94% of Greenland has melted

Glaucus said:
they are meaningless and they're very much cherry picked. especially the if it can double co2 in a century. Those numbers do not tell us anything with out natural co2 emissions and natural co2 absorption.
the fact they're rough estimates doens't matter, its the fact those numbers on their own are meaningless.

he has not done any claculations based on teh cycle. he has compared atmospheric co2 with man made co2 emissions. these are largely irrelevant without the other numbers i suggest.
Click to expand...

They're really not, all carbon in the oil and coal was sequestered away and out of the cycle, what with it being a few million years old.
 
paradisiac said:
you do realise that the mass of ice is forcing the sea levels up, so when it melts it stays pretty much the same level right?

I mean, I have never left ice to melt in a glass and come back to find the glass has overflowed :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

but, if you fill your glass and put in some floating long ice that is 30% above the water line, then fill the glass right to the top, you will find it overflows.

paradisiac said:
how do we know though. no records were recorded 500 years ago. how do you know these things aren't just long cycles that repeat themselves and nothing we do will stop that?
Click to expand...

they know this already from drilling cores. apparently in Roman times the country was a fair bit warmer than it is now. no doubt there are natural cycles of warming then ice ages (of different magnitudes)
 
bam0 said:
They're really not, all carbon in the oil and coal was sequestered away and out of the cycle, what with it being a few million years old.
Click to expand...

No, it really is meaningless. You need to know total co2 misons and total co2 a sorbitol, before throwing any figures around, especially the it doubles it in a centrally comment. Again it's is meaningless without this oter figures.
Co2 cycl is no staid, it changes massively and that's without humans in the picture let alone us in the picture. So simply saying it we locked away, pest tell us that it increases atmospheric co2 in a 1:1 aion.
 
Hatter The Mad said:
They show that the temperature cycle has never (never in relative terms) been not as rapid as in the last century, and the best fitting data for to explain the change in rate of change is human CO2 output.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

A few things people need to understand.

Climate change scientists are not claiming that the temperature doesn't change on it's own in warming/cooling cycles - they are concerned about the SPEED in which it's occurring.

Erosion eats away land at a slow steady rate, but it all the land on the earth started eroding at 10 foot a year (due to human intervention) - would people say "Yeah, but erosion happens in nature!").
 
Was reading an article about this the other day which I've now lost as I was reading it through an app on my phone.

But they said that this level of melt / thaw has happened before (around 100 years ago I think) and that a big thaw does seem to happen on a regular cycle.

Not saying that this should be ignored (I'm glad we have people monitoring it) but it may not be as bad as it seems.

A tiny change in climate can really screw us over though, you just have to look at how a small change in the gulf stream changed the weather worldwide this Summer. Plus diseases like the Plague were boosted by abnormal changes in climate.
 
Glaucus said:
except that doesn't show us anything.
now calculate natural co2 release and natural co2 absorption.

cherry picking numbers doesn't help your point at all, as they are pretty meaningless.
Click to expand...

I haven't cherry picked data, they are the most accurate values I can quickly find and have provided sources.

I didn't intend to claim that atmospheric CO2 would more than double (although looking at the trend from the Hawaii data it doesn't seem completely fantastical). What I meant to show was that human activity is on a scale where it can be reasonably compared global quantities (which is something a lot of people seem to ignore or reject).

I agree it would seem to late to prevent some of the predicted positive feedback effects (eg methane release from thawing permafrost). The old saying an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure would seem to ring true, reorganising civilisation is never going to be easy. This only highlights the failings of short sited reactionary politics.
 
elmarko1234 said:
Indeed.

A few things people need to understand.

Climate change scientists are not claiming that the temperature doesn't change on it's own in warming/cooling cycles - they are concerned about the SPEED in which it's occurring.
Click to expand...

No they are not concerned with the speed of change, they are obsessed with linking it to human influences.
 
jak731 said:
completely fantastical). What I meant to show was that human activity is on a scale where it can be reasonably compared global quantities (which is something a lot of people seem to ignore or reject).
Click to expand...

again , you can not say that from your figures. you are using the wrong figures to try and prove a point.
 
So you would say the statement 'current human emissions would approximately equate to 1.5 times the current mass of CO2 in the atmosphere over the course of a century' is false? Note that it does not make any claims about how the atmospheric concentration would change.
 
Glaucus said:
again , you can not say that from your figures. you are using the wrong figures to try and prove a point.
Click to expand...

Are you going to provide a proof that his numbers are useless and that they're the wrong ones to use, or just sit there repeatedly saying 'you're wrong you're wrong you're wrong'? If you can't be bothered to do so, then say that and shut up about it.

I know this is GD, but come on, try to maintain the appearance of an IQ above 80 pls.
 
jak731 said:
So you would say the statement 'current human emissions would approximately equate to 1.5 times the current mass of CO2 in the atmosphere over the course of a century' is false? Note that it does not make any claims about how the atmospheric concentration would change.
Click to expand...

i said it shows nothing. You're trying to state all that co2 will be added to the atmosphere. it simply wont.

you need to know natural co2 emissions and you need to know global absorption rate, then you can show what you are trying to say and you will have a very different number.
#
for example
Currently about 57% of human-emitted CO2 is removed by the biosphere and oceans
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Glaucus said:
you need to know natural co2 emissions (which is far far higher than man made) and you need to know global absorption rate, then you can show what you are trying to say and you will have a very different number.
Click to expand...
Actually, you're wrong to say that Jak needs to know these figures in order to work it out back-of-the-envelope style. You can simply compare net results - is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere rising quicker than it used to? The answer is yes; therefore, more CO2 is being produced than the Earth's cycle-in-equilibrium.

Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter: http://www.newscientist.com/article...man-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html
 
Hatter The Mad said:
Actually, you're wrong to say that Jak needs to know these figures in order to work it out back-of-the-envelope style. You can simply compare net results - is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere rising quicker than it used to? The answer is yes; therefore, more CO2 is being produced than the Earth's cycle-in-equilibrium.
]
Click to expand...

that's not what he claimed and not what im arguing.

i also never said they where to tiny to matter, ive specifically kept away from my feelings. well actually i stated my feelings. According to IPCC models and predictions we are way past the we can do anything point. Making that entire debate, rather redundant.
Thankfully we still have oil prices, security and peak to contend with, sow e are still switching over. personally i would love to see a cleaner country, with low carbon particulates and other sources of pollution.
 
Last edited:
Glaucus said:
that's not what he claimed
Click to expand...

I'm afraid it was:

jak731 said:
Any one particular climate regime is in a delicate equilibrium. Plenty of natural events can cause it to change, this is not disputed. The argument is that humans are having a significant effect over the natural cycles. The fact that dinosaurs didn't drive suvs is mindless drivel.

Having a degree in physics I like doing simple 'back of the envelope' calculations to see if what people are saying appears to be in the right ball park. Consider this:
....
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom