arctic ice increases 60%

News reports from asia indicate that this may be the most powerful hurricane ever recorded.

170 knots with 15 meter waves pounding coastal areas

Climate change ?


http:// subir gif

 

I'm not sure what your point is there. AFAICT, the sea level rise that is causing their problems is related to human activity, so without that factor they wouldn't be in trouble.

 

Sure...islands suffer erosion, sinking due to groundwater extraction, natural sea level rise, natural seabed sinking..

Not a good place to live. Historically low lying island communities. migrated when their land became un tenable .

 

Yes, sometimes. You could say the same thing about coastal plains too. If they subside naturally over a period of thousands of years, people would adapt. If someone caused them to flood over a period of decades, you'd be rather annoyed with that someone. You'd probably be even more annoyed with anyone who suggested you shouldn't be living there.

Anyway, I've been chatting to some professional scientists, as part of doing my bit to advance the global domination of evil. Found out some interesting stuff. Old Jimbo sure does seem to make a lot of claims that are somewhat tenuously connected to anything resembling a factual basis.

Take this as an example.

This is just factual enough to be somewhat plausible at a glance, but neglects to mention several critical factors.

That reaction is still valid, as far as the basic chemistry goes. However, it completely fails to deal with how you get the CO₂ into a place where it can react. It all comes down to mixing. The ocean is stratified.

Most of the water is in the depths of the open ocean. The mixing between that and shallower waters is, in terms of the total amount of water available, very slow. Even though there are well known currents that take large volumes of water up and down in places (Gulf Stream being an obvious one) it still takes ages for any changes in composition to reach a global equilibrium.

Jimbo likes to make a fuss about the residence time of CO₂ in the atmosphere being only a few years. This is correct, as far as it goes, but it's not the whole story. Yes, the problem is the mixing of the oceans.

What does not happen is that any CO₂ released into the atmosphere just conveniently vanishes into the ocean after a few years. It would, if the entire ocean had a high enough mixing rate, but it doesn't.

The mixing is the bottleneck in the system. This is why the residence time of CO₂ is always assumed to be far longer than a few years. It's not just computer modelling, because they base the models on measurements from real life.

Overview of the Carbon Cycle From the Systems Perspective

And that's the critical point. The effect of that is the surface waters are accumulating a higher concentration of dissolved carbon dioxide, because the surface waters are in equilibrium with the atmosphere and the exchange with the rest of the ocean (deeper regions) is so slow.

This is why ocean acidification occurring. It's not occurring in all areas at all depths, but it is occurring in all areas and all depths that produce fisheries, reefs, and whatever else we rely on the ocean for.

Before anyone thinks they can jump up and down about the long ocean residence time being "only computer modelling", I'll point out that if you are going to accept the calculations for the short atmospheric residence time, you should be willing to accept calcuations done on the same basis for the ocean. Just sayin'.

Funnily enough, I've been given links to some stuff that deals with exactly these questions. This is not stuff that is already formatted for consumption by laypeople, so will require a bit of sorting through. I may have to go and ask the sciency types a few questions too, but the good news is they're happy to help if anyone is genuinely interested.

 

Every single hurricane scientists says hurricane strength and frequency is completely unrelated to climate change, there is a clear consensus among hurricane scientists. Hurricanes are driven by temperature differences, it seems to me that if the earth is warming all over, than frequency would decrease.


Yet, the advocates of man made climate change continue to claim that there will be more and larger hurricanes because of climate change. I guess they just do not trust the scientists.

 

You're misrepresenting what scientists have said about possible links between hurricane strength/frequency and climate change. I don't think they're saying there's no relationship; they 're saying we really don't know yet. Big difference....

Although higher average temperatures are the engine driving climate change, the phenomenon is a lot more complicated than simply 'the Earth is warming all over.' That's why it's referred to more and more often as 'climate change,' rather than just 'global warming.'

And the fact that the overall average temp's are increasing hardly means temperature differences are disappearing...

 

This appears to be what they are actually saying: Atmospheric Water, Precipitation, Storms and Drought

Note that this is actual, measured, real life data for the US, not computer modelling.

The predictions for hurricanes:

 

Comprehensive study shows cosmic rays are not causing global warming | PHYSICS WORLD

 

Nordhaus (and Krugman) is an economist, and his book is about estimating the economic damage of Climate Change, and what the costs might be in controlling it.

Paul Krugman reviews The Climate Casino: Risk, Uncertainty, and Economics for a Warming World, written by William D. Nordhaus

 

South Florida Faces Ominous Prospects From Rising Waters | NEW YORK TIMES

 

No Global Warming 'Pause,' Planet Warming Much Faster Than Previously Thought | WUNDERGROUND

 

Twenty tips for interpreting scientific claims

I find very interesting this article:

http://www.nature.com/news/policy-twenty-tips-for-interpreting-scientific-claims-1.14183

The question to ask is: 'What am I not being told?

 

That's easy enough to answer. If it is the Church of Warmnology saying it you are not being told the truth. What they don't want to tell you is how devastating alternate forms of energy are to wildlife; much more harmful than thermal power and internal combustion.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/12/Oops-Solar-Energy-Plants-are-Killing-Rare-birds

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper...n-solar-power-project-killing-migratory-birds

http://nomorecocktails.com/post/201...illing-birds-along-major-migratory-paths.aspx

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...checking-george-will-birds-and-wind-turbines/

Just wasting my time

 

A very good question to ask. I've started asking it every time an AGW denier makes a claim.

 

This is not a religious matter, and trying to make it into one is ridiculous.

Even if true, this has nothing to do with whether or not AGW is occuring, and whether or not it is a real problem.