Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Most peer researched papers are full of "if", "predicted", "could" and other terms indicating uncertainties that just about always gets converted to the much more dire "is" and "will" in the media feeding this stuff to the gullible. In simple terms that turns it into propaganda; A lie propagated to the general populace.

By the sounds of that, your beef is with the medias interpretation of science, not the science itself.

Wow! something we can agree on

Don't believe what you read in the papers.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Are we reaching a positive climate change tipping point? | The Guardian

That's all very lovely, and something I support except, perhaps, for wind generators cutting down swathes of our feathered friends, but that's another story. Unfortunately it's still a drop in the bucket and, for many countries, an impractical solution as their base load requirement cannot be met by wind and solar renewable energy alone until some wonderful new low cost high capacity electricity storage device is invented. Geothermal would be great, but not available to all and I'm guessing could be extremely costly and sooner or later the ACC (Anthropogenic Core Cooling) supporters would rise to the fore (joking!)

Now if only all the nations of the world could join hands and just get along then electricity supplied entirely by renewable sources world wide would well and truly be on the table as a legitimate solution to one component of the problem.

At the end of the day, and well into the future, this might be the go:Dyson sphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by conachair

By the sounds of that, your beef is with the medias interpretation of science, not the science itself.

Wow! something we can agree on

Don't believe what you read in the papers.

That was indeed my original complaint, although plenty of dodgy science exists on both sides of the divide, imo.

[Dsanduril]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

That's all very lovely, and something I support except, perhaps, for wind generators cutting down swathes of our feathered friends, but that's another story. ...

That is another story, and one with as much BS as the global warming debate. The cars, cell phone towers, and power lines we all take for granted (not to mention our cats) kill orders of magnitudes more birds than windmills.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

That's all very lovely, and something I support except, perhaps, for wind generators cutting down swathes of our feathered friends, but that's another story. Unfortunately it's still a drop in the bucket and, for many countries, an impractical solution as their base load requirement cannot be met by wind and solar renewable energy alone until some wonderful new low cost high capacity electricity storage device is invented. Geothermal would be great, but not available to all and I'm guessing could be extremely costly and sooner or later the ACC (Anthropogenic Core Cooling) supporters would rise to the fore (joking!)

Now if only all the nations of the world could join hands and just get along then electricity supplied entirely by renewable sources world wide would well and truly be on the table as a legitimate solution to one component of the problem.

At the end of the day, and well into the future, this might be the go:Dyson sphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The point I was hoping to make by posting this article was that while you and a few other like-minded folk are sneering about even the possibility of serious AGW, major industries, and even whole countries, feel that the scientific evidence is strong enough to put their money where their mouth is. Just saying...

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

The point I was hoping to make by posting this article was that while you and a few other like-minded folk are sneering about even the possibility of serious AGW, major industries, and even whole countries, feel that the scientific evidence is strong enough to put their money where their mouth is. Just saying...

I already said I support it. It's still a drop in the bucket. From memory, i think the projected renewable savings in the US alone by 2025 are around 200 mega tonnes of CO2 vs the present day 29 giga tonnes anthropogenic and 750 giga tonnes natural values quoted by skepticalscience.

200 million tons saved is a very good thing, I could even guestimate wildly that it may scale to 2 giga tons of annual reduction worldwide, but by anyone's measures insufficient if the worst case or even "best estimate" and "business as usual" scenarios are to be believed.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Dsanduril

That is another story, and one with as much BS as the global warming debate. The cars, cell phone towers, and power lines we all take for granted (not to mention our cats) kill orders of magnitudes more birds than windmills.

Same could be said for anthropogenic vs natural CO2 emission ratios yet look how that one is panning out.

[Tensen]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

CO2 isn't a pollutant, it's a natural result of biological respiration.
Don't believe me....ask your Science Book.

We produce formaldehyde in our bodies, but that doesn't stop it being a dangerous toxin.

You don't have to convince me....you have to convince the American Voter, who so far thinks the MMGW Cultists are crazy.

Someone already posted this helpful graphic on this topic.

[Tensen]

Originally Posted by Eumelia

Just sayin'...I have no agenda here, just contributing to the dialogue.

!!

That's the first laugh I've had in this thread!

[Tensen]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Well, feel free to show us the disasters. If you want people to return the the stone age in order to return to your 1880's climate, ya gunna need an ironclad case, good sir.

You don't dispute that the NW passage is opening up more than it used to, surely? That's one effect, and there are many others.
Bangladesh is seeing extreme flooding. The Gobi is expanding. The Siberian permafrost is melting.

No-one is in any way suggesting we go backwards. Quite the opposite: advanced technology is a great weapon against climate change. Combustion engines and fossil fuel electricity are OLD.

[Tensen]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

That's all very lovely, and something I support except, perhaps, for wind generators cutting down swathes of our feathered friends, but that's another story. Unfortunately it's still a drop in the bucket and, for many countries, an impractical solution as their base load requirement cannot be met by wind and solar renewable energy alone until some wonderful new low cost high capacity electricity storage device is invented.

Denmark sourced 39% of its electricity from wind last year. Wind has far more potential than you give it credit for.

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Same could be said for anthropogenic vs natural CO2 emission ratios yet look how that one is panning out.

No it couldn't. Natural emission are irrelevant - the planet naturally sinks as much as it sources. It's the extra we add on top that can't be handled at this temperature that causes the problem.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Tensen

You don't dispute that the NW passage is opening up more than it used to, surely? That's one effect, and there are many others.
Bangladesh is seeing extreme flooding. The Gobi is expanding. The Siberian permafrost is melting.

None of the above is a really an unwinding disaster per se except flooding in Bangladesh. Bangladesh is probably the most sensitive country of them all to climate change due to rainfall patterns and sea level rise because of it's geographic location. And that's before even seismic activity and perhaps even land subsidence is thrown into the ring.

From:
Bangledesh Disaster Knowledge Network

Floods are the most significant natural hazard in the country causing extensive damage to human life and property. The country lies on the downstream part of three major river basins: Brahmaputra, Ganges and Meghna and thus is frequently flooded. There have been many destructive floods in Bangladesh, including very severe floods of 1987, 1988 and 1998. The 1988 flood set a new record for flooded area, while 1998 flood was unprecedented with its long duration. The flood damage potential in Bangladesh is increasing due to the possible causes of climate change, urban concentration in the three river basins, encroaching of settlements into flood prone areas, and overreliance on the safety provided by flood control works such as levees, reservoirs. There are two types of floods which occur in Bangladesh: annual floods (barsha) that inundate up to 20% of the land area; and low frequency floods of high magnitude that inundate more than 35% of the area (bonna). The major floods that occurred in 1954, 1955, 1974, 1984, 1987, 1988, 1993, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2007 have been very destructive and caused serious threat to lives and economy. In the context of human exposure in flood hazard zones, nearly 19,279,960 people are present in these zones and Bangladesh ranks 1st among 162 nations. Similarly, the modeled amount of GDP in seismically hazardous zones puts Bangladesh 3rd among 162 countries.

It's hard to see a pattern consistent with climate change although I can understand that some may interpret 3 consecutive floods at the end of the 20th century as some indication although - after reviewing the information on the linked website - it's really not possible to make that same conclusion from the data presented.

No-one is in any way suggesting we go backwards. Quite the opposite: advanced technology is a great weapon against climate change. Combustion engines and fossil fuel electricity are OLD.

Agreed. there's no reason not to assume that the technology of the 2215 will compare to now as now does to 1915 technology.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Tensen

Denmark sourced 39% of its electricity from wind last year. Wind has far more potential than you give it credit for.

Well I was guestimating on numbers, but you need to read up the principles of poly-phase power generation, transmission and distribution. It can be done, but the renewable resource needs to be reliable to a certain degree and in many parts of the world it is not, with the exception of geothermal.

No it couldn't. Natural emission are irrelevant - the planet naturally sinks as much as it sources. It's the extra we add on top that can't be handled at this temperature that causes the problem.

The ocean cannot hold as much CO2 in saturation as it warms and this causes it to emit more then it sequestrates if global temperatures rise with the opposite happening if it's cooling. This is a main component of the theory on what leads to the "800 year lag" observed in many ice core records.

[Tensen]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

It's hard to see a pattern consistent with climate change although I can understand that some may interpret 3 consecutive floods at the end of the 20th century as some indication although - after reviewing the information on the linked website - it's really not possible to make that same conclusion from the data presented.

You can read the effects of climate change on flooding in Bangladesh here at your leisure:
Global warming and changes in the probability of occurrence of floods in Bangladesh and implications
Socioeconomic Vulnerability and Adaptation to Environmental Risk: A Case Study of Climate Change and Flooding in Bangladesh - Brouwer - 2007 - Risk Analysis - Wiley Online Library
http://s3.documentcloud.org/document...-oecd-2003.pdf

Agreed. there's no reason not to assume that the technology of the 2215 will compare to now as now does to 1915 technology.

We already have the capable technology.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Tensen

You can read the effects of climate change on flooding in Bangladesh here at your leisure:
Global warming and changes in the probability of occurrence of floods in Bangladesh and implications
Socioeconomic Vulnerability and Adaptation to Environmental Risk: A Case Study of Climate Change and Flooding in Bangladesh - Brouwer - 2007 - Risk Analysis - Wiley Online Library
http://s3.documentcloud.org/document...-oecd-2003.pdf

I'll rely on my references to actual data for my opinion, not assumptions thanks. If you bother to look at the actual data you will see, for example that the 2007 floods were the result of a catastrophic cyclone.

We already have the capable technology.

And you drive a........?