Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Global Extinction within one Human Lifetime

page: 3
15
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Yes, indeed. We're soon not going to have an arctic circle.

a-sceptical-mind.com...


Since 1979 it has been possible to accurately monitor ice cover at both poles via satellite photography. The animation below shows a 30 year continuous photographic history of the ice growing in winter and retreating in summer at the North Pole. As the animation plays you can see the year in the top right hand corner.


There's also bad news on the Southern front:

www.theregister.co.uk...




It turns out that past studies, which were based on computer models without any direct data for comparison or guidance, overestimate the water temperatures and extent of melting beneath the Fimbul Ice Shelf. This has led to the misconception, Hattermann said, that the ice shelf is losing mass at a faster rate than it is gaining mass, leading to an overall loss of mass.

The team’s results show that water temperatures are far lower than computer models predicted ...


Now - that's the ANTarctic... but it was considered scientific fact that all the penguins were going to lose their homes not too long ago, too.

Which is interesting when you take into account the topic and discussion here:

www.skepticalscience.com...


This is also borne out by paleo studies that have looked at ice sheet and sea level behaviour in the past and found sea levels to be over 6 metres higher than current levels when temperatures were only 1 to 2 degrees warmer than now. Multiple lines of evidence point to the same answer - the ice sheets are sensitive to warming temperatures and are going to cause significant sea level rise over this century (and beyond).


It should be noted that the discussion predates the study mentioned in the 2012 article and has since to be calibrated.

However - I will be, laughing when the year 2100 comes and the sea level shows no appreciable changes.




Which leads me to a related point.

Even when you look at the pro-melting science; the picture is not an alarmist one.

The alarmism is driven exclusively by profiteering. Nothing more. The more panic these people stir up by hijacking science; the more 'hybrid' and 'all electric' cars they can sell (when consumer economics doesn't yet support them as being cost-effective).

reply to post by silent thunder
 



Be that as it may, I approach the matter from a slightly different vantage: I DO know a thing or two about economics, society, and human nature, and I am convinced that there is too much momentum to change in the way that the global warming advocates would like the world to change.


You touch on something important, here.

It's not the U.S. and "The west" that are causing the most damaging pollution. It's the developing nations - China, India, parts of South America, and some parts of Africa.

Their people and economies are demanding cheap power (not energy - power - if energy were water, power is the difference between a garden hose and a fire hose). Presently - that comes in the form of coal, petroleum distillates, natural gas, and other fossil sources.

No matter how much the West adopts these new reductionist philosophies - these other countries will continue to drive demand even higher as they pursue development.

For every gallon we remove from our demand, these countries will try to buy one and a half.

And they won't have a cash for clunkers program, clean coal initiatives, etc.




posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trublbrwing
reply to post by Grimpachi
 

I don't know what's more frightening, that study, or the lack of interest in your thread. Twelve hours later and nobody thinks this is HUGE? We have Ocam there who replies ten minutes later, which means he didn't even read the article, and says it's fear mongering, because he/ she doesn't understand it.
I've been trying to wake people up on this site for a long time, some get it, most don't.
Thank you for posting the article, it's important stuff and I would have missed it otherwise.



Or I have some understanding of things and see this for what it is, fear mongering. Here's a question for you, what is methane's lifetime?



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi

What would be the impact of methane releases from hydrates in the Arctic?

If an amount of, say, 1 Gt of methane from hydrates in the Arctic would abruptly enter the atmosphere, what would be the impact?



Methane's global warming potential (GWP) depends on many variables, such as methane's lifetime, which changes with the size of emissions and the location of emissions (hydroxyl depletion already is a big problem in the Arctic atmosphere), the wind, the time of year (when it's winter, there can be little or no sunshine in the Arctic, so there's less greenhouse effect), etc. One of the variables is the indirect effect of large emissions and what's often overlooked is that large emissions will trigger further emissions of methane, thus further extending the lifetime of both the new and the earlier-emitted methane, which can make the methane persist locally for decades.


The IPCC (2007) gives methane a lifetime of 12 years, and a GWP of 25 as much as carbon dioxide over 100 years and 72 as much as carbon dioxide over 20 years. (14)




In conclusion, a release of 1 Gt of methane in the Arctic would be catastrophic and the methane wouldn't go away quickly either, since this would be likely to keep triggering further releases. While some models project rapid decay of the methane, those models often use global decay values and long periods, which is not applicable in case of such abrupt releases in the Arctic.


Instead, the methane is likely to stay active in the Arctic for decades at a very high warming potential, due to depletion of hydroxyl and oxygen, while the resulting summer warming (when the sun doesn't set) is likely to keep triggering further releases in the Arctic


Potential for Methane Release
edit on 8-9-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)


reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 




REposted from page 2 for Occamsrazor he must have missed it.
edit on 10-9-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Why does your source only show dates up to 2007.You do realize that was the magical year for climate skeptics and after that point it began warming much faster than anticipated.

a-sceptical-mind.com...

Note, as well, that this is a study of a single ice shelf (the Fimbul Ice Shelf) that occupies less than 1/50 of the Antarctic coast. But the paper probably applies to other areas as well: since the geographic configuration is similar along the eastern Antarctic coast, it’s likely that the same underwater melting mechanisms observed at Fimbul are important elsewhere too. But, contrary to the Register article, that’s a far cry from assuming that there’s no mass loss elsewhere; that would depend on local rates of snowfall, local rates of melting, and local rates of ocean eddy current generation.




Read the newspaper, and you find that those stupid scientists were wrong about climate change again. Read the actual scientific papers, and you find that scientists continue to find new ways to extend our knowledge of the climate system.


Why the public is confused about climate science,part1,327,570

The above link goes in depth explaining the study you cited from skepticalascience.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 



Why does your source only show dates up to 2007.You do realize that was the magical year for climate skeptics and after that point it began warming much faster than anticipated.


Yes, every year has been the magical year for global warming since the 80s.

Depends upon what issue you're discussing and what the climate has done for the past five years and where the next little tick is sending it.

Your point, however, is self-defeated in your fervor to prove one detail.

This "global warming" trend has been consistent, yes? Ice has been melting away from these ice sheets for decades?

"But that all changed in 2007 when ice melted faster than anticipated!"

Actually - the source of the data used in the animation hosted on my source posts temperatures through 2012:

ocean.dmi.dk...

There's no statistically significant difference between the years prior to 2007 or the years following.


The above link goes in depth explaining the study you cited from skepticalascience.


I think you're confused in regards to my sources.

Skeptical Science is, if it could be said to be anything, supporting of the warming hypothesis while typically not supportive of alarmist interpretations.

I grew up listening to all of this "there may not be any more ice at the poles, soon!" line of reasoning. According to most of what I heard as a kid, the coast lines should already be flooded and the polar bears extinct.

Yet, it's the same story. "Ice is melting at an unprecedented rate!" - "There won't be any ice caps, soon!" "Our cities will be flooded!"

I'm sure it will still be around 100 years from now, when the ice sheets are in much the same place as they are today. Maybe a little more - maybe a little less.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


What about when there was no ice at all because the weather was much warmer? This is complete fearmongering.


And what about when there was "snowball Earth" (ie. complete ice coverage entire planet) because it was much colder?

Climate change has been going on for billions of years.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by Grimpachi
 



There's no statistically significant difference between the years prior to 2007 or the years following.


The above link goes in depth explaining the study you cited from skepticalascience.


.


After I opened your article I then found the original article and from there found a peer review. The graph I have linked shows the arctic Ice decline and there is a difference from 2007. Many articles were written during 2007 to 2008 stating the earth was normalizing or cooling due to the data from 2007 but since that period data has shown that it is not cooling or stabilizing. That is why I try to find the most up to date information I can. I do see your point of view but I respectfully disagree.

ADD..My apologies if I did not cite the correct article from your post I am currently looking for the graph I was referring to that only went to 2007. I am currently debating 7 different threads on two separate sites so I may have mistakenly replied.

I will look back over my responce and your data and see if I made a mistake.
I appreciate the civil discussion we are able to have and would like it to continue.
edit on 10-9-2012 by Grimpachi because:]
edit on 10-9-2012 by Grimpachi because: add and spellcheck
extra DIV



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 


I have addressed this issue on page two the fourth post down.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


My apologies when I was speaking of data only reaching to 2007 it was this graph I was referring to.


As for the article I that I reposted another article to it is one and the same because from the site you provided I looked up the source document then foun a peer review and that is where Ifound the quotes from.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 



After I opened your article I then found the original article and from there found a peer review. The graph I have linked shows the arctic Ice decline and there is a difference from 2007.


The topic of the source was measured temperature.

This is an old article - but is particularly relevant when discussing the arctic:

news.nationalgeographic.com...


Researchers discovered that, contrary to expectations, the exceedingly slowly spreading ridge is rife with hydrothermal vents and a hotbed of irregular volcanic activity.


I'll have to track down a better scientific source - but the post, here, has some pretty interesting implications:

www.scienceandentertainmentexchange.org...


Hold up. Wait a minute. Did he say there were volcanoes under Antarctica? “The West Antarctic Ice Sheet has some active volcanoes under it,” Wagner explained. “When we go drill ice cores, we can see layers of volcanic ash in those cores from volcanic eruptions.” It does not appear that any of the previous eruptions had a major effect but for creative purposes like a disaster flick, the possibility is there.


Interestingly enough - it is the Western ice sheets of Antarctica that are experiencing the most extreme melting.

While a number of scientists are fairly quick to point out that the oceanic layers are heavily stratified by salinity (hot water would have difficulty coming from the floor to the surface to melt ice) - I find the correlation to be intriguing enough to think it wise to test this idea before dismissing increases in volcanic activity as substantial causes for ice melt.

Particularly since it's not quite clear where the energy to melt the touted amounts of ice is coming from.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Thanks for the articles I will read them soon as I can at the moment I am exhausted and have a full day ahead tomorrow.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   
I would be worried more about:

a)an asteroid hitting earth
b)alien attack
c)nuclear war

These are much more real possibilities!

And one last thing that most people do not even think off:

d)large solar flares

If we are going to fear monger, then at least it should be realistic, so we can try and do something about it...



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
why dont some savvy alternative energy group think up ways to harvest this methane from ocean floor wouldn't it make a good fuel source?



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 06:49 AM
link   
I know this is an old thread but I thought I would add some new data to it as I can't be bothered making a new thread on the topic. I would have to agree although it could be less based on recent study's, here's a couple of links.
NASA Study Concludes When Civilization
They are talking more about civilization, but they say a couple of decades.
We Need Three Planets
That one's a NASA scientist saying we need three planets for human's to survive in our current state
Tesla Batteries Pollution
Even the solutions to our fossil fuel problems are polluting the planet.

He thinks we could be extinct by 2030?? WTF



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Here is to hope!





new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join