Is global warming even real?

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Ilikeponies579, Dec 16, 2014.

  1. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    More details here: http://www.newsweek.com/nasa-california-has-one-year-water-left-313647 Including this:
    " California has lost around 12 million acre-feet of stored water every year since 2011. In the Sacramento and San Joaquin river basins, the combined water sources of snow, rivers, reservoirs, soil water and groundwater amounted to a volume that was 34 million acre-feet below normal levels in 2014. And there is no relief in sight."

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 19, 2015
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Kajalamorth The Doctor Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    76
    No, but climate change is

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Short video telling why & how arctic ice is greatly thinning:
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Part 2: the consequence of Arctic ice melting 23 minute video:
     
  8. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Here is a very short one (1.5 minutes) but a couple of years old:
     
  9. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    end of climate-gate's post 1997 was:
    Both melting, as they are in the process of doing, raise global sea level at least 9 meters (or 30 feet!)

    Now with new data, we learn flooding coastal cities like NYC is coming sooner than previously thought.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 21, 2015
  10. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Watch this video. Less than 10 minutes of your time to learn how your children may repeat history's mass extinction: For only the "punch lines" start video at 6:49 of it. (3 minutes,18 seonds of your time).
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 21, 2015
  11. jabbaska Registered Member

    Messages:
    40
    I've been replying a lot on this forum with links to other people's articles. When the article is good enough it speaks for itself eheh. So, even though I've no idea if someone has posted this link here (18 pages, I won't look...sorry), I will leave an URL directing you to NASA climate change site. I've used it to write an essay to try and convince our local church goers that we should be worried about it, mainly because it's our fault, but was refuted . One of them even told me something like "If it is indeed happening, then it is god's will". Enjoy.
     
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,266
    In what time scale? If it's 20,000 years it's a don't care.
     
  13. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,056
    Making unsubstantiated, absurd statements like this, don't help to address the real problem of climate change.
     
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,329
    All these times come with probabilities attached. The question is not what time scale to impact, but what odds of a significantly short time until impact.

    As with Billy's boiling oceans, the question is one of risk - what odds should we accept for such an event, and what odds are we betting on now?
     
  15. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    From the various articles I've read, I'd say that all of the glaciers and both of the polar ice caps are predicted to have completely melted no later than 500 years from now. This is estimated to raise sea level by at least 300 feet (roughly 100m) and possibly even 500 feet (about 160m).

    This will put places like Florida under 300 feet of water, not to mention 25 miles (40km) out to sea. And of course low-lying islands like the Maldives will be simply gone. But even worse, most of the world's cities, where about half the human population lives, were deliberately built on the shores of oceans, seas, lakes and rivers... for the obvious reason that before the Industrial Revolution, the only way to travel at a reasonable speed or to ship goods at a reasonable price was by watercraft.

    These cities will have to be moved as much as 25 miles (40km) inland. The biggest project the human race has ever tackled!
     
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,266
    Given that we created every single coastal city in North America in under 500 years, it doesn't seem like it would be an unreasonable challenge.
     
  17. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    They didn't have today's government with its rules and bureaucracy. Today it will take 400 years just to approve the plans.
     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,266
    Probably true. And by the time they approve the plans, some enterprising farmer will have rented out his (new) shoreline as a mobile home park.
     
  19. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Caption of photo that will copy here:
    "Colossal icebergs careening along the Antarctic coastline can shut down the deep, cold currents that help drive ocean circulation, a new study reports. These aren't everyday icebergs, even by Antarctica's mighty standards — these huge icebergs are the size of small European countries.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 27, 2015
  20. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Did you watch this scientifically documention video of post 347 in full?
    Or just the last 3.3 minutes for the conclusion, (I stated /summarized)?

    An important note for those too lazy to watch: "boiled" refers to such rapid rise of CH4 bubbles that, as shown in the video, the ocean surface is violently riseing and falling - more so that thermal boiling could make and much more locally confined. (In an earlier post I modeled how a fluid column much less dense than the media around it does self-accelerate up and gain considerable vertical momentum - as seen in the video.)

    If you skipped the first <6 minutes, you did not see highly qualified author extracting from sediment cores tiny pieces from the worse ever known mass extinction period and how he processed them to come to that conclusion. He is an expert - otherwise would never have been allowed to extract almost irreplaceable data in these ancient sea bottom cores. Few oil wells have saved these records going back even before the end of the dinosaurs. Did you see the huge storage rooms with thousands of racks of long core tubes?

    The conclusions ARE "substantiated" - It is your claim they are "absurd" that is without any basis than OPINION. Fact that they are not commonly held by other experts is probably due to fact these "other experts" have not had access to the ancient mud cores, they are based on.

    This conclusion is his, not mine. The most complete EVIDENCE yet analysized, does indicate we are starting the same surge up in CH4 that made extinct 95% of all creatures, - main difference is with at least ten fold more rapid CO2 release that has already driven the CH4 concentration levels three times higher that at any time in the last 800,000 years. (That comes from ice core data, not the much more distant past recorded in the sea sediment mud.)

    *Not only dose his chemical and fossil changes (found in sediment cores) analysis lead to the same conclusion many others have reached: that the "Siberian traps" were bad for life on earth, but not the primary cause of the 95% extinction, which as most experts now agree via a CH4 surge lasting a few thousands of year with rapid and about a 10C temperature increase. He, with his better time resolution, was able to show it was really three separate surges. The first mass of CH4 released died way, making CO2 at least one molecule of CO2 for each of CH4 that was destroyed. That surge of longer lasting CO2, was probably, like the present being initially absorbed in the Oceans (my guess, he does not say). But the Global Warming of that CO2 surge made a second CH4 surge and process repeated to make a third.

    SUMMARY:
    When you brand SCIENTICALLY BASED CONCLUSIONS as "absurd" as they conflict with your opinions / beliefs,
    You place yourself squarely in the "denier's" camp.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 28, 2015
  21. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Tone it down Billy.
     
  22. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,884

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    real 'nuff?
    or

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    it rather depends on your timeframe
     
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,329
    Yours ends more than ten years ago. Where from?
     

Share This Page