The myth of melting ice and rising seas

[Skeptic7]

The Nation just lost what little bit of credibility it still had. 

 

Utter nonsense and evidence denying conspiracy advocating bullcrap. 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/18/science/earth/2016-hottest-year-on-record.html?_r=0

[boomerangutang]

5 hours ago, JimmyJ said:

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!

What's in the drinking water in Georgia?  

 

5 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.

Yes, space travel is costly and dangerous.  However, it's the next step in evolution of our species (and the species we take with us to yonder places).  When people migrate, they also take a shitload (figurative and literally) of microbes with them.  Even if a colony of people were set up on Mars, for example - the people may die out, but the microbes from their gut may live on - and develop further - to larger species, intelligent species?   ....and they may, in turn, return to a revitalized Earth, and continue the process - with the microbes in their alien guts being the better survivors.

 

Epic migrations have happened on Earth, and may continue beyond Earth.  The first Africans to cross over to Yemen in reed baskets.   The first humans to cross from Indonesia to northern Australia,   the first to make landfall at Rapanui (Easter Island) or make it down to the bottom of S.America.   Human history is rife with epic migrations.  None were easy, but that's part of who we are.   We cross over to new territories.

 

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

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.

It doesn't have to be one or the other.  Mentally advance people, like us, know there are waaaaay too many people on the planet already and it's only getting worse.  Indeed, if each person alive today = 2 years, together we = the age of the universe.  

 

I just read an article about young women in Syria.  They don't have husbands or houses, or money or even enough food and drink, .....yet they're still popping babies out like hotcakes out of a cafe microwave. People like that have zero consciousness of overpopulation.   They just get date-raped, the guy splits, and they have an added child, and everyone around says, "oh, isn't that lovely. Look at the cute little baby."

[Ramen087]

Scientists will tell you this: "The Science is Never Settled".  

Unless, of course, you politicize the issue and squash debate.  

An open mind is key to scientific advancement and enlightenment.

[attrayant]

7 minutes ago, Ramen087 said:

Scientists will tell you this: "The Science is Never Settled".  

 

You used quotation marks; who are you quoting?  That is not what the scientific consensus presently says.  Stop trying to cast doubt where very little exists.

[boomerangutang]

19 minutes ago, Ramen087 said:

Scientists will tell you this: "The Science is Never Settled".  

Unless, of course, you politicize the issue and squash debate.  

An open mind is key to scientific advancement and enlightenment.

Who said that?  At sea level, water boils at 100 degrees C.  It turns to ice at 0 degrees.  
That's settled, isn't it?

 

[Ramen087]

17 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

You used quotation marks; who are you quoting?  That is not what the scientific consensus presently says.  Stop trying to cast doubt where very little exists.

Sometimes all you need is... very little doubt. Then a pair of fresh eyes looks at the situation differently and a new discovery made. It may happen in this case, it may not.  Open minds...they're a wonderful thing.

[Ramen087]

6 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

Who said that?  At sea level, water boils at 100 degrees C.  It turns to ice at 0 degrees.  
That's settled, isn't it?

I was referring to the topic in the headline of the thread...

[attrayant]

1 minute ago, Ramen087 said:

Sometimes all you need is... very little doubt.

 

No - that's incorrect.  When you challenge a mountain of data and a broad consensus of 34 of the world's top academies of science, you need a lot more than "very little doubt".  Go ahead - try telling the world's physicists and cosmologists that you have some doubts about general relativity.  Try telling the global medical community that you're suspicious of the germ theory of disease.  In both cases you will be bucking mountains of hard evidence and a broad global scientific consensus.

 

If you've actually got something, fine.  Maybe you've got your own weather satellite orbiting the planet collecting data that disagrees with the other three-dozen satellites.  Bring it on and let's see how much it shakes up the scientific consensus.  But if all you've got is a "very little doubt", that is just not going to cut it.

[Ace of Pop]

Well,myth or not ,those sailing about in Greenpeace Motor Yachts are having a nice time,whilst we have to work in those nasty factories to feed our Families.Who built yer freakin Boat.? Tree Huggers.[emoji924][emoji568][emoji925][emoji572]️


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[Ramen087]

3 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

No - that's incorrect.  When you challenge a mountain of data and a broad consensus of 34 of the world's top academies of science, you need a lot more than "very little doubt".  Go ahead - try telling the world's physicists and cosmologists that you have some doubts about general relativity.  Try telling the global medical community that you're suspicious of the germ theory of disease.  In both cases you will be bucking mountains of hard evidence and a broad global scientific consensus.

 

If you've actually got something, fine.  Maybe you've got your own weather satellite orbiting the planet collecting data that disagrees with the other three-dozen satellites.  Bring it on and let's see how much it shakes up the scientific consensus.  But if all you've got is a "very little doubt", that is just not going to cut it.

Take a deep breath and relax, please.  All I am saying is that sometimes the widely accepted explanation is occasionally overturned by a person with a gut feeling and the will to go the extra mile to show the establishment it was incorrect.  This is not an unknown.

[attrayant]

If that's all you were saying, then you're not really adding much to the discussion. I think everybody knows that is how science works.  Whenever new data comes along that is more robust and better fits the observations, the hypotheses are changed to reflect it.

 

But as time goes by and no contrary evidence is forthcoming, the science becomes more "settled", which is another way of saying the hypothesis gets closer to becoming an established scientific theory.  So far, this is what's happening with climate change.

[spidermike007]

15 hours 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.

 

Correct. They are now farming areas of Greenland that used to be barren ice fields. The country has become far more arable, due to extreme warming over the past 20 years. But, again we had nothing to do with that. How convenient a position for industry. We all know why the deflector in chief buys into this stuff. It is easy, and expedient. And the protection of the planet means nothing to him. He is not a visionary man. But, for the rest of us? Massive ice shelves are splitting off from the Antartican continent. Just a coincidence? 

 

On the Arctic Circle, a chef is growing the kind of vegetables and herbs - potatoes, thyme, tomatoes, green peppers - more fitting for a suburban garden in a temperate zone than a land of Northern Lights, glaciers and musk oxen.

Some Inuit hunters are finding reindeer fatter than ever thanks to more grazing on this frozen tundra, and for some, there is no longer a need to trek hours to find wild herbs.

Welcome to climate change in Greenland, where locals say longer and warmer summers mean the country can grow the kind of crops unheard of years ago.

"Things are just growing quicker," said Kim Ernst, the Danish chef of Roklubben restaurant, nestled by a frozen lake near a former Cold War-era U.S. military base.

"Every year we try new things," said Ernst, who even managed to grow a handful of strawberries that he served to some surprised Scandinavian royals. "I first came here in 1999 and no-one would have dreamed of doing this. But now the summer days seem warmer, and longer."

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-greenland-climate-agriculture-idUSBRE92P0EX20130326

 

[RickBradford]

1 hour ago, boomerangutang said:

Who said that?  At sea level, water boils at 100 degrees C.  It turns to ice at 0 degrees.  
That's settled, isn't it?

 

No, it isn't. It's an approximation. The exact temperature depends on the atmospheric pressure at the time the measurement is made.

 

That's the point about science. It improves through questioning and refinement, and the moment you stop questioning (ie: you believe in "settled science"), you stop improving and stop progressing.

 

This is why Richard Feynman, the Nobel laureate, wrote: "It is in the admission of ignorance and the admission of uncertainty that there is a hope for the continuous motion of human beings in some direction that doesn’t get confined, permanently blocked.."

 

Climate science is riddled with uncertainty and ignorance, as is natural for such a complex, chaotic and multi-disciplinary enterprise. The trouble is that climate activists can't admit the uncertainty and ignorance, and try to hide the fact by claiming "the science is settled."

[attrayant]

1 minute ago, RickBradford said:

The trouble is that climate activists can't admit the uncertainty and ignorance, and try to hide the fact by claiming "the science is settled."

Fine, then from now on let's ignore what activists and their detractors are saying and focus on what the actual climate scientists are saying.  Deal?

[Familyonthemove]

Just hold back the tide of scientific research and facts long enough to pump out all the lovely oil from under the receding Arctic ice.

[Cats4ever]

May I refer all of you to the following website -www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php, which lists 193 climate myths and has a logical, scientific explanation for all of them. I found it instructive.

[Ace of Pop]

How come the Waters run away n Left ships hi n dry.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[attrayant]

4 minutes ago, Ace of Pop said:

How come the Waters run away n Left ships hi n dry.
 

 

Where are you imagining this happened?

 

[RickBradford]

26 minutes ago, attrayant said:

Fine, then from now on let's ignore what activists and their detractors are saying and focus on what the actual climate scientists are saying.  Deal?

Climate scientists, if they are scientists, would never say "the science is settled." If it's "settled", then why waste money doing more research on it?

 

Climate scientists would say (and have said, many times) something like: "We have an approximate understanding of how climate works, and how humans can affect the climate, but there are still several important factors we don't fully understand."

 

Indeed, climate scientist Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of 2001 and 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report chapters, made exactly this point when he wrote in the science journal Nature, in 2007: “None of the models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state”.

 

But it is the activists who set the policy, and whose actions affect the mass of ordinary people.

 

They include Christina "Tinkerbell" Figueres, (Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, who wants to do away with capitalism), and Ottmar Edenhofer (former co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who wants to redistribute the world's wealth according to his own specifications).

 

There are hundreds more of these "science is settled" activists in positions of considerable influence.

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

Climate scientists, if they are scientists, would never say "the science is settled." If it's "settled", then why waste money doing more research on it?

 

Climate scientists would say (and have said, many times) something like: "We have an approximate understanding of how climate works, and how humans can affect the climate, but there are still several important factors we don't fully understand."

 

Indeed, climate scientist Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of 2001 and 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report chapters, made exactly this point when he wrote in the science journal Nature, in 2007: “None of the models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state”.

 

But it is the activists who set the policy, and whose actions affect the mass of ordinary people.

 

They include Christina "Tinkerbell" Figueres, (Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, who wants to do away with capitalism), and Ottmar Edenhofer (former co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who wants to redistribute the world's wealth according to his own specifications).

 

There are hundreds more of these "science is settled" activists in positions of considerable influence.

And therein lies the problem - who to believe?

 

The vast majority of us stand little chance of understanding the scientific arguments, but do understand that many involved (on both sides of the fence) have a financial interest one way or another....

[UnkleMoooose]

On 3/21/2017 at 7:35 AM, otherstuff1957 said:

"Romney was a port in the 700s. When the sea retreated and it could no longer be used for shipping, it died and was replaced by New Romney, which now lies 2 kilometres away from the sea."

 

Meanwhile, Dunwich, in Suffolk has vanished beneath the waves along with several other medieval English ports.  Does this mean that the sea level is rising in Suffolk and falling in Kent?  No, it just means that if you cherry-pick your facts instead of weighing the overall evidence you can 'prove' whatever point you want to prove.

 

Earth's climate is complex and dynamic and is affected by many factors, including the impact of human activities.  The next decade or two should show us definitively how the climate and sea level is changing.

 

BTW, shipping companies are already planning for ice-free arctic summers after 2020.

 

I just searched Dunwich on Google Maps. Dunwich is alive and well, and considerably above sea level. The Wikipedia page for the town doesn't mention any sea level rises or the old town being claimed by the sea either. Am I cherry picking?

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, halloween said:

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?

Look again.  In the last 240 years there has been a temperature rise of less than two degrees.  However since 1980 there has been a temperature rise of over 1 degree.  There is a lot of fluctuation in annual temperatures, as expected, but the trend is up and accelerating.

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

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.

It's not that simple.  Population increase has slowed down in most of the world, and in some places gone into reverse.  The big exception is Africa, so you'll have to convince a billion or so mostly poor Africans to stop having so many babies.

 

Then you'll have to convince the poor of the world that they can't have the lifestyle associated with wealth--cars, air conditioned houses, meat, goods manufactured all over the world.  That won't be easy.

 

I think it's easier to find less carbon intensive energy sources, and perhaps find cost-effective ways to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

[Ramen087]

3 hours ago, attrayant said:

If that's all you were saying, then you're not really adding much to the discussion. I think everybody knows that is how science works.  Whenever new data comes along that is more robust and better fits the observations, the hypotheses are changed to reflect it.

 

But as time goes by and no contrary evidence is forthcoming, the science becomes more "settled", which is another way of saying the hypothesis gets closer to becoming an established scientific theory.  So far, this is what's happening with climate change.

It is... so far.  However, when a scientific conclusion or series of conclusions becomes politicized and made to reflect the politically correct order of things, scientific debate can be muted. 

[attrayant]

8 minutes ago, UnkleMoooose said:

I just searched Dunwich on Google Maps. Dunwich is alive and well, and considerably above sea level. The Wikipedia page for the town doesn't mention any sea level rises or the old town being claimed by the sea either. Am I cherry picking?

 

The post you replied to is not using Dunwich as an example of sea level rise, but as an example of hinging an argument on a single (or too few) data points.  However, since you asked:

 

Ancient Cities Lost to the Seas

 

Quote

Beneath the slate-gray surface of the North Sea, about a half-mile off England’s east coast, lies the underwater town of Dunwich. Crabs and lobsters skitter along the streets where some 3,000 people walked during the town’s heyday in the Middle Ages. Fish dart through the sea sponge-ridden ruins of its churches, now partially buried in the seabed some 30 feet down.

 

 

[heybruce]

10 minutes ago, UnkleMoooose said:

I just searched Dunwich on Google Maps. Dunwich is alive and well, and considerably above sea level. The Wikipedia page for the town doesn't mention any sea level rises or the old town being claimed by the sea either. Am I cherry picking?

Did you check my reference to Heracleion, the ancient Egyptian city now ten meters under water?  It's in post 15:

 

" The ancient Egyptian city of Heracleion is now 2.5 km from shore and under ten meters of water.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heracleion "

 

Yes, you are cherry picking.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, Ramen087 said:

Sometimes all you need is... very little doubt. Then a pair of fresh eyes looks at the situation differently and a new discovery made. It may happen in this case, it may not.  Open minds...they're a wonderful thing.

Yes, remember when EVERYONE in the whole world believed the earth was flat, and the sun revolved around the earth, and anyone saying otherwise was a heretic?

The climate cause debate is far from settled.

[attrayant]

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

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.

 

Then Bill Gates is your hero.  He has advocated reducing the birth rate (through proper sanitation, improved medical facilities in the developing world and the widespread use of vaccines) to reduce stressors on the already overburdened planet.  But what has that gotten him?  All sorts of cranks who accuse him of being in favor of "forced depopulation through sterility" or "a person who supports death panels as a means of depopulation", or similar nutty conspiracy theories.

 

Damned if you do/don't.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Cats4ever said:

May I refer all of you to the following website -www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php, which lists 193 climate myths and has a logical, scientific explanation for all of them. I found it instructive.

The website that employs few scientists and nobody with a background in climate science?  This website:

 

" Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website created by a self-employed cartoonist, John Cook (who apparently pretends to be a Nazi). It is moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all form of dissent from their alarmist position. "    http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html

[thaibeachlovers]

7 minutes ago, heybruce said:

It's not that simple.  Population increase has slowed down in most of the world, and in some places gone into reverse.  The big exception is Africa, so you'll have to convince a billion or so mostly poor Africans to stop having so many babies.

 

Then you'll have to convince the poor of the world that they can't have the lifestyle associated with wealth--cars, air conditioned houses, meat, goods manufactured all over the world.  That won't be easy.

 

I think it's easier to find less carbon intensive energy sources, and perhaps find cost-effective ways to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

They already know how to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. The question all the believers should be asking is why all the governments that subscribe to man made CC  are not building a lot of such plants as we speak. Remove the CO2 and problem solved, surely?

 

BTW, population as a whole is increasing dramatically, and I believe is going to be 8 billion or so in the lifetime of young people today. 

Then you'll have to convince the poor of the world that they can't have the lifestyle associated with wealth.

The reason they can't have the lifestyle of the wealthy is that they have corrupt governments that steal the resources so the few can be wealthy, and too many people usually means there isn't enough to go around. Reduce the population and everyone will be better off.