Climate change discussion

[Hawk_82]

Despite whatever you currently believe about climate change, this is a really interesting video about the historical temperatures taken from the Greenland ice sheet.


There has been huge variations in temperature in the past 250k years. Some of them led to mass extinctions, others, humans survived. He even mentions Atlantis and how this could be a lost civilization that is now buried 400 feet under water which was caused by massive melting and rising seas.

In one example, the research shows our global temps may have increased as much as 18 degrees in 1 year.

I'm curious how you think this plays in to the current explanations of global warming. It seems like current climate change scientists generally site data within the last 10,000 years, but this time period is such a short snippet of time during a stable period of time.

 

[Joes Place]

Now imagine how much faster temperatures increase w/o all that ice there.

1 gram of ice requires 80 calories of energy to convert to water (heat of fusion).

1 gram of water requires 1 calorie to increase +1°C

Ergo: lose that 1 gram of ice, and the same heat input (warming) will increase water temperatures for the same mass of ice that melted into water 80x faster.

 

[billanole]

Now imagine how much faster temperatures increase w/o all that ice there.

1 gram of ice requires 80 calories of energy to convert to water (heat of fusion).

1 gram of water requires 1 calorie to increase +1°C

Ergo: lose that 1 gram of ice, and the same heat input (warming) will increase water temperatures for the same mass of ice that melted into water 80x faster.

The temp “control”, (heat sinks), offered by vast ice sheets and oceans is so very underrated. Change the ocean temps just a bit and our entire way of life will alter dramatically.
Oh, it is already well underway. Wait until the Gulf Stream shuts down…

 

[The Tradition]

Oh, boy. Another climate alarmist thread.

 

[billanole]

Oh, boy. Another climate alarmist thread.

Don’t you have a grilling thread to populate?

 

[Joes Place]

The temp “control”, (heat sinks), offered by vast ice sheets and oceans is so very underrated.

It's rarely mentioned.

And it's a very large "buffer" against massive temperature increases.

 

[Hawk_82]

Oh, boy. Another climate alarmist thread.

I am not an alarmist. I find it interesting to look at the scientific data that we currently have. It is very clear to me that we dont know much about climate change.

I enjoy listening to this guy and he has a lot of really good theories about earth and our climate. My only hope is for people to watch this video and do their own thinking about climate change.

 

[The Tradition]

I am not an alarmist. I find it interesting to look at the scientific data that we currently have. It is very clear to me that we dont know much about climate change.

I enjoy listening to this guy and he has a lot of really good theories about earth and our climate. My only hope is for people to watch this video and do their own thinking about climate change.

I know you didn't intend for this to be an alarmist thread, but that's what it'll turn into.

 

[billanole]

It's rarely mentioned.

And it's a very large "buffer" against massive temperature increases.

… and against temperature decreases. Thus the relatively mild climate enjoyed by Manhattan and the British Isles.

 

[Hawk_82]

Now imagine how much faster temperatures increase w/o all that ice there.

1 gram of ice requires 80 calories of energy to convert to water (heat of fusion).

1 gram of water requires 1 calorie to increase +1°C

Ergo: lose that 1 gram of ice, and the same heat input (warming) will increase water temperatures for the same mass of ice that melted into water 80x faster.

So what do you think this means?

Ice has a different impact on the world than water does. So while it takes more energy to heat ice. Once that water melts, it has the ability to affect so many other areas like ocean currents, tides, weather, natural disasters. This can have somewhat of a snowball effect.

It's rarely mentioned.

And it's a very large "buffer" against massive temperature increases.

Please explain this more.

 

[Joes Place]

So what do you think this means?

Ice has a different impact on the world than water does. So while it takes more energy to heat ice. Once that water melts, it has the ability to affect so many other areas like ocean currents, tides, weather, natural disasters. This can have somewhat of a snowball effect.

Of course it does.

Land ice (e.g. Greenland and Antarctica) has the potential to raise sea levels by >10 meters (30 feet).

Please explain this more.

It's a buffer, because you have to melt the ice before temperatures can increase.

Once you've melted 1000 tons of ice, the SAME AMOUNT OF HEAT INPUT will heat that same 1000 tons of ice +80°C.

That's not "alarmism"; that's fundamentals of Physical Chemistry/Physics.

(You could alternatively state the same amount of heat will warm 80x more melted ice to +1°C, so melting 1000 tons of ice = heating 80,000 tons of water +1°C)

 

[billanole]

So what do you think this means?

Ice has a different impact on the world than water does. So while it takes more energy to heat ice. Once that water melts, it has the ability to affect so many other areas like ocean currents, tides, weather, natural disasters. This can have somewhat of a snowball effect.


Please explain this more.

Ice, and water to a lesser extent, changes temps much slower (relatively speaking) than land masses.
Think about how dramatically temps change on large land masses ( American and Canadian Midwests, Siberia, Australia…. ) as fronts or air masses move thru. This same air movement has a much more “temporary “ effect over water masses, since H20 changes temp slower.
Thus, bodies of water and ice are referred to as “heat sinks” meaning that they mitigate or slow rapid temp changes. They help to maintain more consistency in our weather patterns.
As more ice disappears, not only will oceans rise, but wilder and more extreme storms will continue to increase. The loss of ice will cause even the oceans to heat and cool quicker, meaning more extremes in weather.
As some, like Trad, have mentioned, there will be winners and losers as weather patterns change. That sounds like a recipe for more migration of populations, water wars, etc…

 

[Slappy Pappy]

Despite whatever you currently believe about climate change, this is a really interesting video about the historical temperatures taken from the Greenland ice sheet.

View embedded media

There has been huge variations in temperature in the past 250k years. Some of them led to mass extinctions, others, humans survived. He even mentions Atlantis and how this could be a lost civilization that is now buried 400 feet under water which was caused by massive melting and rising seas.

In one example, the research shows our global temps may have increased as much as 18 degrees in 1 year.

I'm curious how you think this plays in to the current explanations of global warming. It seems like current climate change scientists generally site data within the last 10,000 years, but this time period is such a short snippet of time during a stable period of time.

I think it shows just how devastating climate change can be to our habitat and the people who live here, and make it all that much more imperative that we do everything in our power to stop the ongoing fossil-fuel caused climate changes from getting worse.

 

[IaHawk44]

Despite whatever you currently believe about climate change, this is a really interesting video about the historical temperatures taken from the Greenland ice sheet.

View embedded media

There has been huge variations in temperature in the past 250k years. Some of them led to mass extinctions, others, humans survived. He even mentions Atlantis and how this could be a lost civilization that is now buried 400 feet under water which was caused by massive melting and rising seas.

In one example, the research shows our global temps may have increased as much as 18 degrees in 1 year.

I'm curious how you think this plays in to the current explanations of global warming. It seems like current climate change scientists generally site data within the last 10,000 years, but this time period is such a short snippet of time during a stable period of time.

Out of those 250 thousand years, I wonder how many of them saw man burning fossil fuels.

The issue is do we take care of our mess or not, the debate over a cyclical climate is nonsense.

 

[alaskanseminole]

Oh, boy. Another climate alarmist thread.

Tell us why you're not concerned with the tangible impact it is actually having today, much less tomorrow.

 

[The Tradition]

Tell us why you're not concerned with the tangible impact it is actually having today, much less tomorrow.

BECAUSE WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT!

Except adapt. And as a species, we're really good at that.

 

[alaskanseminole]

BECAUSE WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT!

Link

Except adapt. And as a species, we're really good at that.

We are. But who wants to move to central florida because the coastlines are gone an we could have done something about it.

 

[Joes Place]

Out of those 250 thousand years, I wonder how many of them saw man burning fossil fuels.

#MilankovitchCycles
#RIghtNowWeShouldBeInACoolingCycle

 

[Joes Place]

BECAUSE WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT!

LOLWUT?

Of COURSE we can - STOP burning fossil fuels.

 

[your_master5]

LOLWUT?

Of COURSE we can - STOP burning fossil fuels.

So, when we had a global industrial shutdown during the lockdown and fossil fuel was down 16% worldwide, why did we see still see a rise in CO2 (Northern Hemisphere), in fact to a 45 year high? Ah, the white crow moment.

 

[Raglefant]

BECAUSE WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT!

Except adapt. And as a species, we're really good at that.

I think what you mean is you don't give a f&ck about it because you'll be dead when the major effects on humans occur.

 

[Raglefant]

So, when we had a global industrial shutdown during the lockdown and fossil fuel was down 16% worldwide, why did we see still see a rise in CO2, in fact to a 45 year high? Ah, the white crow moment.

Yes!!! Amen brother. And why don't CO2 levels drop every Sunday when most people stay home?

 

[The Tradition]

LOLWUT?

Of COURSE we can - STOP burning fossil fuels.

I thought we passed "The Tipping Point" about 10 years ago.

 

[your_master5]

Yes!!! Amen brother. And why don't CO2 levels drop every Sunday when most people stay home?

This is not the same thing, but way to deviate from the conversation!

 

[Joes Place]

So, when we had a global industrial shutdown during the lockdown and fossil fuel was down 16% worldwide, why did we see still see a rise in CO2 (Northern Hemisphere), in fact to a 45 year high? Ah, the white crow moment.

Because they keep accumulating, spud.

The slowdown was a blip on the radar. And if you're trying to claim they're from some "natural" process, you are wrong; isotope analysis clearly demonstrates they are from fossil fuel mining/burning processes.

 

[Joes Place]

I thought we passed "The Tipping Point" about 10 years ago.

We probably have.
Not that you'd actually understand what a "tipping point" is.

 

[your_master5]

Because they keep accumulating, spud.

The slowdown was a blip on the radar. And if you're trying to claim they're from some "natural" process, you are wrong; isotope analysis clearly demonstrates they are from fossil fuel mining/burning processes.

OH?

 

[Joes Place]

This is not the same thing, but way to deviate from the conversation!

It IS the same thing.

 

[your_master5]

It IS the same thing.

No, it literally is not.

 

[Joes Place]

OH?

Did anyone argue that seasonal cycles in CO2 don't occur?

Cuz that's been evident in the Mauna Loa data since the 1950s...

 

[Joes Place]

So, when we had a global industrial shutdown during the lockdown and fossil fuel was down 16% worldwide, why did we see still see a rise in CO2 (Northern Hemisphere)

Because "down 16%" is still emitting FAR MORE CO2 than natural processes can absorb.

 

[your_master5]

Did anyone argue that seasonal cycles in CO2 don't occur?

Cuz that's been evident in the Mauna Loa data since the 1950s...

Right, so I wonder what that means, Joe?

 

[Raglefant]

This is not the same thing, but way to deviate from the conversation!

Yes it is and it's a dunk for us! I'm with you brotha.

 

[Joes Place]

No, it literally is not.

God you're an uninformed idiot

The up/down spikes are the seasonal cycles on your graphic.

Only, they are superimposed on top of the gradual accumulation from human emissions.

 

[your_master5]

Because "down 16%" is still emitting FAR MORE CO2 than natural processes can absorb.

You sure about that?

 

[Joes Place]

Right, so I wonder what that means, Joe?

It means "here's another science topic you are fully illiterate on".

 

[your_master5]

God you're an uninformed idiot

The up/down spikes are the seasonal cycles on your graphic.

Only, they are superimposed on top of the gradual accumulation from human emissions.

JFC you're so god damn stupid, seasonal has nothing to do with staying in your home every day Sunday idiot. And if it's seasonal, WHAT does that mean about CO2?

 

[Joes Place]

You sure about that?

Yes.

Emissions are accelerating.
A 16% decrease in acceleration is still accelerating.

 

[Joes Place]

And if it's seasonal, WHAT does that mean about CO2?

It means there IS a natural process IN ADDITION TO the human emissions component.

How is this not clear? Because everyone else in this thread can grasp that.

 

[Flie]

OH?