Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[unbeliever]

Have you got any evidence I can read for that claim?

 

I don't think it's controversial:

https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/411.htm

 

Clearly melting a whole mess of land ice is a much bigger and more dramatic effect. I only wish to point out that thermal expansion should also be considered.

[El Cid]

Have you got any evidence I can read for that claim?

 

If we started a fire using fossil fuel(coal, oil and gas) as a medium, how big would that fire be if we burnt all the fossil fuel that has ever been used?

[unbeliever]

Yes, just as you go out of your way to support the consensus position on dark energy or perpetual motion or whatever.

 

There is no consensus position on dark energy, beyond its existence an approximate density, and perpetual motion is forbidden by experimentally verified theory.

There's no comparison.

[Robin-H]

I don't think it's controversial:

https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/411.htm

 

Clearly melting a whole mess of land ice is a much bigger and more dramatic effect. I only wish to point out that thermal expansion should also be considered.

 

Unless I missed it that link doesn't at all suggest that the steric sea level rise (so from thermal expansion) has little or nothing to do with modern human activity.

 

This study 'Quantifying anthropogenic and natural contributions to thermosteric sea level rise' concluded that 87% of thermometric sea level rise in the upper 700m of ocean water since 1970 was down to human causes.

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL059766/abstract

 

---------- Post added 08-02-2017 at 12:06 ----------

 

If we started a fire using fossil fuel(coal, oil and gas) as a medium, how big would that fire be if we burnt all the fossil fuel that has ever been used?

 

I'm not sure what that question has got to do with the question that I asked, which was for evidence of a majority non anthropogenic cause of thermosteric sea level rise..?

[unbeliever]

Unless I missed it that link doesn't at all suggest that the steric sea level rise (so from thermal expansion) has little or nothing to do with modern human activity.

 

This study 'Quantifying anthropogenic and natural contributions to thermosteric sea level rise' concluded that 87% of thermometric sea level rise in the upper 700m of ocean water since 1970 was down to human causes.

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL059766/abstract

 

---------- Post added 08-02-2017 at 12:06 ----------

 

 

I'm not sure what that question has got to do with the question that I asked, which was for evidence of a majority non anthropogenic cause of thermosteric sea level rise..?

 

 

The qualification of the upper 700m is important.

And I don't think they have anything like the necessary data for this conclusion.

[Robin-H]

The qualification of the upper 700m is important.

And I don't think they have anything like the necessary data for this conclusion.

 

Stating that thermosteric sea level rise has a majority non-anthropogenic cause is quite a bold claim when there is no evidence to suggest that, and the evidence that does exist suggests that most of thermosteric sea level rise is due to human induced warming.

 

Are you stating that the qualification that the study was about the top 700m important because you have read evidence that the majority of thermosteric sea level rise comes from thermal expansion of the rest of the column, and the causes of that expansion is from natural causes? I haven't managed to find anything that suggests that, but I might not be looking in the right places, so do provide links if you have any.

 

You could potentially argue that there is not enough evidence to fully conclude the majority of thermosteric sea level rise is human induced, but you are actually claiming the opposite.

Edited February 8, 2017 by Robin-H

[sgtkate]

There is no consensus position on dark energy, beyond its existence an approximate density, and perpetual motion is forbidden by experimentally verified theory.

There's no comparison.

 

At the moment at least. Develops in quantum theory and mechanics are rewriting nearly all the accepted rules of physics at the moment so I wouldn't be surprised if at least at the quantum level perpetual motion is discovered. But we digress.

[unbeliever]

Yes. I'm questioning people who understand the field far batter than me.

Objectively I'm a bad bet.

 

I judge that the analysis of the data is weak, the the modelling is unreliable and the entire field is riddled with weak consensus assumptions. Sometimes I end up questioning something which is actually rather solid, but then I remember and I don't repeat the mistake.

 

Taking a step back, I wouldn't trust me over the field consensus, other than to keep a watchful eye as there is clearly a tendency to exaggerate for effect in the field.

 

My position has always been that there should be a dash for nuclear, on the basis of precaution. Nuclear is a good solid reliable energy source, only about 50-100% more expensive than fossil.

Decarbonise, but keep the lights on at a reasonable price.

[truman]

I know, but 10% of the ice caps of additional water in the sea is surely quite a large amount? We'd have to know the volume of the entire icecaps versus sea level to be able to plot the impact though. I'm sure that's been done as it's pretty obvious but a Google search has eluded me. And clearly not all the ice caps are melting...yet.

 

Ice is less dense than water therefore as it melts it takes up less space..

[sgtkate]

Ice is less dense than water therefore as it melts it takes up less space..

 

Unbeliever explained that one to me. I was being utterly dense and forgetting GCSE physics.