|
|
Post by vegasjames on Jun 19, 2018 17:49:03 GMT -5
OK I read it and it backs what I pointed out that the Greenland ice sheet has rapidly declined. Same thing he have seen in many other parts of the world. So what is your point specifically?
For instance in their graph "Volume of the Greenland Ice Sheet from 1900-2017" then show a massive decline from just over 100% to 99.58% in that time period. I know at first glance that does not sound like a major decline, but when you consider the initial size of the Greenland ice sheet that is actually a humongous loss.
And they also mention that the West Coast of Greenland is most effected. Now look at how the Gulf Stream runs. Note the cold water coming down from the North, where our other ice caps are also melting at a rapid rate runs right along the West Coast. So maybe the water from the melting polar cap is sufficiently warm to also melt more ice on Greenland's West Coast.
We have to look at the whole global picture, not focus on one tiny area.
So I am still waiting for an answer to my question:
"Let's assume for a second that this graph in accurate. Explain how it is that the Greenland ice sheet is suddenly rapidly disappearing despite being much older than this graph.
So if temps are cooler now than between the period of 2,000-10,000 years ago why is the Greenland ice sheet just now almost disappearing? Shouldn't have melted away completely with the significantly higher temps of 2 to 10 thousand years ago? Same applies to the pole ice caps." |
|
|
|
Post by grumpybill on Jun 19, 2018 18:12:40 GMT -5
So what is your point specifically? I just threw it out there because I found it to be balanced and interesting and thought you would, too. |
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on Jun 19, 2018 19:27:19 GMT -5
So what is your point specifically? I just threw it out there because I found it to be balanced and interesting and thought you would, too. Yes it is was interesting and it does back the fact that global warming is occurring despite what the naysayers are claiming.
Articles like that can be misinterpreted though as they also bring up the loss of the ice sheet is not "significant". What is significant though? If all the water in Lake Michigan were to suddenly dry up would that be significant? What if we look at it from the point that the water from that lake is just a small fraction of the Earth's total water? Is it significant then? This is the same reason statistics are worthless. Statistics merely prove what the person wishes to prove because they can be manipulated or interpreted to prove whatever the person wishes to prove. So this is the one big problem I had with this article. They make is sound like the loss is not significant because it is still a small part of the total ice sheet while ignoring the fact that the ice has been melting at an accelerated rate since 1900. Obviously there IS a problem, especially when we look at other places such as the ice caps and glaciers worldwide rapidly disappearing.
|
|
|
|
Post by 1dave on Jun 19, 2018 22:33:21 GMT -5
Perhaps we are ALL looking at this wrong. Perhaps there has been little change in earth temperatures, just drastic changes in pole locations by major impacts. Our present "group think" was initiated by Louis Agassiz (1807-1873) who ended the speculation about impacts causing drastic changes on earth and replaced it with Uniformitarian Geology Theory, later advanced by Charles Lyell. It postulates that relatively weak forces and gradual uniform processes have brought ALL geological change.
Look up Allan O. Kelly Target Earth - 1953 Continental Drift: Is It a Cometary Impact Phenomenon? - 1963 Impact Geology - 1985 Dr. Walter Alvarez Invertebrate Fossil Record - 1984 Kelly's hypotheses: 1. The greatest impact since the one that created the oceans and the moon happened ~250 million years ago, ended the Permian glaciation, broke up Pangea and rolled the earth through about 120o or a distance over the globe of 6,000 miles. This caused the continents to drift again, Moved the poles, AND changed the glacier locations. WHERE did it hit? He proposes the Sunda Arc, the longest and largest arcuate structure on the face of the earth - perhaps 10,000 miles in diameter.
NOTE: a very active volcanic area.
2. The only other impact large enough to shift the earth's axis he postulates was 11,500 years ago that created the Bermuda Triangle 2,000 mile crater with the islands being the central uplift. This he claims shifted the earth 30 o and moved the then north pole from it's then position centered in the Labrador sea between White Bear Island and the southern tip of Greenland, to it's present position.  Right or wrong, he is a thinking man, not a groupthinker. |
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on Jun 19, 2018 23:43:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Jun 20, 2018 2:06:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by 1dave on Jun 20, 2018 7:17:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by fernwood on Jun 20, 2018 8:25:26 GMT -5
I just threw it out there because I found it to be balanced and interesting and thought you would, too. Yes it is was interesting and it does back the fact that global warming is occurring despite what the naysayers are claiming.
Articles like that can be misinterpreted though as they also bring up the loss of the ice sheet is not "significant". What is significant though? If all the water in Lake Michigan were to suddenly dry up would that be significant? What if we look at it from the point that the water from that lake is just a small fraction of the Earth's total water? Is it significant then? This is the same reason statistics are worthless. Statistics merely prove what the person wishes to prove because they can be manipulated or interpreted to prove whatever the person wishes to prove. So this is the one big problem I had with this article. They make is sound like the loss is not significant because it is still a small part of the total ice sheet while ignoring the fact that the ice has been melting at an accelerated rate since 1900. Obviously there IS a problem, especially when we look at other places such as the ice caps and glaciers worldwide rapidly disappearing.
Love your Lake Michigan reference. If it were to dry up, it would effect millions of people. TEns of thousands of businesses. Cause at the very least millions, if not more, in economic impact. Lake Michigan may account for a small fraction of total water, but it is a resource relied on by many. Correlate that to the melting of the ice sheet. The melting is causing ocean temperature changes that are being transported through the major currents. These temperature changes are leading to certain ocean species becoming threatened or on the verge of extinction. These include both plant and animal life. Lack of food for land and sea creatures leads to starvation or at the least malnutrition. These temperature changes are also attributed to the decline in size of some major coral reefs, including the Great Barrier reef. Many would say that coral reefs are not required in the big picture of things. They are. Coral reefs provide habitat for many aquatic creatures. They help prevent major wave action on shore which would lead to erosion. They provide a great economic impact due to diving and fishing activities. Cause and effect. There is much debate on the causes of climate change, but the effects are obvious. |
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on Jun 20, 2018 8:36:42 GMT -5
If the ice caps completely melted that would also lead to major economic impacts. The rise in water wold lead to even more increased flooding, which is a major economic impact.
The changes you mentioned in species disappearing and loss of coral reefs also have major economic impacts including loss of fishing industries and tourism.
Changes in weather patterns also have economic effects from increased disasters such as fires from drought to more frequent and intense hurricanes.
|
|
|
|
Post by fernwood on Jun 20, 2018 8:46:43 GMT -5
Another thought related to the Lake Michigan reference.
In the 1990’s, I lived in Sheboygan Falls. A small community, which relied on Sheboygan’s water source which was Lake Michigan. This water system became contaminated for about a week. Thankfully, the Township of Sheboygan had a well. They opened their water to anyone who was affected. I went there after work to obtain some water for my family. There were many restrictions on the water. One had to bring their own containers. Limited to two gallons, per address, per day. One had to show ID, with where they lived. Their name/address was noted to prevent multiple attempts of getting water. I waited in line for an hour to obtain the two gallons of water. Did the same for the next 4 days, after work. It was tough for a family of three to survive on 2 gallons of water per day. We purchased bottled drinking water for some things. Because the contamination was significant, it was advised that water not be used for showering/bathing. I ended up walking down to the river (only 4 blocks), pulling a wagon, and obtaining additional water from there. I can only imagine what larger families with limited income had to do. Locals with unlimited income were just purchasing bottled water, which caused a shortage of that. One friend said they were using about 60 gallons per day, just to bathe their children. They were purchasing by the pallet.
Water is the lifeblood of survival.
|
|
|
|
Post by fernwood on Jun 20, 2018 8:58:58 GMT -5
If the ice caps completely melted that would also lead to major economic impacts. The rise in water wold lead to even more increased flooding, which is a major economic impact. The changes you mentioned in species disappearing and loss of coral reefs also have major economic impacts including loss of fishing industries and tourism. Changes in weather patterns also have economic effects from increased disasters such as fires from drought to more frequent and intense hurricanes. Agree. There are many projection maps of what will happen to some coastal major cities out there in the next 100 years if the warming rate continues. Melting of major ice covered areas leads to an increase in ocean levels. The warming of oceans also increases the chance of hurricanes, which would cause further erosion in coastal areas, accelerating coastal areas becoming ocean bottom. Economic impact is huge for disappearance of coral reefs. |
|
|
|
Post by mohs on Jun 20, 2018 9:13:10 GMT -5
Well Doreen would know. Ha Ha
I mean--- I sympathize with her viewpoint.
Having 64 years of experience in Phoenix
I can confirm that night time temperatures
and early morning lows have increased.
But it I wonder how much of this is subjective ?
Due to grumpy old age?
Where is the empirical data?
As far as subjective goes. The rock grinding season was from September 15th to June 15th..
The rule of thumb for Phoenix was that by the middle of September the nights starting cooling.
Early morning lows were humane again. There were 3 months of crappy temperatures.
A person could get out in the early morning and reasonably start grinding rocks in the middle of Sept.
Now the lower temps don’t fall below 80 degrees until October.
The summer seems to last long & longer
into damn November.
So during the good times there was 9 month of rock time!
That a good run!
Phoenix had the best rock’n weather anywhere.
With the advent of refrigeration and low humidity-
Unfortunately it grew into a madhouse city.
Yet this may all be the subjective wine of grouchy old man.
Where the empirical proof? It’s in the rocks!
Even the Hohokam gave up their paradise.
They just had enough! What the hell?!
Its just to damn hot.!
I’m not happy with any less than a sunny low of
68 & a brutal high 72 with low humidity!
Anything else is just bogus.
mostly
|
|
|
|
Post by fernwood on Jun 20, 2018 9:56:42 GMT -5
Ha Ha. High of 72 in Phoenix? Did you mean 92 or 102?
Humidity is huge. 102 in Phoenix with humidity of less than 20% is the same as a Wisconsin temp of 86 and 80% humidity. The 80% humidity is now common where I am. Both the Phoenix and WI temps/humidity add up to a heat index of about 110 degrees, maybe less for Phoenix. Dry heat is more easily tolerated by the body, well at least mine. I had no problem standing outside in Phoenix in 105 temps. In WI, being outside with temps and humidity in the 80's causes major problems. Shortness of breath, rapid heartbeat, chills, etc. After 10 minutes, heat exhaustion sets in. Need to get to shade, apply wet towels, drink water, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by mohs on Jun 20, 2018 10:47:21 GMT -5
Ha ha Is right== Fern ! I’m just upset with myself that I can’t motivate my body to grind Using the weather as an excuse Exactly right though Use best sense when the heat index escalates. The body can only take so much- reasonably speaking. Out here in the desert -untold stories (of what I would call foolish folks) who go hiking in the brutal heat. Many of their stories don’t end well As a child I could take quite a lot. Played ball for endless hours in the heat. Even some of that, looking back, was foolish. But a small body can tolerate heat more efficiently. As the human body grows to a larger mass the surface area get harder to cool. Without the invention of the refrigeration modern desert dwelling would be uninhabitable. Although humans are amazing. Phoenix township started in 1860’s. Those tough old boys survived. Ice making must have been big business in those early days of Phoenix. Contributed to sustainability & growth of the city. Thanks !!  Must look into the history of ice making ... |
|
|
|
Post by HankRocks on Jun 20, 2018 10:53:35 GMT -5
I do seem to remember that back in the 70's Scientist were running around warning that Pollution was going to cause Global Cooling. Now I suppose they were completely wrong and it will cause Global Warming. "We were 100% wrong then but trust us we are 100% correct now"
|
|
|
|
Post by mohs on Jun 20, 2018 10:59:39 GMT -5
There is one other thing
Swamp cooler make desert living habitable
At least until July.
Then the humidity index increase until September
Swamp cooling becomes all but useless.
Plus there are other problems with swamp cooling.
But it does work !
Nonetheless my family home didn’t have refrigeration until 1978.
Just a swamp cooling.
I don’t know how my dad tolerated those few months.
His aggravation value did increase noticeably
My Mom cooking in hot swampy kitchens for 9 people
uuugghhhhhhhhh
Tough months with out efficient cooooling...
|
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Jun 20, 2018 11:16:11 GMT -5
Yeah, but it was a dry record nighttime low, right, Ed? Daytime highs weren’t the only concern, as overnight lows stayed downright hot in some places, particularly in the Phoenix area. The temperature from Friday night to Saturday morning only reached as low as 95°F in Scottsdale, a record. (It was still 106°F at 1 a.m. that night.) |
|
|
|
Post by mohs on Jun 20, 2018 11:29:13 GMT -5
Dry relatively speaking, Rich That July -September Stretch as gotten more humid in my estimation Something to due with dew points Monsoon are on the way But I do want to mention that during the seventies Phoenix skyline/air was getting ugly Major ugly brown haze Air pollution smog & getting worse year after year Whatever regulations were put in place to clear it up Was right Not sure presently what the particulate levels are? Probably not premium Still its nothing but blues skies from here on out  |
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Jun 20, 2018 11:34:26 GMT -5
Regulations? We don’t need no stinkin’ regulations.
|
|
|
|
Post by fernwood on Jun 20, 2018 11:49:24 GMT -5
We had a swamp cooler when I lived in Chinle. It was great.
|
|
