If all the ice on Earth melted overnight

[Still Waters]

Ninety-nine per cent of all freshwater ice on Earth is sitting on top of Greenland and Antarctica, and each year, a little more of it melts into the ocean.

Normally, it would take hundreds to thousands of years for it all to melt away. But what if something happened that caused a massive global melt overnight?

https://www.sciencealert.com/watch-what-would-happen-if-all-the-ice-on-earth-melted-overnight

https://www.businessinsider.com/what-if-all-ice-earth-melted-overnight-2019-10?

[cerberusxp]

Well since 1942 ice build on Greenland has been 260 feet deep as of 1988 climate alarmists wont even touch that.

Article link

For all you down under>> Fraud uncovered

Rising ocean Fraud

Edited October 13, 2019 by cerberusxp
Fixed error

[Guest]

On 10/13/2019 at 4:15 AM, cerberusxp said:

Well since 1942 ice build on Greenland has been 260 feet deep as of 1988 climate alarmists wont even touch that.

Article link

For all you down under>> Fraud uncovered

Rising ocean Fraud

Where do I start?  These articles are continuous lists of mistakes.

You have forgotten to subtract the ice that has me;ted.  That's a gradeschool mistake,  Check this out:  https://skepticalscience.com/greenland-cooling-gaining-ice.htm

I'm at home right now, so I don't have access to my search engine.  I'll see what I can dig up in the morning.

Doug

[tmcom]

Yeah, it melts and then comes back, and in global heatwaves, like 1878 or 1934, when it melts more than usual, when the heatwave is over it drops back to nornal levels again.

It is only the morons that ignore incredibility obvious evidence, and keep bleating this BS, that  think that the world is ending.

Zero neutral, lol, or in other words close down the airports, til we develop large scale electric planes, allow people to suffer and die, due to lack of food, allow them to die in their freezing houses, for this nonsensical BS, predictions, or the unicorn dream of using wind/solar to replace reliable systems, (it doens't matter how much you maste,....wind Never produces 24/7 or solar)!

But since we are dealing with seriously disturbed individuals, that are only interested in taking action, instead of thinking critically, our civilization keeps getting more *****up!

These nutcases cannot be reasoned with, we can only vote them out, and remove their power, so they can sing and dance around wind turbines, and spend the rest of their lives wating for something that never happens, while we shake our heads and get on with our lives!

[Tatetopa]

14 minutes ago, tmcom said:

It is only the morons that ignore incredibility obvious evidence, and keep bleating this BS, that  think that the world is ending.

It is only morons that believe that all past trends will go on forever and keep bleating this BS that it can never happen.

[Hankenhunter]

5 hours ago, tmcom said:

Yeah, it melts and then comes back, and in global heatwaves, like 1878 or 1934, when it melts more than usual, when the heatwave is over it drops back to nornal levels again.

It is only the morons that ignore incredibility obvious evidence, and keep bleating this BS, that  think that the world is ending.

Zero neutral, lol, or in other words close down the airports, til we develop large scale electric planes, allow people to suffer and die, due to lack of food, allow them to die in their freezing houses, for this nonsensical BS, predictions, or the unicorn dream of using wind/solar to replace reliable systems, (it doens't matter how much you maste,....wind Never produces 24/7 or solar)!

But since we are dealing with seriously disturbed individuals, that are only interested in taking action, instead of thinking critically, our civilization keeps getting more *****up!

These nutcases cannot be reasoned with, we can only vote them out, and remove their power, so they can sing and dance around wind turbines, and spend the rest of their lives wating for something that never happens, while we shake our heads and get on with our lives!

Yay, just forget about it and leave it for your descendants to worry about. After all, you'll be dead, right? No skin off your dead corpse's nose. Right?

[Farmer77]

33 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

Yay, just forget about it and leave it for your descendants to worry about. After all, you'll be dead, right? No skin off your dead corpse's nose. Right?

You know ive never put someone on ignore before but that nutjobs fanaticism might just make them the first.

[tmcom]

 

1 hour ago, Hankenhunter said:

Yay, just forget about it and leave it for your descendants to worry about. After all, you'll be dead, right? No skin off your dead corpse's nose. Right?

Our descendants, will see this time as the 1920's all over again, or Eugenics part two.

46 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

You know ive never put someone on ignore before but that nutjobs fanaticism might just make them the first.

I dunno witch nutjob you are referring to, but if you go to posts, #575 and #597 in the mad thread, and come back here telling everyone the world is ending, then it will be more obvious.

[Farmer77]

Just now, tmcom said:

 

I dunno witch nutjob you are referring to, but if you go to posts, #575 and #597 in the mad thread, and come back here telling everyone the world is ending, then it will be more obvious.

That would be you for sure. You've surpassed the eco-warrior's religiosity and are just about to lap em.  

[tmcom]

1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

That would be you for sure. You've surpassed the eco-warrior's religiosity and are just about to lap em.  

Lol, sure don't go to those posts that prove 100% that sea levels are not rising, and world temp's are not increasing!

I guess that answers that!

[Farmer77]

Just now, tmcom said:

Lol, sure don't go to those posts that prove 100% that sea levels are not rising, and world temp's are not increasing!

I guess that answers that!

Nahh I choose to opt out of the "global warming" discussion. Its a stupid conversation.

Either you are a human who wants to do whats best for the planet or youre not. The greedy and the lazy have done a fantastic job of hiding their gross positions behind the global warming debate and I just wont be brought down to that level.

 

[Grey Area]

I don't know a great deal about climate change, I'm pretty switched on science wise, but I'm not a Geologist, or a Climatologist or any other kind of related-ist.  All I have to go on is my instinct and the small amount of scientific knowledge I do have. 

I generally don't buy into the mass media, which shows increasing bias day on day, and I get that people are angry and sceptical about the Media's constant churn.  I also understand that private businesses have agendas and that they have influence, and I listen with interest to the accusations that big business is involved in spreading a myth about climate change.  All these are unsubstantiated conspiracy at the moment.  So that takes me to square one, relying on my own not insignificant gut instinct and what little scientific knowledge I have.

What I have learned, and trust, is this.  At some point in the distant past the Earth's atmosphere was very different.  Then came along photosynthesis, and plant and tree life introducing Oxygen into the atmosphere.  Thus started a process of 'natural' climate change, leading up to the current Nitrogen/Oxygen atmosphere we have today.  So we know that climate change is a real thing as it has happened before, and is responsible for life as we know it today.

So here's my gut feeling, not taking any influence from anywhere other than my loose scientific understanding of the world around me.  There are 'over' 1 billion cars in the world.  Each car has emissions, amongst a handful of trace emissions, significantly Carbon Monoxide.  That's a lot of cars, and the number will only increase over time, not counting other modes of transport that use the Internal Combustion Engine.  Now maybe, just maybe, the cumulative volume of these emissions is not significant, and when you add it in with the naturally occurring processes that produce similar gasses it is, on a global scale, insignificant, but we know for certain that in the past the introduction of gasses on a large global scale changed the world. 

But locally, we do see the effects.  Poor health with those who live near congested roads, very visible smogs above cities and one very significant reminder that a common and easy way to end your own life is to inhale car emissions.

Now, climate change is an emotive term.  When used today it means one thing to most people, you are a believer or not a believer.  It's a subscription.  For me it's not so clear cut.  To be clear I do believe that we humans are changing the climate, but I am not so clear on the damage just yet.  But.  We have been changing the climate for thousands of years, significantly since the introduction of agriculture.  This and deforestation has changed weather and precipitation patterns significantly, I believe this, but it's hard to quantify anything given how ridiculously complex the overall system is, that we call the planet Earth.

The biggest question to me is, not necessarily, is climate change real.  But are the solutions in technology going to benefit us in the future?  After all the denier argument is quite selfish, motivated by inconvenience more than any real concern for the wellbeing of their neighbour, of course correct me if I am wrong, and certainly the introduction of such technologies would be constant drip rather than an all out change so things wont happen suddenly or overnight, but that's food for thought, what are the drawbacks of utilising electric vehicles over fossil fuels?  Nuclear and renewable power sources over gas and coal.  The biggest effects will be in jobs, that's the long and short really.  People's lives in the here and now.   

[tmcom]

8 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

It is only morons that believe that all past trends will go on forever and keep bleating this BS that it can never happen.

 

1 hour ago, Grey Area said:

I don't know a great deal about climate change, I'm pretty switched on science wise, but I'm not a Geologist, or a Climatologist or any other kind of related-ist.  All I have to go on is my instinct and the small amount of scientific knowledge I do have. 

I generally don't buy into the mass media, which shows increasing bias day on day, and I get that people are angry and sceptical about the Media's constant churn.  I also understand that private businesses have agendas and that they have influence, and I listen with interest to the accusations that big business is involved in spreading a myth about climate change.  All these are unsubstantiated conspiracy at the moment.  So that takes me to square one, relying on my own not insignificant gut instinct and what little scientific knowledge I have.

What I have learned, and trust, is this.  At some point in the distant past the Earth's atmosphere was very different.  Then came along photosynthesis, and plant and tree life introducing Oxygen into the atmosphere.  Thus started a process of 'natural' climate change, leading up to the current Nitrogen/Oxygen atmosphere we have today.  So we know that climate change is a real thing as it has happened before, and is responsible for life as we know it today.

So here's my gut feeling, not taking any influence from anywhere other than my loose scientific understanding of the world around me.  There are 'over' 1 billion cars in the world.  Each car has emissions, amongst a handful of trace emissions, significantly Carbon Monoxide.  That's a lot of cars, and the number will only increase over time, not counting other modes of transport that use the Internal Combustion Engine.  Now maybe, just maybe, the cumulative volume of these emissions is not significant, and when you add it in with the naturally occurring processes that produce similar gasses it is, on a global scale, insignificant, but we know for certain that in the past the introduction of gasses on a large global scale changed the world. 

But locally, we do see the effects.  Poor health with those who live near congested roads, very visible smogs above cities and one very significant reminder that a common and easy way to end your own life is to inhale car emissions.

Now, climate change is an emotive term.  When used today it means one thing to most people, you are a believer or not a believer.  It's a subscription.  For me it's not so clear cut.  To be clear I do believe that we humans are changing the climate, but I am not so clear on the damage just yet.  But.  We have been changing the climate for thousands of years, significantly since the introduction of agriculture.  This and deforestation has changed weather and precipitation patterns significantly, I believe this, but it's hard to quantify anything given how ridiculously complex the overall system is, that we call the planet Earth.

The biggest question to me is, not necessarily, is climate change real.  But are the solutions in technology going to benefit us in the future?  After all the denier argument is quite selfish, motivated by inconvenience more than any real concern for the wellbeing of their neighbour, of course correct me if I am wrong, and certainly the introduction of such technologies would be constant drip rather than an all out change so things wont happen suddenly or overnight, but that's food for thought, what are the drawbacks of utilising electric vehicles over fossil fuels?  Nuclear and renewable power sources over gas and coal.  The biggest effects will be in jobs, that's the long and short really.  People's lives in the here and now.   

[Grey Area]

42 minutes ago, tmcom said:

 

Well thanks for taking the time to respond so thoroughly to my post.  I am going to assume that the video you posted was a genuine attempt to educate, you get the benefit of the doubt.  As I said, I'm pretty switched on science wise, so I totally understand the video.

My question to you is why you feel it necessary to post a Global Warming debunking video.  I think most people realise that a generic warming effect as being the sole cause or danger from man made effects is silliness.  This is why I made the minor point about the complexity of the Earth environment  as a system.  There are so many scientific disciplines involved that it is nigh on impossible for anyone not directly engaged in full time study and understanding to be able to make the nature vs human call.

But here's the thing, my point is, or at least my question is this:  If climate change isn't real, just made up nonsense to appease the fragile psyche's of progressive individuals or business.  What's the harm?  If we suddenly developed, say in the period of a year, Fusion Power plants, electric cars with comparable range and efficiency as their oil based counterparts and swapped them over.  Where's the issue?  And here's where it gets interesting, because the answers are all political.  And essentially, that's what this is, a political discussion.  Let the Conspiracy theories ensue, because lets face it, it is the biggest, and most politically embedded industries that have the most to lose as a result of climate change.

So if you want to post another video and emoji that's nice.  Words are better.  Like I say, I'm not 100% sold on end of the world scenarios, but logic dictates that as our emissions grow, so does the chemistry of our world change.

[tmcom]

1 hour ago, Grey Area said:

Well thanks for taking the time to respond so thoroughly to my post.  I am going to assume that the video you posted was a genuine attempt to educate, you get the benefit of the doubt.  As I said, I'm pretty switched on science wise, so I totally understand the video.

My question to you is why you feel it necessary to post a Global Warming debunking video.  I think most people realise that a generic warming effect as being the sole cause or danger from man made effects is silliness.  This is why I made the minor point about the complexity of the Earth environment  as a system.  There are so many scientific disciplines involved that it is nigh on impossible for anyone not directly engaged in full time study and understanding to be able to make the nature vs human call.

But here's the thing, my point is, or at least my question is this:  If climate change isn't real, just made up nonsense to appease the fragile psyche's of progressive individuals or business.  What's the harm?  If we suddenly developed, say in the period of a year, Fusion Power plants, electric cars with comparable range and efficiency as their oil based counterparts and swapped them over.  Where's the issue?  And here's where it gets interesting, because the answers are all political.  And essentially, that's what this is, a political discussion.  Let the Conspiracy theories ensue, because lets face it, it is the biggest, and most politically embedded industries that have the most to lose as a result of climate change.

So if you want to post another video and emoji that's nice.  Words are better.  Like I say, I'm not 100% sold on end of the world scenarios, but logic dictates that as our emissions grow, so does the chemistry of our world change.

Post #321 mad thread, l agree that some of this may be helpful, but it is also causing a lot of unnecessary misery.

[Doug1029]

13 hours ago, tmcom said:

Zero neutral, lol, or in other words close down the airports, til we develop large scale electric planes, allow people to suffer and die, due to lack of food, allow them to die in their freezing houses, for this nonsensical BS, predictions, or the unicorn dream of using wind/solar to replace reliable systems, (it doens't matter how much you maste,....wind Never produces 24/7 or solar)!

At the moment we have no alternatives to air travel - at least, no REASONABLE alternatives.  I'm not up to snuff on the numbers, but it may be possible that we don't need to reduce air travel.  It all depends on how much carbon it is contributing to the atmosphere.  We don't have to eliminate ALL carbon pollution, just enough of it to get the climate under control.

Large scale electric planes?  Doesn't look like that's anywhere near the horizon.  You either need a humongous number of photocells on the plane's surface, or batteries.  Both are too heavy, at least at the moment.  Maybe with perovskites?  Tesla had an idea about powering a plane with microwaves.  Anybody know anything about this?

 

People are dying now.

This includes 15 miners (2017):  https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-coal-mining-deaths-20180102-story.html

23,000 deaths in Europe  https://thinkprogress.org/coal-dust-causes-23-000-premature-deaths-in-the-e-u-e43201d1a12/

366,000 deaths in China:  https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/18/world/asia/china-coal-health-smog-pollution.html

Here's a list for the US in the 20th century:  https://arlweb.msha.gov/stats/centurystats/coalstats.asp  Over half-a-million coal miners died in mining accidents in 1902!

 

Climate change means that crops that used to grow here won't be able to in the future.  Current projections are that most of the US' central cropland will become deserts (I have my doubts about this.).  A bigger problem is that climate change is accompanied by "flickers," as if a closing electric switch is arcing across the gap.  We get a few years of the old regime, then a few years of the new one, then back again.  It means that farmers can't predict what to grow and some of what they plant will result ion crop failures.

A friend of mine in Durango, Colorado (elevation 6800 feet), built a new house with a passive solar heating system with wood backup.  In almost 50 years he has used about two cords of firewood.  The system relies on in-coming sunlight warming a stone floor and wall.  Air warmed by the floor flows by convection into a container of rocks, warming them.  During cooler times (night), the rocks warm the air which circulates through the house.  Other than those two cords of wood, he has no heating expenses at all.  There are parts of the world (including Australia) where passive heat could eliminate the need for electric heating systems, reducing the need for electricity.

When I lived there, I burned about six cords a year.  We annually grow more firewood-quality trees than we need for heating and building put together.  Most of those low-quality trees just die and rot out naturally.  We could use them for heat and if we select the trees properly, we will not reduce the forest's productive capacity.  The big problem with firewood is the cost of hauling it.  This will only work in areas where there are forests.

Wind:  the wind is always blowing somewhere.  Oklahoma's 31 wind farms have never been shut down at the same time.  We have 17 years of operational data to confirm this.  We have two more wind farms under construction and the permits have been issued for three more.  The chances of having the entire wind system down at the same time are about one three-hour period per century.  Squirrels cause more power outages than that.  Why isn't tmcom out hunting squirrels?  Maybe he's a little bit squirrelly. Wind is at least as reliable as coal and oil.

About solar:  this is how you use it:  Power is supplied to the grid when available.  When there is a surplus of solar power it is used to pump water from below a power dam back up into the reservoir.  At night, the water is again run through the dam's penstocks to generate electriciy.  It's called pumped storage and the US currently is able to generate 2.5% of its power this way (Currently, we supplement solar with wind to achieve the needed storage.).  PLAN B:  Solar and wind (cheaper) are used when available, conserving water so that it is available at night and in the highly-unlikely chance that all 31 wind farms will be down at the same time.

 

I wish tmcom would produce some evidence/analysis of why he thinks wind/water/solar can't supply all the power we need.  So far, all he has presented are rants expressing his own unsupported, uninformed opinions.  tmcom is not thinking about running entire electrical grids.  He is only thinking about the output of one windmill.  Or one solar panel.  He forgets that when a coal station breaks down, it's usually catastrophic, being down for weeks or months, not just hours.

I have seen the aftermath of two coal train derailments.  Both trainloads burned at the wreck site and were not used for power.  tmcom:  have you ever seen a wind spill?  Or a solar spill - give you a nice tan.

Doug

Edited October 21, 2019 by Doug1029

[rashore]

Folks, please do not make this just another extension from debating in other threads. Leave this topic as it's own topic instead of dragging arguments/commentary in from other threads.

[tmcom]

3 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

At the moment we have no alternatives to air travel - at least, no REASONABLE alternatives.  I'm not up to snuff on the numbers, but it may be possible that we don't need to reduce air travel.  It all depends on how much carbon it is contributing to the atmosphere.  We don't have to eliminate ALL carbon pollution, just enough of it to get the climate under control.

Large scale electric planes?  Doesn't look like that's anywhere near the horizon.  You either need a humongous number of photocells on the plane's surface, or batteries.  Both are too heavy, at least at the moment.  Maybe with perovskites?

 

People are dying now.

This includes 15 miners (2017):  https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-coal-mining-deaths-20180102-story.html

23,000 deaths in Europe  https://thinkprogress.org/coal-dust-causes-23-000-premature-deaths-in-the-e-u-e43201d1a12/

366,000 deaths in China:  https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/18/world/asia/china-coal-health-smog-pollution.html

Here's a list for the US in the 29th century:  https://arlweb.msha.gov/stats/centurystats/coalstats.asp  Over half-a-million coal miners died in mining accidents in 1902!

 

Climate change means that crops that used to grow here won't be able to in the future.  Current projections are that most of the US' central cropland will become deserts (I have my doubts about this.).  A bigger problem is that climate change is accompanied by "flickers," as if a closing electric switch is arcing across the gap.  We get a few years of the old regime, then a few years of the new one, then back again.  It means that farmers can't predict what to grow and some of what they plant will result ion crop failures.

A friend of mine in Durango, Colorado (elevation 6800 feet), built a new house with a passive solar heating system with wood backup.  In almost 50 years he has used about two cords of firewood.  The system relies on in-coming sunlight warming a stone floor and wall.  Air warmed by the floor flows by convection into a container of rocks, warming them.  During cooler times (night), the rocks warm the air which circulates through the house.  Other than those two cords of wood, he has no heating expenses at all.  There are parts of the world (including Australia) where passive heat could eliminate the need for electric heating systems, reducing the need for electricity.

When I lived there, I burned about six cords a year.  We annually grow more firewood-quality trees than we need for heating and building put together.  Most of those low-quality trees just die and rot out naturally.  We could use them for heat and if we select the trees properly, we will not reduce the forest's productive capacity.  The big problem with firewood is the cost of hauling it.  This will only work in areas where there are forests.

Wind:  the wind is always blowing somewhere.  Oklahoma's 31 wind farms have never been shut down at the same time.  We have 17 years of operational data to confirm this.  We have two more wind farms under construction and the permits have been issued for three more.  The chances of having the entire wind system down at the same time are about one three-hour period per century.  Squirrels cause more power outages than that.  Why isn't tmcom out hunting squirrels?  Maybe he's a little bit squirrelly. Wind is at least as reliable as coal and oil.

About solar:  this is how you use it:  Power is supplied to the grid when available.  When there is a surplus of solar power it is used to pump water from below a power dam back up into the reservoir.  At night, the water is again run through the dam's penstocks to generate electriciy.  It's called pumped storage and the US currently is able to generate 2.5% of its power this way (Currently, we supplement solar with wind to achieve the needed storage.).  PLAN B:  Solar and wind (cheaper) are used when available, conserving water so that it is available at night and in the highly-unlikely chance that all 31 wind farms will be down at the same time.

 

I wish tmcom would produce some evidence/analysis of why he thinks wind/water/solar can't supply all the power we need.  So far, all he has presented are rants expressing his own unsupported, uninformed opinions.  tmcom is not thinking about running entire electrical grids.  He is only thinking about the output of one windmill.  Or one solar panel.  He forgets that when a coal station breaks down, it's usually catastrophic, being down for weeks or months, not just hours.

I have seen the aftermath of two coal train derailments.  Both trainloads burned at the wreck site and were not used for power.  tmcom:  have you ever seen a wind spill?  Or a solar spill - give you a nice tan.

Doug

And miners make a conscious choice to do that kind of work, knowing the risks, a pensioner or poor person unable to pay for heating when it is snowing outside, does not!

And no l am not going through all of that again, (wind/solar) since l have already covered that. AU does not have 24/7 wind!

But l agree that Hydro does work, just as long as it is managed by someone intelligent.

As for the rest if someone shows me 100%  solid evidence of something l just accept it, and change my viewpoint,.......!

[Doug1029]

1 minute ago, tmcom said:

And no l am not going through all of that again, (wind/solar) since l have already covered that. AU does not have 24/7 wind!

Nobody ever said Australia had 24/7 wind in any one place.  At any given point, Victoria has wind about 90% of the time, while New South Wales has it about 87% of the time.  Any given point in Oklahoma has wind about 90% of the time, same as Australia.  And that means that somewhere, wind is always blowing.  All you have to do is throw a few switches so you can shunt the power over the gird from where the wind is blowing to where the power is needed.  It's that simple.  But it does mean you have to have a grid.  If you don't have one, why not?

7 minutes ago, tmcom said:

And miners make a conscious choice to do that kind of work, knowing the risks, a pensioner or poor person unable to pay for heating when it is snowing outside, does not!

The pensioner or poor person can use electric heat regardless of the source.  Wind is the cheapest source of electricity on the market and solar is likely to be there within a year or two.  Why do you want him to pay more for expensive coal-fired electricity?

9 minutes ago, tmcom said:

But l agree that Hydro does work, just as long as it is managed by someone intelligent.

Hydro is one part of an integrated system, whether that system uses wind, coal, oil, gas, solar or some combination.  Most grids use a combination now.  That's what a carbon-free world will do, too.

11 minutes ago, tmcom said:

As for the rest if someone shows me 100%  solid evidence of something l just accept it, and change my viewpoint,.......!

So lets get specific.  What would you like to see 100% solid evidence of?  Can't guarantee I'll find it, but at least, I'll get closer than your sources do.

Doug

[Tatetopa]

7 hours ago, Grey Area said:

But locally, we do see the effects.  Poor health with those who live near congested roads, very visible smogs above cities and one very significant reminder that a common and easy way to end your own life is to inhale car emissions.

Quite a good post Gray. From my own limited view, you seem to have a good grasp on the qualitative nature of the world, what is possible and what is likely even though you do not profess quantitative knowledge in the specific fields.  I think that makes it easier to sort the BS.

My thought is that pollution will affect our immediate future more that climate change.  Direct health affects on humans as well as indirect affects through the disruption of marine and  terrestrial environments and species we rely on.  That in itself is a good reason to  take a look at what we are doing and how it impacts the generational health of our own species.

7 hours ago, Grey Area said:

The biggest effects will be in jobs, that's the long and short really.  People's lives in the here and now.   

Yeah, that seems likely, but unpredictable.  Will changes in energy production, consumption, and waste management create more or fewer jobs in a decade or two?  Other factors like automation, demand for specific goods,and innovation will all play a part too.

I enjoyed your post.

[Tatetopa]

2 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

At the moment we have no alternatives to air travel - at least, no REASONABLE alternatives.  I'm not up to snuff on the numbers, but it may be possible that we don't need to reduce air travel.  It all depends on how much carbon it is contributing to the atmosphere.  We don't have to eliminate ALL carbon pollution, just enough of it to get the climate under control.

On the positive side of things, economics gives us some help on this particular issue.  Fuel is a major expense for commercial airlines.  For as long as I was associated with an aerospace company, the industry has been working on more fuel efficient engines and aerodynamic improvements in aircraft. .  The benefit is large.  If you consume less energy getting from point A to point B, you can carry less fuel and increase your revenue payload.  Even if tmcom was running an airline, he would push these developments to reduce cost and increase his bottom line.

[Doug1029]

On 10/13/2019 at 4:15 AM, cerberusxp said:

Well since 1942 ice build on Greenland has been 260 feet deep as of 1988 climate alarmists wont even touch that.

The collapse of the Greenland ice cap is expected to commence about the time we reach 1.6C of heating.  It hasn't started yet, leading to the conclusion that we haven't reached 1.6C yet.

Some experts think we've already passed 1.5C.  The paper AOC's 2030 deadline is based on predicts 2.0C about 2033.  Personally, I don't know whether we're past 1.5 yet, but I don't think we're at 1.6.

Collapse of the Antarctic ice cap is expected to begin somewhat after Greenland, about 1.7 or 1.8.  In other words, expect the collapse of the icecaps sometime in the 2020s.

 

I hear crying about how much conversion will cost.  The world is already spending $100 billion a year on subsidies for fossil fuels.  Simply NOT spending that money would be an improvement and cut everybody's taxes.  This screaming about spending money on clean energy is starting to sound like the cries of an addict who didn't get his fix.  In this case, a fossil fuel fix.

By NOT subsidizing fossil fuels, we could make $100 billion a year available for conversion.  It would make no difference at all to your taxes.

 

At any rate, we have frittered away our grace period.  We can still stop warming by 2050 and reverse it by 2100.  But that means things are still going to get warmer in the meantime; there are still going to be adverse consequences to what we have already done.  And we are going to have to make sacrifices that we wouldn't have needed 15 years ago.  What happens if we reach 4.0C?  There is no guarantee that humanity could survive that.  So, yes.  I'm alarmed.

Doug

http://theconversation.com/not-convinced-on-the-need-for-urgent-climate-action-heres-what-happens-to-our-planet-between-1-5-c-and-2-c-of-global-warming-123817

 

Edited October 21, 2019 by Doug1029

[Doug1029]

17 hours ago, tmcom said:

It is only the morons that ignore incredibility obvious evidence

Like that ice-extent data I posted for you?

Doug

[rashore]

Back to the OP again... if for some reason all the ice melted overnight... it would be likely that the catastrophe that caused the ice caps to completely melt within hours would be of more immediate concern than the rising water. Nothing as slow as the climate change bickerment. 

Considering humans are awake in most time zones all the time... someone would be awake during whatever event. Probably a lot of folks. Considering the heat it would take to melt the ice caps in  hours we would all likely be cooked to oblivion where we woke or slept. 

Enough sudden heat to melt the icecaps overnight would also likely toast or drown most farming, plants and animals. Heat wave enough to blow gas tanks and electric transformers. 

 

[tmcom]

6 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

Like that ice-extent data I posted for you?

Doug

No!