Antartica Melting Fast

#51
#51
hog88 said:
You sir have no understanding of the long term policy goals and the importance of this product. Shame on you!
Click to expand...

Since the tax credits ran out on my flex fuel, I've pretty much said eff the ozone since it's not economically viable for me to run the stuff.

You create an engine that gets the same MPG off E85 as it does E10 or 100% gas and I'll buy it.
 
#53
#53
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...

That's so easy to say. Climate Always changes!

Not at this rate it doesn't. And not with humans having to live in it.

I encourage you to watch "Chasing Ice." It's on Netflix. The guy set up timelapse cameras for ten years in Greenland. . . And you can just see ice melt like rivers. It's disturbing.

The same thing is now happening in Antarctica. Lowlying lands like Bangladesh are already sinking . . .

Here's the thing: It's too late to stop the melting. That's a done deal. We're stuck with what's happening. Now we've got to do something about it and try to stop it from getting worse.

In short, what's done is done. We're already screwed for the next 100 hundred years. You can't stop the melt. We can try to mitigate the damage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#54
#54
volholio said:
That's so easy to say. Climate Always changes!

Not at this rate it doesn't. And not with humans having to live in it.

I encourage you to watch "Chasing Ice." It's on Netflix. The guy set up timelapse cameras for ten years in Greenland. . . And you can just see ice melt like rivers. It's disturbing.

The same thing is now happening in Antarctica. Lowlying lands like Bangladesh are already sinking . . .

Here's the thing: It's too late to stop the melting. That's a done deal. We're stuck with what's happening. Now we've got to do something about it and try to stop it from getting worse.

In short, what's done is done. We're already screwed for the next 100 hundred years. You can't stop the melt. We can try to mitigate the damage.
Click to expand...

Just going to completely ignore the last ice age?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#59
#59
hog88 said:
Obviously an anti science nut job.
Click to expand...

No, just someone who is not familiar with paleoclimatology or climatology. None of us can know everything, and on these sort of issues in particular there is a lot of misinformation flying around.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#61
#61
I'd like West Tennessee to have some kind of beach, is this possible with global warming?
 
#64
#64
Mtntrout said:
No, just someone who is not familiar with paleoclimatology or climatology. None of us can know everything, and on these sort of issues in particular there is a lot of misinformation flying around.
Click to expand...

The study of ice cores and tree rings is how, we (modern people) have ascertained that the Earth goes through periods of cooling and warming. Not every cycle mirrors previous ones. To promote man-made global warming is a political ploy. To even think that we, as humans, can have that big of an impact to affect global temperatures is naive. All of this has happened before and all at different rates. Show me the precedence in all the previous cycles that show this warming period is extraordinary. Show me concrete evidence, not theories, that show the current warming period is man-made.

Several reports have been published that contradict the exact reports you have published. Furthermore, the scientific community is rather split on the idea of man-made global warming. I am sure that you only lend credence, and legitimacy to government scientists though...


:hi:
 
#66
#66
Grand Vol said:
Since the tax credits ran out on my flex fuel, I've pretty much said eff the ozone since it's not economically viable for me to run the stuff.

You create an engine that gets the same MPG off E85 as it does E10 or 100% gas and I'll buy it.
Click to expand...

100% gas is more efficient than both those listed.

E85 is popular in the racing scene because it's burns at a higher rate and causes a cooling effect. Intake charges are cooler, thus creating more power (especially in blown applications)

My father in law tickles me, he buys gas from Walmart and wonders why his mower doesn't run right. There are so many people running the 10% mix that have no idea what they are doing to their engines.
 
#67
#67
Mtntrout said:
No, just someone who is not familiar with paleoclimatology or climatology. None of us can know everything, and on these sort of issues in particular there is a lot of misinformation flying around.
Click to expand...

Yet you state your sources are fact.
 
#68
#68
SergeantVol said:
The study of ice cores and tree rings is how, we (modern people) have ascertained that the Earth goes through periods of cooling and warming. Not every cycle mirrors previous ones. To promote man-made global warming is a political ploy. To even think that we, as humans, can have that big of an impact to affect global temperatures is naive. All of this has happened before and all at different rates. Show me the precedence in all the previous cycles that show this warming period is extraordinary. Show me concrete evidence, not theories, that show the current warming period is man-made.

Several reports have been published that contradict the exact reports you have published. Furthermore, the scientific community is rather split on the idea of man-made global warming. I am sure that you only lend credence, and legitimacy to government scientists though...


:hi:
Click to expand...

Concrete evidence is available. Where do we need to start? Do you accept carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas due to it absorbing and re-emitting long wave radiation while being transparent to invisible light? If you do not, you'll need to understand it's chemical structure and bonding, or we can do a demonstration by putting light on CO2 and a control and seeing which heats faster. This was first discovered in in the 19th century so it is pretty well established.

If we both can agree on that, I can point to multiple lines of evidence from there.

The first we will use is ice cores, since you brought it up. We live in an ice age that's been going on for the last 2 million years. People often mistaken a "glacial cycle" of expanding ice fields and glaciers with an "ice age," but any time there is persistent surface ice on Earth it is an ice age, meaning we were not in one from the end of the Cambrian all the way until the Quaternary, or some 300 million years. We live in an interglacial and have for at least 10,000 years, in which all of human civilization has occurred. In this interglacial, like in previous ones, CO2 was at around 250-275 ppm. Until the industrial revolution. For the first time since humans evolved (and in fact in millions of years), CO2 levels are in the 300+ parts per million. In fact, as of this month they are at 400 parts per million. So we can safely say this interglacial is not like all of the others.

Now, we can either a) do the math or b) monitor incoming and outcoming energy via satellite to see the impact that CO2 is having. And we have, CO2 is causing heat to build up within the Earth's systems. This is confirmed via ground weather stations, ocean buoys, and satellite readings, as well as through changes in animal and plant distributions and cycles, not to mention ice volume and cover.

If you are wondering how we know if this carbon dioxide is from us or not, we can either 1) do the math and see how much CO2 should be being produced by the amount of fuels we are burning vs how much is accumulating (it's us) or 2) looking at the carbon isotopes. Now there, are more ways, but these are the two that are the least complex. Two types of carbon isotopes, C13 and C12, exist. The ratio of C13/C12 is low in plants and other terrestrial sources whose molecules mostly have C12. It is very high in fossil fuels. Sure enough, the ratio of C13/C12 is increasing, meaning we have isotopic evidence that it is indeed from the burning of fossil fuels.

To think humans can't impact their environment is naive and ignores all of human existence. We build gardens and plant crops in deserts. We literally move mountains of Earth. We make innovate new molecules and materials. We dig canals. We domesticate and create new crops and animals. We change the weather via cloud seeding and urban heat islands. It is far more arrogant to think we don't impact the climate system, and is akin to the 17th and and 18th century belief that causing an animal to go extinct is impossible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 people
#69
#69
82_VOL_83 said:
Yet you state your sources are fact.
Click to expand...

Do not confuse not knowing everything with knowing nothing.

I offer sources and verifiable information regularly on this topic. Isn't it weird how I don't get sources and ways to verify information in return?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#71
#71
No, ice is not completely melting, so feel free to stop with the ice free earth misinformation. Land ice as melted but sea ice has grown to record heights three years running.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#74
#74
Mtntrout said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the links - since the last link is the most recent study I would think that reference should be used.

Further, I cannot not tell from the last link whether the difference between Antarctic annual rise and rest of oceans remains at 1.7 vs 1.0. Can you find that in the articles (I'm asking for assistance; not challenging you)

What's wrong with presenting best available data if it supports the point being made?
 
Last edited:
#75
#75
OrangeWayOfLife said:
No, ice is not completely melting, so feel free to stop with the ice free earth misinformation. Land ice as melted but sea ice has grown to record heights three years running.
Click to expand...

I responded to a very specific question with a specific answer. I made no claims. I gave no misinformation. I'd appreciate if you wouldn't slander.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top