User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 58

Thread: Is it too late to prevent the meltdown of West Antarctica?

  1. #11
    Points: 143,765, Level: 91
    Level completed: 20%, Points required for next Level: 2,885
    Overall activity: 79.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsOverdriveVeteran
    carolina73's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    43658
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    57,490
    Points
    143,765
    Level
    91
    Thanks Given
    56,067
    Thanked 43,663x in 28,251 Posts
    Mentioned
    154 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If we just send them money and buy carbon credits then we will all be saved! LOL

    BTW. I built a meteor deflector. I'm not going to tell you how to make yours unless you send your money to...
    Last edited by carolina73; 12-20-2021 at 07:08 PM.
    Let's go Brandon !!!

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to carolina73 For This Useful Post:

    MisterVeritis (12-20-2021)

  3. #12
    Points: 21,525, Level: 35
    Level completed: 65%, Points required for next Level: 425
    Overall activity: 8.0%
    Achievements:
    10000 Experience PointsVeteranSocial
    Collateral Damage's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    6810
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    8,046
    Points
    21,525
    Level
    35
    Thanks Given
    11,705
    Thanked 6,800x in 4,160 Posts
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalmike View Post
    No, but time is running out.

    I don't think that many U.S.citizens are aware of what scientists expect for sea level rise long term, beyond the year 2100, or what kind of damage could
    be done during the current century. Both prospects are quite bad under likely carbon emission scenarios. The study below concluded that limiting the global
    mean temperature (GMT) rise above mid-19th century levels to 2.0 degrees C will result in nearly 30 feet of sea level rise. The time frame for that sea level
    rise is a few thousand years so there would be time for humanity to adapt and abandon all coastal cities. If sea levels rise 30 feet that implies that West Antarctica
    will likely
    completely melt down. If the GMT could be limited to 1.5 degrees C. that would probably not cause a meltdown of West Antarctica. That is one reason why
    there has been so much emphasis on preventing the GMT to rise above 1.5 degrees C.
    instead of 2.0 degrees C., which was the original goal of the Paris Accord. I don't
    believe that we will make the 1.5 degree C. target; maybe we will make the 2.0 degree C. target.

    I have copied portions of the article below.

    Reducing carbon emissions will limit sea level rise -- ScienceDaily

    A new study demonstrates that a correlation also exists between cumulative carbon emissions and future sea level rise over time -- and the news isn't good.

    Even under the most optimistic scenarios outlined in the Paris Agreement -- keeping the overall warming of Earth to 1.5 degrees (Celsius) -- sea levels will continue to rise by several meters over the next few thousand years. If humans continue to burn fossil fuels so that temperatures meet the 2-degree (Celsius) threshold outlined in the Paris Agreement, global mean sea level rise may exceed nine meters, or nearly 30 feet.

    Results of the study have been published today in Nature Climate Change.

    "When we pump more carbon into the atmosphere, the effect on temperature is almost immediate," said Peter Clark, an Oregon State University climate scientist and lead author on the study. "But sea level rise takes a lot longer to respond to that warming. If you take an ice cube out of the freezer and put it on the sidewalk, it doesn't melt immediately.

    "The sea level rise we've seen thus far is just the tip of a very large iceberg," said Alan Mix, an Oregon State University oceanographer and co-author on the study. "The big question is whether we can stabilize the system and find new energy sources. If not, we're on the way to a slow-motion catastrophe. The question becomes: What do we owe our grandchildren, and their grandchildren?"

    "You can build a one-meter seawall," Clark said. "But what do you do when sea levels rise by two, or five, or 10 meters? Rising sea levels haven't really alarmed people yet because their response time is much longer than temperature. Smart countries will use that to their advantage and begin adaptation strategies over time."



    Another article from Forbes.com describes what could happen during the present century
    including as early as the year 2050. I copied 1 paragraph from that article.

    Shocking New Maps Show How Sea Level Rise Will Destroy Coastal Cities By 2050 (forbes.com)

    By 2050, sea-level rise will push average annual coastal floods higher than land now home to 300 million people, according to a study published in Nature Communications. High tides could permanently rise above land occupied by over 150 million people, including 30 million in China. Without advanced coastal defense and planning, populations in these areas may face permanent flooding within 30 years.
    So, what is the temperature that the Earth is supposed to be at? How do we know that the Earth is not just moving towards the temperature it considers 'normal'?

    There are very few people who do not agree that weather is changing, albeit slowly. It is the means, and what some want to do to 'stop' it that is the contention.

    Taxing it will not stop the weather from changing.
    Forcing people to do specific actions like a certain type of light bulb is not going to stop it.
    Crying panic in the streets is not going to change anything.

    With the number of failed declarations, wolf has been cried too many times to take the alarmists seriously. 'Is it too late' is one of those alarmist formats.
    "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." -- James Madison

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Collateral Damage For This Useful Post:

    MisterVeritis (12-20-2021)

  5. #13
    Points: 5,566, Level: 17
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 184
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points
    skepticalmike's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    130
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    687
    Points
    5,566
    Level
    17
    Thanks Given
    78
    Thanked 120x in 98 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This is the conclusion from a different study (Annual Review of Environment and Resources) on long-term sea level rise. It was published in August of 2018.

    " Over two millennia, they project a commitment of 1.4–5.2 m from 1°C of warming, 3.0–7.7 m from 2°C of warming, and 6.0–12.1 m from 4°C of warming."
    1 meter = 3.28 feet. With 2.0 degrees C. of warming this study projects 9.8 to 25.2 feet of sea level rise after 2000 years. The sea level would continue to
    rise after 2000 years.

    Mapping Sea-Level Change in Time, Space, and Probability | Annual Review of Environment and Resources (annualreviews.org)


    4.4.5. Multi-millennial projections.

    "The effects of climate change on sea level are not felt instantaneously; rather, due to the slow response time of deep ocean heat uptake and the sluggish response of ice sheets, they play out over millennia. The long-term sea-level response to a given emission future is sometimes called a “sea-level commitment” (168). Levermann et al. (168) use a combination of physical models for ocean warming, glaciers, ice caps, and ice-sheet contributions to assess the sea-level change arising from two millennia of exposure to a constant temperature. Over 2,000 years, they find a sea-level commitment of approximately 2.3 m/°C of warming. They note, however, that over longer time periods Greenland exhibits an abrupt threshold of ice loss between 0.8 and 2.2°C that ultimately adds approximately 6 m to GMSL. Incorporating this abrupt threshold yields a relationship, they conclude, that is consistent with paleo–sea-level constraints from the LIG, the MPWP, and Marine Isotope Stage 11 (approximately 411–401 thousand years ago). Over two millennia, they project a commitment of 1.4–5.2 m from 1°C of warming, 3.0–7.7 m from 2°C of warming, and 6.0–12.1 m from 4°C of warming. Over ten millennia, these numbers increase to 1.5–10.9 m, 3.5–13.5 m, and 12.0–16.0 m. Clark et al. (169) use physical models to consider not only the translation between temperature and long-term sea-level change, but also the translation between emissions and temperature."
    "They estimate that historical CO2 emissions have already locked in 1.2–2.2 m of sea-level rise, and phasing emissions down to zero over the course of the next ∼90 years will lock in another ∼9 m."

    Seas May Rise 2.3 Meters per Degree C of Global Warming: Report - Scientific American

  6. #14
    Points: 143,765, Level: 91
    Level completed: 20%, Points required for next Level: 2,885
    Overall activity: 79.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsOverdriveVeteran
    carolina73's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    43658
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    57,490
    Points
    143,765
    Level
    91
    Thanks Given
    56,067
    Thanked 43,663x in 28,251 Posts
    Mentioned
    154 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I assume if this is nothing but a bot.

    No conversations. no answers. Just posting articles.
    Let's go Brandon !!!

  7. #15
    Points: 16,966, Level: 31
    Level completed: 52%, Points required for next Level: 484
    Overall activity: 6.0%
    Achievements:
    Social10000 Experience PointsVeteran
    BenjaminO's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    1740
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Catoctin Mountain
    Posts
    5,839
    Points
    16,966
    Level
    31
    Thanks Given
    1,846
    Thanked 1,735x in 1,363 Posts
    Mentioned
    35 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Standing Wolf View Post
    Sorry, Mike. Thanks for posting the information, but on this particular forum I'm afraid all you are going to get in the way of responses is a lot of snarky verbiage about people who want to force you to use those silly curlicue lightbulbs, go veggie and buy an electric car. The entire climate change discussion became politicized, thanks to all sides involved, a long time ago, and unfortunately there's now no way to resuscitate it. The naysayer's side probably began largely with the oil companies' PR departments, but it has taken on a life of its own, with any suggestion that the inevitable consequences of the change might be mitigated by human actions met with accusations of everything from simple naiveté to being a Socialist stooge.

    See Post #2 for an example of the deep thinking and pertinent, on topic responses you may now expect.
    Excellent post. Spot on. Thanks.
    Red Green
    The man's prayer:

    I'm a man
    But I can change
    If I have to
    I guess


  8. The Following User Says Thank You to BenjaminO For This Useful Post:

    Standing Wolf (12-20-2021)

  9. #16
    Points: 78,528, Level: 68
    Level completed: 34%, Points required for next Level: 1,522
    Overall activity: 15.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    Abby08's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    72482
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Arizona and New Mexico
    Posts
    35,669
    Points
    78,528
    Level
    68
    Thanks Given
    30,479
    Thanked 29,997x in 18,679 Posts
    Mentioned
    133 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Is it melting.......again?!
    "LET'S GO BRANDON!"

  10. #17
    Points: 114,212, Level: 82
    Level completed: 19%, Points required for next Level: 2,438
    Overall activity: 64.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    RMNIXON's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    30562
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    30,808
    Points
    114,212
    Level
    82
    Thanks Given
    31,843
    Thanked 30,556x in 17,992 Posts
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina73 View Post
    I assume if this is nothing but a bot.

    No conversations. no answers. Just posting articles.



    To be fair he did respond to Standing Wolf with a lot of kissing up.

    That said it does look like a Propaganda Forum Dump of the PJL type.

  11. #18
    Points: 222,626, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 32.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranYour first Group
    Ethereal's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    468804
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    67,628
    Points
    222,626
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    14,219
    Thanked 41,536x in 26,005 Posts
    Mentioned
    1169 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Standing Wolf View Post
    The entire climate change discussion became politicized, thanks to all sides involved, a long time ago, and unfortunately there's now no way to resuscitate it. The naysayer's side probably began largely with the oil companies' PR departments, but it has taken on a life of its own, with any suggestion that the inevitable consequences of the change might be mitigated by human actions met with accusations of everything from simple naiveté to being a Socialist stooge.

    See Post #2 for an example of the deep thinking and pertinent, on topic responses you may now expect.
    Plant more trees. Problem solved.

    But that's not good enough for the communists that use "climate change" as a pretext for empowering the state and enriching cronies at everyone else's expense.
    Power always thinks it has a great soul, and vast views, beyond the comprehension of the weak. And that it is doing God service when it is violating all His laws.
    --John Adams

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Ethereal For This Useful Post:

    MisterVeritis (12-20-2021)

  13. #19
    Points: 222,626, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 32.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranYour first Group
    Ethereal's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    468804
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    67,628
    Points
    222,626
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    14,219
    Thanked 41,536x in 26,005 Posts
    Mentioned
    1169 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The quickest, easiest, and cheapest way to mitigate CO2 emissions is to plant trees. Freeman Dyson (apparently a right-wing kook now that he's questioned the conventional wisdom of "climate change") has attempted to point this out, but to little avail. It appears the "climate change" fanatics are less interested in real solutions than they are in growing government purely for its own sake.
    Power always thinks it has a great soul, and vast views, beyond the comprehension of the weak. And that it is doing God service when it is violating all His laws.
    --John Adams

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Ethereal For This Useful Post:

    MisterVeritis (12-20-2021)

  15. #20
    Points: 5,566, Level: 17
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 184
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points
    skepticalmike's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    130
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    687
    Points
    5,566
    Level
    17
    Thanks Given
    78
    Thanked 120x in 98 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    The quickest, easiest, and cheapest way to mitigate CO2 emissions is to plant trees. Freeman Dyson (apparently a right-wing kook now that he's questioned the conventional wisdom of "climate change") has attempted to point this out, but to little avail. It appears the "climate change" fanatics are less interested in real solutions than they are in growing government purely for its own sake.
    Planting trees will help but by how much? It takes much time to plant large numbers of trees and it takes many decades for trees to be mature enough to make a difference. Trees also often die before they mature, and absorb much sunlight therefore warming the Earth's surface. Eventually all trees die and the carbon goes into the atmosphere or soil. I was surprised that none of the articles I read mentioned this. I have read that it makes sense to plant trees in tropical zones but doing that limits a nations ability to make money by planting crops.

    Examining the Viability of Planting Trees to Help Mitigate Climate Change – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)

    “Planting a billion hectares of trees won’t be easy,” he said. “It would require a massive undertaking. If we follow the paper’s recommendations, reforesting an area the size of the United States and Canada combined (1 to 2 billion hectares) could take between one and two thousand years, assuming we plant a million hectares a year and that each hectare contains at least 50 to 100 trees to create an appropriate treetop canopy cover.”
    Even once the trees are planted, says Saatchi, it will take them about a century to reach maturity. Most forests in the United States are less than 100 years old because they are recycled constantly. Trees in tropical regions take a little bit longer to reach maturity, but sequester carbon much faster. We know it will take time for new forests to absorb atmospheric carbon.”

    ttps://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/03/the-pros-and-cons-of-planting-trees-to-address-global-warming/


    James Temple, senior editor for energy at MIT Technology Review, summed up the view of many experts in a January 28 piece when he wrote:
    “It’s great that trees are having a moment. Nations absolutely should plant and protect as many as possible. … But it’s also a limited and unreliable way of addressing climate change.”
    Temple raised a few more important points, some of which have been echoed elsewhere. Among them: trees take time to grow and reach maturity – decades and even centuries for redwoods and other behemoths that can store massive amounts of carbon. If you think you’re going to immediately offset your carbon footprint from flying across the country by planting a tree … think again.
    Another point Temple made: You really have to work the numbers to get a true sense of the challenge. For example, he wrote, the U.S. produced 5.8 billion gigatons of carbon dioxide emissions in 2019. To offset that much CO2 pollution, you’d have to plant a forest – and wait for it to fully mature – that is more than twice the size of Texas.
    The one-trillion tree campaign raises still more questions for forest ecologists – one of them having to do with biodiversity. If the campaign results in what are essentially tree plantations lacking biodiversity and genetic variation, often referred to as monoculture, those artificial forests won’t get very far.


+ Reply to Thread

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts