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

[placeholder]

8 hours ago, Yahooka said:

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

Nothing more convincing than an anonymous poster's assertions made without any supporting evidence.

[TKDfella]

10 hours ago, placeholder said:

 

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.

Hmm, perhaps I should have rephrased my comment differently. I did not intend that mag & grav. anomalies were indications of any current activity. Indeed the gravity anomalies exist because of the varying density of rock and the magnetic anomalies with variations of distribution of magnetic minerals etc., all mof which happened over time.

[Jeffr2]

11 hours ago, Yahooka said:

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

Woke hysterical view?  Wow....

 

2020:

worst fire season ever in the US on the West coast

most active Atlantic hurricane season ever

near record lows in Artic sea ice, probably from methane release from permafrost

huge wildfires in the Amazon

Arctic shattered heat records

corals reefs are bleaching like never before

collapse of the last fully intact ice shelf in the Canadian Arctic

 

Etc, etc, etc.

 

Perhaps it's the climate change deniers who are hysterical?  Or, those who don't care.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/25/opinion/new-normal-climate-catastrophes.html

[AndyFoxy]

6 hours ago, placeholder said:

What planet?

Take a wild stab in the dark, Einstein.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, AndyFoxy said:

Take a wild stab in the dark, Einstein.

Well, it doesn't seem like you had much familiarity with this one.

Edited January 27, 2021 by placeholder

[AndyFoxy]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Well, it doesn't seem like you had much familiarity with this one.

Cutting.

[placeholder]

22 minutes ago, Yahooka said:

 

Then we are two who makes claims "without any supporting evidence".You just proved my point ????.

 

 

I can't tell if you're trolling or serious:

Here's the link I produced which is a detailed article why those claims about polar bear increase can't be trusted:

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

The above links to something called evidence. 

What do you call it?

What makes your contention even odder is that you "liked" an article referenced by vocalneal that debunked the claim that research shows that polar bear numbers are going up. I'm hoping for your sake that the reason you, Kelsall, and ExpatOK liked it is because you all didn't read it. Otherwise, that would be sad. Here's that link again:

 https://polarbearsinternational.org/research/research-qa/are-polar-bear-populations-increasing-in-fact-booming/

It also links to something called evidence.

What do you call it?

 

[Yahooka]

4 hours ago, placeholder said:

 

 

I can't tell if you're trolling or serious:

Here's the link I produced which is a detailed article why those claims about polar bear increase can't be trusted:

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

The above links to something called evidence. 

What do you call it?

What makes your contention even odder is that you "liked" an article referenced by vocalneal that debunked the claim that research shows that polar bear numbers are going up. I'm hoping for your sake that the reason you, Kelsall, and ExpatOK liked it is because you all didn't read it. Otherwise, that would be sad. Here's that link again:

 https://polarbearsinternational.org/research/research-qa/are-polar-bear-populations-increasing-in-fact-booming/

It also links to something called evidence.

What do you call it?

 

The fact is that polar bears numbers have increased as a whole,but with differences in certain areas of the Arctic. 

 

Same as with the melting of the ice in the Arctic : In some areas it has increased and in some areas there are no change that can be observed as an regular occurence.

 

And thats a fact.

[placeholder]

44 minutes ago, Yahooka said:

The fact is that polar bears numbers have increased as a whole,but with differences in certain areas of the Arctic. 

 

Same as with the melting of the ice in the Arctic : In some areas it has increased and in some areas there are no change that can be observed as an regular occurence.

 

And thats a fact.

I guess it comes from The Journal of Making Things Up.

Edited January 27, 2021 by placeholder

[thaibeachlovers]

On 1/26/2021 at 3:03 PM, TKDfella said:

While I'm all for for finding new ways to sustain the environment, energy production etc.I think we have already gone beyond the point of being able to stop rising temperatures let alone being able to reverse it. I'm not suggesting doom and gloom here, far from it, but our needs and wants demand increase in 'this & that' and so demand/supply outpaces the technology we need to produce the goods in an environmentally friendly way. I think countries should come to together and develop strategies but with all the other types of conflict in the world, imo, some don't see GW as top priority. It is difficult to get some to understand that it isn't the planet that is at risk, it is our existence that's on the line, as it were.

Excellent post.

I've been saying ever since governments decided they could make lotasacash by taxing carbon ( which apparently isn't the main greenhouse gas- water vapour apparently is, but can't tax water vapour ) that it's too late for anything humans do to change the situation.

Seems to me that the people pushing the agenda are those that can get rich off it- wind generator companies and, of course, electric car manufacturers. Batteries are not the best option IMO- polluting to make and polluting to dispose of, and IMO require exploitation of poor people in poor countries for raw material. Hydrogen is IMO a far superior method of replacing fossil fuel, and the technology is already proven.

 

Far as electricity generation goes, nuclear is the only, IMO, non fossil fuel technology currently available to produce enough electricity in countries with no hydro sources.

 

It is difficult to get some to understand that it isn't the planet that is at risk, it is our existence that's on the line, as it were.

That can't be emphasized enough. The planet will be fine if every human vanished tomorrow. If humans continue to destroy the planet the way we have been doing, we will be extinct from pollution, not climate change, IMO.

Edited January 27, 2021 by thaibeachlovers

[thaibeachlovers]

On 1/27/2021 at 3:21 AM, owl sees all said:

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.

IMO polar bears can not live in the Antarctic as they would need to eat the penguins during the short breeding season and hibernate a very long time- if they turned up and started eating the penguins they would soon, IMO, exterminate them, so no food source. Other than humans, to my knowledge there are no animals living permanently in Antarctica.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 1/26/2021 at 10:26 PM, 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? 

LOL. Other than humans there is no food source at the south pole. Penguins only live on the coasts.

[Scott]

Troll post removed.

 

[simple1]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. Other than humans there is no food source at the south pole. Penguins only live on the coasts.

 

https://www.auroraexpeditions.com.au/blog/are-there-polar-bears-in-antarctica/#:~:text=The main reasons there are,are evolution%2C location and climate.

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Excellent post.

I've been saying ever since governments decided they could make lotasacash by taxing carbon ( which apparently isn't the main greenhouse gas- water vapour apparently is, but can't tax water vapour ) that it's too late for anything humans do to change the situation.

Seems to me that the people pushing the agenda are those that can get rich off it- wind generator companies and, of course, electric car manufacturers. Batteries are not the best option IMO- polluting to make and polluting to dispose of, and IMO require exploitation of poor people in poor countries for raw material. Hydrogen is IMO a far superior method of replacing fossil fuel, and the technology is already proven.

 

Far as electricity generation goes, nuclear is the only, IMO, non fossil fuel technology currently available to produce enough electricity in countries with no hydro sources.

 

It is difficult to get some to understand that it isn't the planet that is at risk, it is our existence that's on the line, as it were.

That can't be emphasized enough. The planet will be fine if every human vanished tomorrow. If humans continue to destroy the planet the way we have been doing, we will be extinct from pollution, not climate change, IMO.

Yes, you've been saying that it's too late for years now. But saying something over and over again doesn't make it true. It may not be possible to reverse the increase, but it is possible to stop it. (That said, there are lots of serious efforts being made to create carbon capture technology. So reversal may be possible one day)  Keeping the increase to 1.5 degrees centigrade will avert a lot of the damage being done.

 

Clearly you are utterly unacquainted with the extraordinary fall in the costs of generating electricity via solar and wind, and the equally extraordinary drop in storage costs. Battery costs per kwh have already plunged by 89% in the past 10 years. And there are new successful technologies such as zinc air and solid state batteries. Zinc-air batteries are virtually 100% recyclabe. And recycling programs for lithium batteries are taking off. As electricity becomes cheaper and cheaper, recycling is makes increasing financial sense.  And because the price of generating electricity from wind and solar is so low, hydrogen generation from sea water is now becoming possible at commercially viable prices. 

 

So much misinformation packed into such a small space. Quite a remarkable achievement. If you look at the history of carbon taxation you would find that it was political conservatives who introduced the idea as a market alternative to govt. mandates.

 

This may seem like science fiction to you, but honestly, on planet Earth we have various weather phenomena known as rain, snow, sleet, hail..These are various liquid and solid forms of water. They occur when the atmosphere reaches the limit of how much water vapor it can hold. So the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is naturally self limiting. As far as I'm aware, CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons and fluorocarbons do not precipitate from the atmosphere no matter how much is in the atmosphere. Maybe where you come from it rains dry ice?

 

 As for batteries being polluting, it's all a matter of relative harm. Which poses a worse threat to the environment, batteries or fossil fuels? The WTO estimates that fossil fuel subsidies amount to about 6% of global GDP. Mostly in the form of health costs.

 

Apart from the few objections listed above, thanks for the great post.

 

 

[placeholder]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. Other than humans there is no food source at the south pole. Penguins only live on the coasts.

Not that it made much sense to transplant polar bears to Antarctica, but polar bears live mainly on various kinds of pinniped (seals and such) which they hunt from ice floes. The waters around Antarctica are very rich and various species of seals thrive there. Whether the ice conditions are suitable for hunting is another question entirely. Owlseesall's proposal may have been unrealistic, but he didn't propose settling polar bears at the South Pole.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 1/28/2021 at 2:08 PM, placeholder said:

As for batteries being polluting, it's all a matter of relative harm. Which poses a worse threat to the environment, batteries or fossil fuels? The WTO estimates that fossil fuel subsidies amount to about 6% of global GDP. Mostly in the form of health costs.

Better not to have to use large batteries at all which can be done with hydrogen already proven technology.

[Jeffr2]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Better not to have to use large batteries at all which can be done with hydrogen already proven technology.

I did just read an article that overall, electric cars are better for the environment than fossil fuel ones....over their entire life...

[placeholder]

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

Better not to have to use large batteries at all which can be done with hydrogen already proven technology.

Really? There's a proven technology to extract hydrogen at economically competitive rates?

And zinc-air batteries aren't a proven technology?

[placeholder]

Just now, placeholder said:

Really? There's a proven technology to extract hydrogen at economically competitive rates?

And zinc-air batteries aren't a proven technology?

And given that private capitalis gushing into battery development, what do you know that those investors don't?

[thaibeachlovers]

On 1/28/2021 at 2:14 PM, placeholder said:

Not that it made much sense to transplant polar bears to Antarctica, but polar bears live mainly on various kinds of pinniped (seals and such) which they hunt from ice floes. The waters around Antarctica are very rich and various species of seals thrive there. Whether the ice conditions are suitable for hunting is another question entirely. Owlseesall's proposal may have been unrealistic, but he didn't propose settling polar bears at the South Pole.

I am fully aware of the seals in Antarctica, as there were large numbers sunbathing on the sea ice in front of Scott Base during the breeding season.

Seals can't live far from the coast either as they have to make air holes in the sea ice, and it is a constant battle to keep them open. While the bears might have found them easy pickings while they were present, they don't stay around very long and vanish northwards, which would present a problem surviving till the next summer.

A major problem for bears would be that many of the places on the coast suitable for seals to have their young are also inhabited by bases, and humans and polar bears normally don't get on well together.

[thaibeachlovers]

8 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

I did just read an article that overall, electric cars are better for the environment than fossil fuel ones....over their entire life...

You ignore hydrogen in that sentence, so what was the point of it in a reply to my post which you quote?

[thaibeachlovers]

9 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Really? There's a proven technology to extract hydrogen at economically competitive rates?

And zinc-air batteries aren't a proven technology?

Apparently you are unaware that once a technology becomes wide spread the cost tends to come down, as with solar panels, and windmills as Jeffr2 keeps reminding us ( if I remember correctly ).

If battery cars are so great why are there so few in NZ?

 

[Jeffr2]

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You ignore hydrogen in that sentence, so what was the point of it in a reply to my post which you quote?

Just trying to say that green, in whatever form, is good.  I'll try to be more specific next time.  And you did mention batteries....

Edited January 29, 2021 by Jeffr2

[thaibeachlovers]

21 minutes ago, placeholder said:

And given that private capitalis gushing into battery development, what do you know that those investors don't?

LOL. Investors go where they think they will make money, not necessarily to the better technology.

I remember when VHS became the dominant VDO technology, despite being inferior to Betamax.

[placeholder]

9 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Apparently you are unaware that once a technology becomes wide spread the cost tends to come down, as with solar panels, and windmills as Jeffr2 keeps reminding us ( if I remember correctly ).

If battery cars are so great why are there so few in NZ?

 

Right. The all-important bellwether New Zealand market. Because it's not remote and has a large population to make it an attractive target.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Right. The all-important bellwether New Zealand market. Because it's not remote and has a large population to make it an attractive target.

That doesn't answer my question. If they were so great they would be more popular. They aren't, on both counts, IMO.

[stevenl]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. Investors go where they think they will make money, not necessarily to the better technology.

I remember when VHS became the dominant VDO technology, despite being inferior to Betamax.

Video2000 was by far the best system.

[placeholder]

20 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You ignore hydrogen in that sentence, so what was the point of it in a reply to my post which you quote?

Ignoring hydrogen seems to be a theme today. You ignored my question about whether extracting hydrogen at an economically competitive rate is a proven technology which is the objection you raised against batteries.

[tgw]

20 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Apparently you are unaware that once a technology becomes wide spread the cost tends to come down, as with solar panels, and windmills as Jeffr2 keeps reminding us ( if I remember correctly ).

If battery cars are so great why are there so few in NZ?

 

battery cars are not great at all.

hydrogen is the future, and if coupled with nuclear power it's zero emissions and limitless