Antartica Melting Fast

#27
#27
82_VOL_83 said:
Dude,Lotta south GA going to have to disappear for that to be south GA.
Click to expand...

Hey man, if it's lower than East Ridge (which I consider south Chattanooga) then it is South Georgia to me.

Besides, if all of Florida most of Georgia including Athens and most of Alabama including Auburn And Tuscaloosa have to flood, who am i to nitpick.
 
#28
#28
Why couldn't we get lucky and have it flood California?

But then again, I think having those lunatics in one spot is pretty handy. I couldn't imagine them spreading out across the US.

Never mind, carry on and all that.
 
#29
#29
volholio said:
It was from a scientific Journal from actual scientists who study this for a living: We've known the "north pole" has been melting at an alarming rate. We also knew the West side of Antartica--down south--was melting quickly. We didn't know the East side of Antartica was melting this quickly. Now we do.

Ocean access to a cavity beneath Totten Glacier in East Antarctica : Nature Geoscience
Click to expand...

You must forgive the right wing loons on this forum. They do not believe in science.........ever. Sheep. Cue the Prius jokes, you must forgive them for that as well, they are not particularly clever but they all get a kick out of it without realizing that the joke is on them. There is a great Climate Change thread where the Climate Science Deniers get absolutely owned - it's a great read if you have the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#30
#30
TN Ribs said:
You must forgive the right wing loons on this forum. They do not believe in science.........ever. Sheep. Cue the Prius jokes, you must forgive them for that as well, they are not particularly clever but they all get a kick out of it without realizing that the joke is on them. There is a great Climate Change thread where the Climate Science Deniers get absolutely owned - it's a great read if you have the time.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you couldn't joke about the Prius...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#31
#31
BartW said:
PRATT

Ice sheets (land ice) and sea ice are not the same thing. The Antarctic ice sheets, as noted by OP, are melting fast (just like the vast majority of land ice around the world).

Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?
Click to expand...

Not trying to start something but why is this statement truncated at 1995?

Antarctic sea ice has shown long term growth since satellites began measurements in 1979. This is an observation that has been often cited as proof against global warming. However, rarely is the question raised: why is Antarctic sea ice increasing? The implicit assumption is it must be cooling around Antarctica. This is decidedly not the case. In fact, the Southern Ocean has been warming faster than the rest of the world's oceans. Globally from 1955 to 1995, oceans have been warming at 0.1°C per decade. In contrast, the Southern Ocean has been warming at 0.17°C per decade. Not only is the Southern Ocean warming, it is warming faster than the global trend.
Click to expand...

Clearly data exists to take this statement to at least within a year of now - why stop the statement 20 years ago?

Could it be the rate of warming between 1955 and 1995 is significantly different than from 1995 to present?

Is there any cherry picking here?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#32
#32
TN Ribs said:
You must forgive the right wing loons on this forum. They do not believe in science.........ever. Sheep. Cue the Prius jokes, you must forgive them for that as well, they are not particularly clever but they all get a kick out of it without realizing that the joke is on them. There is a great Climate Change thread where the Climate Science Deniers get absolutely owned - it's a great read if you have the time.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure they deny gravity. AMIRITE?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#33
#33
volinbham said:
Not trying to start something but why is this statement truncated at 1995?



Clearly data exists to take this statement to at least within a year of now - why stop the statement 20 years ago?

Could it be the rate of warming between 1955 and 1995 is significantly different than from 1995 to present?

Is there any cherry picking here?
Click to expand...

Cherry picking? In politically agendized science? Nah.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#34
#34
TN Ribs said:
You must forgive the right wing loons on this forum. They do not believe in science.........ever. Sheep. Cue the Prius jokes, you must forgive them for that as well, they are not particularly clever but they all get a kick out of it without realizing that the joke is on them. There is a great Climate Change thread where the Climate Science Deniers get absolutely owned - it's a great read if you have the time.
Click to expand...

You forgot to blue font this whole post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#35
#35
  • Like
Reactions: 7 people
#36
#36
Septic said:
Weak bro... Go full retard or go home, here's how to properly 'agendize' something.

Boston Snow a liberal conspiracy? Here, let Fox n' Skanks help you decide. Also, this is clearly more proof that Jesus is a lib. Or is it? I'm confused.

Fox News host Andrea Tantaros: Snow days are a liberal plot to strip schools of religious holidays
Click to expand...

That is more like manufacturing a conspiracy from whole cloth. Not quite the same as being a "scientists" and then conveniently disregarding the 20 most recent years of findings while accepting the previous 40 years' data.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#37
#37
#39
#39
I love how the idiots around here like to sneer and claim that religious folks don't believe in science.

As if anyone who actually believes in God completely shuns science in any form. You can't carry a balance of both I guess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#40
#40
volinbham said:
Not trying to start something but why is this statement truncated at 1995?



Clearly data exists to take this statement to at least within a year of now - why stop the statement 20 years ago?

Could it be the rate of warming between 1955 and 1995 is significantly different than from 1995 to present?

Is there any cherry picking here?
Click to expand...

Not cherry-picking, the most robust study done for a long while was published in 2000, using a 1955 to 1995 data set: http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/noaa_docum...articles/science_2000_warming-world-ocean.pdf

And this is a study that gets referenced a lot in IPCC and federal documents. There are now more recent studies with data sets going into the 2000's, which do not conflict with the trends discussed here.

Warming of the world ocean, 1955–2003 - Levitus - 2005 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems - Levitus - 2009 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library


This isn't the answer the majority of folks on this forum want, but it is the truthful one. There is no fountain of ever-flowing research dollars, so there are often data set cutoffs or delays from collection to analysis and publishing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#41
#41
Grand Vol said:
I love how the idiots around here like to sneer and claim that religious folks don't believe in science.

As if anyone who actually believes in God completely shuns science in any form. You can't carry a balance of both I guess.
Click to expand...

The ones who balance it aren't rejecting evolution and climate change. Facts don't need balancing, they stand on their own merit. If you feel compelled to try to knock them down to prop up a perspective or perception of your God and the universe, don't delude yourself into thinking you are balancing anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#42
#42
Grand Vol said:
I love how the idiots around here like to sneer and claim that religious folks don't believe in science.

As if anyone who actually believes in God completely shuns science in any form. You can't carry a balance of both I guess.
Click to expand...

Aside from there being some obvious conflicts with how it all originally came about in the first place and why we're here I don't see any particular clash between science and religion. Churches have plenty of doctors/chemists/etc.

I'm a bit curious to see the question VB posed about having the cited information he quoted stop 20 years ago addressed. It's pretty much impossible to accept more recent information isn't available.
 
#43
#43
I believe in God and climate change. Climate change is a naturally occurring phenomena. History shows it. Do I think climate change is purely due to man-made causes? No. Periods of global warming and cooling are naturally occuring. The "little Ice Age" ended in 1850 and lasted for a couple hundred years.
 
#44
#44
SergeantVol said:
I believe in God and climate change. Climate change is a naturally occurring phenomena. History shows it. Do I think climate change is purely due to man-made causes? No. Periods of global warming and cooling are naturally occuring. The "little Ice Age" ended in 1850 and lasted for a couple hundred years.
Click to expand...

OMG! You're a denier!

Sneer, sneer, giggle, giggle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#45
#45
Mtntrout said:
The ones who balance it aren't rejecting evolution and climate change. Facts don't need balancing, they stand on their own merit. If you feel compelled to try to knock them down to prop up a perspective or perception of your God and the universe, don't delude yourself into thinking you are balancing anything.
Click to expand...

And...there it is.

So I can dismiss a coupe of things, which automatically puts me into the "loony religious nutjob" category.

Nice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#46
#46
SergeantVol said:
I believe in God and climate change. Climate change is a naturally occurring phenomena. History shows it. Do I think climate change is purely due to man-made causes? No. Periods of global warming and cooling are naturally occuring. The "little Ice Age" ended in 1850 and lasted for a couple hundred years.
Click to expand...

Obviously an anti science nut job.
 
#47
#47
SergeantVol said:
I believe in God and climate change. Climate change is a naturally occurring phenomena. History shows it. Do I think climate change is purely due to man-made causes? No. Periods of global warming and cooling are naturally occuring. The "little Ice Age" ended in 1850 and lasted for a couple hundred years.
Click to expand...

You must be burned at the stake, you denialist. We have no room for those who question. #bluefont
 
#48
#48
Just walked out of an alternative fuels workshop. You want to talk about science deniers, bring up the science of the inefficiency of corn ethanol.
 
#49
#49
hog88 said:
Just walked out of an alternative fuels workshop. You want to talk about science deniers, bring up the science of the inefficiency of corn ethanol.
Click to expand...

I flat refuse to run E85 in my vehicle. I just can't justify losing 5 MPG at only 10 cents a gallon cheaper.
 
#50
#50
Grand Vol said:
I flat refuse to run E85 in my vehicle. I just can't justify losing 5 MPG at only 10 cents a gallon cheaper.
Click to expand...

You sir have no understanding of the long term policy goals and the importance of this product. Shame on you!
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top