Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[Eder]

At any rate it has been established that this winter is the first in a new mini ice age that will last about 100 years. As good science as any other quoted on this thread.

Sun Scientists Debate Whether Solar Lull Could Trigger Another 'Little Ice Age'

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

... you will see that none of the "deniers" deny global change or even global warming or even if there is a man made component.

Yes they do.

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

I applaud you for making an effort to be environmentally friendly, but have never seen a good reason to be concerned about reducing your carbon footprint. Why? They are two entirely different things. All those CO2 loving plants out there and you're attempting to starve them

So plants were starving before we emitted co2 and now they are ok?

Recent studies have shown that the amazon rainforest is absorbing 1/3rd less carbon than pre-industrial times because it's too hot. This also goes for other forests, especially ones which have burned down from drought.

The co2 uptake is a fraction of what it used to be worldwide. If you want to add co2 to help plants grow.. then fine, but consider doing it at 1/1000th the current rate which will give them adequate time to adapt to the changing conditions. If the change is too fast, it won't help them at all.

Originally Posted by jackdale

• Global average temperatures were 3 to 4 degrees C warmer than today (5.4 to 7.2 degrees F).
  
• Polar temperatures were as much as 10 degrees C warmer than today (18 degrees F).
  
• The Arctic was ice free.
  
• Sea level was between five and 40 meters higher (16 to 130 feet) than today.
  
• Coral reefs suffered mass die-offs.

Weren't there coral reefs in other locations like Mediterranean?

Also consider this is 400ppm, you should be looking at 600-800ppm which basically show a barren desert-like earth without trees, only small shrubs and stunted invertibrates and ocean temperatures of 38-40C.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

Yes they do.


So plants were starving before we emitted co2 and now they are ok?

Recent studies have shown that the amazon rainforest is absorbing 1/3rd less carbon than pre-industrial times because it's too hot. This also goes for other forests, especially ones which have burned down from drought.

The co2 uptake is a fraction of what it used to be worldwide. If you want to add co2 to help plants grow.. then fine, but consider doing it at 1/1000th the current rate which will give them adequate time to adapt to the changing conditions. If the change is too fast, it won't help them at all.


Weren't there coral reefs in other locations like Mediterranean?

Also consider this is 400ppm, you should be looking at 600-800ppm which basically show a barren desert-like earth without trees, only small shrubs and stunted invertibrates and ocean temperatures of 38-40C.

Care to substantiate these claims?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[SV THIRD DAY]

It was posted as a story on the Drudge Report and instantly thought of all my MMGW Cultist friends when I read it....knew you would like it.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

We've already discussed that, but feel free to add your opinion

It;s not an opinion, but a link to some peer reviewed sceince just released and not discussed yet.

Volume loss from Antarctic ice shelves is accelerating

If you disagree please explain exactly which parts of the science you think are wrong, and copy in the authors as well.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

Also consider this is 400ppm, you should be looking at 600-800ppm which basically show a barren desert-like earth without trees, only small shrubs and stunted invertibrates and ocean temperatures of 38-40C.

What is the normal temperature and CO2 concentration is a horticultural greenhouse full of lush fruit and vegetables?

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by conachair

Talking of ice...
Just out.

Antarctic ice shelves rapidly thinning -- ScienceDaily

This is amazingly good news. If this keeps up it will be a lot easier to drill for oil in Antarctica. Can you imagine how much oil is sitting under both the North and South ice regions. This is a bonanza for fossil fuels.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by conachair

It;s not an opinion, but a link to some peer reviewed sceince just released and not discussed yet.

Volume loss from Antarctic ice shelves is accelerating

If you disagree please explain exactly which parts of the science you think are wrong, and copy in the authors as well.

Tell you what. How about you regale us with your analysis. Or do you limit yourself to cut and paste opinions?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[sobraon]

Reef Magnet, I admire your patience. I check back every now and then on this thread to see where the argument has gone.

I love how us, the "DENIERS" are always cast as the villains by saints who pray at the altar of AGW.

Rich's link to Google Knowledge hits the argument right on the head. If it weren't for the cut and paste feature of the internet one tenth of the myths would never be perpetuated. Evangelists who swallowed the cordial who paste a Scientists link, who plagiarised a Physicists link, who quoted a Paleontologist who sourced his information using google from Wikipedia. Therefor it must be true. Laughable. But wait it come from someone connected to NASA.

Look no further than Australias very own ex Climate Scientist Tim Flannery. Guinness Book of Records could be lining him up for a new title. The most amount of dud predictions in ones life time. He alone has cost the Australian Tax payer Millions of dollars.

Keep up the good fight.

Garry
sv Spirit of Sobraon
Home Page - www.sobraon.com

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Tell you what. How about you regale us with your analysis. Or do you limit yourself to cut and paste opinions?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Again, it's not an opinion, but a piece of newly released science relevant to the discussion.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by conachair

Again, it's not an opinion, but a piece of newly released science relevant to the discussion.

I really don't think they are the slightest bit interested in the science. I think it's moved beyond the science to a pride thing.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

I really don't think they are the slightest bit interested in the science. I think it's moved beyond the science to a pride thing.

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

Seriously, your suggesting that due to 'Subduction', the islands are sinking and not that the water is rising?

'Our mob', is not suggesting the islands are 'sinking' at all, rather there being inundated by rising water.

I was not 'accusing' you of being a creationist. I was asking you to see if you were as you use the same logic in your discussions/arguments as creationists do. Even down to the idea that 'subduction' happens over just a decade and even less, which is what creationists believe. And the interesting thing about many creationists is that they 'in the church' are some of the denier's biggest supporters. Because mankind influence of climate change doesn't fit with their dogmatic views of eschatology.

But peace dude,

I think most of us know who has the flawed science and dented pride in this debate.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by conachair

Again, it's not an opinion, but a piece of newly released science relevant to the discussion.

Well give us your summary of why you think that report is relevant to the topic of apportioning MMGW to climate change in general and the associated hype and how this paper contributes to that argument.

Otherwise, if it's just a cut and past shootout, let's get it on.

Popular Technology.net: 1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by conachair

Again, it's not an opinion, but a piece of newly released science relevant to the discussion.

Ok, let me demonstrate how your science works.

Reading the abstract, because I CBF reading the rest of this drivel.

340 km3 of ice is "vanishing" a freaking year. O.M.G. The sky is falling.

We're doomed I tell yea! Noooooooooooooooooooo.........................
.
.
.
.
.
But, hang on a moment. Let's be a "denier" and actually stop panicking and have a think about this, oh, for about 5 seconds.

Step one. Note the melt rate. 340 km3 per year.
Step two. Work out the volume of the Antarctic ice sheet = 26 500 000 km3 (go find your own link for this)
Quick Math. 26500000/340 = 77941.18 years (oops, is "only" 310, but I already typed into the calculator)

Run for the hills! Cap the wells! Flood the mines! Sell the Landcruiser! The ice sheets will be completely gone in less than 80000 years at this rate!!!!!

Now, let me highlight the falsehoods.

Abstract from Conachair's link...
The floating ice shelves surrounding the Antarctic Ice Sheet restrain the grounded ice-sheet flow. Thinning of an ice shelf reduces this effect, leading to an increase in ice discharge to the ocean. Using eighteen years of continuous satellite radar altimeter observations we have computed decadal-scale changes in ice-shelf thickness around the Antarctic continent. Overall, average ice-shelf volume change accelerated from negligible loss at 25 ± 64 km3 per year for 1994-2003 to rapid loss of 310 ± 74 km3 per year for 2003-2012. West Antarctic losses increased by 70% in the last decade, and earlier volume gain by East Antarctic ice shelves ceased. In the Amundsen and Bellingshausen regions, some ice shelves have lost up to 18% of their thickness in less than two decades.

Umm, ok. Can't be too many of them of them there ice shelves reducing by 18% based on my numbers. And, my-oh-my 70% is a dramatic number. To bad it means SFA in the AGW context. The rest is just blah blah blah....

But of course words like "rapid", "accelerated", "losses" et all really add to the dramatics and hysteria which I guess is the effect the author was after.

Does the bibliography of this paper note the wasted cost time and effort involved in this total waste of time study that mentions no more than numerous other studies on exactly the same thing?

Keep sipping on that pro-AGW alarmist Kool-Aid, fellas.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Ok, let me demonstrate how your science works.

Reading the abstract, because I CBF reading the rest of this drivel.

340 km3 of ice is "vanishing" a freaking year. O.M.G. The sky is falling.

We're doomed I tell yea! Noooooooooooooooooooo.........................
.
.
.
.
.
But, hang on a moment. Let's be a "denier" and actually stop panicking and have a think about this, oh, for about 5 seconds.

Step one. Note the melt rate. 340 km3 per year.
Step two. Work out the volume of the Antarctic ice sheet = 26 500 000 km3 (go find your own link for this)
Quick Math. 26500000/340 = 77941.18 years (oops, is "only" 310, but I already typed into the calculator)

Run for the hills! Cap the wells! Flood the mines! Sell the Landcruiser! The ice sheets will be completely gone in less than 80000 years at this rate!!!!!

Now, let me highlight the falsehoods.

Abstract from Conachair's link...
The floating ice shelves surrounding the Antarctic Ice Sheet restrain the grounded ice-sheet flow. Thinning of an ice shelf reduces this effect, leading to an increase in ice discharge to the ocean. Using eighteen years of continuous satellite radar altimeter observations we have computed decadal-scale changes in ice-shelf thickness around the Antarctic continent. Overall, average ice-shelf volume change accelerated from negligible loss at 25 ± 64 km3 per year for 1994-2003 to rapid loss of 310 ± 74 km3 per year for 2003-2012. West Antarctic losses increased by 70% in the last decade, and earlier volume gain by East Antarctic ice shelves ceased. In the Amundsen and Bellingshausen regions, some ice shelves have lost up to 18% of their thickness in less than two decades.

Umm, ok. Can't be too many of them of them there ice shelves reducing by 18% based on my numbers. And, my-oh-my 70% is a dramatic number. To bad it means SFA in the AGW context. The rest is just blah blah blah....

But of course words like "rapid", "accelerated", "losses" et all really add to the dramatics and hysteria which I guess is the effect the author was after.

Does the bibliography of this paper note the wasted cost time and effort involved in this total waste of time study that mentions no more than numerous other studies on exactly the same thing?

Keep sipping on that pro-AGW alarmist Kool-Aid, fellas.

Reefmagnet: try discussing these things without your silly offensive comments and you might be taken more seriously. You obviously feel seriously about this, so spend the time to explain yourself without the need to put people down.