Ice Melt

[Egon]

If human nature is a disease on this planet...why are we here?

Think about that and get back to me...

If you are a disease elimination should be in order.

 

[EddieWalker]

Eddie, I'll try to reply to you with an appropriate amount of respect. I really do enjoy your posts on this site and find your knowledge of building and ranching super helpful. So I just can't understand why you would be disciplined and honest with those topics, but so prone to far right-wing conspiracy theories when it comes to climate.

Pincipia Scientific is a known climate change denial site. They have a clear agenda to intentionally discredit any evidence of climate change, and publish a lot of totally bunk stuff.
Principia Scientific International (PSI) - Media Bias/Fact Check

NASA may not always be perfect in their data or methods, but they use real data and science. Maybe if their budget didn't keep getting cut they could do even better.

Per your other statement earlier, there is simply NOT increased ice mass at the poles. There was some temporary increase in thin ice area coverage due to increased precipitation rates. Global ICE mass is decreasing rapidly, without question. we have the real data. Global mean surface temperature and ocean temperature is going up. We have the real data. C'mon man, research this stuff a bit more objectively, rather than latch on to the confirmation bias sources right away.

Our world's scientific community overwhelmingly agrees that this is a major problem and deserves some attention. A side benefit will be improved human health due to less pollution. We can create a ton of new jobs transitioning to clean energy sources, and solve the various engineering problems inherent in this necessary switch. Whats the downside? You might have to think about your energy use a little?

I've learned that if somebody lies to me over and over again, that I should not believe them. The scientist that are pushing the global warming agenda have been caught in so many lies that it's become difficult for me to believe that anybody actually believes in it anymore. In previous threads, and also in conversations with people, I've found that their actual support in global warming is due to something personal to them, like clean water, or pollution, which is something that is important to me too. I've also found that others are so called believers because they are making money off of it. Green energy is the most wasteful thing ever done, but since it's government money, nobody seems to care that it's such a failure as long as they make a buck off of it. Green energy creates more pollution and does more damage to the environment then if it didn't exist. There isn't a windmill farm or solar generating plant out there that has replaced an existing coal, nuclear or petroleum based plant, which means that a massive amount of material are being used to accomplish nothing.

Here is my favorite website for exposing the lies about global warming. I like how they document what they say, and provide links so that everyone can look for themselves to see where they get their information. They provide lots of links that expose the long list of lies pushed by those making money off of global warming.

The Deplorable Climate Science Blog | "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman

 

[AWSubie]

I've learned that if somebody lies to me over and over again, that I should not believe them. The scientist that are pushing the global warming agenda have been caught in so many lies that it's become difficult for me to believe that anybody actually believes in it anymore. In previous threads, and also in conversations with people, I've found that their actual support in global warming is due to something personal to them, like clean water, or pollution, which is something that is important to me too. I've also found that others are so called believers because they are making money off of it. Green energy is the most wasteful thing ever done, but since it's government money, nobody seems to care that it's such a failure as long as they make a buck off of it. Green energy creates more pollution and does more damage to the environment then if it didn't exist. There isn't a windmill farm or solar generating plant out there that has replaced an existing coal, nuclear or petroleum based plant, which means that a massive amount of material are being used to accomplish nothing.

Here is my favorite website for exposing the lies about global warming. I like how they document what they say, and provide links so that everyone can look for themselves to see where they get their information. They provide lots of links that expose the long list of lies pushed by those making money off of global warming.

The Deplorable Climate Science Blog | "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman

 

[Motorboatin]

Experts declared in the 1970's that the earth was going into a cooling cycle and warned about food shortages in the decades to come. In the 90's they switched to global warming and politicians latched onto it. Climate change has become a powerful political tool both for people seeking higher office and world organizations like NATO

Furthermore climate change has now become a world wide religion with zealots as extreme as found in other faiths

 

[rekees4300]

Experts declared in the 1970's that the earth was going into a cooling cycle and warned about food shortages in the decades to come. In the 90's they switched to global warming and politicians latched onto it. Climate change has become a powerful political tool both for people seeking higher office and world organizations like NATO

Furthermore climate change has now become a world wide religion with zealots as extreme as found in other faiths

Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Humans keep playing their games while Mother Earth melts.

 

[Chris616]

>99.9% of the members of TBN, myself included, don't have the technical background with which to independently analyze the data that scientists are using to decide if human caused global warming is fact or fiction, but we all have the ability to learn how to verify the sources of the data that we use to arrive at our own conclusion on that, or any subject.

Here is a good read on that:
How can we judge health and science information? | MediaSmarts

There is a section on that page debunking something written by "the global warming denialist blog Principia Scientific", the website in the link in post #27.

Of course, as a good cynic the first thing you should do is read the "About Us" link on that website I showed above so that you can evaluate the organization that is providing the info. I do that most times when I go to a website that I've never been to before.

Chris

 

[Chris616]

And if he really believes that nature isn't the biggest contributor, I like to see some real hard numbers from an active volcano,
I don't know who you would be able to believe in those .

When I think of all the gases and pollution sent up when Mt. Saint Helen blew her cork.
I do believe that one instance did more in a few days then man in a few thousand years.
Also the year with no summer, 1816 in New England from a volcano.
I'm not going to advocate completely unregulated pollution but it needs to be looked at in a more dollar and cents manner.

This is something that has been quantified. Here are two sources (one US gov't, one independent UK newspaper) that show that the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes is dwarfed by that emitted by humans:
Which emits more carbon dioxide: volcanoes or human activities? | NOAA Climate.gov
Iceland volcano gives warming world chance to debunk climate sceptic myths | Leo Hickman | Environment | The Guardian

Chris

 

[Chris616]

Statistically there is a far better chance of an asteroid hitting earth and eliminating life than ever seeing the climate slow kill life. Life seems to have an adaptive ability to the environment that has evolved over billions of years.

We're ok...

That depends on your definition of "OK". Scientists aren't claiming that human caused global warming is going to wipe out most life on earth, like an asteroid has in the past. Regardless of how humans treat the earth it is likely that our species and many others will survive. If global warming continues to increase sea levels, though, it will be a much worse place to live for our descendants in the future. For example, sea level rise won't directly affect people in Wyoming, but consider how many tax dollars that could be spent on something better will instead be used to protect or move the millions who live in the major cities of the US that will be flooded.

Chris

 

[rekees4300]

That depends on your definition of "OK". Scientists aren't claiming that human caused global warming is going to wipe out most life on earth, like an asteroid has in the past. Regardless of how humans treat the earth it is likely that our species and many others will survive. If global warming continues to increase sea levels, though, it will be a much worse place to live for our descendants in the future. For example, sea level rise won't directly affect people in Wyoming, but consider how many tax dollars that could be spent on something better will instead be used to protect or move the millions who live in the major cities of the US that will be flooded.

Chris

We can take solace from the map showing some land remaining after all the ice melts. Even if humans don't survive (which is likely) the 80 degree average temperature, the new land-based species that replaces us will have a home. :earth:

 

[Chris616]

Will the oceans even rise a noticeable amount if the glaciers and ice caps melt? Since the amount of ice at the Poles is increasing, should we worry about the oceans lowering, or is that even possible?

As deezler pointed out, the amount of ice at the poles is decreasing. The "NorthWest Passage" through the islands of northern Canada is becoming a viable route between Europe and Asia. The Canadian Coast Guard is figuring out ways to deal with the ships that will travel and ultimately require assistance in this remote area.

There certainly are people who don't believe that global warming is happening, but there really isn't any debate about what will happen to the sea level if the earth continues to warm to the point where the ice caps disappear. The calculation isn't difficult. Take the Greenland ice cap, for example.

The volume of ice is about 2,850,000 cubic kilometers.
Greenland ice sheet - Wikipedia

The five biggest oceans account for most of the earth's ocean surface area of 362,000,000 square kilometers.
Ocean - Wikipedia

Let's assume that the ice converts to an equivalent volume of water for this rough example. Divide the first number by the second (and multiply by 1000 to convert from km to m) and it shows that if the Greenland ice cap melted it would add about 8 meters to the global sea level. That's close to the number shown in the second paragraph of the Greenland Ice Sheet link above.

Chris