The myth of melting ice and rising seas

[Gulfsailor]

2 hours ago, Skeptic7 said:

And after Big Tobacco denied and lost at the smoking doesn't cause cancer BS, they tried the same with second hand smoke...and lost again. Now Big Oil is using the same tactics. See my next post...

I agree that there are many interests at play that will try to influence the outcome of scientific studies. However, I believe that over time the 'truth' will come out, as new and more evidence gets collected. By the way, the most comprehensive study to date in the subject of second hand smoke causing cancer found no evidence of a link! https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/105/24/1844/2517805/No-Clear-Link-Between-Passive-Smoking-and-Lung

[A1Str8]

Melting ice etc is not a myth. More like a fact. Instead of writing articles about it, go to places where it is occurring and simply see it for yourself. 

By the way it's not a result of human activity. Lol. Humans will be long gone, when this planet will still be here, doing just fine. It's a result of the natural cycles of Earth.

[RickBradford]

Quote

However, I believe that over time the 'truth' will come out, as new and more evidence gets collected.

 

I agree.

 

But your statement is enough to have you branded as a "denier" by the activists who demand that opposing voices to the narrative be silenced immediately ("The debate is over, the science is settled").

 

And when I say branded, I mean it literally. As Sydney Morning Herald columnist Richard Glover wrote a few years back: "Surely it’s time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies."

[Skeptic7]

18 minutes ago, Gulfsailor said:

I agree that there are many interests at play that will try to influence the outcome of scientific studies. However, I believe that over time the 'truth' will come out, as new and more evidence gets collected. By the way, the most comprehensive study to date in the subject of second hand smoke causing cancer found no evidence of a link! https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/105/24/1844/2517805/No-Clear-Link-Between-Passive-Smoking-and-Lung

Interesting, but a bit misleading that study. These 2 quotes taken directly from the study article you posted...

So does secondhand smoke cause lung cancer or not? “We can’t say it’s not a risk factor,” said Wang.

 

Asked whether a waitress who spent 15 years working in a smoky bar should feel reassured, Wakelee said, “Certainly, if you look just at this study and ignore other data. But you can’t really ignore all the other data or ignore all the health risks linked to that exposure.”

 

Also, the CDC begs to differ...

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/health_effects/

 

...and not only cancer, but myriad other diseases and maladies for adults as well as children. Think I'll err on the side of caution! 

[pkspeaker]

21 hours ago, aussie11950 said:

Nation: (SAm Khoury)
The 2 landmasses that control sea level are Antarctica & Greenland 
Antarctica gaining 100 billion tonnes.
(100 gigatonnes, 1 cubic kilometer) since 1900/s
Greenland at greatest for 7,500 years.

 

NASA:
planet shedding ice 35,000 sq km since 1979
Arctic ice loss greater than antarctica gain
Greenland losing 289 gigatonnes (billion tonnes) since 2008.

 

Sam cherry pics his data. not peer reviewed either.

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

 

planet is 'shedding ice'.. but where is that 100billion tons being added being made up, all that has to be melted somewhere else..NOTICE that NASA admits that they have CONTRADICTORY studies.. I'll take the satelite study..

 

http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/15/scientists-greenland-is-now-much-colder-with-more-advanced-ice-sheet-margins-than-90-of-the-last-7500-years/#sthash.Prr6kAwJ.oZ3nhxvN.dpbs

 

http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/02/new-paper-indicates-there-is-more-arctic-sea-ice-now-than-for-nearly-all-of-the-last-10000-years/#sthash.DHZBYDgy.Afd7s9r7.dpbs

 

https://realclimatescience.com/2017/03/alarmists-arctic-nightmare-continues/

 

 

 

 

[tonbridgebrit]

"Along the Kent coast of England are more examples.

 

Romney was a port in the 700s. When the sea retreated and it could no longer be used for shipping, it died and was replaced by New Romney, which now lies 2 kilometres away from the sea."

Oh look, the Nation newspaper, a newspaper in Thailand, is talking about a place that isn't that far from me.

Did anybody ever go on that Romney, Hythe and Dymchurch Railway ?

 

[pkspeaker]

 

 

So..the claims made about Antarctica & Greenland are supported.. 'no cherry picking' considering those are the 2 watermelons of ice..  

Edited March 22, 2017 by pkspeaker

[Gulfsailor]

14 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

Interesting, but a bit misleading that study. These 2 quotes taken directly from the study article you posted...

So does secondhand smoke cause lung cancer or not? “We can’t say it’s not a risk factor,” said Wang.

 

Asked whether a waitress who spent 15 years working in a smoky bar should feel reassured, Wakelee said, “Certainly, if you look just at this study and ignore other data. But you can’t really ignore all the other data or ignore all the health risks linked to that exposure.”

 

Also, the CDC begs to differ...

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/health_effects/

 

...and not only cancer, but myriad other diseases and maladies for adults as well as children. Think I'll err on the side of caution! 

All true in regards to other health issues. Just stating that science should never be settled. This line from the article points out exactly why;

“The fact that passive smoking may not be strongly associated with lung cancer points to a need to find other risk factors for the disease [in nonsmokers],” said Ange Wang"

when the science is settled, you stop doing research in the field. I believe current evidence points strongly to  anthropogenic climate change, with co2 and temperature causally linked. http://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691

HOWEVER, when we then conclude the science is settled and stop further research, you are taking a risk. Just imagine that co2 and temperature, although causally linked, are influenced by another factor. A scenario where human farts cause co2 to be less absorbed by trees with a factor100. After the science settled phase we would have spend enormous amounts of resources on either coping with the inevitable changes, or trying to reduce co2 in the atmosphere. But if one continued the research and found out about the human fart influence, then a simple ban on baked beans could avert disaster at a fraction of the cost. Science should never be settled!

[Skeptic7]

Another excellent documentary with actual photography and video + time lapse photography and vids (that even the deniers can see) shows a compelling case for how climate is warming and how glaciers around the world are shrinking/disappearing. 

[Skeptic7]

38 minutes ago, Gulfsailor said:

All true in regards to other health issues. Just stating that science should never be settled. This line from the article points out exactly why;

“The fact that passive smoking may not be strongly associated with lung cancer points to a need to find other risk factors for the disease [in nonsmokers],” said Ange Wang"

when the science is settled, you stop doing research in the field. I believe current evidence points strongly to  anthropogenic climate change, with co2 and temperature causally linked. http://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691

HOWEVER, when we then conclude the science is settled and stop further research, you are taking a risk. Just imagine that co2 and temperature, although causally linked, are influenced by another factor. A scenario where human farts cause co2 to be less absorbed by trees with a factor100. After the science settled phase we would have spend enormous amounts of resources on either coping with the inevitable changes, or trying to reduce co2 in the atmosphere. But if one continued the research and found out about the human fart influence, then a simple ban on baked beans could avert disaster at a fraction of the cost. Science should never be settled!

Yeah...agreed, we know how science works. That's why it is science, but many here DENY the science which gives us the best known explanations for how the world functions and the influences on that. BTW...gave your last post a "Like" but that doesn't at all detract from the fact that the study is misleading at very best, based on the quotes presented from the very study.

 

Regardless, we are on the same page...

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

19 hours ago, halloween said:

Ample proof that be adjusting scales to order you can prove anything. Over a 240 year period there has been a reported temp rise of around ONE degree, on a planet that regularly has ice ages. Should i start to panic now or later?

Yep you should panic, but slowly...

It was only a few years ago that we were facing the next ice age!

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

Okay, where are the geologists? One volcanic eruption can spew out enough CO2 etc to do as much harm as the western world does in a few years. India and China are doing very little by way of reducing emissions, and a heard of cows produce more CO2 than an 8 hour traffic jam on the M1.

More statistics and self serving research is available on Google...

And if all the Chinese jumped up at the same time...

Rising water levels, melting ice, moving tectonic plates, global warming, the next ice age ad infinitum. 

The latest news on diesel, well what a real surprise. Most people with any clue knew that it was just another tax scam.

 

Overpopulation is still the biggest threat to human survival.

 

 

 

[heybruce]

42 minutes ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

Okay, where are the geologists? One volcanic eruption can spew out enough CO2 etc to do as much harm as the western world does in a few years. India and China are doing very little by way of reducing emissions, and a heard of cows produce more CO2 than an 8 hour traffic jam on the M1.

More statistics and self serving research is available on Google...

And if all the Chinese jumped up at the same time...

Rising water levels, melting ice, moving tectonic plates, global warming, the next ice age ad infinitum. 

The latest news on diesel, well what a real surprise. Most people with any clue knew that it was just another tax scam.

 

Overpopulation is still the biggest threat to human survival.

 

Any references for your CO2 claims?

 

I kind of doubt it. Cows produce methane, not CO2.

[JimmyJ]

3 hours ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

Overpopulation is still the biggest threat to human survival.

 

 

 

Nonsense when popularized by Malthus, even more nonsensical now.

 

"Malthus, the false prophet

The pessimistic parson and early political economist remains as wrong as ever"

http://www.economist.com/node/11374623

 

Even better - concise and erudite -

 

"Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels argued that Malthus failed to recognize a crucial difference between humans and other species. In capitalist societies, as Engels put it, scientific and technological "progress is as unlimited and at least as rapid as that of population".^[10] Marx argued, even more broadly, that the growth of both a human population in toto and the "relative surplus population" within it, occurred in direct proportion to accumulation.^[11]"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe

[JimmyJ]

10 hours ago, Ramen087 said:

My comment was only meant to follow the lead.of the moderator... lighten up, please and have a nice day.

 

So there, attrayant!

 

Take a chill pill, dude. What's up with your insistence on asking people to justify their statements with facts??? This is a scientific discussion.

Edited March 22, 2017 by JimmyJ

[JimmyJ]

There's a saying in Hollywood - "Everyone has 2 professions - their own, and show business".

 

Now I find that in 2017 everyone has 2 professions - their own and climate "scientist".

 

 

Edited March 22, 2017 by JimmyJ

[daveAustin]

'Myth of melting ice and rising seas'

 

Water ice melting has no effect on levels but land based ice certainly does. There is also the little thing of no more bergs in the Atlantic leading to the cessation of the North Atlantic drift which would be very bad for Northern Europe.

 

I just find it odd that people cannot see the correlation between what we're doing in industry and the effects on the wider world. Typically old fuddy-duddies with clouded minds.

 

[DekDaeng]

11 hours ago, pkspeaker said:

 

 

So..the claims made about Antarctica & Greenland are supported.. 'no cherry picking' considering those are the 2 watermelons of ice..  

SO the conclusion is 'carry on p'lutin, hell ain't full yet!' ??

[RickBradford]

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

Any references for your CO2 claims?

 

I kind of doubt it. Cows produce methane, not CO2.

Really? What do you think they breathe out? Is it methane?

[DekDaeng]

5 hours ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

Okay, where are the geologists? "One volcanic eruption can spew out enough CO2 etc to do as much harm as the western world does in a few years."

 

Irrelevant. Volcanics are part of the natural cycle. Mans CO2 emissions are 'new' (well, since we discovered fire). 

Also, incorrect. If you look at CO2 levels measured in Hawaii, you cannot see any increase in CO2 due to Mt Pinatubo eruption, e.g.

Just the steady climb due to man. Now at around 410 ppm, maybe 420 next year, etc etc etc. Maybe doubled (560 ppm) by 2025? 

 

[Ramen087]

2 hours ago, JimmyJ said:

 

So there, attrayant!

 

Take a chill pill, dude. What's up with your insistence on asking people to justify their statements with facts??? This is a scientific discussion.

No. This is a scientific issue that has been politicized by the powers that be, and it's worked very well as the responses in this thread have proved. Science as dogma... it's the religion of the twentieth and twenty first centuries.

[Ace of Pop]

I have done my own Scientific Test.For 30 years the tide has reached within 1Meter of my Sunbed in Krabi.So fear not,don't build your Ark just yet.So where does all this melted Ice go I wonder.[emoji369]


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[thaibeachlovers]

18 hours ago, heybruce said:

Debating the best means to proceed is fine.  Denying global temperature rises, atmospheric carbon dioxide increases linked to human activity, receding ice sheets and rising sea levels is pointless.

I agree that temperature has risen, CO2 has increased and glaciers have receded.

So I'd love to hear just how it's going to be reversed. So far I have heard nothing from the pro human caused C C side that would actually change anything sufficiently to reverse anything.

I have suggested reducing population and building CO2 removing machines ( already a proven technology ).

So let's hear your suggestions.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, Ace of Pop said:

I have done my own Scientific Test.For 30 years the tide has reached within 1Meter of my Sunbed in Krabi.So fear not,don't build your Ark just yet.So where does all this melted Ice go I wonder.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

Melting sea ice does not raise sea levels at all, and the amount of water coming off glaciers is insignificant re sea level.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, daveAustin said:

'Myth of melting ice and rising seas'

 

Water ice melting has no effect on levels but land based ice certainly does. There is also the little thing of no more bergs in the Atlantic leading to the cessation of the North Atlantic drift which would be very bad for Northern Europe.

 

I just find it odd that people cannot see the correlation between what we're doing in industry and the effects on the wider world. Typically old fuddy-duddies with clouded minds.

 

What is your opinion re stopping all industrial production using CO2 fuel, stopping all use of oil to power motor vehicles and only allowing non oil electricity generators?

Given that most people would die due to most food being grown and transported using oil powered vehicles, it would solve the problem quite rapidly.

If that isn't an option, what is a realistic solution?

Seems to me that the pro man caused C C block are rather short on effective solutions that could be implemented rapidly. If not, going by their own predictions we are all going to die. If we aren't going to all die, what is the problem.

 

BTW, I'm all for banning cars in cities as of right now and using nuclear to generate all electricity currently generated by oil.

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, Gulfsailor said:

I agree that there are many interests at play that will try to influence the outcome of scientific studies. However, I believe that over time the 'truth' will come out, as new and more evidence gets collected. By the way, the most comprehensive study to date in the subject of second hand smoke causing cancer found no evidence of a link! https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/105/24/1844/2517805/No-Clear-Link-Between-Passive-Smoking-and-Lung

Hmmmm. I don't care that no link has been found. I just want people to stop creating filthy, stinky tobacco fumes where I am.

[attrayant]

Quote

So let's hear your suggestions.

 

1. Invest in renewable (or at least cleaner) energy sources (wind, solar, hydro, nuclear)
2. Reduce consumption of fossil fuels
3. Increase vehicle fuel efficiency
4. Get more countries to agree to climate treaties
5. Educate people to be more energy efficient, reduce frying
6. Introduce an energy saving standard for appliances, such as the Energy Star standard in the US, Canada & Australia
7. Educate farmers on how to reduce carbon emissions, no till farming, etc.

 

Based on this chart:

 

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

Okay, where are the geologists? One volcanic eruption can spew out enough CO2 etc to do as much harm as the western world does in a few years. India and China are doing very little by way of reducing emissions, and a heard of cows produce more CO2 than an 8 hour traffic jam on the M1.

More statistics and self serving research is available on Google...

And if all the Chinese jumped up at the same time...

Rising water levels, melting ice, moving tectonic plates, global warming, the next ice age ad infinitum. 

The latest news on diesel, well what a real surprise. Most people with any clue knew that it was just another tax scam.

 

Overpopulation is still the biggest threat to human survival.

 

 

 

Overpopulation is still the biggest threat to human survival.

 

Certainly true, and actively destroying many other species.

Yet, NO human caused C C proponent will ever mention population reduction as a responsible course of action to reduce CO2 production. I wonder why....................................

[attrayant]

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Seems to me that the pro man caused C C block are rather short on effective solutions that could be implemented rapidly. If not, going by their own predictions we are all going to die. If we aren't going to all die, what is the problem.

 

Are those the only two possible outcomes you see? There is a whole range of unwanted outcomes between total annihilation and paradise. How about if half of us die and the other half are made homeless due to flooded coastal cities?  

 

And it would help give your posts some clarity if you could use the term "pro-AGW" (anthropomorphic global warming) or "pro-ACC" (anthropomorphic climate change) instead of "pro man caused C C", which is a little unwieldy and hard to parse.

[JimmyJ]

11 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Hmmmm. I don't care that no link has been found. I just want people to stop creating filthy, stinky tobacco fumes where I am.

Important to note that the people conducting the study were very definite that it does not disprove the link either.