Global warming strikes again...

It's not really so much about 'perfect'. It's about change, and property rights. It's certainly plausible that 20th century emissions improved the planet for humans, because we generated so much economic wealth in the process, that any damages were more than compensated. But that's because there was an incredible amount of 'buffer' in how much CO2 we can safely emit.

Climate, like many models, undergo transitions at certain levels of "too much'. A little tax can help an economy. Ratcheting up taxes doesn't really hurt it (much). Too much tax grinds it down fiercely. - Water is good for you, Ratcheting up water consumption doesn't really hurt you much. Too much water crashes your cognition. It will be the same with CO2.

But, like I said, it's about property rights. We already acknowledge that you're not allowed to put acid in my Koi pond. Even if you could show it was 'beneficial', you'd still not be allowed to. So, if you're not allowed to by using a pipette, why are you allowed to through your emissions? Well, because it's deemed to be harmless and too much of an inconvenience to stop. BUT, we still know how the property rights work.

Why is the developed world allowed to thermally expand the oceans, and steal Bangledeshi shoreline? We already know from current trends that we hate immigrants crises. So, it's not like we're going to allow the world to migrate to 'better' CO2 levels. We're just going to seize the shoreline. And not really for good reasons.
 
If indeed the shoreline is being gobbled up because of CO2 driven melt, I agree. What was evidenced by "the pause" was a total disconnect between CO2 and temps. The hockey stick has been shown to be manufactured crap. The science that CO2 is a greenhouse gas as bad as some would claim is what I hope will be resolved this winter/next spring. "The pause" would tend to indicate it should be cold. If that disconnect is due to CO2 not being up to its billing, then it should be exceptionally cold in a short time. If its stronger than I thought it was, then I'll say so.

We are in the Holocene interglacial. This is the time when glaciers recede and the water levels rise. In the last half million years this trend has occurred numerous times, way before anyone got in their Model T and went for a Sunday drive. Humans weren't even on this planet, or certainly not in our current configuration, when al;l this started. So glacial melt is pure natural cycle during interglacials, and were so long before property rights. The trick is whether we somehow sped it up a bit with our 200 parts per million of CO2.
 
CavLancer said:
If indeed the shoreline is being gobbled up because of CO2 driven melt, I agree. What was evidenced by "the pause" was a total disconnect between CO2 and temps. The hockey stick has been shown to be manufactured crap. The science that CO2 is a greenhouse gas as bad as some would claim is what I hope will be resolved this winter/next spring. "The pause" would tend to indicate it should be cold. If that disconnect is due to CO2 not being up to its billing, then it should be exceptionally cold in a short time. If its stronger than I thought it was, then I'll say so.

We are in the Holocene interglacial. This is the time when glaciers recede and the water levels rise. In the last half million years this trend has occurred numerous times, way before anyone got in their Model T and went for a Sunday drive. Humans weren't even on this planet, or certainly not in our current configuration, when al;l this started. So glacial melt is pure natural cycle during interglacials, and were so long before property rights. The trick is whether we somehow sped it up a bit with our 200 parts per million of CO2.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you're going to blame all of the warming on the 'holocene interglacial'. To me, it's akin to blaming summer for the house's temperature when someone insists on having the furnace cranked. They're separate issues. The holocene interglacial still does not allow you to cause sealevel rise via other mechanisms ...
 
Of course it does. Where is the glacial ice which dug out the Great Lakes? Where is the many meters of ice, many times the height of the Empire State building which covered the area that is now New York? That water is in the oceans, and caused it to rise. The Holocene has been a busy bee, no new thing to glacial melt and sea level rise. The question is, how much of the glacial melt is due to human activity? Very little I think. This is backed up by the current expansion of the ice cap, excepting where there are volcanoes beneath. This during a time of ever increasing CO2.
 
Just googled 'Ice cap expansion' and tried to load the NASA story on it but it won't load for me. There are loads of others though. Of course the IPCC disagrees, but that's automatic, more in the line of UN political scientists methinks. Nice to have NASA finally on board. Perhaps they figured with the coming cold they better cover their arses so as not to appear totally divorced from reality.

NASA says the ice is increasing. :dunno:.
 
Last edited:
CavLancer said:
Just googled 'Ice cap expansion' and tried to load the NASA story on it but it won't load for me. There are loads of others though. Of course the IPCC disagrees, but that's automatic.
Click to expand...

Do these ice cap expansion links look into density and longevity of the expansion? Think of an iceberg. Small on top, large underneath. Might it be the opposite in this instance?

Genuine question. I've never seen anything that depicted the ice caps as being expanded upon in the long-term, only in short-term cooling periods that are then undone shortly after.
 
Well to cover their arses the other way they said it could reverse the other way, and blamed the increase on warming (did I mention that was next?) but at least its a step in the right direction.
 
Haha, no. The ice cap is shrinking by any metric. Water will be adding to Antarctica for the same reason frost accumulates in your freezer if it's ajar.

But the thermal expansion of the seas is the major reason for sea level rise
 
He asked about the ice cap. :dunno: Makes sense that when things are warm they expand, sure. Do you then accept that when things get cool they contract? :)
 
Sorry, cross post. I thought people meant the North when they mention ice cap.

Antarctic is net accumulating. But as the glaciers accelerate into the water, that net accumulation can be undone. Glaciers becoming icebergs cause net water levels to rise
 
It certainly is if you believe the NASA study. :dunno:
 
Now I have another question for you. How could Antarctic ice be growing if its hotter than hell up there? The world is coolin I tells ya!
 
Ah, I see. Thank you for the link. It confirms what I already thought. Antarctica is a big place and when discussing its climate, differentiating between the west and east portions of the continent are important. The NASA study confirms the loss of ice in the west, notes the increase of ice in the east. It also states clearly that if the melting rate continues in the west, it will eventually outweigh the gains in the east. This is fairly congruent with what we already expected.

The problem with global warming (or any facet of climate change) is that it changes the way our planet's climate operates. It self-corrects and adapts, sometimes to extraordinary extent, in ways we often do not understand or cannot extrapolate effectively for. While the eastern portion of Antarctica may be gaining ice right now, it's possible that the continued loss in the west or up in the Arctic Circle will disrupt the Earth's cycle enough to stop this growth.

Fire-resistant material will still catch ablaze when the flames get intense enough. It's a question of when this ice growth will be overwhelmed by ice loss instead of if.
 
That's because of the volcanoes beneath, though they might have neglected to mention that. Still, don't want to get on them too much, a year or 2 ago they would never have dared post this info.
 
CavLancer said:
That's because of the volcanoes beneath, though they might have neglected to mention that. Still, don't want to get on them too much, a year or 2 ago they would never have dared post this info.
Click to expand...

There is no literally zero incentive for NASA to simply skip over publishing this study. It doesn't even support your argument that this is all a sham.
 
Whatever works for ya pal. :) They did publish it...and if nothing else its got some interesting info that points at cooling, though they left out the active volcanoes melting a portion. So, take that on down the road if nothing else.
 
El_Machinae said:
I am curious. Do you actually disbelieve the idea that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? That it helps retain certain wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum within the atmosphere?
Click to expand...

I see nothing has changed here, and you are still the personification of patience ;)

In fact, people who doubt the physical properties of CO2 are so rare that I am seriously hoping to find one here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
[BTS] Global Warming has stopped happening after it "strikes" on a mountain tile.
Replies
12
Views
1K
f1rpo
f1rpo
Birdjaguar
Global Strategies for Dominance
2 3
Replies
51
Views
5K
AdamCrock
AdamCrock
Askthepizzaguy
[RD] The threat to American Democracy
15 16 17
Replies
328
Views
16K
Sommerswerd
Sommerswerd
B
AdvCiv Global Warming / General Global Warming Thread
Replies
8
Views
2K
Aradziem
Aradziem
TyrannusRex
What if there were more Tech/Civic quotes?
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
Boris Gudenuf
Boris Gudenuf
Top Bottom