ice sheet losses in Greenland and Antarctica reach new highs

^^ "man's presence affects change"... Minor correction perhaps? "Too many" people (suspect women also to blame).
piclemming.gif
 
Under the current structure, perhaps. . . .

But isn't it obvious there's plenty of room, resources, 'wealth', etc for current pop and even magnitudes more?
Doesn't science have the potential to advance literally in magnitudes alongside?

I try to avoid such negative and subjective (both imo, of course :) ) thinking.
Even if it is reality under the current state of things, hence my previous post.
 
This thread is not a platform for your amateurish philosophy on the nature of reality or an opportunity for you to shoehorn in your pet hobby of rejecting established scientific principles on the basis that the quantum world is weird and not completely understood. Neither is it a chance for you to air your anti-establishment, conspiracy-laden views of the world.

You are anti-science in the worst-possible way: you don't even realise it because you believe your own B.S. about being "open-minded".

Perhaps you'd prefer to spend some time over at InfoWars?
 
^^ Hehe... It's just that historically some land areas seen as "less desirable" places to live than others? Humans do seem to like their... amenities. aka "urban" living. Don't expect any real estate booms to happen in the Arctic... or Antarctic... or on Mount Everest... lots of places. Wanna buy some land in south Florida? :wink:

EDIT: In other newz "NASA scientist warns Earth is due for an 'extinction-level event'":
http://theweek.com/speedreads/667239/nasa-scientist-warns-earth-due-extinctionlevel-event
 
Oh shush punx0r, you obviously are somehow bothered to lash out at me again. Seriously it's like you're a ball of anger and all ability to argue reason has been displaced lol. Take it easy, we're all friends here!

. . . . .
LockH, if you do the math, there's way more than enough comfortably habitable land to comfortably sustain all. That's with just today's 'science' and tech. Sure, it would 'take a village' though.

It's the system. Look at the psychology behind abuse. The 'successful' abuser creates a victim that takes all blame for said abuse, and often eventually transforms into another abuser themself, perpetuating a problem.
We are educated (read: conditioned) to think happiness is something it's not. To perceive need for wasteful harmful practice and things and infrastructure, and unproductive (even growth retarding) control. Trained to be irresponsible little gremlins out for their slice of the pie even if it means dog eat dog or frock the earth.

I don't think it's hard to imagine the potential when we consider all the space and resources available to begin to safely accomodate all humans to a higher quality of life.
Yeah, maybe the climate would still change or unavoidable 'natural disaster' would strike. Maybe the sun would burn us up and/or burn out. Who knows? Unless we can make this a perfect utopia free of all that 'bad' stuff I mentioned before, why would anyone want to stay here indefinitely anyway?
 
nutspecial said:
...there's way more than enough comfortably habitable land to comfortably sustain all.
Click to expand...

When sea levels rise 3 to 5 feet over the next century, whole cities and island nations will have to be abandoned or moved inland. Meanwhile deserts will expand, reducing the amount of arable land to grow food. Not to mention that it will be hotter on average by 8 or 10 degrees F. You have no idea what a temperature increase of that magnitude over such a short period can have on a planet. We're pretty much frocked at this point as the Trump administration pretty much guarantees nothing significant will be done to curb carbon emissions. Rather, he will be doing everything in his power to increase them. Oh well, I'll be dead before the worst of it happens, so might as well buy a big SUV and get my piece of the pie. My kids will probably live to see the bad shit start to go down, though. I'm sure they'll be cursing us for not doing anything while there was still time.
 
Sorry, but I don't believe that hype. Don't let the circus that is politics at that level scare you.
It honestly can't be healthy for ourselves or those around us to be too negative in opinion.

Now, IF THAT forecasted change does take place, why can't it be a positive thing that we
"have no idea what a temperature increase of that magnitude over such a short period" will be?

. . . will be hotter on average by 8 or 10 degrees F
Click to expand...
There's a helluv alot of land above the tropic of cancer that would become habitable at least. Could be pretty cool. For whatever reason :| the gall-peters projection isn't commonly used. I couldn't even find it for avg temps. You could use the mercator one though and compare.
https://www.google.com/search?q=world+map+population&biw=914&bih=404&tbm=isch&imgil=xwNVP6v3altSkM%253A%253BZoMZ8fvo5lRjzM%253Bhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fen.wikipedia.org%25252Fwiki%25252FWorld_population&source=iu&pf=m&fir=xwNVP6v3altSkM%253A%252CZoMZ8fvo5lRjzM%252C_&usg=__2uiwYwFn4Wej_lNbxFuDRpNur5k%3D&ved=0ahUKEwivvIakhfTQAhXBxlQKHcOtCkYQyjcIJA&ei=12pRWO_0CcGN0wLD26qwBA#tbm=isch&q=world+map+temperature+
https://www.google.com/search?q=world+map+population&biw=914&bih=404&tbm=isch&imgil=xwNVP6v3altSkM%253A%253BZoMZ8fvo5lRjzM%253Bhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fen.wikipedia.org%25252Fwiki%25252FWorld_population&source=iu&pf=m&fir=xwNVP6v3altSkM%253A%252CZoMZ8fvo5lRjzM%252C_&usg=__2uiwYwFn4Wej_lNbxFuDRpNur5k%3D&ved=0ahUKEwivvIakhfTQAhXBxlQKHcOtCkYQyjcIJA&ei=12pRWO_0CcGN0wLD26qwBA#tbm=isch&q=world+map+temperature+gall+peters
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2596783/Why-world-map-youre-looking-WRONG-Africa-China-Mexico-distorted-despite-access-accurate-satellite-data.html
 
nutspecial said:
Sorry, but I don't believe that hype. Don't let the circus that is politics at that level scare you.
It honestly can't be healthy for ourselves or those around us to be too negative in opinion.
Click to expand...

The physics of the atmosphere and oceans do not care a wit about what you believe. It has nothing to do with politics, or hype, or propaganda for me. I am a scientist who understands the underlying physics has studied the topic for the past 23 years. I understand how it works. I know what the data shows, I know that the models can match the past data very well and are therefore suitable for projecting future trends. This is not theory, this is simple physics, and the physics say very clearly that if we do not start taking drastic measures to reduce carbon emission NOW, then everything I just told you is virtually certain to occur. Hell, it's already starting but people are too absorbed in their own self interests and political propaganda to see.
 
The physics of the atmosphere and oceans do not care a wit about what you believe.
Click to expand...
True. Nor you.
It has nothing to do with politics, or hype, or propaganda for me.
Click to expand...
So you say, however I was directly responding to your opinion on presidential level politics' effects on GW.

I am a scientist
Click to expand...
So am I. Perhaps you're more knowledgeable, I don't know. I do know your opinion on geoengineering though, as it pertains to AGW.
who understands the underlying physics has studied the topic for the past 23 years. I understand how it works. I know what the data shows, I know that the models can match the past data very well and are therefore suitable for projecting future trends.
Click to expand...
Just as the previous projections always maintain such accuracy lol.

This is not theory, this is simple physics,
Click to expand...
Beg differ. It's 'best guesses' from skewed data, based in incomplete science.

and the physics say very clearly that if we do not start taking drastic measures to reduce carbon emission NOW, then everything I just told you is virtually certain to occur.
Click to expand...
I would argue being overly sure on modes and timelines, but sure I agree the sky will fall one day. . . .

Hell, it's already starting but people are too absorbed in their own self interests and political propaganda to see.
Click to expand...
We all have our faults I guess. Not saying you're absolutely wrong (or the 'physics' of it, so you say), and hopefully you don't feel disrespected by my previously stated opinions. Glad you care deeply and hope you turn that into positive emotion and action for yourself and yours. Sometimes that's the best we can do.

If you want, I'd be curious to hear your proposal for mitigating/correcting the suspected damage of raising temps, melted ice, and rising sea levels.
 
nutspecial said:
Oh shush punx0r, you obviously are somehow bothered to lash out at me again. Seriously it's like you're a ball of anger and all ability to argue reason has been displaced lol. Take it easy, we're all friends here!
Click to expand...

No, you are an irritating, little troll. You just confirmed that with your faux-intellectual last post.

You have polluted plenty of threads already on this forum. Why not let the grown-ups talk and go play with traffic?
 
Yes. Looking back now, it started on page 13 when Nutspecial appeared and started posting his denier & conspiracy theory BS. Back then I posted:

Punx0r said:
I'm sure you're a nice enough guy, nutspecial, but your posts are inflammatory to anyone of a technical, scientific or critical-thinking disposition.

I have often wondered if you are just trolling, but I don't think you are. However, I'm not going to engage you in the off-topic discussion you're trying to start.
Click to expand...

Just goes to show he's pulling the same shit today. I'm less charitably inclined towards him now, though.

Then by page 14 the thread was pruned my a moderator and moved to Toxic, such was Nutspecial's talent for disruption. Joseph C. nicely summed up the problem immediately after the move:

Joseph C. said:
If you allow egotistical morons and trolls to post nonsense as facts in a scientific thread that will generally happen.

The internet is turning out to be the ultimate tool for propaganda such is the ever weakening signal to noise ratio.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks arkmundi. I feel opinions presented reasonably are always acceptable, toxic or otherwise. While I have never felt CC/GW is a joke or garners disrespect, I'm not quick to buy the full mainstream narrative. Whatever that actually is? Seriously what is it- is the crisis fully laid out and are there corrective proposals in place? I have heard about the aerosol geoengineering, and honestly that really sounds a bit sketch.

Punx0r, you and I just don't see eye to eye. There ain't no good guy, (dave mason). No, no, no, it aint me babe (bob dylan) :D
Just goes to show he's pulling the same shit today. I'm less charitably inclined towards him now, though.
Click to expand...
And I'm less inclined to give a shit about shit attitudes. :)
Maybe I'm way off base, but if you percieve me as some opponent to 'your' 'side', shouldn't I get points for not being abusive and foaming-at-the-mouth as is fairly typical from either side of a 'hot' topic? Points for openmindedness? Really, I think I'm adult, civil, rational, reasonable, and not quick to conclusion jump. That's the opposite of childish fanatical zest and fervor, yes? It aint me babe.

I like/agree w/ Joseph C's quotation. Thankyou. Here's to future realizations of just how true, and how much more applicable it really is, or was.
 
Just post your conspiracy theories and anti-establishment/consensus/mainstream opinions in one of the numerous other threads you've either already ruined or started for the purpose.
 
There wouldn't be a problem with deniers if there wasn't a problem with goofballs pretending they had big ANSWERS. Few deniers are saying there's no problem whatsoever.

climate-heat.jpg
 
Here is a link to an inspiring speech by Gov. Jerry Brown yesterday at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union, of which I am a member. Maybe we are not so screwed after all.

https://www.facebook.com/AmericanGeophysicalUnion/videos/10153868688001601/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED
 
"New Sea-Level Rise Projection Raises Threat to World's Coasts":
http://www.livescience.com/57216-se...er&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20161215-oap

The Earth's Future research project focused on creating a new model for sea-level rise that takes a more holistic approach in considering factors that will impact coastal communities, the scientists said. The traditional "bathtub model" — which simply raises water a certain height based on estimated ice melt — takes into account only rising water levels. In their new study, researchers built a model that considers not only rising water levels, but also incorporates the impacts of tides, storm surges, coastal infrastructure and defense frameworks (such as dikes).

What they found was a much more dynamic picture of how coastal communities will be affected by rising seas.
Click to expand...
 
So all you gotta do is substitute 'Global Warming Report' for the word 'Art' and you get the picture of your bickering. Doesn't matter if it's a report about real or fake, all the report does is give you the chance to argue some more.

d6e.png
 
Check out NASAs new super CO2 map.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/eye-popping-view-of-co2-critical-step-for-carbon-cycle-science
What took my eye was there isn't much CO2 flying around Australia at all compared to China and the northern hemisphere in general..
I guess thats why some of the other NASA reports talk about massive build ups of ice on Antartica while in the Arctic its all melty doom.. I guess what would be good is they could figure out how to push more of that CO2 down to the bottom half of the hemisphere and kind of smooth out the global warming a bit more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syU1rRCp7E8

[youtube]syU1rRCp7E8[/youtube]


Also hitting the news is a super cold polar vortex of doom thats going to hit north america..
http://www.businessinsider.com/polar-vortex-on-the-way-2016-12?IR=T
 
Oooops... "Scientists confirm that warm ocean water is melting the biggest glacier in East Antarctica":
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...er-in-east-antarctica/?utm_term=.c0c01d7e9476

Includes:
The measurements, sampling ocean temperatures in seas over a kilometer (0.62 miles) deep in some places right at the edge of Totten glacier’s floating ice shelf, affirmed that warm ocean water is flowing in towards the glacier at the rate of 220,000 cubic meters per second.

These waters, the paper asserts, are causing the ice shelf to lose between 63 and 80 billion tons of its mass to the ocean per year, and to lose about 10 meters (32 feet) of thickness annually, a reduction that has been previously noted based on satellite measurements.

This matters because more of East Antarctica flows out towards the sea through the Totten glacier region than for any other glacier in the entirety of the East Antarctic ice sheet. Its entire “catchment,” or the region of ice that slowly flows outward through Totten glacier and its ice shelf, is larger than California. If all of this ice were to end up in the ocean somehow, seas would raise by about 11.5 feet.
Click to expand...
 
TheBeastie said:
Check out NASAs new super CO2 map.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/eye-popping-view-of-co2-critical-step-for-carbon-cycle-science
What took my eye was there isn't much CO2 flying around Australia at all compared to China and the northern hemisphere in general..
I guess thats why some of the other NASA reports talk about massive build ups of ice on Antartica while in the Arctic its all melty doom.. I guess what would be good is they could figure out how to push more of that CO2 down to the bottom half of the hemisphere and kind of smooth out the global warming a bit more.

Also hitting the news is a super cold polar vortex of doom thats going to hit north america..
http://www.businessinsider.com/polar-vortex-on-the-way-2016-12?IR=T
Click to expand...


Something to keep in mind about that CO2 map is that the range of the scale shown is only 390 to 408 ppb, so it is really only showing minute differences. CO2 gets mixed throughout the atmosphere pretty quickly. The biggest sources are where population density is greatest. Since Australia has very small population density overall, it shouldn't show up as a major source, but your CO2 concentrations are going up just like they are everywhere else.

As for the super cold polar vortex of doom, this type of event often is cited by folks as evidence for no global warming, but you have to realize that, when that cold polar air gets pushed down over North America, warm air is getting pulled up into the arctic to fill in the space behind it. So, while we may be seeing record cold spells in some areas, the arctic is warming much faster that the rest of the planet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top