studiot Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) I am unaware of any direct impact of a degree of warming upon any aspect of erosion of any substance other than ice. The rate of chemical reactions increases with temperature increase. So processes which involve chemical weathering will speed up. If you are interested the effect is called the Arrhenius equation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrhenius_equation Edited June 9, 2014 by studiot 1
swansont Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 Matters are more subtle than this, although personally keeping cool when it is very hot is no subtle matter. Standard body temperature is 37 degrees centigrade. So for ambient below this temperature the body has to burn ingested fuel to stay alive Conversely, above this temperature survival requires the body has to reject heat. Having lived and worked in places where this barrier is regularly crossed for extended periods I can attestify that crossing this temperature barrier makes quite a difference. The body is a thermodynamic engine and sheds heat all the time. Normally it's trivial, because the ambient temperature is lower and this heat transfer occurs spontaneously. It can be aided by evaporation, which occurs when we perspire. But the efficiency drops as the ambient temperature rises. Eventually one can't shed heat quickly enough, the body's temperature rises, and under some conditions physiological damage occurs. It's not just when ambient reaches 37 ºC, though as you note that makes things considerably more difficult. My information of the impacts of a degree of warming are mostly from the work of the IPCC. I am unaware of any direct impact of a degree of warming upon any aspect of erosion of any substance other than ice. Perhaps you could elaborate about this and the amount of heat energy involved in a degree of atmospheric warming. I suggest that the initial big number is divided by the surface area of the world so we can consider it per square meter. The enthalpy expressed thusly will, I expect come out as a small number of Joules. It would, however, be a lot more informative to simply visit England for a week or so, ask if the weather you are experiencing is exceptional and then visit the Channel Island. I expect the change will always be pleasant one. They have a nice mild climate as opposed to the chilly one England has. Yep, which do you think is the issue in the UK? How often do you think 37 degrees c is exceeded in the UK? Do you think that a raise of 1 degree will cause an additional 5000 deaths per year as has been said/implied on this thread with a peer reviewed paper to support that position. I have been unable to site any paper which refutes that. I have also been unable to site any paper which refutes the idea that the ocean is dry. My position has caused me to be warned by the moderators. Hey ho, looks like they (he?) will ban me now.... Yes, a chilly climate. Meaning not many people will have air conditioning, leaving them susceptible to heat waves that have increased in intensity and/or duration. It's not your position that has gotten you in trouble, per se, it is the vacuous arguments that you have used; repeated logical fallacies are specifically against the rules. Argument from incredulity, for example. Edit to add: As xkcd points out, average temperatures of just 4.5 ºC below our 20th century norm had us in an ice age. We're above that norm now. An additional 1ºC change is not a trivial thing.
Arete Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) Do you think that a raise of 1 degree will cause an additional 5000 deaths per year as has been said/implied on this thread with a peer reviewed paper to support that position. Your implication that climate change represents a 1 degree uniform increase in temperature, in every spatial location on every day of the year in order to trivialize it, is a strawman argument. Temperature increases due to climate change will not be uniform, spatially and temporally. Given the quantity of evidence provided directly to you explaining this, repeating that logically fallacious argument ad infinitum amounts to willful ignorance. I have been unable to site any paper which refutes that. I have also been unable to site any paper which refutes the idea that the ocean is dry. My position has caused me to be warned by the moderators. Hey ho, looks like they (he?) will ban me now.... You have been unable to find one because there is no evidence that the paper is incorrect. The only thing preventing you from accepting it is your own personal incredulity. This leaves your position similar to that of a young earth creationist who is personally incredulous to the Earth being older than 6,000 years, despite clear evidence to the contrary and none in support of their position. Contrary to your statement, here is a peer reviewed paper demonstrating that the liquid volume world's oceans is approximately 1.3324 x 109 Km2. This comprehensively refutes the statement that the ocean is dry. It took me all of 30 seconds to find. http://darchive.mblwhoilibrary.org/bitstream/handle/1912/3862/23-2_charette.pdf?sequence=1 Edited June 9, 2014 by Arete 1
Ophiolite Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 Yep, which do you think is the issue in the UK? The issue in the UK is that global warming will also be associated with greater extremes of weather. This means that exceptionally hot days will become increasingly common. Elderly persons and those with chronic conditions of heart, lungs or circulatory system are susceptible to extremes of temperature. I live in a Victorian (or more likely Georgian) house, with granite walls more than one foot thick. Despite its ability, apparently, to retain a chill from the last ice age, on some summer days with windows wide open and a fan blowing across me I have been exhausted after what should have been a peaceful nights sleep. And I live in the North of Scotland. I hope to survive many more such nights, but I suspect that eventually one of them will do me in. Do you think that a raise of 1 degree will cause an additional 5000 deaths per year as has been said/implied on this thread with a peer reviewed paper to support that position. It seems quite feasible, though I have not yet read the paper. I note that the 2003 European heat wave is thought to have been responsible for 70,000 deaths: Robine, Jean-Marie et al (2008)."Death toll exceeded 70,000 in Europe during the summer of 2003" Comptes Rendus Biologies 331 (2): 171–178. I have been unable to site any paper which refutes that. I have also been unable to site any paper which refutes the idea that the ocean is dry. Others have been too polite to offer you this insight, opting to avoid anything that might incite, but you "cite a paper", you don't "site a paper". Siting a paper would involve placing it in some specific position.
Greg H. Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 Contrary to your statement, here is a peer reviewed paper demonstrating that the liquid volume world's oceans is approximately 1.3324 x 109 Km2. This comprehensively refutes the statement that the ocean is dry. It took me all of 30 seconds to find. http://darchive.mblwhoilibrary.org/bitstream/handle/1912/3862/23-2_charette.pdf?sequence=1 Tiny little nitpick, but I'm pretty sure the volume should be in km3, not km2. 1
iNow Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 I am unaware of any direct impact of a degree of warming upon any aspect of erosion of any substance other than ice. Tim - Others have already corrected most of your mistakes. Continuing in the theme of educating those who refuse to accept simple truths, the below tries to make this as simple as possible to comprehend: http://xkcd.com/1379/
studiot Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 Do sensationalist replies help? Let us look at the figures. (Well spotted Greg H, yes obviously the units of volume are in cubic kilometres. But the numbers were correct.) Arete your reference has much the same figures as those from the US geological Survey official figures http://water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleice.html But theirs have some additional material that is worth studying. So let us tabulate Total Water volume 1.33 x 109 cubic kilometres Total ice volume 24 x 106 cubic kilometres Current water surface area 361 x 106 square kilometres Curent average depth 3.68 km So if all the ice melts and the area does not increase that corresponds to an additional depth of water of (24 x 106) / (361 x 106) = .066km = 66m, say 60 m to allow for the spread as the depth increases. We can also expect a hotter earth to push more water into the atmosphere, reducing this still further. So what is the source of your figuring, iNow? don't you think 200m is excessive? 1
John Cuthber Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 I am unaware of any direct impact of a degree of warming upon any aspect of erosion of any substance other than ice. It would, however, be a lot more informative to simply visit England for a week or so, ask if the weather you are experiencing is exceptional and then visit the Channel Island. I expect the change will always be pleasant one. They have a nice mild climate as opposed to the chilly one England has. You seem unaware of many things, but surely you must understand that more rain will increase erosion? Will you please stop ignoring the excess deaths that occur in the UK in hot weather. These are real people who die. It is deeply insulting for you to ignore them.
Tim the plumber Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) Tim - Others have already corrected most of your mistakes. Continuing in the theme of educating those who refuse to accept simple truths, the below tries to make this as simple as possible to comprehend: http://xkcd.com/1379/ 4 to 5 degrees, ummmmm.... Why does your pretty cartoon have a 9 degree temperature increase point on it? Is there any basis for that as a prediction in any peer reviewed science at all? Are you denying the established science that this is utterly impossible in today's world? I was under the impression that the IPCC's highest estimates had a figure of 4.5 degrees. I was also under the impression that the lower end of their predictions was 1.5 degrees. And beyond that I was under the impression that we are currently below the predicted line to hit the lower number. Can you give the source paper for the additional forcing due to feedback loops or whatever which is responsible for the additional warming beyond what is known to be the direct result of CO2 increase? I will be amazed if you can as I have never seen anyone else manage it. You seem unaware of many things, but surely you must understand that more rain will increase erosion? Will you please stop ignoring the excess deaths that occur in the UK in hot weather. These are real people who die. It is deeply insulting for you to ignore them. OK, so it's an indirect effect. I will continue to ignore a paper which, on the basis of no alteration of life style, predicts that the change of climate from what we have now in the UK to what the climate is 100 to 200 miles south of us is will cause additional deaths. I will do this because people will open the window and will take off the jumper. The climate a bit to the South is a nice climate where people generally live longer. As you go North in the UK the life expectancy generally drops. There is no point posting data about this because it would be quite rightly attacked as being disingenuous. The lower life expectancy is mostly life style caused. Scots have a habit of drinking themselves to death and eating deep fried mars bars. Or deep fried pizza. I will continue to assume that the IPCC's figures are the best available forecasts and use them to gauge my response level to the threat of global warming due to human activity. Edited June 10, 2014 by Tim the plumber -1
Ophiolite Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 I will continue to ignore a paper which, on the basis of no alteration of life style, predicts that the change of climate from what we have now in the UK to what the climate is 100 to 200 miles south of us is will cause additional deaths. I will do this because people will open the window and will take off the jumper. I have addressed this point in post #279. I shall be generous and assume that you simply missed it. Please respond now.
Tim the plumber Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 I will defer to the scientists who did the analysis, but I have no reason to doubt it. I have observed that heat waves cause deaths, and an increase in temperature will result in more severe heat waves. I also have an appreciation of statistics, so I realize that a 1 degree increase in an average does not imply a uniform 1 degree increase each day of the year; the implication is that heat waves are more severe in temperature and/or duration. I am hard-pressed to understand why someone wouldn't think that more deaths would result from that. Perhaps because you don't live in Britain. We don't have aircon. We don't dye of the heat unless we go out in the best 3 days of summer (which can often be the only days of summer) and drink 20 pints of larger in the pub's beer garden wearing no t-shirt. That happens often. Old people do dye of cold here. Fuel prices have risen a lot because of this AGW thing. Old people are dying due to that. Lots of them. I care!!!! The issue in the UK is that global warming will also be associated with greater extremes of weather. This means that exceptionally hot days will become increasingly common. Elderly persons and those with chronic conditions of heart, lungs or circulatory system are susceptible to extremes of temperature. I live in a Victorian (or more likely Georgian) house, with granite walls more than one foot thick. Despite its ability, apparently, to retain a chill from the last ice age, on some summer days with windows wide open and a fan blowing across me I have been exhausted after what should have been a peaceful nights sleep. And I live in the North of Scotland. I hope to survive many more such nights, but I suspect that eventually one of them will do me in. It seems quite feasible, though I have not yet read the paper. I note that the 2003 European heat wave is thought to have been responsible for 70,000 deaths: Robine, Jean-Marie et al (2008)."Death toll exceeded 70,000 in Europe during the summer of 2003" Comptes Rendus Biologies 331 (2): 171–178. I am shocked that you find summers a problem. Do you find winters a similar trouble? If you do have this problem with hot summer nights I would indeed advise you to get an air conditioner fitted to your bedroom. The cost of doing so will probably be less than the increase in your annual fuel bill due to the various green levies, hidden or open, which you are currently paying. You might also want to check out your loft insulation. If your bedroom is under a poorly insulated loft the heat from the sun can be trapped in the roof and be trouble. I am aware that the hype talks of increased extremes but the models which predict this are so poor at predicting the climate that I have no confidence in them. Was there such an increase in heat waves and droughts in the bronze age warm period? Were there less droughts in the little ice age? I thought it was the opposite. -3
swansont Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 Perhaps because you don't live in Britain. We don't have aircon. We don't dye of the heat unless we go out in the best 3 days of summer (which can often be the only days of summer) and drink 20 pints of larger in the pub's beer garden wearing no t-shirt. That happens often. Well, that's not true. You had a heat wave just last summer that claimed hundreds of lives. At the time of the article, the heat wave had lasted nine days. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10187140/Heatwave-deaths-760-lives-claimed-by-hot-weather-as-high-temperatures-continue.html "Data has shown real risk of increased deaths when temperature goes above 26C." I await your next false and easily-refuted claim. 1
WeatherRusty Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 Do sensationalist replies help? Let us look at the figures. (Well spotted Greg H, yes obviously the units of volume are in cubic kilometres. But the numbers were correct.) Arete your reference has much the same figures as those from the US geological Survey official figures http://water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleice.html But theirs have some additional material that is worth studying. So let us tabulate Total Water volume 1.33 x 109 cubic kilometres Total ice volume 24 x 106 cubic kilometres Current water surface area 361 x 106 square kilometres Curent average depth 3.68 km So if all the ice melts and the area does not increase that corresponds to an additional depth of water of (24 x 106) / (361 x 106) = .066km = 66m, say 60 m to allow for the spread as the depth increases. We can also expect a hotter earth to push more water into the atmosphere, reducing this still further. So what is the source of your figuring, iNow? don't you think 200m is excessive? I'm quite sure 200 feet rather than meters is what was intended. 4 to 5 degrees, ummmmm.... Why does your pretty cartoon have a 9 degree temperature increase point on it? Is there any basis for that as a prediction in any peer reviewed science at all? Are you denying the established science that this is utterly impossible in today's world? I was under the impression that the IPCC's highest estimates had a figure of 4.5 degrees. I was also under the impression that the lower end of their predictions was 1.5 degrees. And beyond that I was under the impression that we are currently below the predicted line to hit the lower number. Can you give the source paper for the additional forcing due to feedback loops or whatever which is responsible for the additional warming beyond what is known to be the direct result of CO2 increase? I will be amazed if you can as I have never seen anyone else manage it. OK, so it's an indirect effect. I will continue to ignore a paper which, on the basis of no alteration of life style, predicts that the change of climate from what we have now in the UK to what the climate is 100 to 200 miles south of us is will cause additional deaths. I will do this because people will open the window and will take off the jumper. The climate a bit to the South is a nice climate where people generally live longer. As you go North in the UK the life expectancy generally drops. There is no point posting data about this because it would be quite rightly attacked as being disingenuous. The lower life expectancy is mostly life style caused. Scots have a habit of drinking themselves to death and eating deep fried mars bars. Or deep fried pizza. I will continue to assume that the IPCC's figures are the best available forecasts and use them to gauge my response level to the threat of global warming due to human activity. The 1.5C to 4.5C temperature range represents the estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity to a DOUBLING of CO2 or it's equivilant in radiative forcing. Since we will likely pass a doubling of CO2 over pre-industrial levels by mid century and other greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide continue to increase the radiative forcing produced by human factors will exceed that from a simple doubling of CO2.
Arete Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) I will continue to ignore a paper which, on the basis of no alteration of life style, predicts that the change of climate from what we have now in the UK to what the climate is 100 to 200 miles south of us is will cause additional deaths....I will do this because people will open the window and will take off the jumper. A heat wave in the UK in 2003 caused approximately 2,000 deaths. To say that people will "open a window and take off the jumper" and therefore there will be no deaths due to an increases in the severity, duration and frequency of heat waves is demonstrably false, and rather ridiculous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave#United_Kingdom http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/education/teens/case-studies/heatwave http://www.coolgeography.co.uk/9/Risky_Earth/2003_heatwave/2003_heatwave.htm You're ignoring basic facts because they are inconvenient to your point of view - it renders point of view willfully ignorant and therefore trivially dismissable. Edited June 10, 2014 by Arete
Essay Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) My information of the impacts of a degree of warming are mostly from the work of the IPCC. I am unaware of any direct impact of a degree of warming upon any aspect of erosion of any substance other than ice. Perhaps you could elaborate about this and the amount of heat energy involved in a degree of atmospheric warming. I suggest that the initial big number is divided by the surface area of the world so we can consider it per square meter. The enthalpy expressed thusly will, I expect come out as a small number of Joules. So what does the IPCC say about this? Climate scientists I've heard, or talked with or read, explain how more energy means more extremes in general; wet areas getting wetter, and the dry drier. Also, while long term averages may not change much, we can still expect more flood/drought cycles, compared with previously (relatively more) steady and predictable, moderate precipitation events. The "basics" of geology go into how weathering creates many of the changes in rocks and soils and topographies. There is a reason tropical soils are not very fertile; leaching of nutrients happens more easily in tropical climates. Civilization currently depends heavily upon agriculture in a relatively stable, temperate zone ...and on not having soil blow away during a drought or wash away during a flood. Though that erosion might make it easier to find hidden land mines... The Housten Chronicle: May 19, 2014 The worst rainfall in more than a century has flooded large swathes of Bosnia and Serbia, threatening Serbia's main power plant and unleashing landslides that have swept away homes and unearthed land mines left over from the region's war, along with warning signs pinpointing their locations. At least 35 people have died and tens of thousands have been forced to flee. The death toll is expected to rise as floodwaters recede after the worst rainfall since records began to be kept 120 years ago. He said the flooding had destroyed about 100,000 houses and 230 schools. ...or not. === Been hearing more about sinkholes lately ...or unusually large landslides anywhere? === But you're right about it being a small number of Joules ...per square meter; it's only in the range on 1 Joule/m^2. And one Joule on average, for every square meter of the planet's surface --land, sea, and ice-- is only a minor change when compared with the 5 or 10 Joule/second change that the solar (sunspot) cycle travels back and forth through on a (roughly) decadal schedule, which affects the planet during the daytime, for 5 or 6 years, until the cycle reverses its daytime effects during the rest of the 'decadal' cycle. Global warming is only like putting a 1 Watt night-light, on every square meter of the planet, and leaving it burning, 24/7/365, year after year, and decade after decade; and for centuries to follow into the foreseeable future, never cycling off. ...though I think the IPCC's latest numbers put the extra heating at slightly over 2 Joules per second; or like 500 billion Two-Watt bulbs, everywhere globally "forevermore." ~ Edited June 10, 2014 by Essay
swansont Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 Do sensationalist replies help? Let us look at the figures. So if all the ice melts and the area does not increase that corresponds to an additional depth of water of (24 x 106) / (361 x 106) = .066km = 66m, say 60 m to allow for the spread as the depth increases. We can also expect a hotter earth to push more water into the atmosphere, reducing this still further. So what is the source of your figuring, iNow? don't you think 200m is excessive? At the level of denial we're seeing in places in this thread, quibbling over a factor of three is IMO silly, since it's not as if 60m is below some threshold we could deal with and 200m is over that limit. However, what about the thermal expansion of the water? You also need to account for that. (also, it'd be nice to know what post you were referencing, for context of the argument)
Ophiolite Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 Do sensationalist replies help? What is sensationalist about suggesting Cretaceous sea levels were 200m higher than today? Published figures run as high as 250m. Arguably one of the most thorough analyses is this one by Muller that estimates a +170m level, 15% from the quoted number. I think you owe iNow an apology.
studiot Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) (also, it'd be nice to know what post you were referencing, for context of the argument) I find this very disappointing and the rest of your post rather biased, especially considering this statement I made immediately after post#281 So what is the source of your figuring, iNow? don't you think 200m is excessive? However, what about the thermal expansion of the water? You also need to account for that. What about it? What about the quantity of ice that is floating above the current float line? There are probably quite a few factors that will affect the final figure in either direction, a small amount. At the level of denial we're seeing in places in this thread, quibbling over a factor of three is IMO silly, since it's not as if 60m is below some threshold we could deal with and 200m is over that limit. I am supporting neither side in this discussion. Unfortunately climate change arguments always seem to end in tears. But I do like to see facts accurately represented. I'm quite sure 200 feet rather than meters is what was intended. Perhaps, but if that is the case why did the originator not say so? I have seen him or her online her since that statement was made. Edited June 10, 2014 by studiot
iNow Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 4 to 5 degrees, ummmmm.... Why does your pretty cartoon have a 9 degree temperature increase point on it? Is there any basis for that as a prediction in any peer reviewed science at all?As should be obvious to pretty much anyone who has managed to get past the third grade, the prediction is based on an in/then condition, and yes. The science very clearly supports the idea that IF our CO2 levels reach that point THEN a 9 degree temperature increase AND the accompanying effects on our planet are the most likely outcome. Still struggling with this simple point? I'll try to help with a more easily accessible comparison. The point is that IF you eat 72 donuts every single day for the next three years straight, THEN you will gain quite a lot of weight AND experience significantly detrimental effects with your health. I know this is a hard concept for some people to grasp, but this is not the same as me suggesting that you WILL eat those donuts nor is it the same as me calling you fat or unhealthy. Make sense? Would it be easier to follow if someone drew you a picture (oh... wait... that's what prompted this exchange... hmmm... yeah, never mind... maybe I should have posted one that used crayons instead). The clear challenge here, of course, is that you probably won't eat those donuts and can easily choose not to, but we as a species probably will release that CO2 and it's quite difficult to choose otherwise given the politics and profound willful ignorance involved.
studiot Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 What is sensationalist about suggesting Cretaceous sea levels were 200m higher than today? Published figures run as high as 250m. Arguably one of the most thorough analyses is this one by Muller that estimates a +170m level, 15% from the quoted number. I think you owe iNow an apology. How many million years ago was the cretaceous? So you have an accurate topographical/barymetric map of that time? You are a scientist so how can you compare data from millions of years ago with an event predicted to happen within 200 years? How can you be so certain that the topography will change so that such a rise is possible? If the topography does not change where will water equivalent to double the total ice come from, to bring this rise about?
iNow Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 I think you owe iNow an apology.Instead of apologizing to me, I'd much rather he correct his misunderstandings (or, at least adjust his thinking based on the multitude of corrections shared already by members here). How many million years ago was the cretaceous? So you have an accurate topographical/barymetric map of that time? You are a scientist so how can you compare data from millions of years ago with an event predicted to happen within 200 years? How can you be so certain that the topography will change so that such a rise is possible? If the topography does not change where will water equivalent to double the total ice come from, to bring this rise about? Ah, clever move. Instead of answering his question, you instead reply with 5 of your own that are easily answered. Round and round we go...
swansont Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 I find this very disappointing and the rest of your post rather biased, especially considering this statement I made immediately after post#281 You're disappointed that I want to check iNow's numbers and reference(s) for myself? Really? It's one reason using the quote person feature is preferred by many of us rather than the generic quote function, since it links back to the post in question, so we don't have to go searching for it. I can't find a mention of a 200m sea level rise prior to your post in a search of this thread, nor any recent post by iNow that mentions sea level rise at all. So disappointment be damned. I would like a link.
studiot Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) Instead of apologizing to me, I'd much rather he correct his misunderstandings (or, at least adjust his thinking based on the multitude of corrections shared already by members here). Well correct me then. Prove your claim. I was not attacked like this when, earlier in this thread I corrected a statement by Tim, although I did not join in the hounds baying at his heels in what seems to me to be a witchhunt. Edited June 10, 2014 by studiot
iNow Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 Well correct me then. Prove your claim. Science doesn't deal in proof, but I am glad to offer evidence of any claims I've made. I don't recall making any requiring support, though. Will you be so kind as to clarify which specific claim I've made that requires evidence? If you could use the quote function so I can see it in context, that would be appreciated.
Spyman Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 The xkcd comic picture in post #281 mentions +200m sea level rise at +9 degrees celsius. 1
Recommended Posts