Jump to content

Climate Change & Global Warming


Atomic
 Share

How important is Global Warming to you in the Grand Scheme of Things?  

246 members have voted

  1. 1. How important is Global Warming to you in the Grand Scheme of Things?

    • Give me a break, I've enough on my plate
      17
    • I suppose there's something in it, but it's for the Politicians/Corporations/Those in power to sort out
      4
    • Yes I think it is important and I try to do my bit.
      79
    • If we don't stop it, the Planet dies in a few years, it's as simple as that.
      34
    • I think it is all hype and not half as bad as they make out
      108
    • I don't know what to think
      17

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

Every single human culture* since the invention of farming has polluted, over-exploited and destroyed the land they lived on.

 

Really? I hope to leave this place in better heart than I found it.

 

You got this bit right though:

 

there is a crash coming. Our civilisation, as it currently stands, is doomed.

 

Better stock up on rice, and (ironically?) fossil fuel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The very science which has led us to edge of the abyss has given us advance warning of the fact, something no other society in history has had, and it has provided us with the means to avoid it, and those means also offer us the hope of creating a truly sustainable, global, society. By embracing renewable energy, we can maintain our technological wonderland. And we can extend it's benefits to all.

 

The very science which has led us to edge of the abyss has given us advance warning of the fact, something no other society in history has had, and it has provided us with the means to avoid it, and those means also offer us the hope of creating a truly sustainable, global, society. By embracing nuclear energy, we can maintain our technological wonderland. And we can extend it's benefits to all.

 

I like that statement better now. :wink:

 

Given the state of the respective sciences and scientists involved with them, my money goes on the Nuke boys. With them we might just keep up with energy demands without running out of fuel. Yes, I know its not limitless either, and has its risks from waste and accidents, but it would keep things going for several decades during which the technologies for renewables *might* just have advanced far enough to be a realistic alternative.

 

The wind, wave etc methods available today, IMHO are to renewables technology what Nicolas Joseph Cugnot's machine was to the automobile industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few times on this thread I've mentioned the Greenland ice cap and how, if it melted, we would see 6 metres of sea level rise, but I've never been able to say when that would actually happen, or how long it would take.

 

Now I have some numbers, and they are scary:

 

From here we get this:

The Greenland ice sheet covers about 2.85 million cubic kilometers and one cubic kilometer of ice weighs about 0.9 gigatonnes... so we are looking at a total of around 2.57 million gigatonnes.

 

Prior to about 1999 Greenland's ice sheet was pretty much in mass balance. It had dipped slightly and then rebounded in the 70s, but otherwise nothing but minor fluctuations for decades. Since 1999 it has dropped at a precipitous and accelerating rate.

 

If we assume that this acceleration stops and Greenland will continue losing ice at 286 gigatonnes per year then it would take about 9,000 years for the entire ice sheet to melt

 

If we instead assume that ice loss will continue to increase at a LINEAR rate equal to what it has been recently (a little under 25 gigatonnes per year) then it would take about 450 years.

 

Finally, if we assume that the rate continues to double every six years then it would take about 60 years.

 

We probably need AT LEAST a decade more data to get any kind of handle on what sort of long term trend we are likely to see, but if ice loss is being driven by CO2 caused warming then the answer will likely be somewhere between the last two figures... though since we are looking at such a small time frame, slightly increased CO2 levels over that period would have a negligible impact, and we are really talking about the melt rate at the CURRENT CO2 level. If CO2 continues to increase the melt time would decrease.

 

That's six metres, soon, and not even mentioning Antarctica.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally, if we assume that the rate continues to double every six years then it would take about 60 years.

from 9000 to 60 i think that this is someone wanting to scare people is their funding due for review. how many other climate scientists are claiming that Greenland will be green in 60 years. it sounds very much like the Indian guy and the Himalayas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to lay down an ultimatum to Alarmist terra regarding ( a much more fitting name) , your latest claim of a 6 metre sea level in the next 60 years or to say it another way, a 10 cm rise per year starting from now

Or 50 cm in the next 5 years.

I promise you that if in the next 5 years we experience a 10 cm rise, (a rise that should be easily validated) I will openly admit I am wrong, and that climate warming is accelarating partly as quick as you fear .

But if not you must admit that you are a delusional alarmist who has been hoodwinked by all the global warming propaganda that you spend all night reading to feed your craving for impending catastrophe.

 

See you in 5 years, try to get some sleep and relax a little in the meantime.

 

On another note, at present the possibility of impending peak oil is the real threat to the comfortable lifestyles we presently enjoy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not claiming anything, Gorgo. Did you read the post I linked to?

 

The rate of melting of the Greenland icecap has doubled in the last 6 years. If it were to continue to double every six years, then it would be gone in 60 years. If the melt rate rises in a linear way, it would last 450 years.

 

The most likely outcome is somewhere between those two figures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alarmist terra's own words :-

 

"A few times on this thread I've mentioned the Greenland ice cap and how, if it melted, we would see 6 metres of sea level rise, but I've never been able to say when that would actually happen, or how long it would take."

 

Now I have some numbers, and they are scary:

Then the evidence bit - 6 metres in 60 years (which if current trend continues we will know for sure in this next decade)

 

"That's six metres, soon, and not even mentioning Antarctica."

Note the implication that it could even be a whole lot worse if Antartica thaws out !

 

I dont know about anybody else but that reads like a claim to me.

 

If you are able to totter down the victoria pier slipway in 30 years time and you are unable to detect a difference in sea level, will you then admit that you were a bona fide delusional global warmist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Wikipedia :-

Effect on the environment

The volcano released approximately 0.15 million tonnes of CO2 each day, but the massive reduction of air travel occurring over European skies caused by the ash cloud, saved an estimated 1.3 to 2.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere by 19 April 2010.[58][59]

 

Winderin if it's ok to fire up my peerie rotovator dis moarnin ? :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alarmist terra's own words :-

If you are able to totter down the victoria pier slipway in 30 years time and you are unable to detect a difference in sea level, will you then admit that you were a bona fide delusional global warmist?

While this Alarmist/Denier pingpong is all very exciting :roll: Maybe we could think about the basic science?

Easy enough to show the sea level won't rise at all:-

 

1- Find a reason why the melting that's happening now won't continue.

2 - Find a reason why there won't be any thermal expansion of the sea from the temperature rise that has already happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are able to totter down the victoria pier slipway in 30 years time

 

surely the poor deluded soul will be able to google "free wellies provided by the council for visitors to the museum" without any need to leave the house or even open his bedroom curtains.

And if the claims he keeps quoting are anywhere near the mark then it will happen in the next couple of years every high tide.

In 30 years the waves will be lippering at his front door in union street

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lovelock

"I don't think we're yet evolved to the point where we're clever enough to handle a complex a situation as climate change," said Lovelock in his first in-depth interview since the theft of the UEA emails last November. "The inertia of humans is so huge that you can't really do anything meaningful."

Game theory on what it would take for enough support for effective action.

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/7/2291.full.pdf+html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...