EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Thu Apr 24, 2014 4:47 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 173 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 12  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 12:07 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 85
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Are-you ... enier.html

Consider the following definitions. Genuine skeptics consider all the evidence in their search for the truth. Deniers, on the other hand, refuse to accept any evidence that conflicts with their pre-determined views.

An interesting statement by a person from another site

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-b ... iona/66881

from Don Black

2) So WHEN you use the term Denier, and you are not a Skeptic, you are waving a large “I Am A Bigot” flag. Got it?

Keep using it, and you are saying “I am HAPPY to be waving a large I Am A Bigot flag”….

Saying “All my friends us it” is saying “I’m Happy that all my friends are waving large I Am A Bigot flags”.

Do you think that when we call someone a denier, are we being biggots?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 1:14 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2155
Location: Central Colorado
No, we are not bigots for calling a person who is an anti-AGW for reasons of stupidity, lack of education or research into the facts, lack of years of noticing what is happening, illogical thinking, or other reasons, a "denier", denialist", a "deniglical", a "rabid skeptic" et al.
They are often bigots, however, in accusations of environmentalism as a religion, and other numerous name calling that has really nothing to do with experiencing what is happening in an informed manner. 91*F here at 8,880' in June when old timers in '97 said the highest they had ever seen it was 85*F in the middle of summer. Since '97 it has never been over 82*F here in June. The reason I moved up in altitude was anticipation of worsening AGW, which has happened. The rammed earth tire walls really help keep it cooler in summer. Still, we used the free solar electric fans today. I feel sorry for lowlanders (i.e. below 8,000') who have to pay a high price for AC or suffer with the heat. Played "Born Under A Bad Sign" in the cool Earthship on my solar amped JT134VineFMTSB. AGW progressing to CAGW is a bad sign for the future of our biosphere. Denialists are the enemy who have successfully kept gov't from forcing HGHG emissions reductions since 1997, and the people getting less aware of reality since circa 2007. They, in effect, have killed countless future humans and other species. Murderers who should be red worm composted as their best purpose. :razz: 8) :lol: :evil: :mrgreen:

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 4:28 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:43 am
Posts: 151
I have frquently been called a denier because I have pointed out that the IPCC predicts a small (59cm) sea level rise as the worst case scenario (needs a 6.4 degree c temperature rise) by 2100. When I ask what suggests that this is an underestimate or how they know better they tend to get very angry.

It is they who deny the evidence.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 7:11 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20356
Location: Southeastern US
Tim the Plumber wrote:
I have frquently been called a denier because I have pointed out that the IPCC predicts a small (59cm) sea level rise as the worst case scenario (needs a 6.4 degree c temperature rise) by 2100. When I ask what suggests that this is an underestimate or how they know better they tend to get very angry.

It is they who deny the evidence.


What evidence is it they supposedly deny? Have you presented evidence or are your questions supposed to be "evidence"?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 7:30 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:43 am
Posts: 151
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Tim the Plumber wrote:
I have frquently been called a denier because I have pointed out that the IPCC predicts a small (59cm) sea level rise as the worst case scenario (needs a 6.4 degree c temperature rise) by 2100. When I ask what suggests that this is an underestimate or how they know better they tend to get very angry.

It is they who deny the evidence.


What evidence is it they supposedly deny? Have you presented evidence or are your questions supposed to be "evidence"?


When people tell me that the seas will boil and that the earth will fall into an unstopable self reinforcing heating catastrophy I present the IPCC's report as the source of evidence I use.

When other ideas come past me I talk about the area of the oceans and how much ice needs to be melted to achieve whatever sea level rise is being predicted.

I know I'm not exactly holding up an ice core and a data set of O2 isotope readings. I just keep it simple.

The IPCC for all it's detractors (and I am one of them) presents the case for AGW as completely and scientifically well as is avaiible. Those who want there to be a danger of New York being flooded by a wall of water 40 feet high deny reason and science.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 7:42 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20356
Location: Southeastern US
Tim the Plumber wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Tim the Plumber wrote:
I have frquently been called a denier because I have pointed out that the IPCC predicts a small (59cm) sea level rise as the worst case scenario (needs a 6.4 degree c temperature rise) by 2100. When I ask what suggests that this is an underestimate or how they know better they tend to get very angry.

It is they who deny the evidence.


What evidence is it they supposedly deny? Have you presented evidence or are your questions supposed to be "evidence"?


When people tell me that the seas will boil and that the earth will fall into an unstopable self reinforcing heating catastrophy I present the IPCC's report as the source of evidence I use.


I am amazed. I have never seen anyone claim the oceans would boil due to global warming ... until you brought it up just now.

Quote:
When other ideas come past me I talk about the area of the oceans and how much ice needs to be melted to achieve whatever sea level rise is being predicted.


And the thermal expansion factor is ignored or just a bonus?

Quote:
I know I'm not exactly holding up an ice core and a data set of O2 isotope readings. I just keep it simple.


So you do or do not give any evidence outside of the amount of ice that need to be added as water?

Quote:
The IPCC for all it's detractors (and I am one of them) presents the case for AGW as completely and scientifically well as is avaiible. Those who want there to be a danger of New York being flooded by a wall of water 40 feet high deny reason and science.


Again, I have never seen anyone promote a 40 foot wall of water in association with this discussion ... other than you just now.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 7:50 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20356
Location: Southeastern US
Tim the Plumber wrote:
I have frquently been called a denier because I have pointed out that the IPCC predicts a small (59cm) sea level rise as the worst case scenario (needs a 6.4 degree c temperature rise) by 2100. When I ask what suggests that this is an underestimate or how they know better they tend to get very angry.

It is they who deny the evidence.


It appears there was an important caveat missed in looking at the sea level rise from the IPCC.

This was in the header of the chart.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... ns-of.html

Model-based range excluding future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 8:42 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:43 am
Posts: 151
Quote:
Model-based range excluding future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow


Since the temperature projections have been revised as to the new max being (I think) about 3.4 degrees c increase the ice will presumably melt less.

The generally banded about idea for increased ice flow is that melt water from the surface will lubricate the glaciers. This sound OK untill you read more detail where the discussion is of a million cubic meters of water catastrophically flowing down in one big flood. That's a thousanths of a cubic kilometer. I cannot see it having the effect of moving much more than one cubic kilometer. The amount of ice loss from Greenland needed to get to the 59cm point is in the order of several thousands of cubic kilometers each year.

Thermal expansion has been studied. I read a paper by a mechanical engineering department, commissioned by the IPCC, who can do this sort of modeling a lot easier than trying to study the air flow over the blade of a jet turbine. Their report has a figure of 14cm of thermal expansion from a 1 degree temperature rise from today and for the next 100 years. It's a many thousand page report, not many are supposed to read it. The important graph was on page 2960 or so. Not sure if I can re-find it. I might have a go.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 12:11 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20356
Location: Southeastern US
Tim the Plumber wrote:
Quote:
Model-based range excluding future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow


Since the temperature projections have been revised as to the new max being (I think) about 3.4 degrees c increase the ice will presumably melt less.

The generally banded about idea for increased ice flow is that melt water from the surface will lubricate the glaciers. This sound OK untill you read more detail where the discussion is of a million cubic meters of water catastrophically flowing down in one big flood.


Where is this discussed? I have not seen any reference to it myself so I cannot comment on specifics.

Quote:
That's a thousanths of a cubic kilometer. I cannot see it having the effect of moving much more than one cubic kilometer. The amount of ice loss from Greenland needed to get to the 59cm point is in the order of several thousands of cubic kilometers each year.


The increase from Greenland/Antarctia was like 1.3 mm/yr in 2006 with an average acceleration of 7.7% per year

Quote:
Thermal expansion has been studied. I read a paper by a mechanical engineering department, commissioned by the IPCC, who can do this sort of modeling a lot easier than trying to study the air flow over the blade of a jet turbine. Their report has a figure of 14cm of thermal expansion from a 1 degree temperature rise from today and for the next 100 years. It's a many thousand page report, not many are supposed to read it. The important graph was on page 2960 or so. Not sure if I can re-find it. I might have a go.


So the majority of the increase given would be thermal expansion.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 1:04 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:47 am
Posts: 110
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
I suppose since I don't think the seas will boil after hitting New York with a 40 foot wall of water I'm a denier too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 5:11 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1649
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Tim the Plumber wrote:
Since the temperature projections have been revised as to the new max being (I think) about 3.4 degrees c increase ....
Quote:
...The amount of ice loss from Greenland needed to get to the 59cm point is ...
Quote:
...Their report has a figure of 14cm of thermal expansion from a 1 degree temperature rise from today and for the next 100 years...
So the majority of the increase given would be thermal expansion.
3.4 x 14cm = 47.6 cm or 80.7% of 59cm


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 5:45 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:43 am
Posts: 151
spot1234 wrote:
I suppose since I don't think the seas will boil after hitting New York with a 40 foot wall of water I'm a denier too.


That's what I get called.

Sorry if I have arrived with this baggage.

Perhaps the debate on the western side of the Atlantic is a lot more mature. In the UK we have lots of doom merchants. It might be a good idea to keep that in mind when the predictions of the likes of Mann thought about.

The thermal expansion was for the temperature increasing by 1 degree today and staying at +1 over "normal" for a centuary so if there is a straight line increase between now and 2100 (yes gross simplification) then it's an average of 1.7 degrees x 14 cm...

Try working out the required flow rate from Greenland, my calculator just died, it takes a few seconds. Then ask where the ice that has melted so far is missing from? That much should be clear on Goole earth, rember since the temperature has not changed much over the last 15 years the ice melt cannot have altered.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 6:27 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1649
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Tim the Plumber wrote:
Try working out the required flow rate from Greenland, my calculator just died, it takes a few seconds. Then ask where the ice that has melted so far is missing from? That much should be clear on Goole earth, rember since the temperature has not changed much over the last 15 years the ice melt cannot have altered.
Here is an article on that http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17952317

Note that one of Greenland's glacier flows was clocked at 5km/year then 5 years later clocked at 10km/year. Only some spots have these glacial flows (the other parts have land between the ice and the ocean)

Note that the science behind this faster flow is the same reason skates glide on ice. Ice melts at 0 °C ONLY at atmospheric pressure. At higher pressures, ice melts at a lower temperature. The pressure of the skate blade melts the ice to lubricate the skate blade. This same concept turns the ice at the bottom of the glacier into water at a temperature cooler then 0 °C (and it is also heated by the earth's core slightly too). This water layer lets the ice slide over the bedrock a little easier. It takes years for the temperature rise at the surface of the glacier to warm up the bottom of that glacier so it is a delayed effect (and remember the extra latent energy needed to actually melt the ice).

Another factor in this to do with glaciers is the ocean flows. The convection currents of the oceans is powered by two vertical movements. Cold water is heavier then warm water so the water moves up where it is warmed and moves down were it is cooled. All that ice added to the ocean cools it adding to the convection current pressures so more of the ocean's water is also moved around to be heated up everywhere else. This will accelerate the expansion of the ocean by allowing more water to be moved around and heated by the atmosphere and also by solar input. Note that this is more water slightly warmed instead of just a small amount of surface water warmed more. This means the surface temperature of the ocean might actually drop yet as a whole, the oceans are warmed and thus expand.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 6:57 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20356
Location: Southeastern US
Tim the Plumber wrote:


Try working out the required flow rate from Greenland, my calculator just died, it takes a few seconds. Then ask where the ice that has melted so far is missing from? That much should be clear on Goole earth, rember since the temperature has not changed much over the last 15 years the ice melt cannot have altered.


A picture is supposedly worth 1000 words, here is a graphical representation of the ice mass loss in Greenland.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nc6RChCv8E


and words to go with the pictures


http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featur ... 20208.html

In the first comprehensive satellite study of its kind, a University of Colorado at Boulder-led team used NASA data to calculate how much Earth's melting land ice is adding to global sea level rise.

Using satellite measurements from the NASA/German Aerospace Center Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE), the researchers measured ice loss in all of Earth's land ice between 2003 and 2010, with particular emphasis on glaciers and ice caps outside of Greenland and Antarctica.

The total global ice mass lost from Greenland, Antarctica and Earth's glaciers and ice caps during the study period was about 4.3 trillion tons (1,000 cubic miles), adding about 0.5 inches (12 millimeters) to global sea level. That's enough ice to cover the United States 1.5 feet (0.5 meters) deep.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:50 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:47 am
Posts: 110
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Tim the Plumber wrote:
spot1234 wrote:
I suppose since I don't think the seas will boil after hitting New York with a 40 foot wall of water I'm a denier too.


That's what I get called.

Sorry if I have arrived with this baggage.

Perhaps the debate on the western side of the Atlantic is a lot more mature. In the UK we have lots of doom merchants. It might be a good idea to keep that in mind when the predictions of the likes of Mann thought about.

The thermal expansion was for the temperature increasing by 1 degree today and staying at +1 over "normal" for a centuary so if there is a straight line increase between now and 2100 (yes gross simplification) then it's an average of 1.7 degrees x 14 cm...

Try working out the required flow rate from Greenland, my calculator just died, it takes a few seconds. Then ask where the ice that has melted so far is missing from? That much should be clear on Goole earth, rember since the temperature has not changed much over the last 15 years the ice melt cannot have altered.


I'm being sarcastic, you say "we" think something silly and unbound by the laws of physics but I like to think of myself as informed and actually "we" think something different as a matter of fact I consider you uninformed and trying to pass looking at google earth and basically guessing when we have satellites measuring the mass of the icecaps and people actually going and looking at what is actually going on as science as silly.

Also Mann (I assume you mean Michael Mann vilified for doing his job is that the one?) did not predict anything that's not his field, You don't strike me as very well informed.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 173 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 12  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group