Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[transmitterdan]

Most business owners have a grasp on reality that many of the MMGW "do something else we're all going to die" proponents do not. And if/when real problems arise whether due to MMGW or natural events these same business owners will be the best equipped to devise economically viable solutions. It's what they do.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

[/I]How can we get closer to the actual science? Hole up in a university library for an afternoon to review the relevant journals? Subscribe to Lexis-Nexus?

I think another 5-10 years of study will help. One of my issues with the various climate models is they only count the sun as the heat input source. Geothermal is not counted. Even though geothermal / volcanic heating is causing at least some of ice melting in greenland and antarctic and parts of the pacific. Note that there is an estimated one million volcanoes along the tectonic plates in the oceans.

On the plus side there are more solar and wind power being installed every year. People are switching to LED lighting in homes. Added bonus, emissions in first world country are dropping. All a good thing, no mater what ones stance on climate change is.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

Y Do you also consider labeling a group of views with "hysteria" as being open minded? I'm just saying...carry on.

Hey I consider all viewpoints, except those from idiots

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Most business owners have a grasp on reality that many of the MMGW "do something else we're all going to die" proponents do not. And if/when real problems arise whether due to MMGW or natural events these same business owners will be the best equipped to devise economically viable solutions. It's what they do.

So you've done a study to establish that business owners have a grasp on reality? I'd like to see that.
So far in the 3200 post here I have yet to see someone post that "we're going to die".

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

Gee Rich...This must be a great advertising model for your business..

Better than you can imagine mi amigo...
We can barely keep up with orders so I must be doing something right.
In fact...the MMGW Cultists are my best clients...how else will they have cold beer and water for showers when the Climateapocloypse hits...ha ha ha

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

So far in the 3200 post here I have yet to see someone post that "we're going to die".

The more apocalyptic postings were between 1000-2000, you'll need to hunt for them yourself.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Better than you can imagine mi amigo...but thanks for your "concern"...
We can barely keep up with orders so I must be doing something right.

Are you looking for a Mediterranean distributor? I can also do New England 6 months per year.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Geothermal is not counted. Even though geothermal / volcanic heating is causing at least some of ice melting in greenland and antarctic and parts of the pacific. Note that there is an estimated one million volcanoes along the tectonic plates in the oceans.

Before making rash statements, please spend some time doing some research.

From the volcanologists at Oregon State:

Since we regularly get questions about this type of thing, I wanted to repost this excellent post from Erik Klemetti's blog 'Eruptions.'

"I recently read a post about how humans couldn't be to blame for the warming of the oceans.
The "logic" of their post was this:

We see water getting warmed by magma at volcanoes worldwide, like Taal andRuapehu.

The bottom of the ocean is covered in volcanoes, whether it be seamounts or the mid-ocean ridge system.

Volcanoes at the bottom of the ocean must heat up the ocean water (like in crater lakes), so humans aren't to blame.

There are a number of ways to attack this poor reasoning, but I'll try to go with the ones I think are most convincing.

This argument suggests that volcanic activity (not just volcanoes) on the ocean floor must be increasing over the last few hundred years. We see no evidence of this - and the author of the post only uses evidence that we have discovered more volcanoes (up to 3.4 million) on the seafloor.

The author claims "that 3,477,403 number, coming from two well-respected oceanographers, does reinforce my point rather nicely, namely, that underwater volcanoes are heating the seas." Sure, there might be a lot of volcanoes but he makes no mention of how many might be active enough to heat the ocean water. We can see at surface volcanoes that not all of them are erupting or puffing away simultaneously - why would undersea volcanoes be different? Additionally, of those 3.4 million 'volcanoes' he cites from a 2007 study, how many were considered active?

Finally, you would expect in this situation that ocean water would warm from the bottom (near the volcanoes) upwards, but it is actually the surface waters that are warming, not the deep ocean. This suggests that heating is coming from exchange with the atmosphere, not from some deep source on the ocean floor.

It is very easy to try to throw around some partially baked ideas about volcanism to try to explain the changing in the ocean temperature worldwide, but they would require extraordinary circumstances where ocean volcanic activity was increasing exactly when human carbon dioxide production was also increasing. Sorry, the subsurface volcanoes are no source for your ocean heating (and if I had the time, I'd calculate how much energy would take to heat all the oceans by 0.5C - it is bound to be more than you can get out of a few hundred thousand Ruapehus)."

On Deep Sea Volcanoes and Ocean Warming: Reprint | Volcano World | Oregon State University

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

So far in the 3200 post here I have yet to see someone post that "we're going to die".

SAY WHAT

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

SAY WHAT

Is your house up for sale? Getting ready to head south looking to take in some of the global warming later this year?

[fryewe]

...the climate continues to accumulate heat at a rate equivalent to 4 Hiroshima atomic bomb detonations per second.

Let's give this a quick check, and assume the water in the world's oceans absorb all that energy...

The yield of the Hiroshima bomb has been estimated at about 15-17 KT of TNT equivalent...
A kiloton of TNT contains 4.184 x 10 to the 12th joules of energy. Four bombs per sec is about 8.4 x 10 to the 21st joules in a year.

It takes 4.186 joules to raise the temp of one ml (gram) of water by 1 degree C.

So that energy could raise the temp of about 2 x 10 to the 21st grams of water by 1 degree C in a year.

How much water is in the world's oceans? NOAA says 321,000,000 cubic miles, which is about 1.32 x 10 to the 9th cubic km, or 1.32 x 10 to the 18th cubic meters, or 1.32 x 10 to the 24th cc (ml/gm).

So that energy is enough to raise the temp of the world's oceans by 1/640th of a degree a year.

OMG!!!

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Let's give this a quick check, and assume the water in the world's oceans absorb all that energy...

The yield of the Hiroshima bomb has been estimated at about 15-17 KT of TNT equivalent...
A kiloton of TNT contains 4.184 x 10 to the 12th joules of energy. Four bombs per sec is about 8.4 x 10 to the 21st joules in a year.

It takes 4.186 joules to raise the temp of one ml (gram) of water by 1 degree C.

So that energy could raise the temp of about 2 x 10 to the 21st grams of water by 1 degree C in a year.

How much water is in the world's oceans? NOAA says 321,000,000 cubic miles, which is about 1.32 x 10 to the 9th cubic km, or 1.32 x 10 to the 18th cubic meters, or 1.32 x 10 to the 24th cc (ml/gm).

So that energy is enough to raise the temp of the world's oceans by 1/640th of a degree a year.

OMG!!!

Better start running inland.

Like I've written many times, I think we can outrun/outsmart this thing.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by fryewe

So that energy is enough to raise the temp of the world's oceans by 1/640th of a degree a year.

OMG!!!

Isn't it fun to take one of the MMGW Cultists scare talking points and prove it to be a joke?

Great Job Fryewe...but beware, get ready for the attacks and hysteria.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Let's give this a quick check, and assume the water in the world's oceans absorb all that energy...

The yield of the Hiroshima bomb has been estimated at about 15-17 KT of TNT equivalent...
A kiloton of TNT contains 4.184 x 10 to the 12th joules of energy. Four bombs per sec is about 8.4 x 10 to the 21st joules in a year.

It takes 4.186 joules to raise the temp of one ml (gram) of water by 1 degree C.

So that energy could raise the temp of about 2 x 10 to the 21st grams of water by 1 degree C in a year.

How much water is in the world's oceans? NOAA says 321,000,000 cubic miles, which is about 1.32 x 10 to the 9th cubic km, or 1.32 x 10 to the 18th cubic meters, or 1.32 x 10 to the 24th cc (ml/gm).

So that energy is enough to raise the temp of the world's oceans by 1/640th of a degree a year.

OMG!!!

Always nice to have someone around who can do the actual math. Unlike the people who produce the skepticalscience.com website apparently. Even if the math was closer to what they wanted to show, what is possibly gained by analogizing to the Hiroshima bombs except pure alarmism? Or maybe I should also join in and call it "hysteria?"

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Is your house up for sale? Getting ready to head south looking to take in some of the global warming later this year?

House isn't for sale yet. Still painting etc. for the new people.

I'm a little evil so I hope next winter here is freakin COLD! After all the world needs the help of the NE to help cool things off.