COP24 - Global catastrophe - climate change

Yes.

Ice heats up in a linear fashion. Add X calories of heat to a mass of Y tons and it will warm by Z degrees.
However, something very nonlinear happens when you start melting. To melt ice takes a lot of energy; the phase change absorbs energy without a change in temperature. (Which is why ice works better than, say, plastic cubes to keep things cool.) Thus you hit a plateau of 0 degrees C for a long time, until all the ice has melted. Then you go back to a linear relationship.

So it's actually the opposite of what you're thinking. You get warming until you hit the melting point of ice, then you have a slowdown in warming as the ice melts. This effect is usually barely noticeable because different part of an ice sheet melt at different rates, so at any given time you are seeing mostly solid ice and water with a little melting going on.
thanks...

billvon said:
Yes.
Ice heats up in a linear fashion. Add X calories of heat to a mass of Y tons and it will warm by Z degrees.
However, something very nonlinear happens when you start melting. To melt ice takes a lot of energy; the phase change absorbs energy without a change in temperature. (Which is why ice works better than, say, plastic cubes to keep things cool.) Thus you hit a plateau of 0 degrees C for a long time, until all the ice has melted. Then you go back to a linear relationship.
So it's actually the opposite of what you're thinking. You get warming until you hit the melting point of ice, then you have a slowdown in warming as the ice melts. This effect is usually barely noticeable because different part of an ice sheet melt at different rates, so at any given time you are seeing mostly solid ice and water with a little melting going on
Seconded..!!!

"I am always cautious about crying wolf. I think conservationists have to be careful in saying things are catastrophic when, in fact, they are less than catastrophic," he told The Independent in 2006. "Also, I'm not a chemist or a climatologist or a meteorologist; it isn't for me to suddenly stand up and say I have decided the climate is changing. That's not my expertise."
....
"Now I do not have any doubt at all," Attenborough said two years after that lecture. "One of the things I don't want to do is to look at my grandchildren and hear them say: 'Grandfather, you knew it was happening — and you did nothing.'"

he probably has some pretty reliable sources of scientific results put together by some of the worlds best scientists.
he also has journalistic integrity that spans decades.
i doubt he is about to jump on someone elses soap box just to get click bait.

while i resist throwing out a few prophanitys at the thought of someone trying to pass off Sir David Attenborough as an alarmist ... i will replace those with
"have they seen his documentarys?" all of them ?
i have.
i have also read dozens of scientific reports by scientists on the matter.
i have also watched documentarys on the issue made by scientists.

it appears to be the modern world equivilent of galileo being told
"no ! those are not stars!... and stop calling your telescope a telescope" "you dont know what your talking about"

the great barrier reef is now only about 45% left.
once its gone its going to wipe out migratory fish and mammal migration routes.
once that happens itsgoing to wipe out a considerable number of fish stocks.
more soo as over fishing goes to the last migratory patterns and directly targets those migratory patterns so they cant spawn.
then its all shit.

what state is the world going to be in if 50% of the worlds fish is wiped out in say 20 years(for arguement sake).
food riots ? governments being over thrown left right and centre...
piracy being the new black
protien starvation. over population of pigs and chickens spwaning massive pig & bird flue pandemics ?

doesnt take a genius to get an idea of whats going to happen
there is a lot of people who know jack shit about it and talk about things they know nothing about like some half baked alcoholic preacher who is dizzy & helucinating ranting at a pulpit..
its such a mockery i avoid it on the whole.

he probably has some pretty reliable sources of scientific results put together by some of the worlds best scientists.
he also has journalistic integrity that spans decades.
i doubt he is about to jump on someone elses soap box just to get click bait.

while i resist throwing out a few prophanitys at the thought of someone trying to pass off Sir David Attenborough as an alarmist ... i will replace those with
"have they seen his documentarys?" all of them ?
i have.
i have also read dozens of scientific reports by scientists on the matter.
i have also watched documentarys on the issue made by scientists.

it appears to be the modern world equivilent of galileo being told
"no ! those are not stars!... and stop calling your telescope a telescope" "you dont know what your talking about"

the great barrier reef is now only about 45% left.
once its gone its going to wipe out migratory fish and mammal migration routes.
once that happens itsgoing to wipe out a considerable number of fish stocks.
more soo as over fishing goes to the last migratory patterns and directly targets those migratory patterns so they cant spawn.
then its all shit.

what state is the world going to be in if 50% of the worlds fish is wiped out in say 20 years(for arguement sake).
food riots ? governments being over thrown left right and centre...
piracy being the new black
protien starvation. over population of pigs and chickens spwaning massive pig & bird flue pandemics ?

doesnt take a genius to get an idea of whats going to happen
there is a lot of people who know jack shit about it and talk about things they know nothing about like some half baked alcoholic preacher who is dizzy & helucinating ranting at a pulpit..
its such a mockery i avoid it on the whole.
totally agree....( except I would anticipate a much more imminent threat than 20 years, more like 5 years IMO)
what been bugging me lately is:
People trust science enough to get on a commercial jet and travel for many hours at 30,000+ and think nothing of it.
They trust science enough to fill their bodies full of medications, etc.
They trust science for just about every technological item in their houses and so on...
so why can't they trust the science of climate change and global warming?

totally agree....( except I would anticipate a much more imminent threat than 20 years, more like 5 years IMO)
what been bugging me lately is:
People trust science enough to get on a commercial jet and travel for many hours at 30,000+ and think nothing of it.
They trust science enough to fill their bodies full of medications, etc.
They trust science for just about every technological item in their houses and so on...
so why can't they trust the science of climate change and global warming?
I think the acceptance of global warming implies a paradigm shift in the way we look at global (and local ,no doubt) politics on many different fronts.

It is like the picture of the blue Earth in Space taken from the Moon on steroids. (and maybe the New Deal too ,if I knew more about it)

That may be why some people struggle against accepting the implications .

We are no longer political or economic islands. We cooperate or condemn the next generations to a worse (or catastrophic) future.

Science is never proven and so they can jump at the crumbs of plausibility which surely still exist (trumped in my mind by the principle of caution and the desirability of the road to be undertaken even if it was shown to be unnecessary )

"I am always cautious about crying wolf. I think conservationists have to be careful in saying things are catastrophic when, in fact, they are less than catastrophic," he told The Independent in 2006
Well that depends on your definition of catastrophic, no?

If 4 billion people died, that would still leave 3.7 billion people alive. Is that catastrophic?
IMO, it would be to 4 billion people........

The problem is that to the earth we are merely another critter.
Humans are upsetting the natural balance and earth will eventually deal with this "surface nuisance". It'll shrug us off like a bunch of fleas.
Carlin, (warning crude language)

Last edited:
Well that depends on your definition of catastrophic, no?

If 4 billion people died, that would still leave 3.7 billion people alive. Is that catastrophic?
IMO, it would be to 4 billion people........
I guess we shall find out soon enough....

so why can't they trust the science of climate change and global warming?

there are several issues at play
power & authority & how people relate to science as a school subject
The feeling of inferiority towards university educations
Political people attempting to avoid something that the public will force them to act on when they have no idea about the subject and are only interested in short term poll results about keeping in power.
feeding the disbelief is a mechanism of people exploiting those concepts to try and turn their own fear into a discredited subject that they can ignore and wont be called to act on.
also there are short term thinking busines people(and others who wish to keep their head in the sand and beleive its not true) who think they are rich enough to stand by and watch billions suffer and be financialy sitting on top and have the issue not effect them.
there is also religous beleifs and the mechanisms that seek to maintain power to keep getting their followers to give them money while pandering to the climate deniers who will accept their conservative backwards morals and enact laws that support their cult like thinking.

There are also social issues around pollution reduction and mechanisms of busines set up to make money off throw away plastic and such like.

why is no one talking about a plastic toy ban for christmas ? because you have parents who want a cheap easy fix on one side and the many companys who produce those and the jobs they support.

the largest consumer use of plastic is childrens toys and babys items.
everything has to be new for a baby. psychology of the parents & culture
plastic toys ... they are cheap and provide an easy cheap answer for toys for their kids to make the kids feel like they have something new.

the big production of Co2 is a corporate issue controlled by corporates and leaders.

The problem is that to the earth we are merely another critter.
Humans are upsetting the natural balance and earth will eventually deal with this "surface nuisance". It'll shrug us off like a bunch of fleas.
Carlin, (warning crude language)

A very fine speech . I do hope though that people do not use its arguments to adopt a passive acceptance of present (non) policy.

It is arguable that human civilization and culture is potentially the finest fruit of the planet and (to follow Carlin's perhaps personalization** of the planet ) it would be a bit disappointed if we did not rise to the challenge (not so hard really) and ....well that's it.

plus: whilst ridiculous to image our civilization transcending the planet in any practical sense (other than in our pursuit of knowledge) we still cannot ditch the concept--although we should strive for something worth bequeathing rather than for any arena to bequeath it to.

**he may have simply been turning the personalization of the planet of others he despises against themselves.

Well that depends on your definition of catastrophic, no?

If 4 billion people died, that would still leave 3.7 billion people alive. Is that catastrophic?
IMO, it would be to 4 billion people........

excellent point
look at all the illegal/ecconomic/war migrant issues and the alt-right nationalism rising to fend off all these millions of people.

many people beleive the world is over populated and as long as its not them, a shrinking of the world population is what they would like to see.
(very common belief)
the irony of that is in many places those leaders who refuse to act are the ones who are going to survive by spending working class taxes on themselves.

excellent point
look at all the illegal/ecconomic/war migrant issues and the alt-right nationalism rising to fend off all these millions of people.

many people beleive the world is over populated and as long as its not them, a shrinking of the world population is what they would like to see.
(very common belief)
as long as it isn't them that is a part of that mass reduction I guess they would be...
Climate change does not discriminate....
Co-operation is the only way for any chance at a future for any one IMO.

Here in Melbourne Australia there has been a noticeable increase/persistence in Humidity, even with medium to low temps. Increasing after sunset. No alarm bells yet but I don't think it will be long before we start to hear them. Our summer has only just begun.
Sydney even experienced low lying, long lasting sea fog which is fairly rare and too early this year.
Record rain fall recorded in may regions across the nation. ( significant record breaking at well)
The chances of seeing life threatening wet bulb temps this summer is very high. ( around mid January to early February) ~ based on my own observations....

Sydney Sea fog 2018

Show Ignored Content 12 more messages...

nah AH !

My understanding:
If you take an ice cube and subject it to >0 degree C temperature it is not only the outer surface that heats up.
The whole ice cube is absorbing heat leading to an exponential rate of melt as time progresses.
The Green Land ice sheet is the same as the ice cube. The whole sheet is heating up thus as time progresses the melt rate MUST be exponential.

...am I wrong in my lay understanding?

there may be some other factors also.
Given that ice crystals are in fact crystals and melting ice is probably liquid.
question: is the surface area of a melting ice cube/berg lump/glacier greater than when it is crystalised and not melting ?

The last big change was the difference between air-melting & sea water melting process.
thus the ocean being far faster by exponential factor at melting.
the subsiquent translational relationship increases its exponential effect as global ocean temps rise.
there is also the ash/dust/pollution falling on ice attracting more heat and the increase in greening of tundra melting permafrost.

Co-operation is the only way for any chance at a future for any one IMO.

unfortunately that is clearly not the case as known history teaches.
those who hold the most power & wealth survive.
the working class get eaten by the wealthy.

platitudes of egalitarian empathic prose fall on the ears of genocidal cannibals.

totally agree....( except I would anticipate a much more imminent threat than 20 years, more like 5 years IMO)
what been bugging me lately is:
People trust science enough to get on a commercial jet and travel for many hours at 30,000+ and think nothing of it.
They trust science enough to fill their bodies full of medications, etc.
They trust science for just about every technological item in their houses and so on...
so why can't they trust the science of climate change and global warming?
As Carlin says, corrective measures would inconvenience the people who have their own little habitat.

Australia BOM and CSRIO released their 5th biennial climate report ( 20/12/2018)
View attachment 2306
If interested the media report can be found here:
src: https://theconversation.com/state-of-the-climate-2018-bureau-of-meteorology-and-csiro-109001
I believe this is the inherent warning about man's role in global warming and climate change.
Multiple lines of evidence show the climate system changing in ways that are discernible from natural variability, and consistent with a human influence on climate. These changes are having an impact on our natural and built environment.
The problem is not that deniers deny climate change. They deny man's role in that development.

"role"
ok
therein lies the quantitative problem.
IMHO
The agw alarmist overplayed their hand and in the process lost all credibility.
Does that mean that their central premise is/was wrong?
Or.........................................................
In the best of all possible worlds, science should not be about seeking popularity via hyperbole.

and, then, we come to the possible changes via climate change
qualitative vs quantitative
corresponding to known paleoclimates..............or claiming that "this time is different".
If different, then how and why?

"role"
ok
therein lies the quantitative problem.
IMHO
The agw alarmist overplayed their hand and in the process lost all credibility.
Does that mean that their central premise is/was wrong?
Or.........................................................
In the best of all possible worlds, science should not be about seeking popularity via hyperbole.

and, then, we come to the possible changes via climate change
qualitative vs quantitative
corresponding to known paleoclimates..............or claiming that "this time is different".
If different, then how and why?
The study shows that human activity can be detected in the greater scheme and the evidence suggests that human activity plays a qualitative role in climate change.
Multiple lines of evidence show the climate system changing in ways that are discernible from natural variability, and consistent with a human influence on climate. These changes are having an impact on our natural and built environment.

I trust the science. I see no reason why anyone should invent human interference as a major contributor, unless the evidence was compelling.

Last edited:
sculptor
Why would a BOM contradict a standing government? There is no motive to promote a falsehood?