• 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 ice shelf Larson C is near its breaking point

can anyone show that ice shelf's are not supposed to break off?
nope.

again something that is supposed to occur is then blamed on something that isn't happening.
 
ludin said:
can anyone show that ice shelf's are not supposed to break off?
nope.

again something that is supposed to occur is then blamed on something that isn't happening.
Click to expand...
What we do know is that roughly 12,000 years ago the edge of the antarctic ice extended much further out,
and has been breaking off piece by piece since then.
2226_ban.jpg

Since the area of sea ice included several million square miles,
one has to assume many of the pieces breaking off were large
 
longview said:
What we do know is that roughly 12,000 years ago the edge of the antarctic ice extended much further out,
and has been breaking off piece by piece since then.
2226_ban.jpg

Since the area of sea ice included several million square miles,
one has to assume many of the pieces breaking off were large
Click to expand...

Yep I agree. Which means that it is nothing for large chunks of ice to break off after they
reach their stress point.

also we don't know if that is supposed to happen.

there are major theories that the PDU is a major contributor to global climate.
as the earth warms up ice from these ice caps is suppose to melt.

the act as a AC unit on the ocean. as the ocean cools back down due to more fresh water and cooling off
the PDU slows down. this would indicate a climate cool down trend until it switches modes.

a heated ocean is known to let off more CO2 than what it sinks.
a cooling off of this would actually allow for more sinking of co2.
 
The DENIERS will continue to deny, until their basements are flooded. They don't listen to the 95% of scientists. They say it's some kind of "Grant" conspiracy. 95% is a conspiracy? But that other 5% - they are their true heroes. Heavily funded by big oil money - as they spout their 1960s-style tobacco industry fake science.
 
Media_Truth said:
The DENIERS will continue to deny, until their basements are flooded. They don't listen to the 95% of scientists. They say it's some kind of "Grant" conspiracy. 95% is a conspiracy? But that other 5% - they are their true heroes. Heavily funded by big oil money - as they spout their 1960s-style tobacco industry fake science.
Click to expand...
You do know that people who live where raising sea level may be a problem, seldom have basements, right?
How about dig into some real numbers for yourself.
PSMSL Catalogue Viewer
 
Media_Truth said:
The DENIERS will continue to deny, until their basements are flooded. They don't listen to the 95% of scientists. They say it's some kind of "Grant" conspiracy. 95% is a conspiracy? But that other 5% - they are their true heroes. Heavily funded by big oil money - as they spout their 1960s-style tobacco industry fake science.
Click to expand...

This is from another thread. You may have missed it.


Climate alarmism: The mother of all availability cascades

Guest essay by Iain Aitken An availability cascade is a self-reinforcing process of collective belief formation by which an expressed perception triggers a chain reaction that gives the perception of increasing plausibility through its rising availability in public discourse.

Availability Cascades and Risk Regulation -Timur Kuran, Duke University – Department of Economics, Cass R. Sunstein, Harvard Law School; Harvard…
Continue reading →

Perhaps the most extraordinary aspect of the whole ‘climate change debate’ is the way that the (non-sceptical) public consciousness has been captured by two very simple, easy-to-understand and certain ‘scientific facts’:


  1. Climate change has (with absolute certainty, because the science is settled) occurred because of man-made carbon dioxide emissions (and it has occurred only because of man-made carbon dioxide emissions – nature had nothing to do with it)
  2. Climate change catastrophe will (with absolute certainty, because the science is settled) result if we do not drastically reduce our carbon dioxide emissions. . .


To question these ‘scientific facts’ is to be a ‘climate science denier’.

Despite the fact that both these ‘scientific facts’, as stated, are (with absolute certainty) scientific hogwash and despite the fact that I doubt it would be possible to find a single climate scientist in the world who would endorse either ‘scientific fact’ (even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the ‘world authority on climate change’, and most alarmist of scientific bodies, would certainly not endorse either statement) these two beliefs (because that is all they are) seem to have become memes (beliefs that spread by cultural acquisition, e.g. peers, media). It is what the (non-sceptical) public think the scientific authorities are saying. . . .

This process has been characterised by psychologists as an ‘availability cascade’. Paraphrasing Wikipedia, this is a self-reinforcing cycle that explains the development of a collective belief (or meme) in a man-made climate change crisis. The idea that a great many phenomena (whether they be melting icecaps, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, floods, droughts, hurricanes, snowstorms, heatwaves, shark attacks or the rise of Islamic State) that actually have unrelated and complex causes can be explained by one, simple, easily understood cause, gains rapid currency in the popular discourse by its very simplicity and by its apparent insightfulness. Its rising popularity triggers a chain reaction within the social network: individuals adopt the new insight that we are experiencing a man-made climate change crisis because other people within their social network have adopted it, and on face value it sounds plausible (after all, we have been adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and it is a greenhouse gas and so it must cause global warming). The reason for this increased use and popularity of the ‘man-made climate change crisis’ idea involves both the ‘availability’ of this idea in the media (it’s hard to go through a day without someone on the radio, on TV or in a newspaper mentioning it as though it is simply a ‘fact’ in one form or another), and the need of individuals to conform with this idea, regardless of whether they in fact fully believe it. . . .

This is an ‘appeal to authority’; but as Leonardo da Vinci said, ‘Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence’. . . .
 
Media_Truth said:
The DENIERS will continue to deny, until their basements are flooded. They don't listen to the 95% of scientists. They say it's some kind of "Grant" conspiracy. 95% is a conspiracy? But that other 5% - they are their true heroes. Heavily funded by big oil money - as they spout their 1960s-style tobacco industry fake science.
Click to expand...

The leading proponents of alternative climate hypotheses have zero connection to the oil industry. Here are my two favorites:

Henrik Svensmark, Danish Technical University
Nir Shaviv, Raccah Institute of Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem (recently a Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton)
 
longview said:
You do know that people who live where raising sea level may be a problem, seldom have basements, right?
Click to expand...
Is that a joke?

Yes, some areas built on swamps don't have basements (e.g. New Orleans)

Other areas, built on bedrock, and basically right at water level, have basements. Millions of 'em. Heck, some cities even have -- wait for it -- underground infrastructure. New York City, DC, Baltimore, Philly.... pretty common. Trains, electrical, natural gas, telco, parking garages, basements... all pretty common.
 
Visbek said:
Is that a joke?

Yes, some areas built on swamps don't have basements (e.g. New Orleans)

Other areas, built on bedrock, and basically right at water level, have basements. Millions of 'em. Heck, some cities even have -- wait for it -- underground infrastructure. New York City, DC, Baltimore, Philly.... pretty common. Trains, electrical, natural gas, telco, parking garages, basements... all pretty common.
Click to expand...
Sort of! but the people who are in danger of flooding from sea level rise, were already in danger from any unusual
high tide. Bear in mind that the sea level rise is predicted to be say 2 feet over the next 80 years, but a king tide
with a long fetch could be 5 feet tomorrow! The rate over time is vastly different.
 
Visbek said:
Is that a joke?

Yes, some areas built on swamps don't have basements (e.g. New Orleans)

Other areas, built on bedrock, and basically right at water level, have basements. Millions of 'em. Heck, some cities even have -- wait for it -- underground infrastructure. New York City, DC, Baltimore, Philly.... pretty common. Trains, electrical, natural gas, telco, parking garages, basements... all pretty common.
Click to expand...

Lucky for them there's no danger.



[h=1]Dialing back the 10 foot hype – NOAA Tide Gauge Data shows no coastal sea level rise acceleration[/h]… meanwhile California sea level rise “model study” claims 10 foot rise by 2100 Guest essay by Larry Hamlin NOAA has just updated its coastal sea level rise tide gauge data including actual measurements through year 2016 which continues to show no evidence of coastal sea level rise acceleration. These measurements include tide gauge data…

May 2, 2017 in Alarmism, Sea level.
 
Threegoofs said:
Oh, look. Denier writes an article using some NOAA data.

I wonder what NOAA, the people who are actually studying this (rather than writing denier blog posts, which apparently is what Larry Hamlin does) say about tt?

Is sea level rising?
Click to expand...

December 2016 vs May 2017. You're out of date.

NOAA has just updated its coastal sea level rise tide gauge data including actual measurements through year 2016 which continues to show no evidence of coastal sea level rise acceleration.
These measurements include tide gauge data coastal locations for 25 West Coast, Gulf Coast and East Coast states along the Pacific Ocean, Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean, 7 Pacific island groups and 6 Atlantic island groups comprising more than 200 measurement stations.
The longest NOAA tide gauge data coastal sea level rise measurement record is at The Battery in New York with its 160 year long data record showing a steady rate of sea level rise of about 11 inches per century.

NOAA data provides assessments of the 95% confidence intervals at all measured locations which demonstrate the consistent behavior of location specific sea level rise over time and as well as showing that longer interval measurement periods provide tight ranges for the 95% confidence interval.
 
Jack Hays said:
December 2016 vs May 2017. You're out of date.

NOAA has just updated its coastal sea level rise tide gauge data including actual measurements through year 2016 which continues to show no evidence of coastal sea level rise acceleration.
These measurements include tide gauge data coastal locations for 25 West Coast, Gulf Coast and East Coast states along the Pacific Ocean, Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean, 7 Pacific island groups and 6 Atlantic island groups comprising more than 200 measurement stations.
The longest NOAA tide gauge data coastal sea level rise measurement record is at The Battery in New York with its 160 year long data record showing a steady rate of sea level rise of about 11 inches per century.

NOAA data provides assessments of the 95% confidence intervals at all measured locations which demonstrate the consistent behavior of location specific sea level rise over time and as well as showing that longer interval measurement periods provide tight ranges for the 95% confidence interval.
Click to expand...

This is the current article on the NOAA website.

I'm pretty sure an article on a denier blog from some guy who is apparently a retired energy company VP isnt going to change their minds, especially when you consider its their data that he's abusing.

Is sea level rising?
 
Threegoofs said:
This is the current article on the NOAA website.

I'm pretty sure an article on a denier blog from some guy who is apparently a retired energy company VP isnt going to change their minds, especially when you consider its their data that he's abusing.

Is sea level rising?
Click to expand...

Too bad they haven't updated their site.
 
Actually, I was wrong. I stated that 95% of Climate Change scientists say the earth is warming, and that it is caused by human activity. The number is actually 97%. Interestingly enough, even though this is the case, the 3% crowd seems to bark the loudest. For example, you read at least as much on these forums from the Deniers, and probably more. Maybe that's why Al Gore called it an Inconvenient Truth - because people don't want to believe it. They don't want to admit that they can wreak havoc on this planet, that affects future generations. They don't want to admit that we need to search for alternatives to continue our way of life. It reminds me of a song from '60s called "Live for Today" (sha-la-la-la-la-la live for today, and don't worry 'bout tomorrow, hey, hey, hey).

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...2013/sep/27/global-warming-ipcc-report-humans

This is why there's a 97 percent consensus amongst climate experts and in the climate science literature that humans are causing global warming. The scientific evidence on this question is overwhelming.

Many commenters have noted that the expert consensus is itself not scientific evidence for human-caused global warming. That's true. The expert consensus is however based on the scientific evidence. The fact that 97 percent of climate experts agree on this subject also demonstrates the strength of the scientific evidence on human-caused global warming. And the strength of the evidence is why the IPCC is able to say with 95 percent confidence that humans are the main cause of the current global warming.
 
Media_Truth said:
Actually, I was wrong. I stated that 95% of Climate Change scientists say the earth is warming, and that it is caused by human activity. The number is actually 97%. Interestingly enough, even though this is the case, the 3% crowd seems to bark the loudest. For example, you read at least as much on these forums from the Deniers, and probably more. Maybe that's why Al Gore called it an Inconvenient Truth - because people don't want to believe it. They don't want to admit that they can wreak havoc on this planet, that affects future generations. They don't want to admit that we need to search for alternatives to continue our way of life. It reminds me of a song from '60s called "Live for Today" (sha-la-la-la-la-la live for today, and don't worry 'bout tomorrow, hey, hey, hey).

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...2013/sep/27/global-warming-ipcc-report-humans

This is why there's a 97 percent consensus amongst climate experts and in the climate science literature that humans are causing global warming. The scientific evidence on this question is overwhelming.

Many commenters have noted that the expert consensus is itself not scientific evidence for human-caused global warming. That's true. The expert consensus is however based on the scientific evidence. The fact that 97 percent of climate experts agree on this subject also demonstrates the strength of the scientific evidence on human-caused global warming. And the strength of the evidence is why the IPCC is able to say with 95 percent confidence that humans are the main cause of the current global warming.
Click to expand...


[h=1]The Cook ‘97% consensus’ paper, exposed by new book for the fraud that it really is[/h]I don’t like to use the word “fraud”, and I can’t recall if I’ve ever used it in a title. In this case it is warranted. Brandon Shollenberger writes of a new book, The Climate Wars: How the Consensus is Enforced, that proves without a doubt that John Cook and his “Skeptical Science” team are…

March 12, 2016 in 97% consensus, Book Review, Opinion.
 

[h=1]97 Articles Refuting The ‘97% Consensus’ on global warming[/h]The 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook’s study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have…

December 19, 2014 in 97% consensus.
 
Media_Truth said:
Actually, I was wrong. I stated that 95% of Climate Change scientists say the earth is warming, and that it is caused by human activity. The number is actually 97%. Interestingly enough, even though this is the case, the 3% crowd seems to bark the loudest. For example, you read at least as much on these forums from the Deniers, and probably more. Maybe that's why Al Gore called it an Inconvenient Truth - because people don't want to believe it. They don't want to admit that they can wreak havoc on this planet, that affects future generations. They don't want to admit that we need to search for alternatives to continue our way of life. It reminds me of a song from '60s called "Live for Today" (sha-la-la-la-la-la live for today, and don't worry 'bout tomorrow, hey, hey, hey).

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...2013/sep/27/global-warming-ipcc-report-humans

This is why there's a 97 percent consensus amongst climate experts and in the climate science literature that humans are causing global warming. The scientific evidence on this question is overwhelming.

Many commenters have noted that the expert consensus is itself not scientific evidence for human-caused global warming. That's true. The expert consensus is however based on the scientific evidence. The fact that 97 percent of climate experts agree on this subject also demonstrates the strength of the scientific evidence on human-caused global warming. And the strength of the evidence is why the IPCC is able to say with 95 percent confidence that humans are the main cause of the current global warming.
Click to expand...

Please stop repeating the lies of the pundits and read and understand the actual studies and polls instead.

Reciting the Guardian as fact makes you look foolish, especially when they lie like that. I at least hope you aren't a fool.
 
Guys, guys. Sea level rise doesn't matter because it has happened in the past.
 
Deuce said:
Guys, guys. Sea level rise doesn't matter because it has happened in the past.
Click to expand...

Global warming does not matter either has the earth was much hotter in the past as well.

Humans were not around then of course
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Global warming does not matter either has the earth was much hotter in the past as well.

Humans were not around then of course
Click to expand...

Humans were around during the late bronze age holocene optimal period when it was considerably warmer than now. That's when civilization really got going.
Or at least urbanisation and settled habitation rather than hunter gathering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom