Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   2014 was hotter than 1998. 2015 data in yet?
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


(1)
Message 136 of 357 (777026)
01-24-2016 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Jon
01-24-2016 7:59 PM


Re: 216 feet
According to... ?
Me. You. This is so easy you and I can reach a solid conclusion on this.
About solar power you may be right I just hope that solar, plus wind, plus geo, plus nuclear, plus... can supply what we need. If we keep going in the current direction we will find out that it certainly does matter how high the water gets.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Jon, posted 01-24-2016 7:59 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Jon, posted 01-24-2016 9:30 PM NosyNed has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 357 (777028)
01-24-2016 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by NosyNed
01-24-2016 8:52 PM


Re: 216 feet
Me. You. This is so easy you and I can reach a solid conclusion on this.
Clearly not.
And I've been doing a fair amount of research the last couple of days trying to get to the bottom of this. I can't find anyone who actually predicts a melting of all the ice and the rise in sea levels this would cause.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by NosyNed, posted 01-24-2016 8:52 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by NosyNed, posted 01-24-2016 9:35 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 140 by AZPaul3, posted 01-25-2016 2:26 AM Jon has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 138 of 357 (777029)
01-24-2016 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Jon
01-24-2016 9:30 PM


Re: 216 feet
Jon, CO2 is a green house gas yes?
Enough CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the average temperature of the globe to pretty much any temperature you want to worry about. Yes?
Those are the facts.
So if we keep adding CO2 eventually (some decade, century, millennium) the ice will melt is the conclusion.
What problem do you have with this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Jon, posted 01-24-2016 9:30 PM Jon has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 139 of 357 (777033)
01-24-2016 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Jon
01-24-2016 7:59 PM


Re: 216 feet
quote:
But the real problem with solar power is that it simply doesn't power anything. It just can't give us the power our societies need.
Actually, for new generating capacity, it is a cost-competitive option in about a third of places people live in the USA.
Look at the total power-plant production and Solar is like 1%.
But the number is like 20 times that for new power-plants being built.
Solar and wind are the majority of new generation capacity I think.
It is really expensive to dear down existing coal facilities (with lots of life left in them before the normal age of retirement) and to replace with solar. But that is a different issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Jon, posted 01-24-2016 7:59 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by ringo, posted 01-25-2016 10:55 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied
 Message 143 by Jon, posted 01-25-2016 8:40 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(4)
Message 140 of 357 (777036)
01-25-2016 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Jon
01-24-2016 9:30 PM


Re: 216 feet
And I've been doing a fair amount of research the last couple of days trying to get to the bottom of this. I can't find anyone who actually predicts a melting of all the ice and the rise in sea levels this would cause.
You apparently don't know how to do research on the web.
This took me less than 2 minutes to find and that was with a 1 1/2 min pee break.
What NosyNed, and anyone who really has done a fair amount of actual research on this, knows is that our best predictions are that sea levels will rise 80 cm to 1 m by the year 2100.
We also know that, even if we stopped pooping and poisoning our planet immediately, today, the greenhouse gasses already accumulated will continue to warm the planet, especially the oceans, even more over a period of centuries.
Since, because of people like you and your "fuck the long term planet if it's going to cost me short term profits" attitude we really don't hold out much hope for the prospect of lessening our poisoning by any appreciable degree any time in the near future. That means that warming, and the ice melt, and the sea level rise, will continue, and accelerate, for many more centuries.
So the question is asked, "what is the maximum that sea levels can rise because of the ice melt?" You answer that question by looking at how much ice there is and what would the sea level rise be if it all melted. Not an unlikely scenario over the next millennium given the number of selfish uncaring people we have who are gladly adding more poisons to this world so they can keep their beer cold and who hide behind a short-term view of cost/benefit bullshit
The data is in the body of this site on how much ice there is in the three major sets of ice sheets of Greenland, Eastern Antarctica and Western Antarctica.
Any guesses as to what that sea level rise would be?
I'll assume I don't have to hold your hand, walk you through the text to find the data and do the math for you to find the answer. If I'm wrong about that ... well, I have better things to do. You're on your own.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Jon, posted 01-24-2016 9:30 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Jon, posted 01-25-2016 9:03 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 141 of 357 (777040)
01-25-2016 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by LamarkNewAge
01-24-2016 10:37 PM


Re: 216 feet
LamarkNewAge writes:
Actually, for new generating capacity, it is a cost-competitive option in about a third of places people live in the USA.
How would solar work in Manhattan?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-24-2016 10:37 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by xongsmith, posted 01-25-2016 12:35 PM ringo has replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


(1)
Message 142 of 357 (777045)
01-25-2016 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by ringo
01-25-2016 10:55 AM


Re: Manhattan
Ringo asks:
How would solar work in Manhattan?
I googled "solar power windows" and got this:
Solar windows can power buildings | Computerworld
plus rooftops & parking lot shading over parked cars.
And rooftop vertical axis wind turbines.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by ringo, posted 01-25-2016 10:55 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by ringo, posted 01-26-2016 11:07 AM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 143 of 357 (777073)
01-25-2016 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by LamarkNewAge
01-24-2016 10:37 PM


Re: 216 feet
Actually, for new generating capacity, it is a cost-competitive option in about a third of places people live in the USA.
Oh for fuck's sake already, will you address the actual points being made against your position?
Cost is only a part of it.
The real problem, as I said and as you quoted is that renewables like solar and wind just cannot provide the power our societies need.
But the number is like 20 times that for new power-plants being built.
Solar and wind are the majority of new generation capacity I think.
And I think you're wrong. How do you plan to settle this?

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-24-2016 10:37 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-26-2016 12:57 AM Jon has replied
 Message 165 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-26-2016 9:38 PM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 357 (777076)
01-25-2016 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by AZPaul3
01-25-2016 2:26 AM


Re: 216 feet
I'll assume I don't have to hold your hand, walk you through the text to find the data and do the math for you to find the answer.
You might have to; because I read through that article and I couldn't find a single mention of a realistic 200 food rise in sea level or a prediction that we'll melt all the ice.
What I did find was this:
quote:
"How Much Will Sea Level Rise in the 21st Century?" from Skeptical Science (emphasis added):
If the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) were to melt, this would add around 6 metres to sea levels. If the East Antarctic Ice Sheet (EAIS) were to melt as well, seas would rise by around 70 metres [= ~230 ft].
In a process that is accelerating, all three ice caps are losing mass. While nobody is suggesting any of the ice caps will melt away to nothing, only a small amount of melting would cause great problems.
Did you even read the article before you pasted the link?
The 200 foot rise in sea levels that would come from all the ice melting is specifically ruled out.
I guess we'll just have to add this to the 'another laugh' category...
In response to my claim that "I can't find anyone who actually predicts a melting of all the ice", you link to an article where a melting of all the ice is entirely ruled out.
Thanks for the chuckle.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by AZPaul3, posted 01-25-2016 2:26 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by NosyNed, posted 01-25-2016 9:46 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 146 by AZPaul3, posted 01-26-2016 12:27 AM Jon has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 145 of 357 (777079)
01-25-2016 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Jon
01-25-2016 9:03 PM


Re: 216 feet
The 200 foot rise in sea levels that would come from all the ice melting is specifically ruled out.
It is not ruled out. It is just that they have short time horizons. If we put out enough CO2 the ice will melt. It has before.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Jon, posted 01-25-2016 9:03 PM Jon has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 146 of 357 (777087)
01-26-2016 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Jon
01-25-2016 9:03 PM


Re: 216 feet
quote:
While nobody is suggesting any of the ice caps will melt away to nothing ...
The 200 foot rise in sea levels that would come from all the ice melting is specifically ruled out.
In response to my claim that "I can't find anyone who actually predicts a melting of all the ice", you link to an article where a melting of all the ice is entirely ruled out.
I see where NosyNed has already answered this.
I have to ask: do you really think your statements are equivalent to the quote? Do you really think that "not making a suggestion" is specifically "ruling it out"? I mean, this isn't even in the least bit subtle. How the hell does logic equate the two?
Let me ask you this: is it your contention now that since nobody is suggesting the ice sheets will melt away to nothing that means the ice sheets will not melt at all? Do you contend that the ice sheets are not melting right now, today? Since we already know this warming is going to continue for centuries do you contend that the ice sheets are just going to sit there in all their icy splendor without any melt?
Further, if the ice sheets are melting today and will continue so for many centuries, even though nobody is suggesting they will melt to nothing, how much melting could there possibly be? 1%? 6%? 60%?
Do you not comprehend that this warming, and the melting of the ice sheets and the rise in sea levels, will continue even if we stop pumping carbon into our atmosphere today? Do you not comprehend that this warming, and the melting of the ice sheets and the rise in sea levels, will continue for many centuries even if we stop pumping carbon into our atmosphere today? Do you not comprehend that if we continue to pump carbon into our atmosphere at prodigious rates, as seems likely, this warming will accelerate, ice sheet melting will accelerate, sea level rise will accelerate?
Final questions. How far can this scenario go over the next millennia+? What is the logical extreme of this continuous acceleration of global warming, ice sheet melting, sea level rising? Even if "nobody is suggesting any of the ice caps will melt away to nothing" what is the maximum, worst case scenario, possible?
That is what this subtopic of this thread is about. That is what NosyNed was stating. And despite your weaseling around you did, in fact, find the data in the article as promised, you did the math and you now know the answer.
So cut the bullshit.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Jon, posted 01-25-2016 9:03 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Jon, posted 01-26-2016 7:47 AM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 147 of 357 (777089)
01-26-2016 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Jon
01-25-2016 8:40 PM


John said "I think you're wrong" on wind/solar being a majority of new generating cap
Google
You can see by the news lines that they were 61% of new-generating capacity in 2015.
Wind was 47% and I think solar was 14% (I'm in a hurry and don't have time right now so go into it).
Google news link.
Keep checking the link.
Will update with tons of new news items every time you click.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Jon, posted 01-25-2016 8:40 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Jon, posted 01-26-2016 7:50 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 148 of 357 (777097)
01-26-2016 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by AZPaul3
01-26-2016 12:27 AM


Re: 216 feet
A worst-case scenario means nothing if there is no reasonable way that scenario could come to pass.
And there's a reason the experts are not suggesting that these things will happen: because the scenario is so fucking absurd and unrealistic that not even the most die-hard opponents of fossil fuel use within the scientific community can bring themselves to advance such an academically dishonest position.
We don't need to hope "renewables get adopted" soon lest we melt all the ice and drown the city of New York as NosyNed has suggested because that's literally not going to happen and no one is predicting it will.
So it doesn't make "some dollars 'wasted' on solar panels ... seem like a bargin" - it makes it seem like the frantic fear-fueled foolishness that it is.
Let me ask you this: is it your contention now that since nobody is suggesting the ice sheets will melt away to nothing that means the ice sheets will not melt at all? Do you contend that the ice sheets are not melting right now, today? Since we already know this warming is going to continue for centuries do you contend that the ice sheets are just going to sit there in all their icy splendor without any melt?
I think that the serious rises in sea level are so far into the future that to sit in the cold disease-ridden dark (which is what adopting renewable energy means) to avoid a few meters of sea level rise in a few hundred years or more is stupid. And it's certainly far more self destructive than our current use of carbon.
I think that if we really want to help future generations we can do so better by creating the wealth and technology useful for adapting to the new realities than by retreating into our caves and mud huts.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by AZPaul3, posted 01-26-2016 12:27 AM AZPaul3 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by NosyNed, posted 01-26-2016 9:42 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 149 of 357 (777098)
01-26-2016 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by LamarkNewAge
01-26-2016 12:57 AM


Re: John said "I think you're wrong" on wind/solar being a majority of new generating cap
I see what you did there. Very clever.
I'll deal with you when I get home.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-26-2016 12:57 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 150 of 357 (777106)
01-26-2016 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Jon
01-26-2016 7:47 AM


Re: 216 feet
A worst-case scenario means nothing if there is no reasonable way that scenario could come to pass.
The way this can come to pass is if we just keep doing what we are doing now. Since we are doing it I'd say you'd have to call it a reasonable possibility. Continuing to dump excess CO2 is all that is needed.
In addition, this as I"ve been presenting it is not a a worst-case scenario at all! In fact it is best case. That is the rise will take place over centuries and not faster. I'm saying we don't know how long it may take and that centuries are the likely time-frame giving us time to move entire cities if we get started on it.
The worst-case scenario for sea level rise involves unknown tipping points where positive feedback loops take over and produce ever accelerating warming and rise. Methane release from sinks of it for example. There are a lot of things we don't know and we are playing with it all very carelessly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Jon, posted 01-26-2016 7:47 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Jon, posted 01-26-2016 12:34 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024