A dire climate warning for the Arctic

[thaibeachlovers]

7 hours ago, Chicog said:

Let's face it, you're never going to win over the deniers. As seen in just this thread, they believe in a mixture of pseudoscience and bizarre logic to justify their beliefs.

Science never enters into it, and when it does, it's so bastardised or taken out of context as to be meaningless.

It's a battle of science versus propaganda, and unfortunately a whole lot of people swallow the propaganda - mainly because the issued has been politicised (when it reality it's all about the $$$$'s for the people who foment this nonsense).

 

Most of the science is indisputable. They just don't want to see it.

 

Whatever, I'm with 99.9999 % of the worlds population and don't give it any mind, when I'm not on TVF.

I'll be more interested when some actual steps are taken to do something about the so called problem. So far zero has been done, and nothing practical has been suggested.

When Al Gore stops travelling by his private jet, get back to me.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, chilli42 said:

It seems difficult to argue against the fact that the earth is getting warmer, that glaciers and ice caps are melting and air quality is bad to worse .... well except those that don't deal in facts.  Now whether any of this is caused by man or by Mother Nature we all still have to live on this planet as do generations to come.  Doing nothing about it under the banner of "it's not mankind's fault" is insane.  There is a problem and it needs direct action.  

Agreed, but no one is talking about an actual solution that would work. Just saying there is a problem is not a solution, but that is all any of the pro man made warming mob does on here.

I've been waiting for a politically acceptable solution since this whole farce started.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, GuiseppeD said:

Really bad situation and polar bears dying daily.  Save Peter the Polar Bear.

Well, they will probably join the previous 322 species made extinct by humans. People only care about them because they look magnificent, and we don't want to eat them.

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, jcsmith said:

 

Come now, who is saying that? 

 

How about option C: Start enforcing a transition to cleaner forms of energy. I don't think anyone has ever said stop using energy now to save the environment. But what should be happening is that solar roof panels should be mandatory for new structures. Do not allow new coal factories to be created. And then begin shutting them down after you have built sufficient clean energy sources. 

Has to be every structure on the entire planet of course. How long would that take?

We are being constantly told we have to do something NOW.

[PeeJay1959]

Well it is believed the world was warmer before these fossil fuels were formed. so it stands to reason as we use them up it will become warmer.

 

http://www.fe.doe.gov/education/energylessons/coal/gen_howformed.html

[Ahab]

9 hours ago, Chicog said:

Let's face it, you're never going to win over the deniers. As seen in just this thread, they believe in a mixture of pseudoscience and bizarre logic to justify their beliefs.

Science never enters into it, and when it does, it's so bastardised or taken out of context as to be meaningless.

It's a battle of science versus propaganda, and unfortunately a whole lot of people swallow the propaganda - mainly because the issued has been politicised (when it reality it's all about the $$$$'s for the people who foment this nonsense).

 

Most of the science is indisputable. They just don't want to see it.

 

I want to see the indisputable science, just not something that is spit out of a computer model.

 

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Well, they will probably join the previous 322 species made extinct by humans. People only care about them because they look magnificent, and we don't want to eat them.

Your estimate on the number of species that have gone extinct is just a bit low. The number of extinctions since there have been species on this planet is just a bit higher. It is estimated that more than 99 percent of all species, amounting to over five billion species that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct.

 

Evolution is a bitch.

[Xircal]

I think we should look at what will happen to the planet if scientific predictions are correct and runaway global warming once set in motion cannot be reversed.

 

That can be done by looking at Mars and Venus. Both have an atmosphere composed of certain levels of CO2. In the case of Mars, there's too little of it resulting in a frozen planet devoid of life. Venus on the other hand has 300 times as much CO2 in its atmosphere as Earth does which has led to a runaway greenhouse effect. The surface temperature on Venus is hot enough to melt lead. http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

 

It's unlikely that the Earth could become like Mars, but Venus is a different matter. The more CO2 that gets trapped in the upper atmosphere the warmer the planet will get. The oceans absorb CO2, but will be unable to retain it as the seas get warmer.

 

Warmer oceans in turn can also lead to more methane being released from the ocean floor: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/lno.10307/full

 

So the question is, is it worth the risk of ignoring the freely available scientific evidence from reputable sources without knowing what the effect is going to be?

[Xircal]

Here's what the land masses would look like if Antarctica melted and the oceans rose by a predicted 195 feet / 60 metres: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/rising-seas/if-ice-melted-map

 

[JetsetBkk]

Hooray for Antarctica and Nasa 

 

Quote

 

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

 

The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.

 

According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.

 

 

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

[lannarebirth]

13 hours ago, Chicog said:

Let's face it, you're never going to win over the deniers. As seen in just this thread, they believe in a mixture of pseudoscience and bizarre logic to justify their beliefs.

Science never enters into it, and when it does, it's so bastardised or taken out of context as to be meaningless.

It's a battle of science versus propaganda, and unfortunately a whole lot of people swallow the propaganda - mainly because the issued has been politicised (when it reality it's all about the $$$$'s for the people who foment this nonsense).

 

Most of the science is indisputable. They just don't want to see it.

 

 

I think the GW advocates make a mistake by too much focus on polar ice caps and sea levels, which have been in flux for ions. A better and much more powerful argument is the depletion of O² levels in the world's oceans and atmosphere. These are trends that lead to mass extinction, something a bit more important than a few cm of ocean level.

[stevenl]

Whatever, I'm with 99.9999 % of the worlds population and don't give it any mind, when I'm not on TVF.
I'll be more interested when some actual steps are taken to do something about the so called problem. So far zero has been done, and nothing practical has been suggested.
When Al Gore stops travelling by his private jet, get back to me.

Again pointing at others. Take your own responsibility and do something.

Sent from my ROBBY using Thaivisa Connect mobile app

[jerojero]

Ah these global warming nut jobs again.  There was an ice age and it melted and had nothing to do with man.  The days are actually colder than years gone by.

Are you daft! Trump-a-lot? How can this be when the world is only 5000 years old. Sheesh! Some people will believe anything but the facts. Believe scientists world over, heck no...they are for sure ALL wrong.

[stevenl]

5 hours ago, JetsetBkk said:

Hooray for Antarctica and Nasa 

 

 

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

Read the whole article, does not look good.

[chiang mai]

6 hours ago, JetsetBkk said:

Hooray for Antarctica and Nasa 

 

 

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

 

Have you actually read the article!

[RPCVguy]

3 hours ago, chiang mai said:

 

Have you actually read the article!

Precisely on point - to ask if people read the article
NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

 

First, the study did NOT measure MASS of Ice. It measured surface height for a region gaining in newer, less dense surface snow. That is significant. The gravimetric survey which this study disagrees with was a measure of mass.

"A crucial step is to convert the volumetric changes to ice mass using density estimates. In this study meteorological models are used to separate the part caused by accumulation changes (with the lower density of snow), leaving in theory the part caused by dynamic changes (with the density of pure ice). Using this approach the scientists come to the surprising finding that during the study period (1992-2008) increasing ice losses in the coastal areas of West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula are entirely compensated for by ice growth in interior West Antarctica and the much larger East Antarctic Ice Sheet.

“Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.”  Zwally added that his team “measured small height changes over large areas, as well as the large changes observed over smaller areas.”

 

*edited for Fair Use*

Edited November 30, 2016 by Scott
Edited for Fair Use

[Ahab]

Who says nothing is being done to curb manmade global warming. California just passed a law to regulate cow farts https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/29/california-passes-a-new-climate-law-to-regulate-cow-farts/

 

My one question is why would this fall under "manmade" , shouldn't it be categorized as "bovine made" global warming?

[dhream]

On 11/29/2016 at 8:05 AM, Pimay1 said:

 

Global average temperatures over land have plummeted by more than 1C since the middle of this year – their biggest and steepest fall on record.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3974846/Stunning-new-data-indicates-El-Nino-drove-record-highs-global-temperatures-suggesting-rise-not-man-emissions.html

 

You've quoted a very unreliable source. This newspaper may be popular, but it's really just The Beano for adults, it's a right wing leaning propaganda rag, nothing more.

[dhream]

12 hours ago, Ahab said:

I want to see the indisputable science, just not something that is spit out of a computer model.

 

Computer models 'build' modern aircraft.

 

That would suggest they have a reasonable grasp of the 'science' of flight, and precision engineering.

 

No doubt you travel by balloon, you have an inexhaustible supply of hot air AND methane by the look of it.

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, Ahab said:

Your estimate on the number of species that have gone extinct is just a bit low. The number of extinctions since there have been species on this planet is just a bit higher. It is estimated that more than 99 percent of all species, amounting to over five billion species that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct.

 

Evolution is a bitch.

That number was only for species exterminated by humans in the past 500 years.

http://www.seeker.com/humans-caused-322-animal-extinctions-in-past-500-years-1768850883.html

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, stevenl said:

Again pointing at others. Take your own responsibility and do something.

Sent from my ROBBY using Thaivisa Connect mobile app
 

I do a lot, though just to reduce waste and use alternatives to cars when possible.

My suggestions are well posted on TVF. I don't recall seeing any suggestions to solutions from you or any of the other handwringing "we have to do something" mob.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

11 hours ago, Xircal said:

I think we should look at what will happen to the planet if scientific predictions are correct and runaway global warming once set in motion cannot be reversed.

 

That can be done by looking at Mars and Venus. Both have an atmosphere composed of certain levels of CO2. In the case of Mars, there's too little of it resulting in a frozen planet devoid of life. Venus on the other hand has 300 times as much CO2 in its atmosphere as Earth does which has led to a runaway greenhouse effect. The surface temperature on Venus is hot enough to melt lead. http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

 

It's unlikely that the Earth could become like Mars, but Venus is a different matter. The more CO2 that gets trapped in the upper atmosphere the warmer the planet will get. The oceans absorb CO2, but will be unable to retain it as the seas get warmer.

 

Warmer oceans in turn can also lead to more methane being released from the ocean floor: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/lno.10307/full

 

So the question is, is it worth the risk of ignoring the freely available scientific evidence from reputable sources without knowing what the effect is going to be?

I'm not ignoring anything. Unfortunately, other than being Chicken Little, they aren't telling us as to HOW to reverse it.

However, pronouncing doom if we don't "do something", without giving any solutions that are politically acceptable, is only a good thing if one wants to be on the gravy train indefinitely and jet around the world to conferences in exotic places.

[thaibeachlovers]

44 minutes ago, dhream said:

Computer models 'build' modern aircraft.

 

That would suggest they have a reasonable grasp of the 'science' of flight, and precision engineering.

 

No doubt you travel by balloon, you have an inexhaustible supply of hot air AND methane by the look of it.

The science of flight is determined by fixed scientific principles.

The science of the environment is mainly guesswork. There is no "united" scientific determination on how it works, despite the best efforts of the Chicken Littles to convince us otherwise.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Who says nothing is being done to curb manmade global warming. California just passed a law to regulate cow farts https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/29/california-passes-a-new-climate-law-to-regulate-cow-farts/

 

My one question is why would this fall under "manmade" , shouldn't it be categorized as "bovine made" global warming?

I say ban all meat in California and allow only soy bean substitute. Let's see how long that "regulation" lasts then.

Edited November 30, 2016 by thaibeachlovers

[jrward42]

On 11/29/2016 at 11:20 AM, kevkev1888 said:

 

Fixed it for you :)

Yeah thanks for that. I guess you are right and that is why you keep hearing about all those billionaire Climate Scientists making money pulling the wool over peoples' eyes. Devious swine that they are. Or are they just after the fame and glory?

 

If you were a climate scientist though, who knows what side of the debate you would fall on? They are split down the middle 97% to 3% after all. I guess they need to read more from the highly respected 'wattsupwiththat' website.

 

Let's just beg to differ and hope you are right. Especially if you have kids or grandkids. 

 

(Altering what someone else writes and ending with a self-satisfied emoji doesn't actually make you right though.)

[dhream]

10 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The science of flight is determined by fixed scientific principles.

The science of the environment is mainly guesswork. There is no "united" scientific determination on how it works, despite the best efforts of the Chicken Littles to convince us otherwise.

I explained that badly. I was using aircraft design to suggest that computer models are sophisticated enough to predict whether say, the A380 would fly when built. 

Computer models are only as good as the data they're given. 

Since climate change data is a historical fact, it's pretty hard to say that data is flawed.

Where we disagree, is the results extrapolated from such data. 

I the skeptics are wrong, we're all going to face a bleak future. 

If they're right, what have we lost? 

The benefits of cleaning up the planet, and using sustainable energy from solar etc will STILL be better options than burning fuel (Beijing haze anyone?) 

So even if the science IS a global hoax, even the opponents of warming have to breathe the same air as the progressive thinkers, so to oppose it can only mean the opponents have a monetary stake in the status quo. 

Why should we all be condemned to breathe toxic air so some oligarchs in the coal, plastic, and auto  industry can fly to where the air is pure and the sky is blue?

Fair comment?

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, jrward42 said:

Yeah thanks for that. I guess you are right and that is why you keep hearing about all those billionaire Climate Scientists making money pulling the wool over peoples' eyes. Devious swine that they are. Or are they just after the fame and glory?

 

If you were a climate scientist though, who knows what side of the debate you would fall on? They are split down the middle 97% to 3% after all. I guess they need to read more from the highly respected 'wattsupwiththat' website.

 

Let's just beg to differ and hope you are right. Especially if you have kids or grandkids. 

 

(Altering what someone else writes and ending with a self-satisfied emoji doesn't actually make you right though.)

Especially if you have kids or grandkids.

 

Obama has kids.

Obama professes to believe in end of the world environmental science.

Obama has done nothing to encourage others to reduce use of cars or planes.

Does Obama really believe the situation can be "fixed", or is he just going along to get along?

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, dhream said:

I explained that badly. I was using aircraft design to suggest that computer models are sophisticated enough to predict whether say, the A380 would fly when built. 

Computer models are only as good as the data they're given. 

Since climate change data is a historical fact, it's pretty hard to say that data is flawed.

Where we disagree, is the results extrapolated from such data. 

I the skeptics are wrong, we're all going to face a bleak future. 

If they're right, what have we lost? 

The benefits of cleaning up the planet, and using sustainable energy from solar etc will STILL be better options than burning fuel (Beijing haze anyone?) 

So even if the science IS a global hoax, even the opponents of warming have to breathe the same air as the progressive thinkers, so to oppose it can only mean the opponents have a monetary stake in the status quo. 

Why should we all be condemned to breathe toxic air so some oligarchs in the coal, plastic, and auto  industry can fly to where the air is pure and the sky is blue?

Fair comment?

No objection here, but I dream of a world without mass jet air travel or private cars in cities, free public transport, and sane work/ accommodation policies. What chance that dream becoming reality when every man, woman and child wants their own personal conveyance and no one wants to pay more tax for public transport?

[jrward42]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Especially if you have kids or grandkids.

 

Obama has kids.

Obama professes to believe in end of the world environmental science.

Obama has done nothing to encourage others to reduce use of cars or planes.

Does Obama really believe the situation can be "fixed", or is he just going along to get along?

Completely agree. It's bad that Obama didn't do more. No one is saying it is the end of the world though. Just that millions would die if sea levels rose more. 

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, jrward42 said:

Completely agree. It's bad that Obama didn't do more. No one is saying it is the end of the world though. Just that millions would die if sea levels rose more. 

Agreed. The planet will carry on regardless.

It's just the end of the world for humans, according to the Chicken Little doomsayers.