2017 was second hottest year on record, after sizzling 2016: report

[attrayant]

39 minutes ago, Antonymous said:

You have to put recent events into an historical perspective and clearly with climate change this must be over a period of thousands, not hundreds, of years.

 

Again with the "you have to".  WHY do we have to?  We don't need historical perspective for things that are happening in the present time.  Can you find some other examples of scientific phenomena that can't be conclusively proved because we don't have historical perspective?

 

 

 

39 minutes ago, Antonymous said:

I could give you hundreds of examples of why you must look to as long a period as possible to understand almost any events, but just use as an example the trading of currencies. If you take a chart showing any currency trend over the past day you'll reach a conclusion (perfectly valid) about THAT DAY. Let's say the graph trend was up. If you were quite daft you'd then buy that currency due to the 'obvious' trend. However if you looked at a one month chart you might see that the overall trend is decidedly down and that today's movement is but a little blip in a downtrend. Your claim that you must look only at current events is very naieve. I hope you don't trade currencies!

 

But according to your "historical perspective" argument, we can't say for sure why the stock market crashed in 1929 because we don't have data on market trading going back millions of years.  I'm saying that yes, we can collect data and study current events without requiring supporting data going back thousands or millions of years.  Your assertion that causality of current phenomena can't be established without millions of years of historical data is so laughable, I almost wonder if you're just posting here to play a huge prank on us.

 

 

39 minutes ago, Antonymous said:

Now about that chart you posted…

 

First of all, the chart starts in 1880. The historical record is millions of years.

 

Merely in response to your solar irradiance remark.  By the way, I left a question there for you.  Did you miss it?

 

39 minutes ago, Antonymous said:

If you want to argue the sun has nothing to do with this issue, then provide a study that goes back beyond 1880.

 

Where did you read that I want to argue that?  It would be helpful if you quote the bits you're responding to.  Everyone is aware of solar forcing.  No one is arguing that point.

 

 

39 minutes ago, Antonymous said:

please don’t rely on Wikipedia for your arguments.

 

Wikipedia is not a bad reference when people need help understanding basic science.  Every article should list its primary source material at the bottom.  All you have to do is scroll down.

 

54 minutes ago, Antonymous said:

avoid articles in the mainstream press

 

Nobody is relying on the press as primary source material.  However, such a citation would better than no cites at all, which is what your posts seem to rely on.

[Dumbastheycome]

12 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Clive, it looks as though you haven't been paying attention to what most scientists are finding.  There are too many off-kilter remarks in your missive to counter with facts.  I suggest, if you want to find out what's really been happening with the world's climate in the past 2 decades, to check in with scientists who study those things.

 

One of many examples:  Here's an amazing new map of ice-loss in Antarctica

That  being  in  defiance  of  those  who  claim   Antarctic  ice has  increased  in  some  imagined  compensation  for  Arctic  losses.

This  is  the  illusionary effect of floating  ice  extending  from  the  coastal  regions of   Antarctica which while pictorially looks  impressive is  not  the  same as  the permanent heavy ice  sheet .

The  deterioration  of  that  solid  ice  a decade  plus ago curtailed research  core  sample   drilling   through  it  into  the  underlying  seabed.

The  core  samples  that were obtained  demonstrated  repetative cycles  of  warming  and  cooling. Warming  to the  degree  that  shellfish as  one  example were  present on the  sea floor at  those  warm  periods.

Unfortunately not  enough   core  data  was  able  to  be taken  to establish any  accurate  determination of  the time  cycle  of  each  warming and  cooling  period. But  the  data  obtained was  enough  to indicate  that  the  current  warming  is definitely occurring  at a  rate  much  faster  than  any  that has  occurred  before.

Denialists  often  quote temperature  spikes as  some  proof  that  global  warming/ climate  change  is a  hoax.

What  is  usually  conveniently  ignored  is  that  oceanic water temperatures are  the  main  factor  in  weather phenomenon. 

A  complication  in that  is  that the  current  vast  amount  of  water  entering  the  ocean does   not  so   simply  raise  global  water levels but  it  does  have  an effect on  ocean  currents due  to  both   the  low  temperature of  that   water and  the  desalination. Desalination  events  in changes  in  viscosity. The  lunar  tidal pull on  the  oceans  is  also  effected  which  is  now  widely suspected  in  creating  localized  increases  in  tidal  levels at/in  this period  of  the  rapid  introduction  of  desalinated  water .

Meanwhile  oceans  that  are  yet  to  receive  this  new  water are  becoming increasingly  warmer  to the  point that they  exceed  the  environmental conditions  of  coral. Coral reefs  are  diminishing  globally . The  significance  of  that  is  that  so  are  the  dependent  fish  stocks derived  from   such  locations. Couple  that with  the  wasteful fishing  industry !

What  remains a fact  that   climate  change/  global  warming is  a  reality regardless  of  whether  not  human  activity  is  accelerating  it.

The  more  important  question  is  are we  at all  educated  to   cope  with  it?

 

[RickBradford]

Quote

Again with the "you have to".  WHY do we have to?  We don't need historical perspective for things that are happening in the present time.

 

Good point. All we really need, according to modern peer-reviewed science, is to view climate change through the lens of intersectionality.

 

" An intersectional approach, developed within critical feminist theory, is advantageous. An intersectional analysis of climate change illuminates how different individuals and groups relate differently to climate change, due to their situatedness in power structures based on context-specific and dynamic social categorisations. Intersectionality sketches out a pathway that stays clear of traps of essentialisation, enabling solidarity and agency across and beyond social categories. "

 

Once we've all grasped "how intersectionality is manifested in institutional practices, norms, and symbolic representation of climate issues" then the issue will be solved once and for all.

 

 

[PhonThong]

23 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

We're going to get much of the same two teams of CC commentators trotted out again. I'm on one of the teams.  We'll probably get mention of the cold-wave hitting the east coast of the US as proof (by the deniers) that CC is a hoax.   The cold wave is a factor in the overall trend, but it's a relatively small factor.  Looked at globally, the US's eastern sea board is tiny.  It's about as much territory as Sudan or Nigeria.  

 

I won't be surprised if 2018 continues the warming trend we've been seeing for two decades, when looked at from a ww perspective.

 

The cold wave is not only along the seaboard. It extends far into the middle and the south of the U.S. 

[Credo]

6 minutes ago, PhonThong said:

The cold wave is not only along the seaboard. It extends far into the middle and the south of the U.S. 

No, only along the south eastern U.S.   The South West continues to experience temperatures between 10 - 20 degrees ABOVE normal.   

[ilostmypassword]

36 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

 

Good point. All we really need, according to modern peer-reviewed science, is to view climate change through the lens of intersectionality.

 

" An intersectional approach, developed within critical feminist theory, is advantageous. An intersectional analysis of climate change illuminates how different individuals and groups relate differently to climate change, due to their situatedness in power structures based on context-specific and dynamic social categorisations. Intersectionality sketches out a pathway that stays clear of traps of essentialisation, enabling solidarity and agency across and beyond social categories. "

 

Once we've all grasped "how intersectionality is manifested in institutional practices, norms, and symbolic representation of climate issues" then the issue will be solved once and for all.

 

 

Another pointless troll comment based on a sociological grant made by Australian authorities. Absolutely nothing to do with the science.

[RickBradford]

^^

Quite the opposite.

 

As the authors of that paper point out, if you ignore the intersectional and feminist perspectives on climate change, then the whole issue is necessarily tackled from a neo-colonialist and patriarchal viewpoint, which disproportionately impacts marginalised communities.

 

Even the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change regards Gender and Climate Change as an important topic. The mass end-of-year gabfests in Paris, Marrakesh and so on, are noted for their Women and Gendered Events.

 

There are important policy issues at stake here, so it is important to check your privilege before dismissing them.

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

38 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

^^

Quite the opposite.

 

As the authors of that paper point out, if you ignore the intersectional and feminist perspectives on climate change, then the whole issue is necessarily tackled from a neo-colonialist and patriarchal viewpoint, which disproportionately impacts marginalised communities.

 

Even the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change regards Gender and Climate Change as an important topic. The mass end-of-year gabfests in Paris, Marrakesh and so on, are noted for their Women and Gendered Events.

 

There are important policy issues at stake here, so it is important to check your privilege before dismissing them.

 

 

More of the same tripe that has nothing to do with climate science.

[impulse]

22 hours ago, NCC1701A said:

weathers been really great here in Hua Hin.

 

nice and cool for months and low humidy.

 

Freezing my butt off here in China.  Humidity's so low that my skin's peeling off. 

 

You're just being mean...

[boomerangutang]

The Ross Ice Shelf, in Antarctica, is larger than California.  It sits on water, not on on land.  If/when that underlying water increases in temp, ice melts.  There are other very large ice shelves there.   Higher sea levels cometh, ....liketh or believeth, or not.

[canuckamuck]

15 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

evidence for rapid warmings? I'm not encouraged to expect much given your assertions that the last 20 years have been a statistical flatline.

Just after the Younger Dryas period the warming was about 20 degrees Celsius in about a century and there are many more examples of rapid warming greater than what we are experiencing, and all of them with out the inputs of industrialization.

[PhonThong]

2 hours ago, Credo said:

No, only along the south eastern U.S.   The South West continues to experience temperatures between 10 - 20 degrees ABOVE normal.   

Then I guess my friends and family in Texas are lying.

From CNBC;

Deadly, bone-chilling cold grips a wide swath of the US

• Exposure to record-breaking cold has led to several deaths, authorities say.
• The National Weather Service issued wind chill advisories covering a vast area from South Texas to Canada and from Montana and Wyoming through New England.
• It's even cold in the Deep South, a region more accustomed to brief bursts of arctic air that night after a night below zero.

Edited January 6, 2018 by PhonThong

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, PhonThong said:

Then I guess my friends and family in Texas are lying.

Or perhaps you and your friends and family suffer from the delusion that Texas and the Southwestern United States are one and the same thing.

[Stargeezr]

I may agree that there may be global warming, but I ask all of you just how many of your countries are charging you a carbon tax?  Canadian need not raise your hands, especially the 4 provinces who's

governments made carbon tax lawful, and the PM of Canada plans to force the other provinces to start this new cash cow.  Canada produces far less emissions than the USA and others, but we are treated as the worst by our government.

Geezer

[PhonThong]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Or perhaps you and your friends and family suffer from the delusion that Texas and the Southwestern United States are one and the same thing.

No uninformed person. I was referring to the fact that it was stated only in the southeastern part of the U.S. was it cold. Don't be so quick to show your inability to read or at least comprehend what you think you have read.

"No, only along the south eastern U.S.   The South West continues to experience temperatures between 10 - 20 degrees ABOVE normal."   

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, PhonThong said:

No uninformed person. I was referring to the fact that it was stated only in the southeastern part of the U.S. was it cold. Don't be so quick to show your inability to read or at least comprehend what you think you have read.

"No, only along the south eastern U.S.   The South West continues to experience temperatures between 10 - 20 degrees ABOVE normal."   

Those are obviously average temperatures that was cited above and in response to someone who claimed that the cold snap in other parts of the country was evidence against global warming.

[tryasimight]

So 2017 was colder than 2016? Global cooling is happening...we're all doomed....doomed I tell ya!!

 

 

Greenland was covered in trees 1000 years ago or the Vikings would have called it Whiteland  Then it got cold.....now it is getting hot again.

[Credo]

26 minutes ago, tryasimight said:

So 2017 was colder than 2016? Global cooling is happening...we're all doomed....doomed I tell ya!!

 

 

Greenland was covered in trees 1000 years ago or the Vikings would have called it Whiteland  Then it got cold.....now it is getting hot again.

Greenland was not covered with trees:

 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-green.htm

[attrayant]

44 minutes ago, Stargrazer9889 said:

I ask all of you just how many of your countries are charging you a carbon tax?  Canadian need not raise your hands, especially the 4 provinces who's [sic] governments made carbon tax lawful, and the PM of Canada plans to force the other provinces to start this new cash cow.

 

This nonsense again.  Explain how it's a "cash cow" to discourage people from dumping their waste into the environment, or make them pay the cost of cleanup.

[RickBradford]

1 hour ago, Credo said:

Greenland was not covered with trees:

 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-green.htm

Surely we've got beyond the stage of citing The SkS Kidz, the Mary Poppins of climate websites, in support of any grown-up argument about anything.

 

There is fairly impressive documentation that Greenland, while not perhaps "covered with trees", was at least warm enough to support agriculture and dairy farming by the Vikings for 400 years or so.

 

Then you arrive at the issue of whether those times, known as the Mediaeval Warm Period, represented a global or just a regional warming.

 

Many interested parties have worked hard to make the case that the warming was only regional, and therefore not indicative of 'global' warming.  Coincidentally, those are the same parties that work hard to make the case that recent heatwaves in Australia, or Europe, or the US, are unambiguous signs of 'global' man-made warming.

 

You have to hand it to the Green/Left. They are rigid about enforcing their double standards.

[ilostmypassword]

12 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Surely we've got beyond the stage of citing The SkS Kidz, the Mary Poppins of climate websites, in support of any grown-up argument about anything.

 

There is fairly impressive documentation that Greenland, while not perhaps "covered with trees", was at least warm enough to support agriculture and dairy farming by the Vikings for 400 years or so.

 

Then you arrive at the issue of whether those times, known as the Mediaeval Warm Period, represented a global or just a regional warming.

 

Many interested parties have worked hard to make the case that the warming was only regional, and therefore not indicative of 'global' warming.  Coincidentally, those are the same parties that work hard to make the case that recent heatwaves in Australia, or Europe, or the US, are unambiguous signs of 'global' man-made warming.

 

You have to hand it to the Green/Left. They are rigid about enforcing their double standards.

Unlike you, skepticalscience.com consistently links to research to back up its articles. Name calling by you does nothing to bolster your case. But clearly, if you haven't learned that by now, you're never going to.

It would be nice if, for a change, you linked to that "fairly impressive documentation that Greenland, while not perhaps "covered with trees", was at least warm enough to support agriculture and dairy farming by the Vikings for 400 years or so."

In fact, there is much more impressive documentation that this is not the case: 

Glacier maxima in Baffin Bay during the Medieval Warm Period coeval with Norse settlement

"The climatic mechanisms driving the shift from the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) to the Little Ice Age (LIA) in the North Atlantic region are debated. We use cosmogenic beryllium-10 dating to develop a moraine chronology with century-scale resolution over the last millennium and show that alpine glaciers in Baffin Island and western Greenland were at or near their maximum LIA configurations during the proposed general timing of the MWP. Complimentary paleoclimate proxy data suggest that the western North Atlantic region remained cool, whereas the eastern North Atlantic region was comparatively warmer during the MWP—a dipole pattern compatible with a persistent positive phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation."

 http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/11/e1500806

And once again, you assert that the Green/Left are working "hard to make the case that recent heatwaves in Australia, or Europe, or the US, are unambiguous signs of 'global' man-made warming." Just more irrelevant and deflective  character assasssination. It's what climatogists say that counts and they don't say it's unambiguous just that the odds are very strong that anthropogenic global warming is playing a role.

 

[smotherb]

On 1/5/2018 at 1:02 PM, riclag said:

Record cold in the USA!        Global warming !  lol

Do you have any comprehension of trends or averages? Both the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) and the National Aeronautic and Space (NASA) concur that 2013-2017 is the hottest five-year period recorded since they began recording temperatures.  Granted, there can be arguments, especially from lay persons, as to whether or not the warming is man-made or if the length of any global temperature cycles are simply longer than we have recorded temperatures.  However, to think a cold wave in an isolated area contradicts actual recorded temperatures is Trumphetic at  best.

[Credo]

10 hours ago, RickBradford said:

< snipped>

 

There is fairly impressive documentation that Greenland, while not perhaps "covered with trees", was at least warm enough to support agriculture and dairy farming by the Vikings for 400 years or so.

 

 

Yup, those Vikings were well known for being dairy farmers....NOT.

[cliveshep]

Let's all agree on a few things as a base-line then you can all go knock lumps off each other on some other issue.

 

Firstly - the Earth's power supply comes from the sun, the sun's albedo waxes and wanes periodically and sun-spot activity does likewise. Sunspot activity precedes increased radiation received by the Earth so it get's warmer also dependant on whether it is in that part of it's orbit nearer or further from the sun.

 

Moving on - the Earth is essentially a closed system, it has weather cycles on an annual basis - summer changing to winter or dry season changing to wet. But the total mass of the Earth does not change to any appreciable extent and the amount of carbon doesn't change either - it might be locked up in plants, oil, coal, atmosphere but the total is the same.

 

Unlocking and releasing that carbon will cause climate change, it might reasonably be inferred that in previous millennia carbon was free in the atmosphere to the extent that plant growth locked it up in decay into oil and coal.

 

That too is a cycle that still goes on but to a lesser extent now that greed and population growth force deforestation to an alarming degree. Plants need carbon to live, in return they release oxygen - another micro-cycle.

 

Everything goes in cycles so if it gets hotter or colder it is cyclic and sun driven. Saying it is man-made is an unproven fallacy although man's activities might have accelerated it. Deforestation to the degree exhibited in the world's lungs., the Amazon basin, probably does have an effect.

 

All the rest of the arguments backed up by scientists, governments, individuals etc are informed guesswork, there is no-one alive who can testify to anything other than recent history. The time scale is too short.

 

But consider this example -  on the Thames they roasted an ox whole on the ice at Whitehall in 1683-84 in the annual Frost Fair, the then King and Queen ate some of it. The last Frost Fair was held on the Thames in 1814 so just over 200 years ago when the cyclic mini-ice age reversed and it started to get warmer again. The Thames was recorded as frozen in AD 250, again in AD 924 when it was open to wheeled traffic, again in 1410.

 

So there were cycles and they didn't have planes, trains, ships or diesel buses and trucks nor Industrial Revolutions.

 

Gosh - so mankind didn't cause these cyclic weather pattern variations after all!

 

And another mini ice-age is on the cards given the historical patterns.

[attrayant]

1 hour ago, cliveshep said:

Moving on - the Earth is essentially a closed system

 

No, it's not a closed system by any definition in classical mechanics.  You yourself even said the Earth's energy comes mainly from the sun.  

 

 

1 hour ago, cliveshep said:

Unlocking and releasing [sequestered] carbon will cause climate change

 

And humans have been releasing carbon over the past hundred years or so.

 

 

1 hour ago, cliveshep said:

it might reasonably be inferred that in previous millennia carbon was free in the atmosphere to the extent that plant growth locked it up in decay into oil and coal.

 

We don't need to infer that, because many different branches of science have uncovered evidence supporting such a hypothesis.  There is so much evidence, that it has become an accepted fact.

 

 

1 hour ago, cliveshep said:

Everything goes in cycles so if it gets hotter or colder it is cyclic and sun driven.

 

So why is it getting warmer if solar irradiance is decreasing?  Also, new factors can enter the system and upset the cycle, or throw it out of balance.  Man's activity in the past hundred years is just such a factor.

 

 

1 hour ago, cliveshep said:

Saying it is man-made is an unproven fallacy although man's activities might have accelerated it.

 

You are mischaracterizing the hypothesis to make it easier to refute.  The hypothesis is that the current rate of unprecedented warming has been largely influenced by man's activities.  Why?  Because we can't find any other likely cause.  Solar irradiance, as you previously noted, is on the decline.  We can measure the CO₂ content in the atmosphere.  We can set up experiments in basic high school level physics showing that CO₂ absorbs solar energy, (and is particularly opaque at IR wavelengths) using instruments as simple as a gas cell and IR spectrophotometer.  If you don't care about the wavelength, then just use a thermometer.

 

That's how science works.  We find the most likely explanation, and then carry out experiments that yield evidence in support of that explanation.  If the evidence does not support the explanation, the hypothesis must be discarded.  If you want to refute the current hypothesis, you need to demonstrate some flaw in the evidence or make some observation that runs counter to the evidence.  I don't see you doing any of that.  I only see you hypothesizing.  Congratulations; you're at step 3 in the scientific method.  Your problem is that you are jumping directly from hypothesis to conclusion without doing any of the steps in between.

 

 

Climate scientists have supported their hypotheses with evidence.  You have not. 

 

No one says that man is the ONLY cause.  But man's contributions have been enough to throw a balanced system out of balance.  Systems in equilibrium are not too hard to throw out of balance, especially if there are positive feedback loops such as Earth's changing albedo and thawing permafrost, among others.

 

 

1 hour ago, cliveshep said:

All the rest of the arguments backed up by scientists, governments, individuals etc are informed guesswork, there is no-one alive who can testify to anything other than recent history.

 

Just a few paragraphs ago, you yourself said this:

 

"Unlocking and releasing that carbon will cause climate change, it might reasonably be inferred that in previous millennia carbon was free in the atmosphere to the extent that plant growth locked it up in decay into oil and coal."

 

Previous millennia?  That's some nice informed guesswork on your part.  No, we don't have to guess about the past.  Natural processes from ages ago can leave records.  You just have to learn how to decipher the records.

 

1 hour ago, cliveshep said:

Gosh - so mankind didn't cause these cyclic weather pattern variations after all!

 

Nobody is making that argument.  YOU seem to have set up that argument just so you can shoot it down and look like a winner.

 

 

1 hour ago, cliveshep said:

And another mini ice-age is on the cards given the historical patterns.

 

Your post reads like The Daily Mail, because nothing you've posted supports your conclusion just like The Mail publishes articles that fail to support their headlines.  Here's the one about your expected mini ice-age, which should be here any day now since this was published back in 2010:

 

 

 

Notice it says "that could trigger a mini-Ice Age on Earth, scientists claim."  I challenge you to read through the article and find out which scientists (there are four mentioned) make the claim about a mini ice-age.

 

Rather than trust The Daily Mail for science reporting, I'll go directly to the scientific literature: On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth

 

Quote

The current exceptionally long minimum of solar activity has led to the suggestion that the Sun might experience a new grand minimum in the next decades, a prolonged period of low activity similar to the Maunder minimum in the late 17th century. The Maunder minimum is connected to the Little Ice Age, a time of markedly lower temperatures, in particular in the Northern hemisphere. Here we use a coupled climate model to explore the effect of a 21st-century grand minimum on future global temperatures, finding a moderate temperature offset of no more than −0.3°C in the year 2100 relative to a scenario with solar activity similar to recent decades. This temperature decrease is much smaller than the warming expected from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the century.

 

My emphasis on the last sentence: there will be more warming than cooling.  In the same paper, warming due to a doubling of CO₂ is projected to be between 2.5 and 4°C.

[attrayant]

15 hours ago, Credo said:

Yup, those Vikings were well known for being dairy farmers....NOT.

 

We can learn about the diets of ancient peoples by analyzing their bones.

 

Quote

A study of human skeletal remains from both the Eastern and Western settlements showed that the Vikings quickly adopted a new diet. Over time, the food we eat leaves a chemical stamp on our bones—marine-based diets mark us with different ratios of certain chemical elements than terrestrial foods do. Five years ago, researchers based in Scandinavia and Scotland analyzed the skeletons of 118 individuals from the earliest periods of settlement to the latest. The results perfectly complement Smiarow­ski’s fieldwork: Over time, people ate an increasingly marine diet, he says.

 

Smithsonian: Why Did Greenland’s Vikings Vanish?

[Stargeezr]

I would not feel  so screwed in Canada, if our neighbours the USA were paying it as well or China Russia, ME, Europe etc  were also paying as they all drive cars and trucks and pollute the air with their factories and industries. But I have checked around and I do not see any other countres charging a carbon tax, certainly none as well in Africa and South America which are also oil producing countries.

Geezer

[Dagnabbit]

The Ross Ice Shelf, in Antarctica, is larger than California.  It sits on water, not on on land.  If/when that underlying water increases in temp, ice melts.  There are other very large ice shelves there.   Higher sea levels cometh, ....liketh or believeth, or not.

If ice is fliating on water and it melts, it will not have any impact on sea levels.

Sent from my SM-A720F using Tapatalk

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, Dagnabbit said:

If ice is fliating on water and it melts, it will not have any impact on sea levels.

Sent from my SM-A720F using Tapatalk
 

Not quite true. There isn't much of an effect, but there is one.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Sea-level-rise-due-to-floating-ice.html

[Dumbastheycome]

16 hours ago, Dagnabbit said:

If ice is fliating on water and it melts, it will not have any impact on sea levels.

Sent from my SM-A720F using Tapatalk
 

Floating  ice has  the  majority of  its  volume under  the  water  surface yes. But  your respnse  ignores  the  question as  to why  so  much ice is  melting. If  the  entire   volume  of  ice  which  is  on  land  surfaces  melts  into the  oceans ( which is  also  occurring ) then seabourne ice become a  less  important  issue.

It  is  not  only  the  overall  rise  in sea  levels  that  has a  potential impact  but  the  tidal impact as  well.

I remember  reading a  theory  about   tidal flooding  and  the  possibility  of  lunar pull and harmonics being  responsible. The  most  interesting  aspect  was  that  if  lunar  effect plus total   water  volume were  to  enter a  co  ordinate state then a  lunar  tsunami  could  occur. Such an event  could  be  possible  at predictable  moments but   no  calculative  research  has  followed  the  concept. 

The  current significant addition  to  the  total oceanic  volume  of  water which   is  being noted  as  creating  oceanic  pressure  levels (  in the  sense  that  it  takes  some  time  for  water  levels  in  the  entire  globe  to  actually  level  out)

then  if  the  direction  of  that  pressure were  to  become  in  harmony  with lunar  attraction then a  surge  could  occur  that could  make  a tidal  disaster similar  to  the  known flood   surge  that  swept  across  the   Great Plains  of  the  USA driving  debris  up  mountains.