7 ms·

These simple calculations and the data needed for them would be a great thing for you to provide to support your claims.

oldandtired 9y ago
I have provided this information in detail in the past and those who have challenged me to do so haven't even bothered to check it or respond. The information is freely available in all sort of resources. The bits you need are the surface area of the earth and the surface area of the oceans, the volume of land based ice required to melt to fill the appropriate surface area to whatever level you require (in my case 1 metre), the amount of energy required to do the phase change of 1 kg of solid H2O to liquid H2O (which is approx equivalent raising 1 Kg of liquid H2O from 0 degrees Celsius to 84-85 degrees Celsius) and viola you have your results. This give an approximation to the energy required and even if you were 20% out in any of your figures, the amount is of such a magnitude that those errors are fundamentally insignificant for the planetary effects that such an amount of energy would do. That amount of energy on the lower bounds would have caused all life to become extinct before we would see the oceans rise by any significant amount. Many years ago, I gave these calculations to a senior climate scientist and he noted at the time that the results were interesting and he would get back to me after he had analysed those figures. That was what 15 or more years ago and I have never heard anything back since those discussions. I have provided such figures in detail to various climate scientists asking for their analysis and basically no response. Not even to the extent of saying that the calculations were flawed. So when ever any fool climate scientist or their supporters promulgate any scenario that says we should expect any significant ocean level rises inside of 100 years (significant being anything above 0.5 metre - especially those who promulgate 1 to 10 metres) due to human activity then the onus is on them to demonstrate where the energy processes are occurring. They have not done so to date and based on their dogma, I suspect that they cannot. The problem with all of this politically correct dogma is that they (the climate scientists en bulk) are not doing any science. I have said it in the past - there are no stupid questions. It seems to be today that funding is the driver to follow the crowd and to not do actual science. We need to know what is happening in our climate. This is irrespective of any ideological standpoint you may hold. If you challenge the anthropogenic climate change (ACC) dogma then you are anathema. Even if you believe in climate change, if you do not follow the party line then you are an infidel that needs to be destroyed. Jihad not only occurs in extreme Islam but is alive and well in Climate Science as well. This whole matter is simple enough for a fifth grader to solve, let alone an adult who should be able to do this in 20 minutes (including looking up the information). Scepticism has its place and we need a few more sceptics when it comes to the lack of rigour that is being used by those who promulgate such scenarios. If you want to follow a fool where he leads without at least a cursory look at the base of what they are saying then you are free to do so. When someone says that you need to look at what they are saying, you don't need to listen, you can just follow blindly. end rant.
- DonHopkins 9y ago
  Now that your rant has ended, have you ever considered the possibility that there are other reasons you're an anathema and nobody takes you seriously, other than a well organized worldwide conspiracy against you? That would be the scientific thing to do. First it was 5 minutes. Now it's 20 minutes. Why do you keep missing your own deadlines and changing the goalposts more often than you post any citations to scientific evidence or convincing mathematical proofs like you claim to have and everyone keeps asking you for? You keep throwing out numbers and mentioning "studies done" but never name your sources or link to any of them. Why not? You've been admittedly ranting for a lot longer than you said it would take to actually do the math, and you obviously have enough time on your hands, so get started. You keep saying how quick and easy it would be for an adult to prove it, yet you never do that yourself. Am I correct to conclude that you're not actually an adult?
  - oldandtired 9y ago
    Now I get it why there was a comment on another thread about a cross thread commenting war with you. This is funny. But let's say, that 20 minutes if you look up the information yourself and you are slow about it, 5 minutes if given the starting point. Of course if you cannot use a calculation device other than pencil/pen and paper (or blackboard and chalk) then it might take you longer. I have the calculations sitting in spreadsheet on my machine and I have emails to various people with those calculations, but as you are unable to spend 5 minutes doing, I can't expect you to spend 5 minutes reading.
    - DonHopkins 9y ago
      As I expected, you're all bluster and no proof, no numbers, no citations, no links. If you're embarrassed to tell us the URL of the conspiracy theory web site where you got your misinformation, then simply don't parrot that misinformation, because it's so untrustworthy that people don't believe you.
      - sctb 9y ago
oldandtired 9y ago
To make things real simple for those who can't use a search engine, try the following earth surface area: 510072000 sq km ocean surface area: 361132000 sq km latent heat of melting (ice to water): 334 kJ/kg From these you can calculate the amount (volume) of land based ice required for whatever ocean level rise you need and the amount of energy required to melt said ice. Note that since only a portion of energy will enter ice, the total energy that would be needed to get the required energy transfer in the ice would be approximately 20 times required energy. This is based on studies done that indicate that it is about 5% of energy absorbed by the planetary system that transfers into the ice portion of the planet.
- shripadk 9y ago
  Pray tell me: where in your calculations are you calculating the one variable that matters the most: "Mean Sea Level".
- oldandtired 9y ago
  Shripadk, mean sea level is actually irrelevant as far as these calculation are concerned. Really irrelevant. The climate scientists throw around their 1 to 10 metre or more scenarios and so all we need concern ourselves with is the gross minimum volume of ice required to melt. Since the planet is an oblate sphere with a non-uniform land distribution and we have a large moon orbiting the planet, any prediction of what we would expect to see as an ocean level rise will depend critically on where on the planet you are stationed as well as the effects of tides. In addition, any rises of the magnitudes predicted will require more ice to be melted not less as there will be inundation effects that will, in effect, increase the amount of surface area attributed to the oceans. Hence, all calculations are a minimum not a maximum. If you want to seriously model tidal and inundation effects, then the amount of energy will greater and hence more unexplained by these very climate scientists. If they cannot give an explanation of the energy requirements for a minimum then they will most certainly be unable to explain for any situation requiring tidal and inundation effects to be accounted for. So mean ocean level is irrelevant.
  - DonHopkins 9y ago

oldandtired 9y ago

I have provided this information in detail in the past and those who have challenged me to do so haven't even bothered to check it or respond. The information is freely available in all sort of resources. The bits you need are the surface area of the earth and the surface area of the oceans, the volume of land based ice required to melt to fill the appropriate surface area to whatever level you require (in my case 1 metre), the amount of energy required to do the phase change of 1 kg of solid H2O to liquid H2O (which is approx equivalent raising 1 Kg of liquid H2O from 0 degrees Celsius to 84-85 degrees Celsius) and viola you have your results. This give an approximation to the energy required and even if you were 20% out in any of your figures, the amount is of such a magnitude that those errors are fundamentally insignificant for the planetary effects that such an amount of energy would do. That amount of energy on the lower bounds would have caused all life to become extinct before we would see the oceans rise by any significant amount. Many years ago, I gave these calculations to a senior climate scientist and he noted at the time that the results were interesting and he would get back to me after he had analysed those figures. That was what 15 or more years ago and I have never heard anything back since those discussions. I have provided such figures in detail to various climate scientists asking for their analysis and basically no response. Not even to the extent of saying that the calculations were flawed. So when ever any fool climate scientist or their supporters promulgate any scenario that says we should expect any significant ocean level rises inside of 100 years (significant being anything above 0.5 metre - especially those who promulgate 1 to 10 metres) due to human activity then the onus is on them to demonstrate where the energy processes are occurring. They have not done so to date and based on their dogma, I suspect that they cannot. The problem with all of this politically correct dogma is that they (the climate scientists en bulk) are not doing any science. I have said it in the past - there are no stupid questions. It seems to be today that funding is the driver to follow the crowd and to not do actual science. We need to know what is happening in our climate. This is irrespective of any ideological standpoint you may hold. If you challenge the anthropogenic climate change (ACC) dogma then you are anathema. Even if you believe in climate change, if you do not follow the party line then you are an infidel that needs to be destroyed. Jihad not only occurs in extreme Islam but is alive and well in Climate Science as well. This whole matter is simple enough for a fifth grader to solve, let alone an adult who should be able to do this in 20 minutes (including looking up the information). Scepticism has its place and we need a few more sceptics when it comes to the lack of rigour that is being used by those who promulgate such scenarios. If you want to follow a fool where he leads without at least a cursory look at the base of what they are saying then you are free to do so. When someone says that you need to look at what they are saying, you don't need to listen, you can just follow blindly. end rant.

DonHopkins 9y ago
Now that your rant has ended, have you ever considered the possibility that there are other reasons you're an anathema and nobody takes you seriously, other than a well organized worldwide conspiracy against you? That would be the scientific thing to do. First it was 5 minutes. Now it's 20 minutes. Why do you keep missing your own deadlines and changing the goalposts more often than you post any citations to scientific evidence or convincing mathematical proofs like you claim to have and everyone keeps asking you for? You keep throwing out numbers and mentioning "studies done" but never name your sources or link to any of them. Why not? You've been admittedly ranting for a lot longer than you said it would take to actually do the math, and you obviously have enough time on your hands, so get started. You keep saying how quick and easy it would be for an adult to prove it, yet you never do that yourself. Am I correct to conclude that you're not actually an adult?
- oldandtired 9y ago
  Now I get it why there was a comment on another thread about a cross thread commenting war with you. This is funny. But let's say, that 20 minutes if you look up the information yourself and you are slow about it, 5 minutes if given the starting point. Of course if you cannot use a calculation device other than pencil/pen and paper (or blackboard and chalk) then it might take you longer. I have the calculations sitting in spreadsheet on my machine and I have emails to various people with those calculations, but as you are unable to spend 5 minutes doing, I can't expect you to spend 5 minutes reading.
  - DonHopkins 9y ago
    As I expected, you're all bluster and no proof, no numbers, no citations, no links. If you're embarrassed to tell us the URL of the conspiracy theory web site where you got your misinformation, then simply don't parrot that misinformation, because it's so untrustworthy that people don't believe you.
    - sctb 9y ago

oldandtired 9y ago

To make things real simple for those who can't use a search engine, try the following earth surface area: 510072000 sq km ocean surface area: 361132000 sq km latent heat of melting (ice to water): 334 kJ/kg From these you can calculate the amount (volume) of land based ice required for whatever ocean level rise you need and the amount of energy required to melt said ice. Note that since only a portion of energy will enter ice, the total energy that would be needed to get the required energy transfer in the ice would be approximately 20 times required energy. This is based on studies done that indicate that it is about 5% of energy absorbed by the planetary system that transfers into the ice portion of the planet.

shripadk 9y ago
Pray tell me: where in your calculations are you calculating the one variable that matters the most: "Mean Sea Level".
oldandtired 9y ago
Shripadk, mean sea level is actually irrelevant as far as these calculation are concerned. Really irrelevant. The climate scientists throw around their 1 to 10 metre or more scenarios and so all we need concern ourselves with is the gross minimum volume of ice required to melt. Since the planet is an oblate sphere with a non-uniform land distribution and we have a large moon orbiting the planet, any prediction of what we would expect to see as an ocean level rise will depend critically on where on the planet you are stationed as well as the effects of tides. In addition, any rises of the magnitudes predicted will require more ice to be melted not less as there will be inundation effects that will, in effect, increase the amount of surface area attributed to the oceans. Hence, all calculations are a minimum not a maximum. If you want to seriously model tidal and inundation effects, then the amount of energy will greater and hence more unexplained by these very climate scientists. If they cannot give an explanation of the energy requirements for a minimum then they will most certainly be unable to explain for any situation requiring tidal and inundation effects to be accounted for. So mean ocean level is irrelevant.
- DonHopkins 9y ago