Earth is losing ice faster today than in the mid-1990s, study suggests

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, TKDfella said:

Strictly speaking, this comes under geophysical pollution rather than tropospheric. Having said that it is no less important because the Earth's crust itself is changing as for example, the Australian plate is moving northwards. Volcanoes can erupt when the lithosphere and asthenosphere are subject to subduction but, as far as I know, there is no substantial evidence that tropospheric activity directly is responsible (underground testing?). [There is a lot geoscience going on in Australia because it contains a very small population compared to its size yet physiologically it's a very active place. This means that at sometime any one of Australia's dead volcanoes might erupt adding to atmospheric pollution.]

But if are going to include volcanic eruptions into the GW 'equation' we need also to consider the Earth's Astronomical situation too because this a plays a large part in climate change.

So with all of this to consider, it isn't that scientists are not 'allowed to get the message across' it's because they too have different interpretations (they are human after all, Ha!).

I'm not sure whether it can be called Geophysical pollution or Tropospheric pollution, or even whether geophyscial  and tropospheric are even comparable since geophysical would indicate a source of pollution and the troposphere is what is being polluted. At any rate, whatever the merits of that, there's no doubt in the real scientific community that volcanism is a very minor contributor to CO2.

 

As for volcanoes in Australia, geologically speaking, the country of Australia is a very inactive place. It's extinct volcanoes aren't coming back. They're nowhere near a tectonic plate

"Australia is situated in the middle of the tectonic plate, and therefore currently has no active volcanism.[23]Australia is situated in the middle of the tectonic plate, and therefore currently has no active volcanism.[23] The continent primarily sits on the Indo-Australian Plate. Because of its central location on its tectonic plate Australia doesn't have any active volcanic regions, the only continent with this distinction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_(continent)

Also the fact that its mountains are very low and that the world's oldest rock was found there indicates its relative lack of geological activity.

 

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, owl sees all said:

The most truthful post I've read on this thread Andy. More logic and truth please.

 

The history of the Earth shows that it's been considerably hotter and considerably colder.

 

If the polar bear's land is getting smaller, why not take a few to the south pole and let them start up a new colony? 

 

12 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Clueless.

Hey, they're both very white and both very cold, what more does a polar bear need? And think how the penguins would thrive with a polar bear in there midst. Finally, they get to share the land with a major predator that can move a lot faster on land than they can. Yippee!

[owl sees all]

17 minutes ago, placeholder said:

 

Hey, they're both very white and both very cold, what more does a polar bear need? And think how the penguins would thrive with a polar bear in there midst. Finally, they get to share the land with a major predator that can move a lot faster on land than they can. Yippee!

Not suggesting catch thousands. Just a few and see if they thrive. After all humans moved throughout the world.

[Yahooka]

8 hours ago, placeholder said:

Clearly, you didn't read the article. Here's the very first answer in the article:

 

"One of the most frequent myths we hear about polar bears is that their numbers are increasing and have, in fact, more than doubled over the past thirty years. Tales about how many polar bears there used to be (with claims as low as 5,000 in the 1960s) are undocumented, but cited over and over again. Yet no one I know can come up with a legitimate source for these numbers.*"

There's also a reference to this article:

Magic Number: a Sketchy "Fact" About Polar Bears Keeps Going...And Going... And Going

https://www.sej.org/publications/alaska-and-hawaii/magic-number-a-sketchy-fact-about-polar-bears-keeps-goingand-going-an

 

So the article is saying that polar bears are doing just fine.Thats what I`ve always said too !

[Lacessit]

8 hours ago, AndyFoxy said:

Definitely.....and I don’t care.

Then it should come as no surprise that nobody cares about you either.

[Lacessit]

6 hours ago, Stargrazer9889 said:

So, how many volcanoes have erupted in the last while?  You do know that every eruption

messes up the atmosphere and sends lots of gases into it as well.

  I just wish the real scientists would be allowed to get the real message across,

and not the pretend ones.

Geezer

Oh, a look over there post. How original.

What do you regard as a real scientist? The ones that agree with your opinion?

[Lacessit]

2 hours ago, owl sees all said:

The most truthful post I've read on this thread Andy. More logic and truth please.

 

The history of the Earth shows that it's been considerably hotter and considerably colder.

 

If the polar bear's land is getting smaller, why not take a few to the south pole and let them start up a new colony? 

How do you think you would go if I put you in the Australian outback with a spear and nulla nulla, and told you to live off the land? Polar bears are part of a food chain, and their predation is based on certain species available in the Arctic. They would be competing with leopard seals in the Antarctic, who are predators themselves. Leopard seals do not exist in the Arctic.

The history of the Earth does not show a single species previous to homo sapiens that contributed to a warming cycle.

Apologies for truth and logic spoiling your post.

[owl sees all]

4 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

How do you think you would go if I put you in the Australian outback with a spear and nulla nulla, and told you to live off the land? Polar bears are part of a food chain, and their predation is based on certain species available in the Arctic. They would be competing with leopard seals in the Antarctic, who are predators themselves. Leopard seals do not exist in the Arctic.

The history of the Earth does not show a single species previous to homo sapiens that contributed to a warming cycle.

Apologies for truth and logic spoiling your post.

Good post Lacessit. 

 

My point about AndyFoxy's post was that he said he didn't care. He spoke the truth and that's good. Most people don't care about animals or indeed humans; but wouldn't say so.

 

Don't matter whether I agree with him on animals or not. I like his truth.

 

As for moving the bears to the south pole; I'd rather see that then they go extinct.

 

Me being in the Oz outback with a spear and nulla nulla (whatever they are). When I was in special forces years ago, it would have been a piece of cake. Now I'd probably last just a week or two; maybe not that long.

[Lacessit]

4 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

Good post Lacessit. 

 

My point about AndyFoxy's post was that he said he didn't care. He spoke the truth and that's good. Most people don't care about animals or indeed humans; but wouldn't say so.

 

Don't matter whether I agree with him on animals or not. I like his truth.

 

As for moving the bears to the south pole; I'd rather see that then they go extinct.

 

Me being in the Oz outback with a spear and nulla nulla (whatever they are). When I was in special forces years ago, it would have been a piece of cake. Now I'd probably last just a week or two; maybe not that long.

I care about my friends and animals, we do treat some abominably and are sending too many to extinction. There's a passage in Arthur C Clarke's sci-fi novel The Deep Range in which he speculates if we are ever judged by a superior alien species, it will be on the basis of how we have behaved towards the other animals that occupy the planet with us.

Australian Aboriginals can smell water, that's why they have noses that spread halfway over their face. Genetic adaptation to an environment, just like the black skin of Africans. Permit me to doubt your special forces training would have equipped you with that facility. We sometimes have deaths from thirst in the arid regions, people don't realize  dehydration and delirium is a matter of hours there.

A nulla nulla is an Aboriginal club used in hunting.

[AndyFoxy]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

Then it should come as no surprise that nobody cares about you either.

You’d be wrong about that. Just saying that I don’t care about global warming even though it may be true. Got better things to care about.

Edited January 26, 2021 by AndyFoxy

[Lacessit]

1 minute ago, AndyFoxy said:

Why would I care about that?

You wouldn't, I just said it would come as no surprise. You obviously think John Donne is wrong.

[faraday]

18 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

You wouldn't, I just said it would come as no surprise. You obviously think John Donne is wrong.

 Do you mean this:

 

"But we by a love, so much refined,

That our selves know not what it is,

Inter-assured of the mind,

Care less, eyes, lips, and hands to miss"

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, owl sees all said:

Not suggesting catch thousands. Just a few and see if they thrive. After all humans moved throughout the world.

Good thing those humans had no effect on wildlife wherever they moved into.

And on the off chance that polars could actually thrive there, it would have no effect on the other creatures whose habitat they are sharing?

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, Yahooka said:

 

So the article is saying that polar bears are doing just fine.Thats what I`ve always said too !

Is that what your decoder ring tells you it's saying?

[Yahooka]

5 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Is that what your decoder ring tells you it's saying?

Some of us have a realistic opinion about it and not a woke hysterical view on this like you ????.

[placeholder]

15 minutes ago, Yahooka said:

Some of us have a realistic opinion about it and not a woke hysterical view on this like you ????.

Some of us, well, you , clearly haven't understood the article (or maybe just not have read it?) . Can you point to what in the article supports what you're claiming?

[Lacessit]

27 minutes ago, faraday said:

 Do you mean this:

 

"But we by a love, so much refined,

That our selves know not what it is,

Inter-assured of the mind,

Care less, eyes, lips, and hands to miss"

I was thinking of his statement no man is an island.

[owl sees all]

26 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Good thing those humans had no effect on wildlife wherever they moved into.

And on the off chance that polars could actually thrive there, it would have no effect on the other creatures whose habitat they are sharing?

I think humans have spread animals everywhere. Sometimes it's been a good thing; other times bad. At other times we (humans) have just wiped them out. I'm thinking particularly of the passenger pigeon, that once flew in great numbers across North America. And what has happened to the peacock butterfly that was plentiful in South East England?

 

Just off the top of my head I can think of rabbits and camels that have been introduced in environments where they have thrived; sometimes too well. Asian carp in North America have also done well, as have the Asian python in the wet states. Common carp (as in King Carp) are not native to the UK, but are well respected and loved. On the other hand, common carp in Oz and NZ are thought of as vermin; as they are mostly in the US.

 

The Antarctic is a big place. Would take a thousand years for polar bears to get established; and then only in a relatively small area.

Edited January 26, 2021 by owl sees all

[Lacessit]

54 minutes ago, AndyFoxy said:

You’d be wrong about that. Just saying that I don’t care about global warming even though it may be true. Got better things to care about.

Let's hope that doesn't include ownership of a condo in Bangkok, eh? Because then you should care a lot about global warming.

[TKDfella]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

I'm not sure whether it can be called Geophysical pollution or Tropospheric pollution, or even whether geophyscial  and tropospheric are even comparable since geophysical would indicate a source of pollution and the troposphere is what is being polluted. At any rate, whatever the merits of that, there's no doubt in the real scientific community that volcanism is a very minor contributor to CO2.

 

As for volcanoes in Australia, geologically speaking, the country of Australia is a very inactive place. It's extinct volcanoes aren't coming back. They're nowhere near a tectonic plate

"Australia is situated in the middle of the tectonic plate, and therefore currently has no active volcanism.[23]Australia is situated in the middle of the tectonic plate, and therefore currently has no active volcanism.[23] The continent primarily sits on the Indo-Australian Plate. Because of its central location on its tectonic plate Australia doesn't have any active volcanic regions, the only continent with this distinction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_(continent)

Also the fact that its mountains are very low and that the world's oldest rock was found there indicates its relative lack of geological activity.

 

Re.Geophysical pollution or Tropospheric pollution; I was merely making a distinction to stargrazer9889, since most of what was referred to on this thread, that is GW/climate change on the surface, and not about the geophysical structure of the planet. While I would agree that Australia is considered an unlikely place for revival of volcanic activity it is seismically active. In addition to that the Andaman-Sumatra earthquake of December 2004 showed that Australia was a good site for passive seismic recording. This resulted in building more seismic recording stations. Australian studies have also shown gravity and magnetic anomalies spread throughout the continent. Just how much such studies impact on climate change views is debatable since the studies are ongoing and of course are primarily for geophysical research and not GW/CC. (My info comes from research papers (Beykiev et al, Kennet etc.) in journals that I subscribe to.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, owl sees all said:

I think humans have spread animals everywhere. Sometimes it's been a good thing; other times bad. At other times we (humans) have just wiped them out. I'm thinking particularly of the passenger pigeon, that once flew in great numbers across North America. And what has happened to the peacock butterfly that was plentiful in South East England?

 

Just off the top of my head I can think of rabbits and camels that have been introduced in environments where they have thrived.; sometimes too well. Asian carp in North America have also done well, as have the Asian python in the wet states. Common carp (as in King Carp) are not native to the UK, but are well respected and loved. On the other hand common carp in Oz and NZ are thought of as vermin; as they are mostly in the US.

 

The Antarctic is a big place. Would take a thousand years for polar bears to get established; and then only in a relatively small area.

Do you understand that when a new plant or animal is introduced into an environment where they thrive some other plant(s) and/or animal(s) is going to not thrive as a result?

You mean Polar could live in the interior? On what? icicles? Just possibly they have to be where the food is. And why would it take thousands of years? Do you know the difference between an arithmetic progression and a geometric progression? Think of it in terms of compound interest.

[owl sees all]

6 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Do you understand that when a new plant or animal is introduced into an environment where they thrive some other plant(s) and/or animal(s) is going to not thrive as a result?

You mean Polar could live in the interior? On what? icicles? Just possibly they have to be where the food is. And why would it take thousands of years? Do you know the difference between an arithmetic progression and a geometric progression? Think of it in terms of compound interest.

I understand all that you have said placeholder. It takes ages for a new species to adapt, and along the way the native stuff, needs to adapt too. If it can't then things change; sometimes for the better, sometimes not.

 

I said a thousand years.

 

Don't need a lesson on maths thanks.

[placeholder]

 

37 minutes ago, TKDfella said:

Re.Geophysical pollution or Tropospheric pollution; I was merely making a distinction to stargrazer9889, since most of what was referred to on this thread, that is GW/climate change on the surface, and not about the geophysical structure of the planet. While I would agree that Australia is considered an unlikely place for revival of volcanic activity it is seismically active. In addition to that the Andaman-Sumatra earthquake of December 2004 showed that Australia was a good site for passive seismic recording. This resulted in building more seismic recording stations. Australian studies have also shown gravity and magnetic anomalies spread throughout the continent. Just how much such studies impact on climate change views is debatable since the studies are ongoing and of course are primarily for geophysical research and not GW/CC. (My info comes from research papers (Beykiev et al, Kennet etc.) in journals that I subscribe to.

I think the reason it's good for recording seismic activity is that there's so little geologic activity going on that signals elsewhere come through loud and clear. And gravitational and magnetic anomalies aren't necessarily indications of activity. More likely indications of past activity given the age of that part of the continent.

[Meat Pie 47]

12 hours ago, ExpatOK said:

Here we go again.

 

Do you know polar bears only live in the arctic and not in the antarctic

where most of the ice is melting?

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Meat Pie 47 said:

Do you know polar bears only live in the arctic and not in the antarctic

where most of the ice is melting?

He does. His idea was to transplant some there because, i guess, they both seem similar to him. Of course, female bears need proper places for dens usually in snow drifts that are formed besides lakes and rivers. Not so many lakes and rivers in Antarctica.

[Yahooka]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

Some of us, well, you , clearly haven't understood the article (or maybe just not have read it?) . Can you point to what in the article supports what you're claiming?

Don`t know what youre talking about ????.................Im talking about polar bears.And they are doing just fine ???? !

[Scott]

Off-topic, troll post reported and removed.

[Odysseus123]

5 hours ago, owl sees all said:

I think humans have spread animals everywhere. Sometimes it's been a good thing; other times bad.

Only to a point,I believe, as the opposite has also been true..

 

Yuval Noah Harari describes in 'Sapiens' two mass extinction events on two different continents once Homo Sapiens arrived.

1.Australia approx 40-50.000 years ago-the mass extinction of the mega fauna and the changing of the landscape through the use of controlled fire.

2.The destruction of the American mega fauna about 12- 10,000 years ago.

 

Both events took only a remarkably short period of time-about a couple of thousand years or so...

[AndyFoxy]

7 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Let's hope that doesn't include ownership of a condo in Bangkok, eh? Because then you should care a lot about global warming.

Definitely. Too small for me. I prefer to own a big house somewhere else.

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, AndyFoxy said:

Definitely. Too small for me. I prefer to own a big house somewhere else.

What planet?

Edited January 27, 2021 by placeholder