COP24 - Global catastrophe - climate change

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Quantum Quack, Dec 3, 2018.

  1. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,488
    Wow, I'm impressed. Ok, I'm already used to the fact that there is no iceaura posting without a "you are a victim of right-wing propaganda" claim. But so many repetitions of the same in a single post looks like a new record.

    Beyond this, there is only one interesting word worth to be quoted. Answering my "Of course, I know that you consider left-wing propaganda as Truth."
    LOL.

    The content of https://ilja-schmelzer.de/climate/ remains unquestioned (beyond the ad hominem claim that it is right-wing propaganda).
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,248
    perhaps
    You can't use logic and reason to dissuade someone who used neither to reach their viewpoint in the first place.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,299
    There was no such claim made. If there had been, it would not have been an ad hominem argument - you still haven't figured out what one of those is, and you never will until you discover you need to - another characteristic you share with your fellow wingnut propagandists.
    You are posting obvious nonsense and unmotivated personal attacks on a climate change thread, and the reason for you doing that seems visible.
    But why the goofy ass link?
    No reason to bother with it. It's not serious, it's just stupid, and granting the respect of serious discussion to crap like that reduces the currency of respect that adult discussion depends on while increasing the media load of repetition that its sources and backers depend on. Lose lose.

    And the fact that the "content" is foolish is not even the main issue - the fact that it contains fantasy bs like the "stopgap" H Bomb winter, which ruins every other post denying AGW you have made here, is more relevant. You are proposing setting up a global nuclear winter for use in a last ditch desperate attempt to partially and temporarily ameliorate a small fraction of the harms brought by AGW, as a security measure. For chrissake - penny drop? Do you read your own stuff?

    So why post it, if it has nothing to do with the thread? My guess: You want to deflect the discussion away from the physical reality of AGW. I don't blame you. If I had embarrassed myself as thoroughly as you have by falling for Republican wingnut bs of the most ridiculous variety available, I would want to talk about something else as well.

    The appropriate response to repetitive, propaganda fostered, meme captured AGW denial is derision.

    But the thread is about AGW, especially its effects on human welfare via climate change. So let's go back to that, how about.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2019
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,488
    Any argument why some controlled H-bomb detonations, which could be used for a well-defined decrease in temperature for a well-known amount of time would be unable to stop warming? No, I do not propose a nuclear winter, that is something based on different mechanisms (firestorms caused by the nuclear war instead of H-bomb related cooling). So, I see (as usual) a distortion of the content together with emotionally formulated attacks without any content.
     
  8. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,445
    Might work. No telling what storm-pattern it would set off. Might burn off the atmosphere. Worth a shot.
     
  9. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,248
    This from 2017:

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-carbon-emissions-level-off-even-as-economy-grows/
     
  10. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,885
    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47947775
    it seems some people in the uk have decided to make a point about the serious lack of action
     
  11. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,445
    Their national government is catatonic over its extraction from Europe - which itself was an incredibly stupid idea.
    Their regional governments have been quite progressive in conservation and it is a nation of enthusiastic volunteers.
    The people and the councils could do it - even in spite of parliament and business.
    They may have to dig a moat around the "Square Mile" of London and set it adrift on a high tide.
     
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,299
    Sure. It's temporary, there are no such wellknown bounds on its effects, it destroys agriculture in the areas that climate change does not, it increases the acidity problem, it plays hell with the ozone layer and atmospheric chemistry in general, and as soon as it wears off the still burgeoning CO2 climate effects kick in again on top of the nuclear winter famines. Among forty or fifty others. It's a moronic idea, from someone who has no idea of the physical realities involved.
    - - -
    That's possibly really bad news - the worst.
    Because this is still happening:
    https://www.noaa.gov/news/global-carbon-dioxide-growth-in-2018-reached-4th-highest-on-record
    In other words, we may have lost control - we may have pushed over a tipping point, feedback has taken over, and we're along for the ride now.
    The good news is that the "leveling off" is at a really high level, and may be swamping the system. So maybe we can still head off some bad stuff by cutting back from that high level. Maybe.
     
  13. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,488
    A nice example of cultist thinking - everything becomes worse, whatever we do to prevent it. See https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/18/is-the-climate-change-movement-a-cult/

    First, there are bounds on its effects, or they can be easily obtained and improved. Namely by testing H-bombs smaller than the Tsar Bomba. What influences its effect is well-known (the amount of dust and SO2 transferred to the Stratosphere and the place, which defines the region where the dust/SO2 will be distributed. Last but not least, the localization, as well as the temperature range, were similar to those expected from knowledge about vulcanos. Once such things will be started only if it becomes really hot, and even the Tsar Bomba has not created famines, there is no reason to be afraid of nuclear winter famines. That you will invent forty or fifty more ideas why stopping global warming in such a way is predictable, nobody expects something different. I have published papers in physics, you probably haven't, so it is not you who is the physics teacher here. You obviously have no idea about distinguishing the important leading effects from the majority of 50 or so other effects which always will play some role, but only a minor one.

    And you obviously have completely forgotten that the only way the CO2 effects (1 degree per doubling of the CO2) can become dangerous is enhancement by other factors. Such enhancement will be in part reverted by whatever causes some cooling. There will be, for example, during that winter more snow, thus, more sunlight reflected back from Earth. The hypothetical instability that a small amount of pure CO2 warming gives much more warming works in the other direction too.

    Some amount of CO2 heating, say, that which would move us toward the Holocene optimum https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png and probably beyond it would be certainly welcome, and last but not least during the Holocene it was quite stable.
    Yet another illustration of the sectant nature of climate change - whatever the news, it has to be bad news.
     
    sculptor likes this.
  14. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,445
    Everything becomes worse, because we didn't prevent it.
    The crazy nuke scheme isn't about prevention, it's about wholly inappropriate mitigation.
    Sometimes, as comic relief from the news, we watch one of those mass-produced disaster movies. Whatever is threatening "life as we know it", the solution is invariably: "Nuke it!"
    Ay-yup! That's where we're at now.
     
  15. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,248
    There seems to be an amazing amount of conflicting/contraindicating information available.

    ..................
    old joke:
    A cop who interviewed witnesses of a crime summarized their "eye witness accounts" thusly:
    It was a tall short, skinny fat, young old, black or white, man or woman holding a knife or a gun or a cell phone.
     
  16. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,445
    The cop had not been listening, nor classifying witnesses according to a standard of credibility.
    Oddly, the criminal justice system, with all its flaws, lurches along on evidence collected by more attentive, better-trained, more conscientious cops, and forensic teams with specialized knowledge.
    (Oh, and he should probably discount contradicting testimony from the perp's fellow gang-members.)
     
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,815
  18. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,248

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Does the picture match the rhetoric?

    ..................
    perhaps the end eemian could be a fair indicator?
     
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,815
    Now look at 2019.........

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    This is no longer a solid sheet, but broken pieces floating out to sea. Now visualize all these ice blocks melting and thereby raising the sea level.
     
  20. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,248
    Melting floating ice will not raise sea levels.

    .................
    that being "said"
    Guided by information about previous interglacials. I would expect sea level rise of 6 meters give or take within a couple thousand years or so.

    From previous studies:
    The transitions from glacial to interglacial and interglacial to glacial stages do not seem linear.
    The late eemian sea level rise to highstand may have taken less than 1000 years, and seems to have happened in pulses.(but, it was warmer then)
     
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,815
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2019
    sculptor likes this.
  22. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,248
    yes land ice
    and then, it gets a tad more complicated when analysing mass balance
    (snow in---ice out)
     
  23. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,445

Share This Page