Is global warming even real?

[Billy T]

After a NASA scientist declared that California reservoirs would be out of water within the year, policymakers sent an urgent message about the state’s prolonged drought: time to get serious about water ...
“We are experiencing the lowest snowpack and the driest January in recorded history, and communities around the state are already suffering severely from the prior three years of drought,” said board chair Felicia Marcus.

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."

As our “wet” season draws to a close, it is clear that the paltry rain and snowfall have done almost nothing to alleviate epic drought conditions. January was the driest in California since record-keeping began in 1895. Groundwater and snowpack levels are at all-time lows. We're not just up a creek without a paddle in California, we're losing the creek too.

 

[Kajalamorth]

No, but climate change is .

 

[Billy T]

Short video telling why & how arctic ice is greatly thinning:

 

[Billy T]

Part 2: the consequence of Arctic ice melting 23 minute video:

 

[Billy T]

Here is a very short one (1.5 minutes) but a couple of years old:

 

[Billy T]

Over the past week, new studies have shown that ice melt in the Arctic and Antarctica is proceeding at a record pace, with potentially disastrous consequences for global sea level rise and its attendant threats, which could include stronger storm surges and extreme weather events around the world.

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.

 

[Billy T]

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).

 

[jabbaska]

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.

 

[billvon]

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!)

In what time scale? If it's 20,000 years it's a don't care.

 

[origin]

Watch this video. Less than 10 minutes of your time to learn how your children may repeat history's mass extinction

Making unsubstantiated, absurd statements like this, don't help to address the real problem of climate change.

 

[iceaura]

In what time scale? If it's 20,000 years it's a don't care.

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?

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

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?

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!

 

[billvon]

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

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.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

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.

They didn't have today's government with its rules and bureaucracy. Today it will take 400 years just to approve the plans.

 

[billvon]

They didn't have today's government with its rules and bureaucracy. Today it will take 400 years just to approve the plans.

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.

 

[Billy T]

Reuters: - Satellite data from 1994 to 2012 reveals an accelerating decline in Antarctica's massive floating ice shelves, with some shrinking 18 percent, in a development that could hasten the rise in global sea levels, scientists say. The findings, published on Thursday in the journal Science, come amid concern among many scientists about the effects of global climate change on Earth's vast, remote polar regions.

The study relied on 18 years of continuous observations from three European Space Agency satellite missions and covered more than 415,000 square miles (1,075,000 square km). During the study period's first half, to about 2003, the overall volume decline around Antarctica was small, with West Antarctica losses almost balanced out by gains in East Antarctica. After that, western losses accelerated and gains in the east ended.

"There has been more and more ice being lost from Antarctica's floating ice shelves," said glaciologist Helen Fricker of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego. The Crosson Ice Shelf in the Amundsen Sea and the Venable Ice Shelf in the Bellingshausen Sea, both in West Antarctica, each shrank about 18 percent during the study period. "If the loss rates that we observed during the past two decades are sustained, some ice shelves in the Amundsen and Bellingshausen seas could disappear within this century,"

The floating ice shelves provide a restraining force for land-based ice, and their reduction would increase the flow of the ice from the land into the ocean, which would increase sea levels. ... Oceanographer and co-author Laurie Padman of Earth & Space Research in Corvallis, Oregon said for a few Antarctic ice shelves, ice loss can be related fairly directly to warming air temperatures. Much of the increased melting elsewhere is probably due to more warm water getting under the ice shelves because of increasing winds near Antarctica, Padman added.

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.

 

[Billy T]

Making unsubstantiated, absurd statements like this, don't help to address the real problem of climate change.

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.

 

[Trippy]

Tone it down Billy.

 

[sculptor]

real 'nuff?
or

it rather depends on your timeframe

 

[iceaura]

it rather depends on your timeframe

Yours ends more than ten years ago. Where from?