Climate Change is here and man made

[Skashion]

Point is, averages are not a good mean of getting a future look of a dynamic system. At current rate i agree with you 3000 years, but the rate is not constant. Do we know that it is not exponentially growing?

I don't know how many other ways I can point out it's not an extrapolation.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Can't we just suck it and see?

 

[Skashion]

Can't we just suck it and see?

No, we'll all be long gone. I think even Damocles would admit that.

 

[2sheikhs]

Tonight has taught me a lesson. Never under-estimate Corky. King of the shit-stirrers.
From staring out terriers to winding up mods, he's a force to be reckoned with.(even if he's completely oblivious to everything he's done)

 

[lawmanreturns]

Get back to me when London's underwater.

 

[BulgarianPride]

Point is, averages are not a good mean of getting a future look of a dynamic system. At current rate i agree with you 3000 years, but the rate is not constant. Do we know that it is not exponentially growing?

I don't know how many other ways I can point out it's not an extrapolation.

You made a calculation, stating if the rates are 30 times faster on average, it would take approximately 3000 years for the ice to melt. This is extrapolation. You've made the prediction, i.e used an average rate to extrapolate the data in the future. It could take 3000 years but it can also take 500,200 or less due to factors that are not foreseen by a simple average calculation.

 

[Skashion]

You made a calculation, stating if the rates are 30 times faster on average, it would take approximately 3000 years for the ice to melt. This is extrapolation. You've made the prediction, i.e used an average rate to extrapolate the data in the future. It could take 3000 years but it can also take 500,200 or less due to factors that are not foreseen by a simple average calculation.

It's not. I'm not saying x amount of ice is melting currently and if it melts at this rate for this many years plus or minus this percent of a changing variable. It is not an estimate either because this is not what I think. The ice is not currently melting AT ALL. I cannot extrapolate for this reason. If I extrapolated we'd end up with more ice than when we started. The calculation is simply an average rate at which a specific quantity of ice could melt to achieve an outcome in so many years. The rate of dynamics seems to be of great concern to you, as does the exponential rate of warming (we're nowhere near a rate of exponential warming but never mind), we'll assume runaway global warming just for you guys, that would mean most of the sea level rise would come in the latter of that 3,000 year period, which is not conducive to Damocle's argument of us all being fucked. If we've more time to prepare the better off we'd be.

It could easily take 200 years, IF, you can show me show evidence, that the East Antarctic ice sheet will melt 400 times faster than Greenland. By the way, the current projection is a little bit of more mass gain in the East Antarctic. Anyway, come on guys, where's your evidence for these huge sea level rises? C'mon, I mean, you must have it, surely, you're not projecting 60m sea level rises in 500 or 200 years without referring to the scientific consensus are you?

 

[i kne albert davy]

When the scientists and the green party kept spouting off about the hole in the ozone layer, did they ever take into account that it could actually repair itself? Because it is doing.

Only thanks to international co-operation in banning CFCs just a thought like.

 

[BulgarianPride]

I am not a supporter of global warming. Like i said, i would like to see a model that predicts the steady state of earth. All we can be seeing is just fluctuations caused by us that have no effect on the future. In way, i do support your point. However that calculation is flawed just the way other models are flawed. They are based on a bunch of unknowns. On rates we don't know. These rates may affect the temperatures we are observing, but essentially go back to "natural" over time. I've asked Damo in a previous thread, and i don't think i got an answer. Can there not be higher order factors that are "guiding" the overall response of the environment? That what we are seeing is local fluctuations, and do not predict the over all response of how our environment will change?

 

[Skashion]

I am not a supporter of global warming. Like i said, i would like to see a model that predicts the steady state of earth. All we can be seeing is just fluctuations caused by us that have no effect on the future. In way, i do support your point. However that calculation is flawed just the way other models are flawed. They are based on a bunch of unknowns. On rates we don't know. These rates may affect the temperatures we are observing, but essentially go back to "natural" over time. I've asked Damo in a previous thread, and i don't think i got an answer. Can there not be higher order factors that are "guiding" the overall response of the environment? That what we are seeing is local fluctuations, and do not predict the over all response of how our environment will change?

Supporter? As in believe it's happening?

It's not flawed. It's simply a calculation of the average rate it would have to melt it to get get 60m of sea level rise in only a few thousand years. It is not a projection that ice will melt at a constant rate. Of course it won't. If it was at a rate of 1 now and acceleration was constant that would mean sixty times the Greenland average three thousand years from now, but the calculation would still be correct as it is merely an average. However, it's very very extreme. It's completely unsupported by current science. Absolutely no credible scientist I know of is predicting 60m sea level rises even three thousand years from now. If there is one, find them for me.