We Are "Chasing Our Tail" Trying to Save Glaciers, and Earth

[Lord Tammerlain]

What is the estimate on the glaciers along the ice field parkway disappearing?
I read that they are saying they could loose 80% by year 2100, but by 2100 we could also be in a different climate pattern.

That I am not certain about,

But i know that fishing bans in the Bow due to low flow and high temperatures are far more common in the last 10 years than in the previous 30.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Never? For much of the 2000s and 2010s, that’s what we were tracking close to.

Not true.

The fact that we are now doing a little better does not mean that it was never useful, nor that it it’s not a useful guide post now for tracking worst case outcomes, nor that the path we’re on now is fine and no further measures have to be taken, not that climate change science is all false and can just be blown off.

RCP 8.5 was always a joke.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Nobody wants to address the factor that all scientists studying glacier loss know.

Soot has the most significant effect on them.

 

[longview]

That I am not certain about,

But i know that fishing bans in the Bow due to low flow and high temperatures are far more common in the last 10 years than in the previous 30.

Sorry to hear that, that is a pretty river, is the trout fishing good?

 

[Sweden]

Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level PSMSL Data obtaining page

Sea level rise - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes, the sea level has risen 9.8 inches since 1880. So no one needs to panic.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Sorry to hear that, that is a pretty river, is the trout fishing good?

Yes, it is supposed to be one of the best,

Rainbow, Brook and a couple other types of trout

 

[longview]

Yes, it is supposed to be one of the best,

Rainbow, Brook and a couple other types of trout

We stayed in Banff for a few days, but I was not able to get a license. I doubt I will go back to Alberta, as my daughter is back in Texas.

 

[Steve Case]

Nobody wants to address the factor that all scientists studying glacier loss know.

Soot has the most significant effect on them.

1960 vacation stop on the Athabasca Glacier the guide/driver pointed
out that the trail up the glacier slowly became elevated because the
"Snow Cats" churned up the ice and didn't melt as fast as the rest of the
glacier that collected surface dust blown debris etc. See Photo Yes you
can't see the elevated trail, but the Bombardier snow cat did the churning
of the trail.

 

[ataraxia]

There is no uncertainty in RCP8.5, it requires a year 2100 CO2 level of 1370 ppm.
Let's play out two scenarios, RCP8.5 with and ECS of 3C,
and a scenario that matches actual emissions and the simulation that hindcasts TCR.
An ECS of 3C means that 3C of warming results from a doubling of the CO2 level,
So the equation to find the log multiplier looks like this 3C/ln(2) = 4.328, so the 2100 warming would be
4.328 X ln(1370/425) = 5.065 C above the current temperature.
TCR has a 2XCO2 sensitivity of 1.65 C and the a 2100 CO2 level of 700 ppm.
1.65/ln(2) = 2.38, so 2.38 X ln(700/425) = 1.18 C above the current temperature.
All of this assumes that added CO2 actually causes forcing (Which cannot be seen in the observed data).

This only happens if you completely ignore factors like climate sensitivity itself, future emissions, feedbacks, and model structure. Using TCR with a lower projected CO₂ level (~700 ppm) to claim minimal warming only works if future emissions do not increase. You willing to ignore all those variables to have it come out the way you want?

Also, the assertion that CO₂ forcing "cannot be seen in the observed data" ignores a century and a half of observations.

 

[ataraxia]

Not true.

RCP 8.5 was always a joke.

Unless you can support your positions with peer reviewed articles, it is just your personal opinion.

 

[ataraxia]

And yet,
Crop Yields
View attachment 67572858

Agricultural productivity has improved—largely due to advances in fertilizer, irrigation, mechanization, and high-yield crops (the Green Revolution)- not because of climate change. But crop yields in many parts of the world are already being negatively affected by heatwaves, droughts, or shifting rainfall patterns. Also, the yield gains are starting to plateau in some key crops like wheat and rice, and climate models project that extreme weather, water stress, and pest pressures will increase with continued warming, threatening future stability.

You are playing Russian roulette with climate change.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Unless you can support your positions with peer reviewed articles, it is just your personal opinion.

Oh God. Many papers say is was never a possibility. If you have read papers regarding modelling, you would know this.

Maybe you should prove 8.5 is viable instead....

Do yoiu own homework, I have better things to do that search for material not indexed.

 

[ataraxia]

Oh God. Many papers say is was never a possibility. If you have read papers regarding modelling, you would know this.

Maybe you should prove 8.5 is viable instead....

Do yoiu own homework, I have better things to do that search for material not indexed.

Now show us where they say climate change is fake, due to soot, and can be ignored.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Now show us where they say climate change is fake, due to soot, and can be ignored.

The synonyms you choose incorrectly frame what my claims are.

Go fish.

 

[ataraxia]

The synonyms you choose incorrectly frame what my claims are.

Go fish.

Short phrases and no supporting evidence makes it difficult to understand or discuss anything you are saying. It's just 95% cussing and 5% mysterious utterances.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Short phrases and no supporting evidence makes it difficult to understand or discuss anything you are saying. It's just 95% cussing and 5% mysterious utterances.

If you do not understand, why are you here? I clearly state my positions, and words have meaning,. When you alter a word, you often turn it into an incorrect statement.

Ask a question pertinent to what you are responding to is you want a proper answer. Ask nonsense, and I will return nonsense.

I have never claimed "climate change is fake." Then you want me to show you a reference of how it is fake, when that is not my position?

GO FISH!

 

[longview]

This only happens if you completely ignore factors like climate sensitivity itself, future emissions, feedbacks, and model structure. Using TCR with a lower projected CO₂ level (~700 ppm) to claim minimal warming only works if future emissions do not increase. You willing to ignore all those variables to have it come out the way you want?

Not at all the 2XCO2 climate sensitivity of TCR according to the IPCC is 1.65 C per doubling, and includes feedbacks.
The same models that produce high ECS levels, show much lower levels when emissions is in small incremental steps like Humans emit.
Also 700 ppm by year 2100 would be 3.66 ppm per year, so includes increased emissions.

Also, the assertion that CO₂ forcing "cannot be seen in the observed data" ignores a century and a half of observations.

So then cite and quote from a peer reviewed source where they observed added greenhouse gases causing
an increase in the net longwave flux (Longwave energy imbalance)?
By the way here is what the Met Office says about climate sensitivity.
Met Office

How can we estimate climate sensitivity?

Climate sensitivity cannot be directly measured in the real world. Instead it must be estimated and there are three main lines of evidence that can be used to do this:

I am not sure why you think there is observed data for Climate sensitivity, when the advocate and chief Met office
says that it cannot be directly measured.

 

[ataraxia]

If you do not understand, why are you here?

To exchange ideas and learn.

I clearly state my positions, and words have meaning,. When you alter a word, you often turn it into an incorrect statement.

Ask a question pertinent to what you are responding to is you want a proper answer. Ask nonsense, and I will return nonsense.

I have never claimed "climate change is fake." Then you want me to show you a reference of how it is fake, when that is not my position?

GO FISH!

You are saying soot is more important than CO2. It seems like a new thing, as this was not something you were talking about before. Very strange claim. Links?

 

[iguanaman]

Glacier loss is primarily cause by atmospheric pollutants darkening the ice and allowing it to absorb more sunlight. This in may cases make the ice melt twice as fast as natural.

We need to stop atmospheric pollutants like soot if we want to stop this trend.

Yes we need to stop burning fossil fuels since they are the primary source of soot. It appears you are finally getting the picture.

 

[longview]

Yes we need to stop burning fossil fuels since they are the primary source of soot. It appears you are finally getting the picture.

Not all fossil fuels release soot when burned, it is mostly Coal and to some extent Diesel engines.

 

[iguanaman]

Not at all the 2XCO2 climate sensitivity of TCR according to the IPCC is 1.65 C per doubling, and includes feedbacks.
The same models that produce high ECS levels, show much lower levels when emissions is in small incremental steps like Humans emit.
Also 700 ppm by year 2100 would be 3.66 ppm per year, so includes increased emissions.


So then cite and quote from a peer reviewed source where they observed added greenhouse gases causing
an increase in the net longwave flux (Longwave energy imbalance)?
By the way here is what the Met Office says about climate sensitivity.
Met Office

I am not sure why you think there is observed data for Climate sensitivity, when the advocate and chief Met office
says that it cannot be directly measured.

Humans are emitting fossil carbon into the atmosphere at 100 times the rate of volcanic activity at its peak millions of years ago. This resulting in temperature increases at speeds never seen on earth before. Yet another reason to that scientists are certain the humans are the cause and burning fossil carbon is the mechanism.

Yes, that statement is accurate. Humans are indeed emitting fossil carbon into the atmosphere at a rate far exceeding the historical peak of volcanic activity, which occurred millions of years ago. Modern human activities release carbon dioxide at a rate estimated to be hundreds of times faster than natural increases, according to the EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

https://www.google.com/search?q=Hum...1C1CHBD_enUS882US882&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

[longview]

Humans are emitting fossil carbon into the atmosphere at 100 times the rate of volcanic activity at its peak millions of years ago. This resulting in temperature increases at speeds never seen on earth before. Yet another reason to that scientists are certain the humans are the cause and burning fossil carbon is the mechanism.

Yes, that statement is accurate. Humans are indeed emitting fossil carbon into the atmosphere at a rate far exceeding the historical peak of volcanic activity, which occurred millions of years ago. Modern human activities release carbon dioxide at a rate estimated to be hundreds of times faster than natural increases, according to the EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

https://www.google.com/search?q=Hum...1C1CHBD_enUS882US882&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

CO2 levels from all sources are increasing by about 2.5 ppm per year.
Again there was no way to directly observe greenhouse gas forcing, The CERES instruments were the experiment
to verify that added CO2 caused the longwave forcing required to cause warming, but the the observed data
was the opposite than what was predicted.

 

[iguanaman]

CO2 levels from all sources are increasing by about 2.5 ppm per year.
Again there was no way to directly observe greenhouse gas forcing, The CERES instruments were the experiment
to verify that added CO2 caused the longwave forcing required to cause warming, but the the observed data
was the opposite than what was predicted.

LOL We can just look at our thermometers to see the results of GGF. Temperatures are rising faster than at any time in earth's history. Humans are digging up and burning fossil carbon at rates 100 times of volcanoes when they were at their peak.

 

[longview]

LOL We can just look at our thermometers to see the results of GGF. Temperatures are rising faster than at any time in earth's history. Humans are digging up and burning fossil carbon at rates 100 times of volcanoes when they were at their peak.

Correlation is not causation! Yes we are increasing the CO2 level, but the observed data is saying that the increase in the
CO2 level is not causing any warming.
By the way Temperatures are rising faster than any time in the last 175 years, not in Earth's history.
The proxy record before 1850 lack the resolution to say if recent warming is faster or slower than past warming or cooling events.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yes we need to stop burning fossil fuels since they are the primary source of soot. It appears you are finally getting the picture.

That does not mean we need to stop burning them. We only need to clean the emissions up. Scrub the pollutants out of the released gasses.