Global warming milestone about to be passed and there's no going back.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

1=2=3=it must be co2

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: Soloprotocol

no, but I did at North Pole(Alaska that is)

Lucky Bassa...

a reply to: elysiumfire

I believe you also have a valid explanation on why most models fail. If you compare the climate models with the observed data they fail, why is that?
All models predicted a temperature rise for the past years yet there has been no rise in the last 10-15 years.
But let's wait another 10-15 years if we see the same trends of warming like we saw from 1900 to 2000 I will consider my beliefs.

Greener Earth Thanks to Extra Carbon Dioxide from Fossil Fuels, Says New Study

Deforestation is the only real problem here.

intergalactic fire:

I believe you also have a valid explanation on why most models fail.

All models have to be considered in contextual terms and not predictive. Let us deal only with what we are currently experiencing and observing. Since 1880 when records began, the seas and oceans and land masses have seen a continued unbroken rise in temperature of 1.5 degrees above average, and CO2 emissions rise to 400 ppm in 2013. These are facts.

When we correlate these facts with what we experience and observe, the models are accurate. Of course, with models, we can then use them to see how the world may continue to warm over the coming decades and century if we do nothing to curb our own CO2 emissions globally, and they do not present a rosy picture. I would hope that the models ARE wrong!

It is irrelevant whether the planet pulses naturally between warm and cool periods, our activities contribute to the triggers of positive reactive feedback. The melting ice in both the Arctic and Antarctic regions are not due to natural warming. The greater loss of sea and land ice in the Northern hemisphere really is because of our fossil fuel burning that really is contributive to the ice losses. The last time the planet experienced ice loss like this was 3 million years ago when CO2 was at 400 ppm, and sea and ocean levels were higher than they were now.

The reason why the seas and oceans were higher then than they are now is because today we still have vast quantities of land ice in the northern hemisphere, but if the Greenland land ice were to fully melt (which it is in the process of doing), the seas and oceans will rise to a similar equivalence as that 3 million years ago...an extra 23 feet, which would inundate all coastal cities.

Models are only guides, that is why they call them models. If we don't see the expected results of modelling it is usually down to time scale and interpretation. Often the models are either too conservative, or too alarmist. It takes many year for reactive positive feedback to bring about the effects, but once we see the effects, we know things are accelerating. What we are doing with our CO2 emissions is gradually and incrementally pushing the reactive positive feedback into greater reaction and effects, up to the point where it all becomes runaway.

What we can model factually is a continual rise in global temperature since records began, no one is disputing this. Our CO2 emissions are giving the planet a 'fever', and so it is reacting to it in ways that are damaging to animal life, and especially to human societies. You should not base your belief on models, but on what is actually happening around the planet.

I'm not here trying to convince you, but to counter the fallacy of your argument. Currently, the climate is experiencing bouts of disruption, eventually it will settle into unprecedented change within a human lifetime, and we are already beginning to both see and feel the effects of this.

If a higher concentration of CO2 is so bad for the enviroment, shouldn't C02 generators be illegal?

And then there is this:

Source 1 (pdf)

Source 2

a reply to: elysiumfire

Thanks for your comment and I respect your opinion. Not here to convince anyone either. I ones was a great believer of AGW and MM climate change until i started to look at the numbers and didn't understand what all the big fuss and hysteria was about.
We agree on some points and other not, that's normal and good. This is imo the same with the scientists who firmly believe in AGW and the skeptics. The war between the two that the media is portraying is being blown up to a larger scale than it really is.
There is more respect among these scientists than we made to believe and it's not a matter of who is funding who because there is corruption on both sides.
Theories are always being attacked by skeptics within science, that's the way it works. But I believe there is too little being counter-attacked and observations by skeptics are easily being ridiculed and labeled as deniers( this is especially happening within the climate discussion). Also because the 'consensus' has been made far to fast and any discussion on it is thrown away. If you understand what i'm trying to say.

On the models, as i said before, the climate is a chaotic system and with our current technology and knowledge it's far to difficult to base any model on such a system. The outcome of those are pretty much unreliable. It is wrong to base a lifestyle on computer models. I could pull up the graphs from climate models and the actual readings as also the satellite data that doesn't show a direct connection between co2 rise and C rise, but we all know those by now.
Anyway that's my opinion(for now) who knows I might consider other believes in a decade, some things you just have to wait and see.
Just giving a small example of the feared global cooling from in the 60s-70s, what if we had go on with this and did everything in our power to prevent global cooling, what would have been today? A big joke? Mistake? Is it possible we are making the same mistake? I believe why not.

a reply to: TheBandit795

But we need those for better crop yield, It's to feed the population and there are no alternatives to that ($) cough)

If you just look at the Geocarb 1-2-3 graph it show no direct connection between co2 and temperature in the past and that we are at an all-time low. It also shows that when the first plant life and forests appeared the co2 levels were 10 times higher then today and the climate has been far from stable.
Although the Geocarb data says nothing on a short period as it's timescale has an average of +10My and cannot be used as a reference on today's observations, so correlations could be misunderstood. I could be wrong of course so feel free to correct me.

Here's my question...

If the rise in the oceans doesn't happen evenly across the globe than where is sea level rise being recorded most significantly and what metric are they using to determine this?

Just curious.

originally posted by: onequestion
Here's my question...

If the rise in the oceans doesn't happen evenly across the globe than where is sea level rise being recorded most significantly and what metric are they using to determine this?

Just curious.

Good question. In theory everything should rise at the same time by the same amount.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

Good question. In theory everything should rise at the same time by the same amount.

Oceans are not bathtubs. "Sea level" is not flat.
The Earth's rotation causes water to accumulate more at lower latitudes.
Ocean currents push large masses of water against continental land masses.
The pull of gravity varies across the surface of the planet.

I live by the waterside. I have for 20 years. I have observed signs of rising sea levels. In the past 5 years part of my yard has disappeared. Grass no longer grows where it did.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

So you are probably looking for the answer 'greenhouse effect' but that is the easy-way-out-answer.
Yes every planet experience to some extend a greenhouse effect but wasn't there news some years ago that every planet in the solar system is experiencing a rise in greenhouse effect?

So why is there a major difference in temperature on Venus and Mars but both have almost same levels of co2 and nitrogen in their atmosphere? It must be because of the distance to the sun right?
So what's the deal with Neptune, only have trace amounts of GHG yet temperatures are reaching +400ºC?

a reply to: onequestion

This might be of some interest to you
www.psmsl.org...
www.psmsl.org...

a reply to: intergalactic fire

Atmospheric pressure is a factor. Apparently there is a relationship between pressure and temperature if you buy into scientific theory.

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
So what's the deal with Neptune, only have trace amounts of GHG yet temperatures are reaching +400ºC?

I'm sorry, did you just say Neptune is +400ºC ?

originally posted by: WeAre0ne

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
So what's the deal with Neptune, only have trace amounts of GHG yet temperatures are reaching +400ºC?

I'm sorry, did you just say Neptune is +400ºC ?

He doesn't know what the hell he is talking about, as is well demonstrated in this thread.
Typical of those who deny climate change.

He probably read it on the internet somewhere.

originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: Greven

My argument as you call it is that it is very clear that the data that has been the foundation for all the alarmist man made climate change predictions has been artificially manipulated and outright changed to suit the needs and agendas of those who will profit from it. If you think that a few years of human development are responsible then great; I just do not agree. All of Al Gore's predictions have come to be false. Other data shows that our planet is actually cooling. We have not collected accurate scientific data for very long and thus are basing much of our THEORIES on 'global warming' on incomplete data or supposition based upon extrapolation.

...in a nutshell....

Artificially manipulated? Yeah, they try to correct for biases. Guess what? The methods for doing so are all available, as is the raw data. It ain't hard to find. If it were a legitimate complaint, why has nobody shown it to be so?. Why has nobody published a scathing rebuttal of corrected data?

Who the hell is going to profit from it? It ain't scientists. Hell man, have you looked at the hacks in Hollywood? The countless morons who throw their athletic careers away? They get paid millions and millions. Scientists don't get squat in comparison. Al Gore ain't a scientist, he's a politician who is/was on a crusade, and got lucky on his investments (his Apple stock gave sweet returns).

What predictions of Al Gore's have come to be false, anyway? C'mon, if you know what they are, you can surely name a few?

Frankly, it doesn't matter, but I am curious. Here's why it doesn't matter, though:
Earth should be about 255K based on the Stefan-Boltzmann black-body radiation law.
Earth's surface has an actual temperature of about 288K.

What's the discrepancy?
Here, read about a satellite in 1970 which verified the greenhouse effect. The CO2 signature is clearly visible in that ancient paper.

The greenhouse effect is not just warming. It is warming where we live, but it actually restricts thermal radiation from reaching higher layers in our atmosphere.

Our theories are as follows:
CO2 is warming the surface and cooling higher layers of our atmosphere.
An increase in CO2 will increase surface temperatures.
We are increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.

THE END. It's scientifically verified. Stop being dense.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

Yes it is well known i thought that it's higher atmosphere or thermosphere reaches +400C . Well i could be wrong have to check up on that.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: WeAre0ne

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
So what's the deal with Neptune, only have trace amounts of GHG yet temperatures are reaching +400ºC?

I'm sorry, did you just say Neptune is +400ºC ?

He doesn't know what the hell he is talking about, as is well demonstrated in this thread.
Typical of those who deny climate change.

He probably read it on the internet somewhere.

Please quote myself where i ones said i deny climate change.

Your attitude is far away from respectful but I hope you get a kick out of it somehow.

The only thing you are talking about is co2/warming/Stefan-Boltzmann and how the skeptics are funded by right wing corporations so their opinion and observations are useless unscientific claims.
Denying the skeptics isn't how science works but you seems to do nothing more than that. If you deny the works of Roy Spencer is just disrespectful against science itself, Spencer is a very intelligent and respected man within the science community even among the believers and there are many others. As I said in my comment to "elysiumfire" .
But believe what you want and I'll do that to, but if within a decade or so it turns out the models and predictions were wrong, would you reconsider your believes? I know will.

a reply to: intergalactic fire

What is the temperature of Earth's thermosphere?
What does it have to do with radiative forcing?