3 minutes ago, Rigby40 said:

You'd have to be cuckoo for cocopuffs to think humans are even remotely capable of destroying the planet, let alone doing so right now.

Thank you Dr. Rigby40 for your learned and well reasoned opinion.

Ronald Reagan would have disagreed with you.

Edited June 15, 20188 yr by bristolboy

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Thank you Dr. Rigby40 for your learned and well reasoned opinion.

Ronald Reagan would have disagreed with you.

The Chelyabinsk meteor couldn't destroy the planet nor could all of the major ice ages so forgive me if I'm not convinced by virtue signaling celebrities and government propaganda.

1 minute ago, Rigby40 said:

The Chelyabinsk meteor couldn't destroy the planet nor could all of the major ice ages so forgive me if I'm not convinced by virtue signaling celebrities and government propaganda.

Well, if you're going to invoke extraplanetary incursions what about the asterioids that among other things wiped out the dinosaurs? And there have been even worse disasters earlier on in planetary history. And anyway your example is nonsense. We're talking about disastrous effects on life on planet earth. Not literally destroying the planet.

And what I was getting at about Reagan was ozone. Just one little chemical, Freon, had disastrous effects on the atmosphere. A treaty was signed and slowly the ozone hole began to close.

But how could one little chemical have such a disastrous effect when the Chelyabinsk meteor couldn't destroy the planet?

14 minutes ago, Rigby40 said:

You'd have to be cuckoo for cocopuffs to think humans are even remotely capable of destroying the planet, let alone doing so right now.

You are Professor Pigeon in disguise Rigby. 

 

Absolutely correct only the natural process of the Universe's cycle will destroy Earth. Most of the weapons the powers have are freely available in the Universe.

 

Someone posted the other day that Andromeda was heading towards our Galaxy and collisions were inevitable. Exciting days ahead!! 

15 hours ago, bristolboy said:

He caught scientists out in 270 B.C.?

That's how far back to when the Archimedes Principle was proven and it hasn't been disproved in all the time since.

 

Jerry

 

 

3 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

You are Professor Pigeon in disguise Rigby. 

 

Absolutely correct only the natural process of the Universe's cycle will destroy Earth. Most of the weapons the powers have are freely available in the Universe.

 

Someone posted the other day that Andromeda was heading towards our Galaxy and collisions were inevitable. Exciting days ahead!! 

Planning on living to be several billion years old?

8 minutes ago, Jerry Cornelius said:

That's how far back to when the Archimedes Principle was proven and it hasn't been disproved in all the time since.

 

Jerry

 

 

 

And do you really believe you've caught the scientists out?

As you may recall, I asked someone who made an obvious point if he thought that had escaped the notice of scientists. 

You replied:

"Seems Archimedes did just that in 270 B.C."

Maybe you should have cited the example of Pythagoras and Pi. That goes back even further. And is no more or less relevant to the case at hand.

 

 

34 minutes ago, Rigby40 said:

You'd have to be cuckoo for cocopuffs to think humans are even remotely capable of destroying the planet, let alone doing so right now.

 

You seen to pave posted in the wrong discussion.  This is not about "destroying the planet".  It's about humans making the planet inhospitable to humans.

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Planning on living to be several billion years old?

Not me of course BB. But in the future, we (future humans), will be true Universe Travelers. Hitching rides on meteors and other rocks to fulfil our true destiny.

Just now, owl sees all said:

Not me of course BB. But in the future, we (future humans), will be true Universe Travelers. Hitching rides on meteors and other rocks to fulfil our true destiny.

I assume this is a joke?

 

Humans travelling to other planets throughout the universe to destroy any ecosystems they may have (for their own, entirely selfish needs), doesn't bear thinking about.

Just now, attrayant said:

 

You seen to pave posted in the wrong discussion.  This is not about "destroying the planet".  It's about humans making the planet inhospitable to humans.

No - it's about humans making our planet inhospitable to most animal life, not just humans.

3 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

No - it's about humans making our planet inhospitable to most animal life, not just humans.

Not that I have much use for vegetables, but it's about plants, too.

                        The More Things Change The More They Stay the Same.

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

From the Washington Post on 2nd November 1922.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/warm-welcome/

 

2 hours ago, gregk0543 said:

Ok concerning towing an iceberg from antartica this was an Australian proposal. It was calculated that we could tow one to South Australia and then pump the fresh water into the interior of Australia to fill lake eyre. The main proponent in Australia was Dick smith.

 

You have to read these articles carefully and separate the different pieces of inputs that are effecting sea level rise.

 

The rate of the component that is coming from Antartica has tripled over recent years and is accelerating.

 

This means in effect that sea levels over all will rise with increasing annual rates and it is getting more and more serious.  Sea level is rising at .6 mm per year over the whole world but that rate is increasing.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44470208

 

The rate of change in world temperature is also increasing.

 

The rate of changes in so many things are increasing and this is an important point. It isnt a linear line change and it makes it harder and harder to see where it is going and all how far it is before it has spiralled out of control.

 

The effects mean that in the future crops especially rice growing will be effected. In Myanmar where I live we will have a rising water table which contains salt in the delta area which produces 25% of the rice in this area. Areas growing rice now will not be able to grow rice in the future and yields are reduced by soil salinity. So even though they are not going to go under water it has detrimental effects and humans will suffer the consequences.

 

 

Pass it along:

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/yuan-longping-chinese-rice-scientist-growing-saltwater-rice-2017-11

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Pass it along:

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/yuan-longping-chinese-rice-scientist-growing-saltwater-rice-2017-11

Very good I had wondered whether anyone was doing this. Lets hope they are successful because it will definitely be needed.

 

"This means in effect that sea levels over all will rise with increasing annual rates and it is getting more and more serious.  Sea level is rising at .6 mm per year over the whole world but that rate is increasing."

 

All you guys arent paying attention.....I was wrong above...just testing you.  

 

The antarctic component is adding .6mm per year which is an increasing rate....Overall I get 3.2mm per year from Nasa's website which has some nice graphs. 

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

1 minute ago, gregk0543 said:

The antarctic component is adding .6mm per year which is an increasing rate....Overall I get 3.2mm per year from Nasa's website which has some nice graphs. 

Even if it were true, 10 years to rise 1 inch isn't a worry for me, I don't own any beach side property 2" from the waterline.

And I'll probably be dead by then even if I did.

Funny thing is, 50 years ago I did live really close to the sea, the old house is still there, and the sea is still where it was 50 years back.

 

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

Even if it were true, 10 years to rise 1 inch isn't a worry for me, I don't own any beach side property 2" from the waterline.

And I'll probably be dead by then even if I did.

Funny thing is, 50 years ago I did live really close to the sea, the old house is still there, and the sea is still where it was 50 years back.

 

Yes but maybe you will be reborn as Buddhists believe in the future and will experience it then?

 

And the rate is accelerating. So what if it keeps accelerating at  this rate it will be doing 1 cm a year soon and then 15 cms in 10 years and 30 in the next and you see it quickly could go very bad and its not just sea levels affected its habitats and monsoons and rains and droughts and everything gets more extreme and the rates are beyond the rate that we and animals and the plants can adjust to and we kill off the worlds oceans of 95% of life and the land masses as well and cause a mass extinction because we can. And humans become extinct and then the whole cycle goes on again starting from that 5% of lifeforms that survive. 

 

What if we could change all that and keep the place a bit healthier for the next generations that will be us then?

 

 

What if...... What if...... What if..... What if.....

That is exactly what computer models try to answer.

And the better the model the better it simulates reality.

Currently computer models are immensely simplified and because of that the outcome can be anything by changing a few variables.

 

3 hours ago, gregk0543 said:

5 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Pass it along:

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/yuan-longping-chinese-rice-scientist-growing-saltwater-rice-2017-11

 

 

Very good I had wondered whether anyone was doing this. Lets hope they are successful because it will definitely be needed.

 

There are many, many new cultivars of genetically enhanced crops in the pipeline, from salt-tolerant to drought-tolerant and vitamin-fortified.  Sadly, activist ignorance has erected a mountain of bureaucratic and regulatory hurdles that have slowed down progress.  Recent developments are encouraging, though.  There could soon be ten billion mouths to feed in this world, so hopefully the science continues to move forward to relieve the strain on the environment and lead us toward more sustainable and beneficial farming.

1 hour ago, gregk0543 said:

So what if it keeps accelerating at  this rate it will be doing 1 cm a year soon and then 15 cms in 10 years

What if it doesn't, and you've taxed everyone into poverty for nothing?

And destroyed your countries industrial base in the process.

Edited June 15, 20188 yr by BritManToo

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

What if it doesn't, and you've taxed everyone into poverty for nothing?

And destroyed your countries industrial base in the process.

Apart from the say so of a few right wing fanatics, there's no evidence at all the green energy is driving industyr into oblivion. In fact, solar and wind power are already cheaper than coal. And when you add in the health costs incurred by pollution of air and water (what economists call externalites) generally speaking you come out ahead. 

So if they're wrong, at worst you've lost a few points of economic growth.

But if they're right, you've pretty much lost everything.

2 hours ago, BritManToo said:

What if it doesn't, and you've taxed everyone into poverty for nothing?

 

"What if climate change is just a big hoax and we make the world a better place for nothing!?"

 

(because I can't find the comic this comes from)

2 hours ago, BritManToo said:

What if it doesn't, and you've taxed everyone into poverty for nothing?

And destroyed your countries industrial base in the process.

Who said anything about taxing everyone to do this? You jumping ahead of the game into your own fears. The real world data is there that we should not ignore. The trends are there and they are very prominent and worth working towards a better outcome. What we need is a bit more will to try thats all.

 

It will definitely be hard to turn these trends around. I personally dont think it is probable that we will get through this predicament. In the end our system will break down from the environmental strain and humans will likely become extinct. Natures laws will take care of us as it did in the past, present and the future.

 

But the human mind being the feeble computer that it is I would be happier if we took this problem seriously and applied our knowlege to an attempt to resolve it. Our civilisation is unsustainable even without climate change. So we need to transform our civilisation to a considerable extent and very rapidly it would seem. The writings on the wall so lets not ignore it.

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

So if they're wrong, at worst you've lost a few points of economic growth.

But if they're right, you've pretty much lost everything.

If they're wrong you've just handed all your manufacturing base to China.

If they're right, it doesn't matter because China (and India) aren't going to stop.

 

Edited June 15, 20188 yr by BritManToo

13 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

If they're wrong you've just handed all your manufacturing base to China.

If they're right, it doesn't matter because China (and India) aren't going to stop.

 

First off, China and India are rapidly accelerating their use of solar and wind power. China is, in fact, the largest consumer and produce of solar cells and turbines in the world.

India is also investing massively in solar.

In both nations there have large cancellations of coal fired power plants.

And you repeat your assertion that manufacturing will be destroyed.

Just a right wing cliche.

'Reuters' , I am  starting to doubt they are a legitimate news source.

On 6/14/2018 at 9:58 AM, RPCVguy said:

The rate of melting is increasing, sea level rise will be greater than previously estimated, and I still think the drop in grain yields from mid-range warming projections will outpace the human misery/ migration/ war threats compared to storm damage along the coasts. Grains are the primary bulk source of calories and even US corn will suffer by mid century. [emphasis added]

For a better set of reporters to explain the issues, I find that Inside Climate News is hiring the science savvy journalists the corporate media is letting go. Here is their take on this story.
 

Quote

"The scientists found that the rate of ice loss over the past five years had tripled compared to the previous two decades, suggesting an additional 6 inches of sea level rise from Antarctica alone by 2100, on top of the 2 feet already projected from all sources, including Greenland."
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/13062018/antarctica-ice-loss-accelerating-tripled-sea-level-rise-climate-change-nature-study

 

Apples and oranges is happening because there are different ice masses being lumped together in the discussion here. The Ice that "Antarctic Thaw Quickens" refers to is a mixture of Glacier (over land) and Sea ice - the latter not affecting the rate of sea level rise. Since this science report was published various follow-up stories like the OP and one I initially posted have come out. Among them was a blog post by a climate researcher, Robert Fanney. He at least included this summation of what sources are included in the sea level rise, noting not only the recent increase in rate, but predicting further acceleration, passing 5mm/yr soon.

It's all been said before

Granted this is about the arctic, but this link shows the trend of alarmism and the avoidance of contrary details. and tampering of records.

Edited June 16, 20188 yr by canuckamuck

59 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

It's all been said before

Granted this is about the arctic, but this link shows the trend of alarmism and the avoidance of contrary details. and tampering of records.

another poster who expects us to watch a long video rather than refer to something in writing.