The myth of melting ice and rising seas

[F4UCorsair]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Do a little research before you post.  A mass extinction was caused by an asteroid strike, not the greatest mass extinction.

 

The poster I was replying to had pointed out that the climate had been stable for eight thousand years.  I pointed out that it was during this period of climate stability that human civilization had risen.  Civilization has not been tested by dramatic global climate change, though local climate change brought about by deforestation and poor farming practices are possible causes of the collapse of the Mayan and Khmer civilizations (possibly others).  We are currently bringing about climate change that will test and possibly end civilization.

 

The Pentagon considers climate change a threat and gives some of the reasons why.  https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/612710/

 

 

You may want to read this 

 

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/despite-decades-deforestation-earth-getting-greener/

[heybruce]

14 minutes ago, F4UCorsair said:

 

 

You may want to read this 

 

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/despite-decades-deforestation-earth-getting-greener/

Interesting, but not reassuring:

 

"More Vegetation Will Slow But Not Prevent Climate Change

The world’s vegetation plays an important role in slowing down climate change. About a quarter of all carbon emissions from human activities are removed by terrestrial vegetation, with the size of the carbon land sink increasing over time.

However, it remains to be seen how the increased climate variability that accompanies climate change will affect this terrestrial “carbon sink” in future. This is particularly true for seasonally dry ecosystems that experience fires, such as Australia’s savannas, where a single fire event can easily remove the carbon stored in plant biomass over many previous years."

 

So three quarters of man-made emissions are not removed by vegetation.  Some is being absorbed by the oceans, leading to increasing acidification with the potential to disrupt the lowest level of the food chain.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification   Much of the rest seems to be accumulating in the atmosphere.

[F4UCorsair]

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Interesting, but not reassuring:

 

"More Vegetation Will Slow But Not Prevent Climate Change

The world’s vegetation plays an important role in slowing down climate change. About a quarter of all carbon emissions from human activities are removed by terrestrial vegetation, with the size of the carbon land sink increasing over time.

However, it remains to be seen how the increased climate variability that accompanies climate change will affect this terrestrial “carbon sink” in future. This is particularly true for seasonally dry ecosystems that experience fires, such as Australia’s savannas, where a single fire event can easily remove the carbon stored in plant biomass over many previous years."

 

So three quarters of man-made emissions are not removed by vegetation.  Some is being absorbed by the oceans, leading to increasing acidification with the potential to disrupt the lowest level of the food chain.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification   Much of the rest seems to be accumulating in the atmosphere.

 

Please don't use wikipedia as a reference.   Some of it is accurate, but where you have a peer reviewed information source, you or I could amend it and the only requirement is to provide our names, much of the information is dubious....at best.

[craigt3365]

Those who deny climate change are like Trump supporters. They'll never understand and impossible to change their minds. Lost causes and not worth the effort.

[heybruce]

29 minutes ago, F4UCorsair said:

 

Please don't use wikipedia as a reference.   Some of it is accurate, but where you have a peer reviewed information source, you or I could amend it and the only requirement is to provide our names, much of the information is dubious....at best.

If you checked the link you would see that all of its claims are referenced by credible organizations.  Wikipedia provides a readable summary of more than one hundred credible sources.

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, F4UCorsair said:

 

 

You may want to read this 

 

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/despite-decades-deforestation-earth-getting-greener/

I did. You may want to read this:

"With terrestrial vegetation removing about a quarter of the carbon emissions from human activities and the global oceans removing another quarter, this means that half of our CO₂ emissions remains in the atmosphere. Therefore, stabilising concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere and the consequent impact on the climate system will still require large reductions of global fossil fuel emissions."

[Credo]

20 hours ago, USPatriot said:

Really   I live in Arizona and the monsoon was sooner and the Temps use to get to 100 in the first week of april now it is may.

I have two homes in AZ, one in the desert, one in the mountains and farm land in the Northern Plains and Canada.   Arizona has only hit 100, once in April.   The past summer was one of, if not the hottest on record.   There has been virtually no rainfall for 3 months.    This is anecdotal, though.   The trend has been hotter and hotter.   Perhaps you remember the day it hit 49 (C), 122 F?   Planes could not land.

 

https://www.currentresults.com/Weather/Arizona/Places/phoenix-temperatures-by-month-average.php

 

The widespread change in the Northern Plains to the planting and harvesting season is much more telling of long term trends.   

 

 

[craigt3365]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/26/world/americas/peru-climate-change.html?emc=edit_th_20171126&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=80027960

 

In Peru’s Deserts, Melting Glaciers Are a Godsend (Until They’re Gone)

 

In this part of Peru, climate change has been a blessing — but it may become a curse. In recent decades, accelerating glacial melt in the Andes has enabled a gold rush downstream, contributing to the irrigation and cultivation of more than 100,000 acres of land since the 1980s.

 

[Andaman Al]

I was wondering if this thread and all the threads to do with Trump can be merged into one super thread called 'Things most likely to end the world as we know it'? - At least the fallout from climate change won't last as long as the fallout from Trump and rocket man.

[lannarebirth]

13 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

I was wondering if this thread and all the threads to do with Trump can be merged into one super thread called 'Things most likely to end the world as we know it'? - At least the fallout from climate change won't last as long as the fallout from Trump and rocket man.

 

I think that's a good idea because it is the same thing that is at the heart of most of these threads and always goes unreplied on.

 

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/09/26/sympathy-for-the-corporatocracy/

 

http://www.europeanfinancialreview.com/?p=6074

Edited November 27, 2017 by lannarebirth

[ExpatOilWorker]

On 11/25/2017 at 7:50 AM, 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!!!

If we burn all the known oil, gas and coal reserves (and assume all the CO2 stay in the atmosphere), then we will react 5,000 ppm.

Now that will be interesting.

[ExpatOilWorker]

On 11/24/2017 at 8:12 PM, Kieran00001 said:

 

So does melting sea ice, as I explained above.

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

 

It is interesting that the GW apostles will grab and straw they can get hold on. Me, a few bulldozers and the ruler of Egypt could easily cancel that sea level rise out.

You want to know how?

[Kieran00001]

11 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

It is interesting that the GW apostles will grab and straw they can get hold on. Me, a few bulldozers and the ruler of Egypt could easily cancel that sea level rise out.

You want to know how?

 

Not really, it sounds like it's going to be a silly story.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎11‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 2:47 PM, heybruce said:

Do a little research before you post.  A mass extinction was caused by an asteroid strike, not the greatest mass extinction.

 

The poster I was replying to had pointed out that the climate had been stable for eight thousand years.  I pointed out that it was during this period of climate stability that human civilization had risen.  Civilization has not been tested by dramatic global climate change, though local climate change brought about by deforestation and poor farming practices are possible causes of the collapse of the Mayan and Khmer civilizations (possibly others).  We are currently bringing about climate change that will test and possibly end civilization.

 

The Pentagon considers climate change a threat and gives some of the reasons why.  https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/612710/

A mass extinction was caused by an asteroid strike, not the greatest mass extinction.
 

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

The Great Oxygenation Event was probably the first major extinction event. Since the Cambrian explosion five further major mass extinctions have significantly exceeded the background extinction rate. The most recent and arguably best-known, the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event, which occurred approximately 66 million years ago (Ma), was a large-scale mass extinction of animal and plant species in a geologically short period of time.^[2] In addition to the five major mass extinctions, there are numerous minor ones as well, and the ongoing mass extinction caused by human activity is sometimes called the sixth extinction

 

I found the prior on Wikipedia, but they don't make it clear which is the GREATEST, so I'll give you that one.

 

Given 

the ongoing mass extinction caused by human activity is sometimes called the sixth extinction

I have to wonder if humans deserve to survive anyway. We have proven ourselves to be very poor tenants of the planet and Gaia probably wants us evicted.

 

The Pentagon considers climate change a threat and gives some of the reasons why. 

5555555555555555555555555

The pentagon will support anything that convinces the government to give it more money for toys.

I wouldn't take anything they say seriously.

Edited November 27, 2017 by thaibeachlovers

[heybruce]

34 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

A mass extinction was caused by an asteroid strike, not the greatest mass extinction.
 

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

The Great Oxygenation Event was probably the first major extinction event. Since the Cambrian explosion five further major mass extinctions have significantly exceeded the background extinction rate. The most recent and arguably best-known, the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event, which occurred approximately 66 million years ago (Ma), was a large-scale mass extinction of animal and plant species in a geologically short period of time.^[2] In addition to the five major mass extinctions, there are numerous minor ones as well, and the ongoing mass extinction caused by human activity is sometimes called the sixth extinction

 

I found the prior on Wikipedia, but they don't make it clear which is the GREATEST, so I'll give you that one.

 

Given 

the ongoing mass extinction caused by human activity is sometimes called the sixth extinction

I have to wonder if humans deserve to survive anyway. We have proven ourselves to be very poor tenants of the planet and Gaia probably wants us evicted.

 

The Pentagon considers climate change a threat and gives some of the reasons why. 

5555555555555555555555555

The pentagon will support anything that convinces the government to give it more money for toys.

I wouldn't take anything they say seriously.

The Pentagon isn't trying to purchase a global warming gun.  They are attempting to anticipate the kind of political instability driven by crop failures, famine, human migration, etc. that global warming can cause.  By factoring global warming into their future planning they are making more work for themselves, they aren't increasing their budget.

[ExpatOilWorker]

5 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Not really, it sounds like it's going to be a silly story.

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

[Kieran00001]

22 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

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

But you claimed to have a solution to the few centimetres of sea level rise that floating ice melt will cause, but what you have linked to will only reduce sea level by 2.16mm, sea levels have been rising 2mm year on year throughout the 20th century, your idea could take us all the way back to 2016 levels but only until 2018 when we will be back to 2017 levels, perfect solution, we're saved!

[USPatriot]

16 hours ago, Credo said:

I have two homes in AZ, one in the desert, one in the mountains and farm land in the Northern Plains and Canada.   Arizona has only hit 100, once in April.   The past summer was one of, if not the hottest on record.   There has been virtually no rainfall for 3 months.    This is anecdotal, though.   The trend has been hotter and hotter.   Perhaps you remember the day it hit 49 (C), 122 F?   Planes could not land.

 

https://www.currentresults.com/Weather/Arizona/Places/phoenix-temperatures-by-month-average.php

 

The widespread change in the Northern Plains to the planting and harvesting season is much more telling of long term trends.   

 

 

I am an ac tech... this summer it got to 125...I remember it well worked 41 hours straight slept for 5 hours then another 18 hours straight.

[F4UCorsair]

On 11/26/2017 at 11:16 AM, craigt3365 said:

FYI. Internet users now create as much of an environmental problem as those flying in planes.

 

Think about what you've just said.

 

One internet user creates as much of an environmental problem as one pax??....is that over a one hour sector or a 16 hour sector?   The fuel used on startup of a 747 would create more CO2 than ten thousand internet users.   Is it one internet user's use over a year, a lifetime, or how long?   

 

Until you, or anybody, is able to produce actualy figures, that is just a silly proposition.

Edited November 27, 2017 by F4UCorsair

[F4UCorsair]

We're saved!!!   Australia's ABC, and there is no more left organization or supporter of the global warming scam than the ABC, has reported that the world's temperatures will drop after the eruption of Mt Agung on Bali.  I can sleep easy tonight.   Here it is

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-26/how-volcanic-eruptions-can-affect-world-temperatures-mount-agung/8987770

 

I guess we conveniently disregard that the volcano will possibly create emissions greater than all man made emissions for several years.

 

Imagine my disappointment when i finished reading the article and it said the drop will be short lived.   Now we're all going to cook, or be drowned......but read on, and when Mt Tambora, also in Indonesia, erupted in 1815, it did cause much longer climate effects,

 

"After its eruption, it was known in Northern Europe and northeast America as 'The Year Without Summer'," Professor Arculus said.

"It caused a big enough temperature drop that there was frost in the New England region of the United States in August and that's unheard of. And [there were] widespread crop failures.

"Global temperatures were affected enough for the people who were trying to grow things and feed animals to notice the effect.

 

 

[F4UCorsair]

6 hours ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

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

 

 

Great work ExpatOilWorker.     Then there's the added bonus of cooling by evaporation.   The good news never ends.

 

We're saved after all.

Edited November 27, 2017 by F4UCorsair

[craigt3365]

2 hours ago, F4UCorsair said:

 

Think about what you've just said.

 

One internet user creates as much of an environmental problem as one pax??....is that over a one hour sector or a 16 hour sector?   The fuel used on startup of a 747 would create more CO2 than ten thousand internet users.   Is it one internet user's use over a year, a lifetime, or how long?   

 

Until you, or anybody, is able to produce actualy figures, that is just a silly proposition.

Where did i say one internet user? Please quote me correctly and research the meaning of an (s) after a word. Perhaps researching first before making a fool of yourself.

 

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20170321_shedding_light_on_how_much_energy_internet_and_ict_consume/

Current estimates suggest the Internet accounts for 5 percent of global electricity use but is growing faster, at 7 percent a year, than total global energy consumption at 3 percent. Some predictions claim information technologies could account for as much as 20 percent of total energy use by 2030."

 

[F4UCorsair]

7 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Where did i say one internet user? Please quote me correctly and research the meaning of an (s) after a word. Perhaps researching first before making a fool of yourself.

 

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20170321_shedding_light_on_how_much_energy_internet_and_ict_consume/

Current estimates suggest the Internet accounts for 5 percent of global electricity use but is growing faster, at 7 percent a year, than total global energy consumption at 3 percent. Some predictions claim information technologies could account for as much as 20 percent of total energy use by 2030."

 

 

Thank hyou for the patronizing advice.   I'll be more careful next time.

 

I hear what you say about increasing use, but to even suggest that internet use will ever come close to creating as much  an 'environmental problem' as air travellers is using a very vivid imagination.   There are between 6 and 10,000 air transport aircraft (jets) airborne at any one time in the world, depending on the time of day, each burning an average (guess) of 6 to 8 tonnes of fuel an hour, B737 about 2.5 tonnes/hr, B747 about 10 tonnes/hr.

 

Does that put it in perspective?

[craigt3365]

8 minutes ago, F4UCorsair said:

 

Thank hyou for the patronizing advice.   I'll be more careful next time.

 

I hear what you say about increasing use, but to even suggest that internet use will ever come close to creating as much  an 'environmental problem' as air travellers is using a very vivid imagination.   There are between 6 and 10,000 air transport aircraft (jets) airborne at any one time in the world, depending on the time of day, each burning an average (guess) of 6 to 8 tonnes of fuel an hour, B737 about 2.5 tonnes/hr, B747 about 10 tonnes/hr.

 

Does that put it in perspective?

Ya never even read that article. Do some research. It will be very educational for you.

[ExpatOilWorker]

1 hour ago, F4UCorsair said:

 

Thank hyou for the patronizing advice.   I'll be more careful next time.

 

I hear what you say about increasing use, but to even suggest that internet use will ever come close to creating as much  an 'environmental problem' as air travellers is using a very vivid imagination.   There are between 6 and 10,000 air transport aircraft (jets) airborne at any one time in the world, depending on the time of day, each burning an average (guess) of 6 to 8 tonnes of fuel an hour, B737 about 2.5 tonnes/hr, B747 about 10 tonnes/hr.

 

Does that put it in perspective?

That is a lot, but the Internet is still consume more energy than all and ever single airlines flying left right and center.

What part of that don't you understand?

[ExpatOilWorker]

16 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

But you claimed to have a solution to the few centimetres of sea level rise that floating ice melt will cause, but what you have linked to will only reduce sea level by 2.16mm, sea levels have been rising 2mm year on year throughout the 20th century, your idea could take us all the way back to 2016 levels but only until 2018 when we will be back to 2017 levels, perfect solution, we're saved!

Meanwhile, everybody else are doing NOTHING, while EOW is out saving the day. We could also refill Lake Aral and a few other depressions around the world. Do I get a statue now?

With a few more bulldozers I could lower the sea levels with a lot more. You want to know how? 

[thaibeachlovers]

16 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

Meanwhile, everybody else are doing NOTHING, while EOW is out saving the day. We could also refill Lake Aral and a few other depressions around the world. Do I get a statue now?

With a few more bulldozers I could lower the sea levels with a lot more. You want to know how? 

ALSO, by creating more large bodies of water it allows CO2 to be absorbed into those bodies of water. Grow algae in them- even more CO2 absorption and a source of fuel that does not add to the total CO2 in the atmosphere when burned.

And yet- governments apparently not jumping up and down in joy at a simple solution.

[heybruce]

24 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

Meanwhile, everybody else are doing NOTHING, while EOW is out saving the day. We could also refill Lake Aral and a few other depressions around the world. Do I get a statue now?

With a few more bulldozers I could lower the sea levels with a lot more. You want to know how? 

 

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

ALSO, by creating more large bodies of water it allows CO2 to be absorbed into those bodies of water. Grow algae in them- even more CO2 absorption and a source of fuel that does not add to the total CO2 in the atmosphere when burned.

And yet- governments apparently not jumping up and down in joy at a simple solution.

Two questions: 

 

Are you referring to this?   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qattara_Depression_Project   

 

Are you serious?

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

Two questions: 

 

Are you referring to this?   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qattara_Depression_Project   

 

Are you serious?

Do you have a better idea? I'll be looking out for it, but I won't be holding my breath.

[ExpatOilWorker]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

Two questions: 

 

Are you referring to this?   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qattara_Depression_Project   

 

Are you serious?

I know we (EOW + TBL) are the Alpha team when it comes to save the world, but who are you asking?

 

NB: Did u miss post #826?