sine dues - 21 November 2012 07:31 AM

Could you answer my objection to a ‘tipping point’ ?

James Hansen on Climate Tipping Points.

Despite uncertainties in reserve sizes, it is clear that if we burn all the fossil fuels, or even half of the remaining reserves, we will send the planet toward an ice-free state with sea level about 250 feet higher than today. It would take time for complete ice sheet disintegration to occur, but a chaotic situation would be created with changes occurring out of control of future generations.

I have more references if you need them.

Well timb, you certainly make a good point about Easter island….I did not know that was due to climate change….thanks for the valuable info….

Thank-you for the link DarronS, I could not find any science explaining or supporting a tipping point in the article. Only Hansens unsupported statement. That is not science ! That is consensus. That is my objection to some of what I have read about AGW.

sine dues - 21 November 2012 12:53 PM

Well timb, you certainly make a good point about Easter island….I did not know that was due to climate change….thanks for the valuable info….

In case your response is a sarcastic retort, that is obfuscating your own understanding of my point, I will be more straghtforward.

Humans have an impact on their environment.

Real Climate: Runaway tipping points of no return

…climate induced dieback of the Amazon rainforest

Tipping Point Forewarnings in Climate Change Communications

These are just a few examples. The scholarly articles are behind firewalls and only available to researchers and academics. If you look around and see what is happening in the Arctic and consider the methane beings released you’ll realize we are approaching a tipping point where climate change may be irreversible. And writing of James Hansen’s predictions as “unsupported” is ridiculous considering his expertise and record of accurate predictions.

sine dues - 21 November 2012 07:31 AM

Could you answer my objection to a ‘tipping point’ ?

IMO, that is the problem. We will never notice or precisely know the tipping point. And I believe you are correct in saying that the sun is the major source of heat on earth, but then no one is saying that CO2 creates heat, it just traps it.

All other things being equal, adding carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere—by, for example, burning millions of tons of oil, coal and natural gas—will make it warm up. That, as the Nobel Prize–winning chemist Svante Arrhenius first explained in 1896, is because CO2 is relatively transparent to visible light from the sun, which heats the planet during the day. But it is relatively opaque to infrared, which the earth tries to reradiate back into space at night

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=global-warming-beyond-the-co2  (red emphasis mine)

As I understand it this creates an exponential warming effect.  But even then, global warming itself would not be disasterous. Most species can tolerate a temperature difference of a few degrees. But the greatest threat is that the warming drastically alters weather patterns which become more violent and frequent. In addition, a rising ocean level will alter the entire geography of the earth, causing displacement of all living organisms. Life on earth can tolerate losing a few million individuals every so often, due to damage to the earth’s ecosystem, but not once or twice every year, everywhere. Somewhere in all these factors lies the tipping point between eventual global disaster and survivability.

The earth itself doesn’t care one way or another. But the mathematical precision of atmospheric thermodynamics tells us that we are dangerously close, if not already past the tipping point. The question is if we can stop it from happening at all.  At least let’s not compound the problem.

There is one bright spot, we are running out of carbon fuels anyway. Conservative estimates give us 75 years (1 generation) recoverable oil reserves. Does common sense not tell us to seriously begin to explore alternate non-polluting fuels, just for our children and grandchildren ?

http://www.albartlett.org/presentations/arithmetic_population_energy_video1.html

Do check the environment and energy statistics (at current levels).
http://www.worldometers.info/

It seems things will be even worse than we thought.

Future warming likely to be on high side of climate projections.

November 08, 2012
BOULDER—Climate model projections showing a greater rise in global temperature are likely to prove more accurate than those showing a lesser rise, according to a new analysis by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). The findings, published in this week’s issue of Science, could provide a breakthrough in the longstanding quest to narrow the range of global warming expected in coming decades and beyond.

Yup ! Sorry timb…you started it with your little ‘lalala’ stuff. I don’t mind snark if it has a thread of humor.
“I am off to save the planet from the human scourge lalala ...in my Nissan Leaf lalala….

Wow Darrons, I was amazed at the tipping popint article about ....you got yer known unknowns….and ya got yer unknown knowns…..now those are the ones that really tip over the climate models…..again not much science, a little bit of chaos theory and talk of models…again….

sine dues - 21 November 2012 02:29 PM

Wow Darrons, I was amazed at the tipping popint article about ....you got yer known unknowns….and ya got yer unknown knowns…..now those are the ones that really tip over the climate models…..again not much science, a little bit of chaos theory and talk of models…again….

I think there is warranted skepticism and then there is skepticism of the type you are displaying.

I think we should just start with the greenhouse effect, do you believe in it? I’m sure you do. Then we should check whether we are pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at a dramatically increased and significant rate. Of course we are.

So what we should expect is we are having an impact.

This alone would warrant being less of a skeptic than you are, let alone the scientific consensus.

Stephen

sine dues - 21 November 2012 02:13 PM

Yup ! Sorry timb…you started it with your little ‘lalala’ stuff. I don’t mind snark if it has a thread of humor.
“I am off to save the planet from the human scourge lalala ...in my Nissan Leaf lalala….

It seems to me that you are, rather, off to promote AGW denial, which IMO is quite deserving of a little snark, humorless or otherwise.

Aw c’mon tim, I am not promoting anything…I have questions…...you seem to have the answers…...

sine dues - 21 November 2012 03:21 PM

Aw c’mon tim, I am not promoting anything…I have questions…...you seem to have the answers…...

Hmmm… but your questions so readily reflect those of AGW deniers…  Could you perhaps be insecere?...  but I seem to you to have the answers…

OK, How’s this for answers?:

Humans are negatively effecting their environment. Human behavior can change. But humans engage in denial.  And humans are less likely to change their behavior, when they engage in denial.  Therefore stop denying that AGW exists and move on to considering how humans can best change their behavior so as to positively effect their environment.

sine dues - 20 November 2012 08:12 AM

You sound like a guilt-ridden soul….

I am not guilt ridden, just realistic. The U.S. emits 25 percent of all mankind’s carbon worldwide. That makes us largely responsible for global warming. Developing nations have low carbon footprints yet bear the brunt of global warming’s effects and are least prepared to handle them. Calling me guilt ridden for acknowledging these facts is a form of denial, and refusing to take responsibility for your actions is unethical.

....weather is not climate….

Last week the NOAA released a study which revealed October 2012 was the 332nd consecutive month with above average global temperature.

State of the Climate Global Analysis October 2012

That ain’t weather, it’s climate. Seems you really are uninformed re: climate change. Please keep an open mind as you educate yourself. I was unsure about the effects our CO2 emissions were having when I started studying climate change on my own in early 2005. After two or three months of reading everything I could find on both sides I concluded mankind is indeed altering the climate and that global warming is the greatest threat our society faces.

Edit: corrected a typo.

I am keeping an open mind. Just by asking questions I am accused of being republican or conservative or retarded or psychologically damaged….I am not pushing anything….trust me I have no agenda. As far as science being settled….this reminds me of the EPA banning DDT. Little or poor evidence….scare-mongering….dont you want to save the peregrine falcons and bald eagles? ......ban the stuff then watch as the rest of the world….areas with malaria…...poor people start to die… you see the science was settled…...ya right…...