Global warming basics.

[exchemist]

Soooo...how much has the globe warmed since Al Gore started making millions of dollars promoting this nonsense?





Sooo...how much has the troposphere warmed up since Al Gore started making millions promoting this nonsense?

Sooo........what you need to do is look at the CO2 level since about 1800 and then at the temperature. Dragging a US politician into it just suggests you are yet another of these denialists who start from a political stance and then try to arrange - or discredit - the science to fit. Needless to say, that is not how science works.

 

[exchemist]

The water is rising in Holland. They better take swimming lessons before coming here

No, the immigrants are only coming here because F.Timmermans decided that Europe needs to become multi-racial
and he decided that in the coming years 60 million are invited to come to Europe (so population increase of ca. 20%)
That is for real. Climate change will not change that. I hope common sense will be put in his mind soon.

The only Dutch going to the USA are the people who know how to build dykes properly and can make money by advising New Orleans. They have invested massively, billions, over the last decade, in defences against sea level rise. They have a thousand years of experience at this and can see it is not a joke.

The immigrants will not be from there but people from poor countries like Bangladesh - or those displaced by their movement, as possibly people displaced by the growth of deserts.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

The only Dutch going to the USA are the people who know how to build dykes properly and can make money by advising New Orleans. They have invested massively, billions, over the last decade, in defences against sea level rise. They have a thousand years of experience at this and can see it is not a joke.

The immigrants will not be from there but people from poor countries like Bangladesh - or those displaced by their movement, as possibly people displaced by the growth of deserts.

Don't forget people fleeing the inevitable water wars

 

[stvdv]

They're coming there because their own countries are becoming less livable. If you don't like the current trickle, just wait until the floodgates open.

I do not think so. Their countries have been "less livable" for centuries IMO. Not just happening now.
They are coming now, because thanks to EU there are no borders to close anymore. Walking in is much easier.
D.Trump is learning quick, wanting to build a wall.

And if the rich Arab states don't help them, are we obliged to help them?
And if the rich Arab states don't help them, should we still call Islam the religion of peace and love?
Islam talks with split tongue. Even Koran says in verse 5:51 explicitly that Muslims should NOT take refuge in Christian countries but in Muslim countries
[This verse 5:51 is proof that Koran is wrong or Islam is hypocritical. They can pick 1 of the 2. But Western world should stop them coming unless they make up their mind and their koran]

I believe it is better to help them to help themselves. Especially when understanding Koran verse 5:51. Muslim countries are hypocritical now. Or have hidden agenda
It is plain stupid IMHO to think that such different cultures can be mixed without big troubles (5% increase okay, don't make it more than 20%)

 

[stvdv]

The only Dutch going to the USA are the people who know how to build dykes properly and can make money by advising New Orleans. They have invested massively, billions, over the last decade, in defences against sea level rise. They have a thousand years of experience at this and can see it is not a joke.

The immigrants will not be from there but people from poor countries like Bangladesh - or those displaced by their movement, as possibly people displaced by the growth of deserts.

Hypothetically: If there is 1 small country left on the face of the earth where humans have the best way of living. Should all 7 billion be allowed to move there? If not Then ....

Immigration on large scale is an delusion. Makes no sense and will only create disaster. Takes no genius to see that. But soon they will understand and stop this

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I do not think so. Their countries have been "less livable" for centuries IMO. Not just happening now.
They are coming now, because thanks to EU there are no borders to close anymore. Walking in is much easier.
D.Trump is learning quick, wanting to build a wall.

And if the rich Arab states don't help them, are we obliged to help them?
And if the rich Arab states don't help them, should we still call Islam the religion of peace and love?
Islam talks with split tongue. Even Koran says in verse 5:51 explicitly that Muslims should NOT take refuge in Christian countries but in Muslim countries
[This verse 5:51 is proof that Koran is wrong or Islam is hypocritical. They can pick 1 of the 2. But Western world should stop them coming unless they make up their mind and their koran]

I believe it is better to help them to help themselves. Especially when understanding Koran verse 5:51. Muslim countries are hypocritical now. Or have hidden agenda
It is plain stupid IMHO to think that such different cultures can be mixed without big troubles (5% increase okay, don't make it more than 20%)

You keep telling yourself that. Maybe your ideology will win over their survival instinct. I mean, it COULD happen.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some people deny God, others deny global warming. I think it's a human thing to deny. Some people are "just in denial".

About global warming I do not know. But about Holland warming I know. At least 2 degrees UP since the last 20 years
And I love this "Holland warming". I am quite skinny and these extra 2 degrees I welcome very much. No complaining
Less rainy days, but more intense. Snow and ice almost finished here. No snakes/sharks/spiders/Hurricanes, so here
it's very relaxed living. Recently we do have quite a lot of immigrants, that is our challenge. Nature is easy on us so far

Quite a bit of the Netherlands are already below sea level. How is Holland set up for sea level rise?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Hypothetically: If there is 1 small country left on the face of the earth where humans have the best way of living. Should all 7 billion be allowed to move there? If not Then ....

Immigration on large scale is an delusion. Makes no sense and will only create disaster. Takes no genius to see that. But soon they will understand and stop this

Yep, because 7 billion moving to one small country is a reasonable description of what's happening.

The point, since you seem to be missing it, is to correct environmental degradation and reverse it where possible, so you don't have to worry about mass migration. But if you would rather persist with this dichotomous "us vs. them, build a wall, they all live in deserts anyway" nonsense rather than acknowledging climate change as one of the great disruptive forces in human history, I can't stop you.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Quite a bit of the Netherlands are already below sea level. How is Holland set up for sea level rise?

Ignore it and blame immigrants, apparently.

 

[stvdv]

You keep telling yourself that. Maybe your ideology will win over their survival instinct. I mean, it COULD happen.

Immigrants will continue coming until our "survival instincts" will win over their "survival instinct". Might take some time + extra Muhammad drawing contests

 

[stvdv]

Quite a bit of the Netherlands are already below sea level. How is Holland set up for sea level rise?

I am lucky, my house is 2 meter above. But my parents are below (14 km West), even 5 km East is below sea level. 1/3 is below sea. 2/3 of Holland is vulnerable to flooding.
I just read an article that we have enough knowledge in Holland to manage a sea level rise of 2-3 meters. All reports say different things. I just read that in the next 100 years probably 2-3 meter rise. But in year 2500 maybe 15 meter. That would mean "Holland finito" seems to me. I took care of that "no children".

So far we have no hurricanes nor tsunamis. If these will happen, I think there is not much they can do [they didn't calculate such changes I guess]. It's all karma. Till 1900 humans did not abuse the earth so much. That changed a lot. We abuse the earth resources immensely now and this will bite as in the ***. Not bad or good, just cause and effect. Natural Laws or karma. So obvious major chances are bound to happen. That is life, that is creation.

Holland sold lots of gas. Now earth quakes start happening. If water comes they can maybe fill up those holes first. I think we can not predict much. Small chances can have huge effects. And humans know hardly anything, only what they see. But when changes start, all new unknown effects will happen. And to anticipate those will be impossible seems to me.

I was really lucky to be born now. For 100 years we had a very comfortable life here in Holland:
About 100 year ago people lived in holes under the ground in the place where I live now
About 100 years from now people need to be swimming like fish it seems

So in short: I think Holland will disappear from the world map within 2 or 3 centuries.
What to do? Reincarnate in another country is the best option. Don't make Dutch babies.

 

[stvdv]

So people coming here from the Sahara [immigrants] better think twice.
They might be in for a big surprise and a big change. Need to bring their boats and swimming suit.
The mirage they have seen in the Sahara might become too real for them. Maybe the Sahara is not so bad after all.
I mean, swimming in cold water is not my favorite pass time. Dutch water is really cold. But we do not have sharks or morenes (yet)

 

[stvdv]

Yep, because 7 billion moving to one small country is a reasonable description of what's happening.

The point, since you seem to be missing it, is to correct environmental degradation and reverse it where possible, so you don't have to worry about mass migration. But if you would rather persist with this dichotomous "us vs. them, build a wall, they all live in deserts anyway" nonsense rather than acknowledging climate change as one of the great disruptive forces in human history, I can't stop you.

I am realistic:
1): The example of 1 country illustration: you totally missed the point I was making.

2): I never missed any points. I never said I "do not acknowledge climate change". Again I am realistic. There are limits to building and protecting against sea level rise.

I do my little contribution to not burden the earth. I have no car/motorbike. Very small house, no wife/kids. Minimum burden to the earth. If all lived like me the world burden would be much less (some have 2 cars per family; no judgment, just observation. All is karma. It is what it is). So that is how simple I live.

Holland is a very, very, very small country. If big countries mess up, the effect will impact Holland. Nothing they can do against that. You have to except reality. Some parts are 7 meter below sea level. Rise of 3 meters can be handled. Above that you need a boat. And when tsunamis come or hurricanes than you will be finito.

 

[BSM1]

I don't understand your skepticism, BSM. Why do you doubt the data, observations, and physics?

They were stupid questions. Surely you can do better than that.

Go back to the start of the thread and read up on the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. There is nothing at all controversial there. Or are you the same as the creationists? Science scares them too.

I understand somewhat. I could not stand Al Gore either. I still don't like him. But hating someone is a very poor reason to oppose a scientific idea. I got over my dislike of Al Goer enough to see that he was right as far as AGW goes.

Just one simple question: How much has the globe warmed up since this nonsense started in 1999? The proof is in the pudding, or so they say.

 

[BSM1]

Sooo........what you need to do is look at the CO2 level since about 1800 and then at the temperature. Dragging a US politician into it just suggests you are yet another of these denialists who start from a political stance and then try to arrange - or discredit - the science to fit. Needless to say, that is not how science works.

Sooo...how much has the globe warmed up since 1999, say?

 

[exchemist]

Sooo...how much has the globe warmed up since 1999, say?

We'll deal with that (if necessary) after you have dealt with the comparison I proposed, which is a long enough time series to see any trends since man-made CO2 started to impact the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. It has risen, as you may know, from about 280ppm in 1800 to about 400ppm today.
Current & Historical Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Levels Graph

And the global temperature over the same time period looks like this:
Current & Historical Global Temperature Graph

As anybody with any brains will realise, a shorter time series will tend to have a worse signal/noise ratio, due to the influence of shorter term influences such as as volcanic eruptions, changes in stratospheric water vapour levels and so on.

Soooo.......... if you think that you can undermine the argument by cherry-picking a short period that does not show the trend so clearly, you must either ( a ) think we are idiots or, ( b ) be one yourself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just one simple question: How much has the globe warmed up since this nonsense started in 1999? The proof is in the pudding, or so they say.

That is not When it started. It began in roughly 1900. At least that is when man began to have a measurable effect. And that change is around one degree Celsius.

 

[exchemist]

I don't doubt that spewing carbon into the air is less than idea, but I also am against it to some degree because it's exceptionally difficult to remove from the air. It is, however, less than ten percent of the greenhouse gases and human output is just a fraction of that. If we were going for solutions to this we'd have to switch off all fossil fuel and murder all/most cows. (They emit ridiculous quantities of these gases as all ruminating livestock do.)

My concern isn't in a global shift of temp a few degrees higher, that'd have no drastic non-survivable effect. My concern is that the oil and coal supply are finite and the cost scale will inflate to astronomical country-destroying proportions as time goes on. Right now, we have time to deal with this, but even something as simple as going all electric on vehicles and switching to clean power takes over 25 years to take effect. Most vehicles last 20 years in the wild, so there is a significant lag between implementation and the desired goal.

Many fossil fuel companies now fear they may be left with resources in the ground that they cannot sell, due to the decline in demand for fossil fuel driven by climate change countermeasures. This is almost certainly going to be true of coal, as it is useless for transport fuel. So you may find the stuff becomes dirt cheap, as nobody wants it! So much for the "Peak Oil" catastrophists, eh?

As for the effect of a "few degrees", don't be naive. The effects will not simply be a temperature change. The will be (already is) a shift towards more extreme weather, - even Australia, a bastion of coal export and hence of climate change scepticism is becoming convinced it is real and happening now - a likely change in what crops can be grown where, a change in the patterns of desertification and, not least, a rise in sea level. The effects of these on humanity and on the wider ecosystem could be considerable.

 

[exchemist]

Just one simple question: How much has the globe warmed up since this nonsense started in 1999? The proof is in the pudding, or so they say.

You might at least get your sayings right. The proof isn't in the pudding, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. 'The proof of the pudding' - the meaning and origin of this phrase

 

[sayak83]

We'll deal with that (if necessary) after you have dealt with the comparison I proposed, which is a long enough time series to see any trends since man-made CO2 started to impact the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. It has risen, as you may know, from about 280ppm in 1800 to about 400ppm today.
Current & Historical Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Levels Graph

And the global temperature over the same time period looks like this:
Current & Historical Global Temperature Graph

As anybody with any brains will realise, a shorter time series will tend to have a worse signal/noise ratio, due to the influence of shorter term influences such as as volcanic eruptions, changes in stratospheric water vapour levels and so on.

Soooo.......... if you think that you can undermine the argument by cherry-picking a short period that does not show the trend so clearly, you must either ( a ) think we are idiots or, ( b ) be one yourself.

Not only that, the mean temperature of 1999 was extremely high compared to everything that came before, and the first of the really high temperature peaks that have become the norm over the last decade. BSM's choice of 1999 clearly shows his complete and total dishonesty when Global Warming is the issue.
Let me emphasize the data.

Anybody who is not dishonest sees clearly the increase in mean global temperature over the decades, getting more and more accentuated in the recent years.