5 ms·

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 se

by 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?

by flukus 9y ago

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?