Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

In my world, it's still ok to publish stuff, even if I don't agree with it (though I might say something ). Sorry about yours.

Unless it's "misinformation" from ExxonMobil. Then you can sue.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

In my world, it's still ok to publish stuff, even if I don't agree with it (though I might say something ). Sorry about yours.

and... yeah. About that hockeystick...

ROTFLMAO.

As soon as I saw "argues Stephan Lewandowsky ", I knew what was coming.

Are you for real?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Well exile me thinks a nerve was struck and the Arctic sea ice keeps forming

Well, maybe Mother Nature felt the need to remind some of those climate scientists who really was in charge?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by StuM

ROTFLMAO.

As soon as I saw "argues Stephan Lewandowsky ", I knew what was coming.

Are you for real?

Wow, here's his Wiki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephan_Lewandowsky. Partnered up with none other than John Cook at one point. You can read about him, or just realize that, as a psychologist, he's of the opinion that anybody who questions the establishment position must have some sort of mental illness. Sounds rather Orwellian, no?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

Well, maybe Mother Nature felt the need to remind some of those climate scientists who really was in charge?

Amen to that
BTW increases in km3 of sea ice will cause an increase of ideal levels ( again think displacement)

[Simonsays]

this thread is degrading rapidly.
i've found nothing worthwhile to read over the past 3 pages.

GISS just released their data for 2015 http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...LB.Ts+dSST.txt indicating a rise of +0.14°C for 2015, tieing as highest with the rise of 1998.
their calculated trend shows the threshold of +2.0°C reached by as early as 2050 which for some here may or may not be still in their lifetime ,)

Originally Posted by Kenomac

OK, Let's assume now that the temperature IS going to increase and the seas WILL rise up a an enormous 8 inches over the next 100 years... Who cares?

there may be a problem that at a certain temperature level the continental iceshelfs are effected (Greenland and Antarctic) which may be the reason that climate change may do matter in 20 years because than it won't be 8'/100yr

Originally Posted by newhaul

Amen to that
BTW increases in km3 of sea ice will cause an increase of ideal levels ( again think displacement)

now that is some physics..
what is the volume difference between 1qm Seawater liquid vs frozen?
or do you want to add the icevolume flat on?

flame away.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Simonsays

this thread is degrading rapidly.
i've found nothing worthwhile to read over the past 3 pages.

Some of the alarmists seem to have fallen by the wayside.

GISS just released their data for 2015 http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...LB.Ts+dSST.txt indicating a rise of +0.14°C for 2015, tieing as highest with the rise of 1998.
their calculated trend shows the threshold of +2.0°C reached by as early as 2050 which for some here may or may not be still in their lifetime ,)

El-nino 1998, el-nino 2015. I wouldn't be surprised if that's more than a coincidence.

there may be a problem that at a certain temperature level the continental iceshelfs are effected (Greenland and Antarctic) which may turn those inches into some insignificantly larger unit in less than 100 years.

No, that's impossible (Hollywood physics excluded).

now that is some physics..
what is the volume difference between 1qm Seawater liquid vs frozen?

Which prompts me to ask why the kerfuffle when the sea ice extent decreases then?? Is it a case of less sea ice - bad, more sea ice - nada?

flame away.

That could contribute to current warming

[Simonsays]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

No, that's impossible (Hollywood physics excluded).

actualy that is what that 2.0°C threshold is all about, all those politicians outlawed earth to go above this century.
at that level the continental iceshelfs will be effected.
Edit: there are models showing this already happening at +1.5°C which will be reached by 2030 according to GISS. i currently plan to still be around by than.

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Which prompts me to ask why the kerfuffle when the sea ice extent decreases then?? Is it a case of less sea ice - bad, more sea ice - nada?

reflection vs absorption. the less ice covered water the more sunlight is absorbed (=more heat). thats why extent is the interesting measure, not volume.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Simonsays

actualy that is what that 2.0°C threshold is all about, all those politicians outlawed earth to go above this century.
at that level the continental iceshelfs will be effected.
Edit: there are models showing this already happening at +1.5°C which will be reached by 2030 according to GISS. i currently plan to still be around by than.



reflection vs absorption. the less ice covered water the more sunlight is absorbed (=more heat). thats why extent is the interesting measure, not volume.

Well I guess the earth will just have to obey those politicians then.

If you had read the previous 3 pages you would have noticed my post that stated that if we reduced per capita carbon emissions to 1890 levels, we'd still be pumping the equivalent of 1950's levels into the air. No magic to arrive at that conclusion, just some basic maths. The end result is co2 ppm will only ever go on increasing. I actually think those levels are too conservative and the best we can achieve will be 1930's per capita levels leaving us with emissions at previous 1970's to 1980's values, which by my rough guess is annual co2 ppm increases of around the 1.5 mark.

So, we are screwed regardless. Either need to become a prepper or accept we and the world in general will adapt. Of course mankind has already irrevocably altered the planet, but he didn't rely on climate change to achieve that.


Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Simonsays]

i planted a tree when i was a kid.
my CO2 balance should be even.
unless someone pulled that tree out while i was away the last 30 years...
hmm....

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Simonsays

this thread is degrading rapidly.
i've found nothing worthwhile to read over the past 3 pages.

GISS just released their data for 2015 http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...LB.Ts+dSST.txt indicating a rise of +0.14°C for 2015, tieing as highest with the rise of 1998.
their calculated trend shows the threshold of +2.0°C reached by as early as 2050 which for some here may or may not be still in their lifetime ,)

I've been waiting for this from you guys.. We knew it was coming months ago from Schmidt and Carl's adjustments.

What do HardCrut, RSS and UAH say?

[Simonsays]

Originally Posted by StuM

I've been waiting for this from you guys..

Pluralis Majestatis? i am flattered.

Edit: actualy i am not. i am not working for GISS, i just found their release for last year and thought it would be interesting to this discussion.
how come you blame me for GISS releasing their data, Stu?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Simonsays

this thread is degrading rapidly.
i've found nothing worthwhile to read over the past 3 pages.


now that is some physics..
what is the volume difference between 1qm Seawater liquid vs frozen?
or do you want to add the icevolume flat on?

flame away.

Well let's see what causes sea ice to get thicker? Nope not freezing from the bottom up. Actually a good portion of thickening is just the same as on the land ice sheets. Yep you guessed it compacted snow on top. Which means what? Yep you seem to be getting the idea. More weight to the ice. Which means more displacement. Simple physics.
Flame off.

[Lake-Effect]

There's more accountability in government than in the private sector. For starters, the fact that you can find out the salary and other info of senior people in the public sector, the fact that they must respond to FOIA. Try finding out all the funding behind Heartland or similar 'institutes'. Try getting their emails and files.

Also, let's analyze a bit: if the financials around Shukli are proven, you have a guy who's enriched himself and his family to the tune of a few millions, over several years. ($750k/yr - that's just a bit above median salary on Wall St, isn't it?). With no proof yet that he's fudged any of the science, or how bending scientific results enabled any of the double-dipping. Now take a fossil-fuel company, and if they can block action on AGW, they've protected BILLIONS in profit. Tell me again who's more motivated to twist the truth.

Respectfully, if you find yourself hating your government, elect a different one. Change it.

Originally Posted by Exile

ExxonMobil could be sued if there was evidence that they had proof that MMGW exists, further proof that it would cause the type of catastrophic damage to the human race that you & others so fear, and that they deliberately withheld or manipulated this proof to deceive the govt. & the public. Oh, and you'd also have to prove that their deception caused somebody some harm.

Yes. That's the idea. But really, I don't think that either of us actually expect that the government would go along with the suit idea, or bother to sue Exxon and friends, unless there was a small stack of smoking guns. Looking out for one's own interests is not necessarily wrong or illegal.

Leaving the safe haven of partisanship for just a moment... if I was a climate change skeptic, I too would be troubled by the discovery of possible misbehaviour on the level of Shukli or Alonghi. And I might be put off by the zeal and/or hype coming from Gore, Hansen, and various and sundry advocates. BUT, looking past that... if there was indeed a serious problem with the science... wouldn't you expect a big groundswell of climate scientists coming out to confirm this? Especially when there is significant public sentiment that is skeptical or anti-AGW, providing a fairly safe environment to come out into?

Instead of such revelations, there's only this cottage industry of anti-AGW mythmaking, focussing on a small handful of individuals who have been elevated to Roman gods of evil, whose misdeeds, real or unproven, are obsessed over. And authors, websites and media outlets have all been classified as anti- or pro-, so it's easier to dismiss anything they say or do, (Stu: As soon as I saw "argues Stephan Lewandowsky ", I knew what was coming.) with no examination of the info.

So... yes, finding some bad apples - troubling. But it's going on...10? years for the "hockey stick", and none of the accusations have stuck to Mann? No serious error proven, and the science is moving forward anyway. Some things (Mann, 'Climategate') ... you just need to move on.

There are a few prominent and honourable scientists, in and outside of the climate field, who are skeptics. I see this. If their positions were scientifically valid, and not just opinions, where's the masses of free-thinking climate scientists rallying round their flag, glad to be free of the yoke of conformity and "consensus"? Why has no ambitious CC skeptic scientist led a significant numbers of fellow scientists to challenge the consensus, if it's actually wrong?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Simonsays

this thread is degrading rapidly.
i've found nothing worthwhile to read over the past 3 pages.

GISS just released their data for 2015 http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...LB.Ts+dSST.txt indicating a rise of +0.14°C for 2015, tieing as highest with the rise of 1998.
their calculated trend shows the threshold of +2.0°C reached by as early as 2050

The temperatures are artificially inflated due to manysensor stations being now located in heat islands . IMO