Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Hmmm. Maybe my browser is seeing something different from yours?


I couldn't find destroy us all.

Second link:




mmmm... nope. no destroy us all here either.

D'you think maybe Stu is wrong about this? Might he also be wrong about positive action against AGW requiring total reversion to some agrarian subsistence nightmare?

2.4 billion Hiroshima bombs could make a significant dent, lol.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I was going to refer LE to the bomb counter, but figured that was even too alarmist by alarmists standards ;-)

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Nah, it's right up his alley. It's much beloved by John Cook at SS.

4 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat per second

What he doesn't point out is that the Sun hits TOA with about 27000 bombs worth of energy per second.

Let's do some maths:

1 ton of TNT = 4.184e+9 joules
Hiroshima bomb = 15 kilotons of TNT = 6.28e+13 joules
So 4 per second is about 2.5^19 joules/day.

A watt is a joule per second, so that works out to a constant additional global forcing of 2.9^14 watts.

Normally, we look at forcings in watts per square metre (W/m2). Total forcing (solar plus longwave) averaged around the globe 24/7 is about 500 watts per square metre.

To convert those bombs figures to a per-square-metre value, the global surface area is 5.11^14 square metres … which means that those dreaded Hiroshima bombs works out to 0.6 watts per square metre … in other words, the alarmists wants us to be very afraid because of a claimed imbalance of six tenths of a watt per square metre in a system where the downwelling radiation is half a kilowatt per square metre … we cannot even measure the radiation to that kind of accuracy.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by StuM

bla bla bla

Well, with no proof you call me an alarmist, and we've already assessed your propensity for unsupported hype...

I suspect your ruminations on atom-bombs may be equally irrelevent, but please finish the thought.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Atom bomb....
Last I checked it was the Population Bomb that freaked out the Eco Imperialists

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Perhaps ... although it's important to realize (as I know you do) that nothing was ruptured or "banged" in the Big Bang. Dimensional space simply came into existence out of nothing. Well, not nothing ... everything. Well, not everything, b/c nothing actually contains everything. It's all very simple really.

Correct, though I use rupture as a thought experament, that is a 6 or 11 dimension membrane rupture into a null, as there was nothing to rupture into. My simple thinking is the expansion might have been a point source in a different dimension that could have created several null point locations at the exact instant as the 6 or 11 unfolded or folded into 4.

Oh sure, it could have been a single point source as well. Just what I ponder some days.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Correct, though I use rupture as a thought experament, that is a 6 or 11 dimension membrane rupture into a null, as there was nothing to rupture into. My simple thinking is the expansion might have been a point source in a different dimension that could have created several null point locations at the exact instant as the 6 or 11 unfolded or folded into 4.

Oh sure, it could have been a single point source as well. Just what I ponder some days.

I struggle with many of the higher concepts in theoretical physics, but this year PBS had something on (name forgotten) which detailed the thought experiments which helped lead Einstein to formulate his famous theories. This is a decent summary. You and Mike sound like you're a fair ways past these in your String Theory and Big Bang ruminations.

I also got alot from Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time, especially the illustrated version. Wonder if the colouring-book edition is out yet?

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I struggle with many of the higher concepts in theoretical physics, but this year PBS had something on (name forgotten) which detailed the thought experiments which helped lead Einstein to formulate his famous theories. This is a decent summary. You and Mike sound like you're a fair ways past these in your String Theory and Big Bang ruminations.

I also got alot from Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time, especially the illustrated version. Wonder if the colouring-book edition is out yet?

This may be at a suitable level for you:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/054...XRZJJKSMHOWEQU

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Correct, though I use rupture as a thought experament, that is a 6 or 11 dimension membrane rupture into a null, as there was nothing to rupture into. My simple thinking is the expansion might have been a point source in a different dimension that could have created several null point locations at the exact instant as the 6 or 11 unfolded or folded into 4.

Oh sure, it could have been a single point source as well. Just what I ponder some days.

You might want to study up on tesseracts.

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

What's your opinion on this presentation, LE?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Well this presentationally challenged dude did just say "at +4 degrees celsius coral reefs are basically toast.

Which is interesting as it would appear that, since the Earth's temperature has been far in excess of 10 degrees celsius above present temperatures during hundreds of millions of years while coral reefs flourished, during which periods the atmospheric CO2 levels were also 500 to 1000 percent higher than they presently are. The attached graph massively prejudices the very most recent era in terms of scale. If the scale were equal back to the Cambrian, the overall picture would be extremely clear: the earth has been on average FAR hotter than it is at present, and far in excess of the +4 degrees celsius that this dweeb asserts as fact would render ALL coral reefs TOAST.

You see, it is this kind of exaggeration which is so unhelpful and irritating. Why is it done? Really. When I watch nonsense like this I find myself far more sympathetic to the skeptics and the StuM camp, and I wonder why Lake Effect didn't pick up on this obvious piece of BS?

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

You know it, the big bang, actually is the granddaddy of climate change.

I'm weak in string theory math, Not really sure string theory is valid, but I'm fair at visualization.

Visualization will serve you poorly in understanding string theory.

[SV THIRD DAY]

It's obvious BS to us....but remember we have not bought into the Church of Scientology...or the Cult of MMGW. Once you are in....you have to be all in. Which means never admitting a flaw, a question, or a weak link in the MMGW talking point for the heritics or deniers to use against you.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

Well this presentationally challenged dude did just say "at +4 degrees celsius coral reefs are basically toast.

Yet surface temperatures on the GBR currently range from a low of 14C to a high of 32C. Corals can currently be found growing in water temperatures ranging from 18 to 40 degrees C and they thrive in water between 23 and 29 degrees.

Not only that but they grow anywhere from the surface down to about 50 meters below sea level.

[StuM]

And of course, a 4 degree increase in atmospheric temperature doesn't mean a 4 degree increase in ocean temperature.

You need to consider the different thermal capacity of the oceans and the atmosphere.

As a frinstance (ignoring the dubious attribution of 100% to "human activities that emit..." and questionable magnitude of the rise in temperature):

"Global warming caused by human activities that emit heat-trapping carbon dioxide has raised the average global temperature by about 1°F (0.6°C) over the past century. In the oceans, this change has only been about 0.18°F (0.1°C). This warming has occurred from the surface to a depth of about 2,300 feet (700 meters), where most marine life thrives."

So it seems by the alarmists own figures that ocean temperature change is only about 1/6th that of the atmosphere.

IOW, for a 4 degree atmospheric temperature rise, we are looking at about 2/3rds of a degree increase in ocean temperature. And this is basically going to make coral toast?

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Not a thing in there is accurate. No-one (credible) is saying that AGW will destroy us all, and we don't have to revert to the middle-ages to make a difference. Where are you getting all this dystopian nightmare stuff from?

I immediately thought of your question when I came across this site:

A degree by degree explanation of what will happen when the earth warms

Read it and weep for humanity

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by StuM

And of course, a 4 degree increase in atmospheric temperature doesn't mean a 4 degree increase in ocean temperature.

You need to consider the different thermal capacity of the oceans and the atmosphere.

As a frinstance (ignoring the dubious attribution of 100% to "human activities that emit..." and questionable magnitude of the rise in temperature):

"Global warming caused by human activities that emit heat-trapping carbon dioxide has raised the average global temperature by about 1°F (0.6°C) over the past century. In the oceans, this change has only been about 0.18°F (0.1°C). This warming has occurred from the surface to a depth of about 2,300 feet (700 meters), where most marine life thrives."

So it seems by the alarmists own figures that ocean temperature change is only about 1/6th that of the atmosphere.

IOW, for a 4 degree atmospheric temperature rise, we are looking at about 2/3rds of a degree increase in ocean temperature. And this is basically going to make coral toast?

Yes. I do find this highly suspect. Look I do think it is reasonable and wise to diversify in terms of energy use. As said previously, I think it is a remarkable achievement that our species has managed to be so sensitive to fairly minor changes in the atmosphere caused by our collective activities (emissions wise) and it is to be commended that we are attempting to develop technologies which reduce our dependence upon an (ultimately) limited resource. I just do not buy the doomsayers extreme points of view and indeed I have noticed very many extreme alarmist statements suggesting that GW will be absolutely devastating, and completely ignoring its more nuanced, and in some case beneficial (yes for the whole biosphere) effects. And do I think this is deliberate? Well yes, I do. I remember extremely clearly an early interview with a climatologist and proponent of concern over AGW on BBC Radio 4 around 13 years ago, who was asked by the interviewer about the fact that the models predicted increased rainfall in desert regions such as the Sahara, and he answered: "Well yes but we don't like to talk about that as it sends the wrong message." Scientists should remain scientists, and not attempt to be politicians and manipulators of opinion!

The suggestion in the video you posted was very clear: that a 4 degree rise in (presumably atmospheric) temperature would destroy all coral reefs, and this is simply a lie. The simple matter of fact is that coral reefs flourish in warm, shallow seas, in atmospheres exhibiting high CO2, which will be a direct consequence of flooding of low lying land areas (witness the entire freaking Great Barrier Reef system!) and we don't need computer models to predict this, as the experiment has been done, by this Earth that we are living on, for over 400 million years!

One of my main concerns here is all this loudness and in some cases extremism, while there are real and immediate environmental catastrophes all around us remaining unadressed by comparison, amounts to a certain extent to crying wolf in one field, while a troupe of bears quietly devours the flock in another field. I feel it is not helpful to make such extreme and frankly often absurd claims, and may well backfire, indeed can already be seen to be doing so in some quarters.