How to talk to a climate change denier, and then what?

[mynym]

I couldn't agree with you more.


No, I don't. I promote an autonomous solar electric car.

I walk to work... but that's my situation and others need to drive. I'd view natural gas cars as a stepping stone, especially given that they're burning off dirt cheap natural gas and so forth. This would actually work against my interests, as I use natural gas to heat my house and the price would be driven up if more cars were running on it. But it would help with the overall "system," if what we have now can be called that.

Apparently it's important to keep the "system" going, otherwise people wouldn't have the opportunity to trample each other to death at Walmart to buy some cheap Chinese stuff... etc.etc. Still waiting on a business deal between Corrections Corporation of America and Walmart, there again... every time I write a satire I just Google and there it is, in reality, these days.

Anyway, this kid already invented something like that. Not solar... but more energy inputs and emissions probably go into most forms of solar before they "pay off" with less emissions later anyway:


Maybe in the future he'll invent something better. Might even get a huge government guarantee like Solyndra did... there again, that would probably smother all his creativity, ingenuity and research. Probably better to just leave him alone and hope for the best instead of investing in more hopium. That's why I withdraw from the system and seek to shut it down too. The bankers and their corrupt politicians will wind up giving kids like that some hopium instead of leaving them alone... so I do what I can to support the crackpots and the tinkerers.

I have. Check out http://jazzroc.wordpress.com

Ok.

I just will not support violence in any form. I promote withdrawal. (Makes me sound like the Pope - LOL!)

So we agree.... although, is indefinite detention for bankers and politicians violent? After all, by their standards it probably wouldn't even count as being imprisoned.

If you live sustainably without using the dollar, then you are helping

.

Indeed.

The best example I can think of is Cuba...

Commie. Just kidding.

It has its problems and its corruption. But any human enterprise does... and they don't have the banksters trickling wealth and jobs down on them as much, seems to me. The trickle down effect promoted by Reagan is real, it's just that it comes from somewhere given that paper ponzi actually isn't worth that much in the real world.

What, detesting liars and fools?

I'm actually for strong rhetoric. But there's the politeness policy. Plus you're supposed to be trying to convince people of your perspective... or something like that.

 

[Jazzy]

The supervolcanic explosions and giant meteors did not 'coincidentally occur' at the same time as CO2 increases... they caused it.

But then the massive increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused extinctions by raising the earth's atmospheric temperature. Rises in sea level changed the habitats and ecosystems completely. Co-dependent species were de-stabilized. Extinctions followed this.

Not only that, there is no proof the CO2 increases had anything to do with the mass extinctions

Get out of here. The species extinction rate right now is a match for any previous extinction event.

which brought on snowball earth not high temp earth

That is badly wrong.

Over many millions of years, earth's biosphere fixes atmospheric carbon dioxide as chalk and fossil carbon compounds. At the same time methane is fixed into stable "clathrates" in water ice under pressure, in the tundras and oceanic margins, in a process which is purely physical.

The consequence of these processes is to remove carbon compounds from the atmosphere. This leads inevitably to "snowball earth", a process which is thought to have occurred at least five times in four billion years.

This leads inevitably to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, because the snowball makes the atmosphere inaccessible to the biosphere, preventing the fixing of atmospheric carbon dioxide. This may sound moot, but during this period volcanoes continue to emit carbon dioxide. The atmosphere slowly heats up until the snowball melts.

Superimposed upon these events are two other processes.

The first is a very slow but steady increase in solar radiation. This will continue for a further few billion years until the sun's atmosphere reaches the earth. By that time the sun will be a small red giant.

The second is the Milankovitch Cycle which is how the insolation varies according to the orbit and precession of the Earth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change

What we can determine from this is that (given the absence of Man) "snowball earths" will repeat themselves, probably "in tune" with the Milankovitch Cycle, and to a lessening extent, until the rise in solar output puts a final stop to them.

But more than that the events caused massive debris and chemical agents to be released into the atmosphere which naturally killed of vegetation which animals needed to feed on so it is hardly surprising that CO2 level rose and extinctions happened. Also the sun's rays were blocked. You cannot simply ignore these facts.

There is some truth in these statements. But they aren't the big picture.

Nor can you ignore the fact that periods of high CO2, (1200 or even 7000ppm), coincided with life burgeoning throughout history.

But not "Life" as we know it, Jim.

 

[Jazzy]

But it would help with the overall "system," if what we have now can be called that.

It's better to burn methane than to cause it to be released, yes. But it is better to polymerize it to make plastic feedstock. That would be fixing it.

it's important to keep the "system" going

Otherwise we will blow our finest asset - the WWW.

every time I write a satire I just Google and there it is, in reality, these days.

Absolutely.

but more energy inputs and emissions probably go into most forms of solar before they "pay off" with less emissions later

Cars can be made from plywood. They are just as strong.

That's why I withdraw from the system and seek to shut it down too. The bankers and their corrupt politicians will wind up giving kids like that some hopium instead of leaving them alone... so I do what I can to support the crackpots and the tinkerers.

With you.

is indefinite detention for bankers and politicians violent? After all, by their standards it probably wouldn't even count as being imprisoned

How about giving them everything they want (except power over other people)? I reckon it's the cost-effective approach.

they don't have the banksters trickling wealth and jobs down on them

At all.

I'm actually for strong rhetoric. But there's the politeness policy. Plus you're supposed to be trying to convince people of your perspective... or something like that.

Something like that.

 

[mynym]

Plywood... not sure about the marketing of that.

For that matter, cars can be made from and fueled by hemp too.

But hemp is illegal... and meanwhile, the soldiers that fought to infuse the petrodollar with value are being raided by SWAT teams and killing themselves.* That's not in the corporate media like Pat Tillman was... but it's happening. We're a long way from Jefferson's vision of local, agrarian economies in America now. But what did he know about civilization, as a "pot head"? Apparently militias should have formed to raid his house and so forth, if modern views about Safety Inc. are correct.

It's too bad that people generally have to wait for a collapse before they actually do anything as far as getting local and creating wealth for themselves instead of trying to be incorporated into an Empire or hoping that some wealth trickles down on them. Of course, I blame bankers and their paper ponzi for the fact that peasants can't see it coming too.

In any event, apparently JP Morgan's food stamp business will be booming... until it isn't. I still feel bad for peasants, even if they are trampling each other to death at Walmart or living in Corrections Corporation in the land of the free at this point and so forth. Because a lot of what seems to be headed our way (war, global catastrophe, climate change, etc.) isn't really going to be their fault. (Except those parts that are their fault, of course. Like the guy that burned down the rain forest or the rube that's driving a huge truck right now. Seriously, one was behind me yesterday with one rube revving the engine.)

Anyway, guess I'll have to check out the solutions thread. Good luck.

*

Stewart's father (who had been estranged from his son) said that Stewart had been "self-medicating" with weed which he grew for himself, and that Stewart suffered from PTSD, anxiety, and depression. (Stewart is described as "a decorated Army veteran" though he did not serve in combat.)
Stewart's dad also says that his son was probably asleep when police entered, which is why he reacted the way that he did. Unlike previous victims of drug raids Ryan Frederick and Cory Maye who both shoot and killed members of SWAT teams who entered their homes, the subject in this raid did not shoot one person and then surrender. That suggests that Stewart was perhaps less sympathetic than other victims like Frederick and Maye...One Cop Killed, Five More Injured in Utah Drug Raid

Content from External Source

No word yet on when Zionist banksters and politicians will allow soldiers to come home and win the hearts and minds of Americans by building new infrastructure for alternative fuels, hemp cars or possibly eco cities and so forth in their own "homeland."

 

[mynym]

Do you have a link to the type of solar car you're talking about?

 

[Jazzy]

Do you have a link to the type of solar car you're talking about?

You are looking at it. I am (or perhaps was) an industrial designer. I have designed the Elmo MicroJeep. Ask me a question as a PM.

Plywood... not sure about the marketing of that.

It's a renewable resource at the moment.

For that matter, cars can be made from and fueled by hemp too.

http://www.hempcar.org/indexOLD.html
Yes. Good ole' 'enry.

But hemp is illegal

It keeps the quality high. And the rest of us them.

... and meanwhile <snip> Good luck.

We'll need more than that.

Great prose.

 

[Boston]

There's a lot of historical evidence backing it.

In any event, what is the best book to read that represents your views?

There's no history backing it and I think you'd be well off watching the History of climate change denial presented by Naomi Oreski's as a great start.



I'd be happy to provide more information if your interested, but there are many great lectures available on line from reputable people within the field. Just be careful who you listen to cause there's also a lot of quacks out there

 

[Boston]

I think it needs to be asked tho, why some people seem to insist on pretending there political diatribe has any scientific merit at all. The reality is that the way to talk to a climate denier is to stick to the science.

 

[Oxymoron]

I think it needs to be asked tho, why some people seem to insist on pretending there political diatribe has any scientific merit at all. The reality is that the way to talk to a climate denier is to stick to the science.

So can you explain to me how the sea levels are going to keep rising and by how much and where it all comes from etc?

 

[Boston]

How much sea levels will rise is entirely dependent on several variables that have yet to be determined, one is the rate of the temp increase and the other is how ice reacts to that increase in temp. Ice is melting faster than predicted, I think due to the fact that the oceans are warming faster than predicted, but there's still stutters ( most likely a vestige of the Milankovitch cycles struggling to show through the CO2 forcing ) in surface temps which, along with it being unknown just how much carbon we're going to be releasing to the environment in the future; that makes it extremely hard to predict.

Essentially sea level rise is expected due to several primary factors, thermal expansion ( the greater contributor ) and ice melt. Thermal expansion of seawater is pretty well understood ( see http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/general_physics/2_7/2_7_9.html ) go to the third graph down and you'll see a 5 fold increase in the expansion coefficient of seawater at +20°C. Now granted we're not looking at a 20°C rise in temps but still it works out to a lot of expansion. Ice melt alone I don't think accounts for more than a few feet, but its still important cause even just a few feet will have a significant impact.


But the physical properties of water are another that goes waaaaaay back in the sciences. Steam power was one of the first types of engine used and thermal expansion and Boyle's law came in damn handy when designing a pressurized system. So even the condensation tanks in a closed steam system had to account for the added pressure of the heated fluid.

I wouldn't hazard a guess as to exactly what the sea level rise by 2100 will be, but I'd expect temps to continue on there merry way and hit something in the +4~6°C mark by sometime between 2035 and 2050 or roughly the IPCC's latest worst case scenario, plus maybe a little. If you remember the IPCC has predicted conservatively in every report so far. This go round that worst case scenario is pretty close to what a simple polynomial extrapolation of the existing data would predict.

The only real wild card is CH4 which is roughly 26 times more powerful a GHG than CO2 and appears to be releasing as of a few years ago when they first noticed the exponential increased in CH4 seeps from the arctic test areas. IE we're screwed unless that rabbit is willing to go back into the hat. All other considerations are pretty much dependent on what CH4 does over the next decade or so, although I think the CH4 influence just surpassed the CO2 forcing.


Nope there was a flaw in the graph, if you look on the left hand side it reads CO2 and N2O in PPB rather than PPM and the graph is detrended so its not an accurate visual representation of how the three compare. Just shows how they are increasing together.

 

[Jazzy]

The expansion of the oceans will vary according to ocean temperature stratification, which may well alter. The expansion due to warming the ocean depths will be not so easy to predict as one might imagine if the ocean current cycles change. There will be more water dissolved in the earth's atmosphere, which will originate from the ocean. My head hurts.
Removal of ice in general increases the solar heat input to land and sea, but more water in the air makes more cloud, which will reduce it. More headache.
Then there's ocean acidification and there's ocean clathrate and land tundra methane release. That will be a step.
There are dramatic steps like the Antarctic ice shelf sliding into the sea (an event which has happened before).
Then you have reached Hansen's 250', I guess, and we won't be worrying much about how stormy the sea is - around our ears. That has happened before. It's all there in the geology. It happens after snowballs.
The removal of the dead weight of ice on continents will definitely release the pressure on several large volcanoes. Their eruptions will help to cool the planet somewhat as the released sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide helps to further acidify the oceans and destroy forests, if fires haven't already.
As we are continuing our open experiment on ourselves we'll find out, I guess. Not us, of course. Just our descendants, if there are any.

 

[Boston]

The expansion of the oceans will vary according to ocean temperature stratification, which may well alter. The expansion due to warming the ocean depths will be not so easy to predict as one might imagine if the ocean current cycles change. There will be more water dissolved in the earth's atmosphere, which will originate from the ocean. My head hurts. Yup the variables are endless, which is one reason estimates of ocean level rise are all over the board.
Removal of ice in general increases the solar heat input to land and sea, but more water in the air makes more cloud, which will reduce it. More headache. Depends on its phase transition, water vapor is a feedback GHG but condensed water in the form of clouds, depending on the size of the particle can both absorb radiation and reflect it. Now your head really hurts ;-)
Then there's ocean acidification and there's ocean clathrate and land tundra methane release. That will be a step. Already is, I'd refer you to that graph I just posted
There are dramatic steps like the Antarctic ice shelf sliding into the sea (an event which has happened before).
Then you have reached Hansen's 250', ( I"m guessing thats one of the predictions of sea level rise ? , seems awfully high to me but oh well ) I guess, and we won't be worrying much about how stormy the sea is - around our ears. That has happened before. It's all there in the geology. It happens after snowballs. ( which is entirely likely given what kinda hiccup we generating within the system, like the kind never seen before.
The removal of the dead weight of ice on continents will definitely release the pressure on several large volcanoes. Their eruptions will help to cool the planet somewhat as the released sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide helps to further acidify the oceans and destroy forests, if fires haven't already. There is some question as to what will likely be the last straw, but anaerobic stratification and its negative impacts in the atmospheric O2 levels with corresponding increases in the levels of anaerobic byproducts is a strong contender for game over. I'm not sure how much volcanic activity we can expect, but thats dependent or at least partly as to the plates reactions to all that loss of weight. We might just see another basalt flow event.
As we are continuing our open experiment on ourselves we'll find out, I guess. Not us, of course. Just our descendants, if there are any. That last I can't agree with at all. We are, or at least I am in my lifetime going to be seeing the effects into the 2050s, I'm kinda a health nut, not sure why, but I am and I'll at least make it to the 2040s. By then we should be in the thick of it. So I wouldn't suggest all of us will be missing the greatest show on earth.

In any case I'm not willing to just give up and I'm working on projects that "might" make a difference but in the end, its our illustrious not leaders who really hold our fates in there hands. Without an immediate halt to the use of fossil fuels, we've got zero chance.

 

[Steve]

In any case I'm not willing to just give up and I'm working on projects that "might" make a difference but in the end, its our illustrious not leaders who really hold our fates in there hands. Without an immediate halt to the use of fossil fuels, we've got zero chance.

One simple thing I've done is replacing many of my trips made around Los Angeles using a car with ones using an electric high-speed bike. This is the one I use: http://www.busettii.com/super-29er-2013-6001400-watt-5229201360014005215.html
I think Jazzy would have a blast biking around his island on one of these. I took my new bike up and above the Hollywood sign just this last weekend and took dirt trail all the way down. Electric bikes could really make a difference in the amount of car trips not taken worldwide if the rest of the world caught on to what the 120million Chinese electric bikers use today.

 

[Boston]

One simple thing I've done is replacing many of my trips made around Los Angeles using a car with ones using an electric high-speed bike. This is the one I use: http://www.busettii.com/super-29er-2013-6001400-watt-5229201360014005215.html
I think Jazzy would have a blast biking around his island on one of these. I took my new bike up and above the Hollywood sign just this last weekend and took dirt trail all the way down. Electric bikes could really make a difference in the amount of car trips not taken worldwide if the rest of the world caught on to what the 120million Chinese electric bikers use today.

I converted my truck, my car and my house to use bio fuels. Truck runs on veggie oil, car runs on bio diesel, home is heated with bio thinned veggie oil. I'm working on VAWT generators for the house but its a fairly complicated conversion.

I've got several patents pending on some very promising technology and am designing some sustainable living units that are stand alone except for water. I've got about 30+ orders for those but they are not ready to deliver. Long story short there is a lot we could all be doing, its just most dont give a shit.

 

[Jazzy]

I"m guessing thats one of the predictions of sea level rise? Seems awfully high to me but oh well.

I don't think so. I think it's from a previous high water mark in the geology.

In any case I'm not willing to just give up and I'm working on projects that "might" make a difference but in the end, its our illustrious not leaders who really hold our fates in there hands. Without an immediate halt to the use of fossil fuels, we've got zero chance.

That's what I believe. I don't like having to believe things like that.

I converted my truck, my car and my house to use bio fuels. Truck runs on veggie oil, car runs on bio diesel, home is heated with bio thinned veggie oil.

Good stuff.

I'm working on VAWT generators for the house but its a fairly complicated conversion.

They are high-priced poor performers. Modern conventional is better. You don't want to mount rotating masses on your roof. They might go out of balance and that will drive you crazy before they bring the roof down.

I've got several patents pending on some very promising technology and am designing some sustainable living units that are stand alone except for water. I've got about 30+ orders for those but they are not ready to deliver.

Patents? You must have some spare readies. I hope you use passive technology to its fullest extent.

Long story short there is a lot we could all be doing, its just most dont give a shit.

Yes,

One simple thing I've done is replacing many of my trips made around Los Angeles using a car with ones using an electric high-speed bike. This is the one I use: http://www.busettii.com/super-29er-2013-6001400-watt-5229201360014005215.html
I think Jazzy would have a blast biking around his island on one of these. I took my new bike up and above the Hollywood sign just this last weekend and took dirt trail all the way down. Electric bikes could really make a difference in the amount of car trips not taken worldwide if the rest of the world caught on to what the 120million Chinese electric bikers use today.

I'm aware of them, but I'm living on a small pension. The only way to achieve that dream for me would be through recycling old bicycle parts, car batteries and washing machine motors. Hard to do if you live in a small apartment.

 

[Boston]

The VAWT type generators are actually quieter and less likely to cause vibrations assuming they are like any, balanced system. They also ride on mag lev so they turn at lower wind speeds and can handle higher rotational velocities. I kinda like the helical designs but they are really hard to build so I'll likely just go with something more conventional at first. I might get silly with it later but one of my other projects involves a fairly creative way to use photo voltaic's which might eventually make it cheaper to just go with the panels. Although I do live in a great wind zone.

Long story short climate shift is inevitable once the CH4 sinks are disturbed, which does seem to be the case. Only way to settle them is an immediate halt to all fossil fuels use and production. Algae based bio diesel is a perfectly viable solution ready to go today, regardless of what the oil and gas companies would have you believe. Sorta like whats revealed in that documentary "who killed the electric car" It can be grown on a municipal basis eliminating the need for the huge distribution system we have now, which could be replaced with simple national distribution systems. Water treatment facilities are perfect places to build the systems and could use the nutrients far more efficiently than what we do with it today. There is even some technology to pull CO2 from the atmosphere and mechanically inject it into the pools. Passive and effective the only real question is keeping the CO2 concentration at optimal levels while using the system at its most efficient rate of exchange. Personally I think simpler is better but there's extensive technology available for alternative fuel systems.

a statement that should spur our debunkers to go check it out for errors ;-)

 

[Oxymoron]

The expansion of the oceans will vary according to ocean temperature stratification, which may well alter. The expansion due to warming the ocean depths will be not so easy to predict as one might imagine if the ocean current cycles change. There will be more water dissolved in the earth's atmosphere, which will originate from the ocean. My head hurts.
Removal of ice in general increases the solar heat input to land and sea, but more water in the air makes more cloud, which will reduce it. More headache.
Then there's ocean acidification and there's ocean clathrate and land tundra methane release. That will be a step.
There are dramatic steps like the Antarctic ice shelf sliding into the sea (an event which has happened before).
Then you have reached Hansen's 250', I guess, and we won't be worrying much about how stormy the sea is - around our ears. That has happened before. It's all there in the geology. It happens after snowballs.
The removal of the dead weight of ice on continents will definitely release the pressure on several large volcanoes. Their eruptions will help to cool the planet somewhat as the released sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide helps to further acidify the oceans and destroy forests, if fires haven't already.
As we are continuing our open experiment on ourselves we'll find out, I guess. Not us, of course. Just our descendants, if there are any.

Don't shoot

I can't get my head around the massive sea rise. It makes no sense to me. Water expands when heated but more so when frozen. The ice is therefore already expanded and if it melts will contract. Archimedes proves, and it is a simple experiment that can be repeated today by anyone, that the ice in the water which melts will make no difference to the volume, Think ice cubes in a glass of water.

So that leaves ice which covers the land, (which is already at max volume) and will contract.

I agree entirely that it is enough to make anyones brain hurt trying to figure out the effects and any calculation could be extremely wide of the mark.

It appears the 'geological high water mark' is in a freshwater lake so I would dispute the relevance of that.

http://epod.usra.edu/blog/2007/08/lake-cahuilla-high-water-mark.html

 

[Boston]

Wow

Just wow

 

[Jazzy]

Water treatment facilities are perfect places to build the systems and could use the nutrients far more efficiently than what we do with it today. There is even some technology to pull CO2 from the atmosphere and mechanically inject it into the pools. Passive and effective the only real question is keeping the CO2 concentration at optimal levels while using the system at its most efficient rate of exchange. Personally I think simpler is better but there's extensive technology available for alternative fuel systems.

I believe that Life is stronger than Technology, and therefore reforestation, land improvement and ocean fertilization should be the modern pioneering activities for young people worldwide.

I really like the idea of combining sewage and water treatment plants with biofuel generation. I think poo should be composted and not sent out to sea. Rivers should be made to meander to their fullest, the progress of fresh water back to the oceans should be slowed wherever possible. And so on.

We shouldn't feel guilty being where we are. It's only natural that we found fossil fuels and used them before we realized the consequences. I bet it has happened all over the Universe.

 

[JohnJones]

I can't get my head around the massive sea rise. It makes no sense to me. Water expands when heated but more so when frozen. The ice is therefore already expanded and if it melts will contract. Archimedes proves, and it is a simple experiment that can be repeated today by anyone, that the ice in the water which melts will make no difference to the volume, Think ice cubes in a glass of water.

So that leaves ice which covers the land, (which is already at max volume) and will contract.

It's true that if you measure the water level in a glass of water containing ice cubes, the level will not change as the ice cubes melt. But now think about what happens after the ice has melted. As the water warms above 4 degrees C, it will expand and the water level will go up. This is one of the factors driving sea-level increase.

Ice covering the land will flow down into the sea as it melts. This will produce a rise in sea level. The largest volumes of land-based ice are in Greenland and Antarctica, and as these melt and flow into the sea, they will produce sea-level increases of about 7 meters and 61 meters respectively. (Anisimov et al., Section 11.2.1.2: Models of thermal expansion, Table 1.3, in IPCC TAR WG1 2001.) However, it is expected that it would take a few millennia for all that ice to melt.

 

[Mick West]

The ice on Antarctica is several MILES thick. And it's mostly on land right now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet

I has diagram:

 

[Jazzy]

I has diagram

You has. English not your first language? I'll get my hat...

 

[Jazzy]

The largest volumes of land-based ice are in Greenland and Antarctica, and as these melt and flow into the sea, they will produce sea-level increases of about 7 meters and 61 meters respectively.

Not allowing for the downward deflection of the ocean floor due to the increased mass above it, I bet*. Perhaps that makes up the difference between 68M (223') and Hansen's 250'.

Greenland and Antarctica popping back up again isn't volcanically risky, is it?

However, it is expected that it would take a few millennia for all that ice to melt.

Of course. Except that one ocean rise of fifty feet has been discovered which only took twenty years to happen. That's the one which was the result of a large part of the Antarctic shelf simply sliding into the sea.

The people doing the "expecting" weren't "expecting" tipping points of any sort. I wonder when they were doing their expecting?

* I was wrong. It is adjusted for isostatic rebound.

 

[Boston]

You has. English not your first language? I'll get my hat...

Actually English isn't my first language, I think Mick was just having some fun. ;-)

 

[Mick West]

You has. English not your first language? I'll get my hat...

It's lolspeak, old man, an internet thing The usage is intend to draw attention to the simplistic nature of a topic, and here was somewhat self-mocking the child-like rendition of the ice melting.

Technically I should have written "I haz pictur", but that sounded a little much. So my unfortunate half measure fell flat.

 

[Jazzy]

It's lolspeak, old man, an internet thing The usage is intend to draw attention to the simplistic nature of a topic, and here was somewhat self-mocking the child-like rendition of the ice melting. Technically I should have written "I haz pictur", but that sounded a little much. So my unfortunate half measure fell flat.

No, I loved it, and milked it for all it was worth. Your point would be better made without your other typos surrounding it in general, mind you. Not that I am without sin.

Of course, you are not supposed to do that at all. Shame on you. Tut, tut.

 

[Jazzy]

It appears the 'geological high water mark' is in a freshwater lake so I would dispute the relevance of that.

[....]

For a moment I thought you were being serious.

Let me put you on to something. The earth has been through a few changes these last four billion years, including half a dozen snowballs and a melange of continental fragmenting and defragmenting.

You can find seashores two miles up in the Andes, and probably the same in the Himalayas, Urals, and the Pyranees.

Ocean high water marks are found using older info than that of Lake Chahuilla and the Salton Sea. Something to do with plotting their true elevations at that time.

 

[Oxymoron]

[....]

For a moment I thought you were being serious.

Let me put you on to something. The earth has been through a few changes these last four billion years, including half a dozen snowballs and a melange of continental fragmenting and defragmenting.

You can find seashores two miles up in the Andes, and probably the same in the Himalayas, Urals, and the Pyranees.

Ocean high water marks are found using older info than that of Lake Chahuilla and the Salton Sea. Something to do with plotting their true elevations at that time.

So it has nothing to do with the sea floor and land mass being pushed up into mountains by tectonic plate movement then? Same thing with the Himalayan rock salt... that formed up there in the Himalayas did it? What about the marine fossils, were they swimming about up in the mountains just before they died?

Perhaps someone could actually define the 'high water mark' cited?

 

[Oxymoron]

The ice on Antarctica is several MILES thick. And it's mostly on land right now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet

I has diagram:

Any math to go with that diagram?

 

[Jazzy]

So it has nothing to do with the sea floor and land mass being pushed up into mountains by tectonic plate movement then? Same thing with the Himalayan rock salt... that formed up there in the Himalayas did it? What about the marine fossils, were they swimming about up in the mountains just before they died? Perhaps someone could actually define the 'high water mark' cited?

Obviously I didn't make it plain enough.

This springs from Hansen's claim that the sea level may rise by 250', because it has done so before.

In order to verify that one would have to verify not only a high water mark, but a previous high water mark 250' beneath it, but maybe made only a few thousand years previously.

You could find it halfway up the Andes but it would still be telling you the same thing. Use the rational part of you, for f's sake.

 

[JohnJones]

Any math to go with that diagram?

The math is not difficult; we know the areas of the Greenland and Antarctic landmasses and the average depth of their ice cover, so we know the volume of ice involved. When the ice melts we get a slightly smaller volume of water, which flows down into the sea (refer to Mick's helpful diagram in post 421 in this thread) and produces an increase in sea level of x meters, where x is the volume of meltwater divided by the area of the oceans. Which steps in this argument do you consider open to doubt?

 

[Mick West]

You can get a very simple feel for the figures with some ballparking.

We know that the Antarctic ice sheet is "several miles thick" in places. Let's simplify that to one mile thick overall.

Surface area of antarctica = 14 Million km2
Surface area of the oceans = 361 million km2

So one mile of ice over 14 million km2 is spread over 361 million km2.
5280 feet * 14/361 = 204 feet.

Or about 175 feet above where I am sitting now.

Very rough and simplified figures, of course, but it shows that the magnitudes are correct. If the ice melts, then the oceans will rise many tens of feet.

 

[Joe]

Green shows ice present in 2013 which was not present on this date in 2012. Red shows the opposite.

 

[Steve Funk]

Green shows ice present in 2013 which was not present on this date in 2012. Red shows the opposite.

You could get about the same results comparing 2008 and 2009 with 2007. The trend is still down. On the other hand, the people extrapolating a trend based on 2012 may be overly alarmist.

 

[Joe]

You could get about the same results comparing 2008 and 2009 with 2007. The trend is still down. On the other hand, the people extrapolating a trend based on 2012 may be overly alarmist.

Im just saying the climate always changes . depending on where you look you can always find different results . Its not climate deniers its called opposing views based on facts as we see them .

 

[Mick West]

Im just saying the climate always changes . depending on where you look you can always find different results . Its not climate deniers its called opposing views based on facts as we see them .

Your hair always changes. But there are noticeable trends over the years.

You can determine trends even if there is variability. But you have to take a longer view.

 

[Steve]

Green shows ice present in 2013 which was not present on this date in 2012. Red shows the opposite.

Not like last year

Credit: NSIDC courtesy NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory Physical Sciences Division
A comparison of average temperature and sea level pressure maps for June and July of 2012 and 2013 help us to understand why ice extent is higher in 2013. The pattern of unusually low pressure centered near the pole in 2013 has helped to spread the ice out and is consistent with generally cool conditions over much of the Arctic Ocean, inhibiting melt. By contrast, in the summer of 2012, a broad region of unusually high pressure centered over Greenland, in combination with below average pressure centered over the East Siberian and Chukchi seas, led to winds over the Beaufort Sea with a more southerly component than is usually the case, leading to warm conditions. That high pressure last year over Greenland also contributed to a record melt season for the Greenland ice sheet. Melt this year over the ice sheet has been more moderate, though still above rates seen in the 1990s. See our upcoming Greenland Today site post later this week.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

 

[Matt McLean]

I also like to go through this flow chart before starting any discussion with a skeptic on any topic:

 

[Mick West]

I also like to go through this flow chart before starting any discussion with a skeptic on any topic:

I think I'd quibble with "... should be accepted as true" in the middle there. It's more "should be considered more likely to be true". What if it has just a little bit more evidence?

 

[Matt McLean]

I think I'd quibble with "... should be accepted as true" in the middle there. It's more "should be considered more likely to be true". What if it has just a little bit more evidence?

Completely agree @Mick West. I'm liking this forum a lot.