Australian Politics Forum - Is Greenland close to a tipping point?

Upton Sinclair

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 496

Re: Is Greenland close to a tipping point?
Reply #45 - Aug 7^th, 2012 at 7:39pm

namnugenot wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 7:24pm:

I've read all my textbooks thank you.

Yeah. I'm not telling you to read YOUR textbooks. I'm telling you to read textbooks (hell, even a well informed academic blog would suffice - I can point you in the direction of a few if you want?) relating to the topic on which you are attempting to express an opinion on.

Back to top

"I am not asking the Australian people to take me on trust, but on the record of a lifetime,"
--Tony Abbott

IP Logged

namnugenot

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 639
NSW
Gender: male

W
Reply #46 - Aug 9^th, 2012 at 8:35am

Upton Sinclair wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 7:39pm:

namnugenot wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 7:24pm:

I've read all my textbooks thank you.

Yeah. I'm not telling you to read YOUR textbooks. I'm telling you to read textbooks (hell, even a well informed academic blog would suffice - I can point you in the direction of a few if you want?) relating to the topic on which you are attempting to express an opinion on.

Sorry fore the delay, some of us have to earn a crust.
For someone as knowledgeable as yourself you don't actually put up much do you?, happy as you are to regurgitate parrot fashion with little or no understanding of applied knowledge.
However the textbooks that I have read seem to be in error so maybe you can help me out.
You have stated before that CO2 and temperature are well coorellated and there are no negative feedbacks and currently no possible other cause for global temperature change to explain any warming that may (or may not) be happening at present, at least you have responded with ridicule when other causes or feedbacks have been proposed.

So here is a question for you for a change.
What was the temperature consistent with your coorellation and lack of negative feedback when the atmospheric CO2 was 7000ppm or even 2000ppm? Someone with a brain the size of your can no doubt come up with a ballpark figure plus or minus 10. If there are reasons for a temperature range lower then possibly you can state what these are?

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6646	Re: Is Greenland close to a tipping point? Reply #47 - Aug 12^th, 2012 at 3:03am
Back to top	Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings "What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions." IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: W
Reply #48 - Aug 12^th, 2012 at 3:12am

namnugenot wrote on Aug 9^th, 2012 at 8:35am:

Upton Sinclair wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 7:39pm:

namnugenot wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 7:24pm:

I've read all my textbooks thank you.

Yeah. I'm not telling you to read YOUR textbooks. I'm telling you to read textbooks (hell, even a well informed academic blog would suffice - I can point you in the direction of a few if you want?) relating to the topic on which you are attempting to express an opinion on.

Sorry fore the delay, some of us have to earn a crust.
For someone as knowledgeable as yourself you don't actually put up much do you?, happy as you are to regurgitate parrot fashion with little or no understanding of applied knowledge.
However the textbooks that I have read seem to be in error so maybe you can help me out.
You have stated before that CO2 and temperature are well coorellated and there are no negative feedbacks and currently no possible other cause for global temperature change to explain any warming that may (or may not) be happening at present, at least you have responded with ridicule when other causes or feedbacks have been proposed.

So here is a question for you for a change.
What was the temperature consistent with your coorellation and lack of negative feedback when the atmospheric CO2 was 7000ppm or even 2000ppm? Someone with a brain the size of your can no doubt come up with a ballpark figure plus or minus 10. If there are reasons for a temperature range lower then possibly you can state what these are?

No one is saying there are no negative feedbacks, no one is saying CO2 is the only driver. You surely accept the output of the sun has an impact on temperatures and so too ocean currents. Both of these were very different back in the day.

You can't keep on putting up the same straw man all over the place and expect people to take you seriously.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

namnugenot

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 639
NSW
Gender: male

Re: W
Reply #49 - Aug 12^th, 2012 at 1:09pm

MOTR wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 3:12am:

namnugenot wrote on Aug 9^th, 2012 at 8:35am:

Upton Sinclair wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 7:39pm:

namnugenot wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 7:24pm:

I've read all my textbooks thank you.

Yeah. I'm not telling you to read YOUR textbooks. I'm telling you to read textbooks (hell, even a well informed academic blog would suffice - I can point you in the direction of a few if you want?) relating to the topic on which you are attempting to express an opinion on.

Sorry fore the delay, some of us have to earn a crust.
For someone as knowledgeable as yourself you don't actually put up much do you?, happy as you are to regurgitate parrot fashion with little or no understanding of applied knowledge.
However the textbooks that I have read seem to be in error so maybe you can help me out.
You have stated before that CO2 and temperature are well coorellated and there are no negative feedbacks and currently no possible other cause for global temperature change to explain any warming that may (or may not) be happening at present, at least you have responded with ridicule when other causes or feedbacks have been proposed.

So here is a question for you for a change.
What was the temperature consistent with your coorellation and lack of negative feedback when the atmospheric CO2 was 7000ppm or even 2000ppm? Someone with a brain the size of your can no doubt come up with a ballpark figure plus or minus 10. If there are reasons for a temperature range lower then possibly you can state what these are?

No one is saying there are no negative feedbacks, no one is saying CO2 is the only driver. You surely accept the output of the sun has an impact on temperatures and so too ocean currents. Both of these were very different back in the day.

You can't keep on putting up the same straw man all over the place and expect people to take you seriously.

So give us a breakdown of the contributions of CO2 and the other drivers.
BTW the sun was not all that different during the cambrian. Muso had a 70% capacity sun that is the calculated luminosity at 4.5 billion years ago and even here it does not fit the available evidence re the faint sun paradox.

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Is Greenland close to a tipping point?
Reply #50 - Aug 12^th, 2012 at 1:56pm

I haven't come across anything in my reading that does anything remotely close to this. It would surely have to be a fairly broad estimate at best.

We could start with the luminosity of the sun and it's effect on temperatures. The sensitivity of temperature to CO2 would be less as the albedo effect would be negligible. And still we would have to consider currents.

You really have set a massive task. I'd say it would be hotter but by how much would be guess work on my part.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: W
Reply #51 - Aug 12^th, 2012 at 7:23pm

namnugenot wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 1:09pm:

MOTR wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 3:12am:

namnugenot wrote on Aug 9^th, 2012 at 8:35am:

Upton Sinclair wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 7:39pm:

namnugenot wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 7:24pm:

I've read all my textbooks thank you.

Yeah. I'm not telling you to read YOUR textbooks. I'm telling you to read textbooks (hell, even a well informed academic blog would suffice - I can point you in the direction of a few if you want?) relating to the topic on which you are attempting to express an opinion on.

Sorry fore the delay, some of us have to earn a crust.
For someone as knowledgeable as yourself you don't actually put up much do you?, happy as you are to regurgitate parrot fashion with little or no understanding of applied knowledge.
However the textbooks that I have read seem to be in error so maybe you can help me out.
You have stated before that CO2 and temperature are well coorellated and there are no negative feedbacks and currently no possible other cause for global temperature change to explain any warming that may (or may not) be happening at present, at least you have responded with ridicule when other causes or feedbacks have been proposed.

So here is a question for you for a change.
What was the temperature consistent with your coorellation and lack of negative feedback when the atmospheric CO2 was 7000ppm or even 2000ppm? Someone with a brain the size of your can no doubt come up with a ballpark figure plus or minus 10. If there are reasons for a temperature range lower then possibly you can state what these are?

No one is saying there are no negative feedbacks, no one is saying CO2 is the only driver. You surely accept the output of the sun has an impact on temperatures and so too ocean currents. Both of these were very different back in the day.

You can't keep on putting up the same straw man all over the place and expect people to take you seriously.

So give us a breakdown of the contributions of CO2 and the other drivers.
BTW the sun was not all that different during the cambrian. Muso had a 70% capacity sun that is the calculated luminosity at 4.5 billion years ago and even here it does not fit the available evidence re the faint sun paradox.

You're the one that mentioned the Cambrian. I was talking about the Precambrian. How do you know that it doesn't fit the data? Do you have privileged knowledge about the oceanography of (say) 2 billion years ago.

Look, it's your hairbrained theory, so go jump in Dr Who's Tardis and take yourself back to the Archaean or the Hadean and try to gather some data to support your extremely tenuous argument, but I'll tell you now that you probably won't be able to breathe the atmosphere. .

-and don't beleive anything that Plimer writes on the subject.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

MOTR Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6646	Re: Is Greenland close to a tipping point? Reply #52 - Aug 12^th, 2012 at 7:42pm Another Ian Plimer
Back to top	Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings "What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions." IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Is Greenland close to a tipping point?
Reply #53 - Aug 12^th, 2012 at 7:49pm

Plimer vs Plimer.

Together with water vapour, CO2 keeps our planet warm so that it is not covered in ice, too hot or devoid of liquid water. (Heaven and Earth p.411)

vs.

Temperature and CO2 are not connected. (Heaven and Earth p.278)

http://www.skepticalscience.com/plimervsplimer.php

Here is the one most relevant to this discussion.

Quote:

The early Sun had a luminosity of some 30 per cent less than now and, over time, luminosity has increased in a steady state. The low lumunosity of the early Sun was such that the Earth's average surface temperature would have been below 0°C from 4500 to 2000 million years ago. But, there is evidence of running water and oceans as far back as 3800 million years ago. This paradox is solved if the Earth had an enhanced greenhouse with an atmosphere of a lot of carbon dioxide and methane.

A Short History of Planet Earth, 2001 Page 45

vs

Quote:

Over geological time, there is no observed relationship between global climate and atmospheric CO2. At times, CO2 was up to 25 times higher than at present.

Heaven & Earth, 2009 Page 130

Back to top

« Last Edit: Aug 12^th, 2012 at 7:59pm by MOTR »

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Is Greenland close to a tipping point?
Reply #54 - Aug 12^th, 2012 at 7:50pm

Quote:

So here is a question for you for a change.
What was the temperature consistent with your coorellation and lack of negative feedback when the atmospheric CO2 was 7000ppm or even 2000ppm? Someone with a brain the size of your can no doubt come up with a ballpark figure plus or minus 10. If there are reasons for a temperature range lower then possibly you can state what these are?

Now that tells me that you really don't follow the basic atmospheric physics.

Nobody can answer your question, but this site can provide you with a a quick and nasty understanding of planetary temperatures.

Try substituting 956 Wm-2 (70% of current Solar Constant). I've no idea what the Albedo factor would be for that period or the Earth's Keplerian elements for that matter ( and neither doess anybody else) but just play with the variables and see if you can understand what's going on.

A Solar constant of 70% would be like placing the Earth halfway between its current orbit and that of Mars in terms of solar input alone.

Also look at the Tau values for water and carbon dioxide for the Earth and Mars while you're at it. He doesn't even touch on the tau for atmospheric dust on Mars, which has an enormous effect on the Martian climate.

http://bartonpaullevenson.com/NewPlanetTemps.html

Then there's the question of atmospheric density. At least on one occasion, the atmosphere of the Earth was severely ablated by factors such as the solar wind and major impacts. We can speculate on these things, and such articles even make our resident denialist Soren, come up with sarcastic remarks, but nobody really knows for sure very much about the planetary climatology of the Paleozoic. .

Back to top

« Last Edit: Aug 12^th, 2012 at 8:16pm by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Is Greenland close to a tipping point?
Reply #55 - Aug 12^th, 2012 at 8:11pm

muso wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 7:50pm:

By the way, you could probably read this site for a quick and nasty understanding of planetary temperatures.

Try substituting 956 Wm-2 (70% of current Solar Constant). I've no idea what the Albedo factor would be for that period or the Earth's Keplerian elements for that matter ( and neither doess anybody else) but just play with the variables and see if you can understand what's going on.

A Solar constant of 70% would be like placing the Earth halfway between its current orbit and that of Mars in terms of solar input alone.

Also look at the Tau values for water and carbon dioxide for the Earth and Mars while you're at it. He doesn't even touch on the tau for atmospheric dust on Mars, which has an enormous effect on the Martian climate.

http://bartonpaullevenson.com/NewPlanetTemps.html

Thanks, Muso. I hadn't come across this bloke before.

Here's an interesting summary of the predictive ability of GCMs

http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ModelsReliable.html

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Is Greenland close to a tipping point?
Reply #56 - Aug 12^th, 2012 at 9:20pm

muso wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 7:50pm:

Quote:

So here is a question for you for a change.
What was the temperature consistent with your coorellation and lack of negative feedback when the atmospheric CO2 was 7000ppm or even 2000ppm? Someone with a brain the size of your can no doubt come up with a ballpark figure plus or minus 10. If there are reasons for a temperature range lower then possibly you can state what these are?

Now that tells me that you really don't follow the basic atmospheric physics.

Nobody can answer your question, but this site can provide you with a a quick and nasty understanding of planetary temperatures.

Try substituting 956 Wm-2 (70% of current Solar Constant). I've no idea what the Albedo factor would be for that period or the Earth's Keplerian elements for that matter ( and neither does anybody else) but just play with the variables and see if you can understand what's going on.

A Solar constant of 70% would be like placing the Earth halfway between its current orbit and that of Mars in terms of solar input alone.

Also look at the Tau values for water and carbon dioxide for the Earth and Mars while you're at it. He doesn't even touch on the tau for atmospheric dust on Mars, which has an enormous effect on the Martian climate.

http://bartonpaullevenson.com/NewPlanetTemps.html

Then there's the question of atmospheric density. At least on one occasion, the atmosphere of the Earth was severely ablated by factors such as the solar wind and major impacts. We can speculate on these things, and such articles even make our resident denialist Soren, come up with sarcastic remarks, but nobody really knows for sure very much about the planetary climatology of the Paleozoic. .

You are coming around to what I have been saying all along.

Back to top

IP Logged

namnugenot

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 639
NSW
Gender: male

Re: W
Reply #57 - Aug 13^th, 2012 at 8:33am

muso wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 7:23pm:

namnugenot wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 1:09pm:

MOTR wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 3:12am:

namnugenot wrote on Aug 9^th, 2012 at 8:35am:

Upton Sinclair wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 7:39pm:

namnugenot wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 7:24pm:

I've read all my textbooks thank you.

Yeah. I'm not telling you to read YOUR textbooks. I'm telling you to read textbooks (hell, even a well informed academic blog would suffice - I can point you in the direction of a few if you want?) relating to the topic on which you are attempting to express an opinion on.

Sorry fore the delay, some of us have to earn a crust.
For someone as knowledgeable as yourself you don't actually put up much do you?, happy as you are to regurgitate parrot fashion with little or no understanding of applied knowledge.
However the textbooks that I have read seem to be in error so maybe you can help me out.
You have stated before that CO2 and temperature are well coorellated and there are no negative feedbacks and currently no possible other cause for global temperature change to explain any warming that may (or may not) be happening at present, at least you have responded with ridicule when other causes or feedbacks have been proposed.

So here is a question for you for a change.
What was the temperature consistent with your coorellation and lack of negative feedback when the atmospheric CO2 was 7000ppm or even 2000ppm? Someone with a brain the size of your can no doubt come up with a ballpark figure plus or minus 10. If there are reasons for a temperature range lower then possibly you can state what these are?

No one is saying there are no negative feedbacks, no one is saying CO2 is the only driver. You surely accept the output of the sun has an impact on temperatures and so too ocean currents. Both of these were very different back in the day.

You can't keep on putting up the same straw man all over the place and expect people to take you seriously.

So give us a breakdown of the contributions of CO2 and the other drivers.
BTW the sun was not all that different during the cambrian. Muso had a 70% capacity sun that is the calculated luminosity at 4.5 billion years ago and even here it does not fit the available evidence re the faint sun paradox.

You're the one that mentioned the Cambrian. I was talking about the Precambrian. How do you know that it doesn't fit the data? Do you have privileged knowledge about the oceanography of (say) 2 billion years ago.

Look, it's your hairbrained theory, so go jump in Dr Who's Tardis and take yourself back to the Archaean or the Hadean and try to gather some data to support your extremely tenuous argument, but I'll tell you now that you probably won't be able to breathe the atmosphere. .

-and don't beleive anything that Plimer writes on the subject.

Don't get pissed because you were a measly 4 billion years out...rookie mistake on your part.
It doesn't fit the data because the 70% sun luminosity is not consistent with running water and we have alluvial deposits from that time...that particular hairbrained branch of science is geology.

Back to top

IP Logged

namnugenot Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 639 NSW Gender:	Re: Is Greenland close to a tipping point? Reply #58 - Aug 13^th, 2012 at 8:36am Sorry just read the post further down. Alluvial deposits...actual. Greenhouse for that time...speculation.
Back to top	IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded Gold Member Offline MediocrityNET: because people died for this! Posts: 26966	Re: Is Greenland close to a tipping point? Reply #59 - Aug 13^th, 2012 at 4:52pm namnugenot wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 8:36am: Sorry just read the post further down. Alluvial deposits...actual. Greenhouse for that time...speculation. NAM CAN'T LOOK HIS KIDS IN THE EYE!
Back to top	Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) IP Logged