The Definitive Global Climate Change (aka Global Warming) Thread — General Discussion and Questions

Login or register to post comments Last Post 891195 reads   4 posts
  • Wed, Nov 15, 2017 - 12:04am



    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 07 2011

    Posts: 104

    count placeholder

    Resource Efficiency Dropping and Other Problems

This discussion is quite good in terms of climate change overall, but the best part is actually an audience question at the very end where a researcher states that resource use efficiency is dropping at an annual rate of 0.8% and less than 0.1% of all material is recycled. When you top all of that off with moving away from fossil fuels to far less efficient alternative energy then you're really screwed:

  • Wed, Nov 15, 2017 - 01:44am


    Matt Holbert

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 03 2008

    Posts: 104

    count placeholder

    As someone who lives at a 10% avg. US footprint…

Stabu- Thanks for sharing the video. I have read several articles by Kevin Anderson but have never seen him speak. I plan to digest the contents of this video and respond in the next couple of days. Sort of the Trump method: Big announcement forthcoming. : )

  • Sun, Nov 26, 2017 - 03:45pm



    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 04 2016

    Posts: 88

    count placeholder

    Agung erupting

So far, the ash plume is only reported to be 7.6 KM at highest.  Time to pay attention to this.

[quote=Mark Cochrane]


Not dead yet… Actually I have been in the midst of an extended relocation, hence my disappearance from this thread.

In any case, for those interested, the apparently imminent eruption of Mt. Agung on the island of Bali in Indonesia is potentially going to be globally important for climate in the next few years.

The last time Agung erupted was in 1963 and it resulted in a 0.1 to 0.4 C reduction in global temperatures over the next two years. In comparison, Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines cooled things by 0.5C for 2 years after the 1991 eruption. It is uncertain how big this upcoming eruption will be as of yet.

In order for an eruption to become climatically significant it needs to inject materials (especially sulfur dioxide) into the stratosphere. In the tropics that means the eruption needs to push materials higher than 16 km. If the eruption height is in the 20-25km range then we will likely have globally significant effects on climate.

For a volcanic eruption to have global impacts it has to be in the tropics since equatorial eruptions can spread aerosols into both hemispheres. Unless we get a massive eruption (think Tambora in 1815 = Year without a summer) then the regional climate impacts will probably be relatively mild, though potentially nontrivial. Primarily over continental regions of the northern hemisphere, summers will be cooler (max effect at around 40 degrees latitude) while a stronger Polar Vortex will yield warmer winters for a couple years. If things mimic the Pinatubo eruption then most of North America, Europe and Siberia will be much warmer in the winter while Alaska, Greenland, the Middle East and China will be cold. The southern hemisphere sees less magnitude of impacts because of the relatively greater amount of ocean (releases heat), but the impacts last longer.

Within two years the eruption climate effects will appear to be over but there will be a sort of echo in the climate system that can last for decades caused by the cooling of ocean waters during the period when volcanic aerosols block some of the sunlight. This could help reduce the absolute rate of warming for a while but not enough to dramatically change our future climate projections from greenhouse gas warming.

By way of coincidence, I am supposed to be heading for Indonesia on unrelated matters next week….



  • Tue, Nov 28, 2017 - 07:07pm



    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 01 2008

    Posts: 1409

    count placeholder

    Voice of reason

Jerry Taylor, former mouthpiece for the CATO institute and climate denier, talks about his progress to reality that has implications far beyond climate change:

  • Tue, Nov 28, 2017 - 11:20pm



    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 02 2008

    Posts: 725

    count placeholder

    A rareity

Nice. Not a million miles away from my own journey from denier to realist. But it seems to be so rare to find people going that way.

  • Wed, Nov 29, 2017 - 08:09pm


    Stan Robertson

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 07 2008

    Posts: 516

    count placeholder

    Not very alarming

The best global temperature measurements that we have are not showing an alarming rate of increase for nearly four decades now. Further, it is unlikely that the warming that has occurred is entirely due to human causes. The entire article is available here.

Asia-Pac. J. Atmos. Sci., 53(4), 511-518, 2017
Satellite Bulk Tropospheric Temperatures as a Metric for Climate Sensitivity
John R. Christy and Richard T. McNider
Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama in Huntsville, Alabama, USA
  We  identify  and  remove  the  main  natural  perturbations (e.g.  volcanic  activity,  ENSOs)  from  the  global  mean  lower tropospheric  temperatures (TLT)  over  January  1979  –  June  2017  to estimate the underlying, potentially human-forced trend. The unaltered value is +0.155 K dec  while the adjusted trend is +0.096 K dec, related primarily to the removal of volcanic cooling in the early part of the record. This is essentially the same value we determined in 1994  (+0.09 K dec,  Christy  and  McNider,  1994)  using  only  15 years of data. If the warming rate of +0.096 K dec represents the net TLT  response  to  increasing  greenhouse  radiative  forcings,  this implies that the TLT tropospheric transient climate response (ΔTLT at the time CO2 doubles) is +1.10 ± 0.26 K which is about half of the average of the IPCC AR5 climate models of 2.31 ± 0.20 K. Assuming that the net remaining unknown internal and external natural forcing over  this  period  is  near  zero,  the  mismatch  since  1979  between observations  and  CMIP-5  model  values  suggests  that  excessive sensitivity  to  enhanced  radiative  forcing  in  the  models  can  be appreciable.  The  tropical  region  is  mainly  responsible  for  this discrepancy suggesting processes that are the likely sources of the extra  sensitivity  are  (a)  the  parameterized  hydrology  of  the  deep atmosphere,  (b) the  parameterized  heat-partitioning  at  the  ocean-atmosphere interface and/or (c) unknown natural variations.

Stan Robertson wrote:

But, finally, in the spirit of Feynman, I would offer a wager that the earth will be cooler in the next decade, beginning today, than it was in the decade previous to this day. If we are still around in ten years, maybe we can laugh at the outcome.


Wow, it’s been over a decade since Stan offered that bet. Thought I’d take a look at the UAH data for lower troposphere. It’s actually on a new series, since the bet, and now shows a lower trend than that earlier series. The data are here and I simply took the 120 monthly global anomalies between October 1998 and September 2008 and averaged them. I then did the same for October 2008 and September 2018. This is what I found:

1998-2008 +0.09883
2008-2018 +0.22125

This seems such a huge average monthly anomaly difference that I’m sure I haven’t done this correctly. Can someone confirm? Maybe the LibreCalc summation isn’t working right. If right, then Stan owes Mark some Guiness.



That wager was offered on Feb. 22, 2012. Patience, Patience,


  • Tue, Feb 12, 2019 - 09:49pm



    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 02 2008

    Posts: 725

    count placeholder


Sorry about that, Stan. My mistake. I was looking at the wrong date (the date you joined) rather than the date of the post. I must admit that it seemed like a quick 10 years 🙂

Still, that’s a large increase, even with part of 1998 included. Did I get it wrong? If not, what are your thoughts now? Would you have offered the bet if you knew then what you know now?


  • Wed, Feb 13, 2019 - 07:30am



    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 10 2013

    Posts: 128

    count placeholder

    Dumb and Dumber

Boy! I sure hope you guys debating global average temeratures don’t have money in the markets or I’ll bet you lost a bundle on crypto. LOL

In Climate Change, focusing on Global Average temperature is like focusing on the price of Bitcoin or gold. You will completely miss it, the big IT.

It’s about value (of the habitat) gentlmen. Holding value. Gold, The price is only important as a measure (messaging) of how much you need to buy/sell to maintain 10% in your portfolio.

So, climate, are you lossing or gaining habitat and or increasing/decreasing crop yields. In the end we gotta eat and most of what we eat depends on three crops. Do you know which ones and where they can grow?

What takes months to grow can be destroyed in 30 mins using low pressure weather systems or you could maintain a high pressure system and create a draught. Like in Iran right now. All weather is local…LOL

“She blinded me with Science!”

Meanwhile, back in the memory jungle.

* primary rent up 3.4%
* medical care up 2.8%
* tuition/childcare up 2.8%
* drivers’ insurance up 3.4%

They’re gonna git’cha

Viewing 10 posts - 3,741 through 3,750 (of 3,759 total)

Login or Register to post comments