Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Would Your House Be Underwater? Terrifying Map Reveals The Devastation That Would Occur If All The World's Ice Melted


Recommended Posts

0
HOLA441

Did you know that natural sources of carbon dioxide are more than 20 times greater than sources due to human activity?

No, because as far as NET sources go, that's not actually true.

Did you also know that co2 accounts for about ten percent of global warming by atmospheric gas?

Actually the figure is about 37%. But since water vapour acts as an automatic feedback, this is irrelevant.

The global warming lobby is a special interest group with incredible and unwarranted powers. They are using scare stories to jack up the price of fuel and heating. Imagine if other special interest groups, such as vegans were given the same levels of special privilege and patronage. Getting huge salaries to research the bad effects of meat and levying massive taxes to make food expensive. How would you like that?

Yeah, scientific researchers are known for generally possessing a fleet of range rovers each. And the last time I turned my thermostst up from 19 to 20 degrees I got a visit from a heavily armed Global Warming SWAT team OH MY GOD THEY ARE TRYING TO KICK THE DOOR DOWN WITH THEIR SANDALS. BUT ITS NOT GOING WELL.

As far as the powers go, you do realize you are describing the banking industry? You know, the industry that's helped itself to about £50 billion of taxpayer's money and perhaps 10 times that in loan guarantees whilst paying itself vast salaries and bonuses, whilst peddling lots of scare stories about how the slightest attempt to bring them to heel would result in economic collapse?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 170
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1
HOLA442

No, because as far as NET sources go, that's not actually true.

Actually the figure is about 37%. But since water vapour acts as an automatic feedback, this is irrelevant.

Fluffy, why do not you explain us how the CO2 and positive water vapour feedback induced catastrophic warming theory works in the context of these 3 historical events marked in green from left???

http://www.climate4y...emperatures.htm

GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2
HOLA443

Fluffy, why do not you explain us how the CO2 and positive water vapour feedback induced catastrophic warming theory works in the context of these 3 historical events marked in green from left???

Right after you've explained how, if the climate is extremely sensitive to minor forcings from the sun (i.e. the MWP was global and as warm as today), it is also extremely insensitive to forcings from CO2.

Do you even understand the question?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3
HOLA444

1/ Kurt, if the scientific evidence says that MWP was warmer and global then it is what it is. And believe me or not I am against industrial pollution, because this actually harms people.

2/ 3p / kWh is the cost of the current French nuclear electricity and also claim of the US Westinghouse for their new AP1000 reactor.

The UK government deal with French EDF is a different story.

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4
HOLA445

Right after you've explained how, if the climate is extremely sensitive to minor forcings from the sun (i.e. the MWP was global and as warm as today), it is also extremely insensitive to forcings from CO2.

are you suggesting that the current Earth temperature is the normal one and it is not allowed to change?

what do you mean that climate is extremely sensitive? based on the graphs I showed you it is normal for the Earth climate to go up and down 10 degrees globally every 100 000 years. and it is not driven by CO2, water vapour or methane (internal factors). also clearly there are not any positive feed backs causing catastrophic temperature runway as suggested by CAGW theory. and based on the theory from 70s it is driven by the Earth orbiting of the Sun (external factors):

VostokTemp0-420000%20BP.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5
HOLA446

what do you mean that climate is extremely sensitive?

If the climate varies a lot from natural causes, then it must be highly sensitive to pertubation, or formally have a high Charney sensitivity.

If the climate had little or no historical variability, this would imply a low sensitivity.

Not sure why this is hard for you to understand (well, I know that it's because you are a scientifically illiterate raving ideologue, but let's pretend that's not the case).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6
HOLA447

Simply put, the interglacial periods began when small increases in temperature caused by variations in the Earth's orbit caused the oceans to release CO2, since CO2 is less soluble in warmer water. This, in turn, caused the temperature to rise further, thus releasing more CO2, and so on until a new equilibrium was reached. It's a classic feedback effect with an obvious train of causality.

Edit: Under normal circumstances, we would be approaching the end of the interglacial period that has lasted for the last 10,000 years or so, and the Earth would gradually be starting to cool again. However, human emissions of CO2 mean that this will not now happen; instead, the Earth will become still warmer.

So basically you're saying we're heading into a cooling period and it is mans last chance to stop a viscious cycle of cooling and eventually an ice age by trying to release as much CO2 as possible.

Anyway it seems that the models climate scientists came up with haven't done very well over the past 15 years, so it is amazing that you're confident of what is definitely going to happen over the next 5000 years or so. These predictions always seem to be conventiently too far in the future to be able to corroborate with real world data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7
HOLA448

If the climate varies a lot from natural causes, then it must be highly sensitive to pertubation, or formally have a high Charney sensitivity.

If the climate had little or no historical variability, this would imply a low sensitivity.

Not sure why this is hard for you to understand (well, I know that it's because you are a scientifically illiterate raving ideologue, but let's pretend that's not the case).

you forgot to add the word ..."bigot"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8
HOLA449

are you suggesting that the current Earth temperature is the normal one and it is not allowed to change?

It seems that the year zero is from the moment that humans start measuring things accurately and any deviation from that will be a disaster. What they fail to realise is that things have always changed and if they hadn't the "ideal temperature" they saw when they first started measuring would never have been reached.

It's not just climate scientists but conservationists too, such as in Scotland where they are going around killing all the mink because they weren't there when they first looked:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12323300

Complete folly if you ask me.

Also if that graph you posted is in any way accurate I can't believe that any climate scientist can look at that and declare the biggest danger to humans is the planet getting warmer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9
HOLA4410

So basically you're saying we're heading into a cooling period and it is mans last chance to stop a viscious cycle of cooling and eventually an ice age by trying to release as much CO2 as possible.

I said that if mankind did not exist then, from the evidence of earlier interglacial periods, we would probably be nearing the end of the current interglacial period, as Damik's graph quite nicely shows. This won't happen now though. Mankind's CO2 emissions already far exceed those required to avert the end of the current interglacial. The Earth's climate is a sensitive system; someone, I think Hansen, calculated that the output of just one decent sized coal-fired power station would have sufficed to stop the Earth falling back into the depths of the ice age.

Anyway it seems that the models climate scientists came up with haven't done very well over the past 15 years, so it is amazing that you're confident of what is definitely going to happen over the next 5000 years or so. These predictions always seem to be conventiently too far in the future to be able to corroborate with real world data.

As I've pointed out before, it is usually far easier to predict ultimate outcomes than the precise details. Remember the ball rolling down a rocky slope analogy? It's easy to say it'll reach the bottom, but its precise course is extremely difficult to determine. We've already seen the climate ball start rolling though. Back in 1982, Hansen predicted that the global temperature would increase at roughly the rate observed, and that this warming would be most pronounced at the poles, which is also what we have observed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10
HOLA4411

It seems that the year zero is from the moment that humans start measuring things accurately and any deviation from that will be a disaster. What they fail to realise is that things have always changed and if they hadn't the "ideal temperature" they saw when they first started measuring would never have been reached.

It's not just climate scientists but conservationists too, such as in Scotland where they are going around killing all the mink because they weren't there when they first looked:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12323300

Complete folly if you ask me.

Also if that graph you posted is in any way accurate I can't believe that any climate scientist can look at that and declare the biggest danger to humans is the planet getting warmer.

If you look closely at Damik's graph, which does look accurate to me, you'll note that the Earth's climate has been unusually warm and stable for the last 10,000 years or so, during which time human civilisation has developed. This is probably not a coincidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11
HOLA4412

I said that if mankind did not exist then, from the evidence of earlier interglacial periods, we would probably be nearing the end of the current interglacial period, as Damik's graph quite nicely shows. This won't happen now though. Mankind's CO2 emissions already far exceed those required to avert the end of the current interglacial. The Earth's climate is a sensitive system; someone, I think Hansen, calculated that the output of just one decent sized coal-fired power station would have sufficed to stop the Earth falling back into the depths of the ice age.

So ultimately the release of CO2 has been a good thing then. A few degrees warmer is infinitely better than a new ice age right?

As I've pointed out before, it is usually far easier to predict ultimate outcomes than the precise details. Remember the ball rolling down a rocky slope analogy? It's easy to say it'll reach the bottom, but its precise course is extremely difficult to determine. We've already seen the climate ball start rolling though. Back in 1982, Hansen predicted that the global temperature would increase at roughly the rate observed, and that this warming would be most pronounced at the poles, which is also what we have observed.

But judging from Damik's graph we can see the ultimate outcome and it is another ice age. I don't know how you can look at that and predict runaway rising temperatures forever when it has been far warmer in the past than it is currently and the runaway never happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12
HOLA4413

If you look closely at Damik's graph, which does look accurate to me, you'll note that the Earth's climate has been unusually warm and stable for the last 10,000 years or so, during which time human civilisation has developed. This is probably not a coincidence.

Oh absolutely. We've been in a stable and warm period for long enough to develop. But that doesn't mean that the stability would continue regardless of CO2 output. As you can see from the graph the stability ends and temperatures plummet eventually and until we know exactly how and why this happens naturally and when it is going to happen again (if you disregard human activity) all other predictions are going to be secondary to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13
HOLA4414

So ultimately the release of CO2 has been a good thing then. A few degrees warmer is infinitely better than a new ice age right?

A little CO2, enough to avert the end of the current interglacial, would indeed probably have been a good thing. However, the enormous quantities of CO2 that we are actually emitting are likely to substantially increase the global temperature over a relatively short period. No more stable climate.

But judging from Damik's graph we can see the ultimate outcome and it is another ice age. I don't know how you can look at that and predict runaway rising temperatures forever when it has been far warmer in the past than it is currently and the runaway never happened.

We will not return to the ice age, due to the amount of CO2 mankind has emitted. Quite the opposite; the amount of CO2 we have already emitted mean that the global temperature will continue to rise sharply for a long while yet, not fall.

A runaway greenhouse effect, like Venus, is unlikely to occur, but can't ruled out. If we were to burn all the extractable fossil fuels, it might just happen though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14
HOLA4415

So basically you're saying we're heading into a cooling period and it is mans last chance to stop a viscious cycle of cooling and eventually an ice age by trying to release as much CO2 as possible.

No.

The amount of CO2 required to stop a new ice age starting is perhaps 300ppm. As above (if you have any actual interest in the subject); ice age onset starts with a small pertubation, and the feedbacks turn this into a huge change. Stop the initial pertubation and you stop the feedbacks.

At which point, a person who was capable of thinking for themselves might ask the question 'If small natural pertubations can lead to the massive swings in climate we see in the recent geological record, then what will a large artificial pertubation do?'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15
HOLA4416

The amount of CO2 required to stop a new ice age starting is perhaps 300ppm. As above (if you have any actual interest in the subject); ice age onset starts with a small pertubation, and the feedbacks turn this into a huge change. Stop the initial pertubation and you stop the feedbacks.

only problem is that there are no positive feedbacks; otherwise we would be dead already

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16
HOLA4417

No.

The amount of CO2 required to stop a new ice age starting is perhaps 300ppm. As above (if you have any actual interest in the subject); ice age onset starts with a small pertubation, and the feedbacks turn this into a huge change. Stop the initial pertubation and you stop the feedbacks.

At which point, a person who was capable of thinking for themselves might ask the question 'If small natural pertubations can lead to the massive swings in climate we see in the recent geological record, then what will a large artificial pertubation do?'

Hang on though, the temperature has been much higher in the past and therefore the amount of CO2 has been higher too. If that didn't lead to runaway higher temperatures then why would it this time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17
HOLA4418

only problem is that there are no positive feedbacks; otherwise we would be dead already

Of course there are positive feedbacks: ice albedo and CO2, to name the obvious candidates. It's the only way to explain how small external perturbations are amplified to create the observed temperature changes.

Naturally, no positive feedback goes on forever; the changing conditions mean that eventually other factors arise that put an end to it. For example, electric guitar feedback does not result in a perpetually increasing volume; at some point the volume is limited by other factors such as the speaker capacity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18
HOLA4419

A little CO2, enough to avert the end of the current interglacial, would indeed probably have been a good thing. However, the enormous quantities of CO2 that we are actually emitting are likely to substantially increase the global temperature over a relatively short period. No more stable climate.

But judging from the Damik's graph the climate has never actually been stable. It might appear so over short time periods, but from the point of view of the universe it is the blink of an eye.

So here's the question, if mankind had never released any CO2 into the atmosphere, how long would the climate have continued to be stable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19
HOLA4420

Hansen predicted that the global temperature would increase at roughly the rate observed, and that this warming would be most pronounced at the poles, which is also what we have observed.

Yeah, but he also said "You'll never win anything with kids".

Just out of interest, and without patronising me if you can, why the poles particularly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20
HOLA4421

But judging from the Damik's graph the climate has never actually been stable. It might appear so over short time periods, but from the point of view of the universe it is the blink of an eye.

So here's the question, if mankind had never released any CO2 into the atmosphere, how long would the climate have continued to be stable?

Looking at past trends, the climate would be unlikely to have remained stable for more than another few 1000 years and would perhaps have begun to cool by about a degree per 1000 years or so as the Earth returned to ice age conditions. That's judging purely by eye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21
HOLA4422

Looking at past trends, the climate would be unlikely to have remained stable for more than another few 1000 years and would perhaps have begun to cool by about a degree per 1000 years or so as the Earth returned to ice age conditions. That's judging purely by eye.

So if the climate was probably unstable on the downside temperature-wise but now is potentially unstable but getting warmer sounds like a win situation to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22
HOLA4423

Yeah, but he also said "You'll never win anything with kids".

Just out of interest, and without patronising me if you can, why the poles particularly?

Presumably because the effect of insulating a body from heat loss tends to even out its temperature. For example, Venus, with is very thick CO2 atmosphere, has a pretty much uniform temperature. Planets without (edit: thick!) atmospheres, like Mars and Mercury, have large temperature differences between the equator and poles. Earth is somewhere in the middle, but edging in the Venus direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23
HOLA4424

So if the climate was probably unstable on the downside temperature-wise but now is potentially unstable but getting warmer sounds like a win situation to me.

It's all a matter of degree. If the room's getting cold, it makes sense to throw another log on the fire; it doesn't make sense to pour a few gallons of petrol on the fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24
HOLA4425

It's all a matter of degree. If the room's getting cold, it makes sense to throw another log on the fire; it doesn't make sense to pour a few gallons of petrol on the fire.

Yeah but all the worst case scenarios I've read seem to be that the temperature rises 0.1C over a decade and the sea rises a couple of mm. I can't see how that is equivalent to pouring petrol on your fire.

What do you predict will happen over the next 10, 25 and 50 years? How can we see if you're right or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information