Global Warming: For Experts Only

[LacesOut]

LOL "fingercunts"! Good one!

Tell you what. You "provide a great peer reviewed paper written by someone who voted for Trump" or voted for anyone, or didn't vote, or can't vote because they have fingercunts.....that denies man made global warming, and I promise that I won't thumb my nose at it with my fingercunts, or anything else.

The onus is on your side bub.
Your side can’t produce anything to confirm that man made CO2 causes warming of catastrophic proportion.
There are, however, hundreds of skeptic papers and other peer review articles that show other forces at play.

Maybe Bill Nye the Mechanical Engineer Guy knows?? LOL!

 

[OddTrader]

" Page 60: There is widespread resistance of knowledge. Advances of the kind needed in Western industry require knowledge, yet people are afraid of knowledge. Pride may play a part in resistance to knowledge. New knowledge brought into the company might disclose some of our failings. A better outlook is of course to embrace new knowledge because it might help us to do a better job.

Some people may wonder whether at this stage of life they can learn something new. If there were a change, where would I be?

New knowledge would cost money. Would we get our money back? When?

...

Fundamental research, to be effective, requires infusion of knowledge.

" Page 466: Knowledge is a scarce national resource. Knowledge in any country is a national resource. Unlike rare matals,which can not be replaced, the supply of knowledge in any field can be increased by education."

--- 'Out of the Crisis' by W. Edward Deming (Eighteenth Printing, May 1992)

Why Deming's theory does like target?

One of the reasons can be found in J-Curve.

People without proper knowledge can find ways unknowingly to attain a required target (in terms of level, rate, timing, etc.) with easy short-term actions by sacrificing/avoiding long-term adverse outcomes!

A CEO may be more/just concerned with this current year's performance/bonus, but a chairman should not!

In economics, the 'J curve' refers to the trend of a country's trade balance following a devaluation or depreciation under a certain set of assumptions.
J curve - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_curve

 

[futurecurrents]

The onus is on your side bub.
Your side can’t produce anything to confirm that man made CO2 causes warming of catastrophic proportion.
There are, however, hundreds of skeptic papers and other peer review articles that show other forces at play.

Maybe Bill Nye the Mechanical Engineer Guy knows?? LOL!

So then you don't believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? I'm just trying to figure out how stupid you really are.

 

[OddTrader]

https://elitetrader.com/et/threads/global-warming-for-experts-only.312895/page-54

https://www.britannica.com/science/carbon-cycle

http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2015-11-30/the-carbon-cycle-short-and-long/6973710

https://serc.carleton.edu/eslabs/carbon/index.html

https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/image_maps/3-carbon-cycle

"Explore this interactive diagram to learn more about the carbon cycle. Click on the different labels to view short video clips or images about different parts of the cycle."


Q
Atmosphere
750 billion tonnes of carbon

Carbon in the atmosphere is mostly in the form of carbon dioxide with some methane and hydrofluorocarbons. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing.

Acknowledgement: NASA.
Vegetation
600 billion tonnes of carbon

Plants store carbon as carbohydrates made from carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Land plants take up about a quarter of all carbon dioxide that enters the atmosphere.

Acknowledgement: Public domain.
Soil and organic matter
1,600 billion tonnes of carbon

Soil contains a lot of carbon in the form of dead plant material and in the many bacteria and other small organisms that live there.

Coal, oil, gas
3,300 billion tonnes of carbon

Carbon has been locked up in fossil fuels, built up from once-living things, for millions of years.

Acknowledgement: Public domain.
Sediments and sedimentary rock
1,000,000,000 billion tonnes of carbon

The carbon cycle overlaps the rock cycle. Ocean sediments and the rocks they turn into contain huge amounts of carbon. This is mostly in calcite and limestone.


Ocean surface
1,000 billion tonnes of carbon

Exchange of carbon dioxide between the ocean and the atmosphere takes place at the surface.

Acknowledgement: NASA.
Deep ocean
40,000 billion tonnes of carbon

Most of the carbon entering the ocean ends up in the deep ocean where it can be carried by currents for hundreds of years or be lost in sediments.
UQ

As a very primitive layman having absolutely minimum knowledge in climate change, I would like to view the issue with my own ways, wrong or right or in-between that I could never know for sure.

1. What do we want from our living environment for our well-being? We then further define what we don't want for the adverse conditions in our environment that would cause our unhappiness in general.

2. One thing I am pretty sure is as mentioned before weather volatility having extreme high and extreme low temperatures for an extended period of time that would easily cause a huge number of human deaths due to our infrastructure is never prepared for this kind of situations.

Just like suddenly people are dropped into into the middle of bush fire or frozen antarctic poles without any logistics supplying any food or water for an extended period of time.

3. Whenever any unknowingly existing causes that would put us into that similar kinds of deadly scenarios, we could call them slow-dead causes and deadly effects. Many times, dynamic feedback loops would exist between any of the slow-dead causes and any of the deadly effects during the development process.

4. Personally I would believe CO2 could be Neither of the two kinds. Because CO2 might be useful for naturally and automatically adjusting our living environment merely according to the input conditions. And the outcome would be simply the effectiveness of performing this expected /assigned function given by the nature.

When the surrounding conditions are very poor, the CO2 cannot dutifully perform its assumed task. And more CO2 would stay in our environment.

Therefore, CO2 is a measure (as mentioned before) of the health of our environment. I think CO2 alone does not generate heat by itself. Something else generates/absorbs heat to cause temperature higher or lower.

5. ...

...

Just 2 cents - layman's cents (PS: Don't be serious! Only suitable for brainstorming purpose)!

 

[fhl]

NINE YEARS AGO… Al Gore Predicted North Pole Would Be Completely Ice Free by Today

http://thegatewaypundit.com/2017/12...edicted-north-pole-completely-ice-free-today/

 

[OddTrader]

Global warming OVERRIDDEN by 'mini ice age' that will plunge UK ...
www.mirror.co.uk/science/global-warming-overridden-mini-ice-11757732
Global warming OVERRIDDEN by 'mini ice age' that will plunge UK temperature in 2030, claim mathematicians. In a little over a decade, we could all be skating across the Thames. Share; Comments. By. Jeff ParsonsTech/Science reporter. 12 :28, 27 DEC 2017; Updated 12:29, 27 DEC 2017. Science. houses of parliament ...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/science/global-warming-overridden-mini-ice-11757732

Global warming OVERRIDDEN by 'mini ice age' that will plunge UK temperature in 2030, claim mathematicians

27 DEC 2017

They believe that magnetic waves from the sun will begin decreasing in 2021 and last for 33 years. Historically, low magnetic activity from the Sun has coincided with cold periods on Earth.

...

And the study warns against stopping efforts to fight climate change, just because the temperature may drop.

"Compared to the changes in the proper ice ages, the so-called Little Ice Age (LIA) is a very short-lived and puny climate and social perturbation," explains the study.

Probably the climate change models are not better than our trading models, unsure which one is based on curve fitting and which one is not.

The Great Blizzard of 1978 forced people to abandon their cars on a Massachusetts highway. [Image Credit: Jim McDevitt Photographer/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers | CC O]

The Ice Age that never happened
Global cooling forecasts from the 1970s don’t discredit today’s climate science

By Mark D. Kaufman | Posted April 27, 2017

http://scienceline.org/2017/04/ice-age-never-happened/

In the fall of 1973, a prominent climate scientist named Reid Bryson took the stage at an American Association of Geographers conference, and to a crowd of hundreds packed inside the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire banquet hall, he explained that the planet was cooling.

...

What Stephens gets wrong is that most scientists never predicted global cooling. “It’s a myth that scientists in the 1970s widely predicted global cooling,” says Sarah Greene, an environmental chemist at Michigan Tech University. She points to an exhaustive review of climate studies published between 1965 and 1979, which showed that 44 studies predicted global warming and just seven forecasted cooling.

 

[OddTrader]

https://elitetrader.com/et/threads/global-warming-for-experts-only.312895/page-54


As a very primitive layman having absolutely minimum knowledge in climate change, I would like to view the issue with my own ways, wrong or right or in-between that I could never know for sure.

1. What do we want from our living environment for our well-being? We then further define what we don't want for the adverse conditions in our environment that would cause our unhappiness in general.

2. One thing I am pretty sure is as mentioned before weather volatility having extreme high and extreme low temperatures for an extended period of time that would easily cause a huge number of human deaths due to our infrastructure is never prepared for this kind of situations.

Just like suddenly people are dropped into into the middle of bush fire or frozen antarctic poles without any logistics supplying any food or water for an extended period of time.

3. Whenever any unknowingly existing causes that would put us into that similar kinds of deadly scenarios, we could call them slow-dead causes and deadly effects. Many times, dynamic feedback loops would exist between any of the slow-dead causes and any of the deadly effects during the development process.

4. Personally I would believe CO2 could be Neither of the two kinds. Because CO2 might be useful for naturally and automatically adjusting our living environment merely according to the input conditions. And the outcome would be simply the effectiveness of performing this expected /assigned function given by the nature.

When the surrounding conditions are very poor, the CO2 cannot dutifully perform its assumed task. And more CO2 would stay in our environment.

Therefore, CO2 is a measure (as mentioned before) of the health of our environment. I think CO2 alone does not generate heat by itself. Something else generates/absorbs heat to cause temperature higher or lower.

5. ...

...

Just 2 cents - layman's cents (PS: Don't be serious! Only suitable for brainstorming purpose)!

Looks like the seas should be the focus, and the sea level should be the best measure!

Very interesting, but it's logical and reasonable!

The top graph shows that Earth’s surface temperatures are susceptible to influences like the Pacific Ocean, and can rise and fall off for years or decades at time (within the greater warming trend). The bottom graph depicts global sea level, which is not as susceptible to the influences on Earth’s surface. Global sea level rise is the true global warming curve, says NASA’s Patzert. [Image Credit: NASA | CC 0]

“The oceans are the big effect,” says Bill Patzert, a climatologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. In a recent study in Science, Patzert illustrated how the Pacific Ocean, which covers over 30 percent of Earth’s surface, can control global temperatures. But he also realizes what misled some scientists in the 1970s. In a time before the government bothered to limit air pollution, foul hazes settled across the United States, blocking out sunlight and cooling North America.

...

The true measure of global warming lies in Earth’s oceans, he says, and the reason is simple. Land, dense and rocky, just doesn’t have a capacity to absorb Earth’s accumulating heat. But the oceans do. “Ninety-five percent of all that heat is going into the oceans,” he says.

That’s why the seas are expanding – just like water molecules moving apart in a pot of heated water. Add glacial melting to the mix, and the sea level is rising about an inch a decade. And this is expected to amplify.

True global warming, then, can’t be found on the surface. “The global warming curve is really the global sea level curve,” explains Patzert. And the sea level curve doesn’t lie. It has been gradually rising for nearly a century.

 

[gwb-trading]

Plummeting temperatures could send the world into a 'mini ice age' in 2030 and could OVERRIDE global warming, claim mathematicians

• Temperatures will start dropping in 2021, according to a mathematical model
• This, they say, will lead to a phenomenon known as the 'Maunder minimum'
• This was previously known as a mini ice age when it hit between 1646 and 1715

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ing-temperatures-cause-mini-ice-age-2030.html

In a little over a decade the world could be plunged into a 'mini ice age', scientists have warned.

Temperatures will start dropping in 2021, according to a mathematical model of the Sun's magnetic energy.

This, they say, will lead to a phenomenon known as the 'Maunder minimum' - which has previously been known as a mini ice age when it hit between 1646 and 1715, even causing London's River Thames to freeze over.

(More at above url)

 

[OddTrader]

Looks like the seas should be the focus, and the sea level should be the best measure!

Very interesting, but it's logical and reasonable!

The top graph shows that Earth’s surface temperatures are susceptible to influences like the Pacific Ocean, and can rise and fall off for years or decades at time (within the greater warming trend). The bottom graph depicts global sea level, which is not as susceptible to the influences on Earth’s surface. Global sea level rise is the true global warming curve, says NASA’s Patzert. [Image Credit: NASA | CC 0]

Based on the above information from previous posts, I can imagine a model.

The overall ocean is the block box, with one deadly effect - volatile temperature, due to some slow-death causes including sea contents as a common cause and perhaps cosmic rays as a special cause.

We might be running out of time and lack of technology to reverse the adverse situation of sea contents such as micro-beads and others. Beyond a point of no-return. Perhaps inevitable! I hope it's not.

However, we should be able to slow down and control the range of volatility through improving sea-water quality in order to smooth the extreme high and low temperatures, imo.

As the side effect measured by ever-rising sea-level, we should better prepare contingency plans.

People living in below sea-level grounds should move completely to higher grounds, especially after destruction by hurricanes. Leave the below-sea-level grounds as wet lands for wild life animals and man-made lakes/canals.

imo, re-built after hurricanes at the original below-sea-level grounds could be an unreasonable decision in long run, considering ever-rising sea-level.

Any new infrastructure on land/ground close to coast should be designed/catered to meet rising sea-level scenarios. With many wet lands, lakes and canals.

Floating cities should be also wisely considered/implemented.

Less than 2 cents! lol

Floating Cities, No Longer Science Fiction, Begin to Take Shape ...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/13/.../seasteading-floating-cities.html


Floating Cities, No Longer Science Fiction, Begin to Take Shape. It is an idea at once audacious and simplistic, a seeming impossibility that is now technologically within reach: cities floating in international waters — independent, self-sustaining nation-states at sea

...

And yet in 2017, with sea levels rising because of climate change and established political orders around the world teetering under the strains of populism, seasteading can seem not just practical, but downright appealing.

A rendering of the Floating Island Project in French Polynesia. Blue Frontiers will build and operate the islands, with the goal of building about a dozen by 2020, including homes, hotels, offices and restaurants, at a cost of about $60 million. Credit Blue Frontiers

The Lower Ninth Ward in New Orleans, one of the areas worst hit by Hurricane Katrina, in 2015. New Orleans now has the largest flood barrier in the world. Photograph: Carlos Barria/Reuters
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/08/hurricane-irma-harvey-katrina-houston-how-to-rebuild

 

[jem]

so when cooling overwhelms warming... you have global cooling.
but don't worry the data will be adjusted up to fit the nutters needs.