webfact

The myth of melting ice and rising seas

328 posts in this topic

46 minutes ago, pkspeaker said:

I'm not disputing climate change, I'm saying there is hard evidence that calls into question the simplistic notion that 'ice is melting and causing sea levels to rise'

The NY Times article from 1989 is proof that over time these agencies are changing their story.  A majority, when most of funding goes to scientists with that point of view, is no guarantee. and you can see from notrickszone there are alot of studies questioning the official line..

 

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


http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/15/scientists-greenland-is-now-much-colder-with-more-advanced-ice-sheet-margins-than-90-of-the-last-7500-years/#sthash.Prr6kAwJ.oZ3nhxvN.dpbs

 

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

The same three studies that have been repeatedly addressed--they don't prove what you claim they prove. 

 

There is also a lot of money in climate change denial science, funded by the Koch brothers, oil companies and others.  The difference between government funding of research and research funded by interest groups is that government funded research collects data the draws conclusions supported by the data.  Interest groups draw conclusions then looks for data that supports their preferred conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@pkspeaker: People have responded to those things already, but you keep posting them again and again, and it makes it difficult to read through the thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ID: 318   Posted (edited)

11 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. Sea ice is, surprise surprise, frozen sea water. If a zillion cubic meters of sea water is frozen, when it melts, the sea level will be exactly the same as before the water was frozen ( discounting other influences.

In the short term, that is correct.

 

However, the now open ocean absorbs a far greater percentage of oncoming insolation than ice. This positive feedback keeps increasing the temp - kicking in more positve feedback such as less snow in winters - for many, winter is now mostly clear & cold, snow free but with the odd snow storm, instead of months of snow of previous decades.

 

Further temp increases will blow the Siberian methane volcanos, more temp increases. Then Greenland & Antarctic ice caps - Greenland alone will be good for 7 M sea level rise -

 

 

Edited by DekDaeng

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The algae is harvested to make fuel for IC engines. As it binds atmospheric CO2 it does not contribute to rising CO2 levels when used as a fuel.

With your acceptance of deforestation as a natural conclusion to population expansion,

Not just deforestation; other species are being eliminated, the seas are being overfished, the plastic waste in the ocean is dooming aquatic species, wild animals are being killed off for food in Africa, large areas of Africa are becoming desert, the whales are under threat, etc etc. Mankind needs to learn how to live without destroying every other species that is unfortunate enough to be in it's way.

Shawn and you are both correct, But you are also both wrong. No one is going to do anything because it does not have a short term profit gain.

Not one of the major bankers, investors, money launderers or any financial institution has any interest in any programme that does not deliver the goodies tomorrow. So climate change theory is doomed even if 100% of scientists confirmed it. You, we, I need to show that there is profit to be gained by something positive about mitigating the looming high rise temperatures. Not going to happen, humans will become extinct except some loonies believe the Lord will come and save them. Sigh

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, spiderorchid said:

Shawn and you are both correct, But you are also both wrong. No one is going to do anything because it does not have a short term profit gain.

Not one of the major bankers, investors, money launderers or any financial institution has any interest in any programme that does not deliver the goodies tomorrow. So climate change theory is doomed even if 100% of scientists confirmed it. You, we, I need to show that there is profit to be gained by something positive about mitigating the looming high rise temperatures. Not going to happen, humans will become extinct except some loonies believe the Lord will come and save them. Sigh

Ah! It's all happened before and Noah built the Arc...

Two by two might be more difficult though, with the LBGTs wanting their own toilets!

:burp:

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Ah! It's all happened before and Noah built the Arc...

Two by two might be more difficult though, with the LBGTs wanting their own toilets!

:burp:

It is more than Lesbians, Gays Bisexuals Trans sexuals Queer,  Intersexual, it now includes P - paedophiles, and the list keeps growing. Who would have thought that hetro was not in the mix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, janhkt said:

If we make it expensive, they will. That's the only thing people undestand - and that's the exact reason why for example automakers and the energy sector is lobbying against the notion of their business having a serious impact on the planet.

I'm all for banning every private car in every city in the world, but it's not going to happen. Likewise, making cars more expensive won't make an iota of difference. There are already a zillion cars in existence and they ain't going away soon. People will just drive older cars. Singapore makes it as difficult as possible to buy cars, but it doesn't stop new ones being bought all the time.

Compulsion would work, but I can't see that happening in any democracy.

Cars are both the best and the worst things ever invented.

 

Share this post


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

Shawn and you are both correct, But you are also both wrong. No one is going to do anything because it does not have a short term profit gain.

Not one of the major bankers, investors, money launderers or any financial institution has any interest in any programme that does not deliver the goodies tomorrow. So climate change theory is doomed even if 100% of scientists confirmed it. You, we, I need to show that there is profit to be gained by something positive about mitigating the looming high rise temperatures. Not going to happen, humans will become extinct except some loonies believe the Lord will come and save them. Sigh

Have to agree. Democracy allows the rich to influence everything and they care only about money. Perhaps it's time for another revolution.

But you are also both wrong.

Hmmmmm. I have never said that anything would be done. I have put forth solutions, but no one is going to implement enforced sterilisation or ban 99% of cars etc.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DekDaeng said:

In the short term, that is correct.

 

However, the now open ocean absorbs a far greater percentage of oncoming insolation than ice. This positive feedback keeps increasing the temp - kicking in more positve feedback such as less snow in winters - for many, winter is now mostly clear & cold, snow free but with the odd snow storm, instead of months of snow of previous decades.

 

Further temp increases will blow the Siberian methane volcanos, more temp increases. Then Greenland & Antarctic ice caps - Greenland alone will be good for 7 M sea level rise -

 

 

Given that our lords and masters must be aware of that, the most interesting question is why they are doing so little to change the prophesized outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2017 at 5:03 AM, heybruce said:

Your first reference provides evidence that there were 35 places around the world that once were higher, not that global sea levels are falling.  The number of underwater cities from the Mediterranean to Samoa indicate otherwise:  http://www.urbanghostsmedia.com/2015/01/10-lost-underwater-cities-ancient-world-sunken-civilisations/4/  

 

Increased snow over Antarctica described in your second reference is evidence of warmer weather, which allows for more precipitation.  If the weather keeps getting warmer it will eventually lead to the amount of ice melting exceeding the amount accumulating.  Also, from you source:

 

“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.”

 

Your Greenland reference is hardly reassuring.  Basically it says that since Greenland has more ice now than it did thousands of years ago, we shouldn't worry about increased melting over the last hundred years.   I'd like to get a qualified second opinion on that.

If the weather keeps getting warmer it will eventually lead to the amount of ice melting exceeding the amount accumulating.

It's just as possible that if the temperature rose enough, precipitation ( snow ) in Antarctica would exceed the rate of melt.

Go back far enough, and there was no ice cap on Antarctica. All there today fell as snow a long time ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

example trucks removing their particle filters for a few extra HP, leaving a thick trail of smoke behind.

Hmmmmm. Given most of the trucks/ buses I see in Bkk are pretty ancient, I doubt they ever had "particle filters".

Anyway, given that there are zillions of cars and only thousands of trucks, I think you are looking at the wrong vehicles to blame.

 

Why is it that everyone wants to blame drivers of vehicles, when oil companies have been burning off excess gas on their oil wells for generations. Why are they not being required to save the gas to be used?

Granted, old trucks (and buses) are greater sinners. I am noting the removal of particle filters, because it's a deliberate action.

 

The number of motorized vehicles surpassed one billion in 2010. I'm pretty damn sure they consume more fuel than the world's oil rigs is burning, although I agree that it IS a waste.

 

I'm driving a car myself, so not trying to take a holier than thou stance.

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 25 June 2017 07:16
Sponsors