contrails

The ice sheets floating on the sea may melt but will not raise the sea
level. The ice sheets on Greenland, several miles thick, if and when
they melt will certainly raise the sea levels as advertised.

mj

On Jan 8, 5:58*pm, delboy wrote:
On 8 Jan, 16:25, Tom Gardner wrote:
.









Um, which planet earth do you live on? There have
been multiple "extinction events" which take all of 5
seconds to find on wackypedia.

In particular, the "clathrate gun hypothesis" is particularly
relevant.

A snippet to whet your appetite...

* The clathrate gun hypothesis is the popular name given
* to the hypothesis that rises in sea temperatures (and/or
* falls in sea level) can trigger the sudden release of
* methane from methane clathrate compounds buried in
* seabeds and permafrost which, because the methane
* itself is a powerful greenhouse gas, leads to further
* temperature rise and further methane clathrate
* destabilization – in effect initiating a runaway process,
* as irreversible once started as the firing of a gun
* ...
* However there is stronger evidence that runaway methane
* clathrate breakdown may have caused drastic alteration of
* the ocean environment and the atmosphere of earth on a
* number of occasions in the past, over timescales of tens
* of thousands of years; most notably in connection with the
* Permian extinction event, when 96% of all marine species
* became extinct 251 million years ago.

Sounds pretty drastic to me!

Er! Did I say there hadn't been any mass extinctions?

You said close to that in your last sentence (see below) - to
within 4%, to be more "precise"

I included what you said - since you omitted it, here it is again.

On Jan 8, 12:42 pm, delboy wrote:
As the Earth has maintained reasonably stable temperatures (with
relatively minor variations) for billions of years, it must have
pretty good natural control and feedback mechanisms. Otherwise life on
it would have already died out.

------

There have been
lots of them, including the large dinosaurs (large meteorite strike?),
woolly mammoths (hunting, loss of habitat), dodos (stupid birds) and
even our near relatives the neanderthals (climate change - the last
ice age, probably nothing to do with CO2 emissions or methane
clathrates).

Straw man arguments - you are discussing points with yourself,
because I didn't make any such points.

On 8 Jan, 19:05, Tom Gardner wrote:
On Jan 8, 5:58*pm, delboy wrote:





On 8 Jan, 16:25, Tom Gardner wrote:
.

Um, which planet earth do you live on? There have
been multiple "extinction events" which take all of 5
seconds to find on wackypedia.

In particular, the "clathrate gun hypothesis" is particularly
relevant.

A snippet to whet your appetite...

* The clathrate gun hypothesis is the popular name given
* to the hypothesis that rises in sea temperatures (and/or
* falls in sea level) can trigger the sudden release of
* methane from methane clathrate compounds buried in
* seabeds and permafrost which, because the methane
* itself is a powerful greenhouse gas, leads to further
* temperature rise and further methane clathrate
* destabilization – in effect initiating a runaway process,
* as irreversible once started as the firing of a gun
* ...
* However there is stronger evidence that runaway methane
* clathrate breakdown may have caused drastic alteration of
* the ocean environment and the atmosphere of earth on a
* number of occasions in the past, over timescales of tens
* of thousands of years; most notably in connection with the
* Permian extinction event, when 96% of all marine species
* became extinct 251 million years ago.

Sounds pretty drastic to me!

Er! Did I say there hadn't been any mass extinctions?

You said close to that in your last sentence (see below) - to
within 4%, to be more "precise"

I included what you said - since you omitted it, here it is again.

On Jan 8, 12:42 pm, delboy wrote:
As the Earth has maintained reasonably stable temperatures (with
relatively minor variations) for billions of years, it must have
pretty good natural control and feedback mechanisms. Otherwise life on
it would have already died out.

------

There have been
lots of them, including the large dinosaurs (large meteorite strike?),
woolly mammoths (hunting, loss of habitat), dodos (stupid birds) and
even our near relatives the neanderthals (climate change - the last
ice age, probably nothing to do with CO2 emissions or methane
clathrates).

Straw man arguments - you are discussing points with yourself,
because I didn't make any such points.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I meant that all life forms on Earth would have been wiped out by a
really significant change in temperature, particularly on the hot
side! Some organisms and small creatures can survive being frozen for
a period. You brought up the multiple extinctions events.

Derek Copeland

On Jan 8, 4:26*am, Scott wrote:
Mark Jardini wrote:
While at one time it was valid to judge what was going on in the whole
world by what was happening in England, those days are passed. Your
local climate has little to say about what is globally in play with
climate. In fact, England should get a good deal colder with the
progression of global warming, the seas will dilute and the saline
gradient that drags warm water to your shores will cease to flow. It
would be catastrophic to many fisheries as well.

Mark Jardini

http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a

Thank you Scott. A voice of reason.

Mike Carris

I have been told that if lake Tahoe was emptied onto the entire state
of California it would cover the whole state 4 inches deep in water.
It hardly seems possible when seen from the air. The lake is so small
compared to the whole state.
Volumes, as oppposed to areas, can be very deceptive to the human eye
and mind.

The volume of ice on greenland would not seem to possibly be enough to
raise the oceans 2-3 feet. And yet it is. Things are quite commonly
not what they seem.

Mark Jardini

Add: John Coleman owns the weather channel. While this gives him a
forum from which to sound off, it is hardly "bona fides" for an
informed opinion on climate change.

mike wrote:
On Jan 8, 4:26 am, Scott wrote:
Mark Jardini wrote:
While at one time it was valid to judge what was going on in the whole
world by what was happening in England, those days are passed. Your
local climate has little to say about what is globally in play with
climate. In fact, England should get a good deal colder with the
progression of global warming, the seas will dilute and the saline
gradient that drags warm water to your shores will cease to flow. It
would be catastrophic to many fisheries as well.
Mark Jardini
http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a

Thank you Scott. A voice of reason.

Mike Carris

Ah yes, a weather talk by John Coleman.

After receiving his journalism degree in 1957, he became the weather
anchor for WMBD-TV in Peoria, Illinois. Coleman was also a weather
anchor for KETV in Omaha, WISN-TV in Milwaukee and then WBBM-TV and
WLS-TV in Chicago. He helped found the Weather Channel.

What weight can one possibly place on the 95% consensus of researchers
in the field against a media expert TV weather man?

Brian W

Mark Jardini wrote:
John Coleman owns the weather channel. While this gives him a
forum from which to sound off, it is hardly "bona fides" for an
informed opinion on climate change.


Be fair: he does have an undergraduate degree in Journalism, after all.

Brian W

brian whatcott wrote:
mike wrote:
On Jan 8, 4:26 am, Scott wrote:
Mark Jardini wrote:
While at one time it was valid to judge what was going on in the whole
world by what was happening in England, those days are passed. Your
local climate has little to say about what is globally in play with
climate. In fact, England should get a good deal colder with the
progression of global warming, the seas will dilute and the saline
gradient that drags warm water to your shores will cease to flow. It
would be catastrophic to many fisheries as well.
Mark Jardini
http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a

Thank you Scott. A voice of reason.

Mike Carris

Ah yes, a weather talk by John Coleman.

After receiving his journalism degree in 1957, he became the weather
anchor for WMBD-TV in Peoria, Illinois. Coleman was also a weather
anchor for KETV in Omaha, WISN-TV in Milwaukee and then WBBM-TV and
WLS-TV in Chicago. He helped found the Weather Channel.

What weight can one possibly place on the 95% consensus of researchers
in the field against a media expert TV weather man?

Brian W


His video was humorous, and would be a good subject for a class in
logical fallacies.

On Jan 8, 5:57*pm, Mark Jardini wrote:
I have been told that if lake Tahoe was emptied onto the entire state
of California it would cover the whole state 4 inches deep in water.
It hardly seems possible when seen from the air. The lake is so small
compared to the whole state.
Volumes, as oppposed to areas, can be very deceptive to the human eye
and mind.

The volume of ice on greenland would not seem to possibly be enough to
raise the oceans 2-3 feet. And yet it is. Things are quite commonly
not what they seem.

Mark Jardini

Add: John Coleman owns the weather channel. While this gives him a
forum from which to sound off, it is *hardly "bona fides" for an
informed opinion on climate change.

The USGS says a complete melt of the Greenland ice sheet would raise
sea level 6.5 meters or 21 feet - http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/ If
that melted, there would be enough ice melt elsewhere to double
that.

Of course, the temperature rise that would do that would cause the
ocean waters to expand enough to raise it another 200 feet or so
putting 80% of the homes in the world underwater.

That much ice melt would expose darker oceans and ground surface so
more of the sun's heat would be absorbed instead of reflected back to
space.

Like most of the climate variables, there's always pesky multiplier
effects which makes exact predictions extremely difficult.

On Jan 8, 7:11*pm, bildan wrote:
On Jan 8, 5:57*pm, Mark Jardini wrote:



I have been told that if lake Tahoe was emptied onto the entire state
of California it would cover the whole state 4 inches deep in water.
It hardly seems possible when seen from the air. The lake is so small
compared to the whole state.
Volumes, as oppposed to areas, can be very deceptive to the human eye
and mind.

The volume of ice on greenland would not seem to possibly be enough to
raise the oceans 2-3 feet. And yet it is. Things are quite commonly
not what they seem.

Mark Jardini

Add: John Coleman owns the weather channel. While this gives him a
forum from which to sound off, it is *hardly "bona fides" for an
informed opinion on climate change.

The USGS says a complete melt of the Greenland ice sheet would raise
sea level 6.5 meters or 21 feet -http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/*If
that melted, there would be enough ice melt elsewhere to double
that.

Of course, the temperature rise that would do that would cause the
ocean waters to expand enough to raise it another 200 feet or so
putting 80% of the homes in the world underwater.

That much ice melt would expose darker oceans and ground surface so
more of the sun's heat would be absorbed instead of reflected back to
space.

Like most of the climate variables, there's always pesky multiplier
effects which makes exact predictions extremely difficult.

Yikes!! I think I am going to build an arc....

mj