COP24 - Global catastrophe - climate change

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Quantum Quack, Dec 3, 2018.

  1. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,448
    i thought this was supposed to be a informed discussion ?

    ice berg pop science click bait is hardly a solid foundation.

    "will more/melting ice bergs raise sea levels"
    is deliberate propaganda and scientifically as equal & dishonest as outright lying.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,776
    I was a victim, but received well needed correction.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    This was in reference to ice already floating in the ocean. Its displacement is the same frozen or melted.

    My original view was those parts of ice bergs above sea level would raise waterlevel when melting, but it makes sense that once the ice is in the water it makes no difference if frozen or melted.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,842
    happy monotreme bunny day

    ..................................................
    seriously, I expect natural sea level rise
    when remains unknown
    how much effect anthropogenic atmospheric forcing will have remains unknown
    solar cycle 25 remains unknown
    whether or not we are in another superinterglacial phase remains unknown

    some days,
    it seems that the more I know
    the more questions i have
    and, thereby
    the less I know
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    28,558
    So does everyone else.
    It's the AGW rise that's worrying folks.
    Now throw in the AGW boost - faster, and quicker to trigger, and you do know when: now.
     
  8. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,448
  9. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,536
    Note: As I have been publicly accuse of trolling by the site administrator, JamesR, I will no longer be participating in this thread or any other for some time...
     
  10. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,448
    Part of the world's largest ice shelf is melting 10 times faster than the rest, shedding light on how it might respond to climate change.

    The study of Antarctica's Ross Ice Shelf reveals that one area is melting due to relatively warm ocean water getting into a cavity under the shelf.

    The findings have implications for future sea-level rise.

    This is because the the Ross Ice Shelf plays an important role in stabilising this wider region of Antarctica.

    Details have been published in the journal Nature Geoscience.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48107497

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0356-0
    Basal melting of Ross Ice Shelf from solar heat absorption in an ice-front polynya
     
  11. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,842
    And/or, we have the Ewing and Donn 1956 theory of the causes of Ice Ages.
     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    28,558
    Relevance?
    AGW is not going to go away, you know, regardless of the causes of the Ice Ages. It's here now, and proceeding much faster than the natural warmings on record - with the acidification and so forth adding their own miseries.
     
  13. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,842
    Sorry
    If you do not know of Ewing and Donn's theory
    nor it's relevance to the end eemian
    perhaps, it will never seem relevant to you
    ...........

    (not really my problem)
     
  14. Marathon-man Registered Member

    Messages:
    33
    -The entire world including the first and the third world share the same atmosphere, to some degree the same oceans -which are linked to each other. Pollution from the 3rd world effects all.

    -The developing world contains the bulk of mankind. They have some of the world's most diverse ecologies. They also have some of the oldest civilizations, which means ancient methods are entrenched.

    -This world is close to the Equator and the population is so young that they will continue to multiply faster than the first world.

    -Because they are poor and because they have such massive reserves of cheap oil and coal they will burn that before using more expensive alternatives.

    -The first world has the technology for renewable energy & needs to transfer it to the developing world - for free!
     
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    28,558
    AGW is not going to go away, regardless of Ewing and Donn's theory of the causes of the Ice Ages. It's here now, and proceeding much faster than the natural warmings on record - with the acidification and so forth adding their own miseries.
     
    billvon and Quantum Quack like this.
  16. Benson Registered Member

    Messages:
    39
    This is the part that annoys me with this climate change topic. Man has only kept records for X number of years and in this period of time, the tornado record in Illinois is 27. But what about a thousand years before this, or 10,000? Who knows, in the same area but many thousands of years ago, Illinois may experienced 127 tornados, or 200+.

    So when I hear rainfall broke records, or tornados, sea levels etc... it makes my eyes roll.
     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    28,558
    Because if lots of time happened that you don't know anything about, AGW is no big deal?
     
  18. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,820
    Which is the "developing" world?
    In Africa and South America, old civilizations and entrenched methods have already been disrupted by colonization.
    But, now you mention it, some of those ancient methods are one helluva lot more sustainable than modern methods.
    Except that epidemics and wars and climate events also affect larger numbers of people, and the life expectancy is lower, and the individual carbon footprint is about one tenth that of a western industrial person.

    To some extent, yes, but nowhere near to the extent that developed nations do. Unless you count China as a developing country, but it doesn't qualify for the other parts of the description.
    Moreover, some developing countries have successful programs of renewable energy production already in place. Supported by their own governments, far more substantially than The US, Canadian and UK governments have been doing.
    One recent setback - and it's a big, insurmountable one - is the blue wave - all the far right, nationalist, regressive parties coming to power world wide. They could end up killing us all.

    That technology is out of the box. Funny story: people in the US are having to pay more for their solar arrays because of Trump's tariffs on China, where most of the equipment is manufactured. However, the greeners of America are not fazed.

    How is that relevant?
    I know how next month's tornado and wildfire are likely to affect me; I'm not much interested in one that ripped through here 10,000 years ago.
     

Share This Page