Global Warming Concensus Broken

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

Here is my theory on Antarctica.

Scientists who go there to study it soon find that there is nothing to do. They sit around, eat food from a can, throw back some shots, play beer pong, smoke a fat bat, and occasionally go out to check the temperature. The only discovery that they make is that it is indeed frigging cold, as was expected.

One night, or day for all they know, a bunch of them are sitting around doing the only thing there is to do - drinking.

One of them says, "Hey, what if this whole big chunk of ice we are sitting on slid right off in to the ocean"

They all start laughing like this is the funniest thing they have ever heard.

The one smoking pot says, "Yeah man, we'd be on like the biggest boat ever, man"

Which, for some inexplicable reason, they all find even funnier. They are laughing so hard that some of them are actually rolling on the ground.

One of the rollers, snot coming out of his nose adds, "I bet that ... haha... we could ... sniffle sniffle... get that shit published in Science."

At which the room explodes with hysterical, somewhat deranged, cabin fever induced hysteria. It takes literally minutes for the maniacal chortling to slow.

In the ensuing hours the comedy moves to the topic of displacement from their boat and then to global flooding and then to making up a way to launch the sucker. Two months later, a paper is published.

That is my theory and I am sticking to it. I believe it is just as good as the one that says that the ice at the edges is going to melt and the rest will slide right off.

alexjrgreen
Posts: 815
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: UK

Post by alexjrgreen »

seedload wrote:One night, or day for all they know, a bunch of them are sitting around doing the only thing there is to do - drinking.

One of them says, "Hey, what if this whole big chunk of ice we are sitting on slid right off in to the ocean"

They all start laughing like this is the funniest thing they have ever heard.

The one smoking pot says, "Yeah man, we'd be on like the biggest boat ever, man"
The Larsen B ice shelf (the size of Rhode Island) broke off the eastern side of the Antarctic Peninsula in 2002.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/p ... 20320.html

The Wilkins ice shelf (the size of Connecticut) is currently hanging by a thread to the western side of the Antarctic Peninsula.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/environme ... G520090119
Ars artis est celare artem.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Who lost Rhode Island?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Billy Catringer
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:32 pm
Location: Texas

Post by Billy Catringer »

alexjrgreen wrote: The Larsen B ice shelf (the size of Rhode Island) broke off the eastern side of the Antarctic Peninsula in 2002.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/p ... 20320.html

The Wilkins ice shelf (the size of Connecticut) is currently hanging by a thread to the western side of the Antarctic Peninsula.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/environme ... G520090119

Which is bound to happen from time to time. Structures made of ice are going to be considerably less permanent than structures made of rock and even rock is considerably less than permanent.

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

alexjrgreen wrote: The Larsen B ice shelf (the size of Rhode Island) broke off the eastern side of the Antarctic Peninsula in 2002.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/p ... 20320.html

The Wilkins ice shelf (the size of Connecticut) is currently hanging by a thread to the western side of the Antarctic Peninsula.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/environme ... G520090119
Do you think that I do not know this?
Do you think that I do not know why they call it a 'shelf'?
Do you think that I do not understand why all this other 4000 meter thick ice, resting comfortably ON LAND, is different?

There is absolutely no evidence that the Western Ice Sheet is in any danger at all.

Instead of talking about Wilkins, please point me to where I can learn about how 4000 meter thick ice, on land, at -50C is going to melt, slide or otherwise flood the world.

thanks

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

seedload wrote:
alexjrgreen wrote: The Larsen B ice shelf (the size of Rhode Island) broke off the eastern side of the Antarctic Peninsula in 2002.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/p ... 20320.html

The Wilkins ice shelf (the size of Connecticut) is currently hanging by a thread to the western side of the Antarctic Peninsula.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/environme ... G520090119
Do you think that I do not know this?
Do you think that I do not know why they call it a 'shelf'?
Do you think that I do not understand why all this other 4000 meter thick ice, resting comfortably ON LAND, is different?

There is absolutely no evidence that the Western Ice Sheet is in any danger at all.

Instead of talking about Wilkins, please point me to where I can learn about how 4000 meter thick ice, on land, at -50C is going to melt, slide or otherwise flood the world.

thanks
See there is all this ice. Some of it falls in the ocean. When the rest of it falls in the ocean we are doomed. Give me your money. I can cure it of the global warming curse. Then you will have nothing to fear. And let us hope you stay fearless until I can make my exit from Dodge. I'd rather avoid any unpleasantness when the marks wise up.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

alexjrgreen
Posts: 815
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: UK

Post by alexjrgreen »

seedload wrote:There is absolutely no evidence that the Western Ice Sheet is in any danger at all.

Instead of talking about Wilkins, please point me to where I can learn about how 4000 meter thick ice, on land, at -50C is going to melt, slide or otherwise flood the world.
The West Antarctic ice sheet isn't 4000 metres thick, and it doesn't get as cold as -50C.

These figures describe the East Antarctic ice sheet, which is stable.
Ars artis est celare artem.

alexjrgreen
Posts: 815
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: UK

Post by alexjrgreen »

MSimon wrote:
New Orleans is more of a worry - unless someone wants to pay for the work to be done.
I think the people who want to live near the sea should bear the cost.
That works for expensive beach front property.

New Orleans is trickier: is your plan to ship all the poor people to Houston...?
MSimon wrote:BTW mitigation for a warmer planet will be nothing compared to the mitigation required for a colder one.
We already seem able to raise the world's temperature. London is 2C warmer than its surroundings because of all the people and their cars. If we can crack lowering the temperature as well we could set the thermostat where we liked.
Ars artis est celare artem.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

New Orleans is trickier: is your plan to ship all the poor people to Houston...?
Why no. What we do is give them all million dollar mortgages on houses situated on what amounts to a flood plain. That is the wise thing to do.

No one should have to move because of local geologic conditions. Especially not poor people.

===

Any one who lives beyond his means deserves a government subsidy. If every one lived well beyond his means we could all be rich. It is an economic principle.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

We already seem able to raise the world's temperature. London is 2C warmer than its surroundings because of all the people and their cars. If we can crack lowering the temperature as well we could set the thermostat where we liked.
And just what is the ideal planetary temperature? And who decides? Are you the "we" that will make the decision?

Suppose farmers in Africa decide they will get a competitive advantage from a much shorter North American growing season?

Suppose farmers all over the world would prefer a CO2 level of 750 ppm because plants grow faster and require less water? Suppose the farmer out vote coastal regions in some years and the coastal regions out vote the farmers some years? Suppose the farmers hire lobbyists?

Suppose some one bribes the Planetary Temperature Authority? Suppose some one bribes the CO2 Level Authority?

Suppose we learn something new and have to repeal all the old laws. How much will it cost to pay off all those benefiting from the laws passed? What will the Cap and Trade traders do? Will Al Gore have to sell his house?

Given all the competing interests how is a rational decision to be made? Who is rational enough to make it?

===

Civilization runs on energy. The lower the cost of energy the more civilization. What exactly do people who want intermittent energy sources at 3X the cost of current steady sources have against civilization?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

alexjrgreen
Posts: 815
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: UK

Post by alexjrgreen »

MSimon wrote:And just what is the ideal planetary temperature? And who decides? Are you the "we" that will make the decision?

[...]

Given all the competing interests how is a rational decision to be made? Who is rational enough to make it?
Just putting petrol in the car might make someone part of the "we" that make the decision...

In the absence of any adequate model of long term temperature, a rational proposal might be "stop where we are", or perhaps "back up a little".
Ars artis est celare artem.

Billy Catringer
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:32 pm
Location: Texas

Post by Billy Catringer »

alexjrgreen wrote:New Orleans is trickier: is your plan to ship all the poor people to Houston...?

Why just Houston? I would think that a second Great Culinary Diaspora would be benficial to greasy spoons all over the country.
alexjrgreen wrote:We already seem able to raise the world's temperature. London is 2C warmer than its surroundings because of all the people and their cars. If we can crack lowering the temperature as well we could set the thermostat where we liked.
You brought up several very interesting points. First, cityscapes ARE warmer than ex-urban areas. Mostly because the ground in cities soaks up more solar radiation than the countryside, but there is also the waste heat that is generated inside cities. This is called "the heat island effect".

Secondly, nearly all of the weather stations used to gather meteorlogical data are now inside urban heat islands. Thirdly, recent surveys show that not only are many of these weather stations now inside ubarn heat islands, nearly all of them are no longer capapble of collecting useful data because they are near paved areas or are now on roof tops and some have been found to be sitting in the discharge of air conditioning units. The data being collected our weather stations is very badly biased, not as a deliberate act, but out of good old everyday sloppiness.

The basic claim of AGW myth is that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" are "trapping heat" within the Earth's atmosphere. This claim is based upon research conducted back in the nineteenth century and, despite all claims to the contrary, has yet to be verified. It has not been verified because it cannot be verified. At atmospheric pressures here on Earth, these gases are refrigerants. Refrigerants are not insulators. If anything, increased concentrations in "greenhouse gases" would improve convection, not insulate the planet.

Stop and think about it. The Earth is already surrounded by the best insulator known, vacuum, and it cannot and never has prevented the planetary atmsophere from radiating heat away. Heat is damnably hard to hang on to. The claims made about anthropogenic global warming are silly from the git-go.

AGW supporters never want to talk about the effects of water and water vapor. The IPCC basically blew off the effects of water completely in its infamous report. How much more faulty can the "science" be?

Your claims about us being able to set the Earth's temperature are not without foundation. The bulk of the sunlight warming the Earth falls between the Tropic of Capricorn and the Tropic of Cancer. It would be expensive, but not impossible, to orbit a large number of half-silvered Mylar balloons thereby attenuating the sunlight falling on this region of the planet but, boy you had better be right about your AGW theory because we could easily trigger a major ice age.

My observations of the majority of AGW adherents suggest that the majority of them do not really want a "solution' to their non-problem. They had much rather have it as a political tool and an excuse to sieze economic control.

If the threat to our climate was genuine, every last AGW adherent with brains between his or her ears would be an advocate of nuclear power. Almost none of them are.

Billy Catringer
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:32 pm
Location: Texas

Post by Billy Catringer »

alexjrgreen wrote:New Orleans is trickier: is your plan to ship all the poor people to Houston...?

Why just Houston? I would think that a second Great Culinary Diaspora would be beneficial to greasy spoons all over the country.
alexjrgreen wrote:We already seem able to raise the world's temperature. London is 2C warmer than its surroundings because of all the people and their cars. If we can crack lowering the temperature as well we could set the thermostat where we liked.
You brought up several very interesting points. First, cityscapes ARE warmer than ex-urban areas. Mostly because the ground in cities soaks up more solar radiation than the countryside, but there is also the waste heat that is generated inside cities. This is called "the heat island effect".

Secondly, nearly all of the weather stations used to gather meteorlogical data are now inside urban heat islands. Thirdly, recent surveys show that not only are many of these weather stations now inside ubarn heat islands, nearly all of them are no longer capapble of collecting useful data because they are near paved areas or are now on roof tops and some have been found to be sitting in the discharge of air conditioning units. The data being collected our weather stations is very badly biased, not as a deliberate act, but out of good old everyday sloppiness.

The basic claim of the AGW myth is that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" are "trapping heat" within the Earth's atmosphere. This claim is based upon research conducted back in the nineteenth century and, despite all claims to the contrary, has yet to be verified. It has not been verified because it cannot be verified. At atmospheric pressures here on Earth, these gases are refrigerants. Refrigerants are not insulators. If anything, increased concentrations in "greenhouse gases" would improve convection, not insulate the planet.

Stop and think about it. The Earth is already surrounded by the best insulator known, vacuum, and it cannot and never has prevented the planetary atmsophere from radiating heat away. Heat is damnably hard to hang on to. The claims made about anthropogenic global warming are silly from the git-go.

AGW supporters never want to talk about the effects of water and water vapor. The IPCC basically blew off the effects of water completely in its infamous report. How much more faulty can the "science" be?

Your claims about us being able to set the Earth's temperature are not without foundation. The bulk of the sunlight warming the Earth falls between the Tropic of Capricorn and the Tropic of Cancer. It would be expensive, but not impossible, to orbit a large number of half-silvered Mylar balloons thereby attenuating the sunlight falling on this region of the planet but, boy you had better be right about your AGW theory because we could easily trigger a major ice age.

My observations of AGW adherents suggest that the majority of them do not really want a "solution" to their non-problem. They had much rather have it as a political tool and as an excuse to sieze economic control.

If the threat to our climate was genuine, every last AGW adherent with brains between his or her ears would be an advocate of nuclear power. Almost none of them are.

Billy Catringer
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:32 pm
Location: Texas

Post by Billy Catringer »

AGW Adherents also steadfastly refuse to count the costs of their proposed policies:

http://www.core-online.org/Staff/chairmans_corner.htm

The costs, as you can see, are grievous for those least able to afford them. Of course, this seems to be exactly what our governors want--a hapless and totally dependent citizenry.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

In the absence of any adequate model of long term temperature, a rational proposal might be "stop where we are", or perhaps "back up a little".
But climate has never been static. In fact by proposing stasis you may be upsetting the balance.

BTW you never told me what the ideal temp is. You know: a number.

We are currently in a little ice age (with fluctuations) and historically low atmos. CO2 concentrations. Is this a good thing? Plants would do much better with a lot more CO2 in the atmos. You got something against plants?

As for putting gas in my tank: it is a benefit to me at current prices. bicycles are not practical year around in this climate. They also do not do well for the infirm.

I'll stop putting gas in my tank (for a while) when Al Gore moves into a 3 bdr. apt. in a high rise. If he will leads by example I will follow. For a while.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Post Reply