Climate Change is here and man made

[Skashion]

Surely someone has argued this point? why do most scientists believe there is great cause for concern? if us plebs can't trust the majority of scientists how would we come to any sort of conclusion?

I don't know of any credible scientist even making predictions about significant ice loss from the East Antarctic. This is why I'm saying Damocles is not rational on this issue. Damocles talks about 60m of sea level rises. NO scientist is making predictions about the scale of East Antarctic ice sheet ice loss because it is not currently losing ice at all. Damocles is not with the scientific consensus with respect to 60m of sea level rise.<br /><br />-- Sun Dec 16, 2012 9:39 pm --<br /><br />

The problem with this is the simplicity. The environment is a dynamic system, what you have done is taken an average. It doesn't account of many factors that are not static. Knowing the current system output does not really tell us how the system will behave in the future. We can apply an average like you've done, but in most cases this is a bad estimate. What we need is a better model.

I think a question we need to answer is "What is the steady state model of the earth?". We can be set into "chaos" by certain inputs ( us as an example), but higher order factors eventually put us back into the steady state. The steady state does no imply static, but it implies a natural order of the system. That is the system whats to reach this steady state over time. However if the inputs are so extreme, the system will break down and could be naturally unrecoverable. We obviously need a model ( mathematical equations, usually high order differential equations ) to try to predict what will happen. Current models don't predict a nice future, could that our model is not accurate, i.e driving factors over a long period of time.

I'm not making an estimate at all. I made a crazily conservative calculation, and even that would take 3,000 years. I'm not in ANY WAY, saying there will be 60m of sea level rise in the next 3,000 years. Even in the most extreme circumstances, I do not expect that to happen.

 

[Damocles]

No, Damocles will point out for maybe the fourth time that warming in that region is a logarithmic phenomena

and ask his friend Skashion what will happen to the EA ice mass if the WA ice mass continues with its current melting.

Has there been logarithmic warming in that region? Particularly in the East Antarctic where I was under the impression that there was no trend or even a tiny amount of cooling. I should certainly love to see some evidence. I should also like to hear a reason why the logarithmic warming has not led to logarithmic ice loss. Surely that is very important.

I don't know, I'd like to hear more from you because I'm getting very little.

By the way, I found this interesting, but I'd like to see the full report, but NASA report ice gain across the Antarctic ice sheet as a whole: <a class="postlink" href="http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20120013495" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20120013495</a>

Absolutely

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n2/abs/ngeo102.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n ... eo102.html</a>

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040222.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2 ... 0222.shtml</a>

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/2005/00000051/00000175/art00001" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/i ... 5/art00001</a>

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/311/5768/1754.short" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.sciencemag.org/content/311/5768/1754.short</a>

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n12/full/ngeo694.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n ... eo694.html</a>

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/297/5586/1502.short" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.sciencemag.org/content/297/5586/1502.short</a>

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7266/full/nature08471.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 08471.html</a>

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL046583.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2 ... 6583.shtml</a>

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2004GL021106.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2 ... 1106.shtml</a>

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7109/abs/nature05168.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 05168.html</a>

<a class="postlink" href="http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1844/1637.short" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... 1637.short</a>

That last one by Rignott is particularly interesting to your point.

 

[BulgarianPride]

Surely someone has argued this point? why do most scientists believe there is great cause for concern? if us plebs can't trust the majority of scientists how would we come to any sort of conclusion?

I don't know of any credible scientist even making predictions about significant ice loss from the East Antarctic. This is why I'm saying Damocles is not rational on this issue. Damocles talks about 60m of sea level rises. NO scientist is making predictions about the scale of East Antarctic ice sheet ice loss because it is not currently losing ice at all. Damocles is not with the scientific consensus with respect to 60m of sea level rise.

-- Sun Dec 16, 2012 9:39 pm --

The problem with this is the simplicity. The environment is a dynamic system, what you have done is taken an average. It doesn't account of many factors that are not static. Knowing the current system output does not really tell us how the system will behave in the future. We can apply an average like you've done, but in most cases this is a bad estimate. What we need is a better model.

I think a question we need to answer is "What is the steady state model of the earth?". We can be set into "chaos" by certain inputs ( us as an example), but higher order factors eventually put us back into the steady state. The steady state does no imply static, but it implies a natural order of the system. That is the system whats to reach this steady state over time. However if the inputs are so extreme, the system will break down and could be naturally unrecoverable. We obviously need a model ( mathematical equations, usually high order differential equations ) to try to predict what will happen. Current models don't predict a nice future, could that our model is not accurate, i.e driving factors over a long period of time.

I'm not making an estimate at all. I made a crazily conservative calculation, and even that would take 3,000 years. I'm not in ANY WAY, saying there will be 60m of sea level rise in the next 3,000 years. Even in the most extreme circumstances, I do not expect that to happen.

You assumed a constant rate of melting. What is the rate of temperature change? Can it predicted over the next 10-20, 100 or 200 years?

Essentially do we really know the driving factors of the earth's climate change. By driving factors i mean factors that influence the steady state response of the system.

 

[wayne71]

If scientists are that clever why haven't they invented a light sabre yet?

 

[Skashion]

Absolutely

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n2/abs/ngeo102.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n ... eo102.html</a>

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040222.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2 ... 0222.shtml</a>

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/2005/00000051/00000175/art00001" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/i ... 5/art00001</a>

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/311/5768/1754.short" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.sciencemag.org/content/311/5768/1754.short</a>

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n12/full/ngeo694.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n ... eo694.html</a>

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/297/5586/1502.short" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.sciencemag.org/content/297/5586/1502.short</a>

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7266/full/nature08471.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 08471.html</a>

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL046583.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2 ... 6583.shtml</a>

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2004GL021106.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2 ... 1106.shtml</a>

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7109/abs/nature05168.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 05168.html</a>

<a class="postlink" href="http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1844/1637.short" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... 1637.short</a>

That last one by Rignott is particularly interesting to your point.

Which ones showed evidence of logarithmic warming? and more to the point, logarithmic ice loss, rather than simply ice loss? Please state a position on whether you think there is ice loss overall from the Antarctic? and also the East Antarctic? As it seems you acknowledge mass gain in the East Antarctic. That considered, why is the latest NASA research wrong, especially when most of those articles seem to be based on mass loss (the reported estimate being 57 Gt p/a) were based on the failure to take into account land subsidence, hence why the revised NASA figures indicate mass gain, not mass loss. I thought it was me that was supposed to be out of date? I'm now quoting 2012, you're quoting 2005 at me now.

 

[Gelsons Dad]

We do know that the final draft of AR5 has been leaked don't we?

Here is what the IPCC now think:
http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/Ch13_sea-level_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch13_All_Final.pdf

 

[Skashion]

You assumed a constant rate of melting. What is the rate of temperature change? Can it predicted over the next 10-20, 100 or 200 years?

Essentially do we really know the driving factors of the earth's climate change. By driving factors i mean factors that influence the steady state response of the system.

I assumed an average constant average of 30 times the current rate of Greenland for an ice sheet that's not currently melting at all. This is not an estimate. It is not an extrapolation. It is not saying if this or that temperature stays the same. It is simply saying if on average it melted 30 times faster than Greenland, it would still take 3,000 years to melt entirely. Now what is your point?

 

[Patientman63]

Fuck the ice and all the penguins.

We got the end of the Mesoamerican 5124 year Long Calendar on the 21st.

We is all doooomed.

 

[Skashion]

We do know that the final draft of AR5 has been leaked don't we?

Here is what the IPCC now think:
http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/Ch13_sea-level_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch13_All_Final.pdf

I didn't actually.

edit: Is it just this chapter?

 

[Blue Mist]

Quick question: Why does someone trust a scientist ? A scientist is like a doctor, he will say what ever he is paid to say. Governments want certain things said, scientists say them.