Floating ice doesn't raise the sea level when it melts - true. But, when floating ice melts it DOES change Earth's reflectivity. Instead of being reflected, solar energy is absorbed by the newly exposed ocean. That counts as increased warming of Earth - which has gloal affect. Also, about half the sea level rise since 2005 has been due to thermal expansion rather than melting glaciers and other increased runoff. Another issue is that melting is not limited to glaciers - even though it seems that is the part we keep hearing about. When the tundra of northern Canada and Siberia melts, it starts to decay - a process that has two detrimental afects. One is that the decay process emits greenhouse gasses that are far more potent than co2. The other is that it can catch fire and such fires are essentially impossible to extinguish. The result is more increase in greenhouse gasses. Link to tundra fire Link to thermal expansion data
That is a pure conspiracy theory that is backed by NO EVIDENCE. I really hate this idea of rejecting sweeping areas of science in this manner. It's no better than ad hom. You're just claiming that everyone the world over working in some field of inquiry is a bald faced liar.
Not everybody...... I actually liked "An Inconvenient Truth" and watched it about four times back around 2006 ...... but I immediately noticed that no serious discussion of possible alternatives was allowed once lawyers with a background in Environmental Sciences caught onto the idea and sold it to some bureaucrats with a huge amount of influence in the USA Democratic Party and the political left also in Canada and in most of the industrial nations. We all have some biases.... I personally am biased toward a solution to stabilization of the climate that will fit with.... and NOT contradict Isaiah chapter thirty five..... Isaiah 35:1 "The wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad for them; and the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose. .....: for in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert. And the parched ground shall become a pool, and the thirsty land springs of water: in the habitation of dragons, where each lay, shall be grass with reeds and rushes. My two somewhat humorous submissions for $25 million Virgin Earth Challenge. Both Dr. Bjorn Lomborg and myself believe in climate change... but have serious doubts about the effectiveness of any variation on a Carbon Tax. The political party of Mr. Al Gore.... in my opinion ... is too obsequiously obedient to the brilliance of Richard Dawkins Ph. D. and virtually cannot give credence to a proposed solution to any aspect of climate change that may actually fit with The Bible!
Also permafrost can melt as well. Personally, if I have to think to something dangerous which could happen, I would think to methane hydrates. There are wide depots of methane hydrates under the oceans and if they will be released ... the temperature will raise well more quickly [methane is a more efficient green house gas than Co2]. Then, we have to consider that the rain cycle will probably change. It's still early to predict how.
Excellent points! Based on statements made by AboveAlpha on this forum I suspect that the unusual looking graphs of the general trend of global warming.... that shows far, far, far, far, far more relative warming taking place in the Arctic.... indicates that the methane is already being released from the permafrost.
I called you on using totally unsupportable ad hom against pretty much all of science. So, then you turn around and give me this totally BS world wide conspiracy theory as another "justification" for ignoring all of science??? Then, you give me your total nonsense "solution" that you can't sell to anyone and that nobody believes - nonsense that you've pumped for years to no avail. THEN, you bring in Gore - who is a POLITICIAN, NOT A SCIENTIST. THEN you bring in Dawkins??? Dude - you need to reel it back in a bit. How about starting with cutting out the crap conspiracy theories and ad hom??
That's an assumption by YOU, not a result of science. There are a good number of reasons for northern latitudes to warm more than southern latitudes. Beyond that, there are reasons for the faster warming in the Arctic. https://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/dis...ts found that the,greater upward flow of heat. Of course, this comes from the scientists who YOU declare to be LIARS and CHARLATONS out to attack your religion (as you point out with Dawkins) and make more money (as they give the answers the world wide community of lawyers think is most profitable). Right?
What exactly do you think is an error in this analysis of the long term results of climate change as explained by AboveAlpha....... one of the most off the scale brilliant posters to ever write on politicalforum? Is this analysis of the probable long term effects of climate change logical? http://www.politicalforum.com/index...erm-effects-of-climate-change-logical.454306/ What exactly do you think is incorrect about the rather alarming numbers given here: Mass gains of Antarctic ice greater than losses.
oops... a duplicate post... I may as well add this video that I want to see in full later on.... he starts off quite logically.....
So, you are searching for ANYONE who could possibly tell you want YOU want to hear. Sorry, that's not the way it works. Your video guy makes NUMEROUS blatant mistakes in his effort to convince you of what YOU want to hear. He pitches the spring, summer, fall, winter as "climate change". But, that is absolutely NOT what climate change is. If he knows ANYTHING about this subject, then he is guilty of blatantly lying to you. Do you really believe liars? He gives you a couple lines of articles from NASA as if that is evidence that the entire world of climatology, including NASA, is wrong. And, you want to take the word of some poster over what climatologists all over the world have concluded. This is not even SLIGHTLY a legitimate way of investigating this issue. NASA says Antarctica is losing ice at an average of 149 billion tons per year since 2002. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/ I don't know where your video guy got his short cuts. But, YOU didn't check it out.
This video seems to outline the arguments on ice, the Arctic/Antarctic, and impact on climate. He does a pretty good job of not making extreme statements concerning timing, etc.. A lot of it is in the range of "more of x means more impact of y". He shows how one factor can affect others. So, your questions on Arctic warming are addressed to the extent of showing a number of the causes of exceptional warming in that region. And, that IS certainly interesting. We've had above freezing temperatures at the north pole!
Yes... and I live in Nova Scotia and we are experiencing by far the strangely warmest winter so far.... with by far the least amount of snow but more rain... than I have ever seen in my sixty one years?! There is essentially no snow on the ground at this time with the exception of where snow plows shoved some snow from last week into banks. Rain over the weekend melted ninety nine percent of the snow that was on the ground.......... which wasn't really all that much. Thank you for watching the video. I also thought that he did a great job of covering some aspects of this topic that I feel tend to be mostly over looked.
NASA seems to be somewhat conflicted on this.... https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...ns-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
Also here the winter is odd. I live among the Alps, here it's very cold [don't think to sunny Italy] ... you can see ice everywhere. But ... there are jumps ... from snow to sun ... Last late December ... here on the lake: Some days later ... It's evident that the snow cannot resist here around.
This article shows what is thought to have happened up to 2008. The link that I gave you above includes the 2002 to 2008 period, but then shows measurements that have been made over the more than 10 years after that as well. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/ You can't just look at one article and totally ignore the dates on the article. Time didn't stop in 2008. Since then, NASA measurements show Antarctic ice decreasing significantly. Also, the text of YOUR link has an interesting comment on sea rise. They point out that if their data is correct, then Antarctica has not contributed as much to sea rise as had been previously thought. So, they then point out that there measurements would mean that there is some OTHER significant source of sea rise!!
I have no idea of how to interpret weather in your area. But, I certainly find your pics to be beautiful!
The Southern side of the Alps is substantially warm, but when the winds from East carry here Siberian air ... it snows and the temperatures fall in a dramatic way. For the rest ... yes, here you can take great pictures. Not to underline that the vegetation is a mix of different climatic areas. [I took this picture last summer].
Interesting! How much affect do you get from winds from Africa? Or, do the winds not travel in that direction very much? My understanding is that some of Italy IS affected by its proximity to relatively warm air from northern Africa.
Thank you for that link........ With an average level of sea level rise of over nine cms from 1995 to 2020 that gives me something to work with regarding what I tend to expect along Canada's Bay of Fundy as well as at Anchorage Alaska where the worlds first and second most extreme tides occur? https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/ By simple logic I am expecting high tide levels to be up by somewhere between 1000 percent to 1500 percent from 1995 to 2020 because low tide to high tide near where I live in Guysborough County is only about one meter to one point five meters.............. the geography of the Bay of Fundy that is over 170 miles long...... plus it has a funneling effect on tidal waters..... this results in high tide waters NOT being able to drain fully back into the main part of the ocean before new high tide waters pile on top of them...... which is why the high tides are so extreme there. The situation near Anchorage Alaska is very similar.
It happens in late Spring and in Summer: in Northern Italy it's rare that dust from Sahara falls on our houses, but the "Scirocco" wind carries that dust on Southern Italy without problems. To Northern Italy it carries wet and hot air [displacing our beloved Atlantic anticyclone, the one which ensures marvelous summers]. The result is that in late summer, when the mentioned Eastern cold winds begin to blow ... we've got devastating thunderstorms, twisters and on the sea little hurricanes ...
I'm aware that extreme tides exist there, but I know nothing of the calculations related to how much sea rise might affect those tides. I'd imaging that there are a number of different factors. For example, if the width of the bay grows wider at higher elevations, it might be possible that sea rise in the centimeter range wouldn't make as much difference as one might think. But, I'm not anywhere near familiar enough with the geometry.
In one way... if my guess is basically correct that rising sea levels will result in greatly increased high tide levels along the eastern Bay of Fundy as well as at Anchorage...... then what happens there should act as a warning to all other vulnerable real estate on earth that sea level rise may be the most immediate threat posed by climate change. High tides threaten low-lying Isthmus of Chignecto Premium content Francis Campbell (fcampbell@herald.ca) Published: Oct 10, 2018 at 10:53 a.m. Updated: Nov 18, 2019 at 12:38 p.m.
We have such warnings all over the place. That includes places that don't have extreme tidal features and thus are a far more concrete example of what will happen over wide spread areas where no geographic anomalies exist. Chessapeake Bay is an example. New York City is an example. New Orleans is an example. Florida is an example. Bangladesh is an example. There are island nations in the Pacific where whole nations are looking for places to move their nation as their island world sinks in the sunset. We have very real sea rise problems right now. It's not limited to the future. I think the Bay of Fundy is seriously interesting, but it's not really a major example of what climate change is doing to us today.
I just want to point out that in this post you switched topics from whether climate change is real/significant to the subject of whether specific remedies might be effective. So, you don't like carbon tax. But, carbon tax is only one of a large number of measures that could be taken. It makes me wonder why you bothered to bring up that one single idea of the many that exist. So far, there really is no single approach that science is suggesting would be sufficient - there is no silver bullet. And, you don't even mention what your objection to that one method might be. I would point out that carbon tax is one idea of many that is oriented to using economics to ratioally spread the cost of moving away from carbon. Almost all countries already have what is essentially a carbon tax. For example, there are taxes on oil based products - fuel, etc. In UK and other places, these taxes go to the general revenue, so that other forms of taxes don't have to be as high. Some people think that carbon tax would mean that there is more revenue being collected by the government - that there is a separate sluch furnd or whatever. But, that's not how it works. So, citizens pay carbon tax, but pay less in other taxes. So overall, people would be encouraged to use less oil products while their total tax bill is not larger. In fact, if someone does a better than average job of not using oil based products, their totl tax should actually be lower. I don't see anything wrong with that mechanism. We already use a number of ways of giving tax benefits to gas and oil companies. In other words, today we are making it artificially CHEAPER to use carbon based fuels. Why are we ENCOURAGING the use of fossil fuels when that is a significant factor in the warming that is taking place now and into the future??? It's time we made it artificially cheaper to find OTHER sources of energy - insulation, wind, etc. Today, the largest single fuel for electricity creation in the state of Iowa is WIND. And, they do that because it is economical to do so. We should be encouranging THAT, not encouraging more carbon.
I've stood inside the burial chamber of the Great Pyramid at Gisa and seen the sarcophagus it contains. I didn't bother reading the rest of your post since you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. I mean, who goes to Egypt without going to Gisa? Only the people who go to Red Sea resorts for a bit of scuba diving.
