OT: Greenland is literally cracking apart and flooding the world

ouse

on."

r a

Krw didn't read the link he posted - or didn't understand it if he did read it.

Historically, CO2 levels lag temperature rises because the flip from a glac ial to an inter-glacial is driven by subtle changes in where the sun shine brightest at particular parts of the year - Milankovich effect.

That provides the - small - initial warming, that drives CO2 out of a sligh tly warming ocean to produce extra heating by the greenhouse effect. By bur ning fossil carbon and injecting the extra CO2 into the atmosphere, we get the warming directly, rather than as a positive feedback.

In fact half the CO2 we inject into the atmosphere ends up dissolving in th e oceans - warmer oceans can dissolve less CO2 but we haven't warming them enough yet for the reduced solubility to trump the increases partial press ure of CO2 int the atmosphere.

Something else that krw didn't actually understand, but didn't bother to sn ip.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman
Loading thread data ...

Which is pretty much weather as usual. But food production is way up and extreme poverty is way down. Life spans are increasing. You need fossil fuels to do that.

Good grief, do a little research. None of what you said is correct.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

Any "science" that is not subject to serious experimental verification is prone to silly fads.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

Unadjusted long-term temperature measurements at unchanged rural sites with unchanged instruments.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

ed

0

Actually, you need energy to do that, and you can get all you need out of r enewable sources - essentially solar power, since wind and hydro rely on th e sun's output to move the air and water around.

Fossil fuels are the training wheels of an industrial civilisation - once y ou know what you are doing (and John Larkin doesn't) you do rather better w ithout them.

Global temperatures are going up faster than they did before the Paleocene- Eocene Thermal Maximum was reached.

formatting link

There might have been more rapid changes when the moon was created, but tha t's a rather different context.

The rise is largely due to increased atmospheric CO2 and the Suess Effect

formatting link

demonstrates that the extra CO2 comes from burning fossil carbon.

John Larkin is trying to mislead us - possibly because somebody has mislead him.

"None of what you said is correct" is entirely incorrect.

It's John Larkin who needs to do a little more research, starting with a pr ogram that lets him identify denialist web-sites and distinguish their cont ent from stuff published in more reliable places, like the Proceedings of t he (US) National Academy of Science.

His comment is best seen as reprimand to Steve Wilson for not being the sor t of gullible sucker that John Larkin exemplifies and consequently approves of.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

enhouse

ation."

for a

Actually nobody has ever put a date on any tripping point Getting the Arcti c warm enough to break up a whole lot of methane ice clathrates might quali fy as a tripping point, but nobody knows how much methane ice is lying arou nd, or where, so working out how much warming would be needed to free up en ough methane gfast enough to get some kind of local runaway is difficult to quantify.

Something ran away inn the run-up to the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum

formatting link

and dumped something between "2000 to 7000 gigatons" of carbon into the atm osphere. The isotope ratios suggest that it was mostly methane.

"Free methane" is a less attractive offer and the denialist program looks m ore like a methane liberation movement, with the slogan "Free Methane!" - p resumably from its clathrate (molecular cage) bondage.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

In other words nothing that exists.

If John Larkin had paid attention to his science classes he would know enough to trust temperature data from isotope ratios (deuterium to hydrogen, and O18 to O16) in ice core data, which goes back 800,000 years

formatting link

but sadly, he doesn't know enough to follow the logic, and is too vain to admit that he can't.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

Like geology, astronomy and paleontology?

John Larkin doesn't really understand "experimental verification" and climate science has a lot of climate data to observe.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

That article is dumbed down to the point of being useless.

Jeroen Belleman

Reply to
Jeroen Belleman

formatting link

might be more your speed.

One of it's references is

formatting link

which takes you back to

formatting link

which goes to

formatting link

which is a 17-page .pdf. Enjoy.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

Google isn't research, it's pattern matching, and I'm a scientist, when I do ''my own research' it's professional. Find me a reference that's worth perusing, or admit you've never seen one.

The underside of a bed is a dusty, unpleasant place. Lucky?

Reply to
whit3rd

That caveat is very important and all too often forgotten or ignored.

The latter is particularly true when money, politics, or inconvenience is involved.

But most people here realise that.

Reply to
Tom Gardner

That's almost good enough to be a bumper sticker :)

Reply to
Tom Gardner

Huh, well from my view all sciences are subject to fads. At the latest APS meeting all the buzz was about quantum computing. (I guess the buzz mostly follows the money... or maybe it's visa versa?) Observational sciences, like archaeology or paleontology can make mistakes that take a while to correct. (Putting a head on the wrong body.) But that's not really a fad. I guess I mostly find it sad that ~1/2 of the US has lost their trust in science. Sure the scientists themselves are partly to blame.

George H.

Reply to
George Herold

Excellent! I'm firing up my time machine, be back soon. :^)

George H.

Reply to
George Herold

But F=M*A still works to many decimal places. Einstein just added some corner cases. The Standard Model explains most everything, and any future tweaks won't trash its basic correctness.

Psychology, sociology, much of medicine, lots of biology, swing wildly over the years. I have mostly survived lots of medical mistakes.

At the latest APS

The US public isn't so dumb. People know that their phones work, that a satellite will crash in the next couple of weeks, that eclipses show up on schedule to the minute. They don't trust weather or climate predictions and are often skeptical about economics and social engineering.

They remember when margarine and statins were considered healthy.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

Sure, I think a lot has to do with having the right tools. Biology is a lot more complicated than say physics or electronics. So until we have the right tools we make up stories.. .that are mostly wrong, or at least incomplete.

The US public is deathly afraid of radiation. Any type, in any amount.

George H.

Reply to
George Herold

Nice article in a recent WSJ about how the "expert " economic predictions for the effect of Brexit were way off.

Dan

Reply to
dcaster

And that's a problem, isn't it? Believing on faith in others, who are taking it on faith, isn't science.

The gentleman I swapped notions with a decade ago--one of the model-writers at NOAA--said it was b.s., not science.

So the real scientists simply went about their jobs, cringing as their politician-bosses spouted scientifically unsupportable predictions designed to glorify their departments, rationalize their existence, and justify their need for more funding.

But neither he nor any of his NOAA colleagues dared say so because they'd be instantly terminated.

Settled science? Here's a simple test: if it's settled science then it should be easy to show models being relied on today for predictions a) correctly predicted today's surface and ocean temperatures, and b) still use 2003's same 'settled' fiddle factors, e.g. dT/d(CO2).

Cheers, James Arthur

Reply to
dagmargoodboat

Years ago I was in New Orleans, boarding a plane ahead of two nerds gushing about fuzzy logic.

(This was back when Bob Pease was, similarly, annoyed by it, after years of breathless reports going nowhere in EE Times by R. Colin Johnson.)

"Fuzzy logic?," I asked loudly. Their heads snapped toward me. "Well, I guess it's better than than no logic at all," turned, and walked onto the plane.

Cheers, James Arthur

Reply to
dagmargoodboat

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.