Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Earth in hot water? Worries over sudden ocean warming spike
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="eclipsenow" data-source="post: 77648575" data-attributes="member: 274355"><p>CO2 in fact DID cause some warming in past events due to excess volcanism. But rather than go through the various epochs of climate change - like Snowball Earth when the earth nearly froze to death - but excessive volcanism and a very high build up of CO2 in the atmosphere actually helped save life on earth - through to extinction level events caused by super-hot-house climate events - let's look at something even more basic to climate science.</p><p></p><p>Namely - how important paleoclimate science is to how climate scientists even model what they think they is going to happen. The physics of CO2's heating effects are well understood and repeatable in any lab on the planet. A little maths, and you've got the basic energy imbalance and heating effect on the earth.</p><p></p><p>But there are also the oceans, water vapour, and other feedback events on earth. Once the heat is trapped, what exact effect will it have? Where will it go? How sensitive is the highly complex and interacting climate system to this extra heat?</p><p></p><p>Not only are the various climate epochs <em>before </em>the industrial revolution <em>studied and largely understood</em> by climate scientists - but they are essential for modelling the future. There's an important number they need. A number they feed into the models that model various possible futures. That number? Climate sensitivity.</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 40px"><strong>Climate sensitivity</strong> is a key measure in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatology" target="_blank">climate science</a> and describes how much Earth's surface will warm for a doubling in the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere" target="_blank">atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration</a>.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#cite_note-1" target="_blank">[1]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#cite_note-2" target="_blank">[2]</a> Its formal definition is: "The change in the surface temperature in response to a change in the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration or other radiative forcing."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#cite_note-:9-3" target="_blank">[3]</a>: 2223 This concept helps scientists understand the extent and magnitude of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_climate_change" target="_blank">effects of climate change</a>....</p> <p style="margin-left: 40px">...</p> <p style="margin-left: 40px">Scientists do not know <em>exactly </em>how strong these climate feedbacks are. Therefore, it is difficult to predict the precise amount of warming that will result from a given increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. If climate sensitivity turns out to be on the high side of scientific estimates, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement" target="_blank">Paris Agreement</a> goal of limiting <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming" target="_blank">global warming</a> to below 2 °C (3.6 °F) will be difficult to achieve.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#cite_note-:5-4" target="_blank">[4]</a></p> <p style="margin-left: 40px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 40px">There are two main kinds of climate sensitivity: the <em>transient climate response</em> is the initial rise in global temperature when CO2 levels double, and the <em>equilibrium climate sensitivity</em> is the larger long-term temperature increase after the planet adjusts to the doubling. Climate sensitivity is estimated by several methods: looking directly at <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record" target="_blank">temperature</a> and greenhouse gas concentrations since the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution" target="_blank">Industrial Revolution</a> began around the 1750s, <strong>using <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_(climate)" target="_blank">indirect measurements</a> from the Earth's distant past, and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model" target="_blank">simulating the climate</a>.</strong></p> <p style="margin-left: 40px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 40px">[URL unfurl="true"]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity[/URL]</p><p></p><p>So when a climate denier sits in their armchair doing armchair denial and boldly declares "The climate's changed before, did Fred Flinstone's feet-propelled car actually emit CO2? Duh!" - and think they've made some devastating point - they've actually revealed how little they know about what climate science even is and how it works! They've also revealed what kind of social circles they hang in - as this is hymn number 1 in the climate denial handbook.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No she's not as thousands of the world's best independent climate scientists and every National Academy of Science on the planet cannot find the natural forcing at work that explains the warming of the last century. Only our fossil fuel emissions explain it</p><p></p><p></p><p>Um - try rewriting that sentence as I have no idea what you are trying to say.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="eclipsenow, post: 77648575, member: 274355"] CO2 in fact DID cause some warming in past events due to excess volcanism. But rather than go through the various epochs of climate change - like Snowball Earth when the earth nearly froze to death - but excessive volcanism and a very high build up of CO2 in the atmosphere actually helped save life on earth - through to extinction level events caused by super-hot-house climate events - let's look at something even more basic to climate science. Namely - how important paleoclimate science is to how climate scientists even model what they think they is going to happen. The physics of CO2's heating effects are well understood and repeatable in any lab on the planet. A little maths, and you've got the basic energy imbalance and heating effect on the earth. But there are also the oceans, water vapour, and other feedback events on earth. Once the heat is trapped, what exact effect will it have? Where will it go? How sensitive is the highly complex and interacting climate system to this extra heat? Not only are the various climate epochs [I]before [/I]the industrial revolution [I]studied and largely understood[/I] by climate scientists - but they are essential for modelling the future. There's an important number they need. A number they feed into the models that model various possible futures. That number? Climate sensitivity. [INDENT=2][B]Climate sensitivity[/B] is a key measure in [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatology']climate science[/URL] and describes how much Earth's surface will warm for a doubling in the [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere']atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration[/URL].[URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#cite_note-1'][1][/URL][URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#cite_note-2'][2][/URL] Its formal definition is: "The change in the surface temperature in response to a change in the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration or other radiative forcing."[URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#cite_note-:9-3'][3][/URL]: 2223 This concept helps scientists understand the extent and magnitude of the [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_climate_change']effects of climate change[/URL]....[/INDENT] [INDENT=2]...[/INDENT] [INDENT=2]Scientists do not know [I]exactly [/I]how strong these climate feedbacks are. Therefore, it is difficult to predict the precise amount of warming that will result from a given increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. If climate sensitivity turns out to be on the high side of scientific estimates, the [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement']Paris Agreement[/URL] goal of limiting [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming']global warming[/URL] to below 2 °C (3.6 °F) will be difficult to achieve.[URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#cite_note-:5-4'][4][/URL][/INDENT] [INDENT=2][/INDENT] [INDENT=2]There are two main kinds of climate sensitivity: the [I]transient climate response[/I] is the initial rise in global temperature when CO2 levels double, and the [I]equilibrium climate sensitivity[/I] is the larger long-term temperature increase after the planet adjusts to the doubling. Climate sensitivity is estimated by several methods: looking directly at [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record']temperature[/URL] and greenhouse gas concentrations since the [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution']Industrial Revolution[/URL] began around the 1750s, [B]using [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_(climate)']indirect measurements[/URL] from the Earth's distant past, and [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model']simulating the climate[/URL].[/B][/INDENT] [INDENT=2][/INDENT] [INDENT=2][URL unfurl="true"]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity[/URL][/INDENT] So when a climate denier sits in their armchair doing armchair denial and boldly declares "The climate's changed before, did Fred Flinstone's feet-propelled car actually emit CO2? Duh!" - and think they've made some devastating point - they've actually revealed how little they know about what climate science even is and how it works! They've also revealed what kind of social circles they hang in - as this is hymn number 1 in the climate denial handbook. No she's not as thousands of the world's best independent climate scientists and every National Academy of Science on the planet cannot find the natural forcing at work that explains the warming of the last century. Only our fossil fuel emissions explain it Um - try rewriting that sentence as I have no idea what you are trying to say. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Earth in hot water? Worries over sudden ocean warming spike
Top
Bottom