3 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

I don't think you understand what a rise in sea levels means... there's no evidence you even understand tides.....

 

Rising sea levels are caused by a combination of melting ice caps and warming ocean temperatures – water volume expands when it's warmed. As sea levels rise, water pushes farther inland, especially during storm surges, high tides and flooding events

I'm just gonna put you on ignore, I can't be bothered replying to people this stupid.

18 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

QED - Anyone who swallows that, is incapable of critical thinking.

It is very disturbing how many people these days just don't know how to think and analyse - this makes them easy prey for demagogues, con-men, and just about every crank and snake oil salesman who can operate a computer.....

 

just look at the language - "ipcc has an agenda," - "hear the scientists them self" - the grammar alone should be enough.

 

the show you cite is a result of a banal effort to be "unbiased" - the truth is if someone says its raining and someone says it isn't, the duty of the media is not to give them both a TV show but to look outside and see if it is raining or not.

 

 

watch the documentary from 16 minutes to 28 minutes

They'll be trying to say the sea is flat next!

7 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I'm just gonna put you on ignore, I can't be bothered replying to people this stupid.

QED - neither the earth nr the sea is flat - this might come as a bit of a shock for some.

I'm a bit concerned - people are posting "information" they clearly don't understand in the context of climate change - but then it does explain why there are some deniers left...... but thenI guess they also think that smoking is good for you and vaccines are bad and the moon landing was a hoax........funny how these things tend to group together

1 hour ago, Airbagwill said:

I'm a bit concerned - people are posting "information" they clearly don't understand in the context of climate change - but then it does explain why there are some deniers left...... but thenI guess they also think that smoking is good for you and vaccines are bad and the moon landing was a hoax........funny how these things tend to group together

Bit like Airbags eh....

I'm a bit concerned - people are posting "information" they clearly don't understand in the context of climate change - but then it does explain why there are some deniers left...... but thenI guess they also think that smoking is good for you and vaccines are bad and the moon landing was a hoax........funny how these things tend to group together

What concerns me it that it you’re not in 100% lock-step with the end-of-worlders you’re a denier.

The 97% lie that gets regurgitated constantly, and the fact that they lie so easily concerns me as well.

1 minute ago, RideJocky said:

 

What concerns me it that it you’re not in 100% lock-step with the end-of-worlders you’re a denier.

The 97% lie that gets regurgitated constantly, and the fact that they lie so easily concerns me as well.
 

 

Thoughts and prayers.

Thoughts and prayers.

Oh, you’re a Christian? Better not tell anyone you’ll be held up as a fool with everyone that doesn’t believe the world is coming to end in the next few years.

2 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

 

Oh, you’re a Christian? Better not tell anyone you’ll be held up as a fool with everyone that doesn’t believe the world is coming to end in the next few years.

 

No. Its what u need. Not what im offering. Thoughts i could. Prayers i have no authority to offer being an agnostic and all.

I don't think you understand what a rise in sea levels means... there's no evidence you even understand tides.....
 
Rising sea levels are caused by a combination of melting ice caps and warming ocean temperatures – water volume expands when it's warmed. As sea levels rise, water pushes farther inland, especially during storm surges, high tides and flooding events

So how much has sea level risen in the last 100 years?

If all the Arctic ice melts, how much will it rise?

Assuming most of the ice is below sea-level, how much will the rise be offset by the volume lost when water changes states from ice to liquid?

QED - Anyone who swallows that, is incapable of critical thinking.
It is very disturbing how many people these days just don't know how to think and analyse - this makes them easy prey for demagogues, con-men, and just about every crank and snake oil salesman who can operate a computer.....
 
just look at the language - "ipcc has an agenda," - "hear the scientists them self" - the grammar alone should be enough.
 
the show you cite is a result of a banal effort to be "unbiased" - the truth is if someone says its raining and someone says it isn't, the duty of the media is not to give them both a TV show but to look outside and see if it is raining or not.
 
 

Yes, and they can pick whatever window they want to look out of depending on whose agenda they support.

You should check your own grammar...

On 9/24/2019 at 7:47 AM, Lacessit said:

You are confusing theory and fact. It is a fact carbon dioxide is trending upwards since the Industrial Revolution. It is a fact ice sheets in the Antarctic, Greenland, and the Tibetan plateau are melting at unprecedented rates. Science relies on measurement, and that's what the measurements are telling us.

And measurements tell us that CO2 has never driven climate change, but rather been a consequence of it.

but tens of millions of other westerners have their own dreams.... and travel plans..... social, family, business, personal and professional reasons for spewing 285 grams of carbon directly into the atmosphere for each single passenger as they travel just one click thru.... the atmosphere. on air travel trips that, unlike by train or car, often involve hundreds of kilometers, sometimes even thousands (yes, it's true!  sometimes even thousands of kilometers for one trip) of a gas molecule so powerful, and pervasive, we measure it in parts per million, it accounts for all our food energy sources (including, especially actually, 'meatless meat'), as well as life on the 2nd of only 2 large cored terrestrial planets with a green house atmosphere (otherwise it would be 'brrrrrrr!!!!' as in cold unless "the Sun" were shining directly on your exposed skin, which is highly unlikely, to say the least) and....  maybe even why we left the trees 8 mya (Oliver Morton, Eating The Sun page 287 or so).  wow!!!!!

and yet only has a 3 letter "non chemical name" starting with a capital 'G'.  duh duh. because we can't see it but 'just knew somehow' that there HAS to be some explanation for 100,000 years of human advancement.   and there is.  but unleashing an accumulation of that required tens of millions of years on a very different planet... in just 200 years... is not such a good idear.  duh.

yet also it would take at least 15 to 20 years to come up with light weight batteries or a liquid fuel.... to scale... that is at least as energy packed as aviation fuel is today... that would then have to be tested for 'air worthiness' for a public that is hyper afraid of any risks... in the air but not on the ground, even if it soon enough involves a skipping heart beat or heat stroke death in grid failures.... and rollout to replace the 200,000 large aircraft we already have and by then will be probably like 1,000,000 aircraft.  which is blasphemy to post but plain and simple reality.   duh.    

 

and since EVERYTHING we do involves GHG emissions and 6,400 million of us have never flown even once in their life yet.... but already accounts for what is then a WHOPPPING 2 percent of all global GHG emissions..... and actually, it's a bit more than only 2 percent as well.     

4 hours ago, Airbagwill said:

I'm a bit concerned - people are posting "information" they clearly don't understand in the context of climate change - but then it does explain why there are some deniers left...... but thenI guess they also think that smoking is good for you and vaccines are bad and the moon landing was a hoax........funny how these things tend to group together

That gets win, place and show for the silliest post on this thread so far; and that's up against some pretty stiff competition.

 

You "guess" that "deniers" think the moon landing was a hoax, you then turn your guess into an established fact to link it back to lack of knowledge about climate change, and come up with the conclusion that "these things tend to group together".

 

That's not good logic. It's not even bad logic. It's less-than-zero logic.

 

You're right to be a bit concerned, but not about any lack of understanding displayed by others. You're looking in the wrong place.

Greta is angry!

Greta Thunberg is very angry!
Not on herself or her own generation ... No, Greta is angry with us, the older generation. The generation that used less than 5% of the electricity, which now uses its own generation. She is angry with the generation who, for example, bought glass bottles of milk, to return them to the store where they were refilled when they were empty. She is not angry with her generations, who you see every day with countless plastic bottles in their hands. She is also not angry with the generation, which throws out 30 million empty nitrous oxide cartridges and a proportionate amount of plastic balloons on the street every year.

No, she is angry with all those people who went to work by bike. And I mean such a bike that you had to pedal yourself on and where the only electric part was a dynamo and not a battery! She is angry with the generation that played outside until the street lights came on. Fortunately, she is not angry at the generation that looks at an electric screen on average 14 hours a day! Not even at the countless mallots who dump their drug waste in nature ... no, she is angry at the generation that collected the garden waste to make it into compost ... at the one who lived in a time when diapers were washed, instead of using them making countless disposable diapers. When people were still walking stairs and an escalator and elevator was still an oddity. Fortunately she is not angry with her peers, who are brought day-in-day-out with the last model SUV by daddy or mummy to and from school ... I can still complete 10 A4 pages, but I think it is is clear ...

Fortunately our generation will gradually disappear. Good news for Greta! Then she has nobody to be mad at anymore ...

12 hours ago, righand3256 said:

 Much better

 

I knew there was something about her style that I like. I could mosh to that.

 

9 hours ago, Sujo said:

Some angry old men here just because a teenage girl told world leaders to do their job.

I thought they were angry because of all that sand that got in their ears when they buried their heads.

Troll posts and replies removed.  

 

14 hours ago, Sujo said:

Some angry old men here just because a teenage girl told world leaders to do their job.

She has not earned the right to tell people what to do, least of all her elders and betters. She is an obsessive ingrate who is spreading fear.

https://uk.style.yahoo.com/jeremy-clarkson-brands-greta-thunberg-083850347.html

34 minutes ago, sunnyboy2018 said:

She has not earned the right to tell people what to do, least of all her elders and betters. She is an obsessive ingrate who is spreading fear.

https://uk.style.yahoo.com/jeremy-clarkson-brands-greta-thunberg-083850347.html

yes

Off-topic posts and replies removed.   Continued posting of superfluous, nasty comments will earn suspensions.  

14 hours ago, RideJocky said:

 

So how much has sea level risen in the last 100 years?

If all the Arctic ice melts, how much will it rise?

Assuming most of the ice is below sea-level, how much will the rise be offset by the volume lost when water changes states from ice to liquid?
 

I've seen figures of about 200 feet rise or so.  My house is around 220 ft above sea level in Virginia, USA, about 100 miles inland from the Atlantic ocean.  I've been thinking of putting some pilings in the lower back yard so I can easily build a dock and start a marina when the time comes. 

On 9/26/2019 at 2:19 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

I'd do it by finding realistic ways to make people have less children. The problem, if it is man made, is caused by too many people, ergo reduce people, reduce the problem.

In the meantime, I'd put a refundable deposit on every piece of disposable plastic sold, so it didn't end up in the oceans.

I'd ban private cars in cities and build decent public transport systems- I never owned a vehicle in London; didn't need one.

I'd ban casual air travel and build hi speed electrified railways instead.

I'd force shipping companies to carry non perishable cargoes in wind powered ships, where there are reliable winds ( wind powered ships do not have to use sails ).

I'd make politicians use teleconferencing instead of flying to meetings.

Plenty of other similar ideas that would work. 

 

What ideas do you have to solve the problem?

good, but too practical to put into practice. this is why we have governments to f things up on our behalf

1 hour ago, Damrongsak said:

I've seen figures of about 200 feet rise or so.  My house is around 220 ft above sea level in Virginia, USA, about 100 miles inland from the Atlantic ocean.  I've been thinking of putting some pilings in the lower back yard so I can easily build a dock and start a marina when the time comes. 

Don't worry, the White Cliffs of Dover are still there....

1 hour ago, transam said:

Don't worry, the White Cliffs of Dover are still there....

I remember as a kid living at the seaside in Britain and standing on the rocks looking at some old walls that were visible when the tide went out ,my granddad who was in his 60s told me that there used to be houses there a long time ago ,but they had been lost when the sea rose .Was that global warming? or just nature doing what nature has always done ,another thing was watching a tv show about British towns and one was a long way from the sea in the middle ages ,but as the sea rose they had docks there .

ps its a good tv show ,Britains most historic towns . ,

On 9/29/2019 at 8:18 AM, BritManToo said:

What sea level rises?

Brighton Pier 1900 & 2019

Liberty Island 1898 & 2016

And in another 100 years it will be like this, but even worse, 

I wish the environmentalists could focus on controlling pollution, which we can control, instead of climate change, which we can't control.

That way, they could gain some credibility.

Nobody can deny that we are full of plastic waste up to our ears.

8 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I wish the environmentalists could focus on controlling pollution, which we can control, instead of climate change, which we can't control.

That way, they could gain some credibility.

Nobody can deny that we are full of plastic waste up to our ears.

agree, im on that train too