swansont Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 And we have not had a heat wave since the article either. They do tend to happen in summer rather than winter. Maybe someone should look into that. There are a lot more deaths in the UK from cold than heat. Not the issue under discussion, so this is nothing more than a red herring. The issue is will heat deaths increase more than cold deaths decrease. Old people like to retire to France or hotter places. We don't have domestic air-con. If it gets to be significant issue we will. Problem sorted. I get attacked for stating things in a normal English way where "heat is not a killer in the UK". Which is generally understood to be in a 99.9% way. Yes there are some exceptions. You get attacked for spouting things that are untrue or unsubstantiated, and for making arguments that are peripheral to the question at hand. It is assumed that you understand what topic is under discussion, so this is seen as deceptive. Those who post about 200m or 60m sea level rises or 9 degree temperature rises do not. THERE IS NO SCIENCE TO SUGGEST THAT SUCH THINGS ARE AT ALL ON THE CARDS. Another example. Nobody has predicted this. There was a cartoon posted that noted that the condition had existed in the past. If your contention is that the seas were not ~200m deeper when the temperature was last that high, that's a separate issue. Also, there is apparently the issue of parsing an If/Then statement (i.e. a conditional argument). Why are my statements which are 99% OK attacked when such clearly grossly exaggerated numbers are left to float happily about? Because being true does not mean it's relevant. To the extent that you have posted things relevant to the discussion, you have been almost 100% wrong. Saying the sky is blue is true but in the context of global warming, who cares? You get no credit for that. If you pull out the personal incredulity card, you get no credit for that, either. 2
Ophiolite Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 (edited) And we have not had a heat wave since the article either. You think it is significant that since the middle of last summer, with us not yet into this year's summer, we have not had a heat wave? There are a lot more deaths in the UK from cold than heat. And there are more deaths from strokes than from heat. What's your point. Moreover we are talking about an increase in the future of deaths due to heat. But this, for some strange reason, does not concern you. Old people like to retire to France or hotter places. And all old people make wise decisions in their retirement? And you ignore the ignore the figure for thousands of deaths in Europe due to the last major heat wave. And you ignore that it is temperatures like that which are predicted for the UK. And you just go on ignoring fact after fact and repeating the same inane drivel. We don't have domestic air-con. If it gets to be significant issue we will. Problem sorted. Because old people who are on pensions of questionable and diminishing value will have lots of excess cash to by the aircon units and pay for the costs! I get attacked for stating things in a normal English way where "heat is not a killer in the UK". Talking bollocks is not the normal English way: 1. People do die in heat waves in the UK. 2. If the temperature rises then considerably more of them will die - and taking off their jumpers or trying to afford an aircon will not provide the answer. Those who post about 200m or 60m sea level rises or 9 degree temperature rises do not. THERE IS NO SCIENCE TO SUGGEST THAT SUCH THINGS ARE AT ALL ON THE CARDS. I believe if you check the posts you will sea that someone - I don't think it was you - said the idea of a 200m higher sea level in the past was wrong. Evidence was produced to show that they were mistaken. Why are my statements which are 99% OK attacked when such clearly grossly exaggerated numbers are left to float happily about? Because a 60m rise is possible and 200m higher levels existed in the past and I don't recall anyone making a claim that these were going to happen, whereas you just post nonsense. Tiresome nonsense. Edit: I see I have cross posted similar responses to swansont. At least this should end the speculation that we are each other's sock puppet. Edited June 24, 2014 by Ophiolite
Tim the plumber Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 Not the issue under discussion, so this is nothing more than a red herring. The issue is will heat deaths increase more than cold deaths decrease. Another example. Nobody has predicted this. There was a cartoon posted that noted that the condition had existed in the past. If your contention is that the seas were not ~200m deeper when the temperature was last that high, that's a separate issue. Also, there is apparently the issue of parsing an If/Then statement (i.e. a conditional argument). Because being true does not mean it's relevant. To the extent that you have posted things relevant to the discussion, you have been almost 100% wrong. Saying the sky is blue is true but in the context of global warming, who cares? You get no credit for that. If you pull out the personal incredulity card, you get no credit for that, either. You can attack me for being off topic if you want but then to defend a graph as good when it's clearly either way off topic or misleading and in fact both is disingenuous. In the context of global warming the reduction in death rate due to warmer winters is directly relevant to the supposed deadliness of slightly warmer summers. Because old people who are on pensions of questionable and diminishing value will have lots of excess cash to by the aircon units and pay for the costs! The cost of aircon is less than the increase in cost of the heating required in other times of year. Not that aircon will be needed, just sayin'. -1
dimreepr Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 Being a plumber, Tim, you must know the dangers of too much energy in a sealed system.
swansont Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 You can attack me for being off topic if you want but then to defend a graph as good when it's clearly either way off topic or misleading and in fact both is disingenuous. The graph was on-topic for the point it was making: that the temperature change we've experience is not small, and that huge efforts now might limit the ultimate temperature increase to 2 ºC, and that delaying efforts now will only make the effect worse. And a comparison to the conditions in the past at that temperature scale. In the context of global warming the reduction in death rate due to warmer winters is directly relevant to the supposed deadliness of slightly warmer summers. Yes, it is. Perhaps you'd like to post some relevant, sourced information, rather than arguing from incredulity, or complaining about the lack of scientific study that confirms your belief.
Spyman Posted June 25, 2014 Posted June 25, 2014 Edit: I see I have cross posted similar responses to swansont. At least this should end the speculation that we are each other's sock puppet. Nice try, but you can't fool me. Sorry for the off topic but I couldn't resist.
iNow Posted June 25, 2014 Posted June 25, 2014 The Atlantic is 4km deep. The Pacific is 6km deep. The expected rise by 2100 is at most 1m. It is irrelevant how deep the oceans are, and depth is little more than a red herring. The oceans could be 6,000km deep and it wouldn't change a thing about the discussion. What is relevant in the discussion is the sea level relative to the land. The areas of the land are where the impact of rising sea levels will be. http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions.htm Rising sea levels are widely considered to be the greatest threat posed by climate change. They threaten low-lying countries with inundation, forcing inhabitants to migrate. Coastal cities and ports could be flooded, as could cities sited near tidal estuaries, like London. Many nuclear installations are built by the sea so they can use sea water for cooling. The potential for sea level rise is enormous. This is because the ice caps - Greenland and Antarctic - contain huge amounts of fresh water - around 70% of all the freshwater on Earth. Estimates suggest that if the Greenland ice sheet was to melt away to nothing, sea levels would rise around 6 metres. To put that a different way, a loss of just one per cent of the Greenland ice cap would result in a sea level rise of 6cm. If the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) were to melt, this would add around 6 metres to sea levels. If the East Antarctic Ice Sheet (EAIS) were to melt as well, seas would rise by around 70 metres. In a process that is accelerating, all three ice caps are losing mass. While nobody is suggesting any of the ice caps will melt away to nothing, only a small amount of melting would cause great problems. A 1% loss of ice from these three sources would produce a likely increase in sea levels of around 76cm. With the thermal expansion implied by such melting, and contributions from melting glaciers, the oceans would actually rise far more. <...> The most likely sea level rise by 2100 is betweem 80cm and 1 metre. Longer term, sea levels will continue to rise even after emissions have been reduced or eliminated. Is thinking about sea level to the mm at all sensible????Yes, yes it is, but since when have you concerned yourself with holding sensible positions?
John Cuthber Posted June 26, 2014 Posted June 26, 2014 Actually, the depth of the oceans does have an impact. The deeper they are, the more they will expand when they warm up. And, as Tim points out, they are very deep.
Essay Posted June 26, 2014 Posted June 26, 2014 ...just fyi.... "Starting last weekend [as of June 20], the geographical extent of surface melting expanded from about 10 percent of the island to 40 percent. You can see the sudden surge in this graphic [above]." If the new findings are correct, billions of tons of snow are either melting or sublimating every year in large measure because of a seemingly humble substance: dust. Starting suddenly in 2009, there has been a significant drop in how much sunlight is being reflected back into space by dry snow at the surface in Greenland. This reduction in “albedo” means that the surface is darker and is therefore absorbing more solar energy — which leads to more melting of snow. ". . . our analysis of remote sensing data indicates that the springtime darkening since 2009 stems from a widespread increase in the amount of light-absorbing impurities in snow, as well as in the atmosphere. We suggest that the transport of dust [by winds] from snow-free areas in the Arctic that are experiencing earlier melting of seasonal snow cover as the climate warms may be a contributing source of impurities." ...plus, as the snow melts, the dark impurities get concentrated at the surface. === But in terms of that melting water from Greenland going into the ocean... "From the end of April 2012 through the end of April 2013, which corresponds reasonably well to the period between the beginning of the 2012 and 2013 melt seasons, the cumulative ice sheet loss was 570 Gt, over twice the average annual loss rate of 260 Gt y-1 during 2003-2012." Hundreds of billions of tons ...each year, increasingly. ~
studiot Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 Quote If the new findings are correct, billions of tons of snow are either melting or sublimating every year in large measure because of a seemingly humble substance: dust. Starting suddenly in 2009, there has been a significant drop in how much sunlight is being reflected back into space by dry snow at the surface in Greenland. This reduction in “albedo” means that the surface is darker and is therefore absorbing more solar energy — which leads to more melting of snow. ". . . our analysis of remote sensing data indicates that the springtime darkening since 2009 stems from a widespread increase in the amount of light-absorbing impurities in snow, as well as in the atmosphere. We suggest that the transport of dust [by winds] from snow-free areas in the Arctic that are experiencing earlier melting of seasonal snow cover as the climate warms may be a contributing source of impurities." Interesting, thank you. I know the prevailing winds are westerlies but I wonder if any of the tectonic activity in Iceland has anything to do with this?
Essay Posted July 10, 2014 Posted July 10, 2014 Interesting, thank you. I know the prevailing winds are westerlies but I wonder if any of the tectonic activity in Iceland has anything to do with this? "A study of the last 11 centuries reveals over 200 eruptions, with around three quarters of these explosive, and with an average frequency of 20-25 events per 100 years (Thordarson and Larsen, 2006). The apparent increase in eruption frequency over the last few centuries can be accounted for by improved documentation of eruptive events. Studies of longer timescales e.g. the last 10,000 years since the last ice age, suggest similar eruption rates to historic times." Icelandic volcanic eruptions in historic time (Thordarson and Larsen, 2006). === It would be hard to avoid some effects, you'd think; but whatever effects occur, they probably contribute to an ongoing "baseline" rate for effects on the Greenland ice sheet. ~
Bill Angel Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 Models using detailed topographic maps show that the collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet has begun. Fast-moving Thwaites Glacier, which acts as a linchpin on the rest of the ice sheet, will likely disappear in a matter of centuries. See West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapse is under way
Tim the plumber Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 Yes, we have studied the workings of Antarctica for so long now that we are 100% confident that we fully understand it all. Or maybe not. This is why I'm a skeptic. -1
swansont Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 Yes, we have studied the workings of Antarctica for so long now that we are 100% confident that we fully understand it all. Or maybe not. This is why I'm a skeptic. No, really, you're not.
Tim the plumber Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 No, really, you're not. What not a skeptic? When I am told that a 2 degree rise in temperature will cause mass death in Britain and that suggesting that it is bollocks is wrong because it's been peer reviewed and thus is sacred and that the world will have a 12 degree temperature rise due to another peer reviewed piece of drivel which flies in the face of all other physics I get to the point of believing that something is up with the peer review process. -2
Arete Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 (edited) What not a skeptic? When I am told that a 2 degree rise in temperature will cause mass death in Britain and that suggesting that it is bollocks is wrong because it's been peer reviewed and thus is sacred and that the world will have a 12 degree temperature rise due to another peer reviewed piece of drivel which flies in the face of all other physics I get to the point of believing that something is up with the peer review process. So basically, you're invoking the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignoratum for the umpteenth time. Edited October 22, 2014 by Arete
swansont Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 What not a skeptic? When I am told that a 2 degree rise in temperature will cause mass death in Britain and that suggesting that it is bollocks is wrong because it's been peer reviewed and thus is sacred and that the world will have a 12 degree temperature rise due to another peer reviewed piece of drivel which flies in the face of all other physics I get to the point of believing that something is up with the peer review process. An actual skeptic has to deal in facts and not rhetoric and denialism. Trying to pass yourself off as a skeptic is deception. Just being contrary to a position, regardless of evidence, makes you a denialist. 2
Wild Cobra Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 So what is a skeptic in the opinion of the warmers here? I consider myself among the skeptics as the classificatiins in climatology forums go. I am definately not a denier. I don't like the term skeptic myself, but wht should I call myself? I am certain that solar changes since the 1700's have cause more than half the warming we have witnessed since. I am certain that soot on ice is the largest antropogenic warming we have. I am certain that CO2 has no more than a 0.55 degree sensitivity for doubling. I am not "skepical" or in "denial," but as the termnonoly out there, I fit in the skeptical catagory. I have been studying the AGW scare from the alarmists for a decade or so now. I am no amature at these debates, so don't underestimate me. I am new, and this is my first post here.
John Cuthber Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 Well, perhaps you would like to present the evidence behind this "I am certain that soot on ice is the largest antropogenic warming we have." I chose that one because the other assertions have been pretty much done to death in this thread already. Also, you might want to use a spelling checking system of some sort. Few things look more amateur than spelling it (and anthropogenic) wrongly.
Carrock Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 I don't like the term skeptic myself, but wht should I call myself? I am certain ....... I am certain ....... I am certain ....... I am certain you are not a skeptic 3
Strange Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 When I am told that a 2 degree rise in temperature will cause mass death in Britain and that suggesting that it is bollocks is wrong because it's been peer reviewed Can you post a reference to a peer reviewed article that says that "a 2 degree rise in temperature will cause mass death in Britain". Or is this a strawman argument? and thus is sacred Why do you think peer review would make it sacred? Do you think that peer reviewed articles are never wrong? What gave you that idea? I am certain that solar changes since the 1700's have cause more than half the warming we have witnessed since. Citation needed. I am certain that soot on ice is the largest antropogenic warming we have. Citation needed. I am certain that CO2 has no more than a 0.55 degree sensitivity for doubling. Citation needed. (Sorry, I'm just a bit sceptical.)
swansont Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 As with the others, I'd like to know how you "know" these things to be true.
Wild Cobra Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 (edited) How do I know? Years of reading the materials and crunching numbers, using more works than what the alarnist community says. Consider this: http://www.scipublish.com/journals/ACC/papers/download/3001-846.pdf Edited October 23, 2014 by Wild Cobra
CaptainPanic Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 ! Moderator Note Tim the Plumber, Stop using logical fallacies in this discussion (or anywhere else on our forum). It is against our rules, section 2.4. This behavior starts to derail this thread, and it has been pointed out several times now by members exactly which logical fallacies you use. A continued use of fallacies will eventually have other consenquences as is also pointed out in our rules. Do not reply to this moderator note in the thread. Use the report function if you have any problems with it.
Recommended Posts