Wonder what will all these climate deniers be saying when we start having flooding in coastal cities. Some idiots will probably blame it all on Gays who draw wrath of god ...
This person's comment wasn't all that inflammatory... and to the extent it was, well, it's probably time to start getting inflamed. Ignoring the problem -- or dismissing it with a soothing chorus of Kumbaya -- won't make it go away.
It's worth responding to the first group, the response will indicate if they're really the second or third groups.
But in the president's formulation and in the formulation of smug stylists who have embraced some material account of uncool attitudes, the downturn, the jobs lost and the opportunities narrowed, are a force of nature — something that has "been happening" in the passive voice.
...
This, I suspect, will one day become the Republican Party's rationale for addressing climate change: Look, we don't know how the dead hooker wound up in the hotel room. But she's here now, that's undeniable, so we've gotta get rid of the body.
However, if we ever get to have flooding in coastal cities due to land-based ice melt, we will have long gone from here. The conditions required for the amount of land-based ice to melt will have meant that the extinction of most (if not all) life on this planet would have occurred long ago.
It is simple enough to do the calculations, but I have rarely ever come across anyone (who promulgates the anthropogenic climate change agenda) to do them for themselves.
I very much doubt that you could support this statement. The geological record shows huge variations in sea-level, sometimes much higher than now, without any massive extinction.
> It is simple enough to do the calculations, but I have rarely ever come across anyone (who promulgates the anthropogenic climate change agenda) to do them for themselves.
Please share your calculations with us.
> Please share your calculations with us.
That's the whole point, the calculations can be done by a fifth grader, so I'll let you do your own homework. However, I will give you a clue - conversion involves over 1 million 25 megatonne nuclear bombs. I'll be nice and add, daily global incident solar energy is another clue.
Once you have done your calculations then we can discuss any differences between results and outcomes.
> The conditions required for the amount of land-based ice to melt [in order for coastal cities to flood] will have meant that the extinction of most (if not all) life on this planet would have occurred long ago.
I suppose your calculations are simply the energy required to melt the additional volume of water required to raise sea level by x meters, and that the increased rate of heat retention due to AGW could not supply the heat required in y years, for some reasonable values of x and y. I'm prepared to stipulate that that is so. (I would set x=2 to flood some major cities, and y = 2100 - 2017 = 83).
Well, melting all that ice is not the concern, although no doubt it will happen in a few thousand years. The concern is that ice which is currently above sea level will slide into the sea, as the NY Times article discusses. Calculating that would require a whole lot of modelling and detailed knowledge, well beyond a fifth grader (whatever that is in your country), or even a lone genius with superb arithmetical skills.
They are simple enough for you to do, so do them and then come back and tell me that I'm wrong. I have given you enough information that, if I am wrong, you will be able to simply refute my end figures by you doing the calculations.
Consider it an exercise in helping you practice appropriate mathematical processes.
I should add that it took me about half an hour to collect the relevant information and do the calculations.
> To get a 1 metre sea level rise, requires the melting of land based ice of a volume equivalent to the entire surface area of Australia covered to a depth of 45 metres or so. The energy requirements for phase conversion is at least 1 million 25 MegaTonne nuclear bombs going off,
Which sounds like a lot but it isn't. Fortunately thunderf00t did the maths for us a few weeks ago and his results were that the earth is gaining the equivalent of a 10 Magatonne bomb every few minutes:
The energy requirements needed for ice melt are locked in physically. The figures suggested for additional energy absorption are not. In addition, energy flow rates are not considered in the video.
There is a great deal lacking in that video which does not match published research.
No he isn't, he's just demonstrating that the energy requirements are met.
> Considering the recent publication of research into the effects of CO2 on energy transmission, I have some concerns on the accuracy of his stated figures (regardless of anything IPCC).
Are you saying the greenhouse effect doesn't exist or that it is somehow reversed?