31–40 of 98 posts
There are some famous photos of Patagonia 100 years ago and today...anyone remember them?
I managed to find these before/after photos of glaciers in Alaska.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2972130/Globa...
As long as my golf courses in Florida are OK, there is no global warming. A bunch of floating ice can't raise sea levels, since the ice is already there, it's just moving around. It's big ice, yes, but it won't do anything and certainly won't reach the US, hence it will not affect it. Those damn state leaders aligning with the commie Europeans on the issue don't know a thing, they're going rogue. I tell you what, the…
This is a joke, right? Warm water occupies more volume than cold water. Also, ice that is on LAND and running off into the OCEAN will raise sea level. Also water from melting ice caps that evaporates goes back into the ocean and refreezing on polar caps is slowing down, so more water in the ocean. It does not have to melt straight into the ocean. Sea level is rising due to ice melting. It is a fact.
Wow... just wow. I'm overwhelmingly under-learned on this topic, but from the sounds of scientists, shit is literally hitting the fan. What books and research in the last couple years are good for non-scientists about the effects of rising oceans on socio-economics and politics?
If we manage to actually enforce anti-carbon regulation across the globe, who will be harmed the most? It's India, China, and Brazil among others who are still industrializing. It's the people who we're just trying to get up to the point of actually being pretty confident they will get 1-2 meals every day... not even making them wealthy. Often these things are framed to appear to be going after the "evil rich" person who burns coal. Sure, we know burning coal kills lots of people. I would never deny those stats. No one ever talks about how many lives are saved by burning coal. As technology progresses perhaps countries will not need to burn coal to go through industrialization and pull their people off the brink of starvation, but we're nowhere near that today. So we need to consider these types of things as we talk about the socioeconomic and political ramifications of climate change. The solution can't be worse than the problem for poor people.
I heard this idea suggested at least a decade ago in Popular Science. I imagine there are many such proposals to defeat global warming (beyond cutting CO2 emissions), but somehow this one stuck with me. Musk could also do it with his rockets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure why people are downvoting the above comment. Many people think the same way and we have a long way to convince people that their attitudes and behavior need to be modified --both here _and_ in the developing world. It's likely more acute in the developing world since their governments have fewer resources to dedicate to the issue so the populous is on their own to modify behavior and attitudes. Ignoring…
I'm not sure it is possible to convince someone who has all the facts and still doesn't give a fuck. Only new facts will do the trick, facts which, even if not adding to the body of knowledge, have a high fuck giving factor. Like, a tornado destroys their house or such.
In 2014 Antarctic sea ice reached a record maximum: https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reach... But now in 2017 we're talking about continent-wide collapse?
Incidentally, antarctic sea ice extent did go from record highs 3 years ago to record lows this year.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/16/world/antarctica-sea-ice-r...
I just came back from 7 months on one of the U.S. research stations, doing network engineering and glacier search and rescue. It was pretty interesting to see how fast the glacier face the station was near was retreating each year. edit: did an AMA while there that hit the reddit front page https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5656e1/iama_i_dont_ha...
Is Antarctica melting? Yes. Is it bad? Yes. Are humans accelerating it? Yes. Is it bad for my kids and future generations? Yes. Does that mean I'm going to switch to an EV, start taking public transportation in Mountain View, or stop using disposable bags at While Foods? No. Scientists have a long way to convince the billions of people on Earth like me before anyone is going to meaningfully reduce climate change.
What a time to be alive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure why people are downvoting the above comment. Many people think the same way and we have a long way to convince people that their attitudes and behavior need to be modified --both here _and_ in the developing world. It's likely more acute in the developing world since their governments have fewer resources to dedicate to the issue so the populous is on their own to modify behavior and attitudes. Ignoring…
I'm not sure it is possible to convince someone who has all the facts and still doesn't give a fuck. Only new facts will do the trick, facts which, even if not adding to the body of knowledge, have a high fuck giving factor. Like, a tornado destroys their house or such.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sea ice comes and goes. Land ice is much more important. There is an acceleration on land ice loss. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice/
There's a NASA study from 2015 that concludes that mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet are greater than the losses: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-o...
GRACE shows acceleration since 2008. Zwally's study uses data from 1992-2001, 2003-2008. And is in-line with the net-gain slowing down in his data-set.
As long as my golf courses in Florida are OK, there is no global warming. A bunch of floating ice can't raise sea levels, since the ice is already there, it's just moving around. It's big ice, yes, but it won't do anything and certainly won't reach the US, hence it will not affect it. Those damn state leaders aligning with the commie Europeans on the issue don't know a thing, they're going rogue. I tell you what, the…