U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-16-2014, 09:40 PM
 
6,676 posts, read 8,030,951 times
Reputation: 11555

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by OpenD View Post
Sorry you feel that way, but in fact it is your opinion that is nonsense. The seas are rising. That's a fact. Coastal lowlands are threatened. That's a fact. The City of New York is planning new seawall construction to deall with the higher waters, higher tides, and higher storm surges. That's a fact. Louisiana, Florida, Texas and Mississippi coastline is in decline as the waters rise. That's a fact.
That's the problem. You only confuse some people with facts!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-17-2014, 12:25 AM
 
Location: Volcano
12,971 posts, read 23,620,981 times
Reputation: 10580
And here's the news from the other end of the world... Greenland's Ice appears to be melting faster than expected . This could mean a greater rise in sea level occurring faster than expected.

Quote:
Two separate international studies raised concern about the pace of ice melt on the world’s second largest ice sheet after Antarctica, and suggested that scientists may have underestimated the variable behavior of Greenland’s ice.
.....
“The current models do not address this complexity,” said Beata Csatho, an associate professor of geology at the University at Buffalo and lead author of the paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a peer-reviewed journal.

Currently, scientists use simulations based on the activity of four glaciers — Jakobshavn, Helheim, Kangerlussuaq and Petermann — to build forecasts of melting into the ocean. But the new PNAS study used NASA satellite data to look at nearly 100,000 points of elevation and how they changed from 1993 to 2012, painting a much fuller picture of where melting has happened in the past.
.....
Since prior projections did not include the changing behavior of these lakes, those projections may be far short, said the researchers, but just how short has yet to be forecast. “Because ice losses from Greenland are a key signal of global climate change, it’s important that we consider all factors that could affect the rate at which it will lose ice as climate warms,” said co-author Andrew Shepherd, also from the School of Earth and Environment at the University of Leeds.

“Our findings will help to improve the next generation of ice sheet models, so that we can have greater confidence in projections of future sea-level rise.”

Greenland Ice Loss May Be Worse Than Predicted : Discovery News
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2014, 12:29 AM
 
Location: Volcano
12,971 posts, read 23,620,981 times
Reputation: 10580
Here's another take on the ice melt in Antarctica. It's worse than they thought, too.

Quote:
Antarctic Ice Loss Tripled in the Last 10 Years

Dec 3, 2014... The melt rate of glaciers in the fastest-melting part of Antarctica has tripled over the past decade, researchers said Tuesday in an analysis of the past 21 years.

Glaciers in the Amundsen Sea in West Antarctica are losing ice faster than another part of Antarctica and are the biggest contributor to rising sea levels, said researchers at the University of California at Irvine and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Research published in May concluded that the melting of glaciers in West Antarctica, which contain enough water to raise sea levels by at least a meter, is speeding up and seems irreversible.

The study is the first to assess and reconcile observations from four different measurement techniques so as to generate an authoritative estimate of the amount and the rate of loss over the last two decades, said the researchers.

Antarctic Ice Loss Tripled in the Last 10 Years : Discovery News
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2014, 10:01 AM
 
7,281 posts, read 8,873,560 times
Reputation: 11419
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpenD View Post
Here's another take on the ice melt in Antarctica. It's worse than they thought, too.
The topic isn't glacier ice. Stay on topic; do as you constantly demand of others.

""If we don't know how much ice is there is, we can't validate the models we use to understand the global climate," Maksym said. The findings were published Monday in the journal Nature Geoscience."

From the article cited in the OP.

Obviously, there is more unknown than known, especially when it comes to not only causes but the ultimate results.

Science is strewn with "refinements" to explain why facts changed. While that doesn't mean science isn't a valid means of studying cause and effect, it does point out that routinely, what was once thought to be true can turn out to be nothing of the sort.

As the above post illustrates, scientists do not agree in whole about what, why, and the ultimate results of changes in the ice of Antarctica. Note that in the above post what is missing, any reference to sea ice. Why is that? Because it meets an agenda and is designed to imply that ALL ice is melting or regressing when the facts show anything but that. Clever, but inadequate at best. As usual, those snipets of misdirection are left wanting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2014, 12:57 PM
 
Location: DC
6,526 posts, read 6,460,121 times
Reputation: 3137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife View Post
Would that include the roaring fireplaces that burn cords of wood each year? You mean that kind of renewable resource? Oh, it doesn't? Thats right, they are electric.
No I mean the renewable electricity that Gore buys.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2014, 12:59 PM
 
Location: DC
6,526 posts, read 6,460,121 times
Reputation: 3137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyberguy1950 View Post
Hydro-Coal-Gas-Nuclear are not renewable?
Wow, thanks, Mr Obvious. I would be talking about wind, biomass, pv, et al.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top