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.
At 63yrs. old I don't need to be a "scientist" we've heard this all long ago with no results,I don't appreciate you filling our youth with nonsense.Shame on you.
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.
The reason you've seen no results is that there hasn't been enough effort put into the remediation of the issue yet. The fossil fuel interests have kept spinning the propaganda and the money hard enough to prevent anything really meaningful being accomplished.
Apparently young minds are better able to confront the facts, at least in this case, so it's best if you step aside now and leave the issue to people who are not afraid to think clearly about the evidence.
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.
The reason you've seen no results is that there hasn't been enough effort put into the remediation of the issue yet. The fossil fuel interests have kept spinning the propaganda and the money hard enough to prevent anything really meaningful being accomplished.
Apparently young minds are better able to confront the facts, at least in this case, so it's best if you step aside now and leave the issue to people who are not afraid to think clearly about the evidence.
Why must you post personal attacks on everyone on this forum?
Who are you to state that as a fact, anyone's opinion is nonsense? How about staying within the TOS and stop attacking everyone.
Why must you post personal attacks on everyone on this forum?
Who are you to state that as a fact, anyone's opinion is nonsense? How about staying within the TOS and stop attacking everyone.
Here you are with another tu quoque argument. I was attacked and I responded.
Facts are facts.
Cyberguy's "I don't appreciate you filling our youth with nonsense.Shame on you" is a personal comment. I responded with facts. Provable facts. Facts with substantial research and evidence behind them. Facts.
Lets talk about facts, and stop descending to personal comments.
Again, if you aren't playing political games, it isn't a Gotcha at all, just a new data set to incorporate into the scientific investigation.
More than 20 years ago climatologists predicted that Global Warming would lead to Global Climate Change, with more extreme weather on both ends of the scale, including hotter hots and colder colds and dramatic changes in traditional weather patterns, including bigger storms that would affect every corner of the planet.
That prediction, sadly, is coming true.
Look at the summer ice pattern for the same area and it's horrifying. The retreat of summer ice is threatening all the wildlife in the area, near to opening a clear ice channel from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and threatening to trigger an irreversible melting of permafrost, which will release huge amounts of methane, which could push the planet past the tipping point on being able to control greenhouse gases, and hence, global warming.
Do gooders insist Earth's climate should remain static and there is no way in hell a planet eons old can be so. Earth's climate has changed millions of times and man wasn't a factor. Someone please explain that for me.
Do gooders insist Earth's climate should remain static and there is no way in hell a planet eons old can be so. Earth's climate has changed millions of times and man wasn't a factor. Someone please explain that for me.
Well, because there are more people than in the past, for one. And they are no longer small hunter and gatherer bands but settled permanently in large metropolisis that require more environmental stability to exist.
Do gooders insist Earth's climate should remain static and there is no way in hell a planet eons old can be so. Earth's climate has changed millions of times and man wasn't a factor. Someone please explain that for me.
Climate is not weather. Climate is the long term patterns of weather which tend to remain stable over long periods of time. Weather can change quickly, while climate tends to change slowly, barring a discontinuous event like an asteroid crashing. When the Karakatoa eruption in the late 1800's caused cool summers for a couple of years all over the world, that was a weather change, not a climate change. Once the volcanic particles in the atmosphere settled everything returned to log term pattaerns.
Sure there have been climate changes in the past, but climate has tended to be fairly stable over long periods of time... hundreds of years, typically. That's what Farmer's Almanacs and Fisherman's Guides are predicated on.
What we're seeing now is very rapid climate changes that are disrupting migratory patterns in wildlife, throwing asunder multi-generational patterns in agriculture and fishing and snow cover and water harvests, melting glaciers, etc. . These are not minor shifts, and they are traceable to human activity. Worst of all, they are cumulative effects that have the potential to become self sustaining and therefore irreversible.
And what is probably most confusing to laymen is that it only takes small changes in overall parameters of a closed system, like that of the earth, to cause very large changes in localized patterns. That's why we are seeing both high temperature and low temperature records fall with frequency, and larger and larger storms ensue.
What leading scientists want to do is to stabilize things so the extremes are limited, and cutting carbon pollution is the single most powerful thing we can do to improve the situation, and hopefully in doing so, to allow us to step back from the brink.
In the news today is the fact that unlike what many leading scientists have long maintained, that water was deposited on earth by comments, isn't true at all.
In many cases, what scientists say today and say for decades, suddenly changes when new information is revealed or someone realizes an assumption was wrong.
Creating national or global policies on what leading scientists say is folly, unless ALL of them agree.
In the news today is the fact that unlike what many leading scientists have long maintained, that water was deposited on earth by comments, isn't true at all.
In many cases, what scientists say today and say for decades, suddenly changes when new information is revealed or someone realizes an assumption was wrong.
Creating national or global policies on what leading scientists say is folly, unless ALL of them agree.
Who should politicians listen to on science related matters?
Seems there might even be an increase in the amount of ice in Antarctica. What the article points out is more important than if there is more or less ice. The fact that the measurement of the ice hasn't been accurate yet decisions are being made based on data that hasn't been verified or even understood.
If we don't know how much ice there is then how can we say that there is less ice or that climate change is reducing the amount of ice in Antarctica?
From the article:
"Almost all of the sea ice that forms during the Antarctic winter melts during the summer, so scientists had assumed it never grew very thick. "
"scientists had assumed..." Nothing like basing entire arguments on assumptions.
It is things like this that cast doubt on what is so often used to promote certain strategies and causes. That is not to say climate change isn't an issue but when a significant part of the argument seems to be based on unverified information or assumptions, then the rest is a house of cards.
There have always been parts of Antarctica where the ice is thickening, and other areas where it's melting. The most alarming news of the year was that there's a huge peninsula that's in the process of melting to the point of breaking off. That's cause for concern. The parts that are thickening don't compensate for that.
The most alarming news of all is that you guys really pay attention to this balderdash!
Live your life,it's way too short to worry about this BS.
Let the politicians worry about it.
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.
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.
