+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 52
Latest: Carnesia
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 16222
Total Topics: 264
Most Online Today: 3
Most Online Ever: 201
(December 08, 2019, 11:34:38 pm)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 0
Total: 0

Author Topic: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️  (Read 75355 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️
« Reply #360 on: October 29, 2015, 08:55:23 pm »
Part II of the Wave Article was very interesting!  :icon_sunny:

"We're going to need a smaller boat".  lol.

Now, if you had the available energy and resources to do it, the solution would be to stop building your Supertankers and Cargo Ships as Surface Vessels, but rather build them as large Submarines that operate at say around the 300' below mean sea level depth.  This would keep them out of the way of even the largest of rogue waves.

RE

I address that problem in PART THREE in the conclusions. The problem is rather intractable.

SNIPPET:

If the ships cannot handle the seas (NO ship is designed, or can cost effectively be designed, to handle anywhere near 100 tons per square meter of force on her hull), shipping itself will no longer be cost effective unless cargo ships morph into cargo submarines. The cost of doing that is staggering. Even if they designed them to ride just beneath the wave turbulence, they still would have to submerge to one half the wavelength of ocean waves.

Quote
Deep-Water Waves
If the water depth (d) is greater then the wave base (equal to one-half the wavelength, or L/2), the waves are called deep-water waves. Deep-water waves have no interference with the ocean bottom, so they include all wind-generated waves in the open ocean. Submarines can avoid large ocean waves by submerging below the wave basehttp://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/index.php?action=post2;start=0;board=2

PART THREE will be published by November 1. Expect Palloy to scoff.  ::)

So once again I am labelled with "defenders of the fossil fuel **** status quo", when what I am saying is that Peak Fossils will let us all down.  That's the FIFTH time you've done it, since I put you right.  Maybe you don't have any other response to criticism of your methodology.  I'm NOT arguing from the point of view that Climate Change isn't true.  I'm NOT arguing that the models are wrong (although you are).   I'm arguing that Peak Fossils makes all IPCC's (and your) predictions of fossil fuel burning WRONG.

Not only WILL Peak Fossils let down BAU, but it will let down RCP8.5, RCP6.0, RCP4.5 and RCP2.6 and all IPCC's forecasts, even though the models are strictly correct.  It's all a case of Garbage In, Garbage Out - Fossil Fuel production rates will be nothing like what they forecast.  What is it about that that you don't understand ?

Look at the charts I provided and answer the questions beneath them.

I HAVE looked at the charts. YOU apparently HAVEN'T.  Get this, pal, your assertion that the collapse is going to take care of the warming trend is not based on GHG climate cause and effect science.

You pull out the IPCC RCP scenarios showing LESS burning of fossil fuels as some kind of "proof" that the RCP-8.5 scenario is "alarmist".

Which shows how biased you are when you LOOK at the scenarios. Yes, the ICPP set up those scenarios BASED ON the tons of CO2 entering the atmosphere. But the COMBINATION of different fossil fuels used in decreasing quantities that they point to in the scenarios besides the RCP-8.5 "Business as Usual" (THEIR TERM, NOT MINE!) is IRRELEVANT because their modeled AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASE EXCLUDES METHANE CLATHRATES and a greater than 6 METER sea level rise.

YOU claim that "IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN" because of the collapse.

Let's be clear about the FALSE CORRELATION you are setting up between the coming collapse, something we both agree will happen, and the REDUCTION in AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASE.

You labor under the incredibly, and unscientific, optimistic view that the PRESENT 400PPM of CO2 is no big deal.

The Dutton et al paper alone, published in July of this year, is evidence that the RCP-8.5 scenario, you know ,the one you call "alarmist", is TOO CONSERVATIVE.

And it's not too conservative because of the math on what combination of fossil fuels is used or sh it canned, as you want to believe with all your might, but because the CO2PPM in the atmosphere AT PRESENT will lead us to ΔT = 4C within 85 years, EVEN IF WE STOP BURNING ALL FOSSIL FUELS TODAY!

You do not get that. You do not want to get that. You think the collapse will take care of the warming issue. You point at all the happy math PROJECTIONS by the IPCC as some kind of "proof". Good luck with that.

And no, I am NOT basing all my projections on the IPCC-8.5 Business as Usual scenario. I am basing them on Hansen et al and Dutton et al!

I agree that we will not be able to burn the fossil fuels in that scenario, as well as the other scenarios you brought up,  due to the coming collapse.

As of NOW, we are locked in to a HIGHER average global temperature than even the IPCC-8.5 scenario projects. The CORRELATION between CO2 concentration and average global temperature is so ridiculously optimistic in that scenario that it is pathetic.

You are free to hang on to your quaint belief that the reduction in the combination of fossil fuels used due to the collapse will take care of the temperature increase. But Hansen et al and Dutton et al make a mockery of that bit of wishful thinking.

And, so far, you haven't even provided any evidence of a reduction in the RATE of INCREASE of CO2 pollution, never mind the increase itself. So all you have is a false correlation/equivalence between the different RCPs the IPCC has modeled and the increase or not of global temperature.

Because of positive feedbacks, the modeling departed a scientifically valid correlation/causation after the turn of the century (possibly earlier).

THIS (see below) is the present global reality. When you can show me that has changed, we can discuss when the temperature increase SLOPE is going to BEGIN to flatten. I can guarantee you that it will NOT be in less than one or two CENTURIES! 

Nearly 7,000,000,000 MT of CO2 has been pumped into the atmosphere year to date!

Crude oil production year to date is over 26 billon barrels!

Coal is over 6 billion MT!

And only a TINY bit of ethanol is being produced in comparison.   


Stats at link.
http://www.poodwaddle.com/worldclock/env3/

Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

 

+-Recent Topics

Experts Knew a Pandemic Was Coming. Here’s What They’re Worried About Next. by Surly1
May 12, 2020, 07:46:22 am

Doomstead Diner Daily by Surly1
May 12, 2020, 07:40:17 am

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 11:47:35 pm

Money by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 11:27:30 pm

Creeping Police State by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 10:35:38 pm

COVID-19 🏴☠️ Pandemic by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 10:19:30 pm

Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 10:07:28 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 09:54:48 pm

🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️ by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 09:10:24 pm

Intelligent Design by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 06:38:41 pm