Bells
Staff member
Physics question related to the geography of the Bay of Fundy?
- Thread starter Dennis Tate
- Start date
What is implied by carbon taxes is that fossil fuels will become more expensive, and we will use less of them. I can't see how that it worse than the deaths of millions due to climate change.
Bells
Staff member
Which one?
See, I did a 2 minute google search and I must say, you do get around..
At least 4 different Facebook profiles.. Each with a different theme, touting yourself as a politician and you keep posting the same climate change denying shill:
"At a symposium of the Union of Geodesy and geophysics, Dr. Pyyotor Shoumsky reported that the south polar ice cap was growing at a minimum rate of 293 cubic miles of ice annually. To put that number in perspective, Lake Erie contains only 109 cubic miles of water. Thus, a volume of ice forms on top of the existing ice at Antarctica each year which is almost three times the volume of water in Lake Erie!" (Expanded Discussion of The HAB Theory, Gershom Gale, Expanded Discussion on the HAB Theory.)
"Let us consider Antarctica for a moment.
We have already seen that it is big. It has a land area of 5.5
million square miles, and is presently covered by something in excess of seven million cubic miles of ice weighing an estimated 19 quadrillion tons (19 followed by 15 zeros). What worries the theorists of earth-crust displacement is that this vast ice-cap is remorselessly increasing in size and weight:'at the rate of 293 cubic miles of ice each year--almost as much as if Lake Ontario were frozen solidly annually and added to it." (Graham Hancock, Fingerprints of the Gods, page 480)
"Let us consider Antarctica for a moment.
We have already seen that it is big. It has a land area of 5.5
million square miles, and is presently covered by something in excess of seven million cubic miles of ice weighing an estimated 19 quadrillion tons (19 followed by 15 zeros). What worries the theorists of earth-crust displacement is that this vast ice-cap is remorselessly increasing in size and weight:'at the rate of 293 cubic miles of ice each year--almost as much as if Lake Ontario were frozen solidly annually and added to it." (Graham Hancock, Fingerprints of the Gods, page 480)
The other forum you had kept linking to.. Same thing.
You just keep posting the same thing over and over again, without any interest in actual discussion (which is made clear on this site).
Dennis Tate
Banned
So far it is challenging to get good data on the addition of H2O to central Antarctica... but there are some articles on this.
Oct 30, 2015
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...ns-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses
A huge amount of cracking and sliding of ice off the land based Greenland Ice Pack and the worlds glaciers has already occurred........
but we have not seen a rise in ocean levels that would fit with all that melting so......
... this fact lends credence to the idea that a nearly equivalent amount of H2O has been ADDED to Antarctica!
Obviously...... the trend of the addition of nearly the same amount of H2O to Antarctica as has been melting off glaciers and the land based Greenland Ice Pack cannot be assumed to continue for centuries.
If the West Antarctic Ice Sheet began to crack and slide rapidly we could have rapidly rising ocean levels.....
and we need to get prepared for that with a response a whole lot better than a carbon tax.
Dennis Tate
Banned
The word "desert" refers to a wide range of habitat.....
as you mentioned in one of your posts here China had considerable success at
stopping the spread of sand dunes by using certainly types of bamboo noted for
needing much less atmospheric water than most species needed.
What Dr. Geoff Lawton and his team faced in Jordan could be termed "desert" as well
and they did a great job of explaining how he and his team restored about ten acres in such a way that
the neighbours who saw the success of the Permaculture team began to emulate their strategies.
Dennis Tate
Banned
If humanity finds effective, efficient and fast ways to put carbon back into the soil it is no longer a cause of
Global Warming but instead will make plants, animals and humans healthier.
Carbon Farming: Harnessing The Power of The Soil
34,211 views
•Apr 2, 2019
Mr. Al Gore is a lawyer and a politician so he thinks in terms of solving problems with legislation that is financed by taxes......
but there are other ways of looking at all of this that are different from his approach.
Again, that's like saying a heart transplant is a better cure for heart disease than exercise and losing weight.
Bells
Staff member
No, it isn't hard at all.
Perhaps you should try to use google or google scholar instead of youtube.
If you are suggesting that the melting glaciers from Greenland is somehow allowing the ice to increase in Antarctica.. That's not how it works.
The ice growth over land in Antarctica is from snow fall.. Compacted from the last 10,000 years. The issue in Antarctica is that the net loss of ice is at the point where it will outstrip any gain.
How many times have you quoted that ridiculous quote?
You can't even link to where you got it from but you just keep spamming it.
You seem to be confusing sea ice with the ice sheet.
Instead of stupid schemes that would be toxic and frankly disastrous for the entire planet and would cause more warming, the easiest and best solution is to stop relying on fossil fuels.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...sters-un-report-greenhouse-gas-global-heating
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190918161623.htm
You know, like Billvon explained with his analogy of the obese heart patient?
Which you did not seem to understand.
Bells
Staff member
Or humanity can stop relying so heavily on fossil fuels..
And instead of undertaking a frankly ridiculous and dumb venture (greening deserts by planting huge trees and having to build desalination plants which will damage the environment - not to mention destroying this planet's most efficient ways of reflecting heat back into space and actually cause more global warming) - what people should be doing is planting trees on land that has been stripped bare (such as logged for timber) - we also reduce the amount of cattle we grow in industrial size farms - reducing the level of methane being pushed back into the atmosphere, attempt to reduce how much waste we produce.. That, coupled with reducing our reliance on fossil fuels would be much more effective.
If we rehabilitated land that had been previously stripped of forests and replant trees on those tracts of land, it would not only be cheaper, but also more effective, since the ground is fertile and we would not be destroying deserts and altering weather patterns around the world. There is currently close to 1 billion hectares that had previously been stripped that would be viable (this does not include land used for agriculture or urban areas) to replant trees..
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6448/76
You know, to apply Billvon's analogy.. go on a diet instead of getting a heart transplant if one's obesity is putting pressure on one's heart..
That would be the logical step. It allows deserts to remain as effective as they are at cooling the planet and it also ensures the carbon sinks under deserts are not disturbed. No desalination plants are necessary. The land that would be reclaimed and rehabilitated already had trees growing there in the past, the soil is viable.. And it would remove more carbon from the atmosphere than trying to plant big trees in deserts..
And you seem to be very confused in regards to farming practices and you again appear to be veering all over the place.
Dennis Tate
Banned
Thank you for that link... the image of the size of the ice shelves in Antarctica is interesting indeed.
The ice shelves... especially the West Antarctic Ice Sheet are far more vulnerable to rapid cracking and sliding into the ocean than the ice that sits on land..... (but of course you and virtually every other reader here did already know that).
Dennis Tate
Banned
Maybe... but a lot of very smart people look at all of this very differently.
It may well be easier to put carbon back into the soil than it would be to convince humans to give up using oil?????
Environmental TEDtalk - Allan Savory: How to reverse climate change by greening the world's deserts
Dennis Tate
Banned
Mr. Allan Savoury's theories are logical and could turn out to be true.
Can sheep save the planet? Yes - says Allan Savory!
Can sheep save the planet? Yes - says Allan Savory!
The intelligence of those "very smart people" you so admire may be the sort of intelligence that enables them to bilk you (and people everywhere) out of billions for a quack cure for climate change.
I mean, Charles Manson was pretty intelligent. But listening to him turned out to not be such a good idea.
Andrew Wakefield - same thing. He said that vaccines cause autism. And he's a doctor so he must be smart! And he was even intelligent enough to get big bucks from lawyers who wanted to sue vaccine manufacturers! So he was a very smart guy who used his intelligence to lie his way to a big payday.
You sure you want to follow people like that?
Bells
Staff member
Why?
It's well known that Antarctica gains "ice" during winter and loses large portions of it during summer.
The issue is that we are at or close to the point where it will lose more than it gains.
You aren't making much sense here..
Ice that is "sea ice" is already over water, and when it melts, it will simply melt into the water it's floating over. And that ice melts each year and then reforms in winter. That ice will not add to water level rise.. Antarctica has different types of "ice". That over land, which is the "ice sheet", sea ice and glaciers. What you are talking about when you say the "West Antarctic Ice Sheet", do you mean the Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers?
You do understand this, yes? You understand how that works, I hope....
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how-close-is-the-west-antarctic-ice-sheet-to-a-tipping-point
The concern is the ice that is over land melting and that will increase ocean level. And that is not just "cracking and sliding into the ocean". It's melting and forming rivers and streams. The ice that juts out over the ocean is being eroded from underneath because the water currents are now warmer. Hence the ice bergs calving into the sea. But it's not that that will increase ocean levels.. It's the ice that is on land that will if it melts.
Do you understand now?
It's not just "oil". It's also burning coal and how we are destroying forests for logging purposes and also increasing the amount of cattle..
You can fill in every single deserts with trees and it still would not be enough unless humans reduce our reliance on carbon fuels.
And as has already been explained numerous times and you are still to address or recognise, planting trees in deserts will cause more global warming and will cause more damage to the entire planet as it will alter the planet's climate and along with that, weather systems, putting lives and livelihood at risk.
Is that what you want?
There is already nearly a billion hectares of land around the globe, that is fertile and can be used to plant trees and will not affect agriculture, nor will it destroy deserts and thus, our planet's mechanism to cool itself. That 1 billion hectares will be more effective to regenerate them as forests and thus, act as carbon sinks - because that soil is better suited for it.
And it will also cost a hell of a lot less.
Deserts are not suited as forests. The costs involved would be astronomical. And it would destroy the environment and only ensure that desertification would occur elsewhere, not to mention you would guarantee result in the destruction of current essential forests like the Amazon, as well as the microscopic algae we actually need to survive.
This has been repeated to you again and again and again and you not only refuse to acknowledge it, but you ignore it and just keep making the same ridiculous claims about planting trees in deserts and linking disproven hacks in the process.
Case in point:
Allan Savory's claims have been disproven.
It is not feasible and his claims are completely unrealistic and is frankly not backed by science.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...tical_review_of_Allan_Savory's_grazing_method
https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2...ys-more-cows-land-will-reverse-climate-change
Being a livestock farmer, his motives are somewhat dubious..
And you again seem to be all over the place and cannot stick to one subject.. You respond with Allan Savory links in response to comments about your wanting to plant forests in deserts around the world and building desalination plants to allow that to happen (while ignoring the realities of that)..
These are not actually the same subject.
You just seem intent on preaching.. Badly I might add, because you are coming across as completely confused and somewhat manic.
Dennis Tate
Banned
I believe that legislation like a Carbon Tax will not work quickly enough to address the magnitude of ocean level rise that we could easily see within twenty to fifty years. Dr. Bjorn Lomborg believed the same thing. He took climate change seriously but had and still has serious problems with any variation of a Carbon Tax.
Every cubic meter of sea water that is desalinated and part of it added to the water table in arid areas of the world is great news for all cities and towns vulnerable to rising ocean levels.
It is estimated that any variation of a carbon tax.....
(even if China and India were to sincere attempt to abide by it.)....
would still take more than a century to have much of any effect on the threat of rising ocean levels.
My idea is actually astonishingly simple mathematics and the Isthmus of Chignecto that is only about two hundred miles from my home will probably give warning to all the world when ocean levels begin to rise significantly if it is true that the multiplier effect on high tide levels there will be up by one thousand percent to fifteen hundred percent over the rise in high tide levels in areas with different geography than the Bay of Fundy has.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04421-3
Evidence of an active volcanic heat source beneath the Pine Island Glacier
Allan Savoury's have not been disproven.... they have been disputed.....
there is a huge difference. One obvious advantage to his theory is that once
arid land has been upgraded to be able to support some goats or cattle his methods will cause the soil to be improved and improved which takes carbon out of the atmosphere and puts it into soil which is by far the best theory on all of this that I have heard so far.
This is the best image of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet that I have seen so far.
Because the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is below sea level... it is especially vulnerable to rapid cracking and sliding which can be a lot fast than "melting."
Last edited:
Bells
Staff member
Your issue is political.
Which is why you ignore science and appear to be going for a quick fix instead of actually looking at the complete consequences of what you propose.
Wait..
You think removing water from the ocean and desalinating it, creating a toxic sludge in the process that will poison land and sea, and then pumping it to arid areas will simply reduce the risk of rising ocean levels because in your opinion, water has been removed from the ocean so it can't rise?
Did you do geography at school?
If so, did you learn anything about what is commonly known as the water cycle?
Here is a very easy to read and informative link in regards to the water cycle: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Water/page2.php
And in that century, would would have destroyed the entire planet with your plan.
In 20 years, reducing our reliance on fossil fuels would actually be more beneficial and more cost effective and would not destroy the planet to do so.
Which do you think is a more viable solution?
Your mathematics doesn't add up and you have failed to note the variables of your idea - that being altering the climate and weather pattern of the planet, destroying great swathes of existing forests, destroying ocean plant life which act as one of our biggest carbon sinks, not to mention add to global warming, create toxic waste and it would fail because those giant trees you'd need to plant to act as large carbon sinks are not suited to the zones and areas you think they need to be planted in, as well as destroying existing carbon sinks in deserts in the process and releasing over 10,000 years of CO2 back into the atmosphere in one fell swoop..
That's nice. So what's going to happen when your plan causes more global warming and destroys current forests and destroys ocean plant life, releasing a horrific amount of carbon into the atmosphere?
You haven't actually looked at previous large scale 'desert greening' attempts by man, have you?
The best example of just how bad it can be is now commonly known as the Aral Sea disaster, which is probably known as the worst ecosystem collapse we have witnessed.
And how did this happen? Because they decided to 'green the deserts' in the region and grow crops - with the water supply being provided via the Aral Sea through irrigation pipes to vast swathes of deserts that had been converted to farms. At one point, the region was one of the biggest exporter of cotton in the world. The land is now a toxic wasteland, rivers destroyed, the climate of the area changed.
The Aral Sea 1988:
2018:
Then we have the destruction of the Hamoun wetlands - greening deserts for mass planting of crops.. That too is now a toxic salt wasteland.
Why do you want to do this on a larger scale?
If you green the Sahara, for example, you'd destroy the Amazon, as well as destroy plant life in that Atlantic, which serves as a massive carbon sink.
It will also result in altering the weather pattern of the entire planet, increase global warming and increase and affect hurricanes hitting the US from the Atlantic Ocean.
There are severe consequences to your suggestion Dennis. The alternative is cheaper and beneficial and yes, will actually decrease the rate of global warming.
Dennis Tate
Banned
Your issue is political.
Which is why you ignore science and appear to be going for a quick fix instead of actually looking at the complete consequences of what you propose.
Wait..
You think removing water from the ocean and desalinating it, creating a toxic sludge in the process that will poison land and sea, and then pumping it to arid areas will simply reduce the risk of rising ocean levels because in your opinion, water has been removed from the ocean so it can't rise?
Did you do geography at school?
If so, did you learn anything about what is commonly known as the water cycle?
Here is a very easy to read and informative link in regards to the water cycle: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Water/page2.php
And in that century, would would have destroyed the entire planet with your plan.
In 20 years, reducing our reliance on fossil fuels would actually be more beneficial and more cost effective and would not destroy the planet to do so.
Which do you think is a more viable solution?
Your mathematics doesn't add up and you have failed to note the variables of your idea - that being altering the climate and weather pattern of the planet, destroying great swathes of existing forests, destroying ocean plant life which act as one of our biggest carbon sinks, not to mention add to global warming, create toxic waste and it would fail because those giant trees you'd need to plant to act as large carbon sinks are not suited to the zones and areas you think they need to be planted in, as well as destroying existing carbon sinks in deserts in the process and releasing over 10,000 years of CO2 back into the atmosphere in one fell swoop..
That's nice. So what's going to happen when your plan causes more global warming and destroys current forests and destroys ocean plant life, releasing a horrific amount of carbon into the atmosphere?
You haven't actually looked at previous large scale 'desert greening' attempts by man, have you?
The best example of just how bad it can be is now commonly known as the Aral Sea disaster, which is probably known as the worst ecosystem collapse we have witnessed.
And how did this happen? Because they decided to 'green the deserts' in the region and grow crops - with the water supply being provided via the Aral Sea through irrigation pipes to vast swathes of deserts that had been converted to farms. At one point, the region was one of the biggest exporter of cotton in the world. The land is now a toxic wasteland, rivers destroyed, the climate of the area changed.
You want a visual of what happened?
The Aral Sea 1988:
2018:
Then we have the destruction of the Hamoun wetlands - greening deserts for mass planting of crops.. That too is now a toxic salt wasteland.
Why do you want to do this on a larger scale?
If you green the Sahara, for example, you'd destroy the Amazon, as well as destroy plant life in that Atlantic, which serves as a massive carbon sink.
It will also result in altering the weather pattern of the entire planet, increase global warming and increase and affect hurricanes hitting the US from the Atlantic Ocean.
There are severe consequences to your suggestion Dennis. The alternative is cheaper and beneficial and yes, will actually decrease the rate of global warming.
I would like to tell you a personal story about my high school Physics teacher and you will then be able to understand why I never really know for sure if you are actually serious.......
or if you are acting in a certain way to produce a higher level of motivation in your "students" / the posters to this forum..... (not to mention the readers who may never register and make a reply or even hit "like)."
Mr. Ralph MacNeil was a brilliant educator who would often write a
problem on the chalk board, (this was 1975 to 1978)...... then he would stand there and scratch his head........
several times he would say something like....... "Dennis..... you are better at algebra than I am....... how should I do this problem......?????" ... and of course he had me highly motivated to answer his question!
Did he really think that I was better at algebra than he was.......????/
No.... at this time more than forty years later I am essentially certain that my high school Physics teacher was a brilliant educator..... and
a very good actor.... (at least for a little high school in the back woods of Nova Scotia anyway).......... but his questions...... like much of what you write......
have me asking myself is "Bells" truly serious or is he trying to give his readers extra motivation.......
for the record I did not even read your comments yet.......
but you already guessed that......
now back to gathering the days garbage.... two of us have to finish three areas in the school this evening.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Yes. That's Bells for ya. Our nickname for Bells is "O Captain My Captain".
Dennis Tate
Banned
It takes a rather special psychological make up for somebody to put in hundreds and even thousands of hour annually as a volunteer on discussion forums............ I have no doubt that "Bells" truly loves "science" ...... but I do think that Science is a much bigger topic than any one human being can even begin to comprehend.
I can prove that I cannot know the best answer to the topic that I have began here because I personally am IGNORANT of many relevant variables that would be necessary to understand the entire topic......
but I did try my best to begin to educate more and more an more Canadians and readers on this topic beginning in 2007 and by 2008 I tried my best to put this in front of several hundred Canadian municipal level voters.......
so in my own way.....
I am almost as motivated as Bells... but I disagree on how this will likely work out over the coming years and decades.....
www.BankingSystemsFlaws.blogspot.ca/
I still think that what I wrote back in 2008 was not too bad.....
to attempt to expand the discussion began by Mr. Al Gore in his film An Inconvenient Truth.....
Bells
Staff member
Ya killin me, Dave!
That's nice.
Cut the waffle and actually address the topic of this thread and stop dodging.