Why Are You Even Here? The Surprising Attitudes of Some Expats in Thailand

[owl sees all]

The big concern with the Arctic disappearing seems to be the poor Polar Bears. Can't the UN - or the caring UK - just get some boat loads and take them to the antarctic!  Of course making sure the magic numbers are adhered to (94% female and 6% male). Not enough for them to eat!? Just do a fish or live seal drop from an airship every week.

 

Just where is the imagination!!?? Jeremy Clarkson is the man to consult on this. About time countries got together on this. Poor little bears!!!!

[Srikcir]

2 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

The Gulf Stream's circulation could be threatened by the massive amount of fresh water melting off of Greenland.

Could climate change shut down the Gulf Stream?

Not immediately from Greennland's meltwater, but maybe eventually due to less warm water from the tropics in the south.

https://phys.org/news/2017-06-climate-gulf-stream.html

It's complicated and requires more study ... and more funds. Funds ironically that will not come from the Trump administration whose nation would be most affected.

[ilostmypassword]

15 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Could climate change shut down the Gulf Stream?

Not immediately from Greennland's meltwater, but maybe eventually due to less warm water from the tropics in the south.

https://phys.org/news/2017-06-climate-gulf-stream.html

It's complicated and requires more study ... and more funds. Funds ironically that will not come from the Trump administration whose nation would be most affected.

I read the article and it actually does provide support for the threat to the Gulfstream from the meltdown of Greenland's glaciers.

[Srikcir]

4 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I read the article and it actually does provide support for the threat to the Gulfstream from the meltdown of Greenland's glaciers.

2016 study says it could eventually which is what I stated. Other studies cited are more supportive. As of today I'd say it's not conclusive but possible. But more study is needed. Certainly given the potential for impact on the US and Europe gives imperative to more study.

[Jim1000]

Just about the only sensible thing Sarah Palin said , during her short lived ,  high profile   political career ,  which made sense to me was " You don't need  to tell me about global warming , I  live   in Alaska ,  where we disagree is what we can do about it ' .

 

[Jonah Tenner]

On 28.10.2017 at 4:26 AM, boomerangutang said:

Right wingers are going to look at those photos and, true to their conspiracy-hungry proclivities, will say they're faked/photoshopped.  They'll say something like, 'how can the photo on the left be real, when there's no snow/ice on the mountain in the rear." 

In 218 BC, i.e. 2235 years ago in the Second Punic war the Carthagenian general Hannibal Barca crossed the Alps to attack Rome from the north. He used African war elephants in his army and marched from Iberia and through a high pass in the Alps to surprise the Romans.

He was able to do this, because at the time there were no glaciers in the Alps to hinder his movements.

In Norway we have a glacier named Nigardsbreen, which during the little Ice Age moved forward about 4 to 5 km during the years from 1690 to 1748 when it reached its maximum. It has since receded 4.5 km again but the area is still barren and cold and not amenable to farming yet. At the time of The Black Death (Plague) in Europe in the fourteenth century the area was lush farmland that after the Plague turned to forest. Then it was refarmed, and then the glacier came. The area is not yet back to the temperature/climate that was before 1690.

Around the time of the vikings Norway was a lush wooded country with oak and other temperate trees growing along the entire coastline, even the mountains were covered with forests.

My point is that glaciers come and go, human lifetimes are much too short to see climate variations. Even our recorded temperature measurements only go back a maximum of 200 years. We have seen some large variations in temperature during the last century, but historically even larger variations have been recorded in written sources. The year without summer comes to mind.

 

 

Edited October 29, 2017 by Jonah Tenner

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎10‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 7:05 PM, RickBradford said:

 

I. Or take those regular pictures of power stations belching out noxious-looking gases which are, in the case of the West, almost entirely water vapour.

 

 

LOL. They do use those pictures of cooling tower vapour to convince the ignorant that it is evidence of high levels of CO2 output.

It's like saying 97% ( or whatever it is ) of scientists "agree" that climate change is man made, which is a nonsense. No one has ever surveyed every scientist on the planet about anything, let alone climate change.

 

I posed the question many times before on every similar thread " what can be done that would actually change the weather back, and back to what"? I'm still waiting for an answer. Seems that a lot of people believe the published THEORY, but have no idea of what can actually be done, or what they want instead. I like skiing, so 6 months of snow a year would be nice.

 

They often say the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps will melt and the sea level will rise and kill us all, which is also an unproven theory. At the moment it does not snow in the Antarctic as the air is too dry. If world air temperature rises sufficiently it would probably start to snow, so the ice lost may just be replaced as new snow. That is after all how all the ice got there in the first place. I don't know enough about the Greenland ice cap to say if the same happens there, but I imagine the same would apply.

 

As for the arctic ice cap, it can all melt and it won't make any difference to sea level at all.

Edited October 29, 2017 by thaibeachlovers

[thaibeachlovers]

11 hours ago, owl sees all said:

The big concern with the Arctic disappearing seems to be the poor Polar Bears. Can't the UN - or the caring UK - just get some boat loads and take them to the antarctic!  Of course making sure the magic numbers are adhered to (94% female and 6% male). Not enough for them to eat!? Just do a fish or live seal drop from an airship every week.

 

Just where is the imagination!!?? Jeremy Clarkson is the man to consult on this. About time countries got together on this. Poor little bears!!!!

No thanks. If polar bears were taken to the Antarctic they would start to feed on the only real food source which are the humans. Even if they stuck to the animals, one bear could easily eat every Adelie in the Cape Royds rookery in a couple of days. Not a good outcome for the penguins.

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

I read the article and it actually does provide support for the threat to the Gulfstream from the meltdown of Greenland's glaciers.

It has long been known that if Geenland ice cap melts it will turn off the gulfstream. I read that many years ago.

[greatwhitenorth]

Srikcir, ilostmypassword

I love it, two posters, both joined in 2015 and have graced the forum with an average of 10.1 and 10 .2 posts a day or once every 2 hours and 12 minutes for the past 860 + days.  This is the kind of dedication that has made this forum great.

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

I for one am not worried about this as I figure we will be hit by a large Asteroid long before famers have to move to the North Pole to grow potatoes.

 

I mean it is like trying to throw a Basket Ball through the hoop from center court. Not an easy task and you might have to stand there all day trying. But sooner or later, one will get in.

That would have to be a very large boat. There is no land at the north pole at all. As for the land around it, no fertility after being covered in ice for centuries.

[Jonah Tenner]

On 27.10.2017 at 2:05 PM, RickBradford said:

Or take those regular pictures of power stations belching out noxious-looking gases which are, in the case of the West, almost entirely water vapour.

It should be noted that water vapour is a climate gas 10 times more potent than CO2...

[Scott]

Off-topic, troll posts and replies removed.   Go ahead and bring up immunizations again and face a suspension, it's trolling in the extreme.  

 

[GOLDBUGGY]

19 hours ago, owl sees all said:

The big concern with the Arctic disappearing seems to be the poor Polar Bears. Can't the UN - or the caring UK - just get some boat loads and take them to the antarctic!  Of course making sure the magic numbers are adhered to (94% female and 6% male). Not enough for them to eat!? Just do a fish or live seal drop from an airship every week.

 

Just where is the imagination!!?? Jeremy Clarkson is the man to consult on this. About time countries got together on this. Poor little bears!!!!

Nice kind comment on moving the Polar Bears to the South Pole, but this is very risky and dangerous to. Even moving Troublesome Bears from National Parks in Canada and only a hundred miles out of there natural habitat, can cause them to starve to death.

 

Polar Bears main source of food is seals and they will travel great distances on ice in search of this food also. So just because you stick a Polar Bear with a bunch of Penguins, it doesn't mean they will eat them.

 

However, they will eat the odd Eskimo, but there is not too many of them on the South Pole either.  Besides that, when they eat an Eskimo, they get those damned Fur Balls I the back of there throats, and although not deadly, it is a bit of a nuisance and annoying.

[joeyg]

13 hours ago, Jonah Tenner said:

In 218 BC, i.e. 2235 years ago in the Second Punic war the Carthagenian general Hannibal Barca crossed the Alps to attack Rome from the north. He used African war elephants in his army and marched from Iberia and through a high pass in the Alps to surprise the Romans.

He was able to do this, because at the time there were no glaciers in the Alps to hinder his movements.

In Norway we have a glacier named Nigardsbreen, which during the little Ice Age moved forward about 4 to 5 km during the years from 1690 to 1748 when it reached its maximum. It has since receded 4.5 km again but the area is still barren and cold and not amenable to farming yet. At the time of The Black Death (Plague) in Europe in the fourteenth century the area was lush farmland that after the Plague turned to forest. Then it was refarmed, and then the glacier came. The area is not yet back to the temperature/climate that was before 1690.

Around the time of the vikings Norway was a lush wooded country with oak and other temperate trees growing along the entire coastline, even the mountains were covered with forests.

My point is that glaciers come and go, human lifetimes are much too short to see climate variations. Even our recorded temperature measurements only go back a maximum of 200 years. We have seen some large variations in temperature during the last century, but historically even larger variations have been recorded in written sources. The year without summer comes to mind.

 

 

You sir, using facts, common sense and straightforwardness, will just not do...

[joeyg]

6 hours ago, Jonah Tenner said:

It should be noted that water vapour is a climate gas 10 times more potent than CO2...

Nice try... 

"Saying water vapor is a more important greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide is like saying the amplifier in a sound system is more important than the volume dial for producing the sound. It's true, in a literal sense, but very misleading. CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases are the volume dial on the climate, and the water vapor amplifies the warming that they produce."

Texas A&M's Andrew Dessler's work on the importance of water vapor in climate warming also discusses these complex interactions and amplifications.

[ilostmypassword]

6 hours ago, Jonah Tenner said:

It should be noted that water vapour is a climate gas 10 times more potent than CO2...

It should also be noted that the warming effects of CO2 are actually magnified by water vapor. As CO2 makes the atmosphere warmer, on average there will be more water vapor in the atmosphere which promotes further warming. It's called a positive feedback loop.

[GOLDBUGGY]

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

That would have to be a very large boat. There is no land at the north pole at all. As for the land around it, no fertility after being covered in ice for centuries.

This was meant to be a joke but now that we are on this subject, then yes. The North Pole is on the Artic Ocean and thus not covered by land. So part of the new diet will have to include fish as well. But there is plenty of land north of the Artic Circle that could be cultivated after Global Warming.

 

How can you say and be so sure that this land would not be fertile because it was covered in ice for centuries. So was all of Canada during the last Great Ice Age, and they grow potatoes there. Canada has some of the most fertile soil on this earth.

[joeyg]

3 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

This was meant to be a joke but now that we are on this subject, then yes. The North Pole is on the Artic Ocean and thus not covered by land. So part of the new diet will have to include fish as well. But there is plenty of land north of the Artic Circle that could be cultivated after Global Warming.

 

How can you say and be so sure that this land would not be fertile because it was covered in ice for centuries. So was all of Canada during the last Great Ice Age, and they grow potatoes there. Canada has some of the most fertile soil on this earth.

Canada came in behind some other countries that "supposedly" weren't covered in ice.  Pure speculation...

 

Countries With The Most Arable Land

In geography and agriculture, arable land (from Latin arare; “To plough, To farm”) is land ploughed or tilled regularly, generally under a system of crop rotation.
 
According to definitions and survey recommendations by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), used by for example Eurostat and the World Bank, arable land is agricultural land occupied by crops both sown and harvested during the same agricultural year, sometimes more than once. Land is also considered arable if used as temporary meadows for mowing or pasture, market and kitchen gardens; as well as temporarily fallow land — not seeded for one or more growing seasons, yet not left idle for more than five years.

World		15,749,300
Rank	Country	Land km2	% Of World
1	United States	1,650,062	10.48%
2	India	1,451,810	9.22%
3	China	1,385,905	8.80%
4	Russia	1,174,284	7.46%
5	Brazil	586,036	3.72%
6	Australia	468,503	2.97%
7	Canada	415,573	2.64%
8	Ukraine	324,791	2.06%
9	Nigeria	300,736	1.91%
10	Argentina	274,490	1.74%
11	Mexico	243,457	1.55%
12	Turkey	229,764	1.46%
13	Kazakhstan	221,059	1.40%
14	France	214,162	1.36%
15	Indonesia	201,456	1.28%
16	Iran	195,600	1.24%
17	Pakistan	190,319	1.21%
18	South Africa	147,609	0.94%
19	Niger	144,784	0.92%
20	Thailand	140,941	0.89%
21	Spain	135,776	0.86%
22	Sudan	135,600	0.86%
23	Poland	122,545	0.78%
24	Germany	115,698	0.73%
25	Ethiopia	112,080	0.71%
26	Burma	98,135	0.62%
27	Romania	90,961	0.58%
28	Morocco	84,797	0.54%
29	Kyrgyzstan	78,542	0.50%
30	Italy	77,651	0.49%
31	Bangladesh	75,690	0.48%
32	Algeria	75,501	0.48%
33	Vietnam	65,528	0.42%
34	Congo	64,853	0.41%
35	Cameroon	58,868	0.37%
36	Iraq	56,700	0.36%
37	Philippines	56,652	0.36%
38	United Kingdom	56,121	0.36%
39	Belarus	55,575	0.35%
40	Zambia	51,777	0.33%
41	Burkina Faso	48,353	0.31%
42	Hungary	45,782	0.29%
43	Syria	45,644	0.29%
44	Kenya	45,597	0.29%
45	Uzbekistan	44,710	0.28%
46	Japan	43,620	0.28%
47	Uganda	43,077	0.27%
48	Mozambique	42,576	0.27%
49	Ghana	40,507	0.26%
50	Mali	37,600	0.24%

[GOLDBUGGY]

5 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

It should also be noted that the warming effects of CO2 are actually magnified by water vapor. As CO2 makes the atmosphere warmer, on average there will be more water vapor in the atmosphere which promotes further warming. It's called a positive feedback loop.

Yes, it always feels hotter on Humid Days. But what makes water vapor less dangerous is that when it rises to the upper atmosphere, it condenses and turns into rain clouds. C02 doesn't do that.

 

But another dangerous gas is Methane, which large amounts are created daily by Livestock. It is also a very light gas as there is only one Carbon Atom and one Hydrogen Atom. So it will reach the upper atmosphere and it does not condense until -160 C. 

[GOLDBUGGY]

19 minutes ago, joeyg said:

Canada came in behind some other countries that "supposedly" weren't covered in ice.  Pure speculation...

 

Countries With The Most Arable Land

In geography and agriculture, arable land (from Latin arare; “To plough, To farm”) is land ploughed or tilled regularly, generally under a system of crop rotation.
 
According to definitions and survey recommendations by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), used by for example Eurostat and the World Bank, arable land is agricultural land occupied by crops both sown and harvested during the same agricultural year, sometimes more than once. Land is also considered arable if used as temporary meadows for mowing or pasture, market and kitchen gardens; as well as temporarily fallow land — not seeded for one or more growing seasons, yet not left idle for more than five years.

World		15,749,300
Rank	Country	Land km2	% Of World
1	United States	1,650,062	10.48%
2	India	1,451,810	9.22%
3	China	1,385,905	8.80%
4	Russia	1,174,284	7.46%
5	Brazil	586,036	3.72%
6	Australia	468,503	2.97%
7	Canada	415,573	2.64%
8	Ukraine	324,791	2.06%
9	Nigeria	300,736	1.91%
10	Argentina	274,490	1.74%
11	Mexico	243,457	1.55%
12	Turkey	229,764	1.46%
13	Kazakhstan	221,059	1.40%
14	France	214,162	1.36%
15	Indonesia	201,456	1.28%
16	Iran	195,600	1.24%
17	Pakistan	190,319	1.21%
18	South Africa	147,609	0.94%
19	Niger	144,784	0.92%
20	Thailand	140,941	0.89%
21	Spain	135,776	0.86%
22	Sudan	135,600	0.86%
23	Poland	122,545	0.78%
24	Germany	115,698	0.73%
25	Ethiopia	112,080	0.71%
26	Burma	98,135	0.62%
27	Romania	90,961	0.58%
28	Morocco	84,797	0.54%
29	Kyrgyzstan	78,542	0.50%
30	Italy	77,651	0.49%
31	Bangladesh	75,690	0.48%
32	Algeria	75,501	0.48%
33	Vietnam	65,528	0.42%
34	Congo	64,853	0.41%
35	Cameroon	58,868	0.37%
36	Iraq	56,700	0.36%
37	Philippines	56,652	0.36%
38	United Kingdom	56,121	0.36%
39	Belarus	55,575	0.35%
40	Zambia	51,777	0.33%
41	Burkina Faso	48,353	0.31%
42	Hungary	45,782	0.29%
43	Syria	45,644	0.29%
44	Kenya	45,597	0.29%
45	Uzbekistan	44,710	0.28%
46	Japan	43,620	0.28%
47	Uganda	43,077	0.27%
48	Mozambique	42,576	0.27%
49	Ghana	40,507	0.26%
50	Mali	37,600	0.24%

The Most Arable Land, as you quoted, doesn't mean the most fertile soil. Arable comes from the Latin Word, and It means the most land that can be plowed.

 

Since a great deal of land in Canada is covered in water and forest, and most of Canada's Land is Up North, and including the North Pole, then it stands to reason that a lot of this land can't be plowed and used for growing potatoes because of the climate.

 

But like I said Arable Land does not mean Fertile Land!.

[joeyg]

8 hours ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

The Most Arable Land, as you quoted, doesn't mean the most fertile soil. Arable comes from the Latin Word, and It means the most land that can be plowed.

 

Since a great deal of land in Canada is covered in water and forest, and most of Canada's Land is Up North, and including the North Pole, then it stands to reason that a lot of this land can't be plowed and used for growing potatoes because of the climate.

 

But like I said Arable Land does not mean Fertile Land!.

OK I'll bite,  USA #1 

A lot of countries have very fertile land naturally, though typically it is found in select areas. I can’t think of any that are strictly great farmland and nothing else. Maybe Holland, percentage-wise, though that is mostly reclaimed land and thus “natural” would be arguable.

The most fertile ground is usually found in river bottoms and deltas, where large rivers have been building up and replenishing soil for a long time. Otherwise I would look anywhere there is relatively flat ground that is relatively free of rocks, is not too high in latitude, and receives good amounts of rainfall. The North American prairies have some particularly fertile areas. The Nile River valley is notable for its long history of fertile ground, though perhaps it stands out so significantly because the rest of Egypt beyond the reach of Nile irrigation is scrub desert. (Pre-)historically, the Fertile Crescent (which technically includes the Nile valley) was known as a particularly fertile region. It is also known as the birthplace of western civilization due to the development of agriculture in the region, though the this was due to a complex of factors of which fertile soils was only one.

Areas as generally described above are found all over the world. By this measure, the USA is probably a contender for the most naturally fertile soils, though this is more because the US is just a big country and thus has a lot of soil in general, rather than because there is something unique or significant about it.

[ExpatOilWorker]

11 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

It should also be noted that the warming effects of CO2 are actually magnified by water vapor. As CO2 makes the atmosphere warmer, on average there will be more water vapor in the atmosphere which promotes further warming. It's called a positive feedback loop.

More water vapor in the atmosphere will generate more clouds that will reflect sunlight back into space in a process called dimming, but that does not fit into the global warming scare campaign and must be suppressed and forgotten at all cost.

[GOLDBUGGY]

3 hours ago, joeyg said:

OK I'll bite,  USA #1 

A lot of countries have very fertile land naturally, though typically it is found in select areas. I can’t think of any that are strictly great farmland and nothing else. Maybe Holland, percentage-wise, though that is mostly reclaimed land and thus “natural” would be arguable.

The most fertile ground is usually found in river bottoms and deltas, where large rivers have been building up and replenishing soil for a long time. Otherwise I would look anywhere there is relatively flat ground that is relatively free of rocks, is not too high in latitude, and receives good amounts of rainfall. The North American prairies have some particularly fertile areas. The Nile River valley is notable for its long history of fertile ground, though perhaps it stands out so significantly because the rest of Egypt beyond the reach of Nile irrigation is scrub desert. (Pre-)historically, the Fertile Crescent (which technically includes the Nile valley) was known as a particularly fertile region. It is also known as the birthplace of western civilization due to the development of agriculture in the region, though the this was due to a complex of factors of which fertile soils was only one.

Areas as generally described above are found all over the world. By this measure, the USA is probably a contender for the most naturally fertile soils, though this is more because the US is just a big country and thus has a lot of soil in general, rather than because there is something unique or significant about it.

Yes no doubt that the USA has plenty of excellent fertile soil there. They also have plenty of lakes, forests, mountains, and deserts. One of the hottest and driest places on Earth is Death Valley in the USA.

 

And Yes, large countries, and especially ones with huge populations, tend to have the most Arable Land. That is only logical. But again the most Arable Land does not mean the most Fertile Land. But none the less you dragged this conversation off on a totally different tangent anyway.

 

A poster stated that due to this land in the North being covered in ice, and then melting due to global warming, that this land would not be arable or fertile. I replied stating that at one time nearly all of Canada was covered in ice during the last great ice age, and from your own chart there is still plenty of arable and fertile land there.

 

So no point in me carrying on a discussion that perhaps Bangladesh has the most fertile soil in the world, but can't even support it's own people with food from it, and they being subject to terrible flooding every year. That was not the point I was trying to make here.

[wakeupplease]

On 10/25/2017 at 10:08 AM, digger70 said:

Ice age phenomenon is an about every 100,000 year cycle from Cold to Warm  &  Warm to Cold,,,,Guess what Sherlock,,,,,  It's Getting a bit Warmer now.Don't worry it will cool down again a bit but we won't see that unless you want to hang around for an other 100,000 years.   

There could be some truth in what you say as history also has shown.

 

But don't say to much as those on the green train are making a lot of money right now and you will upset them.

[Srikcir]

14 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

It should also be noted that the warming effects of CO2 are actually magnified by water vapor. As CO2 makes the atmosphere warmer, on average there will be more water vapor in the atmosphere which promotes further warming. It's called a positive feedback loop.

Just published:

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/1009060-carbon-dioxide-levels-grew-at-record-pace-in-2016-un-says/?utm_source=newsletter-20171030-1857&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=news

The amount of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere grew at record rate in 2016 to a level not seen for millions of years, potentially fuelling a 20-metre rise in sea levels and adding 3 degrees to temperatures

 

[boomerangutang]

4 hours ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

More water vapor in the atmosphere will generate more clouds that will reflect sunlight back into space in a process called dimming, but that does not fit into the global warming scare campaign and must be suppressed and forgotten at all cost.

            If it's good science, it will be included in discourse.  Don't assume that reasonable people will believe the shrill picture you painted, above.  Climate scientists take into account cloud cover and its reflective & shading components. 

 

        They also take into account a phenomena being noticed in Greenland:   There are many small black spots on ice and snow.  Much of it comes from fires and other soot-generators far away.  A little black spot will absorb heat from sun, and heat/melt the little bit of snow/ice around it.  Individually, the effect is tiny.   But multiplied by trillions, and the effects are big - which partly explains why Greenland has some shallow lakes where it's never before had them.

[boomerangutang]

I inspired myself to get some more details on the darkening snow.  National Geographic depicts it better than I. . . . . . .

 

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/140610-connecting-dots-dust-soot-snow-ice-climate-change-dimick/

 

excerpt from the illustrated article, above:

 

"It's easy to imagine new snow so bright that we must avert our eyes even while wearing sunglasses. What scientists are discovering, though, is this brilliant whiteness of snow and ice is increasingly being dimmed by air pollution.

         From Greenland's ice sheets to Himalayan glaciers and the snowpacks of western North America, layers of dust and soot are darkening the color of glaciers and snowpacks, causing them to absorb more solar heat and melt more quickly, and earlier in spring.

This trend toward darker snow from soot and dirt has been observed for years. Sources vary from dust blowing off deserts and snow-free Arctic land, to soot from power plants, forest fires, and wood-burning stoves. But now soot and dust are taking a greater toll, according to a report released this week, causing Greenland's ice sheets to darken—and melt—at a faster rate in spring than before 2009.

                     This matters because Greenland is mostly covered in ice, and meltwater from thawing continental glaciers like those found in Greenland and Antarctica flows into the ocean, causing seas to rise. Greenland, the world's largest island, holds enough ice that if it all melted seas would rise—likely over centuries—up to 20 feet.

                          This darkening of Greenland ice by soot and dirt will probably cause seas to rise faster toward the end of this century than previously forecast. (Reports last month indicated portions of the Antarctic ice sheet were also melting faster than forecast.)"

[GOLDBUGGY]

On ‎10‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 5:44 PM, Jonah Tenner said:

In 218 BC, i.e. 2235 years ago in the Second Punic war the Carthagenian general Hannibal Barca crossed the Alps to attack Rome from the north. He used African war elephants in his army and marched from Iberia and through a high pass in the Alps to surprise the Romans.

He was able to do this, because at the time there were no glaciers in the Alps to hinder his movements.

In Norway we have a glacier named Nigardsbreen, which during the little Ice Age moved forward about 4 to 5 km during the years from 1690 to 1748 when it reached its maximum. It has since receded 4.5 km again but the area is still barren and cold and not amenable to farming yet. At the time of The Black Death (Plague) in Europe in the fourteenth century the area was lush farmland that after the Plague turned to forest. Then it was refarmed, and then the glacier came. The area is not yet back to the temperature/climate that was before 1690.

Around the time of the vikings Norway was a lush wooded country with oak and other temperate trees growing along the entire coastline, even the mountains were covered with forests.

My point is that glaciers come and go, human lifetimes are much too short to see climate variations. Even our recorded temperature measurements only go back a maximum of 200 years. We have seen some large variations in temperature during the last century, but historically even larger variations have been recorded in written sources. The year without summer comes to mind.

 

 

The year without summer reminds me of growing up on the Prairies in Central Canada, but that is another story. But yes Glaciers come and go as you have stated. During one Ice Age the Ocean Levels dropped so much that this created a Land Bridge between Russia and Alaska.

 

Another thing I find odd is people talk like we have never had high CO2 in out atmosphere before. That is far from the truth. Considering that our greatest source of Oxygen (O2) comes from plants which adsorbs CO2 to generate O2 then consider this.

 

In our greatest Ice Age, Glaciers made it as far as the Equator in some places. So and obvious question arises from this fact in how much plant life did we have then when almost the entire Earth and Oceans were completely covered in sheets of Ice?

 

Again the answer is obvious and as a result our levels of O2 were very low then. During this Ice Age, Volcanoes were very common and plentiful then as well. Which can be traced back from the Ice Packed Glaciers in places like Greenland, which remained undisturbed.

 

So with high Volcanism, which besides soot and ash produces high levels of CO2, and with low O2 Levels, Scientist now believe that these high levels of CO2 created a Greenhouse Gas effect, causing the Earth to warm up, and the Glaciers to recede, ending that Ice Age. Otherwise we still might be covered in Ice and Snow.

 

Mother Earth has an extraordinary ability to recover from any catastrophe, even when we may not survive during this time. An Ice Covered Earth even slowed down the Earths Rotation and Wobble, which resulted in the loss of part of the Magnetic Field. But here we are today to be able to talk about it.  

[Guest]

On 30/10/2017 at 7:21 AM, GOLDBUGGY said:

But another dangerous gas is Methane, which large amounts are created daily by Livestock. It is also a very light gas as there is only one Carbon Atom and one Hydrogen Atom. So it will reach the upper atmosphere and it does not condense until -160 C. 

Methane, CH4, has one carbon atom with 4 hydrogen atoms. It has a lifespan of 10 years in the troposphere. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane