The Global Warming Megathread

[Tim Grindley]

So you are prepared to go back 10 thousand years to support your hypothesis, but you are only prepared to look 80 years forward?

 

And you need to provide links...

 

Well, we have proxies and other data sources for the past but the future only seeable through fog.

 

The further we look forward the less we can see and the more we can make up.

 

If you want to panic about future effects beyond 2100 you are predicting human industry's prefered power source for that period as well.

 

Do you really think that is at all sensable?

 

Do you think that if there is some sort of possible bad effect (none posted here or anywhere else that has stood the slightest scrutiny so far) to come in 300 years that we should panic about this none problem now when clearly we have no idea about it??????

 

What links do you want? Th holocene optimal? The level of sea level rise predicted as a maximum in the IPCC's latest report? The rate of current sea level rise?

 

Again, this thread is about challenging all those wedded to the panic idea to support their wish for the rest of us to change our behaviour. Get to it!

 

---------- Post added 08-05-2017 at 14:04 ----------

 

It therefore amazes me that you are having trouble understanding Annie's post as that is easily accessible to those with a good foundation in the relevant science like yourself.

 

There is nothing contentious or incorrect in what Annie has said so I must profess confusion as to where you appear to be having problems.

 

---------- Post added 08-05-2017 at 10:32 ----------

 

 

And before the Holocene Wet epoch what was it like?

That it is not contenious is only true if there is nobody who actually wants the mechanism to be know rather than a general "Oh it must be true that increased energy leads to increased chaos"... If there is somebody who understands physics at all it is going to start an argument if they are inclined.

 

You need better than that. Actual science.

 

Before the Holcene it was an ice age. Why do you ask?

Edited May 8, 2017 by Tim Grindley

[biotechpete]

I just finished reading this in the latest edition of Nature. It sums up some of the recent research from the East Antarctic:

 

https://www.nature.com/news/antarctica-s-sleeping-ice-giant-could-wake-soon-1.21808

 

I have highlighted some of the important points below:

In previous flights over Wilkes Land, van Ommen’s team discovered that 21% of the Totten glacier catchment is more than 1 kilometre below sea level — an area 100 times larger than previous estimates....

 

The team also found underwater troughs that extend all the way from the edge of the Totten Ice Shelf to the grounding line 125 kilometres inland, and as deep as 2.7 kilometres below sea level. This deeply contoured landscape could allow warming waters from offshore to quickly reach and erode the ice....

 

This may mean that you can lose a certain amount of ice quite easily with a little bit of warming....

 

If all the ice below sea level in East Antarctica were to disappear, the height of the world’s oceans would swell by nearly 20 metres....

 

....if temperatures rise more than about 2.5°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100 and continue climbing, Antarctic ice melt will raise ocean levels by 5 metres by 2500, with nearly half of that coming from East Antarctica. With Greenland ice also melting, the global sea level would rise by at least 7 metres — enough to inundate large parts of major coastal cities such as Mumbai, Shanghai, Vancouver and New York.

[Obelix]

That it is not contenious is only true if there is nobody who actually wants the mechanism to be know rather than a general "Oh it must be true that increased energy leads to increased chaos"... If there is somebody who understands physics at all it is going to start an argument if they are inclined.

 

You need better than that. Actual science.

 

Actually we need cogent organised English from you first as I have no idea what your grammatically incorrect miasma of consonants and vowels is actually meant to mean....

[biotechpete]

For impact of the sea level rise on the coast line look here:

http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/netherlands.shtml

[Tim Grindley]

For impact of the sea level rise on the coast line look here:

http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/netherlands.shtml

 

This map is gibberish.

 

The land which is below sea level today is protected by sea defences. It has even been made land and not sea by humans.

 

The reason it is not under water is human activity.

 

This will be continued. The land will not vanish. We will build sea defenses. A 3 feet high sea level rise by 2100 is nothing to fear. It will not cost as much as any local council spends on traffic lights to avoid any problems from such a slight change.

[Hairyloon]

Well, we have proxies and other data sources for the past but the future only seeable through fog.

 

The further we look forward the less we can see and the more we can make up.

 

Well there is that, but the laws of physics are fixed so we can reasonably assume that established causal relationships will continue. Thus a sustained increase in net energy input will cause a sustained increase in temperature (and entropy, but we have established that is too technical for you), and a sustained increase in temperature will cause more ice melt.

If you want to panic about future effects beyond 2100 you are predicting human industry's prefered power source for that period as well.

 

Do you really think that is at all sensable?

 

Panic is by definition not sensible, but neither is gambling the stability of the ecosystem on the chance of finding a clean and effective energy source.

[Tim Grindley]

Well there is that, but the laws of physics are fixed so we can reasonably assume that established causal relationships will continue. Thus a sustained increase in net energy input will cause a sustained increase in temperature (and entropy, but we have established that is too technical for you), and a sustained increase in temperature will cause more ice melt.

 

 

Panic is by definition not sensible, but neither is gambling the stability of the ecosystem on the chance of finding a clean and effective energy source.

 

What are you talking about???

 

Venus has very high temperature and the same weather, absolute hell, all the time. The reason is that there is no difference between any place on the surface of Venus. It's all hell. Thus no wind and no variation, or at least very little.

 

Increasing temperatures in the polar regions and temperate latitudes will reduce wind intensity.

 

It is for you to back up the claim that increased temperatures will cause some sort of instability. You surely have some sort of paper to back this idea? No? Didn't think so.

 

Solar power is getting cheaper quickly. In the next couple of decades thsi will be cheaper than coal power, but not yet.

 

Today thousands of people per year die in the UK alone due to the stupid panic about the none problem of CO2. Th edash for diesel has caused this air polution problem. Bad science badly followed by those who share the conviction of stuff they do not understand such as yourself.

[Hairyloon]

Venus has very high temperature and the same weather, absolute hell, all the time. The reason is that there is no difference between any place on the surface of Venus. It's all hell. Thus no wind and no variation, or at least very little.

 

And your point?

Is it that we should model ourselves on Venus, trigger a runaway greenhouse effect and thereby stabilise the weather system?

I'm not seeing why that would be a good idea...

[Tim Grindley]

And your point?

Is it that we should model ourselves on Venus, trigger a runaway greenhouse effect and thereby stabilise the weather system?

I'm not seeing why that would be a good idea...

 

No my point is you should be citing some science that says what you want it to.

 

Here is some science that says the opposite of what you want it to;

 

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/2/e1600446.full

 

Model sensitivity experiments suggest that the prerequisite for the most frequent climate instability with bipolar seesaw pattern during the late Pleistocene era is associated with reduced atmospheric CO2 concentration via global cooling and sea ice formation in the North Atlantic, in addition to extended Northern Hemisphere ice sheets.

[Hairyloon]

No my point is you should be citing some science that says what you want it to.;

Here is some science that says the opposite of what you want it to

 

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/2/e1600446.full

Numerical experiments using a fully coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation model with freshwater hosing in the northern North Atlantic showed that climate becomes most unstable in intermediate glacial conditions associated with large changes in sea ice and the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation.