The myth of melting ice and rising seas

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Melting sea ice does cause sea level rise, I don't understand why you are still denying this simple science, read the link I posted, it is quite easy to understand.  And there is precipitation in Antarctica, what makes you think the ice you drank was old?

Sea ice is formed from sea water, and then the same water that was frozen melts and you are claiming there is more of it than before it froze? Yeah right 5555555555

 

I wasn't stationed in the banana belt. It doesn't snow there.

[ilostmypassword]

18 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

So does melting sea ice, as I explained above.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18841-melting-icebergs-boost-sea-level-rise/

 

Thanks for directing my attention to that. I learned something new. From my calculations taken from figures in the article it would amount to about 1.5 percent of the current rise in sea level. So definitely interesting but as the article concludes : “Global sea-level change from floating ice is small, but perhaps in a regional sense detectable,”...

[heybruce]

17 hours ago, heybruce said:

Why don't you provide sources for your claims:

 

"Research from 2008 observed rapid declines in ice-mass balance from both Greenland and Antarctica, and concluded that sea-level rise by 2100 is likely to be at least twice as large as that presented by IPCC AR4, with an upper limit of about two meters.^[31]

Projections assessed by the US National Research Council (2010)^[32] suggest possible sea level rise over the 21st century of between 56 and 200 cm (22 and 79 in). The NRC describes the IPCC projections as "conservative".    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

I was referring to your earlier posts where you tossed out numbers and other claims without credible sources.  I should have picked one of these posts instead of your post making light of the consequences of rising sea levels.

 

So, any comment on the prediction, with sources, that ice losses in Greenland and Antarctica have increase dramatically and that sea levels will rise 56 to 200 cm this century?

[canuckamuck]

16 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

It may or may not be obvious to you. All readers have to go on is what you write.

Just in case the discussion mentions other locations, you should  note that Hollywood is not made of Tinsel and neither is New York comprised of apple.

[thaibeachlovers]

Just now, heybruce said:

I was referring to your earlier posts where you tossed out numbers and other claims without credible sources.  I should have picked one of these posts instead of your post making light of the consequences of rising sea levels.

 

So, any comment on the prediction, with sources, that ice losses in Greenland and Antarctica have increase dramatically and that sea levels will rise 56 to 200 cm this century?

No one can say what will happen there, and it's all just an informed guess, ASSUMING everything continues as it has been, but life isn't that simple. If an ice shelf collapsed and large amounts of inland ice fell into the sea everything can change.

Likewise if the temperature warmed sufficiently for it to snow in the interior, everything changes.

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

In Los Angeles, many buildings have been upgraded over the years to better deal with earthquakes. At a huge expensive. I got to see one up close. Amazing what they did.

 

These were required by the local government. Mandatory. The same government who uses people's lives to get reelected.  LOL. And they are still doing these upgrades today.

That's nice.  In Florida, and much of the rest of the eastern US, they are still building houses and condos on beaches and low flat land that is clearly in current flood and storm surge zones.  It is flooding and storm surges that kill the majority of people during big storms.  A combination of federal flood insurance and local governments requiring middle income home owners living on high ground to subsidize the insurance of rich people who want to live on the beach makes this economically possible.

 

Is California still allowing, and making companies insure, the houses of rich people living on unstable hillsides and brush fire areas?

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, canuckamuck said:

Just in case the discussion mentions other locations, you should  note that Hollywood is not made of Tinsel and neither is New York comprised of apple.

There's a huge and glaring difference. Since Miami is on the shoreline and Miami Beach and Cancun to name a few places actually are built on sandbars it seems a very bizarre choice of metaphors. It could literally be true. So you chose as a metaphor something that refers to things that actually do exist and claim that it's in the same league as saying a city is made of tinsel or is a giant apple.   Here's your alleged metaphor again with the follow up:  "There ought to be a penalty for building on the sandbar which is Miami. They are learning now why it's a bad idea."

 Let's try it out with the other metaphors: "Hollywood is made out of tinsel. They are learning now why it's a bad idea." New York is a big apple. They are learning now why it's a bad idea."

Really not the same.

[craigt3365]

4 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I can't tell if you're being facetious or not. It is a shortcoming of this medium. Anyhow, bureaucrats are generally not elected persons.

In the US, most bureaucrats take directions from the mayor and city council. Whom are all elected officials.

[canuckamuck]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

There's a huge and glaring difference. Since Miami is on the shoreline and Miami Beach and Cancun to name a few places actually are built on sandbars it seems a very bizarre choice of metaphors. It could literally be true. So you chose as a metaphor something that refers to things that actually do exist and claim that it's in the same league as saying a city is made of tinsel or is a giant apple.   Here's your alleged metaphor again with the follow up:  "There ought to be a penalty for building on the sandbar which is Miami. They are learning now why it's a bad idea."

 Let's try it out with the other metaphors: "Hollywood is made out of tinsel. They are learning now why it's a bad idea." New York is a big apple. They are learning now why it's a bad idea."

Really not the same.

OK, you get a cookie.

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, F4UCorsair said:

 

 

3% is wildly extravagant.

 

400 ppm really is only .04%, but I went with what the climate change disciples said, 75 times the ACTUAL!!!

Would a picture make it clearer?

 

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/

6 hours ago, F4UCorsair said:

 

200 mm in 120 years??    That's 1.66 mm/.066 inches a year!

 

Run folks, we're in diabolical trouble, all about to be drowned, if not today, then in another thousand years, or ten thousand years..

Houses and other buildings don't run, they are meant to stay in the same place for decades.  They are often built on flat land near beaches where small rises in sea level can turn the land under them into mud and make storms much more dangerous.  And, as has been repeatedly noted, the rate of sea level rising has increased dramatically.

[canuckamuck]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

Would a picture make it clearer?

 

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/

Houses and other buildings don't run, they are meant to stay in the same place for decades.  They are often built on flat land near beaches where small rises in sea level can turn the land under them into mud and make storms much more dangerous.  And, as has been repeatedly noted, the rate of sea level rising has increased dramatically.

Sea levels have been rising for 20,000 years. You'd think people would figure out a pattern by now

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, F4UCorsair said:

 

It IS 3%,  but even if it is 30%, and man made emissions are reduced to zero tonight, it will only slow the increase, not stop it.

 

The 70% will still do us in, but at a slower rate.  We cannot reduce natural emissions.

 

You can see that, can't you?

Are you being deliberately dense?  The natural environment creates and absorbs CO2.  The natural environment can not absorb the increased CO2 put out by humans. 

 

Also, as has been repeatedly pointed out, gradual changes in the environment that allow ecosystems and civilizations to adjust are not the concern.  It is rapid changes in the environment that causes mass extinctions and civilizations to collapse.  The changes projected by climate scientists are rapid.

[KiChakayan]

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

 

Food for thought, prehistoric man didn't go scuba diving..

 

[heybruce]

5 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Sea levels have been rising for 20,000 years. You'd think people would figure out a pattern by now

Please note the difference between gradual, natural changes in climate and sea levels, and rapid, lethal changes.

[uncleeagle]

6 hours ago, F4UCorsair said:

 

It IS 3%,  but even if it is 30%, and man made emissions are reduced to zero tonight, it will only slow the increase, not stop it.

 

The 70% will still do us in, but at a slower rate.  We cannot reduce natural emissions.

 

You can see that, can't you?

omg, is this a serious comment or some troll trying to act dumb to get a reaction?

 

umm, no its not 3%, its more like 30% as anyone who bothers to check that facts will find.

 

and no the "70%" would not do us in. we were fine with it for 600,000 years.

 

who gave this comment a like, how dumb are somw of the thaivisa  readers out there?

 

[canuckamuck]

8 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Please note the difference between gradual, natural changes in climate and sea levels, and rapid, lethal changes.

The last 20,000 years has seen all types, particularly the rapid lethal kinds. The last 8000 have nearly been a flat line in comparison.

You are going to say now that the change now is rapid and unprecedented. Which is bunk. It is unnoticeable. And perhaps has now stopped all together.

[craigt3365]

35 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Is California still allowing, and making companies insure, the houses of rich people living on unstable hillsides and brush fire areas?

There are so many laws and regulations in California it's hard to keep track. Insurance in these areas is massively expensive and typically is not all inclusive. One reason private firefighter companies have sprung up. Expensive!

[ilostmypassword]

26 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Sea levels have been rising for 20,000 years. You'd think people would figure out a pattern by now

And rate doesn't matter. That's why there's no important difference between a bank account that pays 1 percent interest and an account that pays 20 percent interest.

[heybruce]

41 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

The last 20,000 years has seen all types, particularly the rapid lethal kinds. The last 8000 have nearly been a flat line in comparison.

You are going to say now that the change now is rapid and unprecedented. Which is bunk. It is unnoticeable. And perhaps has now stopped all together.

Yes, human civilization has risen during a period of environmental stability, and now human civilization threatens to end that stability.

 

It seems that you agree that rapid climate change can be lethal.  Would you now agree that we should attempt to slow down this change if possible?

 

I have never said current change is unprecedented in earth's history.  I'm sure the meteor strike that wiped out the dinosaurs caused some dramatic changes in climate.  However I have pointed this out:

 

"Research from 2008 observed rapid declines in ice-mass balance from both Greenland and Antarctica, and concluded that sea-level rise by 2100 is likely to be at least twice as large as that presented by IPCC AR4, with an upper limit of about two meters.^[31]

Projections assessed by the US National Research Council (2010)^[32] suggest possible sea level rise over the 21st century of between 56 and 200 cm (22 and 79 in). The NRC describes the IPCC projections as "conservative".   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

Edited November 25, 2017 by heybruce

[heybruce]

22 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

There are so many laws and regulations in California it's hard to keep track. Insurance in these areas is massively expensive and typically is not all inclusive. One reason private firefighter companies have sprung up. Expensive!

Why did you edit out the part of my post that was most directly applicable to climate change and government inaction?

[Kieran00001]

2 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Thanks for directing my attention to that. I learned something new. From my calculations taken from figures in the article it would amount to about 1.5 percent of the current rise in sea level. So definitely interesting but as the article concludes : “Global sea-level change from floating ice is small, but perhaps in a regional sense detectable,”...

 

A few centimetres worldwide is significant, not as significant as other causes such as melting glaciers and expanding volume due to temperature increase but also not to be overlooked.

[Kieran00001]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Sea ice is formed from sea water, and then the same water that was frozen melts and you are claiming there is more of it than before it froze? Yeah right 5555555555

 

I wasn't stationed in the banana belt. It doesn't snow there.

 

No, there is not more of it than before, but that is not the point as we were not there before it froze, our cities were not built yet in those places that would have been under the water when that water froze.  If you do not believe that melting ice that is floating on salty water increases the water level then i suggest you read about it, it is basic science by the way.

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Why did you edit out the part of my post that was most directly applicable to climate change and government inaction?

Because I wasn't replying to that part. Sorry!

[canuckamuck]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

 

It seems that you agree that rapid climate change can be lethal.  Would you now agree that we should attempt to slow down this change if possible?

 

Slow it down?  When you figure out how you could have slowed down any of the other historic rises in sea level let me know.

[Kieran00001]

5 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Slow it down?  When you figure out how you could have slowed down any of the other historic rises in sea level let me know.

 

How on earth people manage to get their heads to deeply buried in the sand is beyond me.  None of the other historic changes were in part caused by us, we are now also part of the cause of the change, so we can actually slow down on these ways that we are adding to the changes and thus we can slow down the change.  Is that simple enough for you?

[canuckamuck]

8 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

How on earth people manage to get their heads to deeply buried in the sand is beyond me.  None of the other historic changes were in part caused by us,

Bingo!!  And we couldn't have caused them, and we couldn't have stopped them. They were going to happen no matter what. Like the sun rising at dawn.

Quote

we are now also part of the cause of the change, so we can actually slow down on these ways that we are adding to the changes and thus we can slow down the change.  Is that simple enough for you?

Well good luck with reversing the industrial revolution.

A lot easier to just move the beach chairs back a few feet eh?

[ilostmypassword]

48 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

A few centimetres worldwide is significant, not as significant as other causes such as melting glaciers and expanding volume due to temperature increase but also not to be overlooked.

Well certainly in a scientic-statistical sense it is significant. But if all the ice melting means that the higher volume of water will contribute 4-6 centimeters of sea level rise, that means that the total rise would be anywhere from 2.6 meters to 3.9 meters without adding in the 4-6 centimeter contribution from volume expansion. So in the colloquial sense of significant not so much. But once again, thanks for the information about the expansion, It does knock a small hole in the argument that melting sea ice is a complete wash.

[Kieran00001]

19 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Bingo!!  And we couldn't have caused them, and we couldn't have stopped them. They were going to happen no matter what. Like the sun rising at dawn.

Well good luck with reversing the industrial revolution.

A lot easier to just move the beach chairs back a few feet eh?

 

Not sure why you think that is cause for crying out bingo.  The climate changes naturally, fact.  We are changing the climate faster than it would be changing naturally, fact.  Now, do you see that your bingo call was a little premature?  Or are you resigned to the fact that if it will change to the point of drowning half our cities it may as well happen in our lifetime?

The industrial revolution was when we started to contribute massively to the change, but changing our ways to no longer output vast amounts of co2 does not require reversing the industrial revolution, merely changing our ways, another industrial revolution of sorts, and we have already found alternatives that are far less destructive, renewable sources of energy are not a reversal of the industrial revolution, are they?

And we are not talking about moving beach chairs, we are talking about moving cites, a 4 degree temperature change would mean sea level rises of 35 feet, and displace 10% of people in the world, about 40% the US where so many people live near the coasts.  It actually might be a little easier to stop emitting so much carbon and if we did immediately then the numbers affected in the US could be reduced from 150 million to just 6 million, changes are going to happen regardless, we are still seeing the effect of the past hundred years of output coming to effect, but that is not reason not to contribute more, unless you are an utter dimwit.

[canuckamuck]

13 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Not sure why you think that is cause for crying out bingo.  The climate changes naturally, fact.  We are changing the climate faster than it would be changing naturally, fact.  Now, do you see that your bingo call was a little premature?  Or are you resigned to the fact that if it will change to the point of drowning half our cities it may as well happen in our lifetime?

The industrial revolution was when we started to contribute massively to the change, but changing our ways to no longer output vast amounts of co2 does not require reversing the industrial revolution, merely changing our ways, another industrial revolution of sorts, and we have already found alternatives that are far less destructive, renewable sources of energy are not a reversal of the industrial revolution, are they?

And we are not talking about moving beach chairs, we are talking about moving cites, a 4 degree temperature change would mean sea level rises of 35 feet, and displace 10% of people in the world, about 40% the US where so many people live near the coasts.  It actually might be a little easier to stop emitting so much carbon and if we did immediately then the numbers affected in the US could be reduced from 150 million to just 6 million, changes are going to happen regardless, we are still seeing the effect of the past hundred years of output coming to effect, but that is not reason not to contribute more, unless you are an utter dimwit.

Where are you getting 4 degrees from? A computer model? Loaded up with inputs by a guy whose mortgage depends on the results saying the end is near.  The sea has barely risen and we have doubled our C02 output. The warming is paused. Why don't we get outraged about real environmental issues.

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, canuckamuck said:

Where are you getting 4 degrees from? A computer model? Loaded up with inputs by a guy whose mortgage depends on the results saying the end is near.  The sea has barely risen and we have doubled our C02 output. The warming is paused. Why don't we get outraged about real environmental issues.

The warming is paused? Source of this factoid?