The myth of melting ice and rising seas

[spidermike007]

Forgive my skepticism, but I do not use the Nation as a source for my scientific data. First of all it is a highly censored medium, and does the bidding of it's rulers. Secondarily, the news it carries is second rate, from an international point of view.

 

And lastly, why would anyone think global warming is caused by man? Does it not make sense that we can spew an unlimited amount of carbon, and other poisons into our delicate atmosphere, on a nearly unlimited and constant basis, without there being any consequences? And does the same not apply to our seas? Can't we dump an unlimited amount of garbage, pollution, plastic, oil, debris and junk into the seas, without there being any reaction from the oceans? Why would the atmosphere or the seas be affected by our behavior? 

 

 

[robertthesculptor]

Trump and the idiots could not be happier with this total Onion posting. Total Alt. Fact poop....so the Nation backs this drivel??? Oooh myyyy. Now I am thinking it is a joke for sure

Sent from my GEM-702L using Thaivisa Connect mobile app

[yardrunner]

7 hours ago, shows said:

Who is Sam Khoury? What are his qualifications? And why would The Nation print such nonsense?

you may disagree with him and he may be wrong in his conclusions but that does not mean he is speaking nonsense and that his evidence is wrong

[boomerangutang]

3 hours ago, TomTC said:

No Bangkok. is sinking.  Sea levels fall. Greenland has it's thickest icecap in decades. Next warming in 90K years. Don't you read the Nation?

If you're joking, you could use an emoticon.

Greenland has been losing around 45 cubic miles of ice each year for the past 15 years.  There are lakes on parts of Greenland where there have not been lakes in modern times.  They're shallow, turquoise, and often have a drainage point where they plunge into a crevasse and further erode away the ice, and hasten the movement of glaciers.    The earth is warming dramatically, on average.  

 

             The severe snow storms in the NE USA are mostly a factor of precipitation, not temperature.  The Eastern Sea Board of the USA covers a very small fraction of the world's area.   About the same sq. Km as Sudan.  So it's not a big deal in the overall global climate picture.   

 

           GW deniers are like Trump fans.  They won't change their nutzoid views on issues, no matter how many or how accurate the climate data is.    They're stuck like epoxy to their off-kilter world view.

[janhkt]

6 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

If you're joking, you could use an emoticon.

Greenland has been losing around 45 cubic miles of ice each year for the past 15 years.  There are lakes on parts of Greenland where there have not been lakes in modern times.  They're shallow, turquoise, and often have a drainage point where they plunge into a crevasse and further erode away the ice, and hasten the movement of glaciers.    The earth is warming dramatically, on average.  

 

             The severe snow storms in the NE USA are mostly a factor of precipitation, not temperature.  The Eastern Sea Board of the USA covers a very small fraction of the world's area.   About the same sq. Km as Sudan.  So it's not a big deal in the overall global climate picture.   

 

           GW deniers are like Trump fans.  They won't change their nutzoid views on issues, no matter how many or how accurate the climate data is.    They're stuck like epoxy to their off-kilter world view.

I think "Don't you read the Nation?" is the clue to the sarcasm here.

[hhinhh]

8 hours ago, shows said:

Who is Sam Khoury? What are his qualifications? And why would The Nation print such nonsense?

How do you know it is nonsense and all the alarming messages from the Greens are right??? I remeber they claimed the forrests in Europe are collapsing. That was 25 years ago and nothing happened only they got some 100 million USD for "scientific" evaluations. They claimed all life in the Arabian Golf will die if Hussain will put the oil wells on fire. After he did so, nothing happened.

Keep in mind these guys MUST always calim desasters to get private and government funds no matter what the truth is otherwise they will run out of money.

[maewang99]

it's not about ice melting. it's about ice ****shelves**** supporting ice sheets in ****West**** Antarctica.   

 

the water being released from the Chao Phraya dam... right now as we post this stuff... even though the dam is below it's operating level.. is to keep Bangkok water plants from being inundated by sea water.  that's today.  not in 10 or 20 years from now. 

 

today. it's right there in a recent English language Bangkok newspaper.

so if Bangkok's fresh water is already in the Danger Zone... in March 2017..... and the Chao Phraya dam some year soon has any less water than it already has... it won't matter how much ice melts or doesn't melt. 

 

as for Trump... Climate Change doesn't matter anymore because all the effort at this point has to be in negative emission technology, to scale and the funding for that is not something the US government can get into at all..... it's being researched with VC money mostly Silicon Valley and billionaires like Bill Gates.  COP21 spelled it out.

the other thing... for Thailand.. is that the reason we put 1.5 into COP21 as well as 2.0 as goals... is that India would not have signed the agreement otherwise... because if we don't have a negative emissions breakthrough... the last resort is chemical veiling.  Veiling would mean less variation in global wind and ocean currents.... with maybe, a big maybe, serious disruption of the monsoon season as a result.

the monsoons in India can be read just as easily as "The Rainy Season" in SE Asia.    

so it's a bit more complicated than just rising salt water levels.

but glad to see you are investigating this.  it's good to be in the know. 

  

[janhkt]

11 minutes ago, hhinhh said:

How do you know it is nonsense and all the alarming messages from the Greens are right??? I remeber they claimed the forrests in Europe are collapsing. That was 25 years ago and nothing happened only they got some 100 million USD for "scientific" evaluations. They claimed all life in the Arabian Golf will die if Hussain will put the oil wells on fire. After he did so, nothing happened.

Keep in mind these guys MUST always calim desasters to get private and government funds no matter what the truth is otherwise they will run out of money.

On the other hand, it is also rather naive claiming that pumping out billions of tons of shit into the atmosphere on a yearly basis will NOT affect our environment. Are you telling me that correlations like this is indeed just pure coincidence?

 

[attrayant]

Oh look, somebody has an opinion on climate change.  That's so unusual.

 

It's worth noting that the scientific consensus on climate change and its primary drivers is about the same as the scientific consensus that smoking causes lung diseases and other health problems.

 

It's not even worth debating any more.

[Jonmarleesco]

I didn't know the Nation employed such naivete in its reporting staff. Or perhaps he thinks the readers are naive.

[janhkt]

53 minutes ago, hhinhh said:

...

Keep in mind these guys MUST always calim desasters to get private and government funds no matter what the truth is otherwise they will run out of money.

 

The same can be said for the companies and politicians denying climate changes, who in turn are manipulating media. Decreasing pollution costs money in one way or another.

[Dumbastheycome]

There  are sea shells in the Himalayas. Receding ocean or rising land mass? Thats one hell of a drought if it is receding  water!

As  usual  with issues  of significance the  debate  becomes so bi polarized and extreme that any consensus as to reality is ignored.

And a significant reality  is that whatever water  exists we are poisoning it rapidly.

 

[losworld]

The fact of the matter is there is simply not enough evidence to make any solid conclusions about Climate change.  Any good scientist would not make any solid conclusions without enough evidence.   Problem is that a lot of the gathered evidence is tied to funding based on a set of criteria favorable to concluding what is desired.  Wall Street itself is a very strong advocate of climate change because they stand to make a fortune trading carbon credits.  Nos put two and two together and you can figure out Wall Street may be influencing the media?

 

Fact is the earth's climate changes all the time. Warmer and colder and back again.  Sea levels rise and fall over time.  I would not be too quick to conclude we are undergoing radical climate change. 

[tuktuktuk]

6 inches in a century is imperceptible. All the measurements are suspect. Many benchmarks have moved more than that. Subsidence, erosion, geologic movements, gravitational anomalies and temperatures all contribute. Sure, sea level is changing. No doubt it always has and always will. The real issue is whether or not we're stupid enough to spend vast sums of money trying to stop the unstoppable. Go ahead, but let me keep mine so I can buy more diesel fuel for my pickup trucks. 

[sevenhills]

11 hours ago, pegman said:

Or NASA itself: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

 

 

And you believe NASA. 

[aussie11950]

Nation: (SAm Khoury)
The 2 landmasses that control sea level are Antarctica & Greenland 
Antarctica gaining 100 billion tonnes.
(100 gigatonnes, 1 cubic kilometer) since 1900/s
Greenland at greatest for 7,500 years.

 

NASA:
planet shedding ice 35,000 sq km since 1979
Arctic ice loss greater than antarctica gain
Greenland losing 289 gigatonnes (billion tonnes) since 2008.

 

Sam cherry pics his data. not peer reviewed either.

[boomerangutang]

1 hour ago, losworld said:

The fact of the matter is there is simply not enough evidence to make any solid conclusions about Climate change.  Any good scientist would not make any solid conclusions without enough evidence.   Problem is that a lot of the gathered evidence is tied to funding based on a set of criteria favorable to concluding what is desired.  Wall Street itself is a very strong advocate of climate change because they stand to make a fortune trading carbon credits.  Nos put two and two together and you can figure out Wall Street may be influencing the media?

 

Fact is the earth's climate changes all the time. Warmer and colder and back again.  Sea levels rise and fall over time.  I would not be too quick to conclude we are undergoing radical climate change. 

       There is already tons of evidence.  

 

         As for climate changing all the time.  Of course, historically, it's changed dramatically.  That's not the core issue.  The issue is what's happening now and in next decades/centuries.  People are a delicate species.  About half of humankind lives along rivers or seashore.  A little bit of rising water, and big changes ensue:  migrations, drowning,  towns flooded, etc.  Similar for desertification.  One of the biggest drivers for hundreds of thousands of desperate migrants wanting to go from desert regions to Europe is desertification.  Similar dynamic for migrations in other regions.

 

          If rich countries spent half as much on space migration as they do on military, then colonization of other planets/moons would be feasible.   ....or at least begin the process of terra-forming - setting up large solar powered mechanisms for rendering the atmospheres (on Mars, for example) less formidable for human survival.  

 

       Personally, I don't think it would be tragic if the human species died out.  It would enable nature to get back on the path of finding natural balances - which it had for 3.5 billion years, before our species came along and trashed/toxified the place.

 

47 minutes ago, sevenhills said:

And you believe NASA. 

yes, and NOAA.

[Lodestone]

Quote

NORFOLK, Va. — Huge vertical rulers are sprouting beside low spots in the streets here, so people can judge if the tidal floods that increasingly inundate their roads are too deep to drive through.

Five hundred miles down the Atlantic Coast, the only road to Tybee Island, Ga., is disappearing beneath the sea several times a year, cutting the town off from the mainland.

And another 500 miles on, in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., increased tidal flooding is forcing the city to spend millions fixing battered roads and drains — and, at times, to send out giant vacuum trucks to suck saltwater off the streets.

For decades, as the global warming created by human emissions caused land ice to melt and ocean water to expand, scientists warned that the accelerating rise of the sea would eventually imperil the United States’ coastline.

Now, those warnings are no longer theoretical: The inundation of the coast has begun. The sea has crept up to the point that a high tide and a brisk wind are all it takes to send water pouring into streets and homes.

 

More: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/science/flooding-of-coast-caused-by-global-warming-has-already-begun.html

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

9 hours ago, heybruce said:

you can prove anything if you cherry-pick your data.  Science requires looking at all pertinent data and developing a credible explanation of the observed phenomena.

This is a very important point, and there can be no doubt this trick is used by both sides of the argument. Personally, I don't believe we have enough data to make a real judgement one way or another, even 4000 years is a tiny fraction of the Earth's weather and geological system's history. The observations from space are more unreliable since they have only been done for little longer than 40 years.

It is however all very convenient for scientists to get research grants and for governments to raise taxes.

[anon4546543]

The last I thought was general science popular opinion was that global warming would cause extreme temperature variances. And  that overall, earth and sea temperatures would rise. This is occurring. QED.

[jerojero]

Taken directly from the School of Donald Trump. Scientists world wide are wrong, because he says so. Thought the Nation had better journalistic integrity.

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

Of course the real "elephant in the room' here is not whether global warming or cooling, or even an asteroid strike will threaten the human race...

it is the exponential increase in the human population.

 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

This is a very important point, and there can be no doubt this trick is used by both sides of the argument. Personally, I don't believe we have enough data to make a real judgement one way or another, even 4000 years is a tiny fraction of the Earth's weather and geological system's history. The observations from space are more unreliable since they have only been done for little longer than 40 years.

It is however all very convenient for scientists to get research grants and for governments to raise taxes.

That is a head-in-the-sand approach.  Carbon dioxide is a known greenhouse gas.  From before modern humans existed until 1950 carbon dioxide levels never exceeded 300 parts per million, and now they are over 400 parts per million and rising.  https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/ 

 

The last time carbon dioxide levels were this high was over ten million years ago, when temperatures where 11 degrees warmer and oceans were 100 feet higher.   http://www.climatecentral.org/news/the-last-time-co2-was-this-high-humans-didnt-exist-15938 

 

There's no denying that climate is constantly changing, usually at a pace that allows ecosystems to adapt (a temperate climate forest and all the life it supports can "migrate" north in response to climate warming over hundreds of years; it will die out when presented with climate warming over a few decades). 

 

While the information is incomplete, indications are that we may have started climate change at a pace that the environment and human society can't cope with.  In view of this, I think it makes sense to cut back on pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.  And stop expanding coastal cities built on low, muddy ground (Bangkok, Miami, places like that....).

[JimmyJ]

You people aren't considering that the sea levels are stable but the continents are sinking due to the weight of the people standing on them.

 

Let USA Rep. Hank Johnson (D - GA) give you a 2 minute lesson of the sort of things that this can cause , while at a US Senate hearing when the military wanted to expand it's base on Guam.

 

This man is a genius, and if still alive should be made Trump's Environmental Affairs Director:

(the 1st minute is slow, but it's worth it for the punchline):

 

 

USA! USA! USA!

[losworld]

3 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

       There is already tons of evidence.  

 

         As for climate changing all the time.  Of course, historically, it's changed dramatically.  That's not the core issue.  The issue is what's happening now and in next decades/centuries.  People are a delicate species.  About half of humankind lives along rivers or seashore.  A little bit of rising water, and big changes ensue:  migrations, drowning,  towns flooded, etc.  Similar for desertification.  One of the biggest drivers for hundreds of thousands of desperate migrants wanting to go from desert regions to Europe is desertification.  Similar dynamic for migrations in other regions.

 

          If rich countries spent half as much on space migration as they do on military, then colonization of other planets/moons would be feasible.   ....or at least begin the process of terra-forming - setting up large solar powered mechanisms for rendering the atmospheres (on Mars, for example) less formidable for human survival.  

 

       Personally, I don't think it would be tragic if the human species died out.  It would enable nature to get back on the path of finding natural balances - which it had for 3.5 billion years, before our species came along and trashed/toxified the place.

 

yes, and NOAA.

 

Space travel is the most ridiculous waste of money.  It's literally pie in the sky.  If you understand the radiation belts you will know the difficulty. And this silly talk about traveling at light speed.  One grain of dust at that speed would demolish a craft and there is a lot of space debris out there.  Too many people dreaming  and need to wake up to the realities and challenges on our planet.

[thaibeachlovers]

19 hours ago, shows said:

Who is Sam Khoury? What are his qualifications? And why would The Nation print such nonsense?

His qualifications are probably as good as those of the "97% of scientists" that support the "man did it" version of climate change.

Arctic sea ice melt wouldn't raise sea levels even if it all melted and the entire Arctic sea was ice free water. It's only if the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps melt that sea levels would rise.

Given that newspapers print a lot of "nonsense" all the time, it's irrelevant if this article meets with any TVF poster's approval or not.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, losworld said:

 

Space travel is the most ridiculous waste of money.  It's literally pie in the sky.  If you understand the radiation belts you will know the difficulty. And this silly talk about traveling at light speed.  One grain of dust at that speed would demolish a craft and there is a lot of space debris out there.  Too many people dreaming  and need to wake up to the realities and challenges on our planet.

True, but it is a useful tool for developing even better ways of transporting weapons of mass destruction to the "enemy" whomever they are.

I hope mankind never escapes to destroy even more worlds than the one we are destroying rapidly.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

That is a head-in-the-sand approach.  Carbon dioxide is a known greenhouse gas.  From before modern humans existed until 1950 carbon dioxide levels never exceeded 300 parts per million, and now they are over 400 parts per million and rising.  https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/ 

 

The last time carbon dioxide levels were this high was over ten million years ago, when temperatures where 11 degrees warmer and oceans were 100 feet higher.   http://www.climatecentral.org/news/the-last-time-co2-was-this-high-humans-didnt-exist-15938 

 

There's no denying that climate is constantly changing, usually at a pace that allows ecosystems to adapt (a temperate climate forest and all the life it supports can "migrate" north in response to climate warming over hundreds of years; it will die out when presented with climate warming over a few decades). 

 

While the information is incomplete, indications are that we may have started climate change at a pace that the environment and human society can't cope with.  In view of this, I think it makes sense to cut back on pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.  And stop expanding coastal cities built on low, muddy ground (Bangkok, Miami, places like that....).

Wouldn't it be better, or at least as important, to stop breeding so many people? People cause CO2 rise, therefore less people would slow the rise. Yet, we never hear any support for less people on our already overpopulated planet.

[halloween]

10 hours ago, janhkt said:

On the other hand, it is also rather naive claiming that pumping out billions of tons of shit into the atmosphere on a yearly basis will NOT affect our environment. Are you telling me that correlations like this is indeed just pure coincidence?

 

Ample proof that be adjusting scales to order you can prove anything. Over a 240 year period there has been a reported temp rise of around ONE degree, on a planet that regularly has ice ages. Should i start to panic now or later?

[thaibeachlovers]

11 hours ago, janhkt said:

On the other hand, it is also rather naive claiming that pumping out billions of tons of shit into the atmosphere on a yearly basis will NOT affect our environment. Are you telling me that correlations like this is indeed just pure coincidence?

 

That theory as publicised by Al Gore in his film has been debunked. It is not proven whether rising temperature is caused by CO2 or whether rising CO2 levels are caused by temperature increase.

 

Whatever, if the world population keeps increasing at the same rate, nothing will be achieved by taxing countries that are having a slow down in birth rate while other countries keep reproducing at an alarming rate.