121–130 of 141 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know. It's largely the literalists that go off the really deep end.
Literalists would be more likely to want to act as good stewards of creation.
Bloomberg rarely does proper math. Melt both polar caps and the ice of Greenland, and you barely get global sea level rise by very few inches. Antarctics as a whole is 90% of the world land-based ice. 29 mln cubic km. All of the floating ice is around 3 mln cubic km. It may look that it can cause 60m high sea level rise, but most of this will be evaporated into milder global climate and stronger rivers. We shall have…
On top of this... for the love of all that is holy, basic english would be "*HAS seen".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Literalists would be more likely to want to act as good stewards of creation.
Technically true, except those who claim to stick to a literal interpretation of the book are much more likely to perform a selective reading of it, keep what they like, discard what they don't. Ends up being just another bullshit name.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Coastal cities are unlikely to be flooded in our lifetimes. We're looking at about 1m [1] sea level rise in 100 years, or 50cm in our lifetime. That means coastal cities will face more severe storms, not ending up submerged. [2] "Pfeffer adds estimates of sea level rise due to thermal expansion and ice melting to calving approximations and concludes that SLR by the end of the century will range 0.8 to 2.0 m above pre…
Isn't Miami already having problems with flooding at high tide? It doesn't seem like it would take that big of a change from them to have flooding problems when it isn't high tide.
Moreover, Miami is built on porous limestone; sinkholes are everywhere (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/03/18/notes-from-unde...) and will grow whenever salt water pours in, so Miami sinks. They don't even need rising sea levels to make things worse there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Renewable energy. Once things get bad enough the world will wake up and renewables will become huge.
I agree that renewables are going to be huge but I don't know what companies are going to get rich off of it. What will allow individual companies to build good profit margins? The biggest PV efficiency boost being implemented in the mainstream right now (passivated emitter cell structure) was invented in Australia in the 1980s but the patents expired before it was implemented on a large scale. Core patents for heter…
I think the question you're asking is "how does a millionaire/billionaire multiply their net worth in a decade or two", while that question I'm answering is "how do I go from salary slave to capitalist class in a decade or two"
Bloomberg rarely does proper math. Melt both polar caps and the ice of Greenland, and you barely get global sea level rise by very few inches. Antarctics as a whole is 90% of the world land-based ice. 29 mln cubic km. All of the floating ice is around 3 mln cubic km. It may look that it can cause 60m high sea level rise, but most of this will be evaporated into milder global climate and stronger rivers. We shall have…
I disagree with your comment, the massive ocean gyres and global weather patterns will be severely impacted, with results that are totally unpredictable, including a drastic mix of ecosystems and acidification of the oceans. On top of this... for the love of all that is holy, basic english would be "*HAS seen".
Bloomberg rarely does proper math. Melt both polar caps and the ice of Greenland, and you barely get global sea level rise by very few inches. Antarctics as a whole is 90% of the world land-based ice. 29 mln cubic km. All of the floating ice is around 3 mln cubic km. It may look that it can cause 60m high sea level rise, but most of this will be evaporated into milder global climate and stronger rivers. We shall have…
You're forgetting thermal expansion (And it takes decades for increases in atmospheric temperatures to cause a likewise increase in water temperatures.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dude, you don't even read your own sources. > "Studies show that globally, the decreases in Arctic sea ice far exceed the increases in Antarctic sea ice." This is exactly what they say in the Bloomberg video also, if you had even dared to challange your incorrect beliefs.
I understand the concept of a continent is difficult for you to grasp, but it's ok.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't feed the troll, it will just encourage more of the same behavior.
I'm tired of the "climate change is settled science" bit, okay--for centuries, people believed the sun revolved around the earth and nobody was allowed to question that. The answer to speech you don't like is more speech, not censorship. And I'm with the poster who talked about "bullshitting" because climate change has a lot of the smells of that very thing.
Also, for everyone who suggests that belief in the reality of climate change is politically motivated - what is the actual motivation? Sure plenty stand to profit from the sustainable energy industry, but if it was all a hoax in the first place, why would so many be pushing to go the hard way? Why not just throw in with traditional energy industries? Obviously the answer is that only one side in this "debate" is primarily politically motivated, and it's the side that stands to lose a lot of easy money, not the side that stands to make some lesser amount of hard money.
Little patches of nature system, taking from destabilizing temperature zones to areas where they could thrive?
Basically, give up the concept of a invasive species, and speed a adaption up that would occur anyway?