|
Post by helens on Jun 23, 2012 22:49:33 GMT -5
Helen – The 1” and 2” figures you keep repeating are NOT a measure of sea level rise. They’re a measure of the land rebounding, rising up. The first two paragraphs of your link explain that quite clearly. And where did you get “Greenland, which is under 3' of ice that is melting...” ? From the second paragraph: “A vast ice cap covers much of Greenland, in some places up to 1.2 miles (2 km) thick.”Now that you mention it, I don't know where I got that Greenland is under 3' of ice. It was stuck in my head as an average, but darned if I know where from. I just looked it up, and it is 1.8 miles at the THICKEST point, with no info on average thickness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet ). It is claimed that if ALL the ice melts, some being 110,000 years old, we'd raise the seas 23'. But nothing explains why anyone would expect ALL of it to melt, even if some of it is melting. It's still snowing out in Greenland and making more ice every year. Miami, one of our lowest cities, not counting New Orleans which is below sea level, averages 6' above sea level (see chart in link). Here is Miami's 'Climate Action Plan'... tho nothing in it includes evacuation, or how to save the 400 billion in property alone that is at risk... it's just how to reduce energy consumption, which won't benefit Miami much if the rest of the world doesn't conserve: www.miamigov.com/msi/pages/Climate%20Action/MiPlan%20Final%20062608.pdfI see the confusion now. You are reading (correctly) that Greenland is 'rising' at the rate of 1" and will rise at 2" in 2025 (a combo of sea level rise PLUS the removal of weight pressure on the land from the ice melting), and I read that as straightforward sea level rise. I guess I skimmed that last nite. Here's wiki on sea level rise: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_riseProjections [edit]21st century The 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 4) projected century-end sea levels using the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES). SRES developed emissions scenarios to project climate change impacts.[41] The projections based on these scenarios are not predictions,[42] but reflect plausible estimates of future social and economic development (e.g., economic growth, population level).[43] The six SRES "marker" scenarios projected sea level to rise by 18 to 59 centimetres (7.1 to 23 in).[11] Their projections were for the time period 2090–99, with the increase in level relative to average sea level over the 1980–99 period. This estimate did not include all of the possible contributions of ice sheets. More recent research from 2008 observed rapid declines in ice mass balance from both Greenland and Antarctica, and concluded that sea-level rise by 2100 is likely to be at least twice as large as that presented by IPCC AR4, with an upper limit of about two meters.[44] A literature assessment published in 2010 by the US National Research Council described the above IPCC projections as "conservative," and summarized the results of more recent studies.[12] These projections ranged from 56–200 centimetres (22–79 in), based on the same period as IPCC 4. In 2011, Rignot and others projected a rise of 32 centimetres (13 in) by 2050. Their projection included increased contributions from the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets. Use of two completely different approaches reinforced the Rignot projection.[45][46] My 40 year Miami underwater was based on the calculation that Miami is 6' above sea level (72") and if we rise 1" a year til 2025, that's 15" as of 2010, and then 2" a year thereafter would mean 28 more years for the remaining 60", or roughly 40 years to Miami underwater. Since the actual rise isn't so draconian, and the 2011 projection is only 13" rise by 2050 at the present rate, 40 years is way off for submerging Miami (but not New Orleans). I wasn't all that concerned about the sea levels, was just skimming all those articles while looking up climate change articles. Glad to know Miami won't be underwater so soon:P. What I was concerned about is why the earth itself looks like it's dying from space per the satellite photos taken over time.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Jun 23, 2012 23:16:30 GMT -5
Helen, I do not doubt, that CO2 levels are rising. That is proven science. When I say extremist views, I am referring to the theory (that we are being incorrectly told is 'settled science') that this current upswing is entirely due to man's carbon emissions. Co2 has risen and fallen for eons in cycles we are incapable of comprehending. Obviously, we are adding to the emissions. The question is whether we are the primary cause, and imo the questionable science complete with with dubious data tainted by political agendas. . . falls short of convincing me that we need to take draconian measures that if realized could bring down the already shaky economies of the world. I do advocate a reasonable approach, but carbon credits and all the other politically charged wild-eyed hand wringing seem to be but a smoke screen as far as I am concerned. We should not abandon the use of fossil fuels before there is more definitive proof that we need to take such dire actions. Perhaps I am a flat-earther, but this is my current view, subject to revision if given credible cause. All the little graphs and charts look real convincing, but I do not feel the data used can be trusted to be accurate. I tend to agree with this fellow, published today, and a great read. Green ‘drivel’ exposed: The godfather of global warming lowers the boom on climate change hysteria www.torontosun.com/2012/06/22/green-drivelI more or less agree with your position about not jumping the gun on paranoia. Although I think it's pretty obvious that mankind's energy consumption definitely accelerates nature's climate patterns, the same way as say... ants, bugs, bacteria keep decayed matter churning into soil, and we go dump a big plastic garbage bag full of trash on a nice clean patch of forest dirt. How long would it take 'nature' to turn that into soil? Multiply this a million fold. It's obvious we can overwhelm nature's system of recycling very fast, without trying very hard, on all soil, air, water mankind interacts with. But even if we wanted to, we can't stop our consumption. No one will give up their air conditioning, refrigerators or cars. And even if we COULD stop our own consumption (USA's), we can't stop China or other developing nation's consumption. So we all widen the hole in our boat every single day, and point fingers about who will give up what to patch the hole. But clapping hands over ears and saying we're not doing any damage, or believing that nature will fix the problem for us isn't reasonable either. The ONLY way we can fix the problem is if government fixes the problem... and the only way government can fix the problem is by giving us alternatives to our energy use... which they can't do without investing in alternative energy, something many people are fighting tooth and nail to stop. This is understandable also, as entire industries and many many jobs are fully invested in the current destructive energy that everyone relies on. So our boat sinks a bit more every day. I somehow doubt we will make it to the 1000 years it will take us to terraform Mars now at our current rate. What can we do about it?
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Jun 24, 2012 8:22:38 GMT -5
So Rich, would "my eminent crackpot" still be seen by you as a crackpot if he had not revised his theories in the face of new evidence? As stated in the article, " Indeed, that’s how science advances." Seems that position could be seen as a bit flat-earther, no? My favorite line from that article; "Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.” Helen, this may be of interest pertaining to your question of browning. Earth Getting Greener, not Browner www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2011/07/19/earth-getting-greener-not-browner/
|
|
|
Post by helens on Jun 24, 2012 11:59:15 GMT -5
grayfingers... you can look at satellite images yourself. I don't care what someone says, people say all kinds of stupid things, and you point out yourself that they can be wrong. Bottom line, go look up some satellite photos. If you saw a photo of a fire burning, and I told you that the trees in that area are getting bigger and healthier and it's more lush than ever in that area, would you believe it because I said so and could post credentials? When in your very last post, you acknowledge that paraphrases the simple quote, 'opinions are like assholes, everyone has one' ? Most scientists ground their information on more than just opinion of course, so I am not implying that, but there is so much we still do not know in this field. If the earth is getting greener, why does it look browner with every new photo?
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,473
|
Post by Sabre52 on Jun 24, 2012 12:55:56 GMT -5
*L* I always thought the earth was getting browner because of massive deforestation. Close to 9 million hectares ( about 2.5 acres per hectare) from 1990-2000, and another 7 million hectares removed from 2000-2005. Remove trees and the sat images look a lot browner. Nothing to do with global warming. Everything to do with mans increase in population, use of wood products and removal of forests for agriculture to feed mankind.....Mel
PS: Tree removal has a lot of do with heat reflectivity and retention and water retention too. After all trees shade the globe, have a lot to do with gas exchange ( including CO2), prevent runoff, erosion etc. Remove the trees and you can create almost desert conditions and even, some would say, change patterns of rainfall. Rainforests are shrinking at an unbelievable rate and many of them are on lateritic soils which are reddish and would certainly make everything look a lot browner from the satellites.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Jun 24, 2012 20:33:12 GMT -5
*L* I always thought the earth was getting browner because of massive deforestation. Close to 9 million hectares ( about 2.5 acres per hectare) from 1990-2000, and another 7 million hectares removed from 2000-2005. Remove trees and the sat images look a lot browner. Nothing to do with global warming. Everything to do with mans increase in population, use of wood products and removal of forests for agriculture to feed mankind.....Mel PS: Tree removal has a lot of do with heat reflectivity and retention and water retention too. After all trees shade the globe, have a lot to do with gas exchange ( including CO2), prevent runoff, erosion etc. Remove the trees and you can create almost desert conditions and even, some would say, change patterns of rainfall. Rainforests are shrinking at an unbelievable rate and many of them are on lateritic soils which are reddish and would certainly make everything look a lot browner from the satellites. Exactly!!! Now what can we do about it?
|
|
|
Post by geoff on Jun 24, 2012 21:30:54 GMT -5
Go buy a boat.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Jun 24, 2012 21:54:40 GMT -5
Already told you, we're 106' above Sea level. I was actually looking forward to the new shoreline coming our way. I was asking what we should do about our trees burning and being chopped down all over the place.
|
|
|
Post by geoff on Jun 24, 2012 22:16:35 GMT -5
Wild fire is a part of the natural process. Stop being a consumer and fewer trees will be needed to sustain your lifestyle. How many trees died for your home? How many do you flush down the toilette by not using recycled bath tissue? How many emails do you print? How many of your bills are paperless? You can't complain about an issue if you are a part of the problem.
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,473
|
Post by Sabre52 on Jun 24, 2012 22:16:57 GMT -5
Helen: *L* Not a dang thing we can do about it in the long run as we've already way exceeded human carrying capacity for the planet. ( With carrying capacity being defined as the number of individuals of a species that can exist in a closed environment without causing degradation of said environment) . As long as man's population increases we need more and more resources especially food and water. My old biogeography prof's favorite saying was " All life is a competition for resources." For more food we need more water and more farmland so forests and other species are removed for agriculture and aquifers are dried up for farming and all the folks in our ever growing cities. Here is where I don't get the "global warming" whiners. With warming, more land is available for farming and less water tied up as ice. With global cooling less farm land, so folk starve and it's much drier. Whatever, old mama nature takes care of destructive infestations. So, the short answer to what we can do about it is... . die. *L*
Take your pick: Global pandemic is highly probable. Global cooling resulting in a starvation cycle. Phytoplankton die off in over polluted oceans resulting in a drop in global oxygen levels. Water wars or food wars. Super volcano or asteroid. Anything that wipes out most of mankind would be a boon to the planet. My favorite would be zombie outbreak. I love to shoot ( the new zombie splatter targets are great fun) and what a challenging way to go that would be *L*.....Mel
|
|
|
Post by helens on Jun 24, 2012 22:43:52 GMT -5
I've had dreams about zombie apocalypses! Usually after too much pizza and watching "Dawn of the Dead" again. Very kewl dreams, I'm really mean with a 2x4! (in the dream of course, odds of me swinging an 8' 2x4 repeatedly while running and jumping over stalled car roofs are slim to none)
Geoff, I try really hard not to use excessive amounts of paper... however! I am not giving up my Charmin, because absolutely nothing else compares... just saying...
I'm not convinced it's too late for the planet.
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on Jun 25, 2012 0:34:35 GMT -5
Wanna save the trees. Lobby your politicians to let farmers grow industrial hemp. Btw the seeds make great oil for food and industrial use. ie. fuel.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Jun 25, 2012 0:37:11 GMT -5
Wanna save the trees. Lobby your politicians to let farmers grow industrial hemp. Btw the seeds make great oil for food and industrial use. ie. fuel. I agree with that 100%. There's so little THC in industrial hemp that no one would be sneaking into the fields to smoke the crop!! Hemp is some of the greatest fiber on the planet with more uses, both practical and historical than almost any other single plant. Does that mean you guys are all going to vote Democrat now? (ok ok, ducking)
|
|
itsandbits
freely admits to licking rocks
Member since March 2012
Posts: 825
|
Post by itsandbits on Jun 25, 2012 1:17:18 GMT -5
There is going to be some trimming of the fat that's for sure and the saying "live by the sword, die by the sword" will definately find it's place there. Have fun. For the ones that will rebuild or more likely restart civilization of some sort, there will be enough reminders of what didn't work. From religions to politics, and all the other social manipulations, we will keep on trying to work it out till we either succeed or fail but it isn't in the meaning of life to just give up. We will keep trying, just like the poor last family of Neandethals in the cave in Crete 12,000 yrs ago.
|
|