Scientists Say Climate Change Has Reached the ‘Point of No Return’

a reply to: smirkley

Not really, Phage turtles up when he doesn't have the intellectual advantage.

Need to poke the beast sometimes.

a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3

Nothing is Ever gone without a Replacement . For now , we are stuck with Oil and Nuclear Power unless you prefer to live a Neolithic Life Style in da Woods......:

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

or now , we are stuck with Oil and Nuclear Power unless you prefer to live a Neolithic Life Style in da Woods......:

Actually, I know a few people with very nice PV systems. They even charge their electric cars off them.
They don't work well in the woods though, need a lot of clear sky overhead.

Pricey though, but that's changing.

a reply to: Phage

Yeah man!

All of those poor people in 3rd world countries are buying up PV systems left and right!

No need for coal burning.

BOOO COAL BURNING! BOOO!!

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Stuck with?

Yeah I forgot it was your great great great grand pappy who first discovered oil, and realized how incredibly useful it was in sustaining and allowing the flourishing of mankind.

Then your papa neutrino feverishly spent his life unlocking the secrets of nuclear power that would benefit mankind for generations.

Why did your family have to screw everything over for us?

Want to add another thing to the list in my previous post regarding vegans and nutritional deficiency:
1) Calcium supplements (or lots of kale?)

Remember, you're not drinking milk, so you need a good source.

Also get sunlight. But get too much and you'll wrink like a prune prematurely. Lots of people say there's no risk of cancer, but the probelm is if you go to official websites in the medical field they'll all tell you skin cancer is linked to overexposure, especially in white people.

It's not the nutrtional reasons you should become a vegan, it's because you're not eating an animal and it might save the planet from AGW? Gotta be realistic. Research is just not supporting the idea vegan=superhuman.

a reply to: glend

I take it you are in SA,im on the Nth coast it the weather is mild,i would go as far to say as nice,warm days cooler evenings

a reply to: tkwasny

The volume of ice on land world-wide if all melted would not raise the ocean shores located WORLD-WIDE by more than a few inches

Entire ice worldwide is more like 1 tenth the entire land mass. Really, just a few inches? Historically that does not work.

In fact, we have 8 inches on record. So if the entire ice sheet melts and only causes "a few inches" how in the f%&$ do we have 8 inches of change on historical record?

Core samples, tide gauge readings, and, most recently, satellite measurements tell us that over the past century, the Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) has risen by 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters). However, the annual rate of rise over the past 20 years has been 0.13 inches (3.2 millimeters) a year, roughly twice the average speed of the preceding 80 years.

ocean.nationalgeographic.com...

Lemme guess, its all fake right?

All the salt waters on Earth are connected and additions to the massive total volume level out to every shoreline on the entire Earth.

Ah yes, because Netherlands has never had to work on its dams. And the Earth has never had Sea lines recede into land, oh wait...

Every source says a couple hundred feet if ice caps and glaciers melted, but you can always give us the math you used to calculate your version which differs from every professional opinion around, besides lobby groups and backyard whiz'mi'tists

The Antarctic ice sheet is the largest single mass of ice on Earth.
It covers an area of almost 14 million square km and contains 30 million cubic km of ice.

Around 90 percent of the fresh water on the Earth's surface is held in the ice sheet, an amount equivalent to 70 m of water in the world's oceans.

www.sciencedaily.com...

The main ice covered landmass is Antarctica at the South Pole, with about 90 percent of the world's ice (and 70 percent of its fresh water). Antarctica is covered with ice an average of 2,133 meters (7,000 feet) thick. If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet).

science.howstuffworks.com...

If all the ice covering Antarctica, Greenland, and in mountain glaciers around the world were to melt, sea level would rise about 70 meters (230 feet).

www.amnh.org...

originally posted by: strongfp

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: strongfp

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: watchitburn

Yes it would...

You understand that ice is made of water right? So if you add water to water, you get more water...
Now if you are drinking it of course it would not. So is your point that the oceans are losing water that the melting ice caps would replace?

Hmm when water freezes, does it not expand? So if you had ice in a cup and it melted th water level would actually lower! Only slightly tho.

5 Myths About Antarctic Melt

....

5. Ice shrinks when it melts, so ocean levels will go down

The Antarctic Ice Sheet is on land, not floating in the ocean. Actually, it is dipping its toes in the sea, but the majority of the ice is on land. (Antarctica's glaciers end in floating ice shelves that extend into the ocean.)

Thus, the vast majority of the ice is not currently displacing water and will raise sea level when it melts and flows into the ocean.

www.livescience.com...

I was talking about ice in a cup not glaciers on land...

Ah, you win then. Ice melting in a cup will not result in global sea level rise.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Well, good. If we're past the point of no return, there is no reason for a carbon tax.

I'll just make my peace with things before we all boil to death.

good call...besides this is going to be our kids and grandkids problem, I'll be long gone before then, and I want to pollute the world as much I can to get what I want. screw the future, let them deal with it....

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: strongfp

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: strongfp

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: watchitburn

Yes it would...

You understand that ice is made of water right? So if you add water to water, you get more water...
Now if you are drinking it of course it would not. So is your point that the oceans are losing water that the melting ice caps would replace?

Hmm when water freezes, does it not expand? So if you had ice in a cup and it melted th water level would actually lower! Only slightly tho.

5 Myths About Antarctic Melt

....

5. Ice shrinks when it melts, so ocean levels will go down

The Antarctic Ice Sheet is on land, not floating in the ocean. Actually, it is dipping its toes in the sea, but the majority of the ice is on land. (Antarctica's glaciers end in floating ice shelves that extend into the ocean.)

Thus, the vast majority of the ice is not currently displacing water and will raise sea level when it melts and flows into the ocean.

www.livescience.com...

I was talking about ice in a cup not glaciers on land...

Ah, you win then. Ice melting in a cup will not result in global sea level rise.

well.....not unless it's a really, really, realllllllllllly, big cup.

If climate scientists said "Nothing to worry about folks!"
They would be jobless within a week.
"So you want to work at Walmart - says here you were a climate scientist?"
"Sorry, you're overqualified to stock shelves here, you wouldn't be happy"

Kind of a hard spot to be in.

a reply to: jonnywhite

The only real concern is b12. If you're an intelligent vegan you can get everything else naturally.

Studies consistently show vegans are anywhere from 20-40% less likely to die from heart disease compared to SAD.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

I got it from many sources. I'm sorry you're far out of the loop. Once grid parity is reached, it'll snowball. In the last 5 years solar energy has tripled every 18 months or so.



That huge spike is what happens as we are approaching grid parity. After it's a reality in every state, 3% will be greatly surpassed.

Common sense.

Here's an article mentioning the IEA talking about this very thing.

IEA Solar main energy source 2050

the overpopulation of the world will ultimately be mans undoing. the only thing that will save man is depopulation...The planet will always fix itself after we're gone

originally posted by: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3
a reply to: Phage

So Phage, do we need to promote self loathing amongst cows now? The "legendary" Climate GOD James E Hansen seems to be drifting a bit from the CO2 doom porn he has been spewing for the last 30 years.

Given your communist/socialist/elitist paradigm, do we need to kill all livestock so we can be safe?!

The authors of the article are not saying that we need to kill all livestock, just that we need to change the system of how things operate in livestock/ feed production. It's apparently a huge waste of resources and leaves a huge carbon print.

If scientists/governments/ecologists were all that serious about solar power for our homes....they would make it affordable to the working class.

I don't want to hear about how costs are going down.....we cannot afford it.
It would have to come down about 75% or be subsidized.

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe
There is a 30% federal tax credit and many states provide matching or better rebates. 65% isn't good enough? If your state isn't one of them, maybe you should have a word with your legislature.
blogs-images.forbes.com...


Is it free? No. Is power from coal free? No. How much electricity do you use? How long would it take you to amortize the $10k for a PV system?


Ok, lets' raise taxes so larger credits can be provided. Oh wait, that's one of the things people are bitching about, isn't it?


And yes, the costs are falling.
blogs-images.forbes.com...

a reply to: Phage

No, it's not enough.....sorry, not everyone has the amount of money laying around to make the change to solar panels.

Most people live from pay to pay...month to month.
People struggling with bill now certainly cannot come up with large expenditures....even if it means a decrease in future bills.

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

No, it's not enough.....sorry, not everyone has the amount of money laying around to make the change to solar panels.

Yes, I know. And many people don't own their own homes for the same reason. Like I said, it isn't free. But it is a good investment. One which pays for itself fairly quickly and continues to give beyond that.

Buying a home is an investment, installing PV is an investment. Both go beyond just the monetary aspect.