COP24 - Global catastrophe - climate change

sculptor said:
Melting floating ice will not raise sea levels.
Click to expand...

i thought this was supposed to be a informed discussion ?

ice berg pop science click bait is hardly a solid foundation.

"will more/melting ice bergs raise sea levels"
is deliberate propaganda and scientifically as equal & dishonest as outright lying.
 
RainbowSingularity said:
"will more/melting ice bergs raise sea levels"
is deliberate propaganda and scientifically as equal & dishonest as outright lying
Click to expand...
I was a victim, but received well needed correction.....:)

This was in reference to ice already floating in the ocean. Its displacement is the same frozen or melted.

My original view was those parts of ice bergs above sea level would raise waterlevel when melting, but it makes sense that once the ice is in the water it makes no difference if frozen or melted.
 
happy monotreme bunny day

..................................................
seriously, I expect natural sea level rise
when remains unknown
how much effect anthropogenic atmospheric forcing will have remains unknown
solar cycle 25 remains unknown
whether or not we are in another superinterglacial phase remains unknown

some days,
it seems that the more I know
the more questions i have
and, thereby
the less I know
 
sculptor said:
seriously, I expect natural sea level rise

when remains unknown
Click to expand...
So does everyone else.
It's the AGW rise that's worrying folks.
sculptor said:
Guided by information about previous interglacials. I would expect sea level rise of 6 meters give or take within a couple thousand years or so.
Click to expand...
Now throw in the AGW boost - faster, and quicker to trigger, and you do know when: now.
 
Note: As I have been publicly accuse of trolling by the site administrator, JamesR, I will no longer be participating in this thread or any other for some time...
 
Part of the world's largest ice shelf is melting 10 times faster than the rest, shedding light on how it might respond to climate change.

The study of Antarctica's Ross Ice Shelf reveals that one area is melting due to relatively warm ocean water getting into a cavity under the shelf.

The findings have implications for future sea-level rise.

This is because the the Ross Ice Shelf plays an important role in stabilising this wider region of Antarctica.

Details have been published in the journal Nature Geoscience.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48107497

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0356-0
Basal melting of Ross Ice Shelf from solar heat absorption in an ice-front polynya
 
sculptor said:
And/or, we have the Ewing and Donn 1956 theory of the causes of Ice Ages.
Click to expand...
Relevance?
AGW is not going to go away, you know, regardless of the causes of the Ice Ages. It's here now, and proceeding much faster than the natural warmings on record - with the acidification and so forth adding their own miseries.
 
iceaura said:
Relevance?
AGW is not going to go away, you know, regardless of the causes of the Ice Ages. It's here now, and proceeding much faster than the natural warmings on record - with the acidification and so forth adding their own miseries.
Click to expand...

Sorry
If you do not know of Ewing and Donn's theory
nor it's relevance to the end eemian
perhaps, it will never seem relevant to you
...........

(not really my problem)
 
-The entire world including the first and the third world share the same atmosphere, to some degree the same oceans -which are linked to each other. Pollution from the 3rd world effects all.

-The developing world contains the bulk of mankind. They have some of the world's most diverse ecologies. They also have some of the oldest civilizations, which means ancient methods are entrenched.

-This world is close to the Equator and the population is so young that they will continue to multiply faster than the first world.

-Because they are poor and because they have such massive reserves of cheap oil and coal they will burn that before using more expensive alternatives.

-The first world has the technology for renewable energy & needs to transfer it to the developing world - for free!
 
sculptor said:
If you do not know of Ewing and Donn's theory
nor it's relevance to the end eemian
perhaps, it will never seem relevant to you
Click to expand...
AGW is not going to go away, regardless of Ewing and Donn's theory of the causes of the Ice Ages. It's here now, and proceeding much faster than the natural warmings on record - with the acidification and so forth adding their own miseries.
 
Quantum Quack said:
Current news:
Tornado outbreak Illinois a record setter.

With 27 confirmed tornados on December 1, 2018, the state of Illinois experienced its largest tornado outbreak during the month of December ever. NWS said additional storm surveys will be done on December 4, so this number is subject to change.


The December 1, 2018 severe weather event sets the record for largest tornado outbreak during the month of December in Illinois history with 27 tornadoes, NWS said. The previous record was 21 tornadoes on December 18-19, 1957.

This tornado outbreak will also rank as the 3rd largest tornado outbreak in Illinois during any month of the year. The largest outbreak was on April 19, 1996 with 39 tornadoes, followed by February 4, 2006 with 36 tornadoes.
src: https://watchers.news/2018/12/04/illinois-tornado-outbreak-december-1-2018/
​

...and the records just keep on tumblin'.
Click to expand...

This is the part that annoys me with this climate change topic. Man has only kept records for X number of years and in this period of time, the tornado record in Illinois is 27. But what about a thousand years before this, or 10,000? Who knows, in the same area but many thousands of years ago, Illinois may experienced 127 tornados, or 200+.

So when I hear rainfall broke records, or tornados, sea levels etc... it makes my eyes roll.
 
Marathon-man said:
-The developing world contains the bulk of mankind. They have some of the world's most diverse ecologies. They also have some of the oldest civilizations, which means ancient methods are entrenched.
Click to expand...
Which is the "developing" world?
In Africa and South America, old civilizations and entrenched methods have already been disrupted by colonization.
But, now you mention it, some of those ancient methods are one helluva lot more sustainable than modern methods.
-This world is close to the Equator and the population is so young that they will continue to multiply faster than the first world.
Click to expand...
Except that epidemics and wars and climate events also affect larger numbers of people, and the life expectancy is lower, and the individual carbon footprint is about one tenth that of a western industrial person.

-Because they are poor and because they have such massive reserves of cheap oil and coal they will burn that before using more expensive alternatives.
Click to expand...
To some extent, yes, but nowhere near to the extent that developed nations do. Unless you count China as a developing country, but it doesn't qualify for the other parts of the description.
Moreover, some developing countries have successful programs of renewable energy production already in place. Supported by their own governments, far more substantially than The US, Canadian and UK governments have been doing.
One recent setback - and it's a big, insurmountable one - is the blue wave - all the far right, nationalist, regressive parties coming to power world wide. They could end up killing us all.

-The first world has the technology for renewable energy & needs to transfer it to the developing world - for free!
Click to expand...
That technology is out of the box. Funny story: people in the US are having to pay more for their solar arrays because of Trump's tariffs on China, where most of the equipment is manufactured. However, the greeners of America are not fazed.

Benson said:
But what about a thousand years before this, or 10,000?
Click to expand...
How is that relevant?
I know how next month's tornado and wildfire are likely to affect me; I'm not much interested in one that ripped through here 10,000 years ago.
 
Benson said:
This is the part that annoys me with this climate change topic. Man has only kept records for X number of years and in this period of time, the tornado record in Illinois is 27. But what about a thousand years before this, or 10,000? Who knows, in the same area but many thousands of years ago, Illinois may experienced 127 tornados, or 200+. So when I hear rainfall broke records, or tornados, sea levels etc... it makes my eyes roll.
Click to expand...
You could use the same argument to try to argue that smoking is safe. Where are the health records from people smoking before they started studying such things? Why, smoking could make you super healthy! We just don't know. The science isn't settled. (And such an argument might be very attractive if you owned a lot of stock in a tobacco company.)
 
Quantum Quack said:
Is it normal for the USA to have so many tornadoes as we are seeing this year?
Click to expand...
I have wondered this too, seems like a lot of tornadoes this year. Very destructive tornadoes, at that. I’ve read that it’s still unclear though if climate change is directly affecting the increase.
 
wegs said:
I have wondered this too, seems like a lot of tornadoes this year. Very destructive tornadoes, at that. I’ve read that it’s still unclear though if climate change is directly affecting the increase.
Click to expand...
The news here in Australia is quite dramatic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top