Is this analysis of the probable long term effects of climate change logical?

And all those guys with the nobel prizes missed this! Hilarious!

 

Sure.... right after you get back to me having taken a look at the diagram
showing how the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is BELOW SEA LEVEL........

which makes it obvious why it could crack and slide much quicker than would be expected of ice that
it sitting on a rock bed........ Hint.... diagram A and diagram B... are right here at the top of this page.....

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090205142132.htm
Collapse Of Antarctic Ice Sheet Would Likely Put Washington, D.C. Largely Underwater

 

how long has that ice shelf been there?

 

The WAIS is over a mile thick and will take centuries to completely melt.

 

I'll go out on a limb and speculate that it survived the Medieval Warm Period.

 

exactly how does this validate anything you've posted?

 

Once, again for the hard of hearing, you're in the middle of an Inter-Glacial Period. Temperatures are supposed to rise, and they will naturally warm at least 7-10°F before the transition to the pre-Glacial Period begins.

Seriously?

That ice sheet was totally destroyed during the transition from Glacial Period to post-Glacial Period about 12,000 years ago.

The age of the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet is only about 8,000 years old.

Yes, it did.

Note that the Greenland Ice Sheet nearly melted completely during the last Inter-Glacial Period, so it's melting is completely normal. There is no evidence of prior ice sheets so far.

In other words, the Greenland Ice Sheet is only about 150,000 years old.

 

In other words the ice sheets in question will take thousands of years to melt. I'll go out on another limb and speculate that human technology will be able to respond to any consequences of this as the ice melts at a rate of less than 0.001 % per year.

 

it was sarcastic to the other poster I directed it to.

 

It is perfectly normal for ice sheets to melt during an Inter-Glacial Period. That is not proof of AGW, but it is proof that warming during an Inter-Glacial Period is normal.

I would suggest they have it backwards, that it is higher CO2 levels that trigger ice ages. CO2 scatters UV-A, UV-B and soft X-rays just like O3 (Ozone) does.

 

Good point but......
what I am talking about is what should 7.2 billion people with great technology do.......
when facing the probable cracking and sliding of massive amounts of ice........ and
a probable increase in ocean levels???????

Should we perhaps discuss.... DELIBERATELY lowering ocean levels.....
perhaps thirty centimeters......... as a buffer zone so that we are in a position to
respond better to significant and rapid rises in oceans levels when they do eventually occur?

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...national-wealth-must-occur-order-finance.html
A massive reevaluation of national wealth must occur in order to finance....
..... the shift over to a truly green and sustainable economy!

I just got back a brilliant summary of the numbers for the national wealth of the world's leading economies but.......
... it is apparent to me that we must look at these numbers and rethink the entire formula....... if we wish to finance the shift over to a truly green, truly sustainable economy.... and do it with the minimum amount of economic, political and social upheaval?!

 

Should we perhaps discuss.... DELIBERATELY lowering ocean levels.....
perhaps thirty centimeters......... as a buffer zone so that we are in a position to
respond better to significant and rapid rises in oceans levels when they do eventually occur?

based on what? What is your fear s0n?

 

Obviously, some ocean front property will have to be abandoned.

It's not my fault people chose to live next to the seas, before they understood that Glacial cycles occur.

 

The people of the world will be able to figure out what to do to respond the the rising sea levels over the next several centuries as required. The US just built a 300 mile storm surge wall around the New Orleans area. The Dutch seem to have a handle on dike technology - they could lead the efforts to deal with the rising seas.

 

And that had already happened, and temperatures had been going back down for the past 6,000+ years. That is, until human-created greenhouse gases caused temperatures to suddenly start spiking up again.

Interglacials are not all alike. The WAIS was going to survive this one, being that it hadn't been retreating further before we humans turned up the heat.

And again, you rely the fallacy that every interglacial has to behave identically.

Temperatures had been slowly falling for 6000 years, and would have kept slowly falling into the next ice age in 25k - 100k years, had humans not suddenly changed things. The deniers need to explain that sudden hard reversal. And since they can't, they don't even try. They'll wave their hands around and yell "Natural cycle!", but all the data contradicts that theory, hence it the natural cycles theory is obviously wrong.

 

But.... because it is below sea level the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet could
happen much more rapidly than would be expected and..........

yes... the amount of H2O being added to the Central region of Antarctica helps us a lot ....

but....... when the formula does shift......

large scale desalination of ocean water for cities.....for reforestation... and for agriculture......

in North Africa and the Middle East could produce huge amounts of food......

alter the political climate in the Middle East away from war and genocide.........

..... and save billions or even trillions of dollars in the cost of sea walls......

that proved to be of no use against the Tsunami when it hit in Japan......

 

Global-cooling is far worse than global-warming so feel lucky.

No, I rely on the graph below, which clearly spells it out.



The graph also refutes your claim that the climate was cooling.

 

but all the data contradicts that theory, hence it the natural cycles theory is obviously wrong.

What data is it you're referencing? You can't tell us how much CO2 changes temperatures, cause there is no causal effect. None, and that nullifies any of what you think CO2 can do to the planet. You can't even tell us how much is human vs natural CO2. 20 PPM has been added and yet nothing happened. NASA and NOAA have to manipulate data to break even with their failed models. I laugh at posts like this.

 

Mamooth aka TPP = The Parrot Princess

cannot be bothered with truth and facts when left wing liars are looting the US taxpayer...

Some actual data


http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

"According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008."


That's 90% of Earth's ice gaining at least 80 billion tons of ice every year that TPP has been parroting Algore.

If 90% of Earth's ice is grow grow growing, why does anyone pay attention to sub human parrots claiming "the ice is melting?"

 

Speaking of parrots, you certainly parrot every bit of misinformation that your cult feeds you most reliably. And I'll debunk it, and you'll still keep on parroting the debunked nonsense. I've seen it hundreds of times. Cultists are predictable, if nothing else.

Here, you follow the cult rule "Since you can't talk about science, substitute by yammering your favorite political conspiracy theory."

Cherrypicking fallacy, so you lose honesty points right off the bat. The Zwally study is in disagreement with all the other studies. This article gives a good summary of all the studies, and points out the possible problems with Zwally (2015)

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/11/so-what-is-really-happening-in-antarctica/

However, even Zwally said the trend is moving towards the melting side, and Zwally also said that if the current sea level rise isn't coming from Antarctic melt, it must be coming from elsewhere. Not very honest of you, to not mention those parts. But I see why you had to act that way. Those parts of the study directly contradicted your "There's no problem!" claim, but your cult encouraged you to make that claim. Since you believe the ends always justify the means for your own side, you dishonestly failed to mention the parts of the study that debunked your own claim.

Gore Rule invoked. If someone brings up Gore, that person forfeits the discussion for their side. People who can talk about the actual science, do. Cultists who can't talk about the science, they bring up politicians to demonize, because it's all they're capable of.

"Sub-human"? Again, we see your "The ends always justify the means for my own side!" ethics in action. You'll auto-justify any sleaze that pushes the goals of your cult.

 

So you say we should scorch the earth now to prevent an ice age in 25,000 years. That's like telling me I should run my furnace full blast starting in July, because I know winter is coming later in the year. I'd consider anyone telling me such a thing to have a very poor grasp of logic.

That spelled out how some interglacials are warmer and colder than others, just like I said. Thanks for backing up my point that you can't assume all interglacials behave alike.

Not true, being that graph lacked the resolution to make any such conclusion. Let me point you to a better graph.

 

Bringing up algore to exemplify a global warming loon is to AGW cultist what bringing up Hitler is to left wing fascist, they just hate it when you do that.

 

TPP says "Speaking of parrots, you certainly parrot every bit of misinformation that your cult feeds you most reliably. And I'll debunk it, and you'll still keep on parroting the debunked nonsense"


Have you answered my questions in the SCIENCE forum yet??

Yea, didn't think so. About those "sinking" Pacific Islands... and precisely "who" I'm "parroting"

LOL!!!

 

So you're declaring victory here because I didn't even know your other crazy questions exist?

I guess that's one way for you to deflect from how all your pseudoscience got debunked on this thread. I look forward to seeing all the other creative ways you'll use to run away.

And if ever you'd like to discuss your cherrypicking failure and dishonest quoting of the Zwally study, I'm still here.

Since I've now been invited, I'll certainly run over there to that thread.

 

so, .04 degrees is scorching the planet? Are you for real?