Antarctic thaw quickens, trillions of tonnes of ice raise sea levels

[bristolboy]

6 hours ago, RickBradford said:

Because I never said that, or anything even close. You're just making that up.

 

I said I try not to rely on climate websites, but on published scientific research, which can also often be found online. I don't know if you're capable of understanding the distinction.

So you try not to rely on climate websites?, Does that mean sometimes you fail and do rely on them? So why not share some links to the ones your attempts at not relying on failed 

And  why not share those links to "published scientific research which can also be found online"? Maybe you're trying to avoid sharing them and we will just have to wait for you to fail at that also? 

Do you realize how feeble your claims are in the face your continued failure to provide any links to these sites?

Edited June 19, 2018 by bristolboy

[RickBradford]

^^

I really don't know why you think I should be doing your research for you, unless you are used to having everything placed on a platter for you. Just so you don't leave empty-handed, here's one article regarding global cooling from 1968:

 

The abstract ends : "Since 1940, the effect of the rapid rise of atmospheric turbidity appears to have exceeded the effect of rising carbon dioxide, resulting in a rapid downward trend of temperature. There is no indication that these trends will be reversed, and there is some reason to believe that man-made pollution will have an increased effect in the future."

 

This was one of the premier issues discussed at the AAAS symposium on climate of the same year, and at the later Bonn conference.

 

And so you don't have to overstrain yourself, here is a link to the entire paper.

 

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-94-010-3290-2_14

 

No further correspondence on this subject will be entered into.

 

 

[Just Weird]

18 hours ago, bristolboy said:

And why should Connelly's editing of Wikipedia effect a discussion of the facts about global warming? 

Facts?  The point is that what is being discussed here is not fact!

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, kwilco said:

Why would you want to  publicly air your ignorance n this topic is beyond me.....to trybe and ignore some of the biggest science, chemistry etc and blame  it on stats just reveals how hopeless out of touch you are.

Given that no one is answering my question as to what can be done about it that would work and would not penalise the poorest, I can only assume that no one knows, and are relying on statistics to publish erroneous information designed to make people accept new taxes. I consider 99% to be erroneous, as there is no way they actually asked every climate scientist, including the ones that don't agree that it's man made or man influenced.

 

People would make a better case if they didn't resort to personal insults.

[kwilco]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Given that no one is answering my question as to what can be done about it that would work and would not penalise the poorest, I can only assume that no one knows, and are relying on statistics to publish erroneous information designed to make people accept new taxes. I consider 99% to be erroneous, as there is no way they actually asked every climate scientist, including the ones that don't agree that it's man made or man influenced.

 

People would make a better case if they didn't resort to personal insults.

QED

[StreetCowboy]

On 6/14/2018 at 10:17 AM, rudi49jr said:

Ok, I will take you up on that. Many people seem to have absolutely no idea what they're talking about when it comes to climate change. Like I said, 99% of climate researchers are 99% sure that we are destroying the planet that we live on. I'm no expert on that, but it seems to me that it's at least somewhat ignorant to dismiss what these people have to say. See where I'm going with that?

Most people that know what they are talking about are dishonest fraudsters.  The only people you can trust are those that are proud of their ignorance.

[kwilco]

On 6/19/2018 at 2:01 AM, RickBradford said:

Because I never said that, or anything even close. You're just making that up.

 

I said I try not to rely on climate websites, but on published scientific research, which can also often be found online. I don't know if you're capable of understanding the distinction.

As there is no scientific research that supports your view, one has to question your ability to assets or interpret what you find.

Edited June 19, 2018 by kwilco

[RickBradford]

56 minutes ago, kwilco said:

As there is no scientific research that supports your view, one has to question your ability to assets or interpret what you find.

What "view" are you referring to?

[kwilco]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

What "view" are you referring to?

You don't believe  in man made global climate change.....did you forget?

[RickBradford]

3 minutes ago, kwilco said:

You don't believe  in man made global climate change.....did you forget?

That's not my view on climate change at all.

 

You have no idea about my views on climate change.

 

Furthermore, you're not interested in my views on climate change - it's far easier for you just to lob mindless stinkbombs around and pretend that you're contributing to a debate.

[gregk0543]

On 6/18/2018 at 10:04 AM, BritManToo said:

But are we responsible?, Is it significant?, and can we change anything even if we wanted?

 

Do I care if sea level rises 2cm every 10 years? Not really.

Does it matter if global temperature rises 2c in the next 100 years?, Can't see a problem myself.

What are the immediate consequences? Scaremongers using it to make money & manipulate fools IMHO.

 

Well i have done some work here after cyclone nargis killed 138000 or so people in Myanmar so I have seen some possible reason for concern. I think it does effect some people and especially where I live in Myanmar.  The intensity of natural disaster events has increased.

 

Remember the big hurricane is US texa and Puerto rico etc last year.

 

Thats an example here. So these many factors all taken together have a costly effect.

And without a lot of money for aid it turns very nasty indeed and all that aid has to come from somewhere.

 

https://frontiermyanmar.net/en/landslides-flash-floods-as-monsoon-batters-southern-myanmar

 

[kwilco]

13 hours ago, RickBradford said:

That's not my view on climate change at all.

 

You have no idea about my views on climate change.

Furthermore, you're not interested in my views on climate change - it's far easier for you just to lob mindless stinkbombs around and pretend that you're contributing to a debate

Good ....fancy that .. a denier who denies he's a denier? Must bebe fforce of habit.

I must confess I enjoy taking the

mickey out of your vacuous comments, hollow windbags as they are.

Perhaps you'd like to lay out your stance on  climate change, it would seem you have either changed your position....about time too... or just enjoy pointless gainsaying.

Actually on second thoughts don't bother, it's much more fun deriding your stream of pseudo-intellectual nonsense as it appears ....

PS only a complete loon these days would think there is actually still a debate about climate change.

Edited June 20, 2018 by kwilco

[gregk0543]

This maybe relevant to your views on the matter.

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/curt-stager/george-will-vs-climate-history_b_6493020.html

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎6‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 6:41 PM, gregk0543 said:

This maybe relevant to your views on the matter.

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/curt-stager/george-will-vs-climate-history_b_6493020.html

 

All the technology needed to change to a non carbon society exists already, but it hasn't happened. That is a truth that articles like that does NOT address, and my question is "why not"?

I also want to know what happens to all the liberated atmospheric carbon even if we stopped using fossil fuel today. Technology to remove it exists, but no government is financing it. My question is "why not"?

If humanity faces extinction, surely the cost is insignificant. One aircraft carrier probably costs more.

[Artisi]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

All the technology needed to change to a non carbon society exists already, but it hasn't happened. That is a truth that articles like that does NOT address, and my question is "why not"?

I also want to know what happens to all the liberated atmospheric carbon even if we stopped using fossil fuel today. Technology to remove it exists, but no government is financing it. My question is "why not"?

If humanity faces extinction, surely the cost is insignificant. One aircraft carrier probably costs more.

But an aircraft carrier is toys for the boys, and you well know where the priorities are. 

[bristolboy]

11 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

All the technology needed to change to a non carbon society exists already, but it hasn't happened. That is a truth that articles like that does NOT address, and my question is "why not"?

I also want to know what happens to all the liberated atmospheric carbon even if we stopped using fossil fuel today. Technology to remove it exists, but no government is financing it. My question is "why not"?

If humanity faces extinction, surely the cost is insignificant. One aircraft carrier probably costs more.

Can you point us to this technology that exists to remove CO2? I'm sure it's highly effective and is feasible to use on a large scale. Otherwise, you wouldn't have mentioned it.

[Jonah Tenner]

14 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Can you point us to this technology that exists to remove CO2? I'm sure it's highly effective and is feasible to use on a large scale. Otherwise, you wouldn't have mentioned it.

It is called trees, rainforest and jungle...

[bristolboy]

53 minutes ago, Jonah Tenner said:

It is called trees, rainforest and jungle...

You're forgetting another major absorber: the seas.. And even with that included, it still isn't enough. 

[PhuketSarah]

Something that is almost never mentioned is the vast amounts of methane locked up in the ice sheets. Methane - (CH 4)  not only has almost 20 times the green house effect that CO 2  does, but when it reacts with  oxygen, you get more carbon dioxide (CO 2) - and more water - H 2O

 

 I'm of the opinion  it's really too late to stop it and certain  people in the know, people who have powers to increase NASA budgets and create a "Space Force"  are looking to make satellite sanctuaries for their 1% heirs, hence completely crapping  where we all eat eat to gain the necessary trillions it will cost. 

 

Just a theory but makes sense about the current enviro-political fiasco in USA 

Edited June 28, 2018 by PhuketSarah

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, PhuketSarah said:

Something that is almost never mentioned is the vast amounts of methane locked up in the ice sheets. Methane - (CH 4)  not only has almost 20 times the green house effect that CO 2  does, but when it reacts with  oxygen, you get more carbon dioxide (CO 2) - and more water - H 2O

 

 I'm of the opinion  it's really too late to stop it and certain  people in the know, people who have powers to increase NASA budgets and create a "Space Force"  are looking to make satellite sanctuaries for their 1% heirs, hence completely crapping  where we all eat eat to gain the necessary trillions it will cost. 

 

Just a theory but makes sense about the current enviro-political fiasco in USA 

It's not actually locked up in the ice sheets. It's under the ice sheets and as far as I know, no drills have yet managed to take samples. So it's still not certain how much of a threat it poses. But in the arctic circle where permafrost is melting, methane is being released. And on the floor of cold shallow seas, there's something called methane hydrates. As these seas warm up and the ice in the hydrates melt, huge amounts of methane would be released. And methane is a much more potent, if shorter lived ,warming gas than CO2.

[PhuketSarah]

19 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

It's not actually locked up in the ice sheets. It's under the ice sheets and as far as I know, no drills have yet managed to take samples. So it's still not certain how much of a threat it poses. But in the arctic circle where permafrost is melting, methane is being released. And on the floor of cold shallow seas, there's something called methane hydrates. As these seas warm up and the ice in the hydrates melt, huge amounts of methane would be released. And methane is a much more potent, if shorter lived ,warming gas than CO2.

Shorter lived in an atmosphere where oxygen is present,  because the carbon  binds  Presto. Even more C0 2 

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎6‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 11:19 PM, bristolboy said:

Can you point us to this technology that exists to remove CO2? I'm sure it's highly effective and is feasible to use on a large scale. Otherwise, you wouldn't have mentioned it.

There is a project in Iceland that works, and there is technology elsewhere that has been discussed on previous threads.

A google search provides many threads, 29,100,000 to be precise, so you can stop the baiting and look it up yourself.

[thaibeachlovers]

19 hours ago, PhuketSarah said:

people who have powers to increase NASA budgets and create a "Space Force"  are looking to make satellite sanctuaries for their 1% heirs,

If the "climate alarmers" are correct, mankind is doomed long before they could make a viable satellite sanctuary.

For better or worse, man's future is going to be settled on the planet, IMO.

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

There is a project in Iceland that works, and there is technology elsewhere that has been discussed on previous threads.

A google search provides many threads, 29,100,000 to be precise, so you can stop the baiting and look it up yourself.

I know that there are plenty of ongoing projects. But none of them are yet feasible on a large scale. What is interesting though is how selective you can be. It's been repeatedly pointed out how extraordinary progress has been made in bringing down the cost of renewable energy. It is now a very fast growing economically advantageous way to generate electricity. Yet you consistently ignore these technologies that actually make economic sense while touting something that is still in the early stages of development and a long way off from financial feasibility. Why is that?

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours ago, bristolboy said:

I know that there are plenty of ongoing projects. But none of them are yet feasible on a large scale. What is interesting though is how selective you can be. It's been repeatedly pointed out how extraordinary progress has been made in bringing down the cost of renewable energy. It is now a very fast growing economically advantageous way to generate electricity. Yet you consistently ignore these technologies that actually make economic sense while touting something that is still in the early stages of development and a long way off from financial feasibility. Why is that?

LOL. The working technologies aren't being funded by governments which is why they aren't yet used on a large scale.

Renewables are a western thing, and won't make an iota of real difference for the vast majority of humanity. How many windmills are in Thailand- none that I know of because there isn't a reliable wind strong enough. How many solar water heaters- none that I've seen. How many solar energy plants- none that I've seen because the sky is too cloudy for efficiency. How many wave generators- none that I know of because the sea is too calm. How many electric cars on the road- 5555555555555. Where's the economic value for renewables in LOS- 555555555555.

Perhaps you can point out to us all the renewable energy plants in SEA, as I don't know of any.

[The manic]

On 6/14/2018 at 10:06 AM, champers said:

The Nelson Mandela Bayview Condominium.

Places such as Doncaster and Rotherham will be completely submerged; so not all bad news.

And Bangladesh and the Maldives.  Who cares?

[bristolboy]

26 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. The working technologies aren't being funded by governments which is why they aren't yet used on a large scale.

Renewables are a western thing, and won't make an iota of real difference for the vast majority of humanity. How many windmills are in Thailand- none that I know of because there isn't a reliable wind strong enough. How many solar water heaters- none that I've seen. How many solar energy plants- none that I've seen because the sky is too cloudy for efficiency. How many wave generators- none that I know of because the sea is too calm. How many electric cars on the road- 5555555555555. Where's the economic value for renewables in LOS- 555555555555.

Perhaps you can point out to us all the renewable energy plants in SEA, as I don't know of any.

Do you walk around blindfolded?  I see hybrid autos all the time in Thailand.

And the sky is too cloudy for efficiency? Do you really think it's okay just to make things up like that? Or can you cite a source? How do you come up with this nonsense like this?  Ridiculous.

In Thailand, One of the World's Largest Solar Energy Farms

https://www.adb.org/results/thailand-one-worlds-largest-solar-energy-farms

 

Chiang Mai Solar

http://www.chiangmaisolar.com/chiangmai_solar_water_heating.html

 

And what makes your point even more pointless, is that Thailand is a small developing nation. China already has huge solar and wind energy built. 

And now India is rapidly expanding its solar power generation.

 

The biggest solar parks in the world are now being built in India

http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-india-solar-20180319-story.html

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

17 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Do you walk around blindfolded?  I see hybrid autos all the time in Thailand.

And the sky is too cloudy for efficiency? Do you really think it's okay just to make things up like that? Or can you cite a source? How do you come up with this nonsense like this?  Ridiculous.

In Thailand, One of the World's Largest Solar Energy Farms

https://www.adb.org/results/thailand-one-worlds-largest-solar-energy-farms

 

Chiang Mai Solar

http://www.chiangmaisolar.com/chiangmai_solar_water_heating.html

 

And what makes your point even more pointless, is that Thailand is a small developing nation. China already has huge solar and wind energy built. 

And now India is rapidly expanding its solar power generation.

 

The biggest solar parks in the world are now being built in India

http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-india-solar-20180319-story.html

 

 

Thanks for the link. I wasn't aware of the Issan solar power plant, but then I've never been to Issan and won't ever be going there.

a further 11 megawatts of solar power will be added this year, bringing total capacity to 84 megawatts of electricity. In theory, that would be enough to light up 70,000 households and to serve about 350,000 people.

Excellent, so now only 67 and 3/4 million people to go.

 

Thailand is a small developing nation.

Thou jest, surely? It's neither small, nor developing. It's a quite large developed nation. Even has an aircraft carrier and going to buy submarines.

 

BTW, an advertisement for solar water heaters doesn't mean that a lot of them are in use.

 

Hybrid cars:

http://www.autocarpro.in/opinion-column/hybrid-vehicles-bumpy-road-thailand-4187

This year, we expect sales to surpass 20,000 units. Despite such strong and stable growth, this volume is miniscule in a country where 1.2 million light vehicles are projected to be sold this year. The hybrid vehicle sector thus accounts for only 1 percent share of the entire domestic market (or 3 percent of passenger vehicle volumes).

 

Edited June 29, 2018 by thaibeachlovers

[bristolboy]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Thanks for the link. I wasn't aware of the Issan solar power plant, but then I've never been to Issan and won't ever be going there.

a further 11 megawatts of solar power will be added this year, bringing total capacity to 84 megawatts of electricity. In theory, that would be enough to light up 70,000 households and to serve about 350,000 people.

Excellent, so now only 67 and 3/4 million people to go.

 

Thailand is a small developing nation.

Thou jest, surely? It's neither small, nor developing. It's a quite large developed nation. Even has an aircraft carrier and going to buy submarines.

 

Do you really think that your own personal experience is a useful way to know what's going on in the world?

Thailand's  economy is about 1/20th the size of China's and about 1/7th the size of India's.

And it is a developing nation.

http://www.ssr.org/DevelopingCountries

[kwilco]

16 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Do you really think that your own personal experience is a useful way to know what's going on in the world?

Thailand's  economy is about 1/20th the size of China's and about 1/7th the size of India's.

And it is a developing nation.

http://www.ssr.org/DevelopingCountries

Which is big...... the motor industry alone is about the 10 largest in the world.....bigger than the UK's.

People get a misleading idea Thailand has the third biggest rich/poor divide after India and Russia

Edited June 30, 2018 by kwilco