The myth of melting ice and rising seas

[pkspeaker]

On 3/22/2017 at 10:04 AM, spidermike007 said:

 

Correct. They are now farming areas of Greenland that used to be barren ice fields. The country has become far more arable, due to extreme warming over the past 20 years. But, again we had nothing to do with that. How convenient a position for industry. We all know why the deflector in chief buys into this stuff. It is easy, and expedient. And the protection of the planet means nothing to him. He is not a visionary man. But, for the rest of us? Massive ice shelves are splitting off from the Antartican continent. Just a coincidence? 

 

On the Arctic Circle, a chef is growing the kind of vegetables and herbs - potatoes, thyme, tomatoes, green peppers - more fitting for a suburban garden in a temperate zone than a land of Northern Lights, glaciers and musk oxen.

Some Inuit hunters are finding reindeer fatter than ever thanks to more grazing on this frozen tundra, and for some, there is no longer a need to trek hours to find wild herbs.

Welcome to climate change in Greenland, where locals say longer and warmer summers mean the country can grow the kind of crops unheard of years ago.

"Things are just growing quicker," said Kim Ernst, the Danish chef of Roklubben restaurant, nestled by a frozen lake near a former Cold War-era U.S. military base.

"Every year we try new things," said Ernst, who even managed to grow a handful of strawberries that he served to some surprised Scandinavian royals. "I first came here in 1999 and no-one would have dreamed of doing this. But now the summer days seem warmer, and longer."

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-greenland-climate-agriculture-idUSBRE92P0EX20130326

 

Yea but isn't it ridiculous to think that the Vikings decided to settle so far north in Greenland & modernday NewFoundland Canada when the world was colder than it is now??

Why would they do that, sight now it's middle of March and a super winter blizzard was just there and it's still very cold.. can you imagine having to be frozen in for so long before you can even think of planting the seasons crops, it would have been hell.. why the hell wouldn't they just hug the coast and go south..    If they are farming in Greenland now and clearly there's no significant ice-melt or or sea level rise, that would be a good thing but it would still not be as good as it useed to be back then without some serious sea level rise like the kind that used to make Brugge a seaport.

 

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

 

[heybruce]

5 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

The co2 is mixed with water that is already underground, its just basic pumps, and not particularly powerful, they just need a well dug into the aquifer and pump the co2 into that, the water disperses the co2 into the surrounding rock.

 

But yes, it is in the early stages, but it has far out performed their expectations, so it is looking promising.  And of course we should not be looking at one solution, and this, as I already said, is only a solution for the likes of power stations, we also need to address the accumulative effect of all the small producers of co2, that require completely different solutions.

This is a little off-topic with a technical issue, but I am curious:  Are the power-plant emissions (smoke) pumped directly underground with all their impurities?  If so, do they pose a threat to groundwater? 

 

Or is CO2 somehow filtered out of the smoke and largely pure CO2 pumped underground to form harmless calcite?  If CO2 is somehow filtered out, how energy efficient and expensive is that process?

 

Promising technology, but a lot of questions.

[Shawn0000]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

This is a little off-topic with a technical issue, but I am curious:  Are the power-plant emissions (smoke) pumped directly underground with all their impurities?  If so, do they pose a threat to groundwater? 

 

Or is CO2 somehow filtered out of the smoke and largely pure CO2 pumped underground to form harmless calcite?  If CO2 is somehow filtered out, how energy efficient and expensive is that process?

 

Promising technology, but a lot of questions.

 

Filtering out and then pumping pure co2 into fissures is the traditional carbon locking technique, but it requires great expense, that is what is good about this one, the don't need to separate the gases, it goes down as is.  I don't know about the potential threat to the aquifer, I presume the other impurities get trapped as well, but I just don't know about that.

[pkspeaker]

On 3/22/2017 at 0:43 PM, UnkleMoooose said:

I just searched Dunwich on Google Maps. Dunwich is alive and well, and considerably above sea level. The Wikipedia page for the town doesn't mention any sea level rises or the old town being claimed by the sea either. Am I cherry picking?

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

 

Meanwhile, Dunwich, in Suffolk has vanished beneath the waves along with several other medieval English ports.  Does this mean that the sea level is rising in Suffolk and falling in Kent?  No, it just means that if you cherry-pick your facts instead of weighing the overall evidence you can 'prove' whatever point you want to prove.

 

 

NICE!   outing the REAL fake news spreaders   ...  The Nation article is factually correct about sea levels dropping over time and antarctica & greenland showing ice increases.  The TVrs are the fake news spreaders.

[Shawn0000]

8 minutes ago, pkspeaker said:

Yea but isn't it ridiculous to think that the Vikings decided to settle so far north in Greenland & modernday NewFoundland Canada when the world was colder than it is now??

Why would they do that, sight now it's middle of March and a super winter blizzard was just there and it's still very cold.. can you imagine having to be frozen in for so long before you can even think of planting the seasons crops, it would have been hell.. why the hell wouldn't they just hug the coast and go south..    If they are farming in Greenland now and clearly there's no significant ice-melt or or sea level rise, that would be a good thing but it would still not be as good as it useed to be back then without some serious sea level rise like the kind that used to make Brugge a seaport.

 

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

 

 

Bruges was a seaport until it silted up, nothing to do with sea level changes, its called beach evolution if you are interested, some silt up, others erode away, that's just what happens, river deltas such as where Bruges is situated, are particularly prone to silting up, the river washes silt down and it accumulates at the mouth.  You may care to note the absence of any change to areas nearby, while the delta silted up, other places did not see this "change in sea level" your conspiracy site has mislead you with.  For instance, there are small islands in Sweden that were occupied before the time when Bruges silted up, if the sea level was higher then the inhabited parts of those islands would have been under the sea.

[pkspeaker]

19 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

Bruges was a seaport until it silted up, nothing to do with sea level changes, its called beach evolution if you are interested, some silt up, others erode away, that's just what happens, river deltas such as where Bruges is situated, are particularly prone to silting up, the river washes silt down and it accumulates at the mouth.  You may care to note the absence of any change to areas nearby, while the delta silted up, other places did not see this "change in sea level" your conspiracy site has mislead you with.  For instance, there are small islands in Sweden that were occupied before the time when Bruges silted up, if the sea level was higher then the inhabited parts of those islands would have been under the sea.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/2071/most-comprehensive-assault-global-warming-ever-mike-van-biezen

 

It's not a FACT that there was this silting up, There are also examples in the Persian gulf of higher sea levels in the past + Egypt and Ephsus  there are no 'siting rivers' just the water used to flood in..

 

"The famous Belgian city of Brugge, once known as “Venice of the North,” was a sea port during the warm period that set Europe free from the dark ages (when temperatures were much colder), but when temperatures began to drop with the onset of the little ice age, the ocean receded and now Brugge is ten miles away from the coastline.  Consequently, during the medieval warm period the Vikings settled in Iceland and Greenland and even along the coast of Canada, where they enjoyed the warmer temperatures, .."

 

The world was  warmer during the holocene maximum during the times of the egyptian civilization, so it makes sense that the sea levels would be falling steadily since then.  The previous inter-glacial eemian also saw temps spike up early after the termination of the previous ice age.  

 

 

 

 

[Shawn0000]

56 minutes ago, pkspeaker said:

http://www.dailywire.com/news/2071/most-comprehensive-assault-global-warming-ever-mike-van-biezen

 

It's not a FACT that there was this silting up, There are also examples in the Persian gulf of higher sea levels in the past + Egypt and Ephsus  there are no 'siting rivers' just the water used to flood in..

 

"The famous Belgian city of Brugge, once known as “Venice of the North,” was a sea port during the warm period that set Europe free from the dark ages (when temperatures were much colder), but when temperatures began to drop with the onset of the little ice age, the ocean receded and now Brugge is ten miles away from the coastline.  Consequently, during the medieval warm period the Vikings settled in Iceland and Greenland and even along the coast of Canada, where they enjoyed the warmer temperatures, .."

 

The world was  warmer during the holocene maximum during the times of the egyptian civilization, so it makes sense that the sea levels would be falling steadily since then.  The previous inter-glacial eemian also saw temps spike up early after the termination of the previous ice age.  

 

 

 

 

 

Yes it is a fact, and it is still observable today, the river carries silt which is deposited at the delta, this is elementary school science that you are learning here, by the way.

 

No rivers silting the Persian gulf?  Hilarious!  The Euphrates is silting the Persian gulf at a rate of 20cm per century.  In the period from pre dynastic Egypt to today, we would expect a sea bed rise of around 14 meters.

[pkspeaker]

1 hour ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

Yes it is a fact, and it is still observable today, the river carries silt which is deposited at the delta, this is elementary school science that you are learning here, by the way.

 

No rivers silting the Persian gulf?  Hilarious!  The Euphrates is silting the Persian gulf at a rate of 20cm per century.  In the period from pre dynastic Egypt to today, we would expect a sea bed rise of around 14 meters.

I don't have the book, but apparently it makes a good case, here:

http://aoi.com.au/bcw/Sealevel/index.htm

 

You can see he recreated what that bay used to look like at Epesus.. theres no river there just water  same with Romney and what about the canals that used to be in Egypt..  look how far inland and where Ur in Iraq is! book makes a strong case so you can't claim FACT on the opposite point of view especially since the Vikings historical record shows settling so far north ..  There is no 'fake news' here.  

 

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

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

This is a little off-topic with a technical issue, but I am curious:  Are the power-plant emissions (smoke) pumped directly underground with all their impurities?  If so, do they pose a threat to groundwater? 

 

Or is CO2 somehow filtered out of the smoke and largely pure CO2 pumped underground to form harmless calcite?  If CO2 is somehow filtered out, how energy efficient and expensive is that process?

 

Promising technology, but a lot of questions.

 

3 hours ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

Filtering out and then pumping pure co2 into fissures is the traditional carbon locking technique, but it requires great expense, that is what is good about this one, the don't need to separate the gases, it goes down as is.  I don't know about the potential threat to the aquifer, I presume the other impurities get trapped as well, but I just don't know about that.

It didn't occur to me until after I posted (I'm weak in chemistry) that CO2 and water create carbonic acid, a relatively weak acid but still detrimental to aquatic life, especially animals that live in shells.  One of the concerns of higher CO2 in the atmosphere is that more of it is absorbed into the ocean leading to higher acidity which is detrimental to shell fish and corral.

 

I assume this process is driven by the chemical reaction between the carbonic acid and rock which forms calcite.  I think this is a carbon sequestration method that would only be feasible where the ground water can not enter lakes or rivers.  I don't know how common such isolated pockets of ground water are.

[worgeordie]

4 hours ago, kannot said:

Yes and I was there in 1990 Meerufenfushi..............guess what....its still there in 2017, 27 years later, shouldnt  it by  now  be underwater? instead whats destroying the Maldives is rampant tourism and population explosion

Yes put your faith in Jesus,it will never happen.

regards worgeordie

[Shawn0000]

25 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

It didn't occur to me until after I posted (I'm weak in chemistry) that CO2 and water create carbonic acid, a relatively weak acid but still detrimental to aquatic life, especially animals that live in shells.  One of the concerns of higher CO2 in the atmosphere is that more of it is absorbed into the ocean leading to higher acidity which is detrimental to shell fish and corral.

 

I assume this process is driven by the chemical reaction between the carbonic acid and rock which forms calcite.  I think this is a carbon sequestration method that would only be feasible where the ground water can not enter lakes or rivers.  I don't know how common such isolated pockets of ground water are.

 

There is no life in an aquifer hundreds of meters below the surface, perhaps some dormant viruses, but they would unaffected anyway, and they will be choosing confined aquifers, so there really is no chance of contaminating another water source, and confined aquifers are common, I'm sat 100m above one that covers about 1/4 of the area of Thailand.

 

 

[heybruce]

20 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

There is no life in an aquifer hundreds of meters below the surface, perhaps some dormant viruses, but they would unaffected anyway, and they will be choosing confined aquifers, so there really is no chance of contaminating another water source, and confined aquifers are common, I'm sat 100m above one that covers about 1/4 of the area of Thailand.

In many parts of the world these aquifers come to the surface in rivers and springs and, in rare instances, cause patches of fresh water in the ocean.  No one can be sure if an aquifer is confined without putting some kind of marker in the water and then checking in many places for traces of the marker.

 

Are you sure the aquifer you post about does rise to the surface either naturally or by pumping for irrigation?  If not, why not?  It's huge and Thailand has been suffering through a drought.

[Shawn0000]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

In many parts of the world these aquifers come to the surface in rivers and springs and, in rare instances, cause patches of fresh water in the ocean.  No one can be sure if an aquifer is confined without putting some kind of marker in the water and then checking in many places for traces of the marker.

 

Are you sure the aquifer you post about does rise to the surface either naturally or by pumping for irrigation?  If not, why not?  It's huge and Thailand has been suffering through a drought.

 

These aquifers do not come to the surface, that is the difference between a confined and an unconfined aquifer, there are also semi confined aquifers that are bound above and below but leak somewhere such as into a lake, but I was talking about confined aquifers, they do not leak and are also common throughout the world, and they can actually test for leaks in an aquifer by pressure testing.

 

The first water you hit in Isaan is surface water and what most people pump for irrigation, the second is an aquifer that is open to the Mekhong, but the third aquifer down on the Khorat plateau is confined.  The water is millions of years old mineral water, to use it for irrigation would be criminal, besides the fact that it is probably too salty, it would all be gone in no time as it is confined so there is no new water entering. Its reserved for drinking water production and is strictly controlled, that's why you will struggle to find a well digger in Isaan who will dig below 100m, because they will get locked up if they dig without a licence and the licences are only available for municipal use.

[Ramen087]

Good God, it's getting hot in here... and we know who's responsible.

[maewang99]

everything on the emissions side is irrelevant....

there is a 10 to 40 year lag (just thinking about why there is such a spread is a wakeup call... not more evidence of some kind of Climate Conspiracy) between emissions of Co2 and it's effect on the biosphere.. mostly because of how the oceans behave and we ****already**** are seeing positive feedbacks that may soon dwarf "made made" emissions.. and we're not talking about "methane bombs"... just for instance an ice free Artic in most folks lifetimes (for some of the year).

stop discounting ****why**** we put 1.5 right next to 2.0 in COP21.  which everyone agreed to.

veiling may mean much reduced global variation in ocean currents and wind patterns.. it would work like a giant pair of sunglasses.. and the monsoons.. and Rainy Season in SE Asia.. are driven by those variations. 

 

and that's the why of 1.5... which was silly.... but India.. our neighbor on the other side of the Bay.... wouldn't have signed on otherwise.

  

      

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

16 hours ago, JimmyJ said:

Nonsense when popularized by Malthus, even more nonsensical now.

 

"Malthus, the false prophet

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

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

 

Even better - concise and erudite -

 

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

 

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

Might as well have been Groucho, as it is so far out of date.

Try this:

http://www.populationmatters.org/attenborough-talk/

 

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

18 hours ago, heybruce said:

Any references for your CO2 claims?

 

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

Okay, methane (CH4) in the main, not CO2, my mistake.

Are you trying to say methane is not a potential pollutant?

Have a look at this:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/12/methane/lavelle-text

[boomerangutang]

           A poster wondered why Greenland ever got inhabited by humans.  Try this for an answer:  Many folks who reside in arctic regions are able to subsist on completely animal-derived food.  Animals also provide most of their shelter and clothing needs.  In Viking days, Greenland would have been a good place to at least take a break from seafaring, and stock up on fresh water.  The reason it was named 'Greenland' was to entice settlers.  ...plus its a measure of Norse humor.

 

                   As for lakes:  there's a large lake under the Antarctic.  The Russkies detected it, and named it Lake Vostok. It's probably the most pristine large lake in the world.   The Russians were going to drill down to it.  The Brits found out and, just in time, talked the Russians into abandoning their venture, by convincing them it would risk contamination.  Since then, the Brits and Russkies have been trying to devise a way to enter and probe the lake without contaminating it.  Thus far, I don't think they've endeavored to do so.    If they asked me, I'd say 'fine, leave it in its virgin state.'   It's good to have some natural mysteries still unresolved.

 

 

[Shawn0000]

4 hours ago, pkspeaker said:

I don't have the book, but apparently it makes a good case, here:

http://aoi.com.au/bcw/Sealevel/index.htm

 

You can see he recreated what that bay used to look like at Epesus.. theres no river there just water  same with Romney and what about the canals that used to be in Egypt..  look how far inland and where Ur in Iraq is! book makes a strong case so you can't claim FACT on the opposite point of view especially since the Vikings historical record shows settling so far north ..  There is no 'fake news' here.  

 

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

 

Did you even read the article, he talks about the river at Ephesus and says that the "conventional" explanation is the bay was lost to silting up, which is what happened despite what you might read from the Ben Franklin Centre for Theoretical Research, which by the way is not actually a reasearch centre but just some nut jobs webpage and a PO box address.

 

Ur is on the mouth of Euphrates, the coast line moved due to silting of the river, Romney was rebuilt on reclaimed land after the harbour silted up.  And what about the canals in Egypt?  Try to find just one example that is not on the mouth of a river, somewhere that has not obviously been effected by silt, and I will entertain this further, otherwise I think it is quite clear that this is over.

[Shawn0000]

17 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

           A poster wondered why Greenland ever got inhabited by humans.  Try this for an answer:  Many folks who reside in arctic regions are able to subsist on completely animal-derived food.  Animals also provide most of their shelter and clothing needs.  In Viking days, Greenland would have been a good place to at least take a break from seafaring, and stock up on fresh water.  The reason it was named 'Greenland' was to entice settlers.  ...plus its a measure of Norse humor.

 

                   As for lakes:  there's a large lake under the Antarctic.  The Russkies detected it, and named it Lake Vostok. It's probably the most pristine large lake in the world.   The Russians were going to drill down to it.  The Brits found out and, just in time, talked the Russians into abandoning their venture, by convincing them it would risk contamination.  Since then, the Brits and Russkies have been trying to devise a way to enter and probe the lake without contaminating it.  Thus far, I don't think they've endeavored to do so.    If they asked me, I'd say 'fine, leave it in its virgin state.'   It's good to have some natural mysteries still unresolved.

 

 

 

Jeff Ridley from the UK discovered lake Vostok, and it was named after the Russian ship that was used in the discovery of Antarctica.  The British, among others, advised Russia not to drill into the lake, but they did anyway, some 5 years ago, they had a contamination accident which is possibly what you are confusing, anyway they drilled again last year, this time successfully, and nothing to do with the Brits, who were there among the coalition but solely with an interest in the samples, no involvement in the drilling.

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

14 hours ago, DekDaeng said:

 

Nonsense, this the record one one small volcano, not the many thousands there are.

One major eruption could, as I said, outstrip the western world's output over the same time scale.

https://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html

[heybruce]

37 minutes ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

Okay, methane (CH4) in the main, not CO2, my mistake.

Are you trying to say methane is not a potential pollutant?

Have a look at this:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/12/methane/lavelle-text

I know methane is a greenhouse gas.  Based on your post I wasn't sure you did.

 

You also mentioned volcanoes and perhaps some other irrelevant nonsense.  So what?  The earth has hundreds of millions years practice at keeping things more or less in balance.  A volcano erupts, a herd of animals fart, the earth gets a little warmer, CO2 levels go up a bit, more plants grow and absorb the CO2 and things get back to normal.   There are big swings in climate over thousands of years, ice ages and such, but the pace of change is slow enough for the ecosystem to adapt.

 

However massive shocks to the system, such as the meteor strike that wiped out the dinosaurs and massive volcanic eruptions at the Siberian traps that caused the Permian extinction (60% of land based species and 96% of aquatic life driven to extinction) cause climatic change too fast for the ecosystem to adapt and there is a mass extinction. 

 

No one knows if the rapid increase of CO2 will cause such a mass extinction, but no on can say it won't.  The fact that in the two hundred years since the industrial revolution we have created CO2 levels unseen for over ten million years, and wiped out much of the plant life that would absorb the CO2, is a concern.  All preliminary indicators are that the results will be bad, and the longer we go without addressing the situation the worse things will get. 

 

Denial won't improve things.  If we greatly reduce the amount of  greenhouse gases pumped into the atmosphere and stop clear cutting tropical forests perhaps the earth is resilient enough to prevent catastrophe.  If CO2 levels keep increasing at the same rate as in the past 100 years I don't think we have much of a chance.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere#/media/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

[heybruce]

8 minutes ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

Nonsense, read this:

https://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html

Excellent link:

 

" Thus, not only does volcanic CO₂ not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value."

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

46 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I know methane is a greenhouse gas.  Based on your post I wasn't sure you did.

 

You also mentioned volcanoes and perhaps some other irrelevant nonsense.  So what?  The earth has hundreds of millions years practice at keeping things more or less in balance.  A volcano erupts, a herd of animals fart, the earth gets a little warmer, CO2 levels go up a bit, more plants grow and absorb the CO2 and things get back to normal.   There are big swings in climate over thousands of years, ice ages and such, but the pace of change is slow enough for the ecosystem to adapt.

 

However massive shocks to the system, such as the meteor strike that wiped out the dinosaurs and massive volcanic eruptions at the Siberian traps that caused the Permian extinction (60% of land based species and 96% of aquatic life driven to extinction) cause climatic change too fast for the ecosystem to adapt and there is a mass extinction. 

 

No one knows if the rapid increase of CO2 will cause such a mass extinction, but no on can say it won't.  The fact that in the two hundred years since the industrial revolution we have created CO2 levels unseen for over ten million years, and wiped out much of the plant life that would absorb the CO2, is a concern.  All preliminary indicators are that the results will be bad, and the longer we go without addressing the situation the worse things will get. 

 

Denial won't improve things.  If we greatly reduce the amount of  greenhouse gases pumped into the atmosphere and stop clear cutting tropical forests perhaps the earth is resilient enough to prevent catastrophe.  If CO2 levels keep increasing at the same rate as in the past 100 years I don't think we have much of a chance.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere#/media/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

As an earlier post said, everyone is an expert on this.

In my original post on this thread I said you can find "research and facts*" galore to prove whatever side you take on this subject. I like that you mention the "massive volcanic eruptions at the Siberian traps that caused the Permian extinction (60% of land based species and 96% of aquatic life driven to extinction) cause climatic change too fast for the ecosystem to adapt and there is a mass extinction" since that was the sort of event (although bigger) I was alluding too, not one small volcano in Hawaii. 

I still say we will likely starve not drown (or freeze) to death in the end.

* Try this one if you liked the last link...

http://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html

[heybruce]

54 minutes ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

As an earlier post said, everyone is an expert on this.

In my original post on this thread I said you can find "research and facts*" galore to prove whatever side you take on this subject. I like that you mention the "massive volcanic eruptions at the Siberian traps that caused the Permian extinction (60% of land based species and 96% of aquatic life driven to extinction) cause climatic change too fast for the ecosystem to adapt and there is a mass extinction" since that was the sort of event (although bigger) I was alluding too, not one small volcano in Hawaii. 

I still say we will likely starve not drown (or freeze) to death in the end.

* Try this one if you liked the last link...

http://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html

Your latest link puts the amount of CO2 released by volcanoes to less than 3% of that released by human activity.  Why do you think that is significant?

 

The volcanic eruptions leading to the Permian extinction happened approximately 260 million years ago.  Volcanic activity of this level isn't common.  The CO2 increase from less than 300 ppm to almost 400 ppm in less than 100 years, a level last seen over ten million years ago, has never before been witnessed.  And the levels are still increasing. 

 

In summary, I maintain we have a problem of our own construct that needs to be dealt with, and you maintain "Why bother?  Maybe a volcano will wipe us out anyway."

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

Your latest link puts the amount of CO2 released by volcanoes to less than 3% of that released by human activity.  Why do you think that is significant?

 

The volcanic eruptions leading to the Permian extinction happened approximately 260 million years ago.  Volcanic activity of this level isn't common.  The CO2 increase from less than 300 ppm to almost 400 ppm in less than 100 years, a level last seen over ten million years ago, has never before been witnessed.  And the levels are still increasing. 

 

In summary, I maintain we have a problem of our own construct that needs to be dealt with, and you maintain "Why bother?  Maybe a volcano will wipe us out anyway."

You misunderstand my point.

I say: much of the information is unreliable on climate change, while the elephant in the room is ignored, overpopulation.

If a concerted effort to do something about BOTH isn't made then there will most defiantly be a problem. Nobody will consider the emissions from shipping for instance, and some of the most populous countries pay only lip service to reducing output. I don't believe that flying around the world to summits in exotic locations on expense accounts and ad hoc taxation is the answer.

I contend it is not me in denial, but those that ignore the obvious.

Time for a beer

[pkspeaker]

13 hours ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

Did you even read the article, he talks about the river at Ephesus and says that the "conventional" explanation is the bay was lost to silting up, which is what happened despite what you might read from the Ben Franklin Centre for Theoretical Research, which by the way is not actually a reasearch centre but just some nut jobs webpage and a PO box address.

 

Ur is on the mouth of Euphrates, the coast line moved due to silting of the river, Romney was rebuilt on reclaimed land after the harbour silted up.  And what about the canals in Egypt?  Try to find just one example that is not on the mouth of a river, somewhere that has not obviously been effected by silt, and I will entertain this further, otherwise I think it is quite clear that this is over.

 

 

 

 

The Nation editorial did not site the "Ben Franklin.."  That is just something I found on the internet that graphically illustrates some of what the Richard Guy book is saying, I have not read the book and either have you.

 

*  1st of all, you can see on all the ice cores that inter-glacial periods spike up early after the ice age termination, so that would have been thousands years ago, Egyptians Kingdom days, even before that, a period called the 'Holocene Maximum'  so that supports the notion that sea levels would have been at their highest back then..

 

* You can see how he recreated the Bay that used to be near Ephesus, Ephesus was not located near the river, the area in blue is lower elevation, it was at the lower of the blue shaded area away from the river.. water flooded into the lower area's and that created the Bay.

* I see no river near New Romney in google maps just some irrigation ditches.  There is no major river near Bruges yet all this 'siltation' happened in a few hundred years; the Netherland(lowerlands in dutch) region would be prone to flooding if sea levels were higher.

 

 

Ur maybe near a river but look how far it is from the present day coast.. you think all that land comes from 'silting'?  don't you think the water may have been flooding in?  makes no sense, there is ample evidence here to support this editorial's claim of declining sea levels and you have not presented any kind of geological evidence to even dispute it, much less declare it as FACT that this is all the result of 'siltation' and that this is FAKE NEWS being published by The Nation.  Sure maybe you can say there is 'a reasonable doubt' but on the 1st couple of pages of this thread TVrs are screaming fake news..  and then there are the studies sited of increasing ice, that was REAL as well..  NO FAKE NEWS here!  WITH EVERY NEWSPAPER in the world printing this stuff about rising sea levels/melting ice ; at least there is one little newspaper that prints 1 little editorial that says "wait a minute, this stuff we print may not even be true.. we just print this stuff every week because everyone else prints it.. lol.

 

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

 

[Bill Miller]

On Sept. 19, 2014, the five-day average of Antarctic sea ice extent exceeded 20 million square kilometers for the first time since 1979, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. The red line shows the average maximum extent from 1979-2014.

Credits: NASA's Scientific Visualization Studio/Cindy Starr

 

Sea ice surrounding Antarctica reached a new record high extent this year, covering more of the southern oceans than it has since scientists began a long-term satellite record to map sea ice extent in the late 1970s. The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.

Please note, the situation in the Antarctic was "only about a third...of the rapid loss.. in the Arctic...". Furthermore, as of 2016, the ice pack in 2016 was back to previous levels.

[Shawn0000]

4 minutes ago, pkspeaker said:

 

 

 

 

The Nation editorial did not site the "Ben Franklin.."  That is just something I found on the internet that graphically illustrates some of what the Richard Guy book is saying, I have not read the book and either have you.

 

*  1st of all, you can see on all the ice cores that inter-glacial periods spike up early after the ice age termination, so that would have been thousands years ago, Egyptians Kingdom days, even before that, a period called the 'Holocene Maximum'  so that supports the notion that sea levels would have been at their highest back then..

* I see no river near New Romney in google maps just some irrigation ditches.  There is no major river near Bruges yet all this 'siltation' happened in a few hundred years; the Netherland(lowerlands in dutch) region would be prone to flooding if sea levels were higher.

 

 

Ur maybe near a river but look how far it is from the present day coast.. you think all that land comes from 'silting'?  don't you think the water may have been flooding in?  makes no sense, there is ample evidence here to support this editorial's claim of declining sea levels and you have not presented any kind of geological evidence to even dispute it, much less declare it as FACT that this is all the result of 'siltation' and that this is FAKE NEWS being published by The Nation.  Sure maybe you can say there is 'a reasonable doubt' but on the 1st couple of pages of this thread TVrs are screaming fake news..  and then there are the studies sited of increasing ice, that was REAL as well..  NO FAKE NEWS here!  WITH EVERY NEWSPAPER in the world printing this stuff about rising sea levels/melting ice ; at least there is one little newspaper that prints 1 little editorial that says "wait a minute, this stuff we print isn't really true.. we just print this stuff every week lol.

 

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

 

 

Romney was on the mouth of the river Rother, Bruges is on the delta of the Rhine, the Netherlands has rather a lot of canals to deal with the fact that it would otherwise flood.   I guess you don't come from near a river mouth, I used to watch the dedgers all the time, it is the norm to have to dredge river mouths to allow ships to enter as they silt up, I also know a few small harbors in the UK that have been lost quite recently due to silt due from lack of funds for dredging.  Try London Apprentice, a well documented case of dredging stopping and the harbor silting up and leaving it where it is now, a fair walk from the sea.  I am sorry but unless you can find an example that is not on a river mouth then really this is over.  And one paper, printing the rants of a climate change denier, is not a good thing, stick with the scientific consensus, not this guy who tries to mislead you by showing you proven examples of silt causing the loss of harbors and tells you that the sea was higher regardless of the fact that just around the corner the same evidence cannot be found.  Again, how can you explain the fact that there are settlements in Sweden that would have been underwater at the time Bruges was a port?  There is no possible way it is true, it is just fake news put out to fulfill their climate change denying agenda, that is blatantly obvious to anyone who has an elementary school appreciation of geography.

[pkspeaker]

Sounds like your the 'climate change denier' since you seem to think sea levels never change except for that big ol 2mm/year some climate science group is telling us. of course 'dredging' would not be as efficient in the past.. well that book & newspaper article were published & your an anonymous blog poster who thinks they don't have the right so whatever then..