• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Antarctic thaw quickens, trillions of tonnes of ice raise sea levels

Uh... Yeah, no, that's not how it works.



Environmentalism doesn't have to be partisan; in fact, when the ball first got rolling in the early 70s, it was bipartisan. It was quite successful as well, especially with reining in some of the more obvious and egregious forms of pollution, especially air pollution.

There's a lot we can do, mostly focusing on curtailing emissions of greenhouse gases. There are plenty of ways that's compatible with conservatism, ranging from carbon trading plans, to encouraging energy independence, to the increasing monetization of renewable power. We've already taken some small steps that have not destroyed the entire nation, such as popularizing LED bulbs, adopting hybrid vehicles, raising gas mileage standards, and increasing the use of lower-emission fuels (notably natural gas).

Texas -- hardly a bleeding-heart-liberal state -- produces more power from wind than any other state, and some believe that the reduced regulation on the grid facilitated that growth. That's straight-up capitalism.

LOL.

Your post made me remember the freak out of deniers back what...like 5 years ago? They were all hoarding incandescent light bulbs as a dramatic gesture to FREEDOM(!!!) because Obama took their precious energy hogging light bulbs away.

I think there are probably deniers on the forum right now, patriotically going thru their stash of incandescent bulbs and stickin’ it to the libs like the freedom loving good Americans they are.
 
Eventually enough melt, desalinization and rising temperatures will disrupt ocean currents, which will affect prevailing winds, and we will sink into another prolonged ice age.

Not necessarily.

Between land use changes, soot, and greenhouse gasses, we may have change the bar for the tripping point to an ice age. It's possible the earth will never see one again, unless we restore it to post industrialization.
 
Not necessarily.

Between land use changes, soot, and greenhouse gasses, we may have change the bar for the tripping point to an ice age. It's possible the earth will never see one again, unless we restore it to post industrialization.

However, that means I would still get Canadian weather. Thanks.
 
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-tonnes-of-ice-raise-sea-levels-idUSKBN1J92IE

OSLO (Reuters) - An accelerating thaw of Antarctica has pushed up world sea levels by almost a centimeter since the early 1990s in a risk for coasts from Pacific islands to Florida, an international team of scientists said on Thursday.
========================================
Trump denies the effects of climate change but asked permission to build a sea wall at one of his gold courses in Scotland or Ireland to mitigate damage from rising water caused by climate change. Hypocrite.

Will be doing flood checks due to rising sea levels along the coast this weekend. Should the government mandate house lifejackets?
 
Will be doing flood checks due to rising sea levels along the coast this weekend. Should the government mandate house lifejackets?

Hire some Dutch engineers.
 
Roughly 40% of the world's population live in coastal areas. It's not just the rich who are affected.



So on that basis, we should continue polluting? That doesn't add up.

On that subject, maybe using the ocean as a trash bin will eventually help cool it. Billions of tons of plastic...every year !!

If mankind is not careful, he'll clog this natural, for-profit toilet.
 
Not necessarily.

Between land use changes, soot, and greenhouse gasses, we may have change the bar for the tripping point to an ice age. It's possible the earth will never see one again, unless we restore it to post industrialization.

'kay

There is no evidence that ice ages are caused by any changes in prevailing winds.

Slowing winds -- which are a result of global temperatures rising -- will not reduce global temperatures. It does often push Arctic air further south, but that doesn't cause an "ice age," and it doesn't reduce global temperatures. What it does is occasionally inflict damaging cold snaps on northern latitudes.

Those same changes to winds (particularly the Jet Stream) can result in warmer temperatures as far north as Alaska, and other parts of the western US. This can result in droughts and heat waves.


CO2 emissions are a type of pollution.


Wow, sarcasm. So clever

Some of us are in fact trying to make positive change. While there is still a ways to go, and some American elected officials are unconscionably trying to make things worse, there is actually a lot of opportunity for improvement.

No one is saying "we can fix it instantly." However, the faster we get working on it, the more damage we can mitigate. And of course, the longer we delay, the more harm will result.

I guess I've run into some climate experts and am thus out of my league.

Whatever the case, there seems to be a sense of futility in writing rules for just our nation that involve intentionally shunning cheap energy with the idea that the entire planet's climate effects can even be substantially slowed, let alone stopped, let alone reversed.
 
I guess I've run into some climate experts and am thus out of my league.

Whatever the case, there seems to be a sense of futility in writing rules for just our nation that involve intentionally shunning cheap energy with the idea that the entire planet's climate effects can even be substantially slowed, let alone stopped, let alone reversed.

The path forward is to set up conditions where fossil oil can be replaced with man made alternatives
when it is economically the best choice. The US could position themselves to lead the world in the technology.
When people have a choice at the gas pump of an oil based fuel vs the man made one, and the man made one
is the lowest price, I can tell you which one they will choose.
 
Whatever the case, there seems to be a sense of futility in writing rules for just our nation that involve intentionally shunning cheap energy with the idea that the entire planet's climate effects can even be substantially slowed, let alone stopped, let alone reversed.

This is my biggest complaint on the push for emissions control. In my view, we have already gone past the economical point of reducing emissions. There is an insignificant return for costs needed at this point. Then it is also completely useless unless the rest of the world is first going to get to close to our current emission standards.
 
[FONT=&quot]Antarctic[/FONT]
[h=1]STRAINING AT GNATS IN ANTARCTICA[/h][FONT=&quot]by Keith Henderson As a car buyer, would you be willing to pay anything significant to get a vehicle with 0.011% better gas mileage? As a businessman, does a 0.011% change make a difference to your plans? Would you change your neighborhood of 20+ years for a 0.011% decrease in security risk, particularly if you…
[/FONT]
 
[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/11/straining-at-gnats-in-antarctica/"]
480px-antarctica_6400px_from_blue_marble1.jpg
[/URL]Antarctic[/FONT]

[h=1]STRAINING AT GNATS IN ANTARCTICA[/h][FONT="]by Keith Henderson As a car buyer, would you be willing to pay anything significant to get a vehicle with 0.011% better gas mileage? As a businessman, does a 0.011% change make a difference to your plans? Would you change your neighborhood of 20+ years for a 0.011% decrease in security risk, particularly if you…
[/FONT]

As a tea drinker, would you care if your brew cup was 0.011% novichok? Not if your name is Keith Henderson, Master of Christian Apologetics.
 
As a tea drinker, would you care if your brew cup was 0.011% novichok? Not if your name is Keith Henderson, Master of Christian Apologetics.

Maybe he wouldnt mind having that 0.011% of ice piled on top of him. I mean... its only 0.011%!!
 
The path forward is to set up conditions where fossil oil can be replaced with man made alternatives
when it is economically the best choice.
Oil is not a fossil. You don't get to dictate the market. People are free to buy the fuel of their own choice.
The US could position themselves to lead the world in the technology.
The U.S. supports 80% of its energy production from coal, oil, and natural gas products. Another 9% comes from nuclear power. Only 2% comes from wind power, and only 0.6% comes from solar panels. Oil, coal, and natural gas are cheap and plentiful.
When people have a choice at the gas pump of an oil based fuel vs the man made one, and the man made one
is the lowest price, I can tell you which one they will choose.
That's why they buy gasoline and diesel fuel distilled from naturally occurring oil.
 
'kay
CO2 emissions are a type of pollution.

CO2 is a naturally occurring gas in the atmosphere. It is not pollution. It is necessary for life on Earth.

It is also incapable of warming the Earth.
 
CO2 is a naturally occurring gas in the atmosphere. It is not pollution. It is necessary for life on Earth.

It is also incapable of warming the Earth.

Co2 May be a naturally occurring gas but what isn’t natural is the amount of co2 created through human actions.
 
Back
Top Bottom