Melting ice cap could cause sea to rise by seven metres

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Global Warming in a Climate of Ignorance
15 February 2007
Global Warming in a Climate of Ignoranc
The hourglass shape is made visible in many beautiful planetary nebulae.



As for warming caused by mankind's production of so-called "greenhouse gases," Professor Nils-Axel Mörner wrote in a submission to the UK parliament on global warming, "The driving idea is that there is a linear relationship between CO2 increase in the atmosphere and global temperature. The fact, however, is that temperature has constantly gone up and down. From 1850 to 1970, we see an almost linear relationship with Solar variability; not CO2. For the last 30 years, our data sets are so contaminated by personal interpretations and personal choices that it is almost impossible to sort up the mess in reliable and unreliable data."
A final word about our place in the Universe. We live with the fable of Newton's clockwork solar system and the constancy of the Sun over past aeons. Scientists chart past climate and blithely assign periodicities to various warming and cooling episodes extending back millions of years into the past. All of the numbers and charts bestow the appearance of being in control of the facts. But it is mere wishful thinking. Here, science unconsciously takes on the mantle of religion—providing assurance in an uncertain universe.

Where does this powerful urge for certainty come from? Underlying the global warming debate is an unacknowledged fear—a subconscious, irrational fear of THE END OF THE WORLD. A few decades ago climate experts were warning us that we were facing another ice age. Now we are told that we face a catastrophe of global warming. All the while, there is a Greek chorus of scientists whipping up our innate fear of an apocalyptic cometary impact. All of these anxieties are irrational. We have no modern experience of them.

But there does seem to be an archetypal memory of doomsday. Fossil strata record several of them. Ancient myths and legends describe one or more at the dawn of civilization. The Earth sciences will remain hamstrung for as long as it takes to understand that we live in an electric universe and the solar system we see today is not as old as the human race. Meanwhile, human behavior will continue to be irrational until we understand our true history and place in an electric and sometimes catastrophic universe.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
23,221
8,059
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
And you think that's insignificant Ron? Consider that satellite measured irradience from the sun is 1366 watts per square meter or so. Mulitply that by man's effect from this figure, and that gives you 3.8 watts per square meter, which is a little bit higher than the figure the IPCC gives us for human contribution, at about 1.5 watts. Keep in mind my calculation doesn't account for feedbacks, which all told get's you from that 3.8 watts down to the range from the IPCC.

:idea:

....and?

Tonington, in an argument over Climate Change, for all intents and purposes,
I'm coming into a gunfight with you but bringing a rubber knife. I have a couple
of questions though. 8O


For arguments sake, can you (or anyone else) definitely prove whether or not
the human contribution of 0.28% of the Greenhouse Gases are significant or
not???

For arguments sake, can you (or anyone else) definitely prove whether or not
the majority of scientists (Climatologists, Paleoclimatologists, Physicists,
Astronomers, etc...) agree that Humans are pushing Global Warming (or is it
Cooling; or is it Climate Change now?) beyond what it would change anyway,
in any significant way???


The IPCC (as I understand it) deals with attempting to determine what has
affected the rise in temperatures in the last half of the 20th century to try and
predict what changes can be made to stabilize Global climate change, and then
offer guidance to others (organizations, countries, etc...) in setting policy. The
last half of the 20th century is one small blip in the radar on the temperature
fairly steadily rising over the last eighteen thousand years though. Am I correctly
understanding the role of the IPCC???
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
....and?

Tonington, in an argument over Climate Change, for all intents and purposes,
I'm coming into a gunfight with you but bringing a rubber knife.

Oh don't sell yourself short. ;-)

Tonkahead is using an attack method popular amongst the pseudo educated called the tyranny of numbers. It is where someone spews out numbers to look impressive, basically It's a bluff. You overwhelm your opponent with superfluous information that you know will baffle or, in the very least, take a long time to get through. It's dazzeling BS.

If Tonkahead had a point he could just say it.

His calculations.... lol... whatever :roll:
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63

You posted a figure that's meant to draw attention to how small the anthropogenic signal is. Well, it is small. So what? If you add a spoonful of water to an empty glass, it's not very much. But if you keep adding spoonfuls eventually it spills over.

That figure you posted is not remarkable. There are lots of "big" processes that are driven by small quantities. Biochemistry is chock full of examples. Ecology is full of examples. Physics is full of these examples.


For arguments sake, can you (or anyone else) definitely prove whether or not the human contribution of 0.28% of the Greenhouse Gases are significant or
not???

Yes. Removing just one trace gas, carbon dioxide, will reduce the net long wave absorption at the top of the atmosphere (where the radiative balance is most important) by 14%, which works out to be about 30 watts per square meter. For a nice comparison, the change from summer to winter in the angle of inclination of incoming sunlight due to earth's axial tilt produces a change in forcing of about 90 watts per square meter(What's the range between summer and winter temperatures in Saskatchewan?) We've increased the concentration of that trace gas by about 35%.

I'm not sure how much statistics you know, but the above is fine for those without knowledge of statistical significance.

For arguments sake, can you (or anyone else) definitely prove whether or not
the majority of scientists (Climatologists, Paleoclimatologists, Physicists,
Astronomers, etc...) agree that Humans are pushing Global Warming (or is it
Cooling; or is it Climate Change now?) beyond what it would change anyway,
in any significant way???

Well, despite what you may have heard, consensus is meaningless. Anyone can round up names to put on a list. That's not important. What is important is what a scientist contributes in the way of their published work, and in that respect, the literature is very rich with regards to evidence of human induced global warming.

The IPCC (as I understand it) deals with attempting to determine what has
affected the rise in temperatures in the last half of the 20th century to try and
predict what changes can be made to stabilize Global climate change, and then
offer guidance to others (organizations, countries, etc...) in setting policy. The
last half of the 20th century is one small blip in the radar on the temperature
fairly steadily rising over the last eighteen thousand years though. Am I correctly
understanding the role of the IPCC???

No, well partly yes. There is plenty of paleo-climate data in the reports from the IPCC. The data used to estimate climate sensitivity to perturbations is derived from observations, and paleo-climate data. The IPCC does concern itself with projections, and is intended to serve as a basis for policy makers to make decisions. The role of each individual nation, and the report drafting process ensures that only conservative estimates are incorporated.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
That figure you posted is not remarkable. There are lots of "big" processes that are driven by small quantities. Biochemistry is chock full of examples. Ecology is full of examples. Physics is full of these examples.

So then there should be a model or experiment that demonstrates this. It isn't a big deal to demonstrate if the effect is like you say.

The problem is that the models and experiments show that much larger and greater processes drive world temperature and so no model can demonstrate CO2 as the problem. In fact no model can even show it contributes at all! There are other natural processes that get in the way. So in other words it is an assumption that such a small contribution could have an effect but there is no proof that it does. In fact, viewed properly the models actually debunk the CO2 correlation!
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
23,221
8,059
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Isn't there enough conflicting evidence on both sides of the
argument by scientists worldwide to show that this debate
is far from over? Published work, both for and against this
argument, very rich with regards to & against evidence of
human induced global warming (or cooling? or Climate
Change?)?

Aren't there models demonstrating that the precession of the
equinoxes, cycles of the Sun's variability, etc...that can explain
Climate Change with much more accuracy than any models
that try to demonstrate that global warming (or cooling or
Climate Change) is caused by man made influences?
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Isn't there enough conflicting evidence on both sides of the
argument by scientists worldwide to show that this debate
is far from over? Published work, both for and against this
argument, very rich with regards to & against evidence of
human induced global warming (or cooling? or Climate
Change?)?

No. There's lots of op-eds, and blog postings, and the like. The literature is not so contrived.

The fact that we end up discussing the attribution of global warming every time some new interesting study comes out points to the reliance on talking points. They are memes. They are repeated ad nauseum. They get repeated even after they're shown to be false.

Who here has even tried to discuss the factors mentioned predominantly in this study? One or two people.

Aren't there models demonstrating that the precession of the
equinoxes, cycles of the Sun's variability, etc...that can explain
Climate Change with much more accuracy than any models
that try to demonstrate that global warming (or cooling or
Climate Change) is caused by man made influences?

No. Models that rely on natural variability in the long run will average out to zero. That doesn't explain a warming climate. More importantly, it will not replicate well known signatures (notably the stratospheric cooling, and decreasing diurnal temperature difference.)

Most models are wrong. Some are useful.
 

Tyr

Council Member
Nov 27, 2008
2,152
14
38
Sitting at my laptop
I'm not sure what reason people have for thinking that humans are causing GW. This is a point of reasoning that escapes me. The best explanation for this fallacy I have heard so far is that because if we didn't cause it i.e. it's just happening, that that is too scary a concept and so people deny the possibility, however, there are inescapable facts that do indicate that as just the case. Furthermore there have been no demonstrations that correlation is anything more than coincidence.

It seems we think too highly of ourselves. That we see ourselves outside of nature not as part of nature. We also see ourselves as part of a closed system not as a part of a much larger one. We therefore think on global scales in terms of ourselves. We see the earth as our property not us as hers.

We are fleas on the back of a giant and we think we steer its coarse.

What foolishness!

Riiight....

We are fleas on the back of a giant and we think we steer its coarse.(sic?)

The bubonic plague is an infection of the lymphatic system, usually resulting from the bite of an infected flea.

I guess "Climate Change" is like the plague and we'd best ignore it.... it will just go away..... right?
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
Riiight....

We are fleas on the back of a giant and we think we steer its coarse.(sic?)

The bubonic plague is an infection of the lymphatic system, usually resulting from the bite of an infected flea.

I guess "Climate Change" is like the plague and we'd best ignore it.... it will just go away..... right?

Am I ignoring it?

I thought I was trying to understand it.

I disagree with you that it is better to run around in an hysterical panic. I think fools do that.
 

Liberalman

Senate Member
Mar 18, 2007
5,623
35
48
Toronto
Fixing the global warming problem costs money.

Taxpayers don’t want to pay for future problems only for existing ones.

Government has to listen to the taxpayers.

Global warming environmentalists have to change the way they talk to governments and businesses.

Governments want to make and save money and businesses want to make money.

When the global warming activists change their strategy to include this we all will be on the road to recovery but if they refuse to do this then global warming is a lost cause.
 

Tyr

Council Member
Nov 27, 2008
2,152
14
38
Sitting at my laptop
Am I ignoring it?

I thought I was trying to understand it.

I disagree with you that it is better to run around in an hysterical panic. I think fools do that.

that it is better to run around in an hysterical panic. I think fools do that.

Isn't that what the petrochemical industry is doing? Getting hysterical trying to prove Global Warming DOESN'T exist...
 

Tyr

Council Member
Nov 27, 2008
2,152
14
38
Sitting at my laptop
Fixing the global warming problem costs money.

Taxpayers don’t want to pay for future problems only for existing ones.

Government has to listen to the taxpayers.

Global warming environmentalists have to change the way they talk to governments and businesses.

Governments want to make and save money and businesses want to make money.

When the global warming activists change their strategy to include this we all will be on the road to recovery but if they refuse to do this then global warming is a lost cause.


Fixing the global warming problem costs money.

Taxpayers don’t want to pay for future problems only for existing ones.

Wrong.

Taxpayers are ok with fixing problems and the costs are usually secondary.

Politicians are far less likely to do anything to antagonize their biggest suppliers of funds - big business. After all, a politicians timeline is five yrs. Once he/she is elected twice they're set for life
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
Well if all that ice does melt the guy with the rowboat on the third floor balcony won't look quite so foolish. I need more like 70 meters to get waterfront.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
that it is better to run around in an hysterical panic. I think fools do that.

Isn't that what the petrochemical industry is doing? Getting hysterical trying to prove Global Warming DOESN'T exist...

I have no idea. I don't keep up with the petrochemical culture.
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
54
Oshawa
Ah yes, the old last resort comment.....but but it's warm on Mars too.:roll:

Actually the last resort is usually.....what's wrong with global warming, I don't like the cold anyways.....that's one of my favs.:lol:

Even better is when the flat earthers don't even agree with each other.....the earth isn't warming to warming isn't caused by man yet they never debate each other on that little nuance of disagreement.

It's all fun to watch....keep it up.:lol:
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Ah yes, the old last resort comment.....but but it's warm on Mars too.:roll:

Actually the last resort is usually.....what's wrong with global warming, I don't like the cold anyways.....that's one of my favs.:lol:

Even better is when the flat earthers don't even agree with each other.....the earth isn't warming to warming isn't caused by man yet they never debate each other on that little nuance of disagreement.

It's all fun to watch....keep it up.:lol:

No it is not warm on Mars. And no, there is no disagreement among climatologists about global warming.

Ignorant wishful thinking won't change anything. The problems the Inuit are having in the Arctic are very much real.

Not caused by man? Man has been pumping trillions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. Let's blame the Spotted owls...:roll:
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
54
Oshawa
No it is not warm on Mars. And no, there is no disagreement among climatologists about global warming.

Ignorant wishful thinking won't change anything. The problems the Inuit are having in the Arctic are very much real.

Not caused by man? Man has been pumping trillions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. Let's blame the Spotted owls...:roll:

Umm....you do know I wasn't arguing against you right?