The Global Warming Megathread

[Tim Grindley]

Global warming by 4C say. This triggers the melting of most of the glaciers and ice sheets over the next hundred years. Sea levels rise by 40m at least worldwide. Sheffield gets a coastline/estuary. Most of the worlds food crops are displaced south and there is widespread famine as they seek to reestablish these.

 

No it does not.

 

1, The highest projections by 2100 are for a 4.2 c rise over the levels as of about 1850. We have already had 0.8 of it so that's 3.4c max.

 

2, No, the great ice sheets of Antarcia and Greenland will not be substancially effected by such a tiny temperature change.

 

Can you link to any actual science to support your idea that there is any possibility that all the ice in the world can possibly be melted in that time frame? You will not be able to find any such science.

[Robin-H]

Sorry but we don't and only assume that's what caused it and also assume that there should not be a hole. As stated we have no date about how it looked before satellites were put onto orbit or high altitude balloons used from around the 1980's. CFC's may play a part but that may not be the whole story and we will not really know for around another 50 years. In 2015 the hole actually got bigger despite the banning of CFC's.

 

Well the 1995 Nobel Prize for chemistry was awarded jointly to Paul J. Crutzen, Mario J. Molina and F. Sherwood Rowland for their work in discovering the causes for the decomposition of ozone.

 

This wasn't based on guesswork, but extensive peer reviewed scientific research. There really isn't any reputable scientific doubt between the link between CFCs and ozone depletion.

 

The fact the 2015 Antarctic ozone hole was larger than other years is not surprising at all, and does not bring into doubt the scientists conclusions about CFCs and ozone one bit.

 

Firstly, CFCs break down in the atmosphere very slowly (taking 60-200 years) and so there is still a lot of the stuff up there. Secondly, the effectiveness of CFCs in depleting ozone is temperature dependent. Colder temperatures in the stratosphere will lead to more ozone depletion. The stratosphere above Antarctica was colder than average in 2015, and to the CFCs in the atmosphere led to more ozone depletion than average.

 

Indeed this occurrence confirms scientific research and gives further evidence (if any was needed) that ozone depletion is down to CFCs.

[area 51]

Look at it this way the world is going to end eventually and that is fact,in 5 billion years the sun will become a red giant that will more than likely consume earth.According to a study it is likely that the sun will heat up to an extent that it will kill all life off on planet earth in about 2.8 billion years.We cannot save the planet we are only delaying the inevitable.If human life is to survive we will have to find another world to inhabit.So i do not worry about global warming, i am just going to crack open another beer instead.We are only here for a short period so just enjoy life.

[max]

No it does not.

 

1, The highest projections by 2100 are for a 4.2 c rise over the levels as of about 1850. We have already had 0.8 of it so that's 3.4c max.

 

2, No, the great ice sheets of Antarcia and Greenland will not be substancially effected by such a tiny temperature change.

 

Can you link to any actual science to support your idea that there is any possibility that all the ice in the world can possibly be melted in that time frame? You will not be able to find any such science.

 

Can you supply any peer reviewed scientific papers which back up your assertion in point 1 and your denial in point 2?

[Bodie]

We are only here for a short period so just enjoy life.

 

Pretty much what I said further up

[area 51]

Pretty much what I said further up

 

Yep,theres nothing we can do about the sun it pretty much does whatever it wants.https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html

[Broakham]

What do scientists crave more than anything (except perhaps a Nobel prize)? They crave research funds. The major sources of these funds are the armaments and pharmaceutical industries and governments, so how do environmental scientists persuade governments to fund research?

 

The earth has been cooling and warming for billions of years and will continue to do so despite mankind's puny attempts to control nature.

[Tim Grindley]

Originally Posted by Tim Grindley View Post

No it does not.

 

1, The highest projections by 2100 are for a 4.2 c rise over the levels as of about 1850. We have already had 0.8 of it so that's 3.4c max.

 

2, No, the great ice sheets of Antarcia and Greenland will not be substancially effected by such a tiny temperature change.

 

Can you link to any actual science to support your idea that there is any possibility that all the ice in the world can possibly be melted in that time frame? You will not be able to find any such science.

Can you supply any peer reviewed scientific papers which back up your assertion in point 1 and your denial in point 2?

 

1, The IPCC's latest report (IPCC AR5). I can find it if you insist but it would take me some time.

 

2. Antarctica is extremely cold, below freezing in high summer except the peninsular. The ice is many kilometers thick. The rate at which sunshine can heat ice is very slow even once the temperature gets above freezing. I can go into the basic physics if you like but I am asking for people to demonstrate the case for action here and It should be that way around not me needing to demonstrate the negative.

[Anna B]

1, The IPCC's latest report (IPCC AR5). I can find it if you insist but it would take me some time.

 

2. Antarctica is extremely cold, below freezing in high summer except the peninsular. The ice is many kilometers thick. The rate at which sunshine can heat ice is very slow even once the temperature gets above freezing. I can go into the basic physics if you like but I am asking for people to demonstrate the case for action here and It should be that way around not me needing to demonstrate the negative.

 

I read somewhere that we're actually heading into another ice age,(it's overdue,) so that should balance things out nicely...

 

The point is it's all speculation really. For every report about man-made global warming, another will point out that it's natural fluctuations. Yes we should do the very best we can to take care of the earth and not abuse it, so try and keep your carbon footprint small, etc and join in any campaigns to clean it up, but only the scientists who monitor it (and that's a good thing surely, isn't it?) can know what's really happening.

[Tim Grindley]

I read somewhere that we're actually heading into another ice age,(it's overdue,) so that should balance things out nicely...

 

The point is it's all speculation really. For every report about man-made global warming, another will point out that it's natural fluctuations. Yes we should do the very best we can to take care of the earth and not abuse it, so try and keep your carbon footprint small, etc and join in any campaigns to clean it up, but only the scientists who monitor it (and that's a good thing surely, isn't it?) can know what's really happening.

 

Currently 40% of US grain is used to make biofuel. There is a massive amount of EU food stuffs used for the same. I don't know the exact number.

 

This has resulted in a 30% to 70% increase in basic food prices.

 

This is, my best guess, killing about 20 million people per year. Poor people who die off camera on the streets of Nigeria and the like. If you live on $1.25 a day the price of bread is very important.

 

I wish this global warming thing was only an accademic interest thing but it is the most serrious of issues today. In fact since the Mongol invaisions as it has already killed more than WWII and WWI combined.

 

Has anybody been able to make a prima facia case for action to stop using fosssil fuels yet?