Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Na...I like the anecdotal example of the "settled science" of how eating fat was bad for you, which has now been debunked. We can both play the anecdotal game, can't we.

You are mixing up food politics and food science

in reality the science hasn't really changed , what changed in regards " low fat" was an industry saw a " health promotion " angle and promoted a certain food construction as being more healthily . The science never really changed


dave

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

There are limits to just about everything. Vitamin is fat soluble, that is why it is added to milk.

Selenium, an essential trace element in our diet, starts to become toxic at 400 ppm.

Ha ha. Very subtle. I see what you did there. ;-)


Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

It's really impossible to discuss this with people like you because apparently only YOU decide who the "credible" scientists are and that any opinions in opposition to them are not credible.

not at all. We all should be looking at credentials. All of us. I shouldn't have to spell out 'what' credentials are. You don't go to a dentist for a gut ache, or a surgeon for a tooth ache. Do you not understand what I'm referring to about 'credible'. Do you not understand the word?

It's like saying you know they're right because they're right, end of discussion. I suppose you can "win" every argument that way, at least in your own mind. Except that very few of their doomsday predictions based on "science" have even approached turning out to be true. If they keep it up long enough, eventually even you will have to wonder if they really know what they're talking about as well as they claim to know.

We've been hearing about rising oceans making people homeless, stateless, etc. for decades and it just hasn't happened any more than it ever has, but you're still throwing that out to justify saying that those who aren't alarmed enough about AGW are "selfish."


no, you have misquoted me. I was suggesting YOU were being selfish and lacking apathy not about being alarmed at AGW, because you don't believe in it, but at what seems a lack of caring for anyone being displaced. Stop misquoting me please. That's not helpful and its dishonest if your doing it on purpose. And I know you understood me because in this next paragraph you refer to exactly what I was talking about and reinforce your quite selfish view stating people shouldn't live in those areas.

But again, populations living along the shore within a few feet of sea level have been more affected than others by weather and high tides and changes in sea level forever, and that will always be the case. Maybe the more useful lesson to be learned is that it's not smart to plan to live long term a foot above sea level, NOT that we need to have a worldwide carbon tax. Is it really any more "selfish" of me to say that I'd like the climate where I live to be just a little warmer than it is for some other folks to say they'd like their climate to get a little cooler or to stay just how it was last year? How is one preference "selfish" and the other not?

given the evidence, it makes perfect sense. 97% of the worlds climate scientists, the ones with credibility, agree this is now 95% certain. That's pretty damn good odds. Your claiming that by 'acting now' it will impoverish millions? Why will it? How will it? The cost is a pittance compared to what the USA spends on starting wars.

We in the first world are all relatively wealthy in large part because of the things cheap energy has bought us. If a worldwide carbon tax is levied to combat AGW, energy for everyone will get much more expensive. I won't like it but can probably handle that and maybe you can too, but there are many millions of folks who would really like for their children to have some of the nice things (adequate food, shelter, education, medicine) that cheap energy has allowed you and I to take for granted.

Australia introduced this and the nay Sayers said the sky woukd fall in like you are. After a year it made no difference to any costs that I could see. The billionaire Gina rhinehart had to start paying her taxes for a change, that's about all that happened.


Also, the cost of providing cheap energy to many millions, as we pay more for our energy, is NOT a pittance. That's a cheap shot at the USA that has NOTHING at all to do with this subject, but if you're from Australia or NZ, try to remember that if it were not for the USA's willingness to fight wars to help others who are too weak to help themselves, you'd be speaking Japanese right now...you're welcome.

of course it's a pittance. Ten years of war cost billions. 'Billions'. And read your history, Pearl Harbour had to happen before you lot came to the rescue of Europe. We and Newzealand were helping long before that.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

For the Heartland Institute climate science is as settled as tobacco science.

Maybe Heartland are an anti-propaganda lobby?

Anti tobacco is a perfect example of fear mongering in action. If you are a smoker that dies from anything that even remotely can be attributed to smoking, that's what they blame to bolster the stat's. Cigarette packets here in Oz are covered in grotesque images of the worst of the worst diseases that can (there's that word again) be caused by smoking. A big deal is made about "second hand smoke" yet go stand by the side of the road near any busy city roadway and tell me how that is a better environment? Yes smoking is bad for you (I don't smoke, btw) but just like AGW it gets beat up like a nerd at jock camp. A key similarity between tobacco and AGW is those that condemn it the most are those least effected by the draconian measures they introduce, or want to introduce, in the name of "good".

Now, tell us about your position on alcohol? The substance that causes for more death and misery today than I'm guessing tobacco and AGW combined.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by lordgeoff

Obama's comments at the G20 last year re reducing greenhouse gasses in USA was a tad cute. The baseline for reductions was pre Global Financial Crisis (GFC) I think the baseline mentioned was 2002. The GFC created a large drop in energy use in USA in addition there has been a significant shift, like most western countries, of manufacturing to China. Most significant is the shift from electricity generation from coal to Fracked Gas resulting in a reduction in CO2 emissions.
Effectively the USA has come close to achieving its emission reduction goals already by the actions above. As with politicians they tend to say what people want to hear. Obama is no different.

China and USA will continue to be growing energy users and what fuel is used will depend on price and availability. So called renewable energy, solar and wind, will continue to be bit players in the energy markets. The old technologies of solar and wind suffer from 3 major problems. Firstly their generation is intermittent ( relying on availability of wind and sun). Secondly they both are yet to resolve the energy storage and transport problems. Thirdly neither wind or solar can supply reliable, consistent baseload power.
China and USA energy requirements for the foreseeable future will be nuclear and fossil based. Coal will continue to be the backbone of electricity production in the developing world for many decades to come. As they say coal is king.

I think you have summarised the ongoing problem quite accurately.

There are no easy fixes.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Maybe Heartland are an anti-propaganda lobby?

Anti tobacco is a perfect example of fear mongering in action. If you are a smoker that dies from anything that even remotely can be attributed to smoking, that's what they blame to bolster the stat's. Cigarette packets here in Oz are covered in grotesque images of the worst of the worst diseases that can (there's that word again) be caused by smoking. A big deal is made about "second hand smoke" yet go stand by the side of the road near any busy city roadway and tell me how that is a better environment? Yes smoking is bad for you (I don't smoke, btw) but just like AGW it gets beat up like a nerd at jock camp. A key similarity between tobacco and AGW is those that condemn it the most are those least effected by the draconian measures they introduce, or want to introduce, in the name of "good".

whilst I share your doubt around the images on the product I think your lack of knowledge around the extent of the cost to Australia's health care system is naive. Tobacco related health problems is huge (and yes along with mv gas emissions I agree)

Now, tell us about your position on alcohol? The substance that causes for more death and misery today than I'm guessing tobacco and AGW combined.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

and I agree with you about alcohol, but my job (and many others) depends on the misery caused by alcohol and so does my quality of life so I don't want to do anything about that.

[Reefmagnet]

Tobacco excise doesn't offset health costs? Isn't a pack of smokes well over 20 bucks?

AND think about the offset to aged care and old people in general that's the current elephant in the room ;-)

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Rustic Charm]

http://youtu.be/__UgsLUxmos




Hope that worked. Here is a link to a recent documentary on the rapidly melting glaziers. It should appeal to you Reefmagnet as its 'free' on Utube. It's a documentary about the Extreem Ice Survey.

I'd still like to hear from anyone or read a link to 'credible' sources that dispute the speed that these are melting. Reefmagnet's 80,000 year maths is clearly not correct even with my limited maths ability.

Is there another reason why ice melt, ice formations that are tens of thousands of years old and as much as 100 000 years are very rapidly melting before our eyes? Is there a credible source of knowledge out there that addresses this? For that matter even a non credible source that has a reasonable explanation?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

http://youtu.be/__UgsLUxmos




Hope that worked. Here is a link to a recent documentary on the rapidly melting glaziers. It should appeal to you Reefmagnet as its 'free' on Utube. It's a documentary about the Extreem Ice Survey.

I'd still like to hear from anyone or read a link to 'credible' sources that dispute the speed that these are melting. Reefmagnet's 80,000 year maths is clearly not correct even with my limited maths ability.

Is there another reason why ice melt, ice formations that are tens of thousands of years old and as much as 100 000 years are very rapidly melting before our eyes? Is there a credible source of knowledge out there that addresses this? For that matter even a non credible source that has a reasonable explanation?

Maths is scissors to scare mongering papers.

And do feel free to supply your own calculations. Or is this just more of you unsubstantiated postulating?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Tobacco excise doesn't offset health costs? Isn't a pack of smokes well over 20 bucks?

AND think about the offset to aged care and old people in general that's the current elephant in the room ;-)

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

I'm sure it would if it actually went into health. But I'm not convinced it does given the 'income' generated by tobacco tax and the decline in health funding.

A bit like gambling taxes. Where is all the funding going to address gambling? An odd television add!

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

I'm sure it would if it actually went into health. But I'm not convinced it does given the 'income' generated by tobacco tax and the decline in health funding.

A bit like gambling taxes. Where is all the funding going to address gambling? An odd television add!

General revenue is still used to pay the bills.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

http://youtu.be/__UgsLUxmos




Hope that worked. Here is a link to a recent documentary on the rapidly melting glaziers. It should appeal to you Reefmagnet as its 'free' on Utube. It's a documentary about the Extreem Ice Survey.

I'd still like to hear from anyone or read a link to 'credible' sources that dispute the speed that these are melting. Reefmagnet's 80,000 year maths is clearly not correct even with my limited maths ability.

Is there another reason why ice melt, ice formations that are tens of thousands of years old and as much as 100 000 years are very rapidly melting before our eyes? Is there a credible source of knowledge out there that addresses this? For that matter even a non credible source that has a reasonable explanation?

Well I'm about to set sail with the change of the tide to research sea level rise and the effects of AGW on coral this weekend. My only regret is that I forgot to apply for a research grant

But here's a theory on Antarctic ice sheet melt. Geothermal. Don't laugh. I haven't delved into it, but apparently it is a valid theory. There's some sense in it because the ice is thinning from underneath. The ice sheets are too thick to be influenced by any winds, air temps or other atmospheric conditions below a certain depth and that only leaves the sea and land influence beneath. This theory also explains the thinning and expanding area being observed.

Now, just to make it clear, I haven't researched this myself and I'm not saying this is what's happening but I am saying it's worth thinking about.

And my numbers do add up. I'm the first to admit even I was surprised, but it is what it is. On the planetary scale, numbers are huhege so even numbers that seem impressive to our relative thinking are trivial on the global scale.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

But here's a theory on Antarctic ice sheet melt. Geothermal. Don't laugh. I haven't delved into it, but apparently it is a valid theory. There's some sense in it because the ice is thinning from underneath. The ice sheets are too thick to be influenced by any winds, air temps or other atmospheric conditions below a certain depth and that only leaves the sea and land influence beneath. This theory also explains the thinning and expanding area being observed.

Now, just to make it clear, I haven't researched this myself and I'm not saying this is what's happening but I am saying it's worth thinking about.

It sure is. Especially when you look in more detail at the previously linked paper on ice shelf thinning.

Here's the actual data from the paper. Notice that the thinning is basically confined to one side.



And where are all the antarctic volcanoes? Yep, same place:





Funny how none of the MSM news releases based on the study or our alarmist friends make the obvious connection.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Maths is scissors to scare mongering papers.

And do feel free to supply your own calculations. Or is this just more of you unsubstantiated postulating?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

I did. You said You would apologise in two hundred years if your wrong.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Maths is scissors to scare mongering papers.

And do feel free to supply your own calculations. Or is this just more of you unsubstantiated postulating?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Here's a reminder.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rustic Charm View Post
I'm no mathametician, but I'm seeing some serious misunderstanding on the way you worked out your 8k years. The following passage is the bit I don't think you grasped.

"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"

Its the acceleration that is the alarming bit. It went from what was 25km3 in the 9 years between 94 to 03 to a sudden 310km3 in the 9 years between 03 to 12.

At that rate, if it continues we are looking at the next 9 years, being 2012 to 2021 will be up around 600 or a little less if it remains at a 70% acceleration. It doesn't take too much maths to work out that if it increases at 70% for the next 4 cycles alone, (as long as it doesn't increase from 70% ) then 8000 years is not even close. (I acknowledge you meant 80000 years. But your maths in that case is even worse)

Your response was:
The hype and hysteria was the most alarming bit. I'll apologise if your right in 2 centuries, promise ;-)

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app