Global warming basics.

[exchemist]

The entrenched conservatives here (of whom i was once a paid up member) are saddly beholden to 1950sish economic models where we're all about selling our raw materials as fast as we can, and the opposition "liberal" party are the definition of callow and directionless. Both sides have a few outstanding shining lights, but the short version is, we'll keep selling coal right up to the instant it stops being profitable.

Well, that moment is possible to envisage, I think, unless someone gets carbon capture and storage (CCS) sorted. Coal is being phased out in lots of places due to a combination of CO2 concerns and simple air pollution (e.g. China).

The company I used to work for (Shell) thought it had a deal with the UK government for a pilot at one of our coal-fired power stations. The government reneged and pulled the plug after Shell had spent a couple of million on setting it up. Management v. hacked off and won't now be keen to try again in Britain. CCS makes sense for Shell as it has a lot of exhausted oil and gas wells into which CO2 can be pumped - and it knows how to do the pumping. Confess I don't much like it, as I can't help thinking the stuff may somehow leak out again. I'd rather see coal (and then oil and later still gas) phased out.

 

[Valjean]

You got answers to a poorly formed question. It was poorly formed because it demonstrated your ignorance and was largely pointless. Did you not understand the answers? They were rather basic. A noisy signal needs a longer time period to demonstrate meaningful results. Over the last 100 years there is no doubt about global warming. Over any ten to twenty year period that warming can be masked by noise.

Exactly.
There are many natural cycles affecting temperature: night and day, summer and winter, the solar cycle, el niño and la niña, axial precession, &c. When the peaks of several of these coincide, you'll get more warming, when troughs align, you'll get cooling. Incidentals like greenhouse gas emissions from cars, cows or tundra will naturally trap heat. But in years when the troughs of other climate agents align, the effect is temporarily masked -- to the delight of climate change deniers.

Perhaps a better overall indicator would be the more obvious, longer term effects: retreating glaciers, the meltwater pouring off of Greenland, sea rise and coastal flooding, seasonal changes -- Spring coming measurably earlier and Autumn later each year; biome shifts and concomitant animal and plant population shifts or extinctions, forest die-offs and resulting wildfires, decreased arctic pack ice and an opening Northwest passage, methane pouring out of the arctic tundra -- sometimes explosively, the Sahara extending ever faster into the Sahel. the destabilized polar jet stream, allowing arctic air to bleed down into lower latitudes.
How to explain all these effects...?

 

[Valjean]

Ad hom?

Argumentum ad hominum. Attempting to discredit an interlocutor's argument by attacking his character, rather than the argument itself.

 

[Audie]

Argumentum ad hominum. Attempting to discredit an interlocutor's argument by attacking his character, rather than the argument itself.

I know that, I just did not see one. Where was it?

 

[Valjean]

I know that, I just did not see one. Where was it?

The thread was devolving into a Gore/anti-Gore discussion, like the Darwin/anti-Darwin debates in so many other threads. I was trying to suggest getting off Gore and back on track.
See below:

If Al gore was correct back in the 1990's, then the oceans should probably have boiled off the planet by now....

That is why you need to learn the basics. By the way, Al Gore made no such claim.

Yes, what Al Gore said is on record. That is why I know that you are the one that is not arguing accurately. And why refer to Al Gore anyway? He is not an expert in the field, he only made this problem well known. He got some of his claims wrong. He got some of his claims right. That is what happens when total lay people make definitive claims..

Soooo...how much has the globe warmed since Al Gore started making millions of dollars promoting this nonsense?

Please, this thread was inspired by your ignorance. I am not an Al Gore fan either. You as much as admit that you are wrong with bogus ad homs.

Al Gore is a politician. If what politicians predict is a criteria for something being right, then it's hard to ever be right.

 

[Valjean]

Today's BBC: 'Climate change moving faster than we are'

I see articles about global warming almost every day, from all over the world.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The thread was devolving into a Gore/anti-Gore discussion, like the Darwin/anti-Darwin debates in so many other threads. I was trying to suggest getting off Gore and back on track.
See below:

It is a pity that @BSM1 did not participate in this thread. We pretty much covered the Greenhouse Effect, a process that he has denied on other threads.

 

[exchemist]

Argumentum ad hominum. Attempting to discredit an interlocutor's argument by attacking his character, rather than the argument itself.

Ad hominem, surely? Homo, homo, hominem, hominis, homini, homine, and ad takes the accusative.....if I recall my schoolboy Latin.....

 

[Jumi]

The thread was devolving into a Gore/anti-Gore discussion, like the Darwin/anti-Darwin debates in so many other threads. I was trying to suggest getting off Gore and back on track.

It's easy to get gored if one plays with the bulls.

 

[exchemist]

It is a pity that @BSM1 did not participate in this thread. We pretty much covered the Greenhouse Effect, a process that he has denied on other threads.

He baled out in post 67, after erecting and duly ridiculing an Aunt Sally, to the effect that the climate change threat consists merely of a 1C deg increase in temperature.

He will have wanted to avoid the risk of learning more about it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He baled out in post 67, after erecting and duly ridiculing an Aunt Sally, to the effect that the climate change threat consists merely of a 1C deg increase in temperature.

He will have wanted to avoid the risk of learning more about it.

Yes, much like in the same way that creationists bail out of when one tries to teach them the basics of the scientific method. Both are positions of science denialism.

 

[Valjean]

Ad hominem, surely? Homo, homo, hominem, hominis, homini, homine, and ad takes the accusative.....if I recall my schoolboy Latin.....

D'oh!

• 

That'll teach me to take Greek rather than Latin.
And to spellcheck...

 

[exchemist]

D'oh!

• 

That'll teach me to take Greek rather than Latin.
And to spellcheck...

He heh. Actually, some of this stuff is only coming back to me - after a gap of over 40 years - now that my son is approaching his GCSE in Latin. I was lousy at Greek though. Just about all I can recall is that γυπς is a vulture! Should come in handy - not.

 

[BSM1]

It is a pity that @BSM1 did not participate in this thread. We pretty much covered the Greenhouse Effect, a process that he has denied on other threads.

Oh, he participated, and you failed to meet the mark. He asked one simple question that could not be answered by any seemingly educated and aware climate and global warming experts. He will ask it once more: How much has the globe warmed in the last 10 years? 50 years? 100 years?

 

[exchemist]

Oh, he participated, and you failed to meet the mark. He asked one simple question that could not be answered by any seemingly educated and aware climate and global warming experts. He will ask it once more: How much has the globe warmed in the last 10 years? 50 years? 100 years?

The whole data set was given to you to in post 56 and once more in 60, so you can read off any interval you like for yourself.

But I know what you intend to do with this - you telegraph it from a mile off.

1) You will erect your Aunt Sally again and claim the increase is insignificant.

2) You will choose to ignore the obvious implication that the increase has not stopped and may in fact be accelerating.

3) You will ignore, even more studiously, the information that has already been provided in this thread (e.g. posts 58 and 82) about the effects of climate change beyond mere mean temperature increases.

(By the way I wish the USA luck with Hurricane Florence. One storm does not prove much but we do seem to have had a fair number of severe ones recently.)

 

[metis]

He will ask it once more: How much has the globe warmed in the last 10 years? 50 years? 100 years?

Ask the glaciers and the ice in the Arctic region, at least while some are still left, and they'll "tell" ya. If the change is so inconsequential, why are they melting at such an alarming rate?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, he participated, and you failed to meet the mark. He asked one simple question that could not be answered by any seemingly educated and aware climate and global warming experts. He will ask it once more: How much has the globe warmed in the last 10 years? 50 years? 100 years?

Please this is a lie. I more than met the mark, and you did not participate. Participating means that one asks questions when one does not understand. With at best a high school level of science education I can see how not understanding is possible. That is why I tried to keep it simple and broke it down a bit. Where did you fail to understand?

 

[exchemist]

Please this is a lie. I more than met the mark, and you did not participate. Participating means that one asks questions when one does not understand. With at best a high school level of science education I can see how not understanding is possible. That is why I tried to keep it simple and broke it down a bit. Where did you fail to understand?

A better question would be where did he try to understand.......

 

[Subduction Zone]

The whole data set was given to you to in post 56 and once more in 60, so you can read off any interval you like for yourself.

But I know what you intend to do with this - you telegraph it from a mile off.

1) You will erect your Aunt Sally again and claim the increase is insignificant.

2) You will choose to ignore the obvious implication that the increase has not stopped and may in fact be accelerating.

3) You will ignore, even more studiously, the information that has already been provided in this thread (e.g. posts 58 and 82) about the effects of climate change beyond mere mean temperature increases.

(By the way I wish the USA luck with Hurricane Florence. One storm does not prove much but we do seem to have had a fair number of severe ones recently.)

His level of not understanding goes deeper than the data. He does not even understand the Greenhouse Effect which is why I began with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A better question would be where did he try to understand.......

It is pretty obvious that it was never.