OT: The Tipping Point

Nov 15, 2024 Last reply: 1 year ago 17 Replies

A few years ago, we were told that an increase in global temperature of 1.5° C over and above the average temperature of the previous X years (I forget how many) is the 'tipping point' beyond which there'd be no return, and the temperature would run away and global warming would be self perpetuating.



The global temperature is going to exceed 1.5° this year, apparently. So to quote Private Frazer (the dour old Scottish undertaker of Dad's Army fame) "We're doomed, Mr Mainwaring, doomed, I say".



If we continue to exceed the 'tipping point', as we almost certainly will, and temperatures start to rise of their own accord, then all the efforts being made to control them will be to no avail. Thermal runaway is about to set it, and there's no longer any point in trying to control it. All the wind generators, solar panels electric cars and exotic storage batteries designed to reduce our CO2 emissions are a waste of time and money. It's now going to happen anyway, so let's spend the money on something else.



Or perhaps the alarmists have got it hopelessly wrong from the beginning!


Yes, the climate activists tell us the planet is ‘heating’ and that the poles are warming fastest. Yet, winds are driven by the temperature difference between the equator in the poles. Wind speeds will fall as a result of the ‘heating’. So why are we paying £billions to install yet more windmills?

Tree rings and ice cores show that both temperature and carbon dioxide levels have been much higher in the past. Why didn't it get stuck there?

A moment's thought will show that whatever the Earth's climate mechanism is, a model containing a positive feedback term is never going to come close to representing it.

That side of the argument has been done with some vigour by Bjorn Lomberg in The Skeptical Environmentalist over 20 years ago. Available for a couple of quid second hand.

There's lots ot tipping points, my "favourite " is collapse of the WAIS, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, because it will be so obvious. With less and less sea-ice protecting its periphery from stressing by storms etc, see

formatting link
Antarctic section shows less Antarctic sea-ice this early november than and other such November period in the satellite era. Could collapse tomorrow or next century. But the WAIS been buttressing run off from all those land based kilometre high glaciers , which will accelerate to the sea, rather than the present snail pace. Then rapid global sea level rise , eventally something like 70 metres above present sea levels. Unrecoverable for centuries

Google Earth tells me I have buildable land at 80m above current sea level. Any offers?

>

Not really. I left the Cambridgeshire Fens where I lived 3 foot *below* sea level to buy a house in Suffolk 300 ft above

The old house is still there after 30 years...

Unless you have dammed up fresh water well above sea level you are not going to get very rapid sea level rises. Ice takes time to melt.

The rate of sea level ruse has not changed in centuries

It’ll be unrecoverable until the next ice age kicks in, perhaps some

10-12000 years from now.

Just how did those fossilised trees with metre-diameter trunks that were found in the Arctic (Canada and Norway) get there in the first place?

Or the trees revealed by the retreating glaciers 'that prove global warming', got there - since they are only a few hundred years old.

The global warming narrative is as full of holes as a Scotsman's socks

Climate changes. It really is that simple.

And rather than wasting all our energy arguing about *why* (as if we had any hope of affecting it) it would be a f*ck sake more useful to put our (i.e. humanities) resources into ways to live with it.

All the arsing about in the world with the scam that is "net zero" (code for keep the peasants poor) won't matter a cent if any one of a number of grumbling volcanoes decides todays the day.

Or why was there a forest in the North Sea (Doggerland). I'm sure the the sea level rose a long time before the industrial revolution.

The world used to be all over the place if you go back far enough, but in the last half million years or so it hasn't moved around much, and climatic changes are currently thought to be caused by minor variations in planetary orbits.

Note: solar systems are not inherently stable, they are chaotic... we have not yet reached the technological level of moving planets around, and if the globalists have their way, we will never develop technology much beyond what we have today.

I think that is an Inconvenient Truth…

Wasn't the English Channel created by a tsunami c 7,000-6,000 BCE ?

The tsunami itself was due to an underwater earthquake somewhere up around Greenland ?

Again, all the net zero bollocks in the world ain't gonna deal with something like that.

Doesn't the water from a tsunami drain back off of the land after a short while?

You're thinking of the Storegga slide of about that date. AIUI the English channel was formed many thousands of years before Storegga.

formatting link

Nobody is really sure what triggered it.

Most of Doggerland (where the North Sea is now) was dry land. 450,000 years ago there was a land bridge to Europe where the Dover Straits are now, and a huge lake in what is now the southern part of the North Sea, with water draining into it from the Rhine, the Thames etc, until it eventually broke through the Dover land bridge and a massive torrent rushed down the English Channel, scouring the sea floor, the evidence for which is still there.

formatting link
formatting link

formatting link
formatting link

Coming out of the younger Dryas Greenland ice shows a 9°C rise in under

50 years. That was about 8000 years ago I think. 170 metres sea level rise around then too.

Dont think that created the English channel.

Did a lot of damage to Scandinavia and Scotland

I think Norway . Storegga slides

Nor of Yellowstone erupting or an asteroid strike or another Tambora, or Krakatoa

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required