6 ms·

Up front - climate change occurs - I and my forebears have been observing it for generations. However, if we ever get to have flooding in coastal cities due to

Up front - climate change occurs - I and my forebears have been observing it for generations. However, if we ever get to have flooding in coastal cities due to land-based ice melt, we will have long gone from here. The conditions required for the amount of land-based ice to melt will have meant that the extinction of most (if not all) life on this planet would have occurred long ago. It is simple enough to do the calculations, but I have rarely ever come across anyone (who promulgates the anthropogenic climate change agenda) to do them for themselves.

pale-hands 9y ago
> The conditions required for the amount of land-based ice to melt will have meant that the extinction of most (if not all) life on this planet would have occurred long ago. I very much doubt that you could support this statement. The geological record shows huge variations in sea-level, sometimes much higher than now, without any massive extinction. > It is simple enough to do the calculations, but I have rarely ever come across anyone (who promulgates the anthropogenic climate change agenda) to do them for themselves. Please share your calculations with us.
- DennisP 9y ago
  True. However, the record also shows several mass extinctions in conjunction with warming events similar to what we've got coming in the next century or two, if we don't make major changes fast.
- oldandtired 9y ago
  I can support it and you have just presented one of the major problems with the catastrophe scenarios predicted by various climate scientists (the geological record - think time-frames here). I have presented the calculations to various climate scientists and other than one "That's interesting, I'll get back to you", there have been no refutations of the calculations by them. > Please share your calculations with us. That's the whole point, the calculations can be done by a fifth grader, so I'll let you do your own homework. However, I will give you a clue - conversion involves over 1 million 25 megatonne nuclear bombs. I'll be nice and add, daily global incident solar energy is another clue. Once you have done your calculations then we can discuss any differences between results and outcomes.
  - flukus 9y ago
    So the calculations are so simple you won't share them? It sounds like you're worried someone will find a mistake in your simple calculations.
    - oldandtired 9y ago
      Not won't share them, just want you to put in the effort to do them yourself. I am not mummy to tell you how to count on four fingers. If you are so lazy that you cannot take the time to do them for yourself then so be it. They are simple enough for you to do, so do them and then come back and tell me that I'm wrong. I have given you enough information that, if I am wrong, you will be able to simply refute my end figures by you doing the calculations. Consider it an exercise in helping you practice appropriate mathematical processes. I should add that it took me about half an hour to collect the relevant information and do the calculations.
      - gasbag 9y ago
        I have done the calculations, and you are in fact wrong. I'd show you how, but any seventh-grader could find the mistake in 20 minutes, so I'll let you correct your own homework. I'll be nice and add that dimensional analysis is incredibly helpful.
  - pale-hands 9y ago
    This is your claim, right? > The conditions required for the amount of land-based ice to melt [in order for coastal cities to flood] will have meant that the extinction of most (if not all) life on this planet would have occurred long ago. I suppose your calculations are simply the energy required to melt the additional volume of water required to raise sea level by x meters, and that the increased rate of heat retention due to AGW could not supply the heat required in y years, for some reasonable values of x and y. I'm prepared to stipulate that that is so. (I would set x=2 to flood some major cities, and y = 2100 - 2017 = 83). Well, melting all that ice is not the concern, although no doubt it will happen in a few thousand years. The concern is that ice which is currently above sea level will slide into the sea, as the NY Times article discusses. Calculating that would require a whole lot of modelling and detailed knowledge, well beyond a fifth grader (whatever that is in your country), or even a lone genius with superb arithmetical skills.
flukus 9y ago
The last time (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14372814 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14372814) you did calculation you said: > To get a 1 metre sea level rise, requires the melting of land based ice of a volume equivalent to the entire surface area of Australia covered to a depth of 45 metres or so. The energy requirements for phase conversion is at least 1 million 25 MegaTonne nuclear bombs going off, Which sounds like a lot but it isn't. Fortunately thunderf00t did the maths for us a few weeks ago and his results were that the earth is gaining the equivalent of a 10 Magatonne bomb every few minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpBnCY7wwaw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpBnCY7wwaw
- oldandtired 9y ago
  I had a look at the video, a couple of comments. Firstly, he is not looking at the energy requirements for water solid/liquid phase change. Secondly, he is making blanket assertions about what is happening regarding energy absorption without taking into consideration the effects of energy transmission into space. Considering the recent publication of research into the effects of CO2 on energy transmission, I have some concerns on the accuracy of his stated figures (regardless of anything IPCC). The energy requirements needed for ice melt are locked in physically. The figures suggested for additional energy absorption are not. In addition, energy flow rates are not considered in the video. There is a great deal lacking in that video which does not match published research.
  - flukus 9y ago
    > Firstly, he is not looking at the energy requirements for water solid/liquid phase change. No he isn't, he's just demonstrating that the energy requirements are met. > Considering the recent publication of research into the effects of CO2 on energy transmission, I have some concerns on the accuracy of his stated figures (regardless of anything IPCC). Are you saying the greenhouse effect doesn't exist or that it is somehow reversed?

pale-hands 9y ago

> The conditions required for the amount of land-based ice to melt will have meant that the extinction of most (if not all) life on this planet would have occurred long ago. I very much doubt that you could support this statement. The geological record shows huge variations in sea-level, sometimes much higher than now, without any massive extinction. > It is simple enough to do the calculations, but I have rarely ever come across anyone (who promulgates the anthropogenic climate change agenda) to do them for themselves. Please share your calculations with us.

DennisP 9y ago
True. However, the record also shows several mass extinctions in conjunction with warming events similar to what we've got coming in the next century or two, if we don't make major changes fast.
oldandtired 9y ago
I can support it and you have just presented one of the major problems with the catastrophe scenarios predicted by various climate scientists (the geological record - think time-frames here). I have presented the calculations to various climate scientists and other than one "That's interesting, I'll get back to you", there have been no refutations of the calculations by them. > Please share your calculations with us. That's the whole point, the calculations can be done by a fifth grader, so I'll let you do your own homework. However, I will give you a clue - conversion involves over 1 million 25 megatonne nuclear bombs. I'll be nice and add, daily global incident solar energy is another clue. Once you have done your calculations then we can discuss any differences between results and outcomes.
- flukus 9y ago
  So the calculations are so simple you won't share them? It sounds like you're worried someone will find a mistake in your simple calculations.
  - oldandtired 9y ago
    Not won't share them, just want you to put in the effort to do them yourself. I am not mummy to tell you how to count on four fingers. If you are so lazy that you cannot take the time to do them for yourself then so be it. They are simple enough for you to do, so do them and then come back and tell me that I'm wrong. I have given you enough information that, if I am wrong, you will be able to simply refute my end figures by you doing the calculations. Consider it an exercise in helping you practice appropriate mathematical processes. I should add that it took me about half an hour to collect the relevant information and do the calculations.
    - gasbag 9y ago
      I have done the calculations, and you are in fact wrong. I'd show you how, but any seventh-grader could find the mistake in 20 minutes, so I'll let you correct your own homework. I'll be nice and add that dimensional analysis is incredibly helpful.
- pale-hands 9y ago
  This is your claim, right? > The conditions required for the amount of land-based ice to melt [in order for coastal cities to flood] will have meant that the extinction of most (if not all) life on this planet would have occurred long ago. I suppose your calculations are simply the energy required to melt the additional volume of water required to raise sea level by x meters, and that the increased rate of heat retention due to AGW could not supply the heat required in y years, for some reasonable values of x and y. I'm prepared to stipulate that that is so. (I would set x=2 to flood some major cities, and y = 2100 - 2017 = 83). Well, melting all that ice is not the concern, although no doubt it will happen in a few thousand years. The concern is that ice which is currently above sea level will slide into the sea, as the NY Times article discusses. Calculating that would require a whole lot of modelling and detailed knowledge, well beyond a fifth grader (whatever that is in your country), or even a lone genius with superb arithmetical skills.

flukus 9y ago

The last time (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14372814 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14372814) you did calculation you said: > To get a 1 metre sea level rise, requires the melting of land based ice of a volume equivalent to the entire surface area of Australia covered to a depth of 45 metres or so. The energy requirements for phase conversion is at least 1 million 25 MegaTonne nuclear bombs going off, Which sounds like a lot but it isn't. Fortunately thunderf00t did the maths for us a few weeks ago and his results were that the earth is gaining the equivalent of a 10 Magatonne bomb every few minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpBnCY7wwaw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpBnCY7wwaw

oldandtired 9y ago
I had a look at the video, a couple of comments. Firstly, he is not looking at the energy requirements for water solid/liquid phase change. Secondly, he is making blanket assertions about what is happening regarding energy absorption without taking into consideration the effects of energy transmission into space. Considering the recent publication of research into the effects of CO2 on energy transmission, I have some concerns on the accuracy of his stated figures (regardless of anything IPCC). The energy requirements needed for ice melt are locked in physically. The figures suggested for additional energy absorption are not. In addition, energy flow rates are not considered in the video. There is a great deal lacking in that video which does not match published research.
- flukus 9y ago
  > Firstly, he is not looking at the energy requirements for water solid/liquid phase change. No he isn't, he's just demonstrating that the energy requirements are met. > Considering the recent publication of research into the effects of CO2 on energy transmission, I have some concerns on the accuracy of his stated figures (regardless of anything IPCC). Are you saying the greenhouse effect doesn't exist or that it is somehow reversed?