Say goodbye to barrier beaches and coastal salt marshes

[jem]

interesting argument... please give us a link... tell us how sure this energy budget idea is... and then explain to us what is impacting our albedo. are we cutting down forests... cultivating crops or are you claiming its all co2.

can you explain to us how much co2 man has placed in... to the system finds its way up to the top of the atmosphere and actually repels heat... vs traps heat.

Is the system a closed system or open.
do we have negative feedbacks and positive ones?
does co2 cause greening of the planet? does it increase clouds and water vapor?
if so is that good for the rapidly growing population?

in short if you are honest... your will agree the energy budget is an speculative approximation of a complex system... and we don't really know how it all works.

Satellite observation indicates the Earth's energy budget is increasing. So if its albedo is increasing, it's not increasing fast enough to keep that budget in balance (nor is the solar minimum). How's that for a feedback loop, cretin?

 

[Ricter]

interesting argument... please give us a link... tell us how sure this energy budget idea is... and then explain to us what is impacting our albedo. are we cutting down forests... cultivating crops or are you claiming its all co2.

can you explain to us how much co2 man has placed in... to the system finds its way up to the top of the atmosphere and actually repels heat... vs traps heat.

Is the system a closed system or open.
do we have negative feedbacks and positive ones?
does co2 cause greening of the planet? does it increase clouds and water vapor?
if so is that good for the rapidly growing population?

in short if you are honest... your will agree the energy budget is an speculative approximation of a complex system... and we don't really know how it all works.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page4.php

 

[murray t turtle]

--

I don't even care about the houses and cities. Some of my favorite places are salt marshes and barrier beaches.


According to the latest from NASA, however, the projections the panel made for a rise in global sea levels of 1 to 3 feet may already be outdated.

According to Steven Nerem of the University of Colorado, we are "locked into at least 3 feet of sea level rise, and probably more."

11 photos: 11 ways climate change affects the world
View attachment 156310



View attachment 156312



View attachment 156311



View attachment 156314



View attachment 156313



View attachment 156315




View attachment 156317



View attachment 156318



View attachment 156316

Nerem said experts now think a rise in sea levels toward "the higher end of that range is more likely, and the question remains how that range might have to shift upwards."

This is startling news if you are one of the 150 million people on Earth who live near the ocean. Even if you don't live close to the sea, you likely use goods that are manufactured in plants near the water, or vacation at the beach.

Even NASA is finding some of its critical infrastructure threatened by the rising seas.

Excellent polar bear picture; that is a part of the ''global warming scam'' NRA has proved polar bear population is stable 25,000 bears/+.

My question to you, buddy is where were you during the global cooling scam of the 1970s??????? That was bit scary-- a Canadian river froze up for the first time;
small samples can be scary.
Thank, great bear pic, simply NOt accurate @ all; great picture.

 

[jem]

thank you for your honesty...


the introductory note to the article.

"Earth’s Energy Budget"
Note: Determining exact values for energy flows in the Earth system is an area of ongoing climate research. Different estimates exist, and all estimates have some uncertainty. Estimates come from satellite observations, ground-based observations, and numerical weather models. The numbers in this article rely most heavily on direct satellite observations of reflected sunlight and thermal infrared energy radiated by the atmosphere and the surface.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page4.php

 

[Ricter]

thank your for your honesty...


the introductory note to the article.

"Earth’s Energy Budget"
Note: Determining exact values for energy flows in the Earth system is an area of ongoing climate research. Different estimates exist, and all estimates have some uncertainty. Estimates come from satellite observations, ground-based observations, and numerical weather models. The numbers in this article rely most heavily on direct satellite observations of reflected sunlight and thermal infrared energy radiated by the atmosphere and the surface.

You're welcome. Did you read the whole section through to the last page?

 

[jem]

yes.. I read in the past more than once. I just reread it.
there is a difference between noting warming and explaining what is causing it using real science.

for instance...
you have to put this budget speculation into context...

understanding that when the balance has this many dynamic components and results in 20,000 year cycles of cooling to warming to cooling...
almost everything being guessed by scientists is very slushy at the moment.

Is it the sun... is it the solar wind, is it the movements of the earths poles.. is it the tides... underwater and above ground volcanoes.
negative feedbacks.. positive feedbacks...
off gassing into space... (so its not a closed system) etc.

I find it annoying that people take the truth... (we don't know) and try to act like they know something... without citing real science. In short even that page is annoyingly lacking in citation to real science.

for instance I wanted to know more about the following and really wished they had some citations.

"The amount of heat a surface radiates is proportional to the fourth power of its temperature. If temperature doubles, radiated energy increases by a factor of 16 (2 to the 4th power). If the temperature of the Earth rises, the planet rapidly emits an increasing amount of heat to space. This large increase in heat loss in response to a relatively smaller increase in temperature—referred to as radiative cooling—is the primary mechanism that prevents runaway heating on Earth."

You're welcome. Did you read the whole section through to the last page?

 

[Ricter]

yes.. I read in the past more than once. I just reread it.
there is a difference between noting warming and explaining what is causing it using real science.

The last page, Climate Forcings and Global Warming, is clear about what's largely causing the warming. References follow.

 

[jem]

2 points... from your article... this point is missing a citation.. most likely because it is speculative b.s. based on the bern model used by the IPCC. (This model is failing real time as co2 is going up dramatically but temperature is not.)

"The absorption of outgoing thermal infrared by carbon dioxide means that Earth still absorbs about 70 percent of the incoming solar energy, but an equivalent amount of heat is no longer leaving. The exact amount of the energy imbalance is very hard to measure, but it appears to be a little over 0.8 watts per square meter. The imbalance is inferred from a combination of measurements, including satellite and ocean-based observations of sea level rise and warming."

2. CO2 heat trapping ability decreases logarithmically... I have seen this mentioned on a lot of sites and never refuted... but you are welcome to try.

co2s impact to the greenhouse effect...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/


"The IPCC models water vapour-driven positive feedback as starting from the pre-industrial level. Somehow the carbon dioxide below the pre-industrial level does not cause this water vapour-driven positive feedback. If their water vapour feedback is a linear relationship with carbon dioxide, then we should have seen over 2° C of warming by now. "

 

[futurecurrents]

--

Excellent polar bear picture; that is a part of the ''global warming scam'' NRA has proved polar bear population is stable 25,000 bears/+.

My question to you, buddy is where were you during the global cooling scam of the 1970s??????? That was bit scary-- a Canadian river froze up for the first time;
small samples can be scary.
Thank, great bear pic, simply NOt accurate @ all; great picture.

There was no global cooling "scam". Most of the science in the seventies predicted warming.

This is the problem with the deniers. They are wrong and ignorant and deluded. It really is that simple.

 

[futurecurrents]

2 points... from your article... this point is missing a citation.. most likely because it is speculative b.s. based on the bern model used by the IPCC. (This model is failing real time as co2 is going up dramatically but temperature is not.)

"The absorption of outgoing thermal infrared by carbon dioxide means that Earth still absorbs about 70 percent of the incoming solar energy, but an equivalent amount of heat is no longer leaving. The exact amount of the energy imbalance is very hard to measure, but it appears to be a little over 0.8 watts per square meter. The imbalance is inferred from a combination of measurements, including satellite and ocean-based observations of sea level rise and warming."

2. CO2 heat trapping ability decreases logarithmically... I have seen this mentioned on a lot of sites and never refuted... but you are welcome to try.

co2s impact to the greenhouse effect...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/


"The IPCC models water vapour-driven positive feedback as starting from the pre-industrial level. Somehow the carbon dioxide below the pre-industrial level does not cause this water vapour-driven positive feedback. If their water vapour feedback is a linear relationship with carbon dioxide, then we should have seen over 2° C of warming by now. "

It's so funny how you pretend that you are a climatologist, and referring to LOLWUWT. Very amusing.