Our Rising Oceans: VICE on HBO

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: RickinVa

Great, now that the doomsday scenario is realized, can we have an informed conversation about realistic mitigation?

No amount of anti-fossil fuel quackery will do want you want it to so, let us now stop being fools and working against our own best interests with the myriad totalitarian absurdities incessantly put forward as 'solutions'.

An aside to those who starred this post: the author said nothing in these two sentences. Is there any point here?

Nice phasology "Realistic Mitigation", "Anti-Fossil Fuel Quackery" , "Totalitarian Absurdities".

I'll guess the meanings (the in Author's mind)

Realistic Mitigation = Geo-Engineering
Anti-Fossil Fuel Quackery = Climate (not Weather) Science
Totalitartian Abusuridites = Taxes and such as motivators.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: RickinVa

How ironic this is. I just watched a show yesterday about the vanishing water of the Colorado river.

It's almost like nature is redistributing the resources based on changing environments.

THINK for gosh sake. We, human's take water out of the river system to drink, irrigate crops, cool machinery (nuke plants use a tremedous amount of fresh water) and voila - no water in the Colorado River by the time it reachs Mexico and the Gulf of California.

Tell me again that nature is the cause.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: RickinVa

Doesn't matter who or what caused it...it has happened and now it it here

This line of thinking is what bothers me about the globalwarming crowd.........

Yes , it does matter.........because if you don't know who or what caused it:
1. You cannot formulate an accurate plan to combat it.

2. Your information isn't accurate or complete.......

So yes, yes it does matter

One:

Hmmm - yes you can formulate a plan for reversing or lessoning the damage without an exact cause - medical doctors do it all the time.

and two:

No one ever has 'complete' infomation. Accurate information is always within boundaries for error and updated when knowledge (knowledge - not belief). And as in one - you can mitigate effects without knowing (or, in your case, believing in) compete or accurate (without boundaries) information.

Accurate information in a scientific sense would equate to "reproducible by others".

a reply to: Grimpachi


You will always be Flying Cat Dude to me. Thank you for bringing up SALT in your graphic of the master 'conveyer' ocean current.

The melting FRESH WATER ice is also lessening the salt contents of the oceans and life in the ocean (in a very real sense we are all sea life as mamals (?) just carry their ocean on the inside as blood) has evolved to a very narrow range of salinity. Salinity also effects the 'weight' of water which effects currents.... and so forth and so one. Causes and Conditions upon Causes and Conditions, etc. Complexity.....

System people, not a single self-contained bit.

Then you have the massive impact of pollution of all types on the ocean, well .... it's scary. Too overwhelming to imagine in fact.

Well Done.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Flatfish

Good, you are walking back the claims a bit.

I am confident that the ocean floor is not any warmer due to human activity. I don't know how much frozen methane is actually in tundra, I haven't investigated that yet.

There are Direct causes and Indirect causes. Because you can not see more then one step in a causal chain don't mean that those chains aren't real and lead back to - bingo - human effects (I almost said intent - and need to ponder...)

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Flatfish

Good, you are walking back the claims a bit.

I am confident that the ocean floor is not any warmer due to human activity. I don't know how much frozen methane is actually in tundra, I haven't investigated that yet.

Your confidence is going to let you down on this one.

There are enormous amounts of methane trapped in the frozen tundra and I've seen documentaries where they're lighting flames, (some quite large) from leaking methane coming out of thawing tundra.

Furthermore, as the oceans surface warms causing variations and at times cessation of normal currents, it also warms the oceans depths. Not a lot, but it only takes a minor change at depth to disrupt the balance, melting and releasing vast amounts of frozen methane hydrates.

I absolutely agree that natural methane releases may very well end up being a larger "immediate" threat. But that's only because we ignored the CO2 problem to the point that the resulting warmer global temp. Is now causing the methane releases.

That's why I said it's like a snow ball going down a hill, the farther it's allowed to go unchecked, the bigger and faster it gets.

a reply to: Flatfish

... not to mention, perhaps blowing large craters in Siberia...

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: Lysergic
You can tell who hasn't watched the video.

Well I'm 30 minutes in. Have discovered that the sea level rose 6 feet in Bangladesh. Am wondering why that didn't happen over here in Korea too. I guess the location of sea rise isn't relative to sea level.

Overall, I'd lean towards these so called 'scientists' being a group of folks who are smart enough to stay on their government dole. They've been given a specific task to accomplish, and they'll make people believe whatever it is they can offer.

Anyone who wants to 'believe' for the sake of belief is welcome to it IMO. I'm not even going to taste that Kool-Aid.

I have to agree with you snarl. I lived on an island all of my life and the water levels are where they always were.

These alarmists are all mostly heathens. They have had nothing to believe in. They needed a crusade and Al Gore gave them one. They really need a hobby to keep them busy or a religion they can be devout to. This other stuff is just bat &^%$ crazy. It's like Chicken Little on steroids.

Recycle. Don't pollute. And be environmentally conscientious. The world will be here when you wake up tomorrow. It will still suck in many was, but it and you, God willing, will be here too.

OK I started to watch the video and saw Joe Biden in the first few seconds. I almost thew up my really good sushi dinner. Ain't doing' it. Maybe tomorrow - that is if we don't live in Water World without electricity.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: Flatfish

... not to mention, perhaps blowing large craters in Siberia...

Thanks for bringing that up.

I was going to mention that as well because I had read somewhere that methane releases were thought to be the cause, but I wasn't sure so I left it out.

originally posted by: Bilk22
OK I started to watch the video and saw Joe Biden in the first few seconds. I almost thew up my really good sushi dinner. Ain't doing' it. Maybe tomorrow - that is if we don't live in Water World without electricity.

You're going to miss out on a lot of information if you keep tuning out every time you see someone you don't like.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: RickinVa

Great, now that the doomsday scenario is realized, can we have an informed conversation about realistic mitigation?

No amount of anti-fossil fuel quackery will do want you want it to so, let us now stop being fools and working against our own best interests with the myriad totalitarian absurdities incessantly put forward as 'solutions'.

An aside to those who starred this post: the author said nothing in these two sentences. Is there any point here?

Nice phasology "Realistic Mitigation", "Anti-Fossil Fuel Quackery" , "Totalitarian Absurdities".

I'll guess the meanings (the in Author's mind)

Realistic Mitigation = Geo-Engineering
Anti-Fossil Fuel Quackery = Climate (not Weather) Science
Totalitartian Abusuridites = Taxes and such as motivators.

Not only do I think you know exactly what I mean but, you should probably address the content of the thread, I did.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Flatfish

Good, you are walking back the claims a bit.

I am confident that the ocean floor is not any warmer due to human activity. I don't know how much frozen methane is actually in tundra, I haven't investigated that yet.

There are Direct causes and Indirect causes. Because you can not see more then one step in a causal chain don't mean that those chains aren't real and lead back to - bingo - human effects (I almost said intent - and need to ponder...)

Once again I will say it with just the same amount of confidence.

I do not think that humans are increasing the temperature of the ocean floor.

a reply to: RickinVa

I just watched it but it looks like a Political Biased driven show from the beginning.

The host who is clearly in the side of believing that we are the culprits of GW is tasked with the responsibility to represent the sceptics.

Now I'm not saying that we aren't partially to blame or that GW doesn't exist, but this show is definitely geared to the already believers or democrats and to make them bump their chest in a ritual of reassurance.

To me it was a total let down. They should have had real sceptic and scientist with opposing views properly represent their sides, versus this political hack job.

The host also goes to great strides to make the sceptic or those that are undecided to look like real dip$hits while acting like he is representing them.

While their are many that are certainly real dip$hits their are many that also don't genuinely know the truth. Not because they have an agenda but because they are aware that gov't and big corporations on both sides have agendas and misrepresent the data and feel hopeless on really getting to the truth.

Sadly they took the position to slap their chest , versus really providing a good source of information for those on the undecided lanes with actual valid arguments from both sides.

I give it a :

a reply to: interupt42

I give it a :

So, you think that glacial Antarctic ice is not rapidly disappearing into the ocean? They're lying about it?

a reply to: interupt42

They literally looked at what the skeptics claimed, then went to Antarctica to see if these claims were valid.

What more do you want?

a reply to: Phage

Not at all, my review was just on the show. IMO it was a let down, it could have been much better on how the data was represented and what can be done and must be done.

Like I said I thought it was more geared to those who already believe and to give them something to stump on their chest versus actually educating others.

I guess it felt more political than scientific for me.

a reply to: interupt42
You mean by pointing out that the claims about increasing Antarctic sea ice are a smoke screen.
Oh wait...

That was a hard-hitting show. Thanks, OP.

Makes me wonder how long until we start gathering up the special interests representatives and tying them to the whipping post. Oh, and the right-wing fools who drink their Kool-aid.

Hopefully soon.

👣

a reply to: Phage

Again, I'm not a denier nor republican .

My opinion was on how the show came across to me. IMO it was more of a political agenda driven show than anything else.