Other Animals

In the meantime, I'm having to run the heater at work.

In July.

 

[Oftencold]

Are you saying climate change is not happening or that if it is, it won't have any negative consequences?

What large events, or large non-events have no negative consequences? Look what happened for instance when we allowed almost everyone to vote.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The empirical fact that mankind is causing a palpable and irreversible effect on the planet's climate and that it will result in further release of arctic Co2 and methane which will have severe implications for humanity within a few decades.

Conjecture with only correlation as proof.

Otherwise you wouldn't be calling us "alarmists". Unless "alarmist" means something entirely different to you and you alone, that is.

What do you call someone who continues to act like Chicken Little?

EDIT: Oh, and these links.

Carbon Dioxide Emissions | Climate Change | US EPA
Methane Emissions | Climate Change | US EPA

Note the GWP.

Good links. I didn't notice anything I disagree with.

Yes, they are defining GWP and over the 100 year period. Nothing new, I already knew what GHP is. Please note, they didn't specify GWP in the article, and there are different ways of defining these things.

If you were familiar with the IPCC documentation in this regard, you would know that GWP is always accompanied by a timeframe. Table TS.2 in the AR4 WG1 Technical summary uses timelines of 20 years, 100 years, and 500 years. I immediately went to the slope method because a time frame was not referenced.

GWP assumes different molecules persist longer or shorter than CO2. I haven't seen anything to support that contention, and other things I have read indicate to me that CH4 is no more persistent in the atmosphere than CO2. Considering CH4 has sharp seasonal increases and decreases, the thought of it being more persistent than Co2 is illusive to me. Maybe you can explain that to me.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Back to GWP, it should be noted that it is still based on the change of the particular greenhouse gas from it's current concentration. Hence, the slope of the starting point matters, and is why CH4 is listed as stronger than Co2.

AR4 WG1 Chapter 2; 2.10.1; Definition of an Emission Metric and the Global Warming Potential.

There are several problematic issues related to defining a metric based on the general formulation given above (Fuglestvedt et al., 2003). A major problem is to define appropriate impact functions, although there have been some initial attempts to do this for a range of possible climate impacts (Hammitt et al., 1996; Tol, 2002; den Elzen et al., 2005). Given that impact functions can be defined, AM calculations would require regionally resolved climate change data (temperature, precipitation, winds, etc.) that would have to be based on GCM results with their inherent uncertainties (Shine et al., 2005a). Other problematic issues include the definition of the temporal weighting function g(t) and the baseline emission scenarios.

Due to these difficulties, the simpler and purely physical GWP index, based on the time-integrated global mean RF of a pulse emission of 1 kg of some compound (i) relative to that of 1 kg of the reference gas CO2, was developed (IPCC, 1990) and adopted for use in the Kyoto Protocol. The GWP of component i is defined by

where TH is the time horizon, RFi is the global mean RF of component i, ai is the RF per unit mass increase in atmospheric abundance of component i (radiative efficiency), [Ci(t)] is the time-dependent abundance of i, and the corresponding quantities for the reference gas (r) in the denominator. The numerator and denominator are called the absolute global warming potential (AGWP) of i and r respectively. All GWPs given in this report use CO2 as the reference gas. The simplifications made to derive the standard GWP index include (1) setting g(t) = 1 (i.e., no discounting) up until the time horizon (TH) and then g(t) = 0 thereafter, (2) choosing a 1-kg pulse emission, (3) defining the impact function, I(∆C), to be the global mean RF, (4) assuming that the climate response is equal for all RF mechanisms and (5) evaluating the impact relative to a baseline equal to current concentrations (i.e., setting I(∆Cr(t)) = 0). The criticisms of the GWP metric have focused on all of these simplifications (e.g., O’Neill, 2000; Smith and Wigley, 2000; Bradford, 2001; Godal, 2003). However, as long as there is no consensus on which impact function (I(∆C)) and temporal weighting functions to use (both involve value judgements), it is difficult to assess the implications of the simplifications objectively (O’Neill, 2000; Fuglestvedt et al., 2003).

 

[MoSurveyor]

We know global warming isn't real because God promised that he wouldn't flood the world ever again.

I know this is true because a guy on the House Science committee said its so.

Kudos for the snipe at that idiot in Congress and his peers who gave him that post! :clap:

 

[MoSurveyor]

Maybe the warmers should learn solubility sciences better. It's only natural for both CO2 and CH4 to increase in atmospheric levels as the oceans warm. By this I mean the ratio between the two changes.

Ocean solubility in interior Alaska?!?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Ocean solubility in interior Alaska?!?

I suppose you think the air doesn't flow...

 

[WCH]

Not that you'll believe a word of it. But, here.

Global Warming Will Cause Rise in Death Rates - ABC News

Oh CRAP! Just when everything was looking so rosy. (s)

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Yeah, what makes NASA think they're so damn smart? its not like they're exactly rocket scientists or anything.

They also believe we arrived here from a big bang which we know to be false. :shrug:

 

[sawyerloggingon]

And yet another sign emerges indicating that things are heating up faster than expected. Carbon Dioxide and Methane gases long ago trapped under the Arctic ice caps are beginning to rise up into the atmosphere like weather balloons from hell.

Is a Sleeping Climate Giant Stirring in the Arctic? | NASA

OK so that made me laugh. Good one. :lol: