What the World Will Look Like 4°C Warmer

[JM_]

4 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Richmond is under water for sure.  Tswwassan is an Island.

the wife and i have been considering selling our place in Vancouver and moving to Whistler, but not if there's no snow! I might have to bunk with Smithers Joe. 

[canuckster19]

31 minutes ago, S'all Good Man said:

the wife and i have been considering selling our place in Vancouver and moving to Whistler, but not if there's no snow! I might have to bunk with Smithers Joe. 

Where did you come from, where did you go?

[Jägermeister]

2 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

Out of curiosity, how much of the World today is uninhabitable?

Interesting question, quick Google search didn't really give me any solid answers though.

 

[RRypien37]

3 hours ago, canuckster19 said:

Yeah and all those displaced people are going to magically adopt the culture of the place they move to. 

Yeah, I mean it's working great for Europe right?? Right?

[Ryan Strome]

7 minutes ago, Jägermeister said:

Interesting question, quick Google search didn't really give me any solid answers though.

 

I know, I'm wondering if the land we gain will be more then what we lose or Will it be less.

[HerrDrFunk]

 

[Kragar]

6 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

Out of curiosity, how much of the World today is uninhabitable?

Too many Surrey jokes... must keep focused on work.

[Nuxfanabroad]

I guess if we can stick ice rinks in the desert, surely Nicklaus can re-design Pebble Beach in Svalbard?

[Heretic]

This is an interesting article:

 

Chemistry Expert: Carbon Dioxide Can’t Cause Global Warming

Published on February 9, 2017

Written by Dr Mark Imisides (Industrial Chemist)

 

Scarcely a day goes by without us being warned of coastal inundation by rising seas due to global warming.

Why on earth do we attribute any heating of the oceans to carbon dioxide, when there is a far more obvious culprit, and when such a straightforward examination of the thermodynamics render it impossible.

 

Carbon dioxide, we are told, traps heat that has been irradiated by the oceans, and this warms the oceans and melts the polar ice caps. While this seems a plausible proposition at first glance, when one actually examines it closely a major flaw emerges.

In a nutshell, water takes a lot of energy to heat up, and air doesn’t contain much. In fact, on a volume/volume basis, the ratio of heat capacities is about 3300 to 1. This means that to heat 1 litre of water by 1˚C it would take 3300 litres of air that was 2˚C hotter, or 1 litre of air that was about 3300˚C hotter!

This shouldn’t surprise anyone. If you ran a cold bath and then tried to heat it by putting a dozen heaters in the room, does anyone believe that the water would ever get hot?

The problem gets even stickier when you consider the size of the ocean. Basically, there is too much water and not enough air.

The ocean contains a colossal 1,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 litres of water! To heat it, even by a small amount, takes a staggering amount of energy. To heat it by a mere 1˚C, for example, an astonishing 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy are required.

Let’s put this amount of energy in perspective. If we all turned off all our appliances and went and lived in caves, and then devoted every coal, nuclear, gas, hydro, wind and solar power plant to just heating the ocean, it would take a breathtaking 32,000 years to heat the ocean by just this 1˚C!

In short, our influence on our climate, even if we really tried, is miniscule!

So it makes sense to ask the question – if the ocean were to be heated by ‘greenhouse warming’ of the atmosphere, how hot would the air have to get? If the entire ocean is heated by 1˚C, how much would the air have to be heated by to contain enough heat to do the job?

Well, unfortunately for every ton of water there is only a kilogram of air. Taking into account the relative heat capacities and absolute masses, we arrive at the astonishing figure of 4,000˚C.

That is, if we wanted to heat the entire ocean by 1˚C, and wanted to do it by heating the air above it, we’d have to heat the air to about 4,000˚C hotter than the water.

And another problem is that air sits on top of water – how would hot air heat deep into the ocean? Even if the surface warmed, the warm water would just sit on top of the cold water.

Thus, if the ocean were being heated by ‘greenhouse heating’ of the air, we would see a system with enormous thermal lag – for the ocean to be only slightly warmer, the land would have to be substantially warmer, and the air much, much warmer (to create the temperature gradient that would facilitate the transfer of heat from the air to the water).

Therefore any measurable warmth in the ocean would be accompanied by a huge and obvious anomaly in the air temperatures, and we would not have to bother looking at ocean temperatures at all.

So if the air doesn’t contain enough energy to heat the oceans or melt the ice caps, what does?

The earth is tilted on its axis, and this gives us our seasons. When the southern hemisphere is tilted towards the sun, we have more direct sunlight and more of it (longer days). When it is tilted away from the sun, we have less direct sunlight and less of it (shorter days).

The direct result of this is that in summer it is hot and in winter it is cold. In winter we run the heaters in our cars, and in summer the air conditioners. In winter the polar caps freeze over and in summer 60-70% of them melt (about ten million square kilometres). In summer the water is warmer and winter it is cooler (ask any surfer).

All of these changes are directly determined by the amount of sunlight that we get. When the clouds clear and bathe us in sunlight, we don’t take off our jumper because of ‘greenhouse heating’ of the atmosphere, but because of the direct heat caused by the sunlight on our body. The sun’s influence is direct, obvious, and instantaneous.

If the enormous influence of the sun on our climate is so obvious, then, by what act of madness do we look at a variation of a fraction of a percent in any of these variables, and not look to the sun as the cause?

Why on earth (pun intended) do we attribute any heating of the oceans to carbon dioxide, when there is a far more obvious culprit, and when such a straightforward examination of the thermodynamics render it impossible.

****

Dr. Mark Imisides is an industrial chemist with extensive experience in the chemical industry, encompassing manufacturing, laboratory management, analysis, waste management, dangerous goods and household chemistry. He currently has a media profile in The West Australian newspaper and on Today Tonight. For a sample of his work visit www.drchemical.com.au

 

 

 

http://principia-scientific.org/chemistry-expert-carbon-dioxide-cant-cause-global-warming/

[Slegr]

People have always been so negative about climate change, which is very strange when Canada seemingly has a lot to gain. Most of our country currently is inhabitable. 75% of our population is within 100 miles of the US border. If it does warm up by several degrees, our country could become a world power down the road. We could be growing all kinds of fruits and veggies where there was only ice before. True leaders will tell you that change is good. Embrace it. Keep your car running longer. Don't turn off the lights just because you're leaving a room. Keep the water running when you're brushing your teeth. You're helping your country! 

[CBH1926]

On June 14, 2017 at 11:07 AM, canuckster19 said:

Yeah and all those displaced people are going to magically adopt the culture of the place they move to. 

Absolutely, entire Sweden is going to look like Rosengård, Rinkeby, Tensta, Fitja.

[Tortorella's Rant]

yeah. It involves me bitching a lot more than I already do when it's hot. Between 0 and 10 degrees is nice. 15 is about my limit. Beyond that is bull$&!#.

[apollo]

So I should be buying land in northern Canada?

[clam linguine]

On 6/21/2017 at 6:17 PM, RUPERTKBD said:

Let's see.....who to believe....a random guy on the internet with garbage "sources"....or one of the finest scientific minds of the past 100 years.....

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/stephen-hawking-says-earth-is-under-threat-and-humans-need-to-leave/ar-BBD03GP?li=AAggNb9

 

I wonder if Hawking would answer the question, or would he change the subject or strike out in anger.

 

On 6/21/2017 at 7:59 PM, PhillipBlunt said:

What's the insult? If you choose to piss in the wind, that's your choice. No one is forcing you to. 

 

You really have a victim complex, vongole. You see, there's no point refuting a point that isn't sound. 

 

Next!

You suggest I drink my own urine. The usual intelligence from Al Gore's devotees.

 

What's the human CO2 contribution to GHGs?  Is it less than 1% or greater. It's a simple question you seem to fear. Check out the @Heretic article above while you're here.

[clam linguine]

14 hours ago, nuckin_futz said:

I don't care to wade into debates on climate change but this is relevant to a discussion/argument over the last few pages. ..........

 

In testy letter, scientists tell Rick Perry he lacks 'fundamental understanding' of climate science

 

Weather scientists with the American Meteorological Society sent Energy Secretary Rick Perry a letter on Wednesday, hoping to educate him on climate change.

 

The letter came after Perry said during an interview with CNBC that he does not think carbon dioxide plays a primary role in contributing to climate change. This shows he lacks a "fundamental understanding of the science," the scientists said, and it is "critically important that you understand that emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are the primary cause. This is a conclusion based on the comprehensive assessment of scientific evidence. It is based on multiple independent lines of evidence that have been affirmed by thousands of independent scientists and numerous scientific institutions around the world."

 

The letter included the AMS' current statement on climate change, and asserted that if Perry does not understand what's behind climate change, "it is impossible to discuss potential policy changes in a meaningful way."

 

http://theweek.com/speedreads/707479/testy-letter-scientists-tell-rick-perry-lacks-fundamental-understanding-climate-science

 

13 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

This has be known for years. 

 

13 hours ago, nuckin_futz said:

Then feel free to explain it to the one defending Perry's expertise in this thread.

 

P.S. Congrats on the trade.

Maybe I'm a climate scientist and maybe I have a climate scientist buddy. Maybe we should send Perry a letter to pat him on the back. Maybe it will be reported by in the tank media?

 

Maybe I would send said letter because I am one of 20% of climate scientists who refuse to sell out or the 40% who don't fully endorse the theory. Is that a bad thing?

 

How do you explain the idea that reducing 0.5% of GHG emissions by a small amount will save the planet? Corrupt institutions never will show man made and natural GHG data on the same page because for them... it's an inconvenient truth.

[Ryan Strome]

8 hours ago, clam linguine said:

 

 

Maybe I'm a climate scientist and maybe I have a climate scientist buddy. Maybe we should send Perry a letter to pat him on the back. Maybe it will be reported by in the tank media? Maybe I would send said letter because I am one of 20% of climate scientists who refuse to sell out or the 40% who don't fully endorse the theory. Is that a bad thing?

 

How do you explain the idea that reducing 0.5% of GHG emissions by a small amount will save the planet? Corrupt institutions never will show man made and natural GHG data on the same page because for them... it's an inconvenient truth.

I wouldn't get into any of this I just think Perry is a tool.