The myth of melting ice and rising seas

[heybruce]

55 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..

 

* 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

 

Your "ample evidence here to support this editorial's claim of declining sea levels" consist of your interpretation of satellite photos of a couple of areas, while ignoring historical accounts, the consequences of river silting and delta formation, and ignoring the numerous ancient cities around the world that are now under water.

 

I'll stick to the one I've personally visited:  Of course the center of Ephesus wasn't on the river.  Ephesus was a sprawling city with it's center connected to the port by a road.  However the river silted up, through delta formation the mouth of the river moved  miles away, and the city was abandoned.  Your unscientific, historically naive interpretation of a satellite photo doesn't change this.

[tcris52]

The article reads, "Special to the Nation". I was trying to find this published anywhere else, but had no luck. It seems that he's just compiling a bunch of stuff from the deniers' publication into another article. I guess that's an easy way to make a few baht without having to work and/or think.

[pkspeaker]

Here are 35 scientific papers that support the conclusion that sea levels were higher most of the last 7000 years.. You people meanwhile have posted nothing to contradict higher historic sea levels other than your 'opinions' ..  how much 'evidence' is enough to write in the editorial page of The Nation?  does everyone have to check your dumb opinions before they publish editorials in The Nation?

 

http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/06/35-scientific-papers-global-sea-levels-were-1-2-meters-higher-than-now-for-most-of-the-last-7000-years/#sthash.tDNOku2e.dpbs

 

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

 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, pkspeaker said:

Here are 35 scientific papers that support the conclusion that sea levels were higher most of the last 7000 years.. You people meanwhile have posted nothing to contradict higher historic sea levels other than your 'opinions' ..  how much 'evidence' is enough to write in the editorial page of The Nation?  does everyone have to check your dumb opinions before they publish editorials in The Nation?

 

http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/06/35-scientific-papers-global-sea-levels-were-1-2-meters-higher-than-now-for-most-of-the-last-7000-years/#sthash.tDNOku2e.dpbs

 

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

 

Your "35 scientific papers" show that, following a rapid rise in sea levels at the end of the last ice age, there was a slow, over a period of thousands of years, fall in sea levels.  This was while CO2 levels stayed between the 260 to 279 parts per million range.  So what?  Has anybody claimed that CO2 levels were the drivers of past ice ages or the only drivers of change to ocean levels? 

 

Among theories about what causes the most recent (starting 2.6 million years ago) cycle of ice ages is the hypothesis that declines from past levels of CO2 (CO2 concentrations were at current high levels ten million years ago, before current cycles of ice ages and when sea levels were much higher) combined with variations in the earth's inclination and position in its elliptical orbit that follow 22000 year cycles result in ice ages.  The key take away here is that when CO2 levels were last at today's levels, ice caps were smaller to non-existent and ocean levels were much higher.

 

I have no doubt that you can find 35 or more places around the world where there is evidence that sea levels have fallen relative to local land masses.  As numerous underwater cities indicate, you can also find numerous places where there is compelling evidence of local sea level rises.  However I credit you with a much better referenced post than the topic editorial.

 

In reading the NASA study about increase ice mass in the Antarctic, it's worth remembering that the Antarctic cold makes it the driest continent on earth.  Increased snowfall is due to higher temperatures, as is explained:

 

" The extra snowfall that began 10,000 years ago has been slowly accumulating on the ice sheet and compacting into solid ice over millennia, thickening the ice in East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica by an average of 0.7 inches (1.7 centimeters) per year. This small thickening, sustained over thousands of years and spread over the vast expanse of these sectors of Antarctica, corresponds to a very large gain of ice – enough to outweigh the losses from fast-flowing glaciers in other parts of the continent and reduce global sea level rise. 

 

However, this can not go on forever.  As your study states:

 

" But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”

 

In other words, if the acceleration of glacier losses continue at the present rate, the total ice mass will stop increasing and go into decline.

 

Also worth noting, from this study:

 

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

[pkspeaker]

okthen.. But the The Nation Editorial made 2 basic claims, higher historic sea levels and current ice increases in greenland & Antarctica  .. that is supported, no 'fake news' there.  if you think there is something unnatural going on beyond that, then that's fine, But in the first few pages of this thread people were saying that The Nation published a 'Fake News' article, like ie: smoking doesn't cause lungcancer .  

 

http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/06/35-scientific-papers-global-sea-levels-were-1-2-meters-higher-than-now-for-most-of-the-last-7000-years/#sthash.tDNOku2e.dpbs

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

[maewang99]

On ‎3‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 2:58 PM, esprit said:

Irrespective of the differing points of view, the sea level rise is continuing.  The good news is that around 2090 most of Bangkok could be inundated.  The bad news is it is not happening sooner.

Bangkok was already inundated, last year.  the dam on the Chao Phraya is releasing water to keep salt water intrusion from entering Bangkok tap water plants....

today.

March 24, 2017.

 

but that dam is below it's operating level.

today.

 

March 24, 2017.

so if we're today at a tipping point... what would happen if a Larsen B at Larsen C led to a loss of as little as 10% of West Antarctica's ice sheet?

that would be more than half a meter of sea level rise... within a few months.... 

that doesn't have to be 2090.

 

[pkspeaker]

Larson B & C are near underwater volcanoes so they were melting due to that.

[janhkt]

On 22 March 2017 at 5:32 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

His qualifications are probably as good as those of the "97% of scientists" that support the "man did it" version of climate change.

Arctic sea ice melt wouldn't raise sea levels even if it all melted and the entire Arctic sea was ice free water. It's only if the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps melt that sea levels would rise.

 

The guy is not a Scientist. Google him.

 

What is the source of the information your claim regarding melting ice? Others seem to not agree on that matter.

 

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html: "If the Greenland Ice Sheet melted, scientists estimate that sea level would rise about 6 meters (20 feet). If the Antarctic Ice Sheet melted, sea level would rise by about 60 meters (200 feet)." 

 

Did you recently compare the size of Antarctica to Greenland?

 

Other sources:

 

http://e360.yale.edu/features/abrupt_sea_level_rise_realistic_greenland_antarctica

http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/question/ice-antarctica-melt-much-global-sea-level-rise-quickly-likely-happen/

 

 

 

[anon4546543]

Despite all counter claims, the total earth temperature is increasing. 1% over the last 100 years may seem slow but in regard to thousands of years it is rapid. Sea temperatures are increasing. It may cause the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia which lost almost 30% in the last 10 years due to coral bleaching. The Maldives population have made an application to Australia to consider moving there if their islands continue to disappear under water, as have numerous Pacific nations. I am not going to post possible bs links, just talk to the people and read a newspaper now and then. In addition the sea waters are becoming poisoned due to over CO2 causing acidity. If this does not alarm people, you have short term greed motives at the expense of future generations. The three main reasons of the earth being in trouble is due to extremely rapid increase in CO2, clear felling trees at an unsustainable pace with little replanting and of course overpopulation by polluting and habitat destroying humans. And no country is exempt, everyone is doing too little to try and restore some balance.     

[Dumbastheycome]

I always  have  found it interesting that the major influential denialists  of  global warming/ climate change generally do so to  advocate the continuation  of  rampant self indulgent profiteering as  opposed to the more cautious humanitarian concern of a sustainable  world.

The proliferation  of  humans has  undeniably resulted  in the  decimation  of forestation which is proven to  be  critical in the  recycling of  carbon emission gasses plus releasing  petrochemical compounds  which previously  had  locked  up carbon at  an ever increased  rate  also in the  form of  gasses.

There  is  plausible  evidence  that  historic events have  also  caused major catastrophes but because have not been part of  a natural situation resulted  in massive  elimination of  species.

Those  events such as  meteor strikes were not a  component of the normal progressive  cycle of  nature.

The  activities of  humans  is now  having a  similar slower accumulative effect. We  have  demonstrated  the  capacity  to  do it yet  we  continue  to deny it.

The pollution  of  the  world is  more  than just   emission  gasses. 

In  our cleverness we have and continue  to  pollute maybe to extinction ourselves at least  in terms of future generations.

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

While everyone is arguing about which facts on climate change are fake and which are not, we cannot deny that humans are polluting the planet.

In the meantime, the world population continues to rise and has risen from 2.55 billion in 1950 to 7.5 billion in 2016, tripled in only a short lifetime.

This increases the demand to produce electricity, move goods and people and to feed and clothe everyone etc, thus making emission control etc more and more difficult.

If the world is going to be fit for our children's, children's children (Moody Blues 1969) then the whole world needs to do something constructive about both these problems, not just have politicians tax people more and go on junkets to Hawaii.

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 3/23/2017 at 6:24 PM, heybruce said:

"I agree that temperature has risen, CO2 has increased and glaciers have receded."

 

Really? You seem to be challenging that in post 102 and 114.

 

As I pointed out in post 88 (follow-ups on posts 101 and 130) , solving overpopulation and removing greenhouse gases is not simple unless you advocate draconian (genocidal) methods.  It also ignores the fact that the remaining population will strive for the energy and material goods intensive lifestyle that generates these greenhouse gases.

 

What are these CO2 machines using proven technology that operate at a scale that will quickly reduce greenhouse gas levels?

 

This thread started out debating the legitimacy of the conclusions of the original article.  I don't recall any serious poster presenting a viable quick fix.  You certainly haven't.

 

 

You seem to be challenging that in post 102 and 114.

Really?

What are these CO2 machines using proven technology that operate at a scale that will quickly reduce greenhouse gas levels?

The point I made some time ago is that there is proven technology to remove CO2 but governments won't fund it so there are presently no machines using proven technology that operate at a scale that will quickly reduce greenhouse gas levels.

I don't recall any serious poster presenting a viable quick fix.  You certainly haven't.

True. I have been saying for ages that there are no viable solutions being presented by anyone, or any government, and certainly not on this thread.

I have presented options, such as banning cars in cities and reducing population significantly, but I have no illusions that they would be implemented.

Personally, I don't think anything will be done that would change the situation, so thankfully I should be passed on before the methane storms ravage planet Earth.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 3/24/2017 at 4:33 AM, 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

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.

I agree, but what is the chance that all 7 billion people would voluntarily cease producing CO2? I say ZERO.

Ergo, nothing will happen and either the events unfold as the scientists foretell, or governments will compel bans etc, with all the social effects that would create.

I doubt a single poster on this thread has given up using internal combustion engines, air travel or using electricity generated by oil because they "care about the future".

[thaibeachlovers]

20 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

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.

Sea ice makes no difference to sea level when it melts.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 3/23/2017 at 6:45 PM, Shawn0000 said:

 

The technology from Iceland is only relevant to things like power stations, it is good but it does not take co2 from the air and lock it up, it works with a massive source of co2 like a coal power station, whereas the tower system is a solution for taking co2 from anywhere, we need to address both issues.

Of course this is a worldwide issue, the point being that it would take 17 of the biggest nuclear power stations in the US just to power enough to equal the current output of the US Co2 emissions, if we were to attempt to use this technology for worldwide emissions the project would be beyond our current means, whereas reforestation is not, and it is sustainable whereas nuclear power is not and is the only viable solution for generating that sort of power without also creating more co2 in the generation than it removes.  So in my opinion the artificial tree solution is not viable unless they can sort out the power consumption.

There is another idea which involves making the sea more fertile to encourage life forms to grow and consume more co2 which has potential, but again is an enormous project, and like all these things, the main thing lacking is an incentive for investment.

Stopping deforestation. Not going to happen as long as the world's population keeps increasing. Man is covering more of the planet's surface at a rapid rate that can be compensated for by planting a few trees in western countries.

They knew algae in the sea binds CO2 many years ago,  but so far no large scale projects to grow the stuff.

[maewang99]

when there's 2 feet of snow in Poughkeepsie....

 

in the middle of March....

I'd have to say maybe the past isn't a good way to predict the future anymore....  

and that that might include the Rainy Season at some point..... as well as ice sheets in West Antarctica....

but the Chao Phraya dam seems to be on a tipping point right now... in 2017...

not 2090. 

 

[Shawn0000]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Stopping deforestation. Not going to happen as long as the world's population keeps increasing. Man is covering more of the planet's surface at a rapid rate that can be compensated for by planting a few trees in western countries.

They knew algae in the sea binds CO2 many years ago,  but so far no large scale projects to grow the stuff.

 

People can be encouraged to invest in growing trees as there is a return from the management, what return is there from algae?  In Brazil, which was one of the fasted rates of derforestation, they have been reforesting at a rate of 25,000 square miles per year while also deforesting at a rate of 2000 square miles per year, down from 10,000 per year just a decade ago, and this is happening despite their population continuing to grow.  Globally deforestation has decreased by 20% in the past decade, largely due to the efforts of the WWF and their program aimed to reduce deforestation by 5% every year.  Of 50 countries they studied, 22 have seen more reforestation that deforestation, while 27 have seen a rate of deforestation exceeding the replanting.  The key being education into the economics of sustainable forest management, with many farmers seeing a ten fold increase in income when switching to growing trees.  With your acceptance of deforestation as a natural conclusion to population expansion, choosing to farm algae in the sea instead, we would quickly find ourselves living on a barren rock, trees do not only provide gas exchange they also hold the entire ecosystem together, right down to the soil that we stand on, they are fundamental to our survival and people and treees can actually share the same space, trees being taller than us.

[janhkt]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Sea ice makes no difference to sea level when it melts.

Source?

 

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html: "If the Greenland Ice Sheet melted, scientists estimate that sea level would rise about 6 meters (20 feet). If the Antarctic Ice Sheet melted, sea level would rise by about 60 meters (200 feet)." 

 

Other sources:

 

http://e360.yale.edu/features/abrupt_sea_level_rise_realistic_greenland_antarctica

http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/question/ice-antarctica-melt-much-global-sea-level-rise-quickly-likely-happen/

[pkspeaker]

15 hours ago, janhkt said:

The guy is not a Scientist. Google him.

 

What is the source of the information your claim regarding melting ice? Others seem to not agree on that matter.

 

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html: "If the Greenland Ice Sheet melted, scientists estimate that sea level would rise about 6 meters (20 feet). If the Antarctic Ice Sheet melted, sea level would rise by about 60 meters (200 feet)." 

 

Did you recently compare the size of Antarctica to Greenland?

 

Other sources:

 

http://e360.yale.edu/features/abrupt_sea_level_rise_realistic_greenland_antarctica

http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/question/ice-antarctica-melt-much-global-sea-level-rise-quickly-likely-happen/

 

 

 

AL Michaels was never a professional hockey or fottball player and was never even a HS coach..  Yet he and other comment on professional sports all the time.  Scientists in this regard conduct studies and are trained in the scientific method; they get PHDs and learn how to use things like ice-cores, tree rings, fossils, etc. in an attempt to recreate geological history and climate history.  They then publish papers that generally go thru a 'peer-review' process.. Anyone can read their papers and educate themselves on the subject. This editorial only made 2 basic claims-Ice has been growing in greenland , antarctica and historic sea levels were higher.  

 

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

 

http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/15/scientists-greenland-is-now-much-colder-with-more-advanced-ice-sheet-margins-than-90-of-the-last-7500-years/#sthash.Prr6kAwJ.oZ3nhxvN.dpbs

 

 

 

[Shawn0000]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Sea ice makes no difference to sea level when it melts.

 

It wouldn't if the sea was fresh water, but seeing as it has salt in it, it does effect the level, try it if you don't believe me, put some salt in a glass of water, add an ice cube, mark the level and watch the water rise as it melts.  This is because salt increases the density of water, so as the ice melts, which is fresh water due to the brine rejecting effect of freezing, the density is lowered and the volume increases, the mass remains the same, but the volume increases resulting in an increased water level.  In sea water, the volume of meltwater is 2.6% larger than the displacement of the ice, but then there is the offset incurred by the temperature of the water being reduced by the melting ice which will increase the density of the water, but not by as much as the decrease of the added fresh water, the level will still increase, and much more so over time if we lost the ice cap entirely as then the water temperature would increase and decrease the density of the water further increasing its volume.

[janhkt]

7 hours ago, pkspeaker said:

AL Michaels was never a professional hockey or fottball player and was never even a HS coach..  Yet he and other comment on professional sports all the time.  Scientists in this regard conduct studies and are trained in the scientific method; they get PHDs and learn how to use things like ice-cores, tree rings, fossils, etc. in an attempt to recreate geological history and climate history.  They then publish papers that generally go thru a 'peer-review' process.. Anyone can read their papers and educate themselves on the subject. This editorial only made 2 basic claims-Ice has been growing in greenland , antarctica and historic sea levels were higher.  

 

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

 

http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/15/scientists-greenland-is-now-much-colder-with-more-advanced-ice-sheet-margins-than-90-of-the-last-7500-years/#sthash.Prr6kAwJ.oZ3nhxvN.dpbs

 

 

 

The NASA article is from 2015. You may want to take a look at “Sea Ice Extent Sinks to Record Lows at Both Poles” on the same page from March 23, 2017.

 

As for http://notrickszone.com, you may also want to take a look at the authors and their possible biases:

 

Fritz Vahrenholt: From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Vahrenholt: In 1998 he entered the energy industry and until 2001 was on the Board of Deutsche Shell AG, a Shell subsidiary. In 2001 he moved to post of CEO of the wind turbine company REpower Systems AG and remained there until 2007. From February 2008 to June 2012 he was CEO of electric power company RWE subsidiary RWE Innogy and remains on the supervisory board. Varenholt has a doctorate in Chemistry.    

 

From https://www.skepticalscience.com/fritz-vahrenholt-duped-on-climate-change.html: Vahrenholt admits he has no expertise in climate science, but apparently his status as "Germany’s Top Environmentalist" (a title which Vahrenholt appears to have been awarded just recently by anti-climate think tanks and denialists) and his climate "skepticism" are sufficient for some people to take his climate claims seriously.

 

Dr. Sebastian Lüning: https://www.desmogblog.com/sebastian-l-ning: Sebastian Lüning (alternatively spelled Sebastian Luening) is a geologist currently working for Portuguese oil and gas energy corporation, Galp Energia, according to his LinkedIn profile.  He formerly worked for the oil and gas company RWE Dea AG in Hamburg, Germany. He was the 2005/2006 Visiting Professor at the University of Vienna.

[Panda13]

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/heat-from-deep-ocean-fault-punches-hole-in-arctic-ice-sheet.html

Also news of a large lava flow under the Russian Arctic was recently in the news which backs this guys theories.

https://www.google.co.th/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/2116536-molten-iron-river-discovered-speeding-beneath-russia-and-canada/&ved=0ahUKEwjYhvO-y_HSAhXMRI8KHYK8BQ4QFggYMAA&usg=AFQjCNE-wjnZX0X1F7KB3Lsrj11EGNb3RQ

 

 

[Grouse]

18 minutes ago, Panda13 said:

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/heat-from-deep-ocean-fault-punches-hole-in-arctic-ice-sheet.html
Also news of a large lava flow under the Russian Arctic was recently in the news which backs this guys theories.

Kamis again. I'll stick with the other 99% of scientists thanks ?

[heybruce]

14 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You seem to be challenging that in post 102 and 114.

Really?

What are these CO2 machines using proven technology that operate at a scale that will quickly reduce greenhouse gas levels?

The point I made some time ago is that there is proven technology to remove CO2 but governments won't fund it so there are presently no machines using proven technology that operate at a scale that will quickly reduce greenhouse gas levels.

I don't recall any serious poster presenting a viable quick fix.  You certainly haven't.

True. I have been saying for ages that there are no viable solutions being presented by anyone, or any government, and certainly not on this thread.

I have presented options, such as banning cars in cities and reducing population significantly, but I have no illusions that they would be implemented.

Personally, I don't think anything will be done that would change the situation, so thankfully I should be passed on before the methane storms ravage planet Earth.

 

From your post 102:

 

"Climate Change theory ( it's not been called GW since the planet stopped getting hotter ) is far from settled science. Not all scientists believe it is caused by mankind, so it isn't accepted scientific fact."

 

It certainly seems like you are challenging the demonstrated fact that the world is getting hotter.  When I pointed out that the brief pause in temperature increases was over, your response  in post 114 was:

 

" LOL. The debate has only been going on for a few years ( in the 80s they were saying it would be getting cooler now ). Measurements over 20 or so years are insignificant and can't be used to estimate long term trends."

 

So in response to your first question--Yes, really. You were challenging science that showed the earth is getting hotter.  When presented with evidence to the contrary, you changed your position and insisted the new position was always your position.  Are you a politician?

 

Regarding the machines using proven technology to remove CO2, why don't you tell us what they are?  While there is research and demonstration projects, to my knowledge the only proven "technology" for removing CO2 from the atmosphere on a global basis is photosynthesis, the technology green plants have been using for hundreds of millions of years.

 

[heybruce]

14 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Stopping deforestation. Not going to happen as long as the world's population keeps increasing. Man is covering more of the planet's surface at a rapid rate that can be compensated for by planting a few trees in western countries.

They knew algae in the sea binds CO2 many years ago,  but so far no large scale projects to grow the stuff.

A great deal of deforestation in SE Asia is driven by the demand for synthetic fuel derived from palm oil.  When old growth tropical forests are burned to clear land for palm oil plantations, the CO2 released in the burning dwarfs the benefits from the synthetic fuels produced.  This is an example of the cure being far worse than the disease.  It's why technology to reverse global warming, primarily "green energy" and carbon sequestration, need to be carefully thought out and tested before being implemented.

 

 

[3NUMBAS]

^{underneath the ice is tons  of methane which if it escapes will be catastrophic ..Goodbye earth} 

[anon4546543]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

A great deal of deforestation in SE Asia is driven by the demand for synthetic fuel derived from palm oil.  When old growth tropical forests are burned to clear land for palm oil plantations, the CO2 released in the burning dwarfs the benefits from the synthetic fuels produced.  This is an example of the cure being far worse than the disease.  It's why technology to reverse global warming, primarily "green energy" and carbon sequestration, need to be carefully thought out and tested before being implemented.

 

 

Yes heybruce, you are correct. But you could have said it in a few words. Bloody plant more trees in huge clumps around the world. Stop chopping down old growth forest. If you cut down 20 hectares, plant 100 hectares. Simple

[JimmyJ]

"Weather Channel Rips Breitbart: ‘Stop Using Our Video to Mislead Americans’ "

 

" 'Here’s the thing: Science doesn’t care about your opinion. Cherry-picking and twisting the facts will not change the future nor the fact — note, fact, not opinion — that the earth is warming.' "

 

http://www.thewrap.com/weather-channel-breitbart-climate-change/

[JimmyJ]

Here's the Weather Channel article referred to above which debunks Breitbart distortions and cherry picking - a common tactic of climate change denial articles:

 

https://weather.com/news/news/breitbart-misleads-americans-climate-change

[pkspeaker]

13 hours ago, janhkt said:

The NASA article is from 2015. You may want to take a look at “Sea Ice Extent Sinks to Record Lows at Both Poles” on the same page from March 23, 2017.

 

 

That was a cherry picked DATE, merely that sea ice extent was low on one particular date and, sea ice is not the topic of this editorial that we are talking about, but anyways Antarctic sea ice extent records were broke at least twice since 2013.

 

1. when taken as a whole, both Antarctica & Greenland are gaining ice and that trend is continuing.

2. Historic sea levels were considerably higher.

 

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

 

http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/15/scientists-greenland-is-now-much-colder-with-more-advanced-ice-sheet-margins-than-90-of-the-last-7500-years/#sthash.Prr6kAwJ.oZ3nhxvN.dpbs