The boogey man of climate change - Page 2 - Survivalist Forum
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Notices

Manmade and Natural Disasters Drought, Diseases, Earthquakes, Riots, Wars

Advertise Here
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ashen Horse Update Bret F Books, Movies & Stories 8 06-15-2019 03:49 PM
U.S. Energy Dept balks at Trump request for names on climate change woodzman Political News and Discussion 56 12-22-2016 09:23 AM
trade war starting with Climate Change? Justme11 General Discussion 27 11-21-2016 02:29 PM
Mountain Man you out there? : ) MayDay Books, Movies & Stories 12 10-26-2016 07:07 PM

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-30-2019, 12:45 PM
WilliamAshley WilliamAshley is offline
Birds of a Feather
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,535
Thanks: 97
Thanked 847 Times in 514 Posts
Default



Advertise Here

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hick Industries View Post
I see that no one has explained glacier formation, and the affect of floating shore ice on ocean levels.

Antarctica is a Big damn continent, with very high mountain ranges. When a portion of the glacier ice gets pushed from these mountains, down to the ocean level, this indicates that more ice has accumulated in the mountains, not less.

If the total amount of glacier ice in Antarctica was being reduced, you would see the ice melting back from the ocean shore, leaving the terminal moraine behind.

You might try studying geology.
Nah I actually have spent hundreds of hours on the Antarctic ice issue and it is you that really doesn't get it.


Antarctica is breaking apart, and the glaciers in some areas are prone to rapid loss --- not melt, due to sediment and undercarriage not being bedrock.

Normally glaciers replace the iceshelf - but that is not from rapid breakup that is from slow decay scenarios. Rapid loss occurs at a rate that the iceformation cannot be replaced at the same rate of loss to breakup and slippage.

Basic math if 10 square miles of ice go into the ocean but only 1square miles of ice is uptaken back into glacier formation then 9 square miles were lost.

Do the math.

I've been tracking this for over a decade now and am very familiar with all the science not just one piece of the puzzle. You are trivializing it.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to WilliamAshley For This Useful Post:
Old 03-30-2019, 12:47 PM
WilliamAshley WilliamAshley is offline
Birds of a Feather
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,535
Thanks: 97
Thanked 847 Times in 514 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metcalf View Post
Technically, I believe floating ice has already done all the 'raising' of the ocean that will happen the second it starts floating. There would be a VERY small change in salinity that effects things, but it would be almost negotiable as far as displacement or volume. Most ice shelves are already floating structures, including a lot of the polar ice, especially in the north.
This is true in part but not really. Normally a portion of icesheets are on water so the displacement in mass is there.. but warm water has more volume than cold water. Its not mass displacement but chemical volume differentiation. Icesheets rest ontop of water so the full effects of displacement do not occur in terms of checmical space, only things like displacement by mass.

https://www.businessinsider.com/sea-...orleans-2015-6

Quote:
A submerged object displaces a volume of liquid equal to the volume of the object
iceshelves aren't submerged, the rest on the surface of the water and land(including seafloor) predominantly. If the miles of ice were under water fully then you would be right for the volume displacement but water and ice volume change, one of the chemical properties of H20 is that its volume as a liquid changes based on its temperature. This with metals is a bit like thermal expansion and contraction that you may be familiar with. Basic engineering science.


Nah the breakup increases earths sea levels. Just basic stuff here. Icesheet breakup is and will continue to have an effect on sea levels. The glaciers will have an even greater effect, including land movement(sort of good but sort of bad as uplift may cause a hell of a lot more earthquakes.
Quick reply to this message
Old 03-30-2019, 07:39 PM
Metcalf's Avatar
Metcalf Metcalf is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Southwest Comirado
Posts: 4,414
Thanks: 1,454
Thanked 7,076 Times in 2,800 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamAshley View Post
This is true in part but not really. Normally a portion of icesheets are on water so the displacement in mass is there.. but warm water has more volume than cold water. Its not mass displacement but chemical volume differentiation. Icesheets rest ontop of water so the full effects of displacement do not occur in terms of checmical space, only things like displacement by mass.
No....it is very true. I know you don't want to admit how true it is.

You are neglecting to mention the volume change that makes ice floats also. Water has volume double shift at 4C.

Mass displacement of the floating ice has the vast MAJORITY of the work done to 'rise' the ocean level the WEEEEEEEE little bit already. Thermal expansion is a secondary effect, and a VERY small one. To have that make a difference you have to heat/cool ALL the water up in the ocean. That takes a very long time because of the volume. One could also argue that the ice melting can cause a cooling effect on the surrounding water also.

I know you want to keep things all scary and everything for the sheep, but you aren't getting that junk past me.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Metcalf For This Useful Post:
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 03-31-2019, 12:07 AM
aramchek's Avatar
aramchek aramchek is offline
Prepared
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 15,749
Thanks: 1,718
Thanked 18,477 Times in 8,483 Posts
Default

For us ordinary people, it doesn't really matter whether climate change is natural/cyclic or man-made. You need to be able to adapt. The worst example in the 20th century was the dustbowl time, which was coupled with drought, the economic Depression, and poor agricultural practices. There's alot of industry propaganda here that preys on weak minds, trying to deflect blame. I think they do a pretty good job, since saturation propaganda pays off -- and the "opposition" aren't terribly believable on several others issues, such as 2A.

For my part, I believe climate change to be real. I trust the majority scientific opinion. And I do not believe that 6-7 billion hairless apes have no impact on this planet whatsoever. Your mileage may vary, or you may succumb to industry propaganda more easily. But don't agree with that crap simply because the political opposition are obvious hacks. Go with science and common sense. Humans have made widespread changes to the planet, and it's well known that even cities are warmer than the surrounding countryside.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to aramchek For This Useful Post:
Old 03-31-2019, 09:31 AM
Moccasin's Avatar
Moccasin Moccasin is online now
Mod Certified PITA!
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 10,841
Thanks: 31,047
Thanked 18,485 Times in 7,092 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big-D View Post
Unless you can achieve immortality, that's a given.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Moccasin For This Useful Post:
Old 04-01-2019, 12:35 AM
WilliamAshley WilliamAshley is offline
Birds of a Feather
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,535
Thanks: 97
Thanked 847 Times in 514 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metcalf View Post
No....it is very true. I know you don't want to admit how true it is.

You are neglecting to mention the volume change that makes ice floats also. Water has volume double shift at 4C.

Mass displacement of the floating ice has the vast MAJORITY of the work done to 'rise' the ocean level the WEEEEEEEE little bit already. Thermal expansion is a secondary effect, and a VERY small one. To have that make a difference you have to heat/cool ALL the water up in the ocean. That takes a very long time because of the volume. One could also argue that the ice melting can cause a cooling effect on the surrounding water also.

I know you want to keep things all scary and everything for the sheep, but you aren't getting that junk past me.
I'm sorry are you trying to start a debate about whether or not the ice of Antarctica melting will raise sea levels with me?

Seriously dude.

http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/que...likely-happen/

*shakes head*

*waits*
no.

Get some basic education and come back and we can talk.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to WilliamAshley For This Useful Post:
Old 04-01-2019, 12:49 AM
Metcalf's Avatar
Metcalf Metcalf is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Southwest Comirado
Posts: 4,414
Thanks: 1,454
Thanked 7,076 Times in 2,800 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamAshley View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metcalf View Post
No....it is very true. I know you don't want to admit how true it is.

You are neglecting to mention the volume change that makes ice floats also. Water has volume double shift at 4C.

Mass displacement of the floating ice has the vast MAJORITY of the work done to 'rise' the ocean level the WEEEEEEEE little bit already. Thermal expansion is a secondary effect, and a VERY small one. To have that make a difference you have to heat/cool ALL the water up in the ocean. That takes a very long time because of the volume. One could also argue that the ice melting can cause a cooling effect on the surrounding water also.

I know you want to keep things all scary and everything for the sheep, but you aren't getting that junk past me.
I'm sorry are you trying to start a debate about whether or not the ice of Antarctica melting will raise sea levels with me?

Seriously dude.

http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/que...likely-happen/

*shakes head*

*waits*
no.

Get some basic education and come back and we can talk.
Basic? Sure. Ok....I'm back.

What part about what I posted about FLOATING ice was wrong? This post was started about the danger of large ice sheets breaking off. Then people wanted to say how much they where going to raise the sea level by whatever amount.

The basic physics behind that phenomenon is that as soon as the ice is floating. It has done all the rasing of the ocean it is going to do. The facts are that as soon as the ice floats....even before it caves off the supporting structure....has done all the raising it is going to do by a large majority.

Now if you want to talk about ice that is currently on top of a land structure, which is much different, go ahead.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Metcalf For This Useful Post:
Old 04-01-2019, 01:19 AM
ajole ajole is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 9,703
Thanks: 7,678
Thanked 21,871 Times in 6,952 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamAshley View Post
Nah I actually have spent hundreds of hours on the Antarctic ice issue and it is you that really doesn't get it.


Antarctica is breaking apart, .....
Wait....you spent hundreds of hours on this issue....and you STILL think Antarctica is going to "break apart"?

Antarctica is DIRT. It is NOT breaking apart anytime in the next few eons.

It is covered by ice, that ice may melt and it may "break" off the edges and float way, or it might just melt in place and we'll have....lot of really interesting water features.

But you DO understand, from all your study, and from the link you provided and then so smugly pretended it said something to back your BS.....

"Global sea levels are predicted to rise by 20-60 mm by 2100,"

For the metrically challenged, that's almost 2.3 INCHES!!!!!!!!!! In the next 80 years!!!!!!!!!

OMG, someone DO something!!!!!!!



Oh, but wait....there's more....

"The West Antarctic Ice Sheet rests on ground below sea level (see Marine Ice Sheet Instability Hypothesis), which makes it potentially unstable[4]. It is possible that this could collapse rapidly and raise sea levels by 3.2 m, possibly within 500 YEARS.

OMG!!!! It MIGHT....if the climate does something crazy and just keeps getting warmer for 500 years, like it has done many time in the past without ANY help from humans....it just MIGHT, cause the oceans to rise 15 feet.

In 500 years!!!!!!

Or it might not.

Regardless, I have this crazy idea, that Mike Lee had it right, when he said BABIES are the answer. Because I'm thinking, that with a little effort, we could produce 3 or 4 people out of the BILLIONS that will be born over the next 100 years, that could come up with an answer!!!!

Oh, but....wait.

Here's a crazy idea.

What if we just did something like they have done in the Netherlands? They've been below sea level for generations. They seem to not be in panic mode.

Or maybe, we could do something like, oh I don't know...move.

You don't need to move everyone...only the people that insisted on being RIGHT on the water. If we start NOW, we could have it done LONG before the sea level rises 3", much less 3 feet.


So here's my real question.

If this is REALLY problem...why are we trying to force BILLIONS of people to change their lives...when we could solve the problem by having just a few million change THEIR lives, by moving their hineys a few feet up the coast?

Once they are gone, we can go to work on the ports, docks, and other stuff.

Just let me know when THAT plan gets into the discussion, because I am REALLY tired of people trying to force me to do something, to solve THEIR problem.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to ajole For This Useful Post:
Old 04-01-2019, 01:37 AM
WilliamAshley WilliamAshley is offline
Birds of a Feather
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,535
Thanks: 97
Thanked 847 Times in 514 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metcalf View Post
Basic? Sure. Ok....I'm back.

What part about what I posted about FLOATING ice was wrong? This post was started about the danger of large ice sheets breaking off. Then people wanted to say how much they where going to raise the sea level by whatever amount.

The basic physics behind that phenomenon is that as soon as the ice is floating. It has done all the rasing of the ocean it is going to do. The facts are that as soon as the ice floats....even before it caves off the supporting structure....has done all the raising it is going to do by a large majority.

Now if you want to talk about ice that is currently on top of a land structure, which is much different, go ahead.
You have no clue what an ice shelf is.
Quick reply to this message
Old 04-01-2019, 01:38 AM
WilliamAshley WilliamAshley is offline
Birds of a Feather
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,535
Thanks: 97
Thanked 847 Times in 514 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajole View Post
Wait....you spent hundreds of hours on this issue....and you STILL think Antarctica is going to "break apart"?

Antarctica is DIRT. It is NOT breaking apart anytime in the next few eons.

It is covered by ice, that ice may melt and it may "break" off the edges and float way, or it might just melt in place and we'll have....lot of really interesting water features.

But you DO understand, from all your study, and from the link you provided and then so smugly pretended it said something to back your BS.....

"Global sea levels are predicted to rise by 20-60 mm by 2100,"

For the metrically challenged, that's almost 2.3 INCHES!!!!!!!!!! In the next 80 years!!!!!!!!!

OMG, someone DO something!!!!!!!



Oh, but wait....there's more....

"The West Antarctic Ice Sheet rests on ground below sea level (see Marine Ice Sheet Instability Hypothesis), which makes it potentially unstable[4]. It is possible that this could collapse rapidly and raise sea levels by 3.2 m, possibly within 500 YEARS.

OMG!!!! It MIGHT....if the climate does something crazy and just keeps getting warmer for 500 years, like it has done many time in the past without ANY help from humans....it just MIGHT, cause the oceans to rise 15 feet.

In 500 years!!!!!!

Or it might not.

Regardless, I have this crazy idea, that Mike Lee had it right, when he said BABIES are the answer. Because I'm thinking, that with a little effort, we could produce 3 or 4 people out of the BILLIONS that will be born over the next 100 years, that could come up with an answer!!!!

Oh, but....wait.

Here's a crazy idea.

What if we just did something like they have done in the Netherlands? They've been below sea level for generations. They seem to not be in panic mode.

Or maybe, we could do something like, oh I don't know...move.

You don't need to move everyone...only the people that insisted on being RIGHT on the water. If we start NOW, we could have it done LONG before the sea level rises 3", much less 3 feet.


So here's my real question.

If this is REALLY problem...why are we trying to force BILLIONS of people to change their lives...when we could solve the problem by having just a few million change THEIR lives, by moving their hineys a few feet up the coast?

Once they are gone, we can go to work on the ports, docks, and other stuff.

Just let me know when THAT plan gets into the discussion, because I am REALLY tired of people trying to force me to do something, to solve THEIR problem.
You have no idea how ice exists in Antarctica. You have no idea the composition of Antarctica under its ice.

Again not wasting my time teaching you guys, go educate yourselves and stop reducing the intelligence of this discussion.

I would end up wasting my time showing you how retarded you both are.

I really have nothing to prove here.


You wanna be ignorant you can. Hopefully you clue in that it isn't a linear progression and the loss the ice shelves that are breaking apart increase the rate of breakup of antarcticas ice.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/e...ng-antarctica/

Enjoy your ignorance.

The issue just isn't melt from rainwater like Greenland. Antarctica is shifting and is not actually all sea but there are fresh water pools under the ice, the continent is shifting both on land and in sea (yeah continents go under water) I can just look at what you are writing and I realize how little you know about what you are talking about.

Again its more about me not wanting to waste my time engaging you because it makes me feel retarded talking about this with you because your level of knowledge is so faulty.

If you want to throw projections around I suggest you post up a citation to that. Fact is they are finding out how wrong they were every couple weeks and it keeps getting worse because things like under water motion, soft sediments, and surface increases and gravity changes in addition to a host of other issues are making the models more and more precarious. Its the feedback loop.

The issues in Antarctica are not the same as those facing the arctic. They are related but different effects.

I'll get back to you in three years. we can talk again.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to WilliamAshley For This Useful Post:
Old 04-01-2019, 07:56 AM
mtnairkin mtnairkin is offline
Homesteader
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: State of confusion
Posts: 4,045
Thanks: 11,709
Thanked 5,919 Times in 2,650 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamAshley View Post


I'll get back to you in three years. we can talk again.



Do you promise?
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mtnairkin For This Useful Post:
Old 04-01-2019, 08:13 AM
tiberius's Avatar
tiberius tiberius is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Non Terrestrial
Posts: 3,849
Thanks: 1,162
Thanked 2,030 Times in 1,197 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajole View Post
"Global sea levels are predicted to rise by [B]20-60 mm by 2100,"
That looks like a misquote?
Most estimates are far more than ten times that.

And this article goes further
“The rate of sea level rise is currently doubling every seven years, and if it were to continue in this manner, Ponzi scheme style, we would have 205 feet of sea level rise by 2095,” he says. “And while I don’t think we are going to get that much water by the end of the century, I do think we have to take seriously the possibility that we could have something like 15 feet by then.”

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...elizabeth-rush
Quick reply to this message
Old 04-01-2019, 08:31 AM
WilliamAshley WilliamAshley is offline
Birds of a Feather
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,535
Thanks: 97
Thanked 847 Times in 514 Posts
Default

I thought I would throw you a bone.

http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/gla...ounding-lines/
Quick reply to this message
Old 04-01-2019, 08:38 AM
tiberius's Avatar
tiberius tiberius is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Non Terrestrial
Posts: 3,849
Thanks: 1,162
Thanked 2,030 Times in 1,197 Posts
Default

Here's a good study.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/pu...e_US_final.pdf
Quick reply to this message
Old 04-01-2019, 08:41 AM
Metcalf's Avatar
Metcalf Metcalf is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Southwest Comirado
Posts: 4,414
Thanks: 1,454
Thanked 7,076 Times in 2,800 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamAshley View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metcalf View Post
Basic? Sure. Ok....I'm back.

What part about what I posted about FLOATING ice was wrong? This post was started about the danger of large ice sheets breaking off. Then people wanted to say how much they where going to raise the sea level by whatever amount.

The basic physics behind that phenomenon is that as soon as the ice is floating. It has done all the rasing of the ocean it is going to do. The facts are that as soon as the ice floats....even before it caves off the supporting structure....has done all the raising it is going to do by a large majority.

Now if you want to talk about ice that is currently on top of a land structure, which is much different, go ahead.
You have no clue what an ice shelf is.
Ice shelf....a floating sheet of ice permanently attached to a landmass.

It's strange they mention 'floating' right there in the definition. While one side is connected, so it all doesn't FLOAT away, the majority of the structure is FLOATING.

Once it's floating......it's done all the raising it is going to do. This is simple physics about buoyancy. It isn't hard to understand, but most alarmists want to omit simple details like this.

Now, if you want to talk about what the temperature of a large block of ice might do to the surrounding water we could have a debate.

Or if you want to talk about what might happen with ocean salinity, we could postulate on that.

If you're going to try and keep trying to scare people with issues that are fundamentally simple physics, I am going to keep busting your ice cubes.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Metcalf For This Useful Post:
Old 04-01-2019, 11:16 AM
makobytes's Avatar
makobytes makobytes is offline
Trapper
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Florida
Posts: 875
Thanks: 1,121
Thanked 1,729 Times in 558 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho Survivalist View Post
I've heard that all scientists are left leaning and the only people on this planet who understand science are businessmen.
You make a good point! However, consider that scientist receive grant money to conduct their studies, and it would be very easy and probable for the benefactors of the scientist to indicate or demand a certain slant or a skewing of the data to obtain a predetermined outcome. It is also easy for the benefactors to shop for scientist that are willing participants in their deception. I have heard the claim made that many of the data collection points are positioned in a location that are meant to register higher temperatures in order to drive up the overall data averages. One example I have heard used is that many of the data collection points are located adjacent to or in the middle of a large paved parking lot that is black tar and collects and radiates back out higher temperatures than the surrounding natural environments. It is all suspicious data and I cannot accept their findings at face value. It seems to me the more immediate danger to our health and future is the issue with Fukashima radiating the Pacific Ocean and the land masses around it, with massive amounts of leaked radiation that is ongoing and existential, as well as the huge amounts of plastic trash that has accumulated in the Pacific Ocean. Heating of our planet? Perhaps! Contamination of the world's oceans is an ongoing existential reality that needs to be addressed. Much of the pollution that may contribute to climate change and the destruction of the oceans, is coming from the nations located in Asia, yet the globalist, leftist, and environmentalist continue to demand that the Western world bankrupt itself at the alter climate change while the largest contributors to global environmental destruction are not held accountable.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to makobytes For This Useful Post:
Old 04-01-2019, 12:04 PM
WilliamAshley WilliamAshley is offline
Birds of a Feather
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,535
Thanks: 97
Thanked 847 Times in 514 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metcalf View Post
Ice shelf....a floating sheet of ice permanently attached to a landmass.

It's strange they mention 'floating' right there in the definition. While one side is connected, so it all doesn't FLOAT away, the majority of the structure is FLOATING.

Once it's floating......it's done all the raising it is going to do. This is simple physics about buoyancy. It isn't hard to understand, but most alarmists want to omit simple details like this.

Now, if you want to talk about what the temperature of a large block of ice might do to the surrounding water we could have a debate.

Or if you want to talk about what might happen with ocean salinity, we could postulate on that.

If you're going to try and keep trying to scare people with issues that are fundamentally simple physics, I am going to keep busting your ice cubes.
Your simple physics seem to omit the properties of water and the geology of glaciers and ice shelves. But that's ok you can stay ignorant. Obviously as said you don't seem to understand that glaciers and ice shelves rest on land and the continental shelf.

Ice and water volume are not the same. Sorry you might want to learn abit before thinking you have any clue what you are talking about.

Come on learn a bit about what you are talking about. This discussion is pointless until you actual know the physical characteristics of ice shelves. You are just totally clueless yet you want to put forth these ideas to support a climate change denial but you are just creating an imaginary world where things exist in an alternate form to how they actually exist.

it is just nonsensical. Simply delusional.

These things aren't a coating of ice on the water they are 50 meters plus into the air. They can be up to 1000 meters, like half a mile in thickness. 68% of water is held in glaciers and ice sheets and its release will 100% increase water levels in the ocean.

Learn about iceshelves please and come back, stop the nonsense climate denial.


https://www.nature.com/scitable/know...earth-24148940

bear in mind our changes are off the chart in terms of past changes in terms of change of pace.
Quick reply to this message
Old 04-01-2019, 12:17 PM
franklin franklin is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Eastern US
Posts: 6,967
Thanks: 1,687
Thanked 13,030 Times in 4,515 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tiberius View Post
That looks like a misquote?
Most estimates are far more than ten times that.

And this article goes further
“The rate of sea level rise is currently doubling every seven years, and if it were to continue in this manner, Ponzi scheme style, we would have 205 feet of sea level rise by 2095,” he says. “And while I don’t think we are going to get that much water by the end of the century, I do think we have to take seriously the possibility that we could have something like 15 feet by then.”

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...elizabeth-rush
Back to the Guardian as a source of scientific information?
Last week it was drought. This week too much water.
I'll solve this for you. Build reservoirs around the world to store the water so you can get through droughts and can reduce sea levels.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to franklin For This Useful Post:
Old 04-01-2019, 12:53 PM
Eddie_T's Avatar
Eddie_T Eddie_T is online now
Survivor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Southern mtns near eastern continental divide
Posts: 2,175
Thanks: 3,566
Thanked 2,544 Times in 1,345 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardinColorado View Post
We can all agree that from time-to-time the climate of the earth changes and that for several decades it has been in a warming trend. Climatic historians tell us that the last "global warming" came about in the 1300's and that it was a time of great prosperity in Europe until the advent of the Black Plague.

What has not been seen coming from the supporters of man-made global warming is any specific evidence that A.) Man caused it, or B.) Man can fix it. There has been a widespread inference that since we humans have put a lot of stuff into the air that we must be at fault and therefore if we put less stuff in the air then we can fix it. Inferences are not evidence. What precisely is the evidence that man did it and man can fix it?

Of course, the only solution for putting less stuff in the air is a massive redistribution of wealth via carbon emission taxes on wealth corporations and nations to be transferred to those who aren't wealthy (except for China, of course). Unfortunately, we have a very long record of both governments (especially 3rd world governments) and para-governments (the UN) being totally corrupt and that money sent to them rarely gets to those in real need so these redistribution plans are a sort of actual "welfare" for the thugs of the world.

I am old enough to remember very responsible members of the scientific community publishing copious articles on the coming ice age with all kinds of "proof" that we were in for a genuine global cooling and a repeat of glaciers in Illinois. Hope you'll forgive me if I chose not to get too excited about global warming.
Good post! One thing that bothers me is the number of brainwashed school children protesting climate change. When I worked for NASA it was gathering solar data correlating solar activity with weather and climate. Seems that the NASA agenda has been altered to gain funding.

Bottom line even if AGW could be proven there isn't really anything we can do about it. I don't want to pay through the nose in support of some left leaning propaganda. One can prove whatever they wish with enough funding and a worldview that lets them categorize data to support it.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Eddie_T For This Useful Post:
Old 04-01-2019, 01:27 PM
ajole ajole is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 9,703
Thanks: 7,678
Thanked 21,871 Times in 6,952 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tiberius View Post
That looks like a misquote?
Most estimates are far more than ten times that.
Well...its not a misquote by ME, I took it right out of his article, copy and paste, no shenanigans.

BTW....do you understand the meaning of the word "estimate"?

When I was a kid, "scientists" of the day "estimated" that we'd be in an ice age by now, and that oil would have run out about 10 years ago.

So you can understand why those of us from my generation find the "estimates" of today's so called "scientists" to be pretty much worthless?

Especially since you can find "estimates" that are ALL over the map.
If THEY can't even agree on anything...how can they expect us to agree with them, or even accept that they have a clue about the truth or reality that isn't based on their paycheck origins and possible future research grants?


Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamAshley View Post
You have no idea how ice exists in Antarctica. You have no idea the composition of Antarctica under its ice.
Huh. That's odd. On my degree in Physical Geograpy, based on the courses I took, books I read, research I read and collated and worked with, it says I DO have that knowledge.

Of course, it was just a minor...

But based on MY documented knowledge, I am absolutely certain that YOU don't have a clue, you are just parroting the media/science BS, while misunderstanding the meaning, exactly like all the other sheep that are being fleeced.



Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamAshley View Post
I'll get back to you in three years. we can talk again.
Oh good. Three years of not having to listen to the drivel.

Looking forward to that.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to ajole For This Useful Post:
Reply

Bookmarks



Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Survivalist Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Gender
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net