NASA finds Antarctic ice shelf a few years from disintegration

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: lostbook

Very sad news... And I'm sure the usual contingent of science deniers will be along shortly to say that there is nothing to see here, we aren't causing this problem at all and that AGW is a lie.

There may be a person that relies on truth that comes along and says....

"The North Pole will be ice free by now."

Then they will say, "Oh, it isn't?" Al Gore must have been wrong.

To which the AGW proponents will say, "Oh, Al Gore isn't a scientist."

I hope the freaking shelf does collapse.
I hope both Poles are ice free tomorrow.
I hope all the polar bears die of heat prostration.
I hope all the fish in the ocean die.

Then all you people on both side will shut the hell up.

Please forgive me, I am in an extremely bad mood today and have been depressed for a long time.

originally posted by: lostbook
Read the article and tell me what you guys think.

I read it.

I think all ice shelves will eventually break off and fall into the sea.

I think sea levels will continually rise and fall as earth goes through its icy and warm periods.

I think it's good to try and predict it so that people can adapt, if necessary, but I think the article was irresponsible in trying to tie it with AGW theories.

originally posted by: rockpaperhammock
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

it was the end of the last glacial period

edit: sorry ill get more detailed...end of the ice age...in terms of total temperature of the planet im not sure but the planet most likely was warming as a whole. But you have to look at individual areas. For example: you know how some people say the ice is melting on the south pole but others are saying it is increasing? It is actually melting but wind patterns have spread the ice out further to one side making it appear it is expanding but the mass of ice is less. Deniers often try to point out the temporary wind patterns as signs the south pole is growing.

Did we have mass extinctions?

a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

No idea lol...I like rocks man

found an article...guess the answer is yes which seems pretty obvious...but I wasn't sure www.nhm.ac.uk... tml


edit again: that article only focuses on a small niche of extinctions so im sure there are quite a bit more but here are some of the main ones if poeple are afraid of links!

woolly mammoth
woolly rhinoceros
giant deer (Irish elk)
cave bear
cave lion
spotted hyena

a reply to: rockpaperhammock



Darwin baby!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: lostbook
Very sad news... And I'm sure the usual contingent of science deniers will be along shortly to say that there is nothing to see here, we aren't causing this problem at all and that AGW is a lie.

Your tactics (and others who do the same) are very amusing:

(a) Try to be the first to predict the very predictable responses from your opposition in this debate,

(b) Call people who don't agree with the AGW theory "science deniers," when in truth, there is plenty of science that backs up their position, and

(c) Assume that just becasue we disagree with the alarmist claims that the biggest AGW proponents adhere to, that we think all aspects of the AGW theory is a lie.

By trying to predict things, you are, in and of yourself, being terribly predictable. It's quite comical to watch--if I didn't see the humor in it, it would just be frustrating and disappointing.

But be honest--did this post of yours even serve anything in this conversation, or was it only to be provocative and derail the discussion? "If" it's the latter, why even comment?

(I'm not saying I haven't done the same before, but that's what makes it easy for a bull#er to spot the bull#)

a reply to: rockpaperhammock

When in reality, people that live on the beach there should be adapting to the changes, not trying to fix the path nature is taking.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

i agree totally...same as living on a fault line or near a volcano...you cant prevent that stuff...

however here is a big tourist area so they always want it to look nice...but imagine in 50 years or so how expensive that will get..humans will adapt...this will all happen slowly and we have time but when nobody does anything there will be a day when thousands need to move quickly...and that will be no fun at all.

originally posted by: rockpaperhammock
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71
For example: you know how some people say the ice is melting on the south pole but others are saying it is increasing? It is actually melting but wind patterns have spread the ice out further to one side making it appear it is expanding but the mass of ice is less. Deniers often try to point out the temporary wind patterns as signs the south pole is growing.

So, just ignore the fact that the sea ice extant is expanding in ALL DIRECTIONS around Antarctica--if it were because of the wind, this wouldn't be so.

Also, just ignore the fact that it has been verified that under-ice volcanoes on the western side of the continent are doing a big part in causing warming in that area.

But yes, it's just the wind...probably because of humans...raising cows...who fart...a lot.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Your tactics (and others who do the same) are very amusing:

(a) Try to be the first to predict the very predictable responses from your opposition in this debate,

Except that people came in and proved me right and will continue to do so.

(b) Call people who don't agree with the AGW theory "science deniers," when in truth, there is plenty of science that backs up their position, and

There is? Where? All I ever see from the AGW denial camp is just repeating of the same buzzphrases over and over again. Never a scientific study. If you know of some then by all means, post them.

(c) Assume that just becasue we disagree with the alarmist claims that the biggest AGW proponents adhere to, that we think all aspects of the AGW theory is a lie.

What parts of AGW do you think are truthful? The most I can get out of the denial camp is this, "I believe that climate change is real, I just don't think that man is causing it." That is STILL science denialism, because science has pretty much confirmed that yes, man IS causing it.

I DO agree that the alarmists are being overly alarming about what is going to happen. I don't think the models are 100% accurate, and I don't agree with carbon credits, BUT most of the people who think the opposite of those things tend to be politicians. Politicians tend to ignore science when they start talking (even the ones who agree with science), so I take what they say with a grain of salt. The thing is that the AGW denial camp seems to think that what the alarmist politicians are saying aligns exactly with what the scientists are saying. That isn't true at all, but most denialists base their whole understanding on this issue on that very assumption.

By trying to predict things, you are, in and of yourself, being terribly predictable. It's quite comical to watch--if I didn't see the humor in it, it would just be frustrating and disappointing.

I notice you aren't saying or posting any evidence to prove me wrong. So what of it?

But be honest--did this post of yours even serve anything in this conversation, or was it only to be provocative and derail the discussion? "If" it's the latter, why even comment?

The POINT of that post was to agree with the OP.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Well...I'll say this...you can find articles that reading causes cancer...and there have been "studies". My point being...data is fun to manipulate by anyone...especially when both sides are paid by someone who wants a result. You can manipulate variables any way you want...especially when there are probably 1000s affecting climate change. I suppose we could both argue that there is evidence then on both sides correct? We both could throw all kinds of evidence back and forth.

So lets ignore all that but listen to people instead. If you interview someone from the midwest, USA they may not have a lot to say about climate change. Some farmers may say this or that...whatever. But if you go to certain coastal areas...in Bangladesh or some Inuits in Alaska...many will tell you amazing stories of what they have observed.

This is the hardest part of the argument because in some areas change is really happening...you can't deny that, but in other areas it isn't happening.

I respect all opinions on this as the topic is too big to solve right now however my personal belief is that the planet is warming...and it is going to warm with or without us...but at the same time I do believe humans are a variable that is affecting the planet's climate.


Oh and one more thing...the ice you are talking about is sea ice...not land ice...land ice takes 1000s of years to accumulate where sea ice can change by season....you can have more sea ice for 10 years but if the land ice underneath is reducing then that is a big deal.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
So, just ignore the fact that the sea ice extant is expanding in ALL DIRECTIONS around Antarctica--if it were because of the wind, this wouldn't be so.

The extent is expanding 2-dimensionally. However 3-dimensionally (volume) is actually decreasing. This is because old ice melts and breaks apart, it floats away, then new ice forms that reconnects it which then melts when it gets warmer out again.

Also, just ignore the fact that it has been verified that under-ice volcanoes on the western side of the continent are doing a big part in causing warming in that area.

Under-ice volcanoes haven't done the sort of damage to the arctic ices that we are seeing.

But yes, it's just the wind...probably because of humans...raising cows...who fart...a lot.

For someone talking to me about facts and belief in parts of AGW, you just got done repeating several denialist fallacies.

Does anyone find it strange that 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs that don't by into the AGW meme ? Do they not use the scientific method ? Is there something missing in their education that would qualify them as a "denier" www.petitionproject.org... These are from America and I am sure they must have others around the world who would agree .

How does one understand the contradictions in the debate . Is the truth being inverted and like Mike Manns use of upside down data .

"Ø Mr Varley says, “Scientists have calculated that more than half of the observed warming since the mid-20th century was caused by the increase in man-made greenhouse gases.” Certainly that is what the IPCC has long maintained. However, in this respect the IPCC is not honoring its obligation to reflect the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

Ø Though propagandists have sought to maintain that there is a “97% consensus” to the effect that recent global warming is mostly manmade, the truth – given in Legates et al. (2013) – is that only 0.3% of climate science papers published in the 21 years 1991-2011 stated that recent global warming was mostly man made:" wattsupwiththat.com...

a reply to: the2ofusr1

There is just too much data...but both agree the planet is warming. As I said there are so many variables...humans are one of the many variable...it is just trying to figure out how big of a variable they are.

My old professor believed humans had nothing to do with it...while my adviser believed humans did. I respect both of them deeply and neither are awful people....this is just a debate that can't be solved with the limited understanding we have of climate.

originally posted by: rockpaperhammock
a reply to: the2ofusr1

There is just too much data...but both agree the planet is warming. As I said there are so many variables...humans are one of the many variable...it is just trying to figure out how big of a variable they are.

My old professor believed humans had nothing to do with it...while my adviser believed humans did. I respect both of them deeply and neither are awful people....this is just a debate that can't be solved with the limited understanding we have of climate.

Well said rock!

a reply to: rockpaperhammock

Well seeing thee human component of co2 can be measured and calculated using physics Prof. Salby offers up the equation but strap your self down and pay attention because he lays it out quite well .

a reply to: GreenMachine

Maybe we should send everyone in Cali to there!! Sounds like a better plan to me!

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Watching now...but I could post a video of the same thing saying the opposite most likely but ill hold my judgement until I finish. Are you telling me you refuse to believe all the evidence? Because there is evidence on both sides...which tells me you are selective in what evidence you want to accept... I am willing to hear both sides and accept data on both sides...but there are somethings that are complete bunk...on both sides.

One of the biggest things that gets me is the land ice vs sea ice debate when referring to the south pole...cracks me up every time. There is a huge difference between the 2.

So this video is about CO2? Once again...this is 1....1 variable...co2 alone isn't the answer...the co2 debate comes from that humans are creating enough co2/pollution to raise the global temps or that the co2 isn't enough to change it...there is actually another phenomenon you will like called global dimming...global dimming is showing that the same pollution is reflecting sunlight and preventing it from getting to earth which would cool the planet!




Never heard of this guy before...so I looked this up...Salby's employment at Macquarie was terminated in 2013; his return ticket from Paris was cancelled by Macquarie, stranding Salby in Europe. Macquarie University stated that he was not dismissed because of his views on climate change, but for refusing to fulfill his teaching responsibilities and for inappropriate use of university resources including a corporate credit card.[3][10]

On wikipedia...not saying this guy is wrong or even evil but....how do you trust a scientist abusing a corporate credit card...would this be the type of guy to fudge science if paid?


But who knows if that was some negative propaganda from the University.

a reply to: rockpaperhammock

So much ignorance about this very topic...

I think it's important for folks to understand this distinction as well.

The land Ice in Antartica, which is over 10,000 years old is losing mass, ie: melting. Whereas the Sea Ice comes and goes every year and is a very minor variable of rising sea levels.

a reply to: KewlDaddyFatty

Right...it is the equivalent of when there is a really bad or cold winter somehwere and someone says "hahhah this global warming stuff isn't working out hahahah"

And you are right...that ice is ancient...and it is massive...it doesn't get replaced...at least not until the next ice age.