Resisting Climate Hysteria

[wayneL]

Yep, displacement from the poles which is co2 global warming.

Explained it to you many times so you should have it by now.

You can explain that red is green all you like, it will never fly.

Your points are so wide of the mark it's hilarious.

 

[explod]

You can explain that red is green all you like, it will never fly.

Your points are so wide of the mark it's hilarious.

And your opinion is respected.

This is a discussion thread and my VIEWS are based on a lifetime of interest and observations.

 

[noco]

And your opinion is respected.

This is a discussion thread and my VIEWS are based on a lifetime of interest and observations.

So long as it is compatible with the Green propaganda and distortion of the truth.

 

[trainspotter]

So when the IPCC removed the Medieval Warming Period in their analysis, this was done for what reason ... anyone, anyone?

DERP! you are not real bright on the uptake are you basilio

The link you supplied evidencing 150,000 years of Sea Level History stated that the ice caps have melted before and the oceans rose 12mm per annum for 100 years ipso facto the oceans rose 1.2 metres in this time period.

The current IPCC "predictions" is between 29 and 82 centimeters by the end of the century. 84 years to end of century divided by WORST PREDICTION of 820mm = 9.761904761mm per annum rate of ocean rise. Hardly record breaking stuff compared to recent history now is it?

So what caused the glaciers to melt and the sea level to rise so quickly IN THE PAST basilio? Was it Co2 or something else?

But, but, but ... you were banging on that the global temperatures are rising at the "fastest" ever recorded. So if this is the case then the ice packs and glaciers would be melting a damn sight quicker than the current 3mm per annum

So let's say if they do suddenly reach tipping point and the whole lot turns to water. I am sure some Middle East country would start digging a massive trench into the desert to start taking up some of this precious resource. Freshwater floats on the more dense saltwater so some clever company would start harvesting the top layer and sell it to you in little plastic bottles for $3 for 600ml and make a killing. Just to name a few ideas.

Also as the weight of the water is spread over a larger area rather than concentrated at the poles the Earths mantle will buckle under the pressure and cause the tectonic plates to shift at an ALARMING rate. I would be more worried about THAT before some cities getting their feet wet.

As for the cities that were built so close to the ocean - they will adapt by building sea walls, canals, ocean barriers, wave action generators ... WAIT A MINUTE they are doing this NOW basilio. Wake up man !!

Do you get it now basilio or do you want me to write this in crayon for you to understand.

P.S. Have you factored in Earth's gravitational pull when the water is dispersed? Look up Geoid basilio and arm yourself with some information instead of headline screaming Guardian scare tactics you DOLT !

I have much better words for you explod as you are in the same category as basilio with your inability to comprehend the written word.

Try this on for size then shall we ... Although it is often asserted that the Moon "controls" the tides, this is really an oversimplification of the tidal system. In fact there are many factors which determine the tides, including the moon, the sun, the rotation of the earth, the geomorphology of the ocean basin, and the location of the particular spot where you're measuring the tide along that basin. All of these factors interact in a complex way to determine the specifics of the tide's characteristics at each location on Earth.

So if the Moon is moving away from Earth what do you think will happen to the tides? Don't forget that the "ocean is rising" theory has been measured by TIDAL GAUGES for the last hundred years or so

Derp:- Used as a substitute for speech regarded as meaningless or stupid, or to comment on a foolish or stupid action

 

[basilio]

My god you are so.so, SO delusional TS. You are most certainly out of my reach.

Couple of points ?

1) When glaciologists are looking at the meltdown of billions of tons of ice we are not talking of weeks, years, even decades. Really big ice mountains- hundreds/thousand of years ... but

2) Glaciology is a new science. It's fair to say the knowledge of what has happened historically with ice caps and the understanding of how events will play out is changing all the time.

One thing for certain however. When the Arctic and Antarctic warm up the ice will melt. That's just physics. And we are now seeing extended periods of higher temperatures in these regions and it is already clear that the ice caps are breaking up in ways that wern't even considered a few years ago. For instance it was initially thought that the caps would melt from above losing merely the top inches of ice cover. Now scientists have discovered that in fact the warming oceans are rapidly undercutting the ice caps, melting the base of glaciers and speeding their movement to the sea.

Coping with the melt

So let's say if they do suddenly reach tipping point and the whole lot turns to water. I am sure some Middle East country would start digging a massive trench into the desert to start taking up some of this precious resource. Freshwater floats on the more dense saltwater so some clever company would start harvesting the top layer and sell it to you in little plastic bottles for $3 for 600ml and make a killing. Just to name a few ideas.

As for the cities that were built so close to the ocean - they will adapt by building sea walls, canals, ocean barriers, wave action generators ... WAIT A MINUTE they are doing this NOW basilio. Wake up man !!


Seriously ? For keeps ? You somehow think that sea levels rises of even 50-80 cms can be kept back with walls?
How big ? How far along the coast? How much money ?

And most importantly HOW XXXING HIGH ?

This is the crux of the issue. The one point you resolutely refuse to consider. What is the best available information on the longer term sea levels as a consequence of global warming? Basically it has come from glaciologists that have been studying the structure of the West Antarctic ice cap and it's vulnerability to rapid breakdown. What did they say ?

The Physics of Ice

Comes now the study published in Nature Thursday by Robert Deconto of the University of Massachusetts and David Pollard of Penn State. It’s different from other alarms, and here’s why.

Deconto and Pollard aren’t projecting the future based only on the experience of the past few millennia. They’re projecting it with a computer model of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and of the Antarctic climate””that is, from the laws of physics.

Just a model, you might say, and translating those laws into an accurate model of an ice sheet is hard. True again: the problem has stumped scientists for decades. They’ve known that ice melts, and that if climate warms enough, the ice sheet will collapse at some point, dumping lot of water into the sea. But they’ve had trouble saying how much warmth is enough and how fast the collapse might proceed. No one has ever watched it happen.

The geologic record offers some test cases. Some 125,000 years ago, for instance, Earth was in an interglacial period, like the one we’re in now, a warm interlude between 100,000-year-long ice ages. The temperature then was about the same as it is today, a degree or two warmer at most. But the best evidence indicates sea level was at least 20 feet higher””which in itself is disconcerting, suggesting as it does that we might be poised on the brink of something big.

Where did 20 feet of water come from? The Greenland ice sheet contains more than enough, but it sits on land and can’t easily fall into the sea.

The West Antarctic Ice Sheet contains enough water to raise sea level 15 feet. And if you could strip away the ice and look at the bedrock, as scientists have done with airborne radar, you’d see how vulnerable it is: Most of the ice sits not on land but on the seabed. It’s a big dome of ice rising out of a seafloor basin, like a soufflé out of a bowl. Beyond the submarine ridges that form the sloping sides of the basin, floating ice shelves extend out to sea. They act like buttresses, propping up the ice dome and keeping it from collapsing and washing away.

Warm Air, Warm Ocean, Bad Juju

Deconto and Pollard’s model shows how the West Antarctic ice could have collapsed 125,000 years ago, generating the high seas of the last interglacial. That lends credence to the model’s forecast for our future.

Three key processes are work, the researchers write. First, as the ocean warms, it melts the floating ice shelf from below, thinning and weakening it.

Second, as the atmosphere warms, it melts the ice shelf from above, generating pools that become crevasses that help break the shelf apart. Scientists saw this happen when the Larsen B ice shelf broke up in 2002, but their ice-sheet models hadn’t fully reflected the importance of the process.

And once the floating ice shelves are gone, and the warm ocean is lapping directly against the face of the grounded ice sheet, and the ice has retreated inside the submarine ridge that forms the edge of the basin, a third process kicks in. Because the seafloor slopes down toward the center of the basin and the ice dome, further retreat exposes an ever larger ice face to the warm water. That accelerates the melting.

Soon tall cliffs of ice are towering above the impinging waves. Meltwater is percolating down into the cliffs and weakening them. But even without the impinging and the percolating, there’s only so tall an ice cliff can get before it becomes unstable.

Richard Alley of Penn State, who collaborated with Deconto and Pollard on an earlier study, has flown along what may be the tallest ice cliff on Earth today, the face of the Jakobshavn glacier on the west coast of Greenland. It is 30 stories tall, he says, and contains 10-story-tall cracks. It is retreating rapidly, by calving giant icebergs, but still there are long periods of waiting between calving events, when the glacier is just slowly thinning and getting ready to launch another floating berg.

The Thwaites glacier in West Antarctica is far more massive than the Jakobshavn glacier. According to another alarming study published last year, it has already become unmoored from the 2,000-foot high submarine ridge that holds it in place. If it begins to retreat down the long slope toward the center of the ice sheet, the cliffs it would produce would be far taller than the Jakobshavn one””and probably not stable.

“Then, rather than break-wait-wait-wait-break, it might switch to break-wait-break or just break-break-break,” Alley says.

That’s what Deconto and Pollard’s model suggests could start happening to the West Antarctic Ice Sheet by the second half of this century, if we don’t curb our carbon emissions: Just break-break-break. And by 2100, when sea level had risen five or six feet, the breaking would have only just begun.

Time to Yell ‘Fire’?

If we burn all of our fossil fuel reserves, another study last September confirmed, we’ll melt the entire Antarctic and probably all the ice on Earth. (Check out maps showing what that would look like.)

“All of us are fully aware how wrong it is to falsely yell ‘Fire’ in a crowded theater,” Alley writes. “But we are also aware of how wrong it is to sit silently while a fire begins to spread in that theater.

“Right now, I do not believe humanity can continue with unchecked warming while confidently assuming that sea level rise will be limited to roughly three feet in a century. Instead, the recent modeling now favors the view that continuing rapid warming will cause sea level rise to be larger, and perhaps much larger, especially if we look beyond the end of this century.”

On the other hand, according to Deconto and Pollard, if we take vigorous steps to reduce our emissions””of which the steps promised by the recent Paris agreement are only the first””we could still save even the fragile West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Which means we could still save Miami. (Read about how Miami is facing up to the challenge.)

But that may just be the optimism talking.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...change-sea-level-antarctica-ice-melt-physics/

 

[basilio]

The scientific communities response to Climate Change denialism in the US Congress.
Getting xxxxing real

31 scientific societies just told Congress to take their climate denial and shove it

By Andrew Freedman
Jun 30, 2016

Scientists have had enough of Congress' climate denial. On Tuesday, a whopping 31 major scientific groups ”” representing tens of thousands of researchers ”” delivered a joint letter to Capitol Hill to present a unified front on the seriousness of human-caused global warming and the need to address it.

The 3-page letter, which is a more forceful version of a 2009 letter to which 19 scientific societies signed on, comes as the House Science Committee continues to investigate peer reviewed studies of climate change.

SEE ALSO: Earth's hot streak continues with warmest May since at least 1880

It also landed on Congress' doorstep as House lawmakers are maneuvering to block the Pentagon from spending money to implement its plan to adapt to global warming and prepare for the more unstable world it is ushering in.

In addition, money to fund climate adaptation efforts in developing countries, which is a key part of the Paris Climate Agreement, is also on the chopping block in negotiations between the House and Senate.

The letter sends a powerful message to lawmakers that have been standing in the way of climate action.

http://mashable.com/2016/06/29/science-groups-statement-congress/#13OfYKNXoEqI

 

[basilio]

What is the US Militarys take on the consequences of Global Warming ? Check it out.

New Climate & Security Film: The Age of Consequences

A documentary is taking a new twist on climate change: THE AGE OF CONSEQUENCES, to be released in late 2016, investigates the impacts of climate change, resource scarcity, migration, and conflict through the lens of US national security and global stability. Through unflinching and eye-opening analysis, distinguished admirals, generals, and Pentagon insiders take us beyond the headlines of the European refugee crisis, the conflict in Syria, the social unrest of the Arab Spring, the rise of radicalized groups like ISIS, and lay bare how climate change interacts with societal tensions, sparking conflict. 2016-02-03-1454534734-6805341-synopsisphoto.png

Whether a long-term vulnerability or sudden shock, the film unpacks how water and food shortages, extreme weather, drought, and sea-level rise function as accelerants of instability and catalysts for conflict. Left unchecked, these threats and risks will continue to grow in scale and frequency, with grave implications for peace and security in the 21st century.

This documentary will be shown in Melb at the ACMI Centre on Tuesday 26th July at 6.30.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sophie-robinson/new-climate-security-film_b_9153642.html

 

[cynic]

...

Couple of points ?

1) When glaciologists are looking at the meltdown of billions of tons of ice we are not talking of weeks, years, even decades. Really big ice mountains- hundreds/thousand of years ... but

2) Glaciology is a new science. It's fair to say the knowledge of what has happened historically with ice caps and the understanding of how events will play out is changing all the time.
...

Those points alone look suspiciously like a confession to doubt regarding the level of confidence one can have in the certainty of this "new science".

In fact, it sounds suspiciously akin to a confession of the fact that the scientific understanding can be as changeable as the weather!

Hardly a sound basis for sweeping changes to our lifestyles and practices!

 

[luutzu]

Those points alone look suspiciously like a confession to doubt regarding the level of confidence one can have in the certainty of this "new science".

In fact, it sounds suspiciously akin to a confession of the fact that the scientific understanding can be as changeable as the weather!

Hardly a sound basis for sweeping changes to our lifestyles and practices!

This I'd called sweeping changes:




This, not so much:

 

[cynic]

This I'd called sweeping changes:

View attachment 67472


This, not so much:

View attachment 67473

So cute luutzu. You do like your holy pictures!

 

[luutzu]

So cute luutzu. You do like your holy pictures!

Seriously, how many of our lives will be turned upside down if our electricity is generated by solar farm and other cleaner sources?

Would be really be struggling if our cars are powered by electricity rather than gasoline? If we miss the vroom, vroom, there's an app for that.

But life can be unfair sometime... I mean, renewables may actually create new jobs and innovation; cleaner air to breathe...

Just can't do it mate... got a good thing going being dependent on a finite resource that may or may not kill all of us... it sure kills a lot of poor people and Muslims though... maybe a few wildfire and ocean fishies here and there.

 

[trainspotter]

My god you are so.so, SO delusional TS. You are most certainly out of my reach.

Couple of points ?

1) When glaciologists are looking at the meltdown of billions of tons of ice we are not talking of weeks, years, even decades. Really big ice mountains- hundreds/thousand of years ... but

2) Glaciology is a new science. It's fair to say the knowledge of what has happened historically with ice caps and the understanding of how events will play out is changing all the time.

One thing for certain however. When the Arctic and Antarctic warm up the ice will melt. That's just physics. And we are now seeing extended periods of higher temperatures in these regions and it is already clear that the ice caps are breaking up in ways that wern't even considered a few years ago. For instance it was initially thought that the caps would melt from above losing merely the top inches of ice cover. Now scientists have discovered that in fact the warming oceans are rapidly undercutting the ice caps, melting the base of glaciers and speeding their movement to the sea.

Coping with the melt



As for the cities that were built so close to the ocean - they will adapt by building sea walls, canals, ocean barriers, wave action generators ... WAIT A MINUTE they are doing this NOW basilio. Wake up man !!


Seriously ? For keeps ? You somehow think that sea levels rises of even 50-80 cms can be kept back with walls?
How big ? How far along the coast? How much money ?

And most importantly HOW XXXING HIGH ?

This is the crux of the issue. The one point you resolutely refuse to consider. What is the best available information on the longer term sea levels as a consequence of global warming? Basically it has come from glaciologists that have been studying the structure of the West Antarctic ice cap and it's vulnerability to rapid breakdown. What did they say ?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...change-sea-level-antarctica-ice-melt-physics/

Did not answer any of my questions .. just more HYSTERICAL monkey poo flinging.

You HYSTERICALLY claimed that the "global temperatures are rising at their fastest ever which will melt all the ice on the poles" but the link you provided evidenced that in the last 150,000 years the ice has melted faster and raised ocean levels 1.2 metres over 100 years. So if this is the fastest EVER that global temperatures have heated up then why oh why is sea levels rising 3mm per annum and IPCC predictions WORST CASE is 820mm in 84 years?

Compared to 12mm per annum for a 100 year period. It seems you are incapable of the most basic understanding of the FACTS>

You then backtracked with this irrational statement ..

1) When glaciologists are looking at the meltdown of billions of tons of ice we are not talking of weeks, years, even decades. Really big ice mountains- hundreds/thousand of years ... but

Wait a minute ... you are now saying hundreds/thousand of years ??? What happened to we are all doomed by the end of the century and the ocean is going to rise 20 metres or more?

More HYSTERIA and little on FACTS as per usual. You have Flip Flopped for the last time and have shown your true colours I am afraid basilio. Carry on in the nice warm sunshine and watch yourself slowly sink into the quagmire of lies and tripe you are spilling out for everyone to digest.

 

[basilio]

The rate of increase in global temperatures has been extremely fast. But ice sheets can't and won't melt at such a pace. Historically they have taken anything from hundreds to thousands of years to reflect the increase in global temperatures. In fact it was this belief that ice sheets are relatively stable that gave climate scientists hope that even if/when the ice sheets melted it might be way into the future even if that was 200 years away.

But new evidence, new facts has caused that theory to be revised. That is the basis of the National Geographic article which analyses these papers.

Because the past 50 years has seen such steep increases in temperatures in the Arctic and Antarctic quite new mechanisms of ice melting have been noticed. It is the evidence of these warm water flows under the ice caps and through the ice caps that gives glaciologists the concern that we face metres of sea level rise with the next 100 years rather than the longer time frame previously believed.

PS We don't need 20 metres of sea level in a century to destroy civilization as we know it. 1-2 metres will be quite sufficient

 

[basilio]

The IPCC worst case scenario of .82 met by 2100 had minimal allowance for significant melting of the ice sheets. The increase in sea levels was mostly glaciers and expansion of warming ocean.

The concern about the quicker collapse of ice sheets has increase in the past few years and crystallised in the past two years.

That's progress ..

 

[cynic]

Seriously, how many of our lives will be turned upside down if our electricity is generated by solar farm and other cleaner sources?

Would be really be struggling if our cars are powered by electricity rather than gasoline? If we miss the vroom, vroom, there's an app for that.

But life can be unfair sometime... I mean, renewables may actually create new jobs and innovation; cleaner air to breathe...

Just can't do it mate... got a good thing going being dependent on a finite resource that may or may not kill all of us... it sure kills a lot of poor people and Muslims though... maybe a few wildfire and ocean fishies here and there.

When you start having fewer overseas flights than I, and stop driving fossil fuelled motor vehicles, I might consider taking your stance more seriously. Until then, I put it to you that I have a far smaller carbon footprint than yourself, despite not being a member of your climate religion!

 

[cynic]

The IPCC worst case scenario of .82 met by 2100 had minimal allowance for significant melting of the ice sheets. The increase in sea levels was mostly glaciers and expansion of warming ocean.

The concern about the quicker collapse of ice sheets has increase in the past few years and crystallised in the past two years.

That's progress ..

So basically, what you're confirming here is that the IPCC has a history of getting their worst case scenarios wrong!

 

[luutzu]

When you start having fewer overseas flights than I, and stop driving fossil fuelled motor vehicles, I might consider taking your stance more seriously. Until then, I put it to you that I have a far smaller carbon footprint than yourself, despite not being a member of your climate religion!

yea, back to that "hypocrisy" argument are we.

Man, those scientists flying helicopters to isolated sites for their research; going on diesel powered ships

Maybe they ought to walk and swim; write their research on clay tablet... then they can talk about carbon footprint.


By your logic, people concerned about polluted water should stop drinking; those complaining about raw sewage on their streets should stop taking a dump; those wanting a sensible solution to waste management shouldn't consume or use anything that produces waste.

 

[luutzu]

So basically, what you're confirming here is that the IPCC has a history of getting their worst case scenarios wrong!

"wrong" or evidence of them being more conservative and not "alarmist".

 

[cynic]

yea, back to that "hypocrisy" argument are we.

Man, those scientists flying helicopters to isolated sites for their research; going on diesel powered ships

Maybe they ought to walk and swim; write their research on clay tablet... then they can talk about carbon footprint.


By your logic, people concerned about polluted water should stop drinking; those complaining about raw sewage on their streets should stop taking a dump; those wanting a sensible solution to waste management shouldn't consume or use anything that produces waste.

Talk is cheap luutzu!

If you want people to believe in yourself and your chosen religion then you need to be seen practicing rather than merely preaching!

 

[cynic]

"wrong" or evidence of them being more conservative and not "alarmist".

No they got their worst case scenario wrong! Wrong is simply wrong! Conservatism is something else entirely.