Another ice chunk about to break off of Antarctica. Tick, tick, tick.
- Thread starter op2
- Start date
Like I say, nature doesn't care. Link to whatever you want to link to. Nature goes on. Tick, tick, tick.
I mean....if you really care why corrections are made read
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ca...-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998/amp
Or just continue to peddle the bs conspiracy theory
When I said nature doesn't care I didn't mean we can't affect nature. We can and we do. Whatever effect we have, we have, and nature doesn't care.
Ice melts because of the laws of physics not because of our political positions.
I'm not peddling anything. Op posts a link about an event happening in a specific spot in the world, which I guess is to help prove global warming, so I respond in kind. To highlight the sheer absurdity of the topic.
Does the climate change. Yep. It always has, and always will. Let's stop pretending the sky is falling.
Well no **** we can effect nature on the micro level, its the macro level effects that are debatable. Water freezes and ice melts over and over again in the LONG history of this planet.
It's debatable whether we can effect nature on the macro level? Why would you think that? Tell me, if we set off all the nuclear bombs in the world at once do you think it's debatable whether nature would be affected?
Not said that at all. And if you knew anything about me, you'd know I'm a proponent of alternate sources of energy and conservation (former proud Prius owner). But I'm also not a chicken little running around crying the sky is falling. I'm an engineer, so I go by common sense and rational thought.
It absolutely is debatable.
Plenty of people in this debate shrug it all of by saying humans simply are unable to affect nature in any meaningful way and it sounded like that's the path you were going down. It's not true but it's a tactic some use nonetheless.
We CAN affect nature. Whether we ARE affecting it is the question. And the answer those studying it have come up with is by and large, yes. That's not really surprising. We've known for 170 years that it makes sense that more carbon in the atmosphere should corresponded to warmer temperatures. And we've been putting a lot of carbon in the atmosphere for a couple hundred years now. It makes sense. The mystery would be if we all that WASN'T affecting things.
We had a very large impact on the previous ice ages, those before the advent of electricity, cars, man, etc. AS little as 22,000 years ago, chicago was under a mile of ice. Every time I start my car, the ice gets thinner and thinner.[laughing]
Your grandkids wont think it's very funny, but that's what we've been doing for generations....passing the problems down to our kids
It depends on what you call "accurate." As George Box said, all models are wrong but some models are useful.
Ok. Guess that $700b+ defense budget has nothing to do with the imbalance? Only Democrats and liberals have caused the problem? I'm sure that's not what you're saying, cause I'm sure you're smarter than that
Nope, I'll take a cut in military also. But that means we get out of places we don't belong.
And I'll be clear. Obama included....every Congress and WH that fails to produce a balanced budget should be ashamed of themselves
Reading that I was thinking I read it a month ago. Yep, it's a month old. I thought you were keeping up with this stuff. If you just have casual interest (keyword interest) you should have noticed Antarctica pumping out ice like a hotel ice machine for the last several years. Not saying that's good or bad, just noticeable. The Ice has to go somewhere. On one hand ice will melt in warm water on the other seawater is cooled and the cycle continues. It's too late for the crew of the Titanic to join the convo, but let's consider ice melts impact on water level. Not the best analogy, but put an ice cube (Delaware) in a pan of water. The ice is 10% above water. When all the ice has melted 10% of the volume is distributed across the pan. Now change the scale to include all bergs and all water on the planet, add in evaporation and rain. Any significant change in SL? IDK. We can predict the movement of the continental plates because the crust moves about 2 inches/yr. like our fingernails. Everything else is chaos; a boiling cauldron we call weather.
Reading that I was thinking I read it a month ago. Yep, it's a month old. I thought you were keeping up with this stuff. If you just have casual interest (keyword interest) you should have noticed Antarctica pumping out ice like a hotel ice machine for the last several years. Not saying that's good or bad, just noticeable. The Ice has to go somewhere. On one hand ice will melt in warm water on the other seawater is cooled and the cycle continues. It's too late for the crew of the Titanic to join the convo, but let's consider ice melts impact on water level. Not the best analogy, but put an ice cube (Delaware) in a pan of water. The ice is 10% above water. When all the ice has melted 10% of the volume is distributed across the pan. Now change the scale to include all bergs and all water on the planet, add in evaporation and rain. Any significant change in SL? IDK. We can predict the movement of the continental plates because the crust moves about 2 inches/yr. like our fingernails. Everything else is chaos; a boiling cauldron we call weather.
It's an ongoing thing. Here's an article from today if you prefer.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/06/world/antarctica-iceberg-larsen-c-split/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/06/world/antarctica-iceberg-larsen-c-split/index.html
These things unfold over weeks and months. Tick, tick, tick. Nature works 24/7, even when we're sleeping or are distracted with something else. In the coming weeks or months it will break off completely and there will be news stories about it and then people will get distracted by something else. But nature will march on regardless.
If my grandkids are still alive in a very short 1 million years, the earth is 4 billion years old, they will probably laugh at the henny pennies who thought they could control the sun. I doubt if my grandchildren could live 200 years, much less a million.
Large public works projects creating train systems stretching across the nation propelled by magnetic energy, wave energy technology, recycling initiatives in every town and city, shutting down fast food and requiring strict purchasing processes for restaurants, enormous amounts of seed money for local farmers and ranchers, strict purchasing processes for groceries (focused on local and sustainable foods), redirection of government funds for conservation and r&d for environmentally friendly processes and technology, forced community conservation service for every citizen, billions spent each year in foreign aid to help direct other nations towards the same endeavors, more protected lands, more protected animals, government mandated hug time for everyone, everyone wears smiley face t-shirts, legalize weed, force prisoners to sift through landfills and trash for recycling, help all nations implement birth control, force all men to wear panties at least for one day, outlaw Ann coulter and Rachel Maddow from speaking publically......
Look, solutions will vary widely....and I'm not an expert or even of the mindset that extreme measures should be implemented......but we need to take it seriously and stop trying to conspiracy it away. Paris Accord might not have made sense for many in the nation....fine....but let's find something that does announce our commitment to the world. Let's get together on the science that is, and not allow false representation of facts and serious work to distort the reality. Let's talk about solutions, and not act like people that seek solutions are crazies.
Ok. Well, controlling the sun isn't really an option, but controlling our carbon impact is an option. Controlling our sustainability is an option.
^^TRUTH, a rare gem in these discussions where every scientist from anthropologist to zoologist is an expert on climate. Toss in social scientists and we pretty much have our **** covered. I try, for the most part, to avoid this subject here because I don't want the Alerts.
It's been a while since I've checked, but I recall Oklahoma having the most shoreline in the contiguous 48 at one time. If you'd have told me it was a trick question, I might have said Minnesota (Land of a Thousand Lakes) but not OK. We've backed up a lot of water on this world that otherwise would seek SL. Is that a factor or a rabbit hole for another day? Topo maps used to be periodically adjusted for magnetic declination. Now, Magnetic North swings wildly by hundreds of miles at a moments notice. WTH is going on there? Good thing GPS came along.
IS ANYBODY HERE A MARINE BIOLOGIST?
Last edited:
Liberals could voluntarily quit breathing. [roll]What an improvement that would be.