The myth of melting ice and rising seas

[thaibeachlovers]

On 3/26/2017 at 3:24 PM, attrayant said:

 

The melting of floating ice raises the ocean level

 

 

It does have an impact.  When scientists say that sea ice doesn't matter, they're not saying it has zero impact, just that the impact isn't worth worrying about compared to what would happen if all the cap ice melted.

LOL. Sea ice is, surprise surprise, frozen sea water. If a zillion cubic meters of sea water is frozen, when it melts, the sea level will be exactly the same as before the water was frozen ( discounting other influences.

[attrayant]

I'm not sure why this point is so important to you.  It was a mere point of technicality that some sea ice (glaciers, icebergs and ice sheets that originally formed on land) may have an extremely tiny impact on sea level when they melt, in addition to the impact they had when they first entered the sea as freshwater ice.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 3/27/2017 at 2:02 AM, janhkt said:

Thanks for that.

 

It is an amazing sh*tload of money, admitted, and it sounds bat crazy. On the other hand, we have been f*cking with the environment for more than a century. It's a bit naive thinking that it can be undone for a few pennies. Just looking at things on a microscale here in Bangkok - for example trucks removing their particle filters for a few extra HP, leaving a thick trail of smoke behind. Nobody cares. Extrapolate that to chinese industry, who cares even less. We put ourselves in this situation.

 

Things can be put in perspective, though. 

 

US military spending is 500-600 billion per year.

The 2008 US gov. bailout was "$16.8 trillion dollars with the $4.6 trillion already paid out." (https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikecollins/2015/07/14/the-big-bank-bailout/#1a4c0ce2d83f)

 

Oh, and from the article as well: ."...While public support for climate activities was significant, it was still dwarfed by current government support to fossil fuel energy consumption and production, estimated at $523 billion each year for developing and emerging economies alone, according to a recent report from the OECD." 

 

 

example trucks removing their particle filters for a few extra HP, leaving a thick trail of smoke behind.

Hmmmmm. Given most of the trucks/ buses I see in Bkk are pretty ancient, I doubt they ever had "particle filters".

Anyway, given that there are zillions of cars and only thousands of trucks, I think you are looking at the wrong vehicles to blame.

 

Why is it that everyone wants to blame drivers of vehicles, when oil companies have been burning off excess gas on their oil wells for generations. Why are they not being required to save the gas to be used?

[thaibeachlovers]

I really don't know why everyone gets exercised about C C. We can debate it till the sun explodes and turns planet earth to a crisp, but humans have bred themselves to the point that they are destroying the planet, and they aren't going to suddenly "behave" just because some people say they should.

IMO if it's true that we are causing it, we will all die a few years before we would have anyway, as we are busily turning planet earth into a barren rock that can't support the countless billions that are being bred as I write.

[attrayant]

 

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

humans have bred themselves to the point that they are destroying the planet, and they aren't going to suddenly "behave" just because some people say they should.

 

We've done it before; why couldn't we do it again?  Exhibit A: The ozone hole.  We identified CFCs as the primary cause, established the Montreal Protocol and, thanks to international cooperation, the hole is well on its way to healing.

[thaibeachlovers]

58 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

 

We've done it before; why couldn't we do it again?  Exhibit A: The ozone hole.  We identified CFCs as the primary cause, established the Montreal Protocol and, thanks to international cooperation, the hole is well on its way to healing.

There were a few billion people less on the planet then. Had there been the same number of people as now using CFCs there would be no hope of changing anything. Reduce population, solve the problem.

I wonder why no "leaders" ever mention population reduction as a solution.

Edited March 28, 2017 by thaibeachlovers

[Jeremy50]

On 3/21/2017 at 7:47 PM, Jonmarleesco said:

I didn't know the Nation employed such naivete in its reporting staff. Or perhaps he thinks the readers are naive.

He just got a bunch of crap off google and cobbled it together, that much is obvious. What a dim-wit. 

[pkspeaker]

14 hours ago, heybruce said:

Your first reference provides evidence that there were 35 places around the world that once were higher, not that global sea levels are falling.  The number of underwater cities from the Mediterranean to Samoa indicate otherwise:  http://www.urbanghostsmedia.com/2015/01/10-lost-underwater-cities-ancient-world-sunken-civilisations/4/  

 

Increased snow over Antarctica described in your second reference is evidence of warmer weather, which allows for more precipitation.  If the weather keeps getting warmer it will eventually lead to the amount of ice melting exceeding the amount accumulating.  Also, from you source:

 

“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”

 

Your Greenland reference is hardly reassuring.  Basically it says that since Greenland has more ice now than it did thousands of years ago, we shouldn't worry about increased melting over the last hundred years.   I'd like to get a qualified second opinion on that.

The urbanghostsmedia says that all those places that are underwater are in lakes or were the result of Earthquakes that caused these structures to fall into the sea.

 

That's an interesting theory-that warmer weather allows more precipitation to fall on Antarctica so that's why it has a net gain of ice but that's what the OP-ED said, that it 'seems' that there is additional ice accumulation even during times of climate warming.

 

 Warmer weather creates more ice due to precipitation is not definitive and of course measuring .23, or .27 of sea level rise isn't either.  

 

It's not the same thing as using a satellite to measure ice accumulation of appox. 100 billions tons a year-with the latter you can remotely land a mars rover on that ice.  Some scientific studies are more accurate & definitive that others.

 

True the notrickszone link has research that says Greenland has more ice now than it did thousands of years ago, but the DMI graph shows it is also adding ice recently.  So again the op-ed is basically supported by ample evidence, historic-like the Richard Guy book & scientific like these studies.

 

http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/06/35-scientific-papers-global-sea-levels-were-1-2-meters-higher-than-now-for-most-of-the-last-7000-years/#sthash.tDNOku2e.dpbs
 
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

 

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

 

Edited March 28, 2017 by pkspeaker

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, pkspeaker said:

The urbanghostsmedia says that all those places that are underwater are in lakes or were the result of Earthquakes that caused these structures to fall into the sea.

 

That's an interesting theory-that warmer weather allows more precipitation to fall on Antarctica so that's why it has a net gain of ice but that's what the OP-ED said, that it 'seems' that there is additional ice accumulation even during times of climate warming.

 

 Warmer weather creates more ice due to precipitation is not definitive and of course measuring .23, or .27 of sea level rise isn't either.  

 

It's not the same thing as using a satellite to measure ice accumulation of appox. 100 billions tons a year-with the latter you can remotely land a mars rover on that ice.  Some scientific studies are more accurate & definitive that others.

 

True the notrickszone link has research that says Greenland has more ice now than it did thousands of years ago, but the DMI graph shows it is also adding ice recently.  So again the op-ed is basically supported by ample evidence, historic-like the Richard Guy book & scientific like these studies.

 

http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/06/35-scientific-papers-global-sea-levels-were-1-2-meters-higher-than-now-for-most-of-the-last-7000-years/#sthash.tDNOku2e.dpbs
 
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

 

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

 

Geologic forces resulted in some of the cities going underwater, and resulted in your 35 places once being lower.  If sea levels really had fallen two meters over the last seven thousand years there would be evidence in more than 35 locations.  More importantly, do you have evidence that sea levels were higher two to three thousand years ago, when humans began cutting down forests for the fuel to make iron?

 

Antarctica is the dryest place on earth because of the low temperature.  Of course warmer weather will allow for more precipitation. 

 

Sea level rises aren't definitive?  Sources I trust much more than you state otherwise: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html .  Satellite photos measure extent of surface ice, but not depth.  You need depth to measure volume.  Therefore the satellite photos are not definitive.

 

The second graph in you Greenland reference clearly shows a sharp decline in Greenland ice cover in the last 100 years, a period helpfully labelled "Human Influence 1900 - 2015" on the graph.

Edited March 28, 2017 by heybruce

[maewang99]

without a breakthrough that will work to scale in negative emissions technology.. it wouldn't matter even if we went to zero carbon emissions tomarrow morning.

COP21, more than a year ago.
 

multi meter level sea level rises are not just possible, they are in the cards already. Larsen C is breaking up.  2015 and 2016 were record hot years, of all time.  they got 2 feet of snow in Poughkeepsie last week.... because? the Arctic jet stream is severely weakened by high Arctic temperatures...  that is not normal at all... and that's the anecdotal stuff that is happening now.. in 2017.

and salt water intrusion doesn't require multi meter rises anyways... taking out freshwater for drinking and agriculture... it  happened in Bangladesh, the Mekong Delta and in Bangkok last year... and Bangkok is on the tipping point of that again already.... in March.. 2017.
  

 

Edited March 28, 2017 by maewang99

[jcsmith]

@pkspeaker: Is there any reason you keep posting the same massive links and images in every single post?

[janhkt]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I really don't know why everyone gets exercised about C C. We can debate it till the sun explodes and turns planet earth to a crisp, but humans have bred themselves to the point that they are destroying the planet, and they aren't going to suddenly "behave" just because some people say they should.

IMO if it's true that we are causing it, we will all die a few years before we would have anyway, as we are busily turning planet earth into a barren rock that can't support the countless billions that are being bred as I write.

If we make it expensive, they will. That's the only thing people undestand - and that's the exact reason why for example automakers and the energy sector is lobbying against the notion of their business having a serious impact on the planet.

[pkspeaker]

49 minutes ago, jcsmith said:

@pkspeaker: Is there any reason you keep posting the same massive links and images in every single post?

Yes there is, I got onto this topic around page 7 when I noticed it, at that point everyone was saying this is 'fake news' ; the links I post as a footer to each comment show that that isn't the case, actually historically higher sea levels is supported by many scientific studies that are linked to as well as historical evidence such as the locations of all these former port cities, AND that Greenland and Antarctica are adding ice not loosing it-that is all supported. This stuff about "2015 being the hottest year ever", 2016 even hotter is disputed etc:

 

http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/13/more-data-manipulation-by-noaa-nasa-hadcrut-cooling-the-past-warming-the-present/#sthash.EgXhepWN.dpbs

 

http://notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/german-professor-examines-nasa-giss-temperature-datasets-finds-they-have-been-massively-altered/#sthash.RIrx9eBv.JbuZMPwR.dpbs

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/10/remote-sensing-systems-apparently-slips-in-a-stealth-adjustment-to-warm-global-temperature-data/

 

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/10/hottest-year-ever-skeptics-question-revisions-to-climate-data/

 

meanwhile the 'establishment' story seems to change over time:
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/26/us/us-data-since-1895-fail-to-show-warming-trend.html?src=pm

 

it's easier to fiddle with temp records, but not so easy to fudge the amount of Ice on these 2 landmasses..

 

and this does not make 'scientific fact':

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

 

It is supported by some NOAA studies, but measuring 1-3 mm a year is not easy and those can't claim to be 100% definitive.. and where is this really quantified?  If Antarctica is gaining ice, greenland is gaining ice, and there are even many glaciers expanding.. that casts doubt  .. look, government agencies tell fudge things all the time while claiming it's 100%, they had a bunch of security experts that guaranteed iraq had WMDs, one government agency once published medical studies that concluded marijuana kills brain cells and causes impotence.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/06/35-scientific-papers-global-sea-levels-were-1-2-meters-higher-than-now-for-most-of-the-last-7000-years/#sthash.tDNOku2e.dpbs
 
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

 

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

 

Edited March 28, 2017 by pkspeaker

[heybruce]

10 minutes ago, pkspeaker said:

Yes there is, I got onto this topic around page 7 when I noticed it, at that point everyone was saying this is 'fake news' ; the links I post as a footer to each comment show that that isn't the case, actually historically higher sea levels is supported by many scientific studies that are linked to as well as historical evidence such as the locations of all these former port cities, AND that Greenland and Antarctica are adding ice not loosing it-that is all supported. This stuff about "2015 being the hottest year ever", 2016 even hotter is disputed etc:

 

http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/13/more-data-manipulation-by-noaa-nasa-hadcrut-cooling-the-past-warming-the-present/#sthash.EgXhepWN.dpbs

 

http://notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/german-professor-examines-nasa-giss-temperature-datasets-finds-they-have-been-massively-altered/#sthash.RIrx9eBv.JbuZMPwR.dpbs

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/10/remote-sensing-systems-apparently-slips-in-a-stealth-adjustment-to-warm-global-temperature-data/

 

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/10/hottest-year-ever-skeptics-question-revisions-to-climate-data/

 

meanwhile the 'establishment' story seems to change over time:
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/26/us/us-data-since-1895-fail-to-show-warming-trend.html?src=pm

 

it's easier to fiddle with temp records, but not so easy to fudge the amount of Ice on these 2 landmasses..

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/06/35-scientific-papers-global-sea-levels-were-1-2-meters-higher-than-now-for-most-of-the-last-7000-years/#sthash.tDNOku2e.dpbs
 
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

 

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://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/26/us/us-data-since-1895-fail-to-show-warming-trend.html?src=pm

 

An article from 1989.  Seriously? 

 

By cherry picking the studies that cover specific areas or time periods it is possible to find "evidence" that disputes climate change.  This does not change the fact that the majority of climate scientists believe the climate is warming.  It also does not change the fact that global temperatures (not regional temperatures) are climbing at a pace that the ecosystem can not keep up with, CO2 levels are at the highest levels they've been for millions of year (a time when sea levels were ten meters higher) and credible global studies (not your location specific studies) show that sea levels are rising.

[pkspeaker]

I'm not disputing climate change, I'm saying there is hard evidence that calls into question the simplistic notion that 'ice is melting and causing sea levels to rise'

The NY Times article from 1989 is proof that over time these agencies are changing their story.  A majority, when most of funding goes to scientists with that point of view, is no guarantee. and you can see from notrickszone there are alot of studies questioning the official line..

 

http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/06/35-scientific-papers-global-sea-levels-were-1-2-meters-higher-than-now-for-most-of-the-last-7000-years/#sthash.tDNOku2e.dpbs
 
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

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

 

Edited March 28, 2017 by pkspeaker

[heybruce]

46 minutes ago, pkspeaker said:

I'm not disputing climate change, I'm saying there is hard evidence that calls into question the simplistic notion that 'ice is melting and causing sea levels to rise'

The NY Times article from 1989 is proof that over time these agencies are changing their story.  A majority, when most of funding goes to scientists with that point of view, is no guarantee. and you can see from notrickszone there are alot of studies questioning the official line..

 

http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/06/35-scientific-papers-global-sea-levels-were-1-2-meters-higher-than-now-for-most-of-the-last-7000-years/#sthash.tDNOku2e.dpbs
 
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

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

 

The same three studies that have been repeatedly addressed--they don't prove what you claim they prove. 

 

There is also a lot of money in climate change denial science, funded by the Koch brothers, oil companies and others.  The difference between government funding of research and research funded by interest groups is that government funded research collects data the draws conclusions supported by the data.  Interest groups draw conclusions then looks for data that supports their preferred conclusions.

[jcsmith]

@pkspeaker: People have responded to those things already, but you keep posting them again and again, and it makes it difficult to read through the thread. 

[DekDaeng]

11 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. Sea ice is, surprise surprise, frozen sea water. If a zillion cubic meters of sea water is frozen, when it melts, the sea level will be exactly the same as before the water was frozen ( discounting other influences.

In the short term, that is correct.

 

However, the now open ocean absorbs a far greater percentage of oncoming insolation than ice. This positive feedback keeps increasing the temp - kicking in more positve feedback such as less snow in winters - for many, winter is now mostly clear & cold, snow free but with the odd snow storm, instead of months of snow of previous decades.

 

Further temp increases will blow the Siberian methane volcanos, more temp increases. Then Greenland & Antarctic ice caps - Greenland alone will be good for 7 M sea level rise -

 

 

Edited March 28, 2017 by DekDaeng

[jmd8800]

A timeline of Earth temperatures. It is a long scroll down to the bottom..... but worth the effort:

 

https://xkcd.com/1732/

[DekDaeng]

7 minutes ago, jmd8800 said:

A timeline of Earth temperatures. It is a long scroll down to the bottom..... but worth the effort:

 

https://xkcd.com/1732/

The SPIRAL is a good one too. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/10/see-earths-temperature-spiral-toward-2c-rise-graphic

 

 

[anon4546543]

14 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The algae is harvested to make fuel for IC engines. As it binds atmospheric CO2 it does not contribute to rising CO2 levels when used as a fuel.

With your acceptance of deforestation as a natural conclusion to population expansion,

Not just deforestation; other species are being eliminated, the seas are being overfished, the plastic waste in the ocean is dooming aquatic species, wild animals are being killed off for food in Africa, large areas of Africa are becoming desert, the whales are under threat, etc etc. Mankind needs to learn how to live without destroying every other species that is unfortunate enough to be in it's way.

Shawn and you are both correct, But you are also both wrong. No one is going to do anything because it does not have a short term profit gain.

Not one of the major bankers, investors, money launderers or any financial institution has any interest in any programme that does not deliver the goodies tomorrow. So climate change theory is doomed even if 100% of scientists confirmed it. You, we, I need to show that there is profit to be gained by something positive about mitigating the looming high rise temperatures. Not going to happen, humans will become extinct except some loonies believe the Lord will come and save them. Sigh

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

1 hour ago, spiderorchid said:

Shawn and you are both correct, But you are also both wrong. No one is going to do anything because it does not have a short term profit gain.

Not one of the major bankers, investors, money launderers or any financial institution has any interest in any programme that does not deliver the goodies tomorrow. So climate change theory is doomed even if 100% of scientists confirmed it. You, we, I need to show that there is profit to be gained by something positive about mitigating the looming high rise temperatures. Not going to happen, humans will become extinct except some loonies believe the Lord will come and save them. Sigh

Ah! It's all happened before and Noah built the Arc...

Two by two might be more difficult though, with the LBGTs wanting their own toilets!

[anon4546543]

3 minutes ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

Ah! It's all happened before and Noah built the Arc...

Two by two might be more difficult though, with the LBGTs wanting their own toilets!

It is more than Lesbians, Gays Bisexuals Trans sexuals Queer,  Intersexual, it now includes P - paedophiles, and the list keeps growing. Who would have thought that hetro was not in the mix

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, janhkt said:

If we make it expensive, they will. That's the only thing people undestand - and that's the exact reason why for example automakers and the energy sector is lobbying against the notion of their business having a serious impact on the planet.

I'm all for banning every private car in every city in the world, but it's not going to happen. Likewise, making cars more expensive won't make an iota of difference. There are already a zillion cars in existence and they ain't going away soon. People will just drive older cars. Singapore makes it as difficult as possible to buy cars, but it doesn't stop new ones being bought all the time.

Compulsion would work, but I can't see that happening in any democracy.

Cars are both the best and the worst things ever invented.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, spiderorchid said:

Shawn and you are both correct, But you are also both wrong. No one is going to do anything because it does not have a short term profit gain.

Not one of the major bankers, investors, money launderers or any financial institution has any interest in any programme that does not deliver the goodies tomorrow. So climate change theory is doomed even if 100% of scientists confirmed it. You, we, I need to show that there is profit to be gained by something positive about mitigating the looming high rise temperatures. Not going to happen, humans will become extinct except some loonies believe the Lord will come and save them. Sigh

Have to agree. Democracy allows the rich to influence everything and they care only about money. Perhaps it's time for another revolution.

But you are also both wrong.

Hmmmmm. I have never said that anything would be done. I have put forth solutions, but no one is going to implement enforced sterilisation or ban 99% of cars etc.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

7 hours ago, DekDaeng said:

In the short term, that is correct.

 

However, the now open ocean absorbs a far greater percentage of oncoming insolation than ice. This positive feedback keeps increasing the temp - kicking in more positve feedback such as less snow in winters - for many, winter is now mostly clear & cold, snow free but with the odd snow storm, instead of months of snow of previous decades.

 

Further temp increases will blow the Siberian methane volcanos, more temp increases. Then Greenland & Antarctic ice caps - Greenland alone will be good for 7 M sea level rise -

 

 

Given that our lords and masters must be aware of that, the most interesting question is why they are doing so little to change the prophesized outcome.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 3/28/2017 at 5:03 AM, heybruce said:

Your first reference provides evidence that there were 35 places around the world that once were higher, not that global sea levels are falling.  The number of underwater cities from the Mediterranean to Samoa indicate otherwise:  http://www.urbanghostsmedia.com/2015/01/10-lost-underwater-cities-ancient-world-sunken-civilisations/4/  

 

Increased snow over Antarctica described in your second reference is evidence of warmer weather, which allows for more precipitation.  If the weather keeps getting warmer it will eventually lead to the amount of ice melting exceeding the amount accumulating.  Also, from you source:

 

“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”

 

Your Greenland reference is hardly reassuring.  Basically it says that since Greenland has more ice now than it did thousands of years ago, we shouldn't worry about increased melting over the last hundred years.   I'd like to get a qualified second opinion on that.

If the weather keeps getting warmer it will eventually lead to the amount of ice melting exceeding the amount accumulating.

It's just as possible that if the temperature rose enough, precipitation ( snow ) in Antarctica would exceed the rate of melt.

Go back far enough, and there was no ice cap on Antarctica. All there today fell as snow a long time ago.

[janhkt]

22 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

example trucks removing their particle filters for a few extra HP, leaving a thick trail of smoke behind.

Hmmmmm. Given most of the trucks/ buses I see in Bkk are pretty ancient, I doubt they ever had "particle filters".

Anyway, given that there are zillions of cars and only thousands of trucks, I think you are looking at the wrong vehicles to blame.

 

Why is it that everyone wants to blame drivers of vehicles, when oil companies have been burning off excess gas on their oil wells for generations. Why are they not being required to save the gas to be used?

Granted, old trucks (and buses) are greater sinners. I am noting the removal of particle filters, because it's a deliberate action.

 

The number of motorized vehicles surpassed one billion in 2010. I'm pretty damn sure they consume more fuel than the world's oil rigs is burning, although I agree that it IS a waste.

 

I'm driving a car myself, so not trying to take a holier than thou stance.

[JimmyJ]

"Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawed"

 

 

"...what about those 3% of papers that reach contrary conclusions? Some skeptics have suggested that the authors of studies indicating that climate change is not real, not harmful, or not man-made are bravely standing up for the truth, like maverick thinkers of the past...

 

Not so, according to a review published in the journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology. The researchers tried to replicate the results of those 3% of papers—a common way to test scientific studies—and found biased, faulty results.

 

 

The review serves as an answer to the charge that the minority view on climate change has been consistently suppressed, wrote Hayhoe. 'It’s a lot easier for someone to claim they’ve been suppressed than to admit that maybe they can’t find the scientific evidence to support their political ideology… They weren’t suppressed. They’re out there, where anyone can find them.'

 

 

In an article for the Guardian, one of the researchers, Dana Nuccitelli points out another red flag with the climate-change-denying papers: 'There is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming,' he writes. 'Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that’s overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other.'

 

https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientific-papers-that-deny-climate-change-are-all-flawed/

 

 

Edited October 15, 2017 by JimmyJ

[boomerangutang]

"Xinjiang, a land of mountains, forests and deserts, is four times the size of California and is home to 20,000 glaciers – nearly half of all the glaciers in China. Since the 1950s, all of Xinjiang's glaciers have retreated by between 21 percent to 27 percent.

In the past 50 years, says Li, the average global temperature has risen by 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit). As a result, these glaciers — split from the original Tianshan No. 1 glacier into No. 1 East and No. 1 West — are retreating by around 30 ft. each year."

 

Source; NPR.org

 

If you tell that to Mr. 'anti-science' Trump, he'll say something like, "Hey, I got 3 scoops of ice cream today, so who's worried about warming?  Just go to your fridge and put your hands in there for a few minutes.  Plus, who cares about China?  ....except they're pestering me for money they say I owe their banks. So what if I don't pay them back - what are they gonna do?  I control more nukes than they do."