Tim the plumber

So please explain how a rising sea level will produce a lower pressure at the depth of the methane ice? Given that the temperature of the deep ocean is virtually impossible to change I would imagine that this increased pressure would increase the temperature point at which the methane ice will boil. Has basic physics changed so much recently? Or is it that you want to soak up all the catastrophist propaganda so much that your understanding of such basic science has taken a holiday? What science have I ever denied? Apart from the idea that a slight warming of the UK will cause 5000 extra deaths a year. I do deny that.

Would you want to be in a place full of Christians?

^ Yes sure. The choice is one of cost of power lines to a volcano or the cost of drilling a deep hole. I don't see why anyone would choose nuclear over drilling a hole into the ground. It has to be a lot cheaper than the billions needed for a nuclear power!

There was a spectacular hot spell in France once. The old were caught out and it happened in August when France is on holiday and more incapable than normal. The result was that the old were at risk of death and many who were on their last legs died. That a 1 degree rise in temperature is going to make that sort of thing normal in Britian is drivel. If you have not got the basic sense to understand the difference between hype and reality you are lost to reasonable argument. Study in full here http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publicati...i_2011_GRL.pdf

Fair enough there must be a block in my seeing 5000 deaths in the UK a year for having a climate closer to the Channel Islands rather than what we have at the moment. All those heat related deaths in Northern France.... Nope. That's drivel.

I just read the quote that Arete had posted which says; Have I misunderstood that at all???? +140 deaths -820 deaths ....... so 680 less deaths..... I might just be a plumber but it seems easy to me...

1, http://meteora.ucsd.edu/cap/pdffiles/CA_climate_Scenarios.pdf How about you explain why rainfall is not as good at being water as ice snow is. 1b, Would these models be the same ones which have failed to sucessfully predict annything so far? 2, Garbage in garbage out. You call yourself a scientist? 3,"coral reefs worldwide are in serious decline" http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v429/n6994/full/nature02691.html Since the water temperature has not increased in most cases and obviously it's not the hottest reefs that are having problems it's 100% clear that this is not being caused by increased temperature. The pattern of localised bad spots also rules out CO2 acidification being the culprit. This obsession with CO2 is blocking all other avenues of eccological effort! 4, Again the link does not go to this paper. How exactly is a very slight warming causing deaths more than the slight warming is helping people not to die of cold related causes? So what was it that caused the even hotter summer 500 years ago? Industrial polution? These extremes happen normally! But if we adapt a bit then it's fine. Easy. Well you said it.... I suggest you read the stuff you posted again; I agree with all that it sounds about right to me. 140 more deaths with 820 less deaths. That is a 680 less deaths to me. Good thing I hope it happens! Read your quotes before you post them.

1,California. If there is an increase in temperature then surely there should be a general increase in precipitation. The previous times in Earth's history it's been warm it's been wet. If the melt water is less perhaps the rainfall will be significantly more. Also a 20% less thaw run off (very selective) seems a small price to pay for keeping the lifestyle of plenty. 2, 10% increase in hurricane strength! Wow, so what? That's not a significant disaster. It a trifle. 3, The increase in drought due to warming has yet to show any signs of actually happening. The climate models which predict such events have failed to predict anything correctlt so far so I'm not going toworry about such flimsy claims. 4, Coral Bleaching. This is the Great Barrier reef thing where the northern bits of it are, for soem reason, seeing this bleaching effect. That coral does nicely in warmer waters, say the Coral Sea for example, is never mentioned. The increase in intensive agriculture in the Norther Austrailian coast is also glossed over because it's spread there to supply the sugar to fuel industry which is a green project thus untouchable. So it couldn't be pesticides at all, could it? 5, It's less deadly to live in a warm climate than a cold one. The overall effect of a slight warming on humanity will be positive. How many people in the US die of cold each year? Have you got anything which will cause anyone to lose sleep over?

I tried to read the OP but got bored. Is the point that the free access to the thinking of different sorts of people causes the religious societies trouble with the limiting of knowledge to their flocks? To which I would say, "Yep! Good isn't it!"

I'm not sure which changes you think human civilization will be having difficulty with. Is it the projected worst case scenario of a 1m sea level rise by 2100? Is it the projected worst case scenario of a temperature rise of 3ish (maybe 4.5 maybe.... more likely 1.5 degrees c) by 2100? Is it the projected increase in storms caused by the higher temperatures which have not increased due to the present warmish temperatures? Or something else?

Well done for putting in the last sentence. Surely the discussion is utterly wrong headed. The significant question is "How significant is human activity in global climate?" By representing the skeptical side of the debate as 100% denying of any change in climate the alarmist side has created a straw man to knock down.

Your saying that there are 600+ papers confirming that CO2 is causing catastrophic climate change? Yes or No? If No then that graph is 100% misleading. A deliberate misleading thing. I call that a lie.

So there are 1,400 peer reviewed articles showing global warming a year are there? Nope, not nearly that many. If you have read this and ever post this graph again you are lying and know it.

If you exclude the last 100 years from the first graph it seems to match fairly well. You have to exclude the last 150 years from any graph where the line is a floating 300 year avergae in any case. To do otherwise would be unscientific.

If you are under the center of an area of high pressure, where the air id dropping down from high altitude the air is flowing away from the sides of this zone but the center is static air. If you are at the center of a low pressure zone where the air is moving upwards you have the same situation. There are lots of eddies in such a complex flow pattern.

I think the vast armada of kites would have an impact on climate and the shadows would cool the surface quite a lot. Building and maintaining all these kites would use a lot of energy.....

Or very near the surface if you have a handy volcanoe. Yellowstone and Etna spring to mind.

Is that any better? Or this; http://mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.htm

What am I denying? I embrace the IPCC's figures. I think they have been stretched upwards as far as they can be but I still don't see that they show anything scary. For the purpose of moving the argument on let's use those. Do you have any sort of peer reviewed paper which suggests that we might have a run away warming due to methane?

Other sizes: 100, 200, 300, 450, Full Size (600x405, 42KB)‎ This is from the link you posted. It shows us to be lower than the dotted line at the moment. I'm not sure what the line is. It does not apear to be an average. Your link did not seem to say where they got this particular data from but I am assuming it's from the ice core samples using an isotope of oxygen as a proxy to get the temperature. That would be a world temperature. The reason it matters is that we don't know that humans are the cause of the temperature rise 1970 to present. But that's not the biggest reason it matters. The biggest reason is that it shows that the world has survived periods of higher temperatures than now. That the ice caps did not melt. That Polar bears did not die out. If you need to know why it was warmer back then in order to live your life you are going to be troubled. I don't. As I said;

Or if you take the longer graph with the trend of +0.124K per decade you get the answer that the projected global warming by 2100 will be 1.2 degrees c. Maybe. Or if you use some sort of several year average and work out the rate of change of change in temperature you can project a graph where this is a peak and the temperature line will drop in the next few years. Or you could look at a significantly longer time period, I'd suggest several thousand years, and see that the current world climate temperature is within normal limits. 20% of the time since the last ice age it's been warmer than now. Your choice.

So the Mashall Islands have dispeared due to a sea level rise that has not yet happened? Did I miss the sudden sea level rise? How big was it and when did it happen? Or have they had a storm and being sand bars on the top of coral reefs they tend to be precarious at the best of times. Personally I'd put some of the money they get from selling fishing rights into putting some solid stuff on the islands so they can keep claiming those fishing rights.

That's almost how they do it. The steam is condensed and the water sent back down, you don't want to bring all those minerals up and polute the surface with them unnecessarily. The question has to be asked; Compared to the cost of 1 nuclear power station how expensive would it be to build a big geothermal power station or 20 in Yellow stone and some high capacity cables to send it around the USA? I'm sure it's billions but.... Europe can use Iceland and Etna.

1 I don't see how a 0.5 to 2.5 degree c temperature increse by 2100 will stop agriculture in the mid west. 2 The wrost case scenario of sea level rise in the IPCC's IR4 report was for a 59cm rise by 2100 and that required a 6.4 degree c temperature rise. The temperature rise has droped and the worst case scenario is now 1m. I don't understand where they have got that figure from because they are very opacke about which ice they expect to melt. Is Central California with 1m of sea level? If it is then perhaps they should have already built some sort of sea defences. Bangladesh gains 2cm a monsoon in silt. That's for land 10km away from the rivers and there isn't really any such land. Bangladesh will grow in this century and the next. We have had a bit of warming and the incidence of storms has not increased. Do you know where the Punjab is? It is nowhere near the ocean (mostly). It will also gain sediment every monsoon. The Neitherlands will not be disapearing despite being up to 17m below sea level. This is because they will add a bit to the sea defences. But you don't want to think about that because your dream of catastrophy will melt away.

25 years since I did any of this but 24.43 is my answer.