Scientists Warn of Perilous Climate Shift Within Decades, Not Centuries

originally posted by: yorkshirelad

originally posted by: Discotech
a reply to: lostbook

Also in regards to sea level rises, we keep putting more boats into the ocean, boats displace water, therefore the more weight we add to the water the higher it rises. So the solution ? Remove the boats
Seriously though using Archimedes principle, if the Ice is floating on the water, then how does the melting of the ice increase sea levels because using Archimedes principle the mass of the ice would equal the mass of the water so in theory when the ice melts there is no difference in mass, the mass has just changed form from solid to liquid ?
What I mean is, if I place an ice cube into a glass of water the water level rises, when the ice cube melts, the water level remains the same level when the ice cube was intact, so why does ice melting in the ocean cause a rise in sea level when the ice itself rests on the ocean ?

Jesus H! Talk about a little knowledge being a dangerous thing....dangerously deluded!
Greenland (land not floating) is covered in ice that is 1.2 MILES THICK and it is melting, total loss would raise sea levels by 7.2m
Antarctica (land not floating) has 28 cubic KILOMETERS of ice and total loss would raise sea levels by 58m. Antarctica is warming faster than world average.
Right now I can hear the skeptics frantically typing away: but but but all BS because Antarctica sea ice is expanding. This is true and is due to melting fresh water, cold air (weather) etc etc. However the sea ice is metres thick whereas the warming main body of ice is kilometers thick.
So folks stick your fingers in your ears, hands over eyes and sing lah lah lah loudly and hope it's all BS and goes away....oh hang on all contributors so far are doing just that and yet it's not going away. Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

Most don't understand the Sea ice-Land ice concept. Apparently, you're one of the few who get it...

a reply to: yorkshirelad

How did it get on the land ?

For ice to form it has to be water first, so how does 28cubic kilometres of water stay on land long enough to freeze without running off into the ocean ?

a reply to: lostbook

Here's what pisses me off about this subject - why is it that every time the (apparent changing) weather and consequential environmental impact is discussed by the media and government, the resultant solutions to this problems surround not so much as how to minimize or eliminate the (apparent) man-made contribution, but how much they want to tax me to do it.

It's always about taxing the little guy and with climate change, it's taxation on a global scale - any developing and developed country will be hit.

Here's an idea, tax the corporations whose industry produces the apparent cause and where that falls under state owned public utilities, just that portion becomes a tax contribution for the taxpayer. There are plenty of private industry consuming and contributing to the climate change debacle at a rate thousands of times greater than average Joe - pro rata the tax.

Alarm bells should start ringing when government and corporations stand to get rich from taxing the little guy over a subject that needs a hell of a lot more research and public oversight before any decisions are made on how much more of my money they want, and whether their solution has any merit against other alternatives.

originally posted by: Discotech
a reply to: yorkshirelad

How did it get on the land ?

For ice to form it has to be water first, so how does 28cubic kilometres of water stay on land long enough to freeze without running off into the ocean ?

SNOW. Lots of snow forming layers upon layers on top of itself will compact into ice.

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: lostbook

10 reasons I bet this is bullish*t

freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com...



Numbers 11, 12:

Agenda 21, the "carbon tax", etc. it seems like a great way to scare the masses into giving up either other freedoms or having to pay more for daily living


Reason Number 13:

reminds me of this www.collective-evolution.com... (ATS thread - www.abovetopsecret.com... )

Thanks for the links. Those links are consistent with this excerpt.

Veteran mining industry mathematician Steven McIntyre and economics professor Ross McKitrick (together, “M&M”), noticed obvious defects in the Hockey Stick chart and the claims it was being used to support. They asked for Mann’s data to replicate the team’s work, as any study or experiment, if it is “sound science,” must be capable of replication. M&M concluded, on the basis of information obtained by an associate of Mann’s, that the data “for the estimation of temperatures from 1400 to 1980 contains collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects.” Well, that would be a problem...


It used to be that the scientific method meant “proposing bold hypotheses, and exposing them to the severest criticism, in order to detect where we have erred.” When Sir Karl Popper described science thus three decades back, it was before such vast sums were at stake as the U.S. government’s $5 billion annual climate research budget. For their criticism, M&M felt the wrath of the global warming establishment. They encountered obstacle after obstacle in their efforts to check the original data. Undeterred, after three years they had sufficiently exposed the Hockey Stick to defrock it as follows:

Nature [the science journal that published the original Hockey Stick research] never verified that data were correctly listed: as it happens they weren’t.

Nature never verified that data archiving rules were followed: they weren’t.

Nature never verified that methods were accurately stated: they weren’t.

Nature never verified that stated methods yield the stated results: they don’t.

Nature undertook only minimal corrections to its publication record after notification of these things, and even allowed authors to falsely claim that their omissions on these things didn’t affect their published results.

The IPCC’s use of the Hockey Stick was not incidental: it is prominent throughout the 2001 report. Yet they did not subject it to any independent checking.



Horner, Christopher C. (2007-02-12). The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming: And Environmentalism (Kindle Locations 2222-2239). Regnery Publishing. Kindle Edition.

a reply to: lostbook

I understand that a lot of people are annoyed at this whole Global Warming/ Rising Seas thing, but it's real in my opinion. I'm not a scientist so I can't back up what I say with facts and figures but I can see that the world around me is changing at a rapid pace.

originally posted by: Discotech
a reply to: lostbook

So does this mean the UK will finally start getting some interesting weather ?

I can't wait, seriously, I hate our weather, I'm all for climate change if it means we finally get a different climate

Oh man, just wait!

It'd be all speedo's and bikini's!

Coconut palms and banana coladas, I think I'll even visit!

Maybe the pubs will extend their opening hours?

originally posted by: yorkshirelad

originally posted by: Discotech
a reply to: lostbook

Also in regards to sea level rises, we keep putting more boats into the ocean, boats displace water, therefore the more weight we add to the water the higher it rises. So the solution ? Remove the boats

Seriously though using Archimedes principle, if the Ice is floating on the water, then how does the melting of the ice increase sea levels because using Archimedes principle the mass of the ice would equal the mass of the water so in theory when the ice melts there is no difference in mass, the mass has just changed form from solid to liquid ?

What I mean is, if I place an ice cube into a glass of water the water level rises, when the ice cube melts, the water level remains the same level when the ice cube was intact, so why does ice melting in the ocean cause a rise in sea level when the ice itself rests on the ocean ?

Jesus H! Talk about a little knowledge being a dangerous thing....dangerously deluded!

Greenland (land not floating) is covered in ice that is 1.2 MILES THICK and it is melting, total loss would raise sea levels by 7.2m
Antarctica (land not floating) has 28 cubic KILOMETERS of ice and total loss would raise sea levels by 58m. Antarctica is warming faster than world average.

Right now I can hear the skeptics frantically typing away: but but but all BS because Antarctica sea ice is expanding. This is true and is due to melting fresh water, cold air (weather) etc etc. However the sea ice is metres thick whereas the warming main body of ice is kilometers thick.

So folks stick your fingers in your ears, hands over eyes and sing lah lah lah loudly and hope it's all BS and goes away....oh hang on all contributors so far are doing just that and yet it's not going away. Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

Dude, do the math. 7.2m is 20ft.

21ft higher over 70% of the earth's surface.

That's a lot of ice in 1 small spot. lol, I'm surprised it's still above water.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: lostbook

Here's what pisses me off about this subject - why is it that every time the (apparent changing) weather and consequential environmental impact is discussed by the media and government, the resultant solutions to this problems surround not so much as how to minimize or eliminate the (apparent) man-made contribution, but how much they want to tax me to do it.

It's always about taxing the little guy and with climate change, it's taxation on a global scale - any developing and developed country will be hit.

Here's an idea, tax the corporations whose industry produces the apparent cause and where that falls under state owned public utilities, just that portion becomes a tax contribution for the taxpayer. There are plenty of private industry consuming and contributing to the climate change debacle at a rate thousands of times greater than average Joe - pro rata the tax.

Alarm bells should start ringing when government and corporations stand to get rich from taxing the little guy over a subject that needs a hell of a lot more research and public oversight before any decisions are made on how much more of my money they want, and whether their solution has any merit against other alternatives.

But but but, the tree rings!! and the ice core samples!

I got $1000.00 in my top drawer I'd give right now for the sun to come out.

Maybe if I move it to the bottom drawer it will work?

How about I give it to my neighbor, will that work?

Nope, it just got darker, lol. (really did)

oh crap, it's gonna pour.

That's what they want you to believe. Give money and it will magically get fixed.
First it has to be believed it is broken.

I don't believe it's broken.

originally posted by: Discotech
a reply to: lostbook

Also in regards to sea level rises, we keep putting more boats into the ocean, boats displace water, therefore the more weight we add to the water the higher it rises. So the solution ? Remove the boats

Seriously though using Archimedes principle, if the Ice is floating on the water, then how does the melting of the ice increase sea levels because using Archimedes principle the mass of the ice would equal the mass of the water so in theory when the ice melts there is no difference in mass, the mass has just changed form from solid to liquid ?

What I mean is, if I place an ice cube into a glass of water the water level rises, when the ice cube melts, the water level remains the same level when the ice cube was intact, so why does ice melting in the ocean cause a rise in sea level when the ice itself rests on the ocean ?

it's called displacement and the issue is more around Greenland, Antartica and the 100's of other glaciers that are melting rapidly with the fresh water flowing from the land into the sea.

I find it astonishing how quickly so many people who are not scientists rush to discount the findings and theories of trained professional scientists.

Scientists don't just make stuff up you know, they do research, they publish articles, they set out their evidence.

97.5% of climate scientists agree that climate change is a real thing we should be worried about.

A bunch of armchair laypeople who read the internet disagree.

Why is this even a debate as to whom we should believe?!

originally posted by: Discotech
a reply to: lostbook

Also in regards to sea level rises, we keep putting more boats into the ocean, boats displace water, therefore the more weight we add to the water the higher it rises. So the solution ? Remove the boats

Seriously though using Archimedes principle, if the Ice is floating on the water, then how does the melting of the ice increase sea levels because using Archimedes principle the mass of the ice would equal the mass of the water so in theory when the ice melts there is no difference in mass, the mass has just changed form from solid to liquid ?

What I mean is, if I place an ice cube into a glass of water the water level rises, when the ice cube melts, the water level remains the same level when the ice cube was intact, so why does ice melting in the ocean cause a rise in sea level when the ice itself rests on the ocean ?

They're not worried about the ice in the Arctic, it's the ice in Greenland and Antarctica that's worrying them. That's on land.

Yes, Im convinced its all true.
I hope the scientists remember the 80s....and the "Greenhouse Effect."

You know, by 1995 when the Earth is completely covered by clouds and all the heat is locked into the atmosphere and Earth will turn into Venus.....
Except in the 1990s they realised that if the Earth was covered by clouds of water Vapour....white clouds of water vapour, that the clouds would actually reflect the Sun light and cause the Earth to cool.....much as it does when there are major Volcanic eruptions and the upper atmosphere is flooded with soot and ash clouds...that reflect the Sunlight and cool the Earth.

What a quandary......One says this and the other says that......but they are all right...right?

As a child in the 60s, I lived near the beach....when there were storms, the sea would wash a lot of the sand away...so they put large rocks there. Every year there were storms.
Its now 2016, the sea at the same beach, is still in the same position, and still washes sand away during storms.

The beach is the same now, as is was 50 years ago..........

Going by certain scientists, all the homes should be underwater now, as should London, New York, and every other major city.
So, what happened?

a reply to: FamCore

We're not buying the bull**it quick enough. More taxes so the the 1%ers can get bigger tax breaks.

wait what! a whole 3.1 mm sea water rise per year
Who knows what assumptions they make in these calculations - its not like the Earth is a closed system where accurate simplistic calculations can bring any sort of accurate results

www.skepticalscience.com...

.......As they put it, Noerdlinger’s and Bower’s result is a good first approximation in cold waters where most floating ice is found. The density of cold water is mainly determined by its salinity while for warmer water temperature is also an important factor. Therefore in warmer water the cooling effect matters. Back to the question, if this effect contributes to sea level rise in a relevant way. Shepherd et al 2010 examine this. They combine satellite observations for an assessment of the loss of floating ice. According to this 743 km3/yr floating ice was lost in average between 1994 and 2004. They further conclude that 1.6% of current sea level rise (about 3.1 mm per year) is caused by loss of sea ice. This is not very much compared to other sources. However the authors assert that this effect should be considered for future assessments of global sea level rise.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Well, the Earth just had the warmest February on record. Even after this, people still only complain about paying more taxes. Here's another

Release of CO2 Fastest in 66 Million Years.
article:news.yahoo.com...

I find this troubling:
Climate Change Is Much Worse Than We Thought, According to the Scientist Who First Warned

Superstorms

Pointing to giant hunks of rock that litter the shore of the Bahamas, among other evidence of ancient climates, the study’s authors suggest that past versions of Earth may have featured superstorms capable of casually tossing boulders like bored Olympians.

And as the temperature gradient between the tropic and the polar oceans gets steeper, thanks to that slowing of ocean-mixing currents, we could see stronger storms, too.

This is surprisingly intuitive: Picture a temperature gradient like a hill, with the high temperatures up at the top and the low temperatures down at the bottom. As the highs get higher and the lows get lower, that hill gets a lot steeper—and the storms are the bowling balls you chuck down the hill. A bowling ball will pick up a lot more speed on a steep hill, and hurt a lot more when it finally runs into something. Likewise, by the time these supercharged storms are slamming into coasts in the middle latitudes, they will be carrying a whole lot of deadly force with them.

This is also something we are already starting to experience. Or do people think that Katrina and Haiti were flukes?

a reply to: Painterz

Scientists don't just make stuff up you know, they do research, they publish articles, they set out their evidence.

Well they do to a certain extent -- keeps them employed and getting more grants. Most of the peer reviewing gets reviewed by their mates. You forget Climategate and the IPCC scandals

en.wikipedia.org...

In September 2011 the ICO issued new guidance to universities, taking into account issues raised in relation to the CRU information requests. This describes exceptions and exemptions to protect research, including allowance for internal exchange of views between academics and researchers, leaving formulation of opinions on research free from external scrutiny. It notes the benefits of actively disclosing information when it is in the public interest, and disclosure of personal email information related to public authority business.[13

Well it is unfair if the public were to ask for info before they got their stories straight - Science at its finest

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

You forget that climategate was a manufactured scandal.

SIX independent investigations have determined this. Please update your information accordingly and stop spreading misinformation.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Katrina was a fluke?

Speaking of hurricanes

news.heartland.org...

Objective Data Debunk Alarmist Hurricane Claims September 5, 2012 JAMES M. TAYLOR James M. Taylor is vice president for external relations and senior fellow for environment and... (read full bio)

When Hurricane Isaac made landfall in southern Louisiana last week, the storm provided a rare break in one of the longest periods of hurricane inactivity in U.S. history. Seeking to deflect attention away from this comforting trend, global warming alarmists attempted a high-profile head fake, making public statements that the decline in recent hurricane activity masked an increase in strong, damaging hurricanes. “The hurricanes that really matter, that cause damage, are increasing,” John Abraham, a mechanical engineer on the staff of little-known University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota, told Discovery News. Let’s go straight to the data to find out if major hurricanes are indeed increasing. The National Hurricane Center (NHC) provides information on major U.S. hurricanes during the past 100-plus years. According to the NHC, 70 major hurricanes struck the United States in the 100 years between 1911 and 2010. That is an average of 7 major hurricane strikes per decade. According to the NHC data, not a single decade during the past 50 years saw an above-average number of major hurricanes. During the past 5 decades, an average of 5.6 major hurricanes struck the United States. During the preceding 5 decades, and average of 8.4 major hurricanes struck the United States. “The hurricanes that really matter, that cause damage” are not increasing. Hard, objective data show exactly the opposite. Indeed, during the past 4 decades, the time period during which global warming alarmists claim human-induced global warming accelerated rapidly and became incontrovertible, the fewest number of major hurricanes struck during any 40-year period since at least the 1800s.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

This article is dumb. It talks about a break in hurricane activity in the states. Why just the states? Hurricanes or monsoons hit land all over the world. Talk about misleading... Not surprising since it is from the Heartland Institute. The anti-science conservative organization bankrolled by the Koch brothers.

a rare break in one of the longest periods of hurricane inactivity in U.S. history. Seeking to deflect attention away from this comforting trend, global warming alarmists attempted a high-profile head fake, making public statements that the decline in recent hurricane activity masked an increase in strong,