Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[TurninTurtle]

They were predicting we'd be out of oil by 1990 in 1975.

Now we have an estimated 100 years supply of oil for the whole planet under Texas....

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

..and there you have it. Warmist pedantic's, along with the odd ad-hominem thrown in for good measure

No response to the fact that they had to quantify the thermal expansion of the 700-2000m level to perform their calculation?

Perhaps it will be clearer if you read the paper the NASA press release describes.

Argo can be used to estimate warming in different layers of the upper ocean, as shown in Fig. 2. For example, the green and blue curves are for the 0–700 m and 700–2,000 m layers, respectively. The choice of 0–700 m in the upper layer reflects historical changes in sampling by in situ observations. Interannual variability in the upper 700m layer is large, and in fact accounts for 85% of the fractional variance of the entire 0–2,000 m layer variations. Thus, changes in the upper layer explain most of the interannual variability of net steric mean sea-level fluctuations. As for the linear trend, the upper 700 m layer accounts for 58% of the 0–2,000 m layer change, with a linear trend of 0.53 ± 0.13 mm yr−1 indicating a significant rise during this period. The 700–2,000 m depth layer shows a near- linear increase with a rate of 0.38 ± 0.05 mm yr−1 , and has smaller interannual variability than the top layer.

To be clear: this states that 42% of the expansion (a measure of additional heat content) occurred in the 700-2000m layer.

DON'T BE AFRAID. THIS ISN'T A RICKROLL. THIS IS THE NASA PAPER.
https://e-nautia.com/clubargon/disk/...e%20Change.pdf

Or, to be even clearer: both papers show significant warming below 700m.

Perhaps you think that newhaul was trying to trick you by posting an article describing the paper rather than the actual paper. If so, good one newhaul.

Also, I think you may be confused about what "ad-homimen" means. A good example of ad-hominem is when someone says something like "and there you have it. Warmist pedantic's, along with the odd ad-hominem thrown in for good measure", rather than actually respond to the argument being made by the other person.

Here is a helpful wikipedia article that should help you understand:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

[TurninTurtle]

Still waiting for Broadway in New York City to be used for boat races.

Where's that 25 ft increase in sea level that was being predicted "within 10 years" by the MMGW alarmists 15 years ago?

[Christian Ho]

Originally Posted by TurninTurtle

Still waiting for Broadway in New York City to be used for boat races.

Where's that 25 ft increase in sea level that was being predicted "within 10 years" by the MMGW alarmists 15 years ago?

I live behind a mountain, around 150 meters over sea level and 17 km away from the coast. Our black humor is about an add to place:
Selling apartment with perfect sea views (in 10 years time)

All the best to you, your Christian Ho

[Christian Ho]

Hello Everybody,
as a newcomer, what I really was planning to do, was posting my first thread. As I went through this forum and read this topic, I decided that it fits so perfectly, I will have to answer here:

What is going on?

Whilst poles are melting on all sides, typical February weather is spoiling our May. It started last Saturday (6 days) and before next weekend there is no improvement in sight. Yesterday it actually became so dark during the normally bright sunny day, that at home we needed to switch on the lights in order to be able to see something. But see for yourself what is going on around here:
https://youtu.be/pAGvTZfN288
Totally unusual for this time of year and don’t forget, it’s called “Costa del Sol” (The coast of the sun)
The gods are angry and Poseidon smiles wisely!
Perhaps it wasn’t at all the best idea to start all this business with the combustion engine approximately 150 years ago. Who knows?

Anyhow, all the best to you, your Christian Ho

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by mr_f

No response to the fact that they had to quantify the thermal expansion of the 700-2000m level to perform their calculation?

Perhaps it will be clearer if you read the paper the NASA press release describes.



To be clear: this states that 42% of the expansion (a measure of additional heat content) occurred in the 700-2000m layer.

DON'T BE AFRAID. THIS ISN'T A RICKROLL. THIS IS THE NASA PAPER.
https://e-nautia.com/clubargon/disk/...e%20Change.pdf

Or, to be even clearer: both papers show significant warming below 700m.

Perhaps you think that newhaul was trying to trick you by posting an article describing the paper rather than the actual paper. If so, good one newhaul.

Also, I think you may be confused about what "ad-homimen" means. A good example of ad-hominem is when someone says something like "and there you have it. Warmist pedantic's, along with the odd ad-hominem thrown in for good measure", rather than actually respond to the argument being made by the other person.

Here is a helpful wikipedia article that should help you understand:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

I rest my case.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[newhaul]

Dang I didn't expect 3 pages of banter about the difference between the layars of the ocean.
For simplicity here it is
From 0 to 700 meters is considers upper ocean
From 701. To 1999 meters is considered mid ocean
From 2000 meters to the bottom is considered deep ocean.
BTW this was in the NASA paper and synoposis I linked to.

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I rest my case.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

You made a case?

I am still waiting on a response to the fact that the NASA paper says there was significant warming below 700m.

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Dang I didn't expect 3 pages of banter about the difference between the layars of the ocean.
For simplicity here it is
From 0 to 700 meters is considers upper ocean
From 701. To 1999 meters is considered mid ocean
From 2000 meters to the bottom is considered deep ocean.
BTW this was in the NASA paper and synoposis I linked to.

Well, to be fair, the NASA press release acknowledges (as I quoted) that some studies have referred to warming in the deep ocean while referring to depths below 700m. That is why I have tried to be careful to specify the depths I was referring to when I responded. Stating the depth is always clearer than using "deep" or "mid".

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by mr_f

Huh?!? Honestly, are you experiencing numbness in your extremities? In all seriousness, I think you may be having a stroke.

Originally Posted by mr_f

Also, I think you may be confused about what "ad-homimen" means. A good example of ad-hominem is when someone says something like "and there you have it. Warmist pedantic's, along with the odd ad-hominem thrown in for good measure", rather than actually respond to the argument being made by the other person.

Here is a helpful wikipedia article that should help you understand:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Originally Posted by mr_f

You made a case?

Yes.


Sent from my SM-G900I using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Yes.


Sent from my SM-G900I using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

So still no response to the actual argument at hand? Just some slight about my tone?

Isn't that the definition of ad-hominem? Attacking character rather than addressing the argument? Have you read the wiki article yet?

Did the NASA article show significant warming below 700m?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by mr_f

Well, to be fair, the NASA press release acknowledges (as I quoted) that some studies have referred to warming in the deep ocean while referring to depths below 700m. That is why I have tried to be careful to specify the depths I was referring to when I responded. Stating the depth is always clearer than using "deep" or "mid".

I know and I did see that you were being quite specific but there were so many posts that argued the specifics . I felt compelled to post the definition of the various levels of t ocean depths.

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I know and I did see that you were being quite specific but there were so many posts that argued the specifics . I felt compelled to post the definition of the various levels of t ocean depths.

Fair enough.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Sooner or later, global warming or no global warming, fossil fuel industry workers the world over are going to lose their jobs -- simply because what they are extracting is finite.

But transmitterdan is correct, if we transition to other energy sources, old-energy workers will either have learn new skills or go hungry. In the US coal mines are closing left and right, with even big coal companies going bankrupt. This is happening in part because cheap natural gas is out-pricing coal, but also because of the heighten awareness of the extreme amount of CO2 produced by coal.

The amount of fossil fuel still in the ground vastly exceeds the amount we have extracted to date. Depending on what criteria one uses there is between 200-500 years worth of fossil fuel yet to be extracted. The notion of "peak oil" has been debunked several times over.

The simple truth is that matter is neither created nor destroyed. It just changes form. So the hydrogen and carbon we take out of the earth eventually must return to be recycled. Granted that it takes millions of years for nature to do it on its own. But there is nothing that says humans could not find a way to make it happen faster and thus create an endless supply. All it takes is some ingenuity, solar energy, pressure and time. So in effect oil and coal can be thought of as nature's solar batteries.

The whole point of this thread is that there are solutions that we haven't thought through. Or we have but haven't spent enough time and resources to make them workable. I'm all for having those discussions because i believe that is where the solutions will be found. Arguing about whether or not the ocean can/does store heat (it can store a helluva lot) is senseless to me.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by mr_f

So still no response to the actual argument at hand? Just some slight about my tone?

Isn't that the definition of ad-hominem? Attacking character rather than addressing the argument? Have you read the wiki article yet?

Did the NASA article show significant warming below 700m?

No, ad-hominem involves falsely attacking someone's character because you don't agree with their point of view. That would be like me saying to you that I'm not going to argue with an idiot because it'll just drag me down to your level. But I'd never say that.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app