webfact

The myth of melting ice and rising seas

247 posts in this topic

ID: 226   Posted (edited)

16 hours ago, JimmyJ said:

Nonsense when popularized by Malthus, even more nonsensical now.

 

"Malthus, the false prophet

The pessimistic parson and early political economist remains as wrong as ever"

http://www.economist.com/node/11374623

 

Even better - concise and erudite -

 

"Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels argued that Malthus failed to recognize a crucial difference between humans and other species. In capitalist societies, as Engels put it, scientific and technological "progress is as unlimited and at least as rapid as that of population".[10] Marx argued, even more broadly, that the growth of both a human population in toto and the "relative surplus population" within it, occurred in direct proportion to accumulation.[11]"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe

Might as well have been Groucho, as it is so far out of date.

Try this:

http://www.populationmatters.org/attenborough-talk/

 

Edited by George FmplesdaCosteedback
reference note

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

           A poster wondered why Greenland ever got inhabited by humans.  Try this for an answer:  Many folks who reside in arctic regions are able to subsist on completely animal-derived food.  Animals also provide most of their shelter and clothing needs.  In Viking days, Greenland would have been a good place to at least take a break from seafaring, and stock up on fresh water.  The reason it was named 'Greenland' was to entice settlers.  ...plus its a measure of Norse humor.

 

                   As for lakes:  there's a large lake under the Antarctic.  The Russkies detected it, and named it Lake Vostok. It's probably the most pristine large lake in the world.   The Russians were going to drill down to it.  The Brits found out and, just in time, talked the Russians into abandoning their venture, by convincing them it would risk contamination.  Since then, the Brits and Russkies have been trying to devise a way to enter and probe the lake without contaminating it.  Thus far, I don't think they've endeavored to do so.    If they asked me, I'd say 'fine, leave it in its virgin state.'   It's good to have some natural mysteries still unresolved.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, pkspeaker said:

I don't have the book, but apparently it makes a good case, here:

http://aoi.com.au/bcw/Sealevel/index.htm

 

You can see he recreated what that bay used to look like at Epesus.. theres no river there just water  same with Romney and what about the canals that used to be in Egypt..  look how far inland and where Ur in Iraq is! book makes a strong case so you can't claim FACT on the opposite point of view especially since the Vikings historical record shows settling so far north ..  There is no 'fake news' here.  

 

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

Screen-Shot-2017-03-03-at-7.01.15-AM-dow

 

Did you even read the article, he talks about the river at Ephesus and says that the "conventional" explanation is the bay was lost to silting up, which is what happened despite what you might read from the Ben Franklin Centre for Theoretical Research, which by the way is not actually a reasearch centre but just some nut jobs webpage and a PO box address.

 

Ur is on the mouth of Euphrates, the coast line moved due to silting of the river, Romney was rebuilt on reclaimed land after the harbour silted up.  And what about the canals in Egypt?  Try to find just one example that is not on the mouth of a river, somewhere that has not obviously been effected by silt, and I will entertain this further, otherwise I think it is quite clear that this is over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

           A poster wondered why Greenland ever got inhabited by humans.  Try this for an answer:  Many folks who reside in arctic regions are able to subsist on completely animal-derived food.  Animals also provide most of their shelter and clothing needs.  In Viking days, Greenland would have been a good place to at least take a break from seafaring, and stock up on fresh water.  The reason it was named 'Greenland' was to entice settlers.  ...plus its a measure of Norse humor.

 

                   As for lakes:  there's a large lake under the Antarctic.  The Russkies detected it, and named it Lake Vostok. It's probably the most pristine large lake in the world.   The Russians were going to drill down to it.  The Brits found out and, just in time, talked the Russians into abandoning their venture, by convincing them it would risk contamination.  Since then, the Brits and Russkies have been trying to devise a way to enter and probe the lake without contaminating it.  Thus far, I don't think they've endeavored to do so.    If they asked me, I'd say 'fine, leave it in its virgin state.'   It's good to have some natural mysteries still unresolved.

 

 

 

Jeff Ridley from the UK discovered lake Vostok, and it was named after the Russian ship that was used in the discovery of Antarctica.  The British, among others, advised Russia not to drill into the lake, but they did anyway, some 5 years ago, they had a contamination accident which is possibly what you are confusing, anyway they drilled again last year, this time successfully, and nothing to do with the Brits, who were there among the coalition but solely with an interest in the samples, no involvement in the drilling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

Okay, methane (CH4) in the main, not CO2, my mistake.

Are you trying to say methane is not a potential pollutant?

Have a look at this:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/12/methane/lavelle-text

I know methane is a greenhouse gas.  Based on your post I wasn't sure you did.

 

You also mentioned volcanoes and perhaps some other irrelevant nonsense.  So what?  The earth has hundreds of millions years practice at keeping things more or less in balance.  A volcano erupts, a herd of animals fart, the earth gets a little warmer, CO2 levels go up a bit, more plants grow and absorb the CO2 and things get back to normal.   There are big swings in climate over thousands of years, ice ages and such, but the pace of change is slow enough for the ecosystem to adapt.

 

However massive shocks to the system, such as the meteor strike that wiped out the dinosaurs and massive volcanic eruptions at the Siberian traps that caused the Permian extinction (60% of land based species and 96% of aquatic life driven to extinction) cause climatic change too fast for the ecosystem to adapt and there is a mass extinction. 

 

No one knows if the rapid increase of CO2 will cause such a mass extinction, but no on can say it won't.  The fact that in the two hundred years since the industrial revolution we have created CO2 levels unseen for over ten million years, and wiped out much of the plant life that would absorb the CO2, is a concern.  All preliminary indicators are that the results will be bad, and the longer we go without addressing the situation the worse things will get. 

 

Denial won't improve things.  If we greatly reduce the amount of  greenhouse gases pumped into the atmosphere and stop clear cutting tropical forests perhaps the earth is resilient enough to prevent catastrophe.  If CO2 levels keep increasing at the same rate as in the past 100 years I don't think we have much of a chance.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere#/media/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ID: 234   Posted (edited)

46 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I know methane is a greenhouse gas.  Based on your post I wasn't sure you did.

 

You also mentioned volcanoes and perhaps some other irrelevant nonsense.  So what?  The earth has hundreds of millions years practice at keeping things more or less in balance.  A volcano erupts, a herd of animals fart, the earth gets a little warmer, CO2 levels go up a bit, more plants grow and absorb the CO2 and things get back to normal.   There are big swings in climate over thousands of years, ice ages and such, but the pace of change is slow enough for the ecosystem to adapt.

 

However massive shocks to the system, such as the meteor strike that wiped out the dinosaurs and massive volcanic eruptions at the Siberian traps that caused the Permian extinction (60% of land based species and 96% of aquatic life driven to extinction) cause climatic change too fast for the ecosystem to adapt and there is a mass extinction. 

 

No one knows if the rapid increase of CO2 will cause such a mass extinction, but no on can say it won't.  The fact that in the two hundred years since the industrial revolution we have created CO2 levels unseen for over ten million years, and wiped out much of the plant life that would absorb the CO2, is a concern.  All preliminary indicators are that the results will be bad, and the longer we go without addressing the situation the worse things will get. 

 

Denial won't improve things.  If we greatly reduce the amount of  greenhouse gases pumped into the atmosphere and stop clear cutting tropical forests perhaps the earth is resilient enough to prevent catastrophe.  If CO2 levels keep increasing at the same rate as in the past 100 years I don't think we have much of a chance.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere#/media/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

As an earlier post said, everyone is an expert on this.

In my original post on this thread I said you can find "research and facts*" galore to prove whatever side you take on this subject. I like that you mention the "massive volcanic eruptions at the Siberian traps that caused the Permian extinction (60% of land based species and 96% of aquatic life driven to extinction) cause climatic change too fast for the ecosystem to adapt and there is a mass extinction" since that was the sort of event (although bigger) I was alluding too, not one small volcano in Hawaii. 

I still say we will likely starve not drown (or freeze) to death in the end.

* Try this one if you liked the last link...

http://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html

Edited by George FmplesdaCosteedback
link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

As an earlier post said, everyone is an expert on this.

In my original post on this thread I said you can find "research and facts*" galore to prove whatever side you take on this subject. I like that you mention the "massive volcanic eruptions at the Siberian traps that caused the Permian extinction (60% of land based species and 96% of aquatic life driven to extinction) cause climatic change too fast for the ecosystem to adapt and there is a mass extinction" since that was the sort of event (although bigger) I was alluding too, not one small volcano in Hawaii. 

I still say we will likely starve not drown (or freeze) to death in the end.

* Try this one if you liked the last link...

http://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html

Your latest link puts the amount of CO2 released by volcanoes to less than 3% of that released by human activity.  Why do you think that is significant?

 

The volcanic eruptions leading to the Permian extinction happened approximately 260 million years ago.  Volcanic activity of this level isn't common.  The CO2 increase from less than 300 ppm to almost 400 ppm in less than 100 years, a level last seen over ten million years ago, has never before been witnessed.  And the levels are still increasing. 

 

In summary, I maintain we have a problem of our own construct that needs to be dealt with, and you maintain "Why bother?  Maybe a volcano will wipe us out anyway."

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, heybruce said:

Your latest link puts the amount of CO2 released by volcanoes to less than 3% of that released by human activity.  Why do you think that is significant?

 

The volcanic eruptions leading to the Permian extinction happened approximately 260 million years ago.  Volcanic activity of this level isn't common.  The CO2 increase from less than 300 ppm to almost 400 ppm in less than 100 years, a level last seen over ten million years ago, has never before been witnessed.  And the levels are still increasing. 

 

In summary, I maintain we have a problem of our own construct that needs to be dealt with, and you maintain "Why bother?  Maybe a volcano will wipe us out anyway."

You misunderstand my point.

I say: much of the information is unreliable on climate change, while the elephant in the room is ignored, overpopulation.

If a concerted effort to do something about BOTH isn't made then there will most defiantly be a problem. Nobody will consider the emissions from shipping for instance, and some of the most populous countries pay only lip service to reducing output. I don't believe that flying around the world to summits in exotic locations on expense accounts and ad hoc taxation is the answer.

I contend it is not me in denial, but those that ignore the obvious.

Time for a beer :drunk:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ID: 237   Posted (edited)

13 hours ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

Did you even read the article, he talks about the river at Ephesus and says that the "conventional" explanation is the bay was lost to silting up, which is what happened despite what you might read from the Ben Franklin Centre for Theoretical Research, which by the way is not actually a reasearch centre but just some nut jobs webpage and a PO box address.

 

Ur is on the mouth of Euphrates, the coast line moved due to silting of the river, Romney was rebuilt on reclaimed land after the harbour silted up.  And what about the canals in Egypt?  Try to find just one example that is not on the mouth of a river, somewhere that has not obviously been effected by silt, and I will entertain this further, otherwise I think it is quite clear that this is over.

EfesAmphToHarbour.jpg

 

 

 

Four-metre-sea.jpg

 

The Nation editorial did not site the "Ben Franklin.."  That is just something I found on the internet that graphically illustrates some of what the Richard Guy book is saying, I have not read the book and either have you.

 

*  1st of all, you can see on all the ice cores that inter-glacial periods spike up early after the ice age termination, so that would have been thousands years ago, Egyptians Kingdom days, even before that, a period called the 'Holocene Maximum'  so that supports the notion that sea levels would have been at their highest back then..

 

* You can see how he recreated the Bay that used to be near Ephesus, Ephesus was not located near the river, the area in blue is lower elevation, it was at the lower of the blue shaded area away from the river.. water flooded into the lower area's and that created the Bay.

* I see no river near New Romney in google maps just some irrigation ditches.  There is no major river near Bruges yet all this 'siltation' happened in a few hundred years; the Netherland(lowerlands in dutch) region would be prone to flooding if sea levels were higher.

 

UrToGulf.jpg

 

Ur maybe near a river but look how far it is from the present day coast.. you think all that land comes from 'silting'?  don't you think the water may have been flooding in?  makes no sense, there is ample evidence here to support this editorial's claim of declining sea levels and you have not presented any kind of geological evidence to even dispute it, much less declare it as FACT that this is all the result of 'siltation' and that this is FAKE NEWS being published by The Nation.  Sure maybe you can say there is 'a reasonable doubt' but on the 1st couple of pages of this thread TVrs are screaming fake news..  and then there are the studies sited of increasing ice, that was REAL as well..  NO FAKE NEWS here!  WITH EVERY NEWSPAPER in the world printing this stuff about rising sea levels/melting ice ; at least there is one little newspaper that prints 1 little editorial that says "wait a minute, this stuff we print may not even be true.. we just print this stuff every week because everyone else prints it.. lol.

 

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

 

Screen-Shot-2017-03-03-at-7.01.15-AM-dow

Edited by pkspeaker
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Image of antarctic sea ice
On Sept. 19, 2014, the five-day average of Antarctic sea ice extent exceeded 20 million square kilometers for the first time since 1979, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. The red line shows the average maximum extent from 1979-2014.
Credits: NASA's Scientific Visualization Studio/Cindy Starr
 

Sea ice surrounding Antarctica reached a new record high extent this year, covering more of the southern oceans than it has since scientists began a long-term satellite record to map sea ice extent in the late 1970s. The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.

Please note, the situation in the Antarctic was "only about a third...of the rapid loss.. in the Arctic...". Furthermore, as of 2016, the ice pack in 2016 was back to previous levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, pkspeaker said:

EfesAmphToHarbour.jpg

 

 

 

Four-metre-sea.jpg

 

The Nation editorial did not site the "Ben Franklin.."  That is just something I found on the internet that graphically illustrates some of what the Richard Guy book is saying, I have not read the book and either have you.

 

*  1st of all, you can see on all the ice cores that inter-glacial periods spike up early after the ice age termination, so that would have been thousands years ago, Egyptians Kingdom days, even before that, a period called the 'Holocene Maximum'  so that supports the notion that sea levels would have been at their highest back then..

* I see no river near New Romney in google maps just some irrigation ditches.  There is no major river near Bruges yet all this 'siltation' happened in a few hundred years; the Netherland(lowerlands in dutch) region would be prone to flooding if sea levels were higher.

 

UrToGulf.jpg

 

Ur maybe near a river but look how far it is from the present day coast.. you think all that land comes from 'silting'?  don't you think the water may have been flooding in?  makes no sense, there is ample evidence here to support this editorial's claim of declining sea levels and you have not presented any kind of geological evidence to even dispute it, much less declare it as FACT that this is all the result of 'siltation' and that this is FAKE NEWS being published by The Nation.  Sure maybe you can say there is 'a reasonable doubt' but on the 1st couple of pages of this thread TVrs are screaming fake news..  and then there are the studies sited of increasing ice, that was REAL as well..  NO FAKE NEWS here!  WITH EVERY NEWSPAPER in the world printing this stuff about rising sea levels/melting ice ; at least there is one little newspaper that prints 1 little editorial that says "wait a minute, this stuff we print isn't really true.. we just print this stuff every week lol.

 

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

 

Screen-Shot-2017-03-03-at-7.01.15-AM-dow

 

Romney was on the mouth of the river Rother, Bruges is on the delta of the Rhine, the Netherlands has rather a lot of canals to deal with the fact that it would otherwise flood.   I guess you don't come from near a river mouth, I used to watch the dedgers all the time, it is the norm to have to dredge river mouths to allow ships to enter as they silt up, I also know a few small harbors in the UK that have been lost quite recently due to silt due from lack of funds for dredging.  Try London Apprentice, a well documented case of dredging stopping and the harbor silting up and leaving it where it is now, a fair walk from the sea.  I am sorry but unless you can find an example that is not on a river mouth then really this is over.  And one paper, printing the rants of a climate change denier, is not a good thing, stick with the scientific consensus, not this guy who tries to mislead you by showing you proven examples of silt causing the loss of harbors and tells you that the sea was higher regardless of the fact that just around the corner the same evidence cannot be found.  Again, how can you explain the fact that there are settlements in Sweden that would have been underwater at the time Bruges was a port?  There is no possible way it is true, it is just fake news put out to fulfill their climate change denying agenda, that is blatantly obvious to anyone who has an elementary school appreciation of geography.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like your the 'climate change denier' since you seem to think sea levels never change except for that big ol 2mm/year some climate science group is telling us. of course 'dredging' would not be as efficient in the past.. well that book & newspaper article were published & your an anonymous blog poster who thinks they don't have the right so whatever then..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, pkspeaker said:

EfesAmphToHarbour.jpg

 

 

 

Four-metre-sea.jpg

 

The Nation editorial did not site the "Ben Franklin.."  That is just something I found on the internet that graphically illustrates some of what the Richard Guy book is saying, I have not read the book and either have you.

 

*  1st of all, you can see on all the ice cores that inter-glacial periods spike up early after the ice age termination, so that would have been thousands years ago, Egyptians Kingdom days, even before that, a period called the 'Holocene Maximum'  so that supports the notion that sea levels would have been at their highest back then..

 

* You can see how he recreated the Bay that used to be near Ephesus, Ephesus was not located near the river, the area in blue is lower elevation, it was at the lower of the blue shaded area away from the river.. water flooded into the lower area's and that created the Bay.

* I see no river near New Romney in google maps just some irrigation ditches.  There is no major river near Bruges yet all this 'siltation' happened in a few hundred years; the Netherland(lowerlands in dutch) region would be prone to flooding if sea levels were higher.

 

UrToGulf.jpg

 

Ur maybe near a river but look how far it is from the present day coast.. you think all that land comes from 'silting'?  don't you think the water may have been flooding in?  makes no sense, there is ample evidence here to support this editorial's claim of declining sea levels and you have not presented any kind of geological evidence to even dispute it, much less declare it as FACT that this is all the result of 'siltation' and that this is FAKE NEWS being published by The Nation.  Sure maybe you can say there is 'a reasonable doubt' but on the 1st couple of pages of this thread TVrs are screaming fake news..  and then there are the studies sited of increasing ice, that was REAL as well..  NO FAKE NEWS here!  WITH EVERY NEWSPAPER in the world printing this stuff about rising sea levels/melting ice ; at least there is one little newspaper that prints 1 little editorial that says "wait a minute, this stuff we print may not even be true.. we just print this stuff every week because everyone else prints it.. lol.

 

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

 

Screen-Shot-2017-03-03-at-7.01.15-AM-dow

Your "ample evidence here to support this editorial's claim of declining sea levels" consist of your interpretation of satellite photos of a couple of areas, while ignoring historical accounts, the consequences of river silting and delta formation, and ignoring the numerous ancient cities around the world that are now under water.

 

I'll stick to the one I've personally visited:  Of course the center of Ephesus wasn't on the river.  Ephesus was a sprawling city with it's center connected to the port by a road.  However the river silted up, through delta formation the mouth of the river moved  miles away, and the city was abandoned.  Your unscientific, historically naive interpretation of a satellite photo doesn't change this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article reads, "Special to the Nation". I was trying to find this published anywhere else, but had no luck. It seems that he's just compiling a bunch of stuff from the deniers' publication into another article. I guess that's an easy way to make a few baht without having to work and/or think.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ID: 243   Posted (edited)

Here are 35 scientific papers that support the conclusion that sea levels were higher most of the last 7000 years.. You people meanwhile have posted nothing to contradict higher historic sea levels other than your 'opinions' ..  how much 'evidence' is enough to write in the editorial page of The Nation?  does everyone have to check your dumb opinions before they publish editorials in The Nation?

 

http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/06/35-scientific-papers-global-sea-levels-were-1-2-meters-higher-than-now-for-most-of-the-last-7000-years/#sthash.tDNOku2e.dpbs

 

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

 

Screen-Shot-2017-03-03-at-7.01.15-AM-dow

Edited by pkspeaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ID: 244   Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, pkspeaker said:

Here are 35 scientific papers that support the conclusion that sea levels were higher most of the last 7000 years.. You people meanwhile have posted nothing to contradict higher historic sea levels other than your 'opinions' ..  how much 'evidence' is enough to write in the editorial page of The Nation?  does everyone have to check your dumb opinions before they publish editorials in The Nation?

 

http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/06/35-scientific-papers-global-sea-levels-were-1-2-meters-higher-than-now-for-most-of-the-last-7000-years/#sthash.tDNOku2e.dpbs

 

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

 

Screen-Shot-2017-03-03-at-7.01.15-AM-dow

Your "35 scientific papers" show that, following a rapid rise in sea levels at the end of the last ice age, there was a slow, over a period of thousands of years, fall in sea levels.  This was while CO2 levels stayed between the 260 to 279 parts per million range.  So what?  Has anybody claimed that CO2 levels were the drivers of past ice ages or the only drivers of change to ocean levels? 

 

Among theories about what causes the most recent (starting 2.6 million years ago) cycle of ice ages is the hypothesis that declines from past levels of CO2 (CO2 concentrations were at current high levels ten million years ago, before current cycles of ice ages and when sea levels were much higher) combined with variations in the earth's inclination and position in its elliptical orbit that follow 22000 year cycles result in ice ages.  The key take away here is that when CO2 levels were last at today's levels, ice caps were smaller to non-existent and ocean levels were much higher.

 

I have no doubt that you can find 35 or more places around the world where there is evidence that sea levels have fallen relative to local land masses.  As numerous underwater cities indicate, you can also find numerous places where there is compelling evidence of local sea level rises.  However I credit you with a much better referenced post than the topic editorial.

 

In reading the NASA study about increase ice mass in the Antarctic, it's worth remembering that the Antarctic cold makes it the driest continent on earth.  Increased snowfall is due to higher temperatures, as is explained:

 

" The extra snowfall that began 10,000 years ago has been slowly accumulating on the ice sheet and compacting into solid ice over millennia, thickening the ice in East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica by an average of 0.7 inches (1.7 centimeters) per year. This small thickening, sustained over thousands of years and spread over the vast expanse of these sectors of Antarctica, corresponds to a very large gain of ice – enough to outweigh the losses from fast-flowing glaciers in other parts of the continent and reduce global sea level rise. 

 

However, this can not go on forever.  As your study states:

 

" But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”

 

In other words, if the acceleration of glacier losses continue at the present rate, the total ice mass will stop increasing and go into decline.

 

Also worth noting, from this study:

 

“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”

Edited by heybruce
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

okthen.. But the The Nation Editorial made 2 basic claims, higher historic sea levels and current ice increases in greenland & Antarctica  .. that is supported, no 'fake news' there.  if you think there is something unnatural going on beyond that, then that's fine, But in the first few pages of this thread people were saying that The Nation published a 'Fake News' article, like ie: smoking doesn't cause lungcancer .  

 

http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/06/35-scientific-papers-global-sea-levels-were-1-2-meters-higher-than-now-for-most-of-the-last-7000-years/#sthash.tDNOku2e.dpbs

 

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

 

Screen-Shot-2017-03-03-at-7.01.15-AM-dow

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ID: 246   Posted (edited)

On ‎3‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 2:58 PM, esprit said:

Irrespective of the differing points of view, the sea level rise is continuing.  The good news is that around 2090 most of Bangkok could be inundated.  The bad news is it is not happening sooner.

Bangkok was already inundated, last year.  the dam on the Chao Phraya is releasing water to keep salt water intrusion from entering Bangkok tap water plants....

today.

March 24, 2017.

 

but that dam is below it's operating level.

today.

 

March 24, 2017.

so if we're today at a tipping point... what would happen if a Larsen B at Larsen C led to a loss of as little as 10% of West Antarctica's ice sheet?

that would be more than half a meter of sea level rise... within a few months.... 

that doesn't have to be 2090.

 

Edited by maewang99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Larson B & C are near underwater volcanoes so they were melting due to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

BANGKOK 24 March 2017 17:09
Sponsors