Remind Me, How Much Water And How Many...
Food & Drink7 mins ago
Global Warming
As the global temperature has remained steady for the past 10 consecutive years can we assume the panic is over? Or is it that Britains efforts (only 2% of the world's emitters) have succeeded in creating equilibrium?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rov1100. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The reason little trace remains of the Japanese IBUKU satellite reports (although the original is happily shared widely and standing alone as you said) is because as usual the mainstream wouldn't report it, and this site describes what happened to a few of the other proper news sites who attempted it. They had it removed.
http://rogueoperator....anese-satellite-data/
Regardless how few people have been told about it, it remains for anyone to question the validity of the data, you can't create a hoax for very long and quite sure if this had been a hoax it would have taken a day or two maximum to blow it. Skeptical Science alone can do that in an hour or so with undeleted data which is genuine, so any hoax would be easy meat for the massive army of Real Science and all the other parts of the machine to create well publicised articles exposing such a hoax.
But do a search and every single link is the same, asking why the developing world don't pay the developed for their emissions as that's the only place they're coming from (especially the Sahara Desert). Basically unless this is a hoax (and someone can prove it) it means every single element of climate policy is doing the exact opposite of what it intended, and far worse the theory must be wrong as how can these factories be absorbing CO2 if everyone was blaming them for the rise in the first place?
I know it's the same as asking you to pee in the corner of a dustbin or putting PTO on both sides of a piece of paper but I do enjoy seeing people's minds being blown by a taste of reality, it is the best treatment in the end.
http://rogueoperator....anese-satellite-data/
Regardless how few people have been told about it, it remains for anyone to question the validity of the data, you can't create a hoax for very long and quite sure if this had been a hoax it would have taken a day or two maximum to blow it. Skeptical Science alone can do that in an hour or so with undeleted data which is genuine, so any hoax would be easy meat for the massive army of Real Science and all the other parts of the machine to create well publicised articles exposing such a hoax.
But do a search and every single link is the same, asking why the developing world don't pay the developed for their emissions as that's the only place they're coming from (especially the Sahara Desert). Basically unless this is a hoax (and someone can prove it) it means every single element of climate policy is doing the exact opposite of what it intended, and far worse the theory must be wrong as how can these factories be absorbing CO2 if everyone was blaming them for the rise in the first place?
I know it's the same as asking you to pee in the corner of a dustbin or putting PTO on both sides of a piece of paper but I do enjoy seeing people's minds being blown by a taste of reality, it is the best treatment in the end.
Took some doing, the media may avoid its findings like a bad smell but it's real enough. Ibuku website.
http://www.gosat.nies.go.jp/index_e.html
http://www.gosat.nies.go.jp/index_e.html
David: Perhaps we can start by correcting IBUKU to IBUKI.
Then the fact that you can't even read a chart. Not even the author of the ridiculous article that you accepted verbatim Iincluding the spelling mistake)went so far as to claim that industrialised nations absorbed CO2.
The chart shows the seasonal atmospheric concentration of CO2 across some parts of the globe. It is a very worthy conribution to the research but, contray to the claims by O'Sullivan, it does not show anything about the origins of the gas.
As deniers love to point out, the human contribution to the dynamics of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is a tiny fraction of the whole carbon cycle. These distributions of concentrations are mainly governed by the natural process such as the release of net carbon dioxide in warmer water.
None the less it does consistently show the massive CO2 output of the Amzon jungle being burnt.
O'Sullivan is also proven to be an ardent liar about his acedemic qualifications. Simply read the coments on the article and this is explicitly revealed.
Ignorance is often revealed by the intellectual company one keeps.
Then the fact that you can't even read a chart. Not even the author of the ridiculous article that you accepted verbatim Iincluding the spelling mistake)went so far as to claim that industrialised nations absorbed CO2.
The chart shows the seasonal atmospheric concentration of CO2 across some parts of the globe. It is a very worthy conribution to the research but, contray to the claims by O'Sullivan, it does not show anything about the origins of the gas.
As deniers love to point out, the human contribution to the dynamics of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is a tiny fraction of the whole carbon cycle. These distributions of concentrations are mainly governed by the natural process such as the release of net carbon dioxide in warmer water.
None the less it does consistently show the massive CO2 output of the Amzon jungle being burnt.
O'Sullivan is also proven to be an ardent liar about his acedemic qualifications. Simply read the coments on the article and this is explicitly revealed.
Ignorance is often revealed by the intellectual company one keeps.
Very interesting. First you dismissed the satellite entirely and now as I found the source you are trying to spin the findings.
Two things, one, it proves this stuff isn't as simplistic as you claim, and as a result impossible to be certain, and secondly shows how easy it becomes to create any interpretations we like as a result. I'll wait for a few others to interpret it in that case, although now I've got the right name no one yet seems to have done so. Maybe it's just too hard to bother?
Two things, one, it proves this stuff isn't as simplistic as you claim, and as a result impossible to be certain, and secondly shows how easy it becomes to create any interpretations we like as a result. I'll wait for a few others to interpret it in that case, although now I've got the right name no one yet seems to have done so. Maybe it's just too hard to bother?
I did not dismiss the satellite entirely but commented that you were gullible for believing that industrialised nations were absorbing CO2 while deserts were realeasing it. I asked for the link.
You and O'Sullivan are the ones spinning the findings. Different interpretations are certainly possible but you are both completely wrong as I have demonstrated.
Again I have demolished your claims and demonstrated you don't have the ability to critically analyse information even at a basic level. Your problem stems from lapping up anything that appears to back your prejudice.
You and O'Sullivan are the ones spinning the findings. Different interpretations are certainly possible but you are both completely wrong as I have demonstrated.
Again I have demolished your claims and demonstrated you don't have the ability to critically analyse information even at a basic level. Your problem stems from lapping up anything that appears to back your prejudice.
David H //.... twice confirming you are more concerned with unborn people in a future after we're all gone ... //
I have not claimed that people in the furture are more important than those alive today. However I do believe the future of the planet's habitability should be important.
You and Birdie have discredited your positions by claiming that people alive today are the only consideration.
I have not claimed that people in the furture are more important than those alive today. However I do believe the future of the planet's habitability should be important.
You and Birdie have discredited your positions by claiming that people alive today are the only consideration.
Either you're backpedalling or claiming we all totally misinterpreted not one but a number of repeated statements that anyone who puts today's people first is in some way evil. That shifts everything beyond your own views as also accuses everyone else of potentially being psychopaths for actually caring about poverty and suffering today for something we don't even know if it's happening.
Ditto backpedalling on Ibuki. They didn't collect all that data to be confused or confusing, and although none of them there have bothered to try and interpret the data for everyone reading it, which is simply lazy and careless, if it isn't an indication that the green areas relate to the places underneath them, except for the rain forests which did fit your theory, I'd suggest they may as well have gone straight down the toilet without wasting our time looking at them. Why create and release data if it can't be read by anyone accurately?
Back to our friend the sea level, although this needs further evidence it looks like the Australian state government hid the true sea level around its coast as 1mm a year makes their new carbon tax look pretty pointless.
http://www.stopgillar...t-sea-level-data.html
Just for convenience, I'll sum up a few points I believe are beyond your capacity to hit out of the ground. The sea levels (I must dig up that diagram which has all scales so you can't say it's over too long a period to judge) are indeed petering out wherever in the world you look. The Antarctic ice is growing, something not supposed to be possible without at least substantial cooling in the southern hemisphere. But then again Phil Jones mentioned they only have adequate measurements for the northern hemisphere, so that's OK then.
I'll throw in the medieval warm period, oddly in all the books till the 80s and then magically ironed out. Then the Roman and Minoan warm periods. All a good deal warmer than we are now, burning hardly any CO2, and when societies flourished from more food and fewer deaths from cold overall. You can take all your funny prediction models and shove them up Julia Gillard, who would probably come back for more, and use proper science and look at the recorded past when we know one thing. No one suffered with a warmer planet. Not overall. If that's the case then if it really had been warming a degree or two then I personally would recommend everyone to look forward to it, I certainly would prefer it here. Having read all the worst case scenarios it would take a 5-10C rise to cause any problems at all, which even then would only affect the tropics rising north and south but be compensated by opening up the polar areas as the were in the past. That again has happened throughout history and London has twice been covered in ice which really would put the squits up me if was happening again. We should thank whatever power we believe in we aren't living in an ice age now. That's the only known climate threat and known with absolute certainty.
Ditto backpedalling on Ibuki. They didn't collect all that data to be confused or confusing, and although none of them there have bothered to try and interpret the data for everyone reading it, which is simply lazy and careless, if it isn't an indication that the green areas relate to the places underneath them, except for the rain forests which did fit your theory, I'd suggest they may as well have gone straight down the toilet without wasting our time looking at them. Why create and release data if it can't be read by anyone accurately?
Back to our friend the sea level, although this needs further evidence it looks like the Australian state government hid the true sea level around its coast as 1mm a year makes their new carbon tax look pretty pointless.
http://www.stopgillar...t-sea-level-data.html
Just for convenience, I'll sum up a few points I believe are beyond your capacity to hit out of the ground. The sea levels (I must dig up that diagram which has all scales so you can't say it's over too long a period to judge) are indeed petering out wherever in the world you look. The Antarctic ice is growing, something not supposed to be possible without at least substantial cooling in the southern hemisphere. But then again Phil Jones mentioned they only have adequate measurements for the northern hemisphere, so that's OK then.
I'll throw in the medieval warm period, oddly in all the books till the 80s and then magically ironed out. Then the Roman and Minoan warm periods. All a good deal warmer than we are now, burning hardly any CO2, and when societies flourished from more food and fewer deaths from cold overall. You can take all your funny prediction models and shove them up Julia Gillard, who would probably come back for more, and use proper science and look at the recorded past when we know one thing. No one suffered with a warmer planet. Not overall. If that's the case then if it really had been warming a degree or two then I personally would recommend everyone to look forward to it, I certainly would prefer it here. Having read all the worst case scenarios it would take a 5-10C rise to cause any problems at all, which even then would only affect the tropics rising north and south but be compensated by opening up the polar areas as the were in the past. That again has happened throughout history and London has twice been covered in ice which really would put the squits up me if was happening again. We should thank whatever power we believe in we aren't living in an ice age now. That's the only known climate threat and known with absolute certainty.
In case anyone has an evening off or the flu here are the figures everyone on earth now needs to learn now we're being held to ransom by the climate bandits. Figure 4 (p5) alone is adequate for those with a minute to spare as it shows our temperature in historic context. If you looked at it not knowing the CO2 level you'd have turned it over and walked away. In fact even knowing the CO2 levels you'd have then looked at it and wondered what all the fuss was about as that line is a pretty standard set of variations and no different now from any other point in the past.
http://www.lavoisier..../longversionfinal.pdf
It then goes on to explain the CO2 absorption spectra:
"The most important characteristic of carbon dioxide’s impact on the radiation balance
of the earth—the so-called greenhouse effect—is that as atmospheric concentrations
of CO2
increase, the impact on the earth’s radiation balance caused by the resonance
of the CO2
molecule at wavelengths of 15 microns diminishes rapidly. As the graphs
shown in Figures 6 and 7 show, once CO2
concentrations exceed 200 ppmv, further
increases have diminishing impact on the radiation balance, and doubling present
concentrations from 375 to 750 ppmv will have only marginal impact on that balance."
It even has a kosher source (sorry to disappoint beso here)
: (University of Chicago; http://geosci.uchicag.../radiation_form.html)
Basically everything I said earlier is here that matters, the causes and effects, and anyone who can take that and make it into a scary scenario is either on the payroll of the UN one way or another or on a bad trip, man.
http://www.lavoisier..../longversionfinal.pdf
It then goes on to explain the CO2 absorption spectra:
"The most important characteristic of carbon dioxide’s impact on the radiation balance
of the earth—the so-called greenhouse effect—is that as atmospheric concentrations
of CO2
increase, the impact on the earth’s radiation balance caused by the resonance
of the CO2
molecule at wavelengths of 15 microns diminishes rapidly. As the graphs
shown in Figures 6 and 7 show, once CO2
concentrations exceed 200 ppmv, further
increases have diminishing impact on the radiation balance, and doubling present
concentrations from 375 to 750 ppmv will have only marginal impact on that balance."
It even has a kosher source (sorry to disappoint beso here)
: (University of Chicago; http://geosci.uchicag.../radiation_form.html)
Basically everything I said earlier is here that matters, the causes and effects, and anyone who can take that and make it into a scary scenario is either on the payroll of the UN one way or another or on a bad trip, man.
Apologies but that link's dead. Here's the good one and explains saturation a lot better than I can.
http://geoflop.uchica....greenhouse_gases.pdf
Basically the more darkness you add to a clear area the less effect it has until the effect is complete.
http://geoflop.uchica....greenhouse_gases.pdf
Basically the more darkness you add to a clear area the less effect it has until the effect is complete.
Thankyou for the working link. You are talking about "band saturation". The CO2 is not saturated per se but it is the effect of diminishing marginal absorbtion due to most of the radiation in the frequency band already being absorbed.
As I said the interaction between gasses and radiation are thoroughly known and this in no way represents an "unknown". The atmospheric models used in climate modelling have always included this.
Once again skeptics have attempted to substitute a simplistic single curve analysis to a far more complex system while pretending that climate modellers have wilfully ignored their "revelation".
The atmospheric models (run on supercomputers) accurately reproduce both the observed decrease in certain frequency bands and the increased infrared radiation coming down form the atmosphere.
The simplistic (download it and run on your PC, whoo hoo!!) single curve model (you actually used a computer model to support your case?) do not produce results that match observations at all.
As I said the interaction between gasses and radiation are thoroughly known and this in no way represents an "unknown". The atmospheric models used in climate modelling have always included this.
Once again skeptics have attempted to substitute a simplistic single curve analysis to a far more complex system while pretending that climate modellers have wilfully ignored their "revelation".
The atmospheric models (run on supercomputers) accurately reproduce both the observed decrease in certain frequency bands and the increased infrared radiation coming down form the atmosphere.
The simplistic (download it and run on your PC, whoo hoo!!) single curve model (you actually used a computer model to support your case?) do not produce results that match observations at all.
David H //Just for convenience, I'll sum up a few points I believe are beyond your capacity to hit out of the ground. The sea levels are indeed petering out wherever in the world you look. //
As indicated earlier in this thread the sea level rises and falls in response to the amount of water in the land. During the La Nina phase of the ENSO heavy rainfall, particularly in Asia and Australia put a lot of water onto the land.
If you care to look at the data again you will see that the sea level has been rapidly on the rise again even while we have participated in this thread.
http://www.aviso.ocea..._RWT_NoGIA_Adjust.png
(That is the real one, not the doctored one provided by Stephen Goddard.)
Every day the hydrological cycle evaporates the ocean water equivalent to 2.5 millimetres of depth. The average level can move up and down by several millimetres in a few months.
However the trend continue rapidly upwards. Remember I debunked both your claims that it wasn't rising and that even if it was that the level was changing sinusoidally.
And you are claiming that I couldn't hit the ground??? Sorry you were the one who fell on your face in our discussion of sea level by providing a doctored graph and then the ridiculous sinudoidal proposal. You have made no credible points in that part of our discussion and simply demonstrated your gullibility by parrotting whatever the bastions of denial feed to you.
As indicated earlier in this thread the sea level rises and falls in response to the amount of water in the land. During the La Nina phase of the ENSO heavy rainfall, particularly in Asia and Australia put a lot of water onto the land.
If you care to look at the data again you will see that the sea level has been rapidly on the rise again even while we have participated in this thread.
http://www.aviso.ocea..._RWT_NoGIA_Adjust.png
(That is the real one, not the doctored one provided by Stephen Goddard.)
Every day the hydrological cycle evaporates the ocean water equivalent to 2.5 millimetres of depth. The average level can move up and down by several millimetres in a few months.
However the trend continue rapidly upwards. Remember I debunked both your claims that it wasn't rising and that even if it was that the level was changing sinusoidally.
And you are claiming that I couldn't hit the ground??? Sorry you were the one who fell on your face in our discussion of sea level by providing a doctored graph and then the ridiculous sinudoidal proposal. You have made no credible points in that part of our discussion and simply demonstrated your gullibility by parrotting whatever the bastions of denial feed to you.
David H //The Antarctic ice is growing, something not supposed to be possible without at least substantial cooling in the southern hemisphere. //
The seasonal peak winter sea ice has increased. However the far more significant land ice is melting at between 100 and 300 Gigatonnes per annum.
Indeed one hypothesis explaining the change in the sea ice is the amount of fresh water coming off the land ice.
Again you have simply repeated what your mentors tell you without bothering to check the facts.
The seasonal peak winter sea ice has increased. However the far more significant land ice is melting at between 100 and 300 Gigatonnes per annum.
Indeed one hypothesis explaining the change in the sea ice is the amount of fresh water coming off the land ice.
Again you have simply repeated what your mentors tell you without bothering to check the facts.
fliptheswitch // "Global Warming".... Is B0llocks! //
Here we see the typical denialist intellectual contribution. They all start with this assumption and some never get beyond it. Others like David and Birdie attempt to back their assertion scientifically but never succeed because the science indicates that AGW is real.
Unfortunately when their claims are demolished in front of them they simply wait a little while than start reapeating the same incorrect claims as we have seen with David and the sea level argument.
Here we see the typical denialist intellectual contribution. They all start with this assumption and some never get beyond it. Others like David and Birdie attempt to back their assertion scientifically but never succeed because the science indicates that AGW is real.
Unfortunately when their claims are demolished in front of them they simply wait a little while than start reapeating the same incorrect claims as we have seen with David and the sea level argument.
.... the true sea level [rise] around [Australia's] coast as 1mm a year
That is correct. For an explanation of the full picture please consult the following limk that provides excellent data and explains why the average rise is much greater than that measured in Australia.
http://www.skepticals...Tuvalu-Sea-Level.html
That is correct. For an explanation of the full picture please consult the following limk that provides excellent data and explains why the average rise is much greater than that measured in Australia.
http://www.skepticals...Tuvalu-Sea-Level.html
Ah, Skeptical Science, the team of scientists paid hundreds of thousands to quash every new study that contradicts the message. A team who simply reverse every single item as most people trust them to do so is just a bunch of prostitutes as far as I'm concerned. What if new data came out from NASA to do the same thing or a reputable university? How do they deal with the conflict of tearing the data apart as requested or attack their friends? As the newly famous Mr Crowley says, "I am not convinced that the 'truth' is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships."
The disconnect operates the best with sea levels. All the scary scenarios talk about 1-5M rises by 2100. All very well, but a) The IPCC say 7-23 inches (ie a bit less than last century to double what it was, all absolutely harmless and normal) and b) as the highest rise we've had so far is around 3.2mm per year it would take (I wish they'd stick to imperial as I need pen and paper to convert to metric) a 3-10 times rise in the rate for a century to get close to the Greenpeace imagination stories.
This means that from where we are now, with a 50% rise in CO2 and 10 inch corresponding rise, something new has to happen, like a sudden melting of land ice and around a 3-5C rise within a century to even manage a metre/yard. More than that is basically something only the sudden end of an ice age has been capable of, long before we were out of the caves. Now most people couldn't judge the sea level if they were standing in it taking a pish, and even fewer realise the local variations that need massive work to both average out and fill in the gaps, just like temperature.
But taking all the anomalies and combined satellite, tide gauge/float and direct measures on docks the agreed change was 10 inches the last century under a 50% CO2 rise. Not a lot. Those islands people like Attenborough pee their pants over are on subduction zones and basically sinking. The few which appear (when cameras carefully find the bits that look susceptible) to be going underwater are part of an unavoidable geological cycle.
The conditions required for a sea level rise beyond the absolutely normal would be so drastically beyond anything that is happening now, requiring new phenomena to kick in (based on a massive positive feedback as yet absent) that would basically be right on the end of the probability curve as to be too unlikely to seriously prepare for. In the absence of a sea level rise beyond a few times the current trend all those places we are shown on the BBC every day if you are unfortunate enough to tune in simply cannot be affected.
Now where do I get my future scenario cases from? As the most work has been done by the IPCC I use their reports, mainly the latest 2007, although the new one has been previewed and far less certain, and their point where the losses outweigh the benefits is set around 3C. Just because I lack a secretary or salary to retrieve my good sources (unlike Skeptical Science who were paid more than the value of my house altogether) doesn't mean I don't have them. The only hole is my lack of scientific ability so a few are naff, but then again the number which are on the warmetarian side easily outweigh the others so easily even out. So once you dump the rubbish on both sides (eg Kilimanjaro) you're left with data from universities, proper independents and god forbid the IPCC, who do talk some sense but cancelled out by the nonsense.
Back to the original question, it would require a temperature rise on at least a linear level of a few times more than we've had already in relation to rising CO2, the sea level can only increase a major amount with a very long period of a sharp rise, and as far as my research tells me if that really had happened stopping CO2 emissions would not actually make any difference. Stopping them when the only thing rising sharply is CO2 and not anything else tells me a cost-benefit analysis here which actually
The disconnect operates the best with sea levels. All the scary scenarios talk about 1-5M rises by 2100. All very well, but a) The IPCC say 7-23 inches (ie a bit less than last century to double what it was, all absolutely harmless and normal) and b) as the highest rise we've had so far is around 3.2mm per year it would take (I wish they'd stick to imperial as I need pen and paper to convert to metric) a 3-10 times rise in the rate for a century to get close to the Greenpeace imagination stories.
This means that from where we are now, with a 50% rise in CO2 and 10 inch corresponding rise, something new has to happen, like a sudden melting of land ice and around a 3-5C rise within a century to even manage a metre/yard. More than that is basically something only the sudden end of an ice age has been capable of, long before we were out of the caves. Now most people couldn't judge the sea level if they were standing in it taking a pish, and even fewer realise the local variations that need massive work to both average out and fill in the gaps, just like temperature.
But taking all the anomalies and combined satellite, tide gauge/float and direct measures on docks the agreed change was 10 inches the last century under a 50% CO2 rise. Not a lot. Those islands people like Attenborough pee their pants over are on subduction zones and basically sinking. The few which appear (when cameras carefully find the bits that look susceptible) to be going underwater are part of an unavoidable geological cycle.
The conditions required for a sea level rise beyond the absolutely normal would be so drastically beyond anything that is happening now, requiring new phenomena to kick in (based on a massive positive feedback as yet absent) that would basically be right on the end of the probability curve as to be too unlikely to seriously prepare for. In the absence of a sea level rise beyond a few times the current trend all those places we are shown on the BBC every day if you are unfortunate enough to tune in simply cannot be affected.
Now where do I get my future scenario cases from? As the most work has been done by the IPCC I use their reports, mainly the latest 2007, although the new one has been previewed and far less certain, and their point where the losses outweigh the benefits is set around 3C. Just because I lack a secretary or salary to retrieve my good sources (unlike Skeptical Science who were paid more than the value of my house altogether) doesn't mean I don't have them. The only hole is my lack of scientific ability so a few are naff, but then again the number which are on the warmetarian side easily outweigh the others so easily even out. So once you dump the rubbish on both sides (eg Kilimanjaro) you're left with data from universities, proper independents and god forbid the IPCC, who do talk some sense but cancelled out by the nonsense.
Back to the original question, it would require a temperature rise on at least a linear level of a few times more than we've had already in relation to rising CO2, the sea level can only increase a major amount with a very long period of a sharp rise, and as far as my research tells me if that really had happened stopping CO2 emissions would not actually make any difference. Stopping them when the only thing rising sharply is CO2 and not anything else tells me a cost-benefit analysis here which actually
blimey, bust the answer already...
costing more than the combined losses in the credit crash and the Euro crisis while actual measured figures are within normal parameters is not a rational reaction. Of course without actually about an 80% drop in industrialisation nothing noticeable would be achieved, (as if that was a good thing), so you would basically wreck the quality of life for everyone for some imaginary threat.
http://ate.entrewave....pproject/pproject.htm
Here is a complete list of figures for around the last 200 years. OK, I know they don't give their sources, but the actual figures are familiar to me so better to be all on one page than loads of links.
Glad to say my sea level diagrams are pretty universally used outside Steven Goddard's site and found them on Wikipedia, again nicely presented on one page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
---------------------------------------------
---
So just staying in the present (I know it's hard but hang in there), after a 50% rise in CO2 the fairly steady rise in temperature and sea level would give about a 10 inch rise and 1C rise by 2100. Now I have no computer running, or even a pen and paper- I was able to do that in my head.
The Greenpeace (not IPCC, they are far more reasonable) and Monbiot scenarios are a 6-10C rise with a corresponding 1-5M sea level rise.
That would require an exponential rise in temperature (from a linear rise in CO2 which has continued from 300-390ppm on a pretty straight angle appearing to remain there or thereabouts on existing known trends) and possibly an exponential rise in CO2 to kick in to help it.
As yet neither have happened, and without at least a small beginning of a rising slope (above 45') for even one parameter then my figures based solely on a linear relationship are the betting man's choice for 2100. Anything else is on the edge and would be in the hundreds to one scenario. Probably millions actually but unless we're all here in 2100 we'll never have a clue.
costing more than the combined losses in the credit crash and the Euro crisis while actual measured figures are within normal parameters is not a rational reaction. Of course without actually about an 80% drop in industrialisation nothing noticeable would be achieved, (as if that was a good thing), so you would basically wreck the quality of life for everyone for some imaginary threat.
http://ate.entrewave....pproject/pproject.htm
Here is a complete list of figures for around the last 200 years. OK, I know they don't give their sources, but the actual figures are familiar to me so better to be all on one page than loads of links.
Glad to say my sea level diagrams are pretty universally used outside Steven Goddard's site and found them on Wikipedia, again nicely presented on one page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
---------------------------------------------
---
So just staying in the present (I know it's hard but hang in there), after a 50% rise in CO2 the fairly steady rise in temperature and sea level would give about a 10 inch rise and 1C rise by 2100. Now I have no computer running, or even a pen and paper- I was able to do that in my head.
The Greenpeace (not IPCC, they are far more reasonable) and Monbiot scenarios are a 6-10C rise with a corresponding 1-5M sea level rise.
That would require an exponential rise in temperature (from a linear rise in CO2 which has continued from 300-390ppm on a pretty straight angle appearing to remain there or thereabouts on existing known trends) and possibly an exponential rise in CO2 to kick in to help it.
As yet neither have happened, and without at least a small beginning of a rising slope (above 45') for even one parameter then my figures based solely on a linear relationship are the betting man's choice for 2100. Anything else is on the edge and would be in the hundreds to one scenario. Probably millions actually but unless we're all here in 2100 we'll never have a clue.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank12 mins ago
Crosswords14 mins ago
News25 mins ago
Food Shortage Plan Being Drawn Up To...
News25 mins ago
Are We Heading Towards Another...
Politics28 mins ago
