Global Warming and Extreme Weather Effects

Yes, you won't find people retiring to North Dakota for the weather.

Something interesting though, the tropics only change about 3 C during a glaciation.

 

I was reading days back that there is a real danger that cruise ships going to the Arctic will hit an iceberg and sink. That they may get trapped by the ice as it freezes.

I am not clear what the perfect amount of ice is for the Arctic. What will satisfy them?

 

I wonder if there's a consensus of scientists who believe a degree or two of planetary warming could possibly increase crop yields and feed starving people in Africa.

 

For all the talk of the melting ice in the Arctic, though they admit more ice is now at the Antarctic than in the past, one might think there are open seas, easily found in the Arctic.

This is real time and shows a cruise ship that had to really duck and weave a convoluted path to get from the Pacific to the Atlantic taking the north pole route.

Folks, if you think it is balmy seas at the north pole, you got the wrong idea. It is still very risky to board a ship and go to that frozen area.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north...-of-arctic-tourism-to-cambridge-bay-1.3739491



- - - Updated - - -

When they talk of the Arctic, notice they never bring up better crop yields.

 

Of course there's the Northwest Passage as well. It's another side benefit of warming that would drastically cut down on shipping costs.




.

 

The effects of warming are net beneficial except for the rich that build on low lying coastlines.

 

Which is why I say, if they fear rising oceans, do something. Stop telling me it is my fault. Let them build sea walls.

 

Reminds me of when Teddy Kennedy put the brakes on wind turbine projects off the Massachusetts coast. Clean energy is great and all but don't spoil my view.




.

 

What then is the contribution of increasing CO2 concentration to the global average temperature in terms of a climate sensitivity figure ??

 

It's kind of hard to know what is really going on when the past temperature record changes every iteration and always making it cooler in the past and warmer currently. They changed the record recently to try and make the temperature pause go away.

 

Crop yields are increasing in some places but at what cost to the environment? Increased irrigation may bring about battles over water in the near future. The increase in nitrogen fertilizers is already causing dead zones in the ocean and algae blooms in rivers and streams. Then you have the pollution from the persistent herbicides used that contaminate soils and water with as little as 3 parts per billion. You are probably drinking contaminated water now.

 

When exactly did I make this claim? Wait, wait ... let me make a bold prediction here. This will be yet another instance of Hoosier not providing any citation or link.

 

Shrill much? As I said, it is clear you are no engineer. But lucky for you, you have my handy terminology tool to guide you thru your attempts at science.

- - - Updated - - -

LOL .. you respond with the example of the behavior I point out in the response. You need some new material. Real engineers care if they are accurate and if what they believe is actually true.

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens ... I may have to make that my new signature just for you. It'll save on typing.

 

Not shrill at all. I've analyzed the data and made a data driven fact based assessment of the response of the climate to increasing CO2 concentration and the net effects on the global welfare. That is exactly what engineers do.

 

No ... you said that engineers

Sheesh .. you can't even get your own definitions straight. Luckily you now have the right definitions for the basic science at least. (Don't forget to print them ... they will be handy in the future)

BTW: none of that changes the fact that assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. If you make an assertion then you need to back it up ... sorry if that bar is too high for an engineer (supposed).

 

Engineers form conclusions based on (often incomplete) data.

 

So now we have a third definition ... You are really bad at this. But the bottom line is 'so what'? It still does not alleviate your need to back up your assertions.

And any engineer would have already known the definitions I had to provide you. <shrug>

 

The evidence is used to form my conclusions which are that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is ~ 1 deg C and that using the A1B CO2 scenario the temperature in the year 2100 will be ~ 1 deg C warmer than it was in the year 2000. Also that global warming will be net beneficial for at least warming of 3 deg C above the temperature in the year 2000 and that warming will occur when the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere reaches ~ 2800 ppm (8 times what it was in the year 2000).

What are your conclusions ?? Perhaps the definitions will help formulate the answer ??

 

Yes, we all know what your assertions are. You repeat them ad nausea. The problem is not that your hypotheses (See, my sheet would have helped you here) are unknown. The problem is that they are unsupported. They are unsupported by you in the context of this forum, and they are unsupported by science at large. The idea that you can just keep repeating them over and over and whining in a shill tone that "I'm an engineer, dammit" and "you all need to wake up and just read stuff that I agree with" is not very convincing and frankly childish.

An engineer would do much better at avoiding logical fallacies (and recognizing what they are for that matter). An engineer would do better at documenting his sources. An engineer would be more precise in his language.

Again, sorry if you think that the bar is set to high for you, but "assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

 

My answer is based on and supported by real world data which is in the public domain available to any and all with the curiosity and initiative to investigate. No hypotheses are used nor are necessary.

What are your answers ?? What is the climate sensitivity of CO2 ?? What CO2 emissions scenario do you believe to be the most likely ?? What are the net effects of global warming ?? Engineers get answers.

 

Are you really this dense? Are you just trolling me now? Are you stuck in a loop? I just answered this and predicted your response. Why here it is ....

This shows once again that you don't know the basic terminology of science. I can lower the reading level of the terminology list for you if you think that may help (But you would need to print it out again).

I made no assertions here that I need to back up. Only you have been so bold. If you think I have made an assertion or proposed a hypothesis that I have insufficiently supported, let me know and I will respond with facts to support it. Because I, unlike you, will answer honest queries .. even if the answer is "I don't know".

 

You claim to be a student of global warming but have no position on the magnitude of the temperature rate of change resulting from the increase in atmospheric CO2 ?? That is befuddling.

 

Where did I make this claim?

Wait, wait, let me make a prediction here for fun ... I predict that AFM will provide no data to back up this claim. Oh, I hope I'm right (crosses fingers).

 

What then is your answer to the climate sensitivity of CO2 question ?? Crickets.

 

OMG ... I am a complete psychic!!! I said ...

and you replied ...

I have two hypotheses about this ...
A) I have psychic powers or ... B) You are a predictable, intellectually dishonest, bad, supposed-engineer (for the record ... I am really hoping that 'A' turns out to be the true one (crosses fingers again))

See your problem (one of them anyways), is that you don't seem to recognize the difference between someone saying "I think you are wrong" and someone saying "You have not sufficiently supported your claim". It is not necessary for me to have any answers to be able to point out the flaws in what you assert. I don't have to have any answers to be able to point out when you engage in a logical fallacy. I don't have to demonstrate any expertise in anything to be able to point out your failings of precision. If you want to make a positive claim you have to back it up. Again, I apologize if that bar is too high for you. Maybe they gave out participation ribbons at your school so everyone could pass, so your expectations and standards are low <shrug>. But here in the real world you have to back up any assertions you make. It's not on the rest of the world to "Listen and Believe".

BTW: I will be happy to supply a handy list of logical fallacies for you to print if you need one. You seem to have issues with those as well.