Reply With Quote
^boots now dropping turds in random threads
...
Last edited by boutons_deux; 08-04-2016 at 12:24 PM.
^boots now dropping turds in random threads
Worse yet, I don't think he realizes this is contrary to his normal ideals.
When will Antarctica’s fourth-largest ice shelf break apart? Soon.
A Delaware-sized chunk of ice could dislodge from the Larson C ice shelf within the next few years
A crack is spreading rapidly across Antarctica’s fourth-largest ice shelf, hastening the loss of a massive chunk of ice, say scientists.
Researchers from the British Antarctic Survey's Project MIDAS found that the crack has extended 14 miles since the last time a satellite imaged it, in March 2015.
Soon, the team thinks, about 12 percent of the shelf – known as Larsen C – will break away, following the pattern seen in neighboring ice sheets Larsen A and Larsen B in 1995 and 2002, respectively.
The scientists were stunned by the crack's dramatic increase in speed, as it previously took four years to grow 18 miles. It is also widening quickly. Last year, it was 650 feet wide, and now it is more than 1100 feet wide – nearly a quarter mile.
The collapse of Larsen C, they predicted, would tack on another 50 centimeters (20 inches) to the global rise in sea levels by 2100, adding to problems for coastal cities.
"If this vast ice shelf – which is over two and a half times the size of Wales and 10 times bigger than Larsen B – was to collapse, it would allow the tributary glaciers behind it to flow faster into the sea. This would then contribute to sea-level rise,”
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment...eak-apart-Soon
My ears are burning... whut?
Hottest Year Ever? 2016 Burns Through Heat Records, NASA Says
This year may be only half over, but 2016 is already on track to be the hottest year ever on record, with each of the first six months, from January to June, setting new temperature records, NASA officials announced this week.
For the first time, NASA shared a midyear climate analysis, doing so because temperature averages this year have been so in excess of previous data, agency officials said. NASA's data showed that each month in 2016 was the warmest respective month globally in the modern temperature record, which dates to 1880. This trend suggests 2016 will surpass 2015 as the hottest year on record, NASA said.
"2016 has really blown that out of the water," said Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard Ins ute for Space Studies in New York City. [Record-Breaking Temperatures Again in First Half of 2016 | Video]
http://www.livescience.com/55469-201...on-record.html
So the evidence continues to pile up and up.
I guess we can keep this thread going another 10 years... heh
I doubt DarrinS or Wild Cobra will be convinced until one of the ice caps vanishes?
There is no solid evidence, everything has alternate explanation that you, deny, because you deny science.
I expect the norther polar ice may vanish. It wouldn't be outside of unusual.
Now the Antarctic ice and Greenland ice will not, at least not unless something very significant happens. Not by greenhouse gasses though.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/311/5763/986Using satellite radar interferometry observations of Greenland, we detected widespread glacier acceleration below 66° north between 1996 and 2000, which rapidly expanded to 70° north in 2005. Accelerated ice discharge in the west and particularly in the east doubled the ice sheet mass deficit in the last decade from 90 to 220 cubic kilometers per year. As more glaciers accelerate farther north, the contribution of Greenland to sea-level rise will continue to increase.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/313/5795/1958Using time-variable gravity measurements from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite mission, we estimate ice mass changes over Greenland during the period April 2002 to November 2005. After correcting for the effects of spatial filtering and limited resolution of GRACE data, the estimated total ice melting rate over Greenland is –239 ± 23 cubic kilometers per year, mostly from East Greenland. This estimate agrees remarkably well with a recent assessment of –224 ± 41 cubic kilometers per year, based on satellite radar interferometry data. GRACE estimates in southeast Greenland suggest accelerated melting since the summer of 2004, consistent with the latest remote sensing measurements.
Two different methods, both pointing to a rapidly thinning Greenland ice sheet.
Looks like evidence to me.
As for northern polar ice vanishing, that isn't "usual" by any stretch of the imagination. Perhaps you can tell me what the cause of this event is, if it is "usual" there should be some evidence showing how often that happens, right?
or did you pull "usual" out of your ass?
Niels Bohr Ins ute.
So...
What is the "solid evidence" that greenhouse gasses are causing these changes?
You're an IDIOT.
Yes, a crapital IDIOT!
I never said warming and melting wasn't occurring you moron.
You guys are following the alarmists like lemmings, believing greenhouse gasses are causing all this.
Again,m there is no solid evidence greenhouse gasses are causing it.
Your point?
(facepalm)
Not only does that not really say what you think it does, it points to how unusual Greenlands melting is. For that I say thanks.
Mel er from the surface had penetrated down into the underlying snow, where it once again froze into ice.
Such surface melting has occurred very rarely in the last 5,000 years, but the team observed such a melting during the summer of 2012 when they were in Greenland.“The good news from this study is that the Greenland ice sheet is not as sensitive to temperature increases and to ice melting and running out to sea in warm climate periods like the Eemian,as we thought” explains Dorthe Dahl-Jensen and adds that the bad news is that if Greenland’s ice did not disappear during the Eemian then Antarctica must be responsible for a significant portion of the 4-8 meter rise in sea levels that we know occurred during the Eemian.
Maybe he's confusing him with Neal Boortz?
Human-Driven Warming Started Nearly 200 Years Ago,
a group of researchers has knitted together such natural records — found, for example, in coral reefs, ice sheets and caves. They used those records to trace the thread of human-driven warming back to what they say is its beginning, nearly 200 years ago, when the coal-burning that took off with the Industrial Revolution was still revving up.
Though the impact then on temperatures was small, it is measurable in certain regions, the researchers say.
Some climate scientists not involved in the research quibble with just how much of that early signal can actually be attributed to greenhouse gases. However, there is broad agreement that the study reinforces the importance of the starting point that is used when evaluating how much the Earth has already warmed and how close we are to breaching international climate goals.
http://www.livescience.com/55878-human-driven-warming-began-200-years-ago.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm _campaign=Feed%3A+Livesciencecom+%28LiveScience.co m+Science+Headline+Feed%29
article includes a hockey stick graph, so beloved of your AGW deniers with hockey pucks for brains.
That would be shortly after than maunder minima ended, and the oceans started warming again.
How is that human caused?
Once again the idiot Shazbot...
The article is from the agenda site Climate Central, and Andrea Thompson does not link the Nature story she is lying about.
OK...
I believe this is the article she used:In a study published Wednesday in the journal Nature, a group of researchers has knitted together such natural records
Nature link: Early onset of industrial-era warming across the oceans and continents
It only says "suggests" which is the opinion of the writers, and means there is no evidence meriting a scientific conjecture.
Deeper in the article is this:
However, our findings of a mid-nineteenth-century onset of industrial-era warming suggest that, in some regions, the entire instrumental period contains a signature of climate warming, rendering it unsuitable for determining climate emergence.
It was warmer in the past. That's all I was pointing out.
Anthropocene: Planet Earth has entered new epoch, experts say
http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...-a7215116.html
Hockey stick already sucks and its going to get much worse, unavoidably.
And still BigCarbon's multi-millionaire s in Congress block all attempts to address the catastrophe.
The Toughest Question in Climate Change: Who Gets Saved?
Last fall, two towns at opposite ends of the country entered a new kind of contest run by the federal government. At stake was their survival: Each is being consumed by the rising ocean, and winning money from Washington would mean the chance to move to higher ground.
On the western edge of Alaska, the remote town of Newtok was losing50 to 100 feet of coastline each year to sea-level rise and melting permafrost. It was about to lose its drinking water, its school and maybe even its airport. Its 350 or so residents had been trying to move to safety for 20 years; in 2003, they obtained new land, about 10 miles to the south.
Four thousand miles away on the Louisiana coast, another town, Isle de Jean Charles, was also starting to drown. It was home to just 25 families, some of whomremained ambivalent about relocating. It wasn’t losing land at the rate of Newtok. Its residents didn’t face the same risk of losing access to key facilities. And they had yet to select a new site, let alone secure the rights to it.
In January, the government announced its decision: Isle de Jean Charles would get full funding for a move. Newtok would get nothing.
The contest, called theNational Disaster Resilience Compe ion, was the first large-scale federal effort to highlight and support local solutions for coping with climate change.
It wound up demonstrating something decidedly less upbeat:
The federal government is still struggling to figure out which communities should be moved, and when, and how to pay for it.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...who-gets-saved
How much will BigOil pay for Isle de Jean Charles?
or will taxpayers alone pay?
We know the answer.
So what? Please explain exactly why they is relevant.
So you can't define "usual".
Pretty sweeping statement.
Define "solid evidence". What would you consider solid? what is your bar that needs to be cleared?
Idiot.
Changing what I say for your response.
Greenhouse gasses do cause some warming. I said there was no solid evidence they were causing what the article spoke of, that other factors are also in play.
Keep up the stupidity, and I will keep calling you an idiot!
are there really still s out there who don't believe in man-accelerated climate change?
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
