Warmers defense Freezing Up

[Will Robinson]

....And just how much water, be it in any state, is there in, on, or surrounding, the earth, and how has that varied over the history of the planet?

it has varied a bit, I'd suspect, but it is the STATE that is important.

Yes and the state seems to change due to forces that are so much more powerful than the measly BTU's added by anthropogenic warming.

The planet warmed up, dumped liquid across the low areas, pumped vapor into the air and biological growth took off like...well like weeds. And then it froze up again...and then it melted again...

So exactly how warm it gets before it gets cold again seems to be a minor concern. On the big time line anyway. What are a few degrees between ice ages? It might be buying us some time before we go inevitably extinct.

The last Ice Age, known as the Pleistocene Epoch, began almost 1.8 million years ago and lasted until approximately 11,700 years ago. During this time, massive glaciers covered most of the surface of the Earth. There have been four known Ice Ages on Earth in the 4.6 billion years that the planet has existed. It is very possible that there were many more that occurred that are undocumented from before the advent of mankind, about 2.3 million years ago.

As the last Ice Age ended, the Antarctic ice sheets began to melt. This caused waters to rise, drowning previously raised sections of the continents. The moving water gradually heated up and caused a rise in the temperatures of many different areas, creating the beginnings of the climate enjoyed by humans today. The Pleistocene Epoch is the first known Ice Age to involve humans, or homo sapiens. During this time period, humans continued to evolve. By the end of the Ice Age, human beings were spread all over the planet. The Pleistocene Epoch was the first epoch in the Quaternary Period and the sixth epoch of the Cenozoic Era. The Earth is now in a period known as the Holocene Epoch.

[vision]

What are a few degrees between ice ages?

What is the difference between -1 degree Celsius and 1 degree Celsius? It's only 2 measly degrees!

[Duper]

so much for the scientific method.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environme ... 051905.ece

[Will Robinson]

What are a few degrees between ice ages?

What is the difference between -1 degree Celsius and 1 degree Celsius? It's only 2 measly degrees!

Ooooh scary!
Are we to believe that if we follow the lead of the UN climate police we can stop the ice age cycle?!? Seems like the warming is just what you need then.

Lol!

(that is the earth laughing at the little carbon speck named vision)

[vision]

Actually, by the time the Earth is ready for another Ice Age we will know enough to completely control the climate through geo-engineering (and will have probably started terraforming other planets). If you don't recognize this fact, well, you simply aren't paying attention.

Also, all of you are missing the point, once again, even though it has been explained over and over and over again.

[Spidey]

I wonder what damage to the environment all of that space adventure will cause.

[Will Robinson]

Actually, by the time the Earth is ready for another Ice Age we will know enough to completely control the climate through geo-engineering (and will have probably started terraforming other planets). If you don't recognize this fact, well, you simply aren't paying attention.

Also, all of you are missing the point, once again, even though it has been explained over and over and over again.

I know the point....I just thought some perspective was interesting.

[vision]

I wonder what damage to the environment all of that space adventure will cause.

Define "space adventure."

[woodchip]

Actually, by the time the Earth is ready for another Ice Age we will know enough to completely control the climate through geo-engineering (and will have probably started terraforming other planets). If you don't recognize this fact, well, you simply aren't paying attention.

Also, all of you are missing the point, once again, even though it has been explained over and over and over again.

And I wonder if you are missing the point. How many screw ups do you think geo-engineering will cause as different attempts to control the climate are tried? And how much damage will those screw up cause? As evidenced by the people trying to control the climate change info that we see now, I suspect the damage will be catastrophic.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Definition
"Space Adventure" 1: Cramming into a city that fucks with the environment, taking drugs and paying MD's to ★■◆● with your body because you consume too much food which has been fucked with, dreaming about escaping to space with the ability to ★■◆● with the natural order of absolutely everything instead of buying a piece of land and producing your own food as our creator intended.

[Spidey]

I wonder what damage to the environment all of that space adventure will cause.

Define "space adventure."

All of the stuff I have heard you advocate over the years.

Do you really think we won't have to use a lot of hydrocarbon fuel in the beginning, before we develop spiffy clean travel?

[vision]

Sorry, I forgot not everyone keeps up with science as much as I do.

Look at this quote again:

Actually, by the time the Earth is ready for another Ice Age we will know enough to completely control the climate through geo-engineering (and will have probably started terraforming other planets).

Ok now, one at a time.

And I wonder if you are missing the point. How many screw ups do you think geo-engineering will cause as different attempts to control the climate are tried? And how much damage will those screw up cause? As evidenced by the people trying to control the climate change info that we see now, I suspect the damage will be catastrophic.

First, we already know enough about climate to change it, as evidenced by the rapid warming of our dear planet. We also know enough to cool it even more rapidly. We can simulate a volcano. This has even been proposed as a solution to a worst case global warming scenario. The reason we don't do it is because pumping aerosols into the stratosphere causes problems further down the road and we are already putting tons of crap in the sky as it is. So rather than putting more crap in the sky, let's eliminate the stuff we put up there now! My Geo-engineering comment was in response to the next Ice Age, which will likely be thousands of years away. Do you seriously think we won't have better Geo-engineering ideas in 1000 years? Second, we will not be having discussions about climate change even 100 years from now. The science speaks for itself and, just like evolution and plate-tectonics, only the willfully ignorant will believe Anthropic warming doesn't exist. Keep in mind the frame of reference I'm talking about -- hundreds to thousands of years.

blah, blah, blah... the natural order ...blah, blah, blah

Yeah, I get it. The natural order of things includes dying of measles, smallpox, and watching children suffer from countless illnesses that are preventable today. I don't know your creator, but my creator commands me to preach humanity's rise to the stars. We are going, and there is nothing you can do or say to stop it. So get used to it.

Do you really think we won't have to use a lot of hydrocarbon fuel in the beginning, before we develop spiffy clean travel?

Yes, rockets are bad for the environment. There is a trade off between the damage they do and the amazing knowledge we gain by sending instruments and people into space. There are a couple new technologies on the horizon (unfortunately no space elevator any time soon). The most promising (and slightly less dirty) SABRE Spaceplane would buy us more time while we figure out how to make other propulsion systems more efficient (like laser powered launches).

[CUDA]

First, we already know enough about climate to change it, as evidenced by the rapid warming of our dear planet. We also know enough to cool it even more rapidly.

WAIT. If thats the case why should we worry about or even care about "global warming"

[vision]

WAIT. If thats the case why should we worry about or even care about "global warming"

Did you not read what I said or just knee-jerk into this post?

Do you want us to spend billions to simulate volcanic eruptions in order to rapidly cool the planet then deal with the aerosols in a couple decades as they return to Earth, and still have the problem of greenhouse gas emissions...

OR

Do you want to spend billions cleaning up our crap here and now so we don't have to take such drastic measures?

Take your pick (though the choice should be clear).

[CUDA]

According to slick " billions" is chump change. And either way the money is going to be spent, either by correction or regulation, the issue is the global warming advocates are claiming armageddon if we continue down this path, you just said its no big deal and easily fixable. So which is it?

[Sergeant Thorne]

CUDA I don't see what's so hard to understand here. Creating volcano's would be irresponsible, so "we" are going to do it the hard way because that's how we roll. Don't sweat it, your children's children's children's children's children will live in space for sure, and we will be dreaming of extra-terra-forming as a way to save us from all of the terra-forming that went horribly wrong--huge-ass volcano's, oppressive government's, and any kind of natural resource will be a thing of the past, and we will float in weightless bliss! Also we'll be robots then, so we'll be much more awesome.

[vision]

...you just said its no big deal and easily fixable. So which is it?

Please show me where I said fixing the climate was "not big deal" and "easily fixable," you goddamn liar. Here, I'll explain it to you like I would a child so you can understand. The point of my posts, had you actually read them instead of imagining what they said based on your own view, is rather than spend money to counteract rapid warming we should spend money fixing the problem.

Don't sweat it, your children's children's children's children's children will live in space for sure...Also we'll be robots then, so we'll be much more awesome.

This is a possible future, yes. In just a few thousand years we went from creating a word for the Moon to walking on it. What we imagine today might be attainable thousands (or even hundreds) of years from now.

[woodchip]

Well well, seems not all of the antarctic western ice sheet is disappearing due to global warming:

A new study by researchers at the University of Texas, Austin found that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is collapsing due to geothermal heat, not man-made global warming.

Researchers from the UTA’s Institute for Geophysics found that the Thwaites Glacier in western Antarctica is being eroded by the ocean as well as geothermal heat from magma and subaerial volcanoes. Thwaites is considered a key glacier for understanding future sea level rise."

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/11/study ... l-warming/

So just when all those climate models were pointing to man made causes, seems ole mother nature has a bigger hand than once thought. Then again how do you fit the Geo-thermal activity into your climate model? :

It's the most complex thermal environment you might imagine," said co-author Don Blankenship, a senior research scientist at UTIG and Schroeder's Ph.D. adviser. "And then you plop the most critical dynamically unstable ice sheet on planet Earth in the middle of this thing, and then you try to model it. It's virtually impossible."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-06-major-west ... l.html#jCp

[callmeslick]

According to slick " billions" is chump change. And either way the money is going to be spent, either by correction or regulation, the issue is the global warming advocates are claiming armageddon if we continue down this path, you just said its no big deal and easily fixable. So which is it?

and slick notes that it will take enough billions to start talking tens of trillions, worldwide, to take either of Visions paths. Pick your poison and the earlier you get started, the less it costs per year.

[vision]

This would be tiring if I didn't enjoy embarrassing you so much. Your article falsely claims "...the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is collapsing due to geothermal heat, not man-made global warming." This is not what the study says. If you read the press release from the University of Texas where the study was conducted, you will see the very first line says "Thwaites Glacier, the large, rapidly changing outlet of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, is not only being eroded by the ocean, it’s being melted from below by geothermal heat..."

You article even linked to the paper, which makes no such claim about global warming. It focuses on "Uncertainty in the amount and spatial pattern of geothermal flux and melting beneath this glacier is a major limitation in predicting its future behavior and sea level contribution...large areas at the base of Thwaites Glacier are actively melting in response to geothermal flux...[these] processes could be critical factors in determining the future behavior of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet."

The research simply adds more data that can be used in our increasingly accurate models of climate change. Also, volcanoes under Antarctica don't melt Arctic ice. Man-made warming is real, no matter how you slice it.

[woodchip]

This would be tiring if I didn't enjoy embarrassing you so much. Your article falsely claims "...the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is collapsing due to geothermal heat, not man-made global warming." This is not what the study says. If you read the press release from the University of Texas where the study was conducted, you will see the very first line says "Thwaites Glacier, the large, rapidly changing outlet of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, is not only being eroded by the ocean, it’s being melted from below by geothermal heat..."

And you fail to to have read from the first link:

Researchers from the UTA’s Institute for Geophysics found that the Thwaites Glacier in western Antarctica is being eroded by the ocean as well as geothermal heat from magma and subaerial volcanoes.

Sorry to embarrass you over your inability to comprehend when you skim read.

You article even linked to the paper, which makes no such claim about global warming. It focuses on "Uncertainty in the amount and spatial pattern of geothermal flux and melting beneath this glacier is a major limitation in predicting its future behavior and sea level contribution...large areas at the base of Thwaites Glacier are actively melting in response to geothermal flux...[these] processes could be critical factors in determining the future behavior of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet."

It is the "uncertainty" which makes modeling of warming and the rise in sea levels inaccurate.

The research simply adds more data that can be used in our increasingly accurate models of climate change. Also, volcanoes under Antarctica don't melt Arctic ice. Man-made warming is real, no matter how you slice it.

Yet the articles states it is virtually impossible to model for the geothermal heat. And lest you forget, last year saw a 50% increase in Arctic ice.

[vision]

And you fail to to have read from the first link:

Oh I read it, I just wanted to point out your source's agenda. You like to point out agendas, right? Blatant lie in the first paragraph.

It is the "uncertainty" which makes modeling of warming and the rise in sea levels inaccurate.

Inaccurate, but still rising. Accuracy comes with time and data, and this study provides more data.

Yet the articles states it is virtually impossible to model for the geothermal heat.

That's not what it says. You focused on the word impossible because that's what you want to read and filled in your own commentary. If you read closely it says the environment is complex, but "Knowledge of the heat distribution beneath Thwaites Glacier is crucial information that enables ice sheet modelers to more accurately predict the response of the glacier to the presence of a warming ocean." This knowledge doesn't make the job harder, it makes it easier. Also, virtually impossible is not the same as impossible. Think about modeling particle physics before Feynman diagrams and QED.

And lest you forget, last year saw a 50% increase in Arctic ice.

How many times to you have to be told that the increase in ice is due to warming and that a single year does not determine climate?