So when you asked "WTF" i was talking about you were in fact familar with the earth being in a warming period correct? You can talking about what should be happening until you are blue in the face, we are in fact in a warming period.
A Hotter Future Is Certain, Climate Panel Warns. But How Hot Is Up to Us.
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
Again: No
The Milankovitch cycle is past its warming peak
Neither tarheel nor myself have claimed Milankovitch cycle warming doesn't exist
LOL...we're in a "warming period" due to the introduction of anthropogenic GHGs to the atmosphere. Period. That's what I was "in fact familiar with" when I read your post. There is not one thing that is natural about what is occurring. The EARTH is in a cooling period and we're fvcking with that.
We are in a warming period driven nearly entirely by manmade influences.
Milankovitch cycles imply we should be hovering at stable/cooling (over the next 100,000 years)
Solar cycles imply we should also be cooling, because solar activity has been low for the past 50-70 years.
The warming cycle is entirely driven by fossil fuel burning, and that will be the climate driver for the next 1000 years or so.
He's simply oblivious to the fact that our GHG emissions have completely overwhelmed the main natural factors that should be cooling us right now: Milankovitch and solar lull.
Me: be happy we are in a warming period.
You : "We are not in a warming period"
Then you: "we are in a warming period but its man made!"
Why dont you figure out what answer you want to go with and then we can continue.
You : "We are not in a warming period"
Then you: "we are in a warming period but its man made!"
Why dont you figure out what answer you want to go with and then we can continue.
We are not in a "natural warming period"
And we are continuing well outside the boundaries of what will be sustainable for many human populations in some of our most populated areas.
Never said we were bud, but you are getting closer. Keep swinging.
"Be glad we are in a warming period"
Its amazing gow fast you guys went from not knowing what the I was talking about to wanting to argue semantics like you wrote the ****ing books personally.
Why? It's going to continue well beyond what you think is "good"
If we continue BAU, we'll have 14 meters or more of sea level rise (the estimated equilibrium number for our present CO2 levels). That won't be for a few hundred years, but continued warming will make that happen and will make most seaboard cities uninhabitable.
Not sure why that makes you "giggly" inside.
Relationship between sea level and climate forcing by CO2 on geological timescales
On 103- to 106-year timescales, global sea level is determined largely by the volume of ice stored on land, which in turn largely reflects the thermal state of the Earth system. Here we use observations from five well-studied time slices covering the last 40 My to identify a well-defined and...
Hahaha. Where did I say "giggly"? If you put something in quotes it is a best practice for it to actually have been something the other person has said. Any grown man that says "giggly" should be bitch slapped.Why? It's going to continue well beyond what you think is "good"
If we continue BAU, we'll have 14 meters or more of sea level rise (the estimated equilibrium number for our present CO2 levels). That won't be for a few hundred years, but continued warming will make that happen and will make most seaboard cities uninhabitable.
Not sure why that makes you "giggly" inside.
That being said, what i said is correct and as far as humanity goes, we will deal with a warming period much better than a cooling period.
Again: No
A "cooling period" would not inundate our coastal cities.
We're best off keeping the temperatures within ±1°C of where they were at 280 ppm CO2.
This is classic whiskey. He doesn't know what he's talking about and makes a foolish statement "be glad we're in a warming period" and then follows up with post after post trying to spin it so he can feel right. It's hilarious to watch each time it happens.
We are not in "a warming period" no matter how many times you trot out that idiotic line. We are in a cooling period that is being dramatically reversed by human action. And there's nothing to "be happy" about. Only a dumbass would say something like that.
Yeah...never mind.
Good lord, you really should STFU. The cooling period we are in would take tens of thousands of years to drop the temp 3-4 degrees C. We'll easily see that much warming by 2100 at our current rate. That makes dealing with it...impossible.
Good lord, you really should STFU. The cooling period we are in would take tens of thousands of years to drop the temp 3-4 degrees C. We'll easily see that much warming by 2100 at our current rate. That makes dealing with it...impossible.
Also worth noting that the "+1.5°C" you often see quoted is for global (land and sea) temperatures.
Land temps run about 2x higher than the overall, so +1.5°C means about +3°C on land, which correlates to +5.4°F
That means your Iowa 98-100°F days become 103.5 to 105.5°F days; and some areas get amplified more than others, so that's nominal "best case" for most areas.
Yup
We are currently in what SHOULD be a natural cooling period, that is being dramatically offset by a very large human caused warming signal.
If we get solar output back up to 1900s-1950s levels, expect warming to accelerate a bit more
Only someone who is totally ignorant could make such a clueless claim.
Please educate yourself.
This is a concern.
As I understand it, the current, rather quiescent sun cycle is making things easier than could be the case.
Are there any good numbers showing how a more active cycle would impact us?
Any good numbers on when that's likely to start?
We need to focus on other things Global Warming is the least of our worries and FWIW we can't do anything about it to really make a difference. Wake up!
My new argument is that we need to keep fossil energy deposits in the ground so we'll be able to use them to stave off the next Ice Age.
We've done a fine job staving off the current one, and it's time to stop.
We need to stop now, before we become the frogs in a pot that we ourselves are slowly heating.
Go ahead and ride a bicycle I will continue to say "just fill her up and clean the windshield".
It’s not us, it’s them filthy bugs.
• Decaying wood releases around 10.9 gigatons of carbon worldwide every year, according to a new study by an international team of scientists.
This is roughly equivalent to 115 percent of fossil fuel emissions.
“We knew insects such as termites and wood-boring Longicorn beetles can accelerate deadwood decomposition,” study co-author Dr. Marisa Stone from Griffith University said.
“But until now, we didn’t know how much they contribute to deadwood carbon release globally.”
Insects accounted for 29% of deadwood carbon release each year.
• Decaying wood releases around 10.9 gigatons of carbon worldwide every year, according to a new study by an international team of scientists.
This is roughly equivalent to 115 percent of fossil fuel emissions.
“We knew insects such as termites and wood-boring Longicorn beetles can accelerate deadwood decomposition,” study co-author Dr. Marisa Stone from Griffith University said.
“But until now, we didn’t know how much they contribute to deadwood carbon release globally.”
Insects accounted for 29% of deadwood carbon release each year.
This, again, is deflection.
Those same trees absorbed that carbon over the past decades. It's literally the natural carbon cycle that was "in balance" before we started pulling gigatons of it out of the ground and releasing it into the atmosphere.
In case this is beyond your cognitive comprehension, it's like a bathtub filled near the top with a drain and faucet which are draining and filling at the same rate. Water level stays stable, whether that is 1 gallon "in" and 1 gallon "out", or 1 million gallons in and 1 million gallons out.
But our addition of fossil fuel sourced carbon is adding to the "in". So even just adding 1000 gallons to that 1 million "in" means you'll eventually overfill the tub.
We KNOW that the additional carbon in our atmosphere is from fossil fuel sources, NOT terrestrial sources. That's a 100% certainty, based on isotope analysis.
This is roughly equivalent to 115 percent of fossil fuel emissions. 
www.nature.com
The contribution of insects to global forest deadwood decomposition - Nature
Multi-year field experiments across six continents suggest that insects have an important contribution to decomposition and carbon release from forest deadwood.
www.nature.com
This is roughly equivalent to 115 percent of fossil fuel emissions.
The contribution of insects to global forest deadwood decomposition - Nature
Multi-year field experiments across six continents suggest that insects have an important contribution to decomposition and carbon release from forest deadwood.
AGAIN: doesn't matter, when those systems have been "in balance" for millennia.
Adding in fossil fuel-burnt carbon moves the system out of balance.
If I have a teeter-totter with a million tons of carbon on one side and a million pounds on the other side, it'll balance. Adding even a single pound to one side and not the other shifts the system out of balance.
This is a concept a 3 year old can understand. Can you?
What's your point?This is roughly equivalent to 115 percent of fossil fuel emissions.
The contribution of insects to global forest deadwood decomposition - Nature
Multi-year field experiments across six continents suggest that insects have an important contribution to decomposition and carbon release from forest deadwood.
He thinks it means human-burned fossil fuels are "irrelevant", which is entirely false.
Just stop. You think you have a "gotcha" and it's dumb. The pre-industrial CO2 content of the atmosphere was about 280 ppm. This was around 1750. The industrial revolution hits and we start burning fossil fuels. The CO2 released by that process is chemically different than CO2 from natural process. We are now at ~415 ppm CO2 and nearly ALL of that is attributable to the burning of fossil fuels. Your termites existed in 1750 and were eating trees in 1750 and releasing CO2 in 1750 which was then cycled back into other natural systems. A balance. CO2 remained at 280 ppm...until WE upset the balance.
Do you understand now?
It starts and ends with China and our current president won't hold them accountable for anything so all of you arguing for or against global warming, it really doesn't matter.
China is literally the bad guy in almost every conversation.
China is literally the bad guy in almost every conversation.
While they are the largest emitter now, their emissions in total are a fraction of what the Western nations emitted during their industrialization phases.
China is currently the largest emitter. The average American still emits more than twice what the average Chinese citizen does.
And still way lower than ours on a per capita basis.
That doesn't excuse them. Far from it.
But you have to be an idiot to think that we have stopped being a horrible driver of the climate crisis.
Ultimately the logic of the new China bashers boils down to 2 childish propositions:
1. Someone else is worse than I am, therefore they're bad and I'm good.
2. I shouldn't have to stop (or even slow down) being bad if anyone else is being bad.
