Climate Change = Huge Hoax 2 (STRICTLY no personal attacks, religion, or politics)

Sort:
Avatar of Elroch

Transportation is one of the largest contributors to global warming, at 21%. Road transport accounts for three quarters of this.

Here is a pie chart of US emissions from a few years ago.

Avatar of Optimissed
AbyssalSludge wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
AbyssalSludge wrote:

Also, I’d like to take the time to say this:

Since temperatures are rising 0.1 degrees every 100 years, and Antarctica is below 50 degrees, that means it would take an increase in temperature of 82 degrees. An increase of 82 degrees given the current rate of increase would be this:

82^1000=82000

Thats 82,000 years for Antarctica to begin melting.

It won't necessarily be a linear change though, because it can be a bit like compound interest in that some small change creates different conditions that increase the rate of melting and so on.

Even then, it would have to be increasing it’s rate extremely rapidly to even have an effect fairly soon.

It isn't going to have a full effect "soon" but certainly, things like the Greenland ice, parts of the North Polar floating ice and icebergs are very much under threat, because the sea foms a warming system, since currents exist. So we are going to see some change and some of that change is going to be bad. How bad it gets may not affect us for decades though.

The reason why these alarmists are getting strident is that governments are really slow and bad at co-operating and making plans even for the very near future. They tend to be reactive only. The proof of that is all the wars ... the First and Second World Wars were both preventable. Especially the second, which was probably completely caused by the Geneva Convention. That means it was caused by France and and the USA as much as by Germany. Not by the UK, which argued that the Geneva Convention WOULD have that outcome.

Avatar of Elroch
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:

Can someone explain how anartica is melting when the surface temperature isn't consistently above the freezing point of water?

The first thing is that if you have the thought in your mind that it is not melting, remind yourself that in such situations it is always your guessing that is wrong, compared to the thorough and expert science published in large numbers of papers.

Secondly, the answer is really simple: it melts where the temperature is above freezing.

Avatar of Optimissed
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:

Can someone explain how anartica is melting when the surface temperature isn't consistently above the freezing point of water?

The peripheral ice shelves.

Avatar of Optimissed

Also even if not consistently above freezing point, there will be some melting at some times of the year and Antarctica is a dry continent. Not much precipitation so the snow and ice isn't replaced fast. However, if the air above Antarctica DOES warm up then it will be capable of holding more moisture and therefore it may snow more there and replace the snow and ice. There things tend to depend on a point of balance which, if disturbed, can often move quite a long way to the next stable point, so it may be that runaway warming can occur, on the Earth generally, until a new stability is achieved by some dominant mechanism or cluster of mechanisms.

Avatar of Optimissed
Elroch wrote:
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:

Can someone explain how anartica is melting when the surface temperature isn't consistently above the freezing point of water?

The first thing is that if you have the thought in your mind that it is not melting, remind yourself that in such situations it is always your guessing that is wrong, compared to the thorough and expert science published in large numbers of papers.

Secondly, the answer is really simple: it melts where the temperature is above freezing.

I hadn't read Elroch's post before I wrote my own. Ask yourself, which is the more useful and effective approach? Arguments from authority or explanations?

Avatar of Elroch

The answer is the same - the ice also melts when the temperature is high. Your third attempt threw in a fact which is interesting - that warmer air means more moisture and more precipitation. To avoid confusion it is important to note this is (empirically) a smaller effect.

Bottom line - Antarctica is losing 150 billion tonnes of ice, each year, nett.

Avatar of DiogenesDue
Elroch wrote:

You need to refer to people who can do such basic things a lot more often to avoid being wrong.

Area of Antarctica ice - 14,000,000 km^2

Average thickness of Antarctic ice - 2.16 km

Area of oceans - 361,000,000 km^2

Ratio of density of ice to water - 0.92

So 14,000,000 * 2.16 * 0.92 / 361,000,000 = 0.077 km = 77 meters
So now you know.

What are you going to do now - announce that you are unfamilar with the surveys, or think the Earth may be bigger, or maybe the Earth is flat and Antarctic doesn't exist?

Closing the loop for the metric-impaired...

77 meters = 252.65ft

Avatar of DiogenesDue
AbyssalSludge wrote:

It should have been a much higher increase. Factories pumped out more smoke than ever, and Britain was entirely enveloped in smoke at times.

Translation: "Oops, I am dead wrong...have to cover..."

Let's put you at the top of that chart slope and drop you off...that would provide some perspective...

Avatar of DiogenesDue
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:

Except only a tiny fraction of the peripheral ice shelves are what's melting, not the entire volume of ice on the planet. All that math is based off a completely baseless assumption.

And again, the assumptions. I am not talking to you, I am replying to last night's posts. Abyssal stated that 200ft is ridiculous, etc.

Avatar of Sobrukai
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/#:~:text=Key%20Takeaway%3A,adding%20to%20sea%20level%20rise.
Avatar of Sobrukai
Billions of tons of ice a year is a lot of ice man
Avatar of Sobrukai
That math is also looks correct.
Avatar of 876543Z1

Mk 2, same old alarmist spammers.

A recent study indicates since the last glacial the West Antarctica ice sheet retreated around 160 miles inland and re-advanced. An ice free world would be nice, but ain't happening anytime soon.

Things change, despite the best endeavours of control freak liberals.

Avatar of DiogenesDue

Thought I would also point out that Greenland is losing almost double what Antarctica is...

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/

Avatar of Optimissed

I'm afraid you're making a fundamental mistake. If you don't trust someone, don't talk to them if you want something explaining. In fact Dio's calculation basically repeated the calculation I showed at least twice in the past few days. His answer coincided with mine and I know I did the calculation correctly. Therefore the chances are that Dio also did it correctly.

Also, the amount of Antarctic ice you say Elroch says melts each year is 160 cubic km, I think the figure was, which is 38 cu. miles. I showed you how to work out the sea level rise from that. I would have thought you could have worked it out by yourself. It was 17 thousandths of an inch per year. Does that seem an unbelievably large amount of sea level rise or what? I'm not entirely sure what your problem may be now you're been shown how to work these things out.

Avatar of DiogenesDue
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:

It's funny how they are comparing ice volume to ocean Area and assuming we will miss that. Their reasoning is akin to minecraft. Water doesn't stack up like ice cubes do. Water dilutes and compresses and is a fluid substances. It spreads out and gets absorbed into things. Water chemical bonds continuously break and re-form and that's why it is fluid (which is a slightly different concept actually to the "loose packing" of water molecules. Molecules can get compressed. A microscopic amount of hydronium ions forms and reforms in H20 that is fluid. You also can't really use algebra to get an exact answer for these things, changing chemical concentrations and sinks filling up and draining simultaneously require differential and sometimes partial differential equations to get a reliable answer. So even if somehow mathematically you could show the sea levels would rise 200 feet, it still doesn't mean it would happen because that's not how the laws of physics work. Water doesn't stack up like minecraft blocks to "fill" a volume.

I know you think your MInecraft idea has merit, but you are wrong...again. This has a fairly negligible effect, and it doesn't even matter...252ft allows for more than enough wiggle room. What's amazing is that you didn't specifically mention how ice expands when it freezes, which is the larger factor here at 9%.

Avatar of DiogenesDue
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:

If ice takes up more volume when it's frozen then that means it would take up less in water form?

Yes, I pointed out that your argument sucked and handed you a better one...because it is one that still doesn't help you.

Avatar of wow

Yes, but the difference between water as a solid and as a liquid is very little and non-consequential.

Avatar of Optimissed
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:

I'm agreeing with you! I was just explained further why their way-off measurements were flawed.

I'm sorry but I'm afraid I'm confused. I'm also sorry if I failed to react as much as I should to some idiosyncrasies re. the way you express yourself. I did notice previously that you seemed to be disagreeing with me and I ignored it and was right to do so because you were disagreeing with someone else. But it very much seemed to me as if you were disagreeing with the simple calculation. I apologise if I was mistaken. I have found however, that the "experts" seem to have failed to account for the lower density of ice and their calculations seem to be 10% high. I wondered about it yesterday but assumed that maybe compressibility and specific density cancel out but they don't. So the figures given for sea level rise actually are too high.

This forum topic has been locked