The myth of melting ice and rising seas

[Guest]

Just now, Jack Mountain said:

Apples and peers. Cu in 25 years.

I'm guessing I'll be here to meet with you in 25 years. Will you be able to do the same? 

 

That's kind of my point. 

[Jack Mountain]

4 minutes ago, oilinki said:

I'm guessing I'll be here to meet with you in 25 years. Will you be able to do the same? 

 

That's kind of my point. 

The nukes could be the big elephant here. Men made Climate change, as brought to you by C- 'scientists' could be one of those minor worries ... Btw. I an not in the race to become the oldest person of the world, not even the Soi. Relax and thrive ...

Edited November 16, 2017 by Jack Mountain

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Jack Mountain said:

The nukes could be the big elephant here. Men made Climate change, as brought you by C- 'scientists' could be one of those minor worries ... Btw. I an not in the race to become the oldest person of the world, not even the Soi. Relax and thrive ...

I prefer we don't shit our commonly owned clear air and our clean waters just because some some greedy morons wish to become a bit more richer <deleted> immoral people they already are. 

 

Yes, we should save our clean world. 

If you don't believe in science, then you should deny it wholesomely. Please deny sciences and die soon, so that the rest of us, who actually want to see the better future can live our future in pease. 

[Jack Mountain]

Just now, oilinki said:

I prefer we don't shit our commonly owned clear air and our clean waters just because some some greedy morons wish to become a bit more richer <deleted> immoral people they already are. 

 

Yes, we should save our clean world. 

If you don't believe in science, then you should deny it wholesomely. Please deny sciences and die soon, so that the rest of us, who actually want to see the better future can live our future in pease. 

Don't make babies, better for the world and the babies. Easy, doing something by not doing it ... goodnight.

[Guest]

Just now, Jack Mountain said:

Don't make babies, better for the world and the babies. Easy, doing something by not doing it ... goodnight.

I didn't. It was never on my plan. Did you?

 

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

That is news from the future and dated "Nov 18th 2017", 2 days from now.

 

Haha! Yes, Saturday print edition!

[Grouse]

56 minutes ago, Jack Mountain said:

Apples and peers. Cu in 25 years.

Copper?

[heybruce]

47 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Haha! Yes, Saturday print edition!

The current issue of Economist is dated November 11th to 17th 2017, with articles showing the date of the last day the issue is current, in this case November 17.  This is a common practice among many weekly news magazines.

[craigt3365]

16,000 scientists can't be wrong.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/14/health/scientists-warn-humanity/index.html

16,000 scientists sign dire warning to humanity over health of planet

In 1992, 1,700 independent scientists signed the "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity." The letter warned that "human beings and the natural world are on a collision course" and if environmental damage was not stopped, our future was at risk.

[Credo]

I have followed climate issues for many years, long, long before it was a politicized issue.   One of the first scientific article I read when I was rather young, was about the possibility of a mini-ice age.   It caught my interest and I've been hooked on the issue ever since.

 

It's a very complex issue and includes a lot of cycles with the rotation of the earth, including a 100,000 year cycle.   

 

When I grew up the planting season started around May 10.   Prior to that the ground was too cold and the chance of a killing frost was too great.   It is now April 15.   There are weight restrictions on heavy trucks when the frost is coming out of the ground (it ruins the roads).   Those have also been backed up by a couple of weeks.   The same is true of the first solid freeze in the fall, which is now 2 weeks later (with weather variations, it is sometimes a month to 6 weeks later).  These changes are not weather, they are climate.   

 

We have seen the all-time record breaking rainfall in Texas, we have seen one of the longest dry and heat spells in the S.W. desert of the US; we have seen record breaking hurricanes, including one that hit Ireland, which is a long ways from the warm equatorial waters.   

 

All of these are anecdotal to some extent, but the direction on climate change seems to be pointing in one direction and that isn't toward stability.   

 

 

[craigt3365]

Hard to deny climate change.  Though for some reason, many do.  The seas are rising, no doubt about it.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/10/five-pacific-islands-lost-rising-seas-climate-change

 

Quote

 

Five Pacific islands lost to rising seas as climate change hits

Six more islands have large swaths of land, and villages, washed into sea as coastline of Solomon Islands eroded and overwhelmed

 

 

 

http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2015/06/opinions/sutter-two-degrees-marshall-islands/

 

[ExpatOilWorker]

8 hours ago, heybruce said:

The current issue of Economist is dated November 11th to 17th 2017, with articles showing the date of the last day the issue is current, in this case November 17.  This is a common practice among many weekly news magazines.

The Economist is a newspaper, not a magazine!

 

Anyway, they do seem to be a bit casual with dates, the current issue is both dated November 16th and 18th at their web page. 

[ExpatOilWorker]

10 hours ago, heybruce said:

You don't read news magazines, do you?

The Economist is a newspaper, not a magazine, but you actually have to read it to figure this out.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎10‎/‎16‎/‎2017 at 5:19 AM, JimmyJ said:

"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/

 

 

Given that there is no way ALL scientists in the entire world have been asked as to their views on GW, to state that 97% agree on anything is frankly an untruth of huge proportions and completely unverifiable. Therefore any supposition that "man made GW" is true because 97% believe it must be ruled out as it is using propaganda and not fact as a basis, therefore, it is UNSCIENTIFIC. 

[RickBradford]

11 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Given that there is no way ALL scientists in the entire world have been asked as to their views on GW, to state that 97% agree on anything is frankly an untruth of huge proportions and completely unverifiable. Therefore any supposition that "man made GW" is true because 97% believe it must be ruled out as it is using propaganda and not fact as a basis, therefore, it is UNSCIENTIFIC. 

Being unscientific, making exaggerated claims, altering data — none of these things worry the Green/Left because they see everything as a power struggle in which the end justify the means.

 

Most of the activists, bureaucrats, journalists, politicians and NGOs involved in the climate arena are not acting in good faith. They refuse to debate because they think that debate itself is a trick to deny them power. Some of them even belief that rationality itself is racist.

 

I would like to think that most of the scientists are acting in good faith, but by the time their work makes it into the public arena, it has inevitably been fatally tarnished.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Hard to deny climate change.  Though for some reason, many do.  The seas are rising, no doubt about it.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/10/five-pacific-islands-lost-rising-seas-climate-change

 

 

 

http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2015/06/opinions/sutter-two-degrees-marshall-islands/

 

The Guardian is hardly the beacon for truth and fact in the world.

 

For the umpteenth time, NO ONE IS DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE. The dispute is as to whether humans caused it, contributed to it or had nothing to do with it. Even if it was caused by humans, nothing of any significance at all is being done about it. Holding conferences with vast carbon footprints and building a few windmills is NOT doing something about it, while humans overpopulate the planet and destroy everything ( including countless numbers of species ).

So, even though I know that probably none of those that believe in the political propaganda will reply to what I have said over and over ( none have done so to date ), or even come up with a solution ( as I have done many times ), or give up cars and flying ( none have ever claimed to do so ) I will keep telling the truth, which is even if humans caused it, nothing is being done to change it, and it may not even be possible to change it.

[thaibeachlovers]

11 hours ago, oilinki said:

I didn't. It was never on my plan. Did you?

 

I didn't either.

No one is calling for more pollution and a clean planet is desirable, but as long as humans breed like they are, nothing will improve.

Also, it is possible to want to clean up the planet without believing that humans are responsible for G W.

[craigt3365]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The Guardian is hardly the beacon for truth and fact in the world.

 

For the umpteenth time, NO ONE IS DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE. The dispute is as to whether humans caused it, contributed to it or had nothing to do with it. Even if it was caused by humans, nothing of any significance at all is being done about it. Holding conferences with vast carbon footprints and building a few windmills is NOT doing something about it, while humans overpopulate the planet and destroy everything ( including countless numbers of species ).

So, even though I know that probably none of those that believe in the political propaganda will reply to what I have said over and over ( none have done so to date ), or even come up with a solution ( as I have done many times ), or give up cars and flying ( none have ever claimed to do so ) I will keep telling the truth, which is even if humans caused it, nothing is being done to change it, and it may not even be possible to change it.

I could have come up with dozens of sites that have the same article.  Don't attack the source. 

 

Hard to argue that humans are at least partially responsible.  There for sure is an argument to be made that it's natural.  I use to live on the bottom of a sea that existed some 20,000 years ago.  It's now a desert. LOL.

 

As you know, I've traveled extensively.  And seen a lot of this up close and personal.  No denying we are responsible for changes in the climate.  To what degree?  Hopefully, we'll find out before it's too late.

 

Is this the beginning?

 

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/06/first-mammal-extinct-climate-change-bramble-cay-melomys/

 

Quote

 

First Mammal Species Goes Extinct Due to Climate Change

 

The humble Bramble Cay melomys has disappeared from its island in the Great Barrier Reef.

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

16,000 scientists can't be wrong.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/14/health/scientists-warn-humanity/index.html

16,000 scientists sign dire warning to humanity over health of planet

In 1992, 1,700 independent scientists signed the "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity." The letter warned that "human beings and the natural world are on a collision course" and if environmental damage was not stopped, our future was at risk.

LOL. Of COURSE humans and the natural world are on a collision course, and we have been doing so for millennia.

Humans are doing their best to destroy everything on the planet- just look at the ruination of Thailand's once beautiful beaches.

As long as humans continue to breed as they are doing we are doomed, as is the environment, but that's nothing to do with man made GW or not. Separate things.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, craigt3365 said:

I could have come up with dozens of sites that have the same article.  Don't attack the source. 

 

Hard to argue that humans are at least partially responsible.  There for sure is an argument to be made that it's natural.  I use to live on the bottom of a sea that existed some 20,000 years ago.  It's now a desert. LOL.

 

As you know, I've traveled extensively.  And seen a lot of this up close and personal.  No denying we are responsible for changes in the climate.  To what degree?  Hopefully, we'll find out before it's too late.

 

Is this the beginning?

 

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/06/first-mammal-extinct-climate-change-bramble-cay-melomys/

 

 

I'm not arguing that humans are not to blame for exterminating countless other species, and humans are probably the worst thing ever to inhabit the planet, but that doesn't necessarily make them responsible for GW or rising sea levels. When they come up with actual proof that humans did it all by ourselves I'll believe it, but nothing irrefutable so far.

BTW, living on the sea bottom is just proof that "climate change" has gone on far longer than humans have existed. So more proof of my theory than of the man made C C believers.

[Grouse]

19 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The Guardian is hardly the beacon for truth and fact in the world.

 

For the umpteenth time, NO ONE IS DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE. The dispute is as to whether humans caused it, contributed to it or had nothing to do with it. Even if it was caused by humans, nothing of any significance at all is being done about it. Holding conferences with vast carbon footprints and building a few windmills is NOT doing something about it, while humans overpopulate the planet and destroy everything ( including countless numbers of species ).

So, even though I know that probably none of those that believe in the political propaganda will reply to what I have said over and over ( none have done so to date ), or even come up with a solution ( as I have done many times ), or give up cars and flying ( none have ever claimed to do so ) I will keep telling the truth, which is even if humans caused it, nothing is being done to change it, and it may not even be possible to change it.

Car emissions have dramatically reduced particularly COx though NOx will also come down. Electric cars are here now.

 

The idea of carbon taxes on air tickets is a good one though if air travel ceased completely it would only reduce carbon emissions by 5%. I would price low cost airlines out of existence and make formal dress compulsory on international flights ?

 

We should be investing in nuclear power and making coal and lignite unaffordable by carbon taxes

 

Major forest replanting is key as is modifying farming techniques.

 

Finally carbon sequestration on an industrial scale is needed; maybe electrolysing sea water as part of a process to produce carbonates

Edited November 17, 2017 by Grouse

[craigt3365]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm not arguing that humans are not to blame for exterminating countless other species, and humans are probably the worst thing ever to inhabit the planet, but that doesn't necessarily make them responsible for GW or rising sea levels. When they come up with actual proof that humans did it all by ourselves I'll believe it, but nothing irrefutable so far.

BTW, living on the sea bottom is just proof that "climate change" has gone on far longer than humans have existed. So more proof of my theory than of the man made C C believers.

Guaranteed humans are responsible for climate change.  No denying that.  You can't put 7.6 billion people on a planet and expect things not to change.  Especially when you look at the deforestation, rampant building, pollution, etc, etc, etc.  To what extent?  Not known yet.  But it is a major issue.  As the 16,000 scientists say.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Car emissions have dramatically reduced particularly COx though NOx will also come down. The idea of carbon taxes on air tickets is a good one though if air travel ceased completely it would only reduce carbon emissions by 5%

 

We should be investing in nuclear power and making coal and lignite unaffordable by carbon taxes

 

Major forest replanting is key as is modifying farming techniques.

 

Finally carbon sequestration on an industrial scale is needed; maybe electrolysing sea water as part of a process to produce carbonates

All true, BUT-

the very people claiming WE are changing the climate don't want to use nuclear, which is the only sane option at the moment. IMO they are the ones causing pollution by denying nuclear startups, as carbon is the only other realistic option if people want electric cars and an i phone in every hand.

It IS possible to scrub coal flue emissions to remove pollutants.

The world's forests are being cut down faster than new trees can be planted so WE can have hardwoods and palm oil derived products.

 

Lastly, proven carbon sequestration exists, It could be implemented already but governments won't invest in it- go figure.

 

Population reduction is the only sane option to make long term change, but NO ONE in government is even talking about that. When presidential candidates have 7 children, it's, IMO a lost cause and we are all doomed anyway.

[thaibeachlovers]

5 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Guaranteed humans are responsible for climate change.  No denying that.  You can't put 7.6 billion people on a planet and expect things not to change.  Especially when you look at the deforestation, rampant building, pollution, etc, etc, etc.  To what extent?  Not known yet.  But it is a major issue.  As the 16,000 scientists say.

So, humans caused it. What is actually being done to change it that would work- ZERO, NADA, NOTHING. 

We are doomed ( from overpopulation ) and will be joining the dinosaurs. At least in their case it wasn't of their own making. If humans did cause C C and are exterminated, it was their own fault.

Hopefully the next dominant species on the planet does it better.

[craigt3365]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

So, humans caused it. What is actually being done to change it that would work- ZERO, NADA, NOTHING. 

We are doomed ( from overpopulation ) and will be joining the dinosaurs. At least in their case it wasn't of their own making. If humans did cause C C and are exterminated, it was their own fault.

Hopefully the next dominant species on the planet does it better.

You're too cynical.  Lots is being done about it.  Look at London 40 years ago versus today?  Sure, those nasty industries are now gone, but it's a nice change.  Sadly, they are now in India and China.

 

China is installing some high tech scrubbers for their coal plants.  Many states in the US now have stringent emission controls in place.  More needs to be done, but say we are doing NOTHING is not correct.

[Grouse]

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

All true, BUT-

the very people claiming WE are changing the climate don't want to use nuclear, which is the only sane option at the moment. IMO they are the ones causing pollution by denying nuclear startups, as carbon is the only other realistic option if people want electric cars and an i phone in every hand.

It IS possible to scrub coal flue emissions to remove pollutants.

The world's forests are being cut down faster than new trees can be planted so WE can have hardwoods and palm oil derived products.

 

Lastly, proven carbon sequestration exists, It could be implemented already but governments won't invest in it- go figure.

 

Population reduction is the only sane option to make long term change, but NO ONE in government is even talking about that. When presidential candidates have 7 children, it's, IMO a lost cause and we are all doomed anyway.

I fully agree! 

 

Even Greenpeace are pro nuclear. The Greens in Germany need to be dealt with.

 

Birth rate seems to fall as communities are more successful economically. Large families are often justified by concerns of life expectancy and social security in old age. I do not know how to accelerate this process.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Car emissions have dramatically reduced particularly COx though NOx will also come down. The idea of carbon taxes on air tickets is a good one though if air travel ceased completely it would only reduce carbon emissions by 5%

 

We should be investing in nuclear power and making coal and lignite unaffordable by carbon taxes

 

Major forest replanting is key as is modifying farming techniques.

 

Finally carbon sequestration on an industrial scale is needed; maybe electrolysing sea water as part of a process to produce carbonates

Yes. Nuclear power should be the backbone of the electric grid, while alternative methods, like solar, being developed further. 

 

Solar energy can already compete with oil and I suppose soon with coal. 

 

In not too far in the future we'll be thinking "Why I wouldn't coat my roof and windows with solar panel coating, it would be stupid to waste the free energy I get"

 

Using elevated lakes as energy storage as long as we manage to find better solutions.

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

You're too cynical.  Lots is being done about it.  Look at London 40 years ago versus today?  Sure, those nasty industries are now gone, but it's a nice change.  Sadly, they are now in India and China.

 

China is installing some high tech scrubbers for their coal plants.  Many states in the US now have stringent emission controls in place.  More needs to be done, but say we are doing NOTHING is not correct.

When I say nothing is being done, I know some things are being done, but they won't make ANY difference at all to the ultimate outcome, IMO.

A massive program of new nuclear plants, carbon sequestration, electric train lines and banning mass tourism using aircraft, PLUS immediate steps to reduce population by eliminating child payments, allowing free abortion on demand, free contraceptives and voluntary euthanasia might make a difference, if it isn't already too late and the tipping point hasn't been crossed.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Yes. Nuclear power should be the backbone of the electric grid, while alternative methods, like solar, being developed further. 

 

Solar energy can already compete with oil and I suppose soon with coal. 

 

In not too far in the future we'll be thinking "Why I wouldn't coat my roof and windows with solar panel coating, it would be stupid to waste the free energy I get"

 

Using elevated lakes as energy storage as long as we manage to find better solutions.

 

 

All proven technology that has ZERO political support.

Governments won't build new nuclear plants- Japan stopped using it and using oil instead.

Solar plants could compete with oil in the 70s but not built

Solar roof tiles were available in the UK 20 years ago, but no government investment.

Technology to pump water up into lakes using cheap off peak hydro power at night to generate power during the day was developed last century.

Wave energy to pump sea water up into man made lakes to use for hydro power developed years ago.

 

Common theme is that it is all proven technology ( France has had massive amounts of safe nuclear power for decades ), but virtually no government investment. WHY???????

[Grouse]

12 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I fully agree! 

 

Even Greenpeace are pro nuclear. The Greens in Germany need to be dealt with.

 

Birth rate seems to fall as communities are more successful economically. Large families are often justified by concerns of life expectancy and social security in old age. I do not know how to accelerate this process.

Now this is interesting

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate#Country_ranking_and_comparison_of_TFR_by_year

 

Seems the biggest problem is Africa! Maybe we should offer 1,000 USD per vasectomy!

 

Then we have the Muslim scourge; in the west we should adjust taxation to massivly penalise more than 2 children. How about cut allowances of fathers by 10,000 USD per child?

 

And as for Catholics? 'Bout time somebody told them that contraception is a really good idea. Even the rhythm method (4:4 is good ?)

 

Finally, look at the figures for Thailand.....