ice sheet losses in Greenland and Antarctica reach new highs

I was quoting punxor's directly previous post in reference to 'too' much co2 for plants being bad, incase there was doubt/ confusion. Of course 'too' much of anything is bad, was my point.

I'm aware our science is showing co2 is way up for modern times, hence my reference to plants and 'etc' using co2. I'm aware the news has been 'on it' about the icebergs melting and causes for about the 100 years it's been commercially conglomerated, by modern standards . . . .
 
Oooops. My bad. Question might be, how much of the "lungs of the planet" can we afford to chop down. :wink:
 
Increased CO2, given the context, = from pre-industrial levels to ranging up to levels reasonably predicted for the near-to-medium future.
 
Righto.
Turns out increased CO2 is not good for food production: It reduces protein content while increasing carbohydrate content. It also reduces moisture uptake by the plant, which reduces mineral content.
Click to expand...
I was wondering about this (specific numbers/'science' to compare) tho, but asked you rather than search for the info myself.
No worries guys.
 
That's not critical thinking...that's anecdotal argument from authority and/or popularity. This is a fact-based thread. Please do not pollute with your personal incredulity.
 
Climate Change: Facts Versus Opinions
When it comes to climate change, can "facts" be distinguished from "opinions"?
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/climate-change-facts-versus-opinions/
 
I realize this pales in comparison to Kobe chasing 50 in his final game, but. . . .

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/11/opinions/sutter-climate-kids-update/index.html
 
Interesting. New expression maybe, saw somewhere "future kids".
They will live through an era of rising seas, heat waves, droughts, floods and extinctions that are without precedent. Yet they have little or no voice in the political system that, despite some bold steps in the right direction, continues to lease federal property for fossil fuel extraction and continues to subsidize pollution.
Click to expand...

That thingee about "constitutional rights to life, liberty and the happiness of pursuit". (Something like that.)

And a "political system that... continues to lease federal property for fossil fuel extraction and continues to subsidize pollution."

Many folks outside of the USA might cheer this, then look at their feet when the kids show up at the door of the United Nations. :oops:
 
"Opinion: These two changes in the ocean are downright scary" (writes Malin Pinsky is an assistant professor of ecology, evolution and natural resources at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J., a Sloan Fellow in Ocean Sciences and an affiliate of the Rutgers Climate Institute.)
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/these-two-changes-in-the-ocean-are-downright-scary-2016-04-22

The oceans are warmer and more acidic than ever before in recorded history, and likely ever since modern humans evolved. That should worry everyone alive today.

Why? As go the oceans, so goes the health of the globe. Oceans produce more than half the oxygen we breathe, and are critical to regulating the climate. They have absorbed at least 90% of the heat from global warming since 1970, and continue to absorb 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year, equal to the weight of all the oil carried by supertankers annually.

This carbon dioxide makes seawater more acidic and kills off many animals that have shells, including many of the smallest animals that feed life in the ocean.
Click to expand...
 
"Scientists find more reasons that Greenland will melt faster"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-faster/?postshare=6101462023266992&tid=ss_tw
... study examined the 5.5-kilometer-wide Rink Glacier of West Greenland, with particular focus on how meltwater on the ice sheet’s surface actually finds its way underneath Rink, pours out in the key undersea area described above and speeds up the glacier’s melt.

It’s a feedback process...
Click to expand...

... study resulted in three separate new findings about how meltwater from Greenland’s surface is making its way under Rink Glacier and speeding its ice loss — each of which suggests that not only Rink, but other glaciers like it, could lose their ice faster than previously thought.
Click to expand...
 
"Here's how nearly 10,000 miles of US shoreline would change when all the ice on the earth melts"
http://uk.businessinsider.com/how-us-coastline-would-change-when-all-the-ice-melts-2016-5
The US has nearly 10,000 miles of shoreline that is vulnerable to this rise in water levels, and people are already being displaced in some areas as a result. According to estimates of the worst-case scenario, global sea levels will rise by up to 10 feet in the next century. Some scientists say that it would take more than 5,000 years to melt all the ice, which would raise sea levels by a whopping 216 feet. This would cause whole states to be submerged under water. Here's what the US coastline would look like in that scenario:
Click to expand...
bi_graphic-ice-melt-reshapes-united-states.gif


(Real Estate agents take note.)
 
"Even for the fast-melting Arctic, 2016 is in ‘uncharted territory’"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...elting-arctic-2016-is-in-uncharted-territory/

It’s an “uncharted territory situation that we’re finding ourselves in,” Francis says.

Indeed, NASA and other keepers of planetary temperatures have documented staggering warmth in the region this year — not just 1 or 2 degrees Celsius above average, but more than 4 degrees above average across much of the Arctic during the first quarter of this year:
Click to expand...
imrs.php


:cry:
 
CgHO7t3WEAM9QhD.jpg
 
"‘Fundamentally unstable’: Scientists confirm their fears about East Antarctica’s biggest glacier"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rries-about-east-antarcticas-biggest-glacier/

Scientists ringing alarm bells about the melting of Antarctica have focused most of their attention, so far, on the smaller West Antarctic ice sheet, which is grounded deep below sea level and highly exposed to the influence of warming seas. But new research published in the journal Nature Wednesday reaffirms that there’s a possibly even bigger — if slower moving — threat in the much larger ice mass of East Antarctica.
Click to expand...

Warmer waters in this area could, therefore, ultimately be even more damaging than what’s happening in West Antarctica — and the total amount of ice that could someday be lost would raise sea levels by as much as 13 feet.
Click to expand...

:cry:

totten-infographic.jpg
 
"Study: Burning remaining fossil fuels would 'scorch' Earth"
http://www.theweathernetwork.com/ne...aining-fossil-fuels-would-scorch-earth/68321/
Friday, May 27, 2016, 6:17 PM - Burning up all the remaining fossil fuels would 'scorch' the Earth and render parts of it unliveable, according to a report published in the journal Nature Climate Change Monday.

It would also raise average temperatures by 9.5 degrees Celsius. In the Arctic, average daily temperatures could climb as high as 20C
Click to expand...

New models, however, suggest old research overestimated the ocean's ability to absorb dangerous emissions.
Click to expand...

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/index.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top