- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Climate change means nearly all glaciers in the Alps may disappear
Posted on 4/9/19 at 10:50 am to GumboPot
Posted on 4/9/19 at 10:50 am to GumboPot
quote:
That is the stark warning from research using a more realistic way of modelling how ice will react to rising temperatures due to climate change.
So previous modelling algorithms were not very realistic? How much closer to reality is the new method? Given that we need supercomputers and that are orders of magnitude beyond the current ones, as well as a level of precise and accurate atmospheric data collection to match, I would guess the answer is "not even close".
2
Posted on 4/9/19 at 10:50 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
In simple terms, GHG's account for <40% of the "Greenhouse Effect" (GHE).
Water vapor is far and away the most potent GHE contributor (>60% on average). Water vapor is not technically a GHG though, and so is often not cited in GHG component tabulations.
CO2 at 400ppm is thought to account for up to 60% of the remaining <40% non-H2O-related GHE, or roughly 24% of the overall GHE. The accepted non-anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 level is estimated at 280-300ppm. With atmospheric CO2 levels at ~400ppm, anthropogenic contribution can be estimated at 100-120ppm. That number represents roughly 7% of the overall GHE.
Maybe because the "greenhouse effect" of CO2 is not linear as you are calculating but actually logarithmic.
quote:
But the relationship isn’t linear, it is logarithmic. In 2006, Willis Eschenbach posted this graph on Climate Audit showing the logarithmic heating effect of carbon dioxide relative to atmospheric concentration:
And this graphic of his shows carbon dioxide’s contribution to the whole greenhouse effect:
LINK
Posted on 4/9/19 at 10:53 am to Clames
quote:
So previous modelling algorithms were not very realistic? How much closer to reality is the new method? Given that we need supercomputers and that are orders of magnitude beyond the current ones, as well as a level of precise and accurate atmospheric data collection to match, I would guess the answer is "not even close".
They will get it right when they can get their models to model their models.
Oh wait...
Posted on 4/9/19 at 10:59 am to GumboPot
quote:100%.
Maybe because the "greenhouse effect" of CO2 is not linear as you are calculating but actually logarithmic.
The graphic previously posted did not seem to address that.
But collective impact of CO2 forcing does trail off with increasing concentration.
Do you have an actual breakdown of the GHE CO2 contribution of 120ppm atop the 280ppm baseline?
Posted on 4/9/19 at 11:03 am to SDVTiger
quote:
Didnt they just report that the amount Polar Bears have like doubled Muh global climate warming change
The extra bear farts will only hasten to pending climate catastrophe.
Posted on 4/9/19 at 11:04 am to GumboPot
This is going to severely affect the beauty of Ricola commercials.
Posted on 4/9/19 at 11:26 am to Clames
quote:
So previous modelling algorithms were not very realistic? How much closer to reality is the new method? Given that we need supercomputers and that are orders of magnitude beyond the current ones, as well as a level of precise and accurate atmospheric data collection to match, I would guess the answer is "not even close".
You've actually hit on something here that should be obvious to any unbiased observer:
"Climate" is incredibly complex and has a myriad of inputs. The laser like focus on CO2 makes the entire agenda transparent (as it has been from the beginning). CO2 is a proxy for energy. If you can control ("cap", if you will) how much CO2 a nation can produce/consume, you control that nation. Period.
If you can tax ("trade", if you will) other aspects of CO2 according to arbitrary, centrally controlled global governing entity, then you've effectively installed a global Marxist economy on top of everything.
So, while I don't think the AOCs of the world are really fully "in" this scheme, they are useful idiots advancing that scheme.
As are all the compromised "scientists" and other leftist allies.
Posted on 4/9/19 at 11:30 am to GumboPot
What pisses me off about all of this is that people think it is the biggest environmental threat. I think the island of garbage we have in the pacific is a bigger global threat to the environment.
Posted on 4/9/19 at 11:31 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Do you have an actual breakdown of the GHE CO2 contribution of 120ppm atop the 280ppm baseline?
You can use the formula provided in the second chart above to make this determination.
At 280 ppm the downward forcing is 257.5 W/m^2.
At 280 ppm plus 120 ppm (400 ppm) the forcing is 259.0 W/m^2
That is an increase of 0.59%. Not much overall forcing.
Posted on 4/9/19 at 11:51 am to GumboPot
quote:
At 280 ppm the downward forcing is 257.5 W/m^2.
At 280 ppm plus 120 ppm (400 ppm) the forcing is 259.0 W/m^2
Got you talking forcing now. Good stuff.
quote:
That is an increase of 0.59%. Not much overall forcing.
But it builds up over time. Keeping more heat at the surface.
Posted on 4/9/19 at 11:54 am to GumboPot
quote:
Around 95 per cent of glaciers in the Alps will be wiped out by the end of the century if the world continues pumping out carbon emissions at the current rate.
GumboPot, since you seem to know about these things have the alps always had glaciers on them? I mean for the many tens of millions of years the alps have been there have there always been glaciers on them? If that is the case man, we are in trouble and I'm going to start to worry? Oh and remember reasoning man has only been roaming around a bit less than a million years. Mostly during the Pleistocene (age of latest glaciation).
Posted on 4/9/19 at 11:58 am to willymeaux
quote:
What pisses me off about all of this is that people think it is the biggest environmental threat. I think the island of garbage we have in the pacific is a bigger global threat to the environment.
100% agree.
I want a clean earth. CO2 ain’t dirtying it. It’s plant food.
But things like incomplete combustion do dirty our environment.
Posted on 4/9/19 at 12:01 pm to willymeaux
quote:
What pisses me off about all of this is that people think it is the biggest environmental threat. I think the island of garbage we have in the pacific is a bigger global threat to the environment.
Can't we worry about both?
Posted on 4/9/19 at 12:04 pm to GumboPot
If so then constant, ongoing climate change shall reform them at some point. Hate to break it to you bud but modern man didn't invent climate change.
Posted on 4/9/19 at 12:32 pm to aTmTexas Dillo
quote:
GumboPot, since you seem to know about these things have the alps always had glaciers on them?
IDK. I'd have to research it.
With that said the reason I make these kinds of post are to demonstrate the daily ridiculous claims by our media. You can google "climate change" and google will provide two are three alarmist climate change articles a day. Amazing propaganda.
Posted on 4/9/19 at 12:34 pm to Duke
quote:
But it builds up over time.
How much? What are the units? W/m^2/day? W/m^2/s?
Posted on 4/9/19 at 12:38 pm to GumboPot
Watts being in units of energy/time.
You're right to point this out because I didn't say that accurately. It doesn't really have that much of an additive effect over time.
The change in forcing just alters the energy balance.
You're right to point this out because I didn't say that accurately. It doesn't really have that much of an additive effect over time.
The change in forcing just alters the energy balance.
This post was edited on 4/9/19 at 12:39 pm
Posted on 4/9/19 at 12:42 pm to GumboPot
quote:Wow!
At 280 ppm the downward forcing is 257.5 W/m^2.
At 280 ppm plus 120 ppm (400 ppm) the forcing is 259.0 W/m^2
That is an increase of 0.59%. Not much overall forcing.
Thanks GP.
Those numbers are worth a bookmark.
Posted on 4/9/19 at 1:02 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Those numbers are worth a bookmark.
But to be fair, Duke did mention in his post that forcing is a function of time. So there probably is some build up. If the watts coming in from the sun minus the watts leaving is a net positive then we will have warming. Just the opposite for cooling.
It's just an accounting problem were your shekels are watts.
With that said, I would hypothesize that the "build up" is a function of heat capacity that coincidentally behaves in a logarithmic manner as a function of temperature. That is, as the temperature increase the ability for the atmosphere to "build up" decreases with the same energy input (in watts). If my hypothesis is true then we have a beautiful self regulating system.
Posted on 4/9/19 at 1:05 pm to NC_Tigah
Remember, when I was a Senator in La., the Corps of Engineers in Vicksburg held a meeting for Senators from Southern states around the Ms. River and told us rising water and melting ice caps is not a problem. All they had to do was dredge canals to divert the water to where it is needed. California farming areas, south Texas farming areas in particular. They want to dredge around New Orleans, Mobile, Miami, D.C., and Maryland/ Virginia. If the Arabs would dredge into the North African desert all the water could be desalted and triple agriculture.
This post was edited on 4/9/19 at 1:22 pm
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News