Fear and loathing in DC

[billvon 3,114]

Quote

Just think of the future where there will be great dive tours for the great great grandchildren of todays Americans. The will get to check out the submerged cities all along the east coast. Along the west coast where the surface topography is greater there will be less of course..

There is growth business there I tell you. Subsurface Habs in Florida will be all the rage.... they will be able to look out of the front port window at their own personal coral reef with the few surviving species of fish and corals that have adapted to the extreme ultra violet in the sunlight because the atmosphere was polluted so heavily by chemicals that companies claimed were safe after the EPA is dismantled and by all the melting permafrost that will releash huge amounts of greenhouse gasses. At least underwater there will be less chance of skin cancers.

Just some pesky details here -

No cities will be dozens of feet underwater in 100 years. Even worst case we're going to see less than 3 feet by 2100. Now, if you claim they will be riding gondola boats in New Orleans, that might be a better scary image.

Ultraviolet is stopped by ozone and the ozone layer is recovering after we outlawed CFC's. In any case "extreme ultraviolet" (light below 300nm) doesn't penetrate more than a foot or so underwater, so it's not a risk to coral.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

It's not about science. It's pure politics.

http://business.financialpost.com/2014/05/15/eminent-swedish-scientist-latest-victim-of-climate-mccarthyism/

Don't ever for a second buy into this myth that Progressives are tolerant people. Progressives are only tolerant to their fellow Progressives. Progressives are some of the most intolerant people around.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[Amazon 7]

billvon

Quote

Just think of the future where there will be great dive tours for the great great grandchildren of todays Americans. The will get to check out the submerged cities all along the east coast. Along the west coast where the surface topography is greater there will be less of course..

There is growth business there I tell you. Subsurface Habs in Florida will be all the rage.... they will be able to look out of the front port window at their own personal coral reef with the few surviving species of fish and corals that have adapted to the extreme ultra violet in the sunlight because the atmosphere was polluted so heavily by chemicals that companies claimed were safe after the EPA is dismantled and by all the melting permafrost that will releash huge amounts of greenhouse gasses. At least underwater there will be less chance of skin cancers.

Just some pesky details here -

No cities will be dozens of feet underwater in 100 years. Even worst case we're going to see less than 3 feet by 2100. Now, if you claim they will be riding gondola boats in New Orleans, that might be a better scary image.

Ultraviolet is stopped by ozone and the ozone layer is recovering after we outlawed CFC's. In any case "extreme ultraviolet" (light below 300nm) doesn't penetrate more than a foot or so underwater, so it's not a risk to coral.

Do not forget where we are going with the oligarchs and their desire to make short term money at all costs which includes the removal of all agencies that could have a say or fine them for the things they have done for years now... while paying paltry fines. CFC's might have been contained for now.. but nitrous oxides... not so much. The developing world is crankin it out as well as that coming from the ocean.
Coral bleaching is currently occuring world wide.. reefs are dying worldwide. Fishing techniques in many places destroy reefs.. it all adds up. Humans are dumping crap into the oceans worldwide and the cumulative effect is one of a great dying of species in the oceans. A hell of a lot of plankton is dying and that is the basis of the food chain, it lives in the surface waters.

When a vast amount of ice floats off Antarctica sea level will rise.. it is a given and has happened before. Ice floats on water and when the huge ice sheet lifts off the bedrock that it currently sits on the sea level rise will be impressive in a very short period. The sea ice that is breaking off around Antactica is the first step.. its mass helps to keep the grounded ice in place till now. Sea ice melting only changes the salinity... it is already floating.. but when the sea ice frees that glacier and water intrudes under the glacier the ice behind it starts moving and there will be nothing holding back a VERY large amount of ice from hitting the ocean. A large amount of the continent of Antarctica is far below sea level and the ice at the South Pole is very thick. The elevation at the south pole is almost 10,000 ft above sea level.

When I said great great grandparents.. mine were born in the 1820's... your great great grandchildren will have a wonderful playground of the LA Basin to dive.

[billvon 3,114]

>Do not forget where we are going with the oligarchs and their desire to make
>short term money at all costs which includes the removal of all agencies that could
>have a say or fine them for the things they have done for years now... while
>paying paltry fines.

Eh, industry has been been trying for 150 years to do that. We've done a reasonable job of not letting them get away with it.

>When a vast amount of ice floats off Antarctica sea level will rise.. it is a given and
>has happened before. Ice floats on water and when the huge ice sheet lifts off the
>bedrock that it currently sits on the sea level rise will be impressive in a very short
>period.

If it's sitting on bedrock now, as it rises the sea level will DROP. (Basic buoyancy.) The only ice sheet I have heard about doing anything lately is the West Antarctic sheet, and in the short term that will have the effect of lowering sea levels. In the long term it will increase them - but again we are talking a 15 foot rise in 200 to 1000 years if it melts completely. Your great great grandkids will not see it.

That doesn't mean we should ignore it, but it's also a bit premature to start buying "seashore" land in Yuma.

[Amazon 7]

billvon

>Do not forget where we are going with the oligarchs and their desire to make
>short term money at all costs which includes the removal of all agencies that could
>have a say or fine them for the things they have done for years now... while
>paying paltry fines.

Eh, industry has been been trying for 150 years to do that. We've done a reasonable job of not letting them get away with it.

>When a vast amount of ice floats off Antarctica sea level will rise.. it is a given and
>has happened before. Ice floats on water and when the huge ice sheet lifts off the
>bedrock that it currently sits on the sea level rise will be impressive in a very short
>period.

If it's sitting on bedrock now, as it rises the sea level will DROP. (Basic buoyancy.) The only ice sheet I have heard about doing anything lately is the West Antarctic sheet, and in the short term that will have the effect of lowering sea levels. In the long term it will increase them - but again we are talking a 15 foot rise in 200 to 1000 years if it melts completely. Your great great grandkids will not see it.

That doesn't mean we should ignore it, but it's also a bit premature to start buying "seashore" land in Yuma.

Getting to know the continent....

http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1997/antpanel/3enviro.htm

Antarctica is composed of two major, geologically distinct parts bridged by a vast ice sheet (Exhibit 2). East Antarctica, the larger of the two, is roughly the size of the U.S. (Exhibit 3) and is composed of continental crust covered by an ice sheet that averages 1.6 miles thick. Rock exposures are limited to isolated coastal regions and to alpine elevations in the 2,000-mile long Transantarctic Mountains. West Antarctica, the smaller portion, is a mosaic of small blocks of continental crust covered by the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and an Andean-like mountain chain forming the Antarctic Peninsula. Most of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is grounded below sea level, in places over 1.5 miles below sea level.



http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1997/antpanel/graphics/ex07full.jpg

[rushmc 23]

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/scientists-rebut-global-warming/2014/05/18/id/571987/

Well stated!

Quote

The scientists' rebuttal, however, strongly challenges the theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW), which it says is "based on a string of inferences that begins with the assumptions" that human burning of fossil fuels is driving up atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and "is so grossly flawed it should play no role in U.S. Energy Policy Analyses and CO2 regulatory processes."

The scientists do not have any affiliation with any particular organization and have worked together pro bono for several years.

Among the signatories are: Dr. George Wolff, who formerly chaired the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee; Joseph S. D'Aleo, a fellow with the American Meteorological Society; Dr. Neil Laverne Frank, former director of the National Hurricane Center in Florida; and William M. "Bill" Gray, emeritus professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University.

The authors criticize the NCA report for a lack of objectivity and its failure to include input from scientists who may question whether climate change is irrefutable and that a robust regulatory response is required.

"Science derives its objectivity from robust logic and honest evidence repeatedly tested by all knowledgeable scientists, not just those paid to support the administration's version of "Global Warming,' 'Climate Change,' 'Climate Disruption,' or whatever their marketing specialists call it today," they said.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,147]

How about a link to what the "scientists" actually wrote, instead of Newsmax's cherry picked version?

(Meanwhile 97% of climate scientists, the National Academies, The DoD, and even Exxon-Mobil, disagree with them).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

kallend

How about a link to what the "scientists" actually wrote, instead of Newsmax's cherry picked version?

(Meanwhile 97% of climate scientists, the National Academies, The DoD, and even Exxon-Mobil, disagree with them).

And science by consus is not science and makes for a stupid argument

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,147]

rushmc

***

How about a link to what the "scientists" actually wrote, instead of Newsmax's cherry picked version?

(Meanwhile 97% of climate scientists, the National Academies, The DoD, and even Exxon-Mobil, disagree with them).

And science by consus is not science and makes for a stupid argument

Consensus of scientists sure beats science by Newsmax.

How about a link to a non-cherry-picked version?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

kallend

******

How about a link to what the "scientists" actually wrote, instead of Newsmax's cherry picked version?

(Meanwhile 97% of climate scientists, the National Academies, The DoD, and even Exxon-Mobil, disagree with them).

And science by consus is not science and makes for a stupid argument

Consensus of scientists sure beats science by Newsmax.

A consensus of scientists once thought the planets to go around the earth

or

the earth was flat


YOUR consensus is just desperation

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

rushmc

A consensus of scientists once thought the planets to go around the earth

or

the earth was flat

that's not analogous at all -

1 - those positions were driven by threat from the establishment (religion at the time)

2 - GW is not treated like a faith based religions nowadays (snicker)

3 - scientists that fairly disagree today are not ostrasized or professionally damaged (snicker) like back then

4 - I doubt a scientist that doesn't follow the pack today at least won't be burned at the stake, (he might just get death threats and his car keyed up)

5 - Back then, people were fanatical about the flat earth, almost like dogma. We NEVER see alarmists getting hyper or over-reactive....

6 - The churches collected a lot of money by making people follow the doctrine. Today, GW is not a money making industry at all. It's just concerned citizens that have no other political or social agenda.....

it's not the same AT ALL

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,147]

Meanwhile, in the Antarctic:

www.leeds.ac.uk/news/article/3531/antarcticas_ice_losses_on_the_rise

Peer reviewed original: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060111/abstract



Three years of observations show that the Antarctic ice sheet is now losing 159 billion tonnes of ice each year – twice as much as when it was last surveyed.

"We find that ice losses continue to be most pronounced along the fast-flowing ice streams of the Amundsen Sea sector, with thinning rates of between 4 and 8 meters per year near to the grounding lines of the Pine Island, Thwaites and Smith Glaciers," the University of Leeds' Malcolm McMillan, lead author of the study, said in a news release.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,147]

rushmc

*********

How about a link to what the "scientists" actually wrote, instead of Newsmax's cherry picked version?

(Meanwhile 97% of climate scientists, the National Academies, The DoD, and even Exxon-Mobil, disagree with them).

And science by consus is not science and makes for a stupid argument

Consensus of scientists sure beats science by Newsmax.

A consensus of scientists once thought the planets to go around the earth

or

the earth was flat


YOUR consensus is just desperation

Meanwhile in Alaska:

www.nytimes.com/2014/05/20/science/the-melting-isnt-glacial.html

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,114]

For a bit of positive news -

At a news conference today, Marco Rubio once again denied climate change, but in a nod to Floridians worried about rising sea levels, noted that rising sea levels would not pose a significant threat to Florida. The excess water, he explained, would just spill over the edge.

[Amazon 7]

Thank GOD that the earth is so flat so that it can spill over the lip..

[Coreece 190]

billvon

For a bit of positive news -

At a news conference today, Marco Rubio once again denied climate change, but in a nod to Floridians worried about rising sea levels, noted that rising sea levels would not pose a significant threat to Florida. The excess water, he explained, would just spill over the edge.

Along with a capsized Guam...

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[Coreece 190]

Your verbose lack of subtlety just ruined it...

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[Coreece 190]

kallend

www.nytimes.com/2014/05/20/science/the-melting-isnt-glacial.html

Lookin' good...I like what you've done with the place.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[Arvoitus 1]

Did you check the people who signed that paper?

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=13

Quote

Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy has received $1,048,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

...

KEY PEOPLE

George T. Wolff
Member, Board of Directors

Joseph S. D'Ale & Neil Laverne Frank both are signatories to the Cornwall Alliance's, which states that:

Quote

We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception.

First 3 are big oil shills or creationists, I'm not too hopeful about the rest.

Your rights end where my feelings begin.

[jgoose71 0]

rehmwa

***A consensus of scientists once thought the planets to go around the earth

or

the earth was flat

that's not analogous at all -

1 - those positions were driven by threat from the establishment (religion at the time)

2 - GW is not treated like a faith based religions nowadays (snicker)

3 - scientists that fairly disagree today are not ostrasized or professionally damaged (snicker) like back then

4 - I doubt a scientist that doesn't follow the pack today at least won't be burned at the stake, (he might just get death threats and his car keyed up)

5 - Back then, people were fanatical about the flat earth, almost like dogma. We NEVER see alarmists getting hyper or over-reactive....

6 - The churches collected a lot of money by making people follow the doctrine. Today, GW is not a money making industry at all. It's just concerned citizens that have no other political or social agenda.....

it's not the same AT ALL

+1!!!!

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[rushmc 23]

kallend

Meanwhile, in the Antarctic:

www.leeds.ac.uk/news/article/3531/antarcticas_ice_losses_on_the_rise

Peer reviewed original: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060111/abstract



Three years of observations show that the Antarctic ice sheet is now losing 159 billion tonnes of ice each year – twice as much as when it was last surveyed.

"We find that ice losses continue to be most pronounced along the fast-flowing ice streams of the Amundsen Sea sector, with thinning rates of between 4 and 8 meters per year near to the grounding lines of the Pine Island, Thwaites and Smith Glaciers," the University of Leeds' Malcolm McMillan, lead author of the study, said in a news release.

what I find interesting about this post is you slap down anyone who posts something like this and say it is weather (if the post does not support your religion)
but then you turn around and do the same

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Quote

what I find interesting about this post is you slap down anyone who posts something like this and say it is weather (if the post does not support your religion)
but then you turn around and do the same

You truly don't understand the difference between a warm snap in one region of the US over a period of weeks, and sustained, annual glacial melt over an entire continent, do you?

I think I'm starting to understand the problem here.

- Dan G

[rushmc 23]

DanG

Quote

what I find interesting about this post is you slap down anyone who posts something like this and say it is weather (if the post does not support your religion)
but then you turn around and do the same

You truly don't understand the difference between a warm snap in one region of the US over a period of weeks, and sustained, annual glacial melt over an entire continent, do you?

I think I'm starting to understand the problem here.

Nooooo
Your right
I dont understand a fucking thing

you all got it all figured out

I got it

I got it a long time ago





BTW

You did see that other link I provided of a study by experters in the glacial field didnt you?

You know
the one where they state the ice in those fields have been melting for 17,000 years?

Ya

I think I am starting to understand the problem here

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,147]

rushmc

***Meanwhile, in the Antarctic:

www.leeds.ac.uk/news/article/3531/antarcticas_ice_losses_on_the_rise

Peer reviewed original: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060111/abstract



Three years of observations show that the Antarctic ice sheet is now losing 159 billion tonnes of ice each year – twice as much as when it was last surveyed.

"We find that ice losses continue to be most pronounced along the fast-flowing ice streams of the Amundsen Sea sector, with thinning rates of between 4 and 8 meters per year near to the grounding lines of the Pine Island, Thwaites and Smith Glaciers," the University of Leeds' Malcolm McMillan, lead author of the study, said in a news release.

what I find interesting about this post is you slap down anyone who posts something like this and say it is weather (if the post does not support your religion)
but then you turn around and do the same

Your definition of "weather" is defective. Weather is what happens today, tomorrow, or next week. A trend lasting years or decades over an area the size of a continent isn't weather, it's CLIMATE.

Of course, you are a perfect example of 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

kallend

******Meanwhile, in the Antarctic:

www.leeds.ac.uk/news/article/3531/antarcticas_ice_losses_on_the_rise

Peer reviewed original: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060111/abstract



Three years of observations show that the Antarctic ice sheet is now losing 159 billion tonnes of ice each year – twice as much as when it was last surveyed.

"We find that ice losses continue to be most pronounced along the fast-flowing ice streams of the Amundsen Sea sector, with thinning rates of between 4 and 8 meters per year near to the grounding lines of the Pine Island, Thwaites and Smith Glaciers," the University of Leeds' Malcolm McMillan, lead author of the study, said in a news release.

what I find interesting about this post is you slap down anyone who posts something like this and say it is weather (if the post does not support your religion)
but then you turn around and do the same

Your definition of "weather" is defective. Weather is what happens today, tomorrow, or next week. A trend lasting years or decades over an area the size of a continent isn't weather, it's CLIMATE.

Of course, you are a perfect example of 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'

YOUR definition of weather chages to suit your prorpganda


The only argument you have anymore

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln