Antarctica is melting

[KrazyHorse]

I'm not feeling aggressive about proving anything. First off, I have no political axe to grind. I am ambivalent regarding any and all proposed "solutions" to the "problem" of climate change. Secondly, in my experience it is useless to try to prove anything to somebody who does have a political axe to grind. I'm simply taking this opportunity to mock deliberate ignorance.

[Winston]

The effects of greenhouse gasses as compared to naturally occuring cycles. Simply saying greenhouse gasses are going to be at double the level than ever before is meaningless, unless you establish its significance in comparison with the effect that is operating independently, the natural one. And we have still to figure out this comparative relationship.

[KrazyHorse]

The zeroth order effect of concentrations of greenhouse gases on global temperature is easily understood. The climatological feedback cycle is badly understood, but there is a great long body of evidence showing the size of the oscillations. The two become roughly similar in size at around the point when CO2 concentrations reach 500-600 ppm. Right now we're at 350 and trending upward rather quickly, from a mean of ~200-250 in the preindustrial era (deviating between 150 and 300 over time).

All these are easily answered questions, Winston.

What is difficult to answer is what happens when push meets shove. How does the complex system of the Earth's climate react when we're shoving one of the most important variables far out of its previous range? I have no clue. Neither does anybody else. I have never claimed otherwise, though others have.

[Berzerker]

How dumb is this?

If it's so ridiculous then why did you even bring up the possibility?

I didn't say it was ridiculous, you did. Pretty dumb

Wow. You obviously have no experience working with orbital mechanics.

Thats your rebuttal? Feel free to use your expertise in orbital mechanics to explain why its impossible (or ridiculous) for a passing object to cause a rise or drop in polar seal levels.

Given that we've already driven a key element in that cycle far beyond its previous limits I think that your faith in another repetition of the cycle is less than justified.

How do you know that? A few volcanos going off over several years can certainly cause a similar increase in that "key element", but the real key element is the actual temperature...and we are still tracking the cycle.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Sava
is the continent melting too?

That was my initial reaction to the thread title as well.

[Winston]

The proportional effects of the two on our climate are unknown. That's why it doesn't make sense when non-reflecting posters say "OMG! The ice is melting, we must vote for Hillary, sell the car and get bikes!"

[KrazyHorse]

How do you know that? A few volcanos going off over several years can certainly cause a similar increase in that "key element"

No, they can't. We're beyond that now. We're into uncharted territory, and we will not stop before we reach 1000 ppm. We will, at some point in the near future, become the single biggest determinant of the global climate.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Winston
The proportional effects of the two on our climate are unknown. That's why it doesn't make sense when non-reflecting posters say "OMG! The ice is melting, we must vote for Hillary, sell the car and get bikes!"

a) The proportional effects can certainly be easily estimated. I have just provided you with a pretty solid estimation. At some point in the near future our contribution will become larger than the other contributions have ever combined to make in all of that climatological record.

b) What cannot currently be estimated is what the climate will actually do once shoved so hard in one direction.

c) How many times do I have to tell you that an acceptance of a scientific fact does not imply an acceptance of unscientific panic or political "solutions"?

[Berzerker]

But I'm sick and tired of listening to scientific know-nothings deny the existence of a readily understood and empirically justified effect.

I'm simply taking this opportunity to mock deliberate ignorance.

Dont use me for your strawman, I'm tired of correcting your BS

What is difficult to answer is what happens when push meets shove. How does the complex system of the Earth's climate react when we're shoving one of the most important variables far out of its previous range? I have no clue. Neither does anybody else. I have never claimed otherwise, though others have.

I thought you said anyone who doesn't acknowledge global warming is an idiot? Now you're saying you have no clue what will happen?

[Winston]

I didn't say anything about a).

I said something in the general direction of b).

c) is an admirable stance, but does not extend to the overall sentiment behind this thread. Maybe people are voicing their opposition more to that than to you.

[Berzerker]

b) What cannot currently be estimated is what the climate will actually do once shoved so hard in one direction.

Does that make you an idiot?

[Sikander]

.....and Marx is arguing that he was offside!

[Winston]

Name go in book.

[Berzerker]

No, they can't. We're beyond that now. We're into uncharted territory, and we will not stop before we reach 1000 ppm. We will, at some point in the near future, become the single biggest determinant of the global climate.

More powerful than the sun? Ocean currents? Axial tilt? Orbital eccenticity? Volcanic activity? Jet stream fluctuations?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Winston


Name go in book.