Agreed, not a "retraction" - just showing that even valid, the short term solar effects, if any, are small compared to GHG effects, with their many re-enforcing aspects..
Climate-gate
- Thread starter Photizo
- Start date
For four or so different MEASUREMENTS showing solar out put increase in the last 50 years is NOT happening - Not the cause of temperature rise, Arctic ice melting etc.. In fact the solar out put has very slightly decreased. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0V2HYZbFLn8&feature=em-subs_digest-vrecs then click on section seven of these brief reports.
Here the recently (5 Dec 2013) released report* "Abrupt Impacts of Climate Change: Anticipating Surprises" from the National Academies. The study examines the likelihood of various physical components of the Earth system undergoing major and rapid changes (e.g., a shutdown of ocean circulation, ice sheet disintegration, etc.) ...
Speakers include Dr. James White from the University of Colorado at Boulder, who chaired the report's authoring committee, and committee member Anthony Barnosky from the University of California at Berkeley and by link, Richard Alley of Penn State.
* Presentation of the report is an hour & 4 minutes long but jump to minute 7 to avoid the introductions and listen in background as you do other things.
Here the recently (5 Dec 2013) released report* "Abrupt Impacts of Climate Change: Anticipating Surprises" from the National Academies. The study examines the likelihood of various physical components of the Earth system undergoing major and rapid changes (e.g., a shutdown of ocean circulation, ice sheet disintegration, etc.) ...
Speakers include Dr. James White from the University of Colorado at Boulder, who chaired the report's authoring committee, and committee member Anthony Barnosky from the University of California at Berkeley and by link, Richard Alley of Penn State.
* Presentation of the report is an hour & 4 minutes long but jump to minute 7 to avoid the introductions and listen in background as you do other things.
Last edited by a moderator:
“Actual global emissions increased by 1.4% over 2011, reaching a total of 34.5 billion tonnes in 2012.” From: http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/news_docs/pbl-2013-trends-in-global-co2-emissions-2013-report-1148.pdf
Thus the release of CO2 in 2011 was 33.173E9 and the increase in 2012 was 34.5 – 33.173 = 1.327E9 >132.7E7 tonnes.
Now lets look how much of that was captured and stored:
“Globally there are 12 large-scale integrated CCS projects in operation, with a further ten under construction. The 22 projects in operation or under construction represent an increase of more than 50 per cent since 2011. The total CO2 capture capacity of these 22 projects is expected to be around 40 million tonnes per annum.” From: http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/projects/browse
I. e. even of all 22 projects were operating 4E7 tonnes would be stored annually. Sadly, only 4 / 132.7 = 0.03 or less than 3% of the CO2 released in 2012 would be stored. Thus, 0.97x132,7 = 128.7 million tonnes of CO2 was the net release in 2012. That means the fractional increase on 2011 CO2 levels was 128.7 / 3317.3 = 0.0387966 or 3.88% In 2014 it will be ~4% increase even if the 10 carbon capture project in construction are completed. (Not very likely - Norway cancelled the world's largest after spending millions on it.)
SUMMARY:
If you are in a deep carbon budget hole, and don't want your grandkids to die in 35C wet bulb conditions, stop digging the hole deeper by 4 % (or more) each year.
Note also that for every 1% increase in ocean surface temperature, there is a 7% increase in water vapor in the air. - 35C wet bulb temperate will be here in a couple of generation as already 43C temperature now often occur in parts of the world. At 43C you don't need 100% relative humidify for lethal conditions. Massive thermal die offs will soon be in the news. Perhaps even before this month ends.
Thus the release of CO2 in 2011 was 33.173E9 and the increase in 2012 was 34.5 – 33.173 = 1.327E9 >132.7E7 tonnes.
Now lets look how much of that was captured and stored:
“Globally there are 12 large-scale integrated CCS projects in operation, with a further ten under construction. The 22 projects in operation or under construction represent an increase of more than 50 per cent since 2011. The total CO2 capture capacity of these 22 projects is expected to be around 40 million tonnes per annum.” From: http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/projects/browse
I. e. even of all 22 projects were operating 4E7 tonnes would be stored annually. Sadly, only 4 / 132.7 = 0.03 or less than 3% of the CO2 released in 2012 would be stored. Thus, 0.97x132,7 = 128.7 million tonnes of CO2 was the net release in 2012. That means the fractional increase on 2011 CO2 levels was 128.7 / 3317.3 = 0.0387966 or 3.88% In 2014 it will be ~4% increase even if the 10 carbon capture project in construction are completed. (Not very likely - Norway cancelled the world's largest after spending millions on it.)
SUMMARY:
If you are in a deep carbon budget hole, and don't want your grandkids to die in 35C wet bulb conditions, stop digging the hole deeper by 4 % (or more) each year.
Note also that for every 1% increase in ocean surface temperature, there is a 7% increase in water vapor in the air. - 35C wet bulb temperate will be here in a couple of generation as already 43C temperature now often occur in parts of the world. At 43C you don't need 100% relative humidify for lethal conditions. Massive thermal die offs will soon be in the news. Perhaps even before this month ends.
Making such dire predictions harms your credibility when they do not come to pass.
On a climatic time scale, "soon" is within a decade, but people dying from internal over heating could be in newspapers even in August 2014 as it was in England 13 months ago or in Australia 7 months ago. For Indian or Bangladesh heat deaths to reach US and EU newspapers, several thousand must die in a week. If that has already happened, please don't accuse me of "predicting the past" as I don't know if it did or not.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-23/heatwave-death-toll-expected-to-top-almost-400/5214496 said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2368135/UK-heatwave-2013-Its-going-HOTTER-mercury-predicted-soar-95F.html#ixzz3AD0jeMvi said:
Last edited by a moderator:
here is why methane is the real threat to human life: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sn_2BwlmtOw
It confirms the 10 year global warming potential of methane is 100 (or rpenner's calculated 104) times greater than CO2's GWP - see 19.5 minutes into video/
It also notes that 10 years GWP is much more appropriate if speaking of effect on food supply, flooding, wild fires, sever storms, etc. IPCC's choice of 100 years is a gift to the oil industry, not to people who plan on eating every year. There is no "carbon budget" left man can still spend - the account is "over drawn" already! In 9 hours, Ipslip NY got 330% of the month of August average rain fall (0.333 meters!) last week - an new all time high for 9 hour period in all of NY's state's records - never seen be before.
Talk notes how hard it is to even find published data on CH4's GWP for less than 20 years. Only one paper in Danish gives the ~100 greater than CO2's GWP for CH4 vs. CO2 for a decade time scale!
rpenner should publish in English (assuming the oil industry, or their IPCC stooges, will not put a hit-man contract out on him).
It confirms the 10 year global warming potential of methane is 100 (or rpenner's calculated 104) times greater than CO2's GWP - see 19.5 minutes into video/
It also notes that 10 years GWP is much more appropriate if speaking of effect on food supply, flooding, wild fires, sever storms, etc. IPCC's choice of 100 years is a gift to the oil industry, not to people who plan on eating every year. There is no "carbon budget" left man can still spend - the account is "over drawn" already! In 9 hours, Ipslip NY got 330% of the month of August average rain fall (0.333 meters!) last week - an new all time high for 9 hour period in all of NY's state's records - never seen be before.
Talk notes how hard it is to even find published data on CH4's GWP for less than 20 years. Only one paper in Danish gives the ~100 greater than CO2's GWP for CH4 vs. CO2 for a decade time scale!
rpenner should publish in English (assuming the oil industry, or their IPCC stooges, will not put a hit-man contract out on him).
Last edited by a moderator:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtxC84NWHkk - Watch this less than 12 minute TED talk - very clear physic based explaining thermal cycles of last 800,000 (initiated by tiny orbit changes, that get greatly amplified, by CO2 & CH4 release positive feed back) Now man is trigger the start of next cycle even during a solar minimum. When sun joins in, all is lost - Near Term Extinction, but speaker does not state that.
Or in Argentina 114 years ago, or in Los Angeles 59 years ago.
Guy McPherson* is the most vocal of the "we are all doomed" in a few decades at most or a little longer in his most recent statements. (Now it is sometimes 2050 or 2060 instead of the original 2030 or so). He has attracted several scientists who claim to refute his doomsday is already unavoidable conclusion. One giving a referenced rebuttal is this blog's summary at: http://fractalplanet.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/how-guy-mcpherson-gets-it-wrong/ Like McPhersion, Scott Johnson, makes his case citing the work of others, mainly. The following is his first reference:
"Walter et al (2007) says that Arctic lakes are 10% of natural global {CH4} emissions, or about 5% of total emissions. I believe that was considered to be remarkably high at the time but let’s take it as a given, and representing the Arctic as a whole. - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ane-worst-case-scenario/#sthash.ktgZG65m.dpuf "
Part I made bold seems to me to invalidate all that follows, as Arctic lakes are tiny fraction of the tundra stored methane ice deposits; It is however true that when their ice cover is broken or melts in summer, the per square meter release of CH4 is greater than just thawing tundra. - You can burn tall flame with small punched holes, as you may have seen in videos.
As I have given links to many well based studies that increasingly suggest Global Warming is very serious problem, I thought I should give a link (the one above) that says yes, but not a lethal problem - man can survive the climatic change he is making.
* He makes a frequent update to scientific works he has based his POV on at: http://guymcpherson.com/2013/01/climate-change-summary-and-update/ It is thick with references and scary reading even if you only check out a few of those references.
"Walter et al (2007) says that Arctic lakes are 10% of natural global {CH4} emissions, or about 5% of total emissions. I believe that was considered to be remarkably high at the time but let’s take it as a given, and representing the Arctic as a whole. - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ane-worst-case-scenario/#sthash.ktgZG65m.dpuf "
Part I made bold seems to me to invalidate all that follows, as Arctic lakes are tiny fraction of the tundra stored methane ice deposits; It is however true that when their ice cover is broken or melts in summer, the per square meter release of CH4 is greater than just thawing tundra. - You can burn tall flame with small punched holes, as you may have seen in videos.
As I have given links to many well based studies that increasingly suggest Global Warming is very serious problem, I thought I should give a link (the one above) that says yes, but not a lethal problem - man can survive the climatic change he is making.
* He makes a frequent update to scientific works he has based his POV on at: http://guymcpherson.com/2013/01/climate-change-summary-and-update/ It is thick with references and scary reading even if you only check out a few of those references.
"Bottom line" of this post is that human extinction by 2020 is possible! How is explained but first a quick overview of processes, then more details in expanded overview:
,+Sep+9,+2012.jpg)
Text on the 10 numbered details follows next (but read my added comment too after these 10):
1.Albedo feedback: Accelerated warming in the Arctic speeds up the decline of ice and snow cover, further accelerating albedo change.
2.Methane feedback: Methane releases in the Arctic further add to the acceleration of warming in the Arctic, further contributing to weaken Arctic methane stores and increasing the danger that methane releases will trigger runaway global warming.
3.Currents feedback: Sea ice loss can cause vertical sea currents to weaken, reducing the cooling effect they had on the seabed. This can thus further cause sediments to warm up that can contain huge amounts of methane in the form of free gas and hydrates.
4.Storms feedback: Increased frequency and intensity of storms can cause substantially more vertical mixing of the sea water column, causing more warming of the seabed, thus further contributing to the warming of sediments, as above.
5.Storms feedback: Accelerated warming in the Arctic can result in more storms, causing mixing of cold Arctic air with warmer air from outside the Arctic. The net result is a warmer Arctic.
6.Storms feedback: More open waters can result in more storms that can push the ice across the Arctic Ocean, and possibly all the way out of the Arctic Ocean.
7.Storms feedback: Storms also cause more waves that break up the sea ice. Smaller pieces of ice melt quicker than large pieces. A large flat and solid layer of ice is also less susceptible to wind than many lighter and smaller pieces of ice that will stand out above the water and capture the wind like the sails of yachts.
8.Storms feedback: Storms cause waters to become more wavy. Calm waters can reflect much sunlight back into space, acting as a mirror, especially when the sun shines under a low angle. Wavy waters, on the other hand, absorb more sunlight.
9.Fires feedback: More extreme weather comes with heatwaves and storms. Thus, this is in part another storms feedback. The combination of storms and fires can be deadly. Heatwaves can spark fires that, when fueled up by storms, turn into firestorms affecting huge areas and causing huge amounts of emissions.
Storms can whip up particles that when deposited on ice, snow or the bare soil, can cause more sunlight to be absorbed.
10.Open doors feedback: Accelerated warming in the Arctic causes the polar vortex and jet stream to weaken, causing more extreme weather and making it easier for warm air to enter the Arctic
{all above from: http://arctic-news.blogspot.com.br/2012/08/diagram-of-doom.html}
Rpenner calculated the Global Warming Potential of a "puff" of CH4 released averaged over several periods but assumed that the half life was constant, and got 104 times more GWP than same mass puff of CO2 during first decade (And I now know at least two others who call it 100 times more potent in first 10 years. - I. e. he got it right.) However, in the arctic the rate of CH4 release is highest and has lowered the concentration of the OH radical, the main agent that destroys it. I.e. there the half life is more that 12.6 years. A 2009 study by Drew Shindell et al. ... using a horizon of 10 years, methane's GWP is more than 130 times that of carbon dioxide.{But the increase is due to interactions with atmosphere aerosols, not the longer life time where OH concentrations have been lowered. When that is considered, the Local WP is about 1000 times greater than CO4!
OH- is mainly made by UV and after sun set rapidly declines as it is very reactive. The blue/grey spot over the Andes Mountains is just due to lower air density. The percent OH in air there in the afternoon is highest as UV is stronger at high altitudes.
From same source as just quoted:
"The above points make it likely that methane from a large abrupt release at the poles will hang around long enough locally to trap huge amounts of heat from summer sunshine, in an ecosystem that is already at the edge. The danger is that this heat will penetrate deep into the permafrost and trigger further releases of methane from the huge quantities of methane that are present in the form of free gas and hydrates. ... Accelerating warming further weakens the capability of the seabed to hold the methane that is contained in the form of hydrates and free gas in sediments under the sea, in a vicious cycle that threatens to lead to runaway warming. What would the impact be of abrupt release of 1Gt of methane in the Arctic, compared to the total global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel burning, cement manufacture, and gas flaring? Left graph below gives a rather conservative impact, showing a rapid decline toward a small residual impact as carbon dioxide. Right graph below shows what the red of the left graph would produce: wide spread extinction of warm blooded animals
There is no reason to think that a 1GTon burp of CH4 will happen when shown on the graph (essentially now), but it could. If it is less or later, human extinction is delayed. I don't think it is even possible now as need ice free at end of summer Arctic Ocean first before long "reach" winds can mix warm water down on the East Siberian costal shelf bottom
Average depth only 45 meters and huge area is full of methane ice at 50M or less.
Unfortunately I expect the Arctic Ocean will be essentially ice free by end of September 2016. In addition to standard reasons, part of why I think this is the extreme drought in US's SW (and part of Canada too) - I. e. even ice left at end of summer 2015 will have significantly lower albedo due to forest fire soot as west coast of Greenland already does (along the steep edges of the ice sheet). This is one of many (31 positive, mutually re-enforcing, feed backs) things the IPCC neglects. Mutually re-enforcing positive feed backs effects IPCC ignores - considers each separately as a "forcing function" so grossly under estimations of how serious Global Warming is.
Text on the 10 numbered details follows next (but read my added comment too after these 10):
1.Albedo feedback: Accelerated warming in the Arctic speeds up the decline of ice and snow cover, further accelerating albedo change.
2.Methane feedback: Methane releases in the Arctic further add to the acceleration of warming in the Arctic, further contributing to weaken Arctic methane stores and increasing the danger that methane releases will trigger runaway global warming.
3.Currents feedback: Sea ice loss can cause vertical sea currents to weaken, reducing the cooling effect they had on the seabed. This can thus further cause sediments to warm up that can contain huge amounts of methane in the form of free gas and hydrates.
4.Storms feedback: Increased frequency and intensity of storms can cause substantially more vertical mixing of the sea water column, causing more warming of the seabed, thus further contributing to the warming of sediments, as above.
5.Storms feedback: Accelerated warming in the Arctic can result in more storms, causing mixing of cold Arctic air with warmer air from outside the Arctic. The net result is a warmer Arctic.
6.Storms feedback: More open waters can result in more storms that can push the ice across the Arctic Ocean, and possibly all the way out of the Arctic Ocean.
7.Storms feedback: Storms also cause more waves that break up the sea ice. Smaller pieces of ice melt quicker than large pieces. A large flat and solid layer of ice is also less susceptible to wind than many lighter and smaller pieces of ice that will stand out above the water and capture the wind like the sails of yachts.
8.Storms feedback: Storms cause waters to become more wavy. Calm waters can reflect much sunlight back into space, acting as a mirror, especially when the sun shines under a low angle. Wavy waters, on the other hand, absorb more sunlight.
9.Fires feedback: More extreme weather comes with heatwaves and storms. Thus, this is in part another storms feedback. The combination of storms and fires can be deadly. Heatwaves can spark fires that, when fueled up by storms, turn into firestorms affecting huge areas and causing huge amounts of emissions.
Storms can whip up particles that when deposited on ice, snow or the bare soil, can cause more sunlight to be absorbed.
10.Open doors feedback: Accelerated warming in the Arctic causes the polar vortex and jet stream to weaken, causing more extreme weather and making it easier for warm air to enter the Arctic
{all above from: http://arctic-news.blogspot.com.br/2012/08/diagram-of-doom.html}
Rpenner calculated the Global Warming Potential of a "puff" of CH4 released averaged over several periods but assumed that the half life was constant, and got 104 times more GWP than same mass puff of CO2 during first decade (And I now know at least two others who call it 100 times more potent in first 10 years. - I. e. he got it right.) However, in the arctic the rate of CH4 release is highest and has lowered the concentration of the OH radical, the main agent that destroys it. I.e. there the half life is more that 12.6 years. A 2009 study by Drew Shindell et al. ... using a horizon of 10 years, methane's GWP is more than 130 times that of carbon dioxide.{But the increase is due to interactions with atmosphere aerosols, not the longer life time where OH concentrations have been lowered. When that is considered, the Local WP is about 1000 times greater than CO4!
http://methane-hydrates.blogspot.com.br/2013/04/methane-hydrates.html said:
From same source as just quoted:
"The above points make it likely that methane from a large abrupt release at the poles will hang around long enough locally to trap huge amounts of heat from summer sunshine, in an ecosystem that is already at the edge. The danger is that this heat will penetrate deep into the permafrost and trigger further releases of methane from the huge quantities of methane that are present in the form of free gas and hydrates. ... Accelerating warming further weakens the capability of the seabed to hold the methane that is contained in the form of hydrates and free gas in sediments under the sea, in a vicious cycle that threatens to lead to runaway warming. What would the impact be of abrupt release of 1Gt of methane in the Arctic, compared to the total global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel burning, cement manufacture, and gas flaring? Left graph below gives a rather conservative impact, showing a rapid decline toward a small residual impact as carbon dioxide. Right graph below shows what the red of the left graph would produce: wide spread extinction of warm blooded animals
There is no reason to think that a 1GTon burp of CH4 will happen when shown on the graph (essentially now), but it could. If it is less or later, human extinction is delayed. I don't think it is even possible now as need ice free at end of summer Arctic Ocean first before long "reach" winds can mix warm water down on the East Siberian costal shelf bottom
Unfortunately I expect the Arctic Ocean will be essentially ice free by end of September 2016. In addition to standard reasons, part of why I think this is the extreme drought in US's SW (and part of Canada too) - I. e. even ice left at end of summer 2015 will have significantly lower albedo due to forest fire soot as west coast of Greenland already does (along the steep edges of the ice sheet). This is one of many (31 positive, mutually re-enforcing, feed backs) things the IPCC neglects. Mutually re-enforcing positive feed backs effects IPCC ignores - considers each separately as a "forcing function" so grossly under estimations of how serious Global Warming is.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sure, so is extinction via alien invasion. Both are unlikely.
OK, we shall see. If it doesn't happen, will you admit that you're mistaken in this latest apocalypse prediction?
"Expectations" are not same as predictions. But as I stated, I expect soot to pay a big roll in melting ice, and as I mentioned the extremely dry SW of US and parts of Canada, I was referring to my expectation of terrible forest fires This fall / early winter in California. - That "expectation" will be tested by end of 2014. I'm not the only one recognizing the important roll of soot:
"a nearly five-fold increase in melting of Greenland’s ice since the 1990s and a stunning melting of 98 percent of Greenland’s ice surface between 8 and 15 July 2012. The explanation for this astonishing event comes from a paper published in the 10 June 2014 issue of the Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences: “The same mechanism drove two widespread melt events that occurred over 100 years apart, in 1889 and 2012. We found that black carbon from forest fires and rising temperatures combined to cause both of these events.” Further elucidation is provided in the 14 June 2014 issue of Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres." - Quote from: http://guymcpherson.com/2013/01/climate-change-summary-and-update/ (of only a few days ago)
Original caption of photo: "The springtime darkening of the Greenland ice sheet since 2009 may be attributable to an increase in the amount of impurities—such as soot—in snow."
As text notes: the soot melts ice and snow, exposing last years soot - a positive feed back, but this one is not one of the 31 typically listed. Most mutually accelerating others and all this IGNORED by the IPCC, so they grossly under- predict the real problem. For example think Arctic Ocean will be ice free, circa 2060 (last prediction I saw from a few years ago - That is so silly, they surely must have "back peddled" some by now).http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/140610-connecting-dots-dust-soot-snow-ice-climate-change-dimick/ said:
Human extinction by Ebola is possible by 2020.
If I was betting I would put my money one Ebola.
I think silly exaggeration of the climate problem does more harm than good.
psik
I might agree if 1% of US population thought problem were so serious that global GDP should be contracting annually by 10% so that CO2 release rate could be dropping by at least 5% now. It is not the POV of even 0.1%, so problem now is to communicate how near term extinction is to be expected* if "business as usual" prevails. Because of thermal inertia in this "oceanic planet" it takes 20 to 30 years (depending upon which effect of Global Warming effect you focus on) before equilibrium would be reached EVEN IF ALL RELEASE OF GREEN HOUSE GASES TERMINATED TODAY. - I. e. mankind may already be doomed. - certainly is if current trends continue. Constant growth on a finite planet is impossible.
* Based on scientific observations and modeling of the near term (before 2100) extension of current trends. So I don't agree that I'm making "silly exaggeration" - just stating what scientifically follows if there is little change from business as usual. 99.9% of the population calling it "silly" without pointing out any error in the described process leading to NTE (near term extinction) does not make concern about NTE "silly" as their argument is based only on: "It hasn't happen, so can't" and is not valid. What is your basis for calling it silly if not exactly that? What error in the described process did you find?
Lissen to CNN or Wiki-leaks; The four horsemen of Revelation's apocalypse have started to ride:
"The first horseman refers to the Antichrist, who will be given authority and will conquer all who oppose him."
Leaders of the 3 main powers, claim right to order killing with no trials etc. so it looks like world will have three "antichrists," each with its distinct sphere of rule.
"The second horseman refers to terrible warfare that will break out in the end times."
"The third horseman of the Apocalypse refers to a great famine that will take place, likely as a result of the wars from the second horseman."
"The fourth horseman of the Apocalypse is symbolic of death and devastation. It seems to be a combination of the previous horsemen."
Read more at: http://www.gotquestions.org/four-horsemen-apocalypse.html#ixzz3Aq9YvN4o if interested in the biblical citations. (I'm not - I prefer journals with pier-reviewed articles; but it is interesting to note that the bible got one thing right with: "The meek shall inherit the earth." I.e. because death by inability to transfer internal heating all warm blooded animals make is sooner for large animals, like humans, due to lower surface to volume ratio, tiny mice may be able to survive man-made global warming when man is no longer around.)
Last edited by a moderator:
Seems to be starting while I typed the above. See: http://news.yahoo.com/video/growing-brush-fire-burning-above-044007246.html
Well this is something that I thought would never happen - I agree with psikeyhackr!
One of the rare cases where public opinion makes rational sense.
And if we extended "current trends" from 1970 we'd all be dead under ten feet of snow. The "resulting famines would be catastrophic" and "the longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality." There will be "drought and desolation," "the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded", along with "droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, and delayed monsoons." It will be "impossible for starving peoples to migrate." All due to the cold, of course.
People will take your expectations of "all humans dead by 2020" even less seriously than they took the dire predictions of the 1970's. Your language is even the same.
I understand your "rational" to mean supported by facts. Can you do that? I.e. show Near Term Human Extinction, within the normal life time of some of the younger readers here, is impossible? Or is your POV just a very common belief? like the belief in the existence of some greater being?
As I asked psikey what is the flaw in the process others have outlined and I copied into Post 970. Feel free to help him reply - to point out some error. Note I gave one myself that in essence says it is not possible to thermal decompose methne that is on the East Siberian Coastal Shelf, ESCS, until it is ice free as strong waves would be required to bring warmer water down* (unless it is salty dense gulf stream water that is sinking to deliver heat to do the decomposing). Normally that water sinks east of Iceland and is the Thermo-Haline "piston" that drives bottom water flow, even some into the Indian ocean but evidence for it now in part continuing to flow NE onto the ESCS, is mounting.
*BTW that is how "El Nino" works - normally winds push a mass of water up along S. Asian coast, sometimes as high as 20 feet above gravitational equilibrium. That westward flow is balance by an Eastward flow of cold water along the bottom. That bottom water is very nutrient rich - why Peru etc. normally have very productive fishing industry. Some years, however, the winds fall off and gravity sends the elevated mass of water back east - it is much warmer than the water normally off the west coast of S. America as it has twice traveled on the surface, soaking up sunlight, across the Pacific.
Which goes to show how much better 40+ years later Science understands climate. Predictions, that did not come true were common for centuries as not based on adequately accurate or globally complete scientific observations. (Few or no satellites repeatedly doing earth science studies for a few decades and inadequate computational power to process the data even if it were available.)
Last edited by a moderator:
Calling those few, a fringe is fine; but is not pointing to any error they are making. Yes. they are few in number but growing as it is hard to find error in their data or analysis.