IMO, for now they say, "Well, our little distribution of US taxpayers' money didn't work at this time, let's table it for now and hope science can't keep up with our narrative."
Q: What weighs 2,240,000,000,000,000 pounds and is no longer connected to Antarctica?
- Thread starter Op2
- Start date
If OP had as much faith in God as he has in bullshit psuedoscience propaganda he could literally change the world. God is a lot more logical as well
Exactly. I told my wife as we watched the news report, scientists know that this stuff happens regularly, with the difference being that 100 years ago we never would have heard anything about it. The most predictably breathless reports about it this morning were that cities around the world for miles inland are about to be inundated.Is that the first iceberg to ever break away from either the the north pole or south pole?![[winking]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/wink.r191677.gif "Winking [winking]")
![[eyeroll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/rolleye/rolleye0011.r191677.gif "Eye roll [eyeroll]")
People have gotten to be absolutely scared of their own shadow.Exactly. I told my wife as we watched the news report, scientists know that this stuff happens regularly, with the difference being that 100 years ago we never would have heard anything about it. The most predictably breathless reports about it this morning were that cities around the world for miles inland are about to be inundated.
The fact that some people on here believe that the latest massive amount of ice freed from the ice shelf has some type of "shock factor" is indicative of two things.
1) People are not paying attention to climate change at all. This is a natural process, but the scale and frequency of the process is impacted by warming. This massive event was documented over the last year, and those that read to be informed about climate change were aware of this at least 6 months ago.
2) People that want to not believe in manmade climate change have the ability and desire to explain away every piece of evidence by manipulating it to support either evidence of a massive conspiracy or illogical liberal fear.
The fact is that this event is just another check mark on list of climate change identification. This iceberg (although insanely massive) doesnt flood Miami, it doesn't cause the surface or ocean temperature to change to levels that destroy life. But it is confirmation of what could be catastrophic in our future, if we do not reverse the trend.
When statistics illuminate this issue, people choose to deny them by screaming fraud and conspiracy. When measurements from the field show obvious impacts, people find counter measurements and act like it cancels them out. When something as massive as this occurs, people explain it away with......well......bullsh1t lies.
1) People are not paying attention to climate change at all. This is a natural process, but the scale and frequency of the process is impacted by warming. This massive event was documented over the last year, and those that read to be informed about climate change were aware of this at least 6 months ago.
2) People that want to not believe in manmade climate change have the ability and desire to explain away every piece of evidence by manipulating it to support either evidence of a massive conspiracy or illogical liberal fear.
The fact is that this event is just another check mark on list of climate change identification. This iceberg (although insanely massive) doesnt flood Miami, it doesn't cause the surface or ocean temperature to change to levels that destroy life. But it is confirmation of what could be catastrophic in our future, if we do not reverse the trend.
When statistics illuminate this issue, people choose to deny them by screaming fraud and conspiracy. When measurements from the field show obvious impacts, people find counter measurements and act like it cancels them out. When something as massive as this occurs, people explain it away with......well......bullsh1t lies.
Why are you ranting at us? The article was the one that said researchers didn't say it was connected to climate change. Also, the article says it started 6 years ago. Wondering why you enlightened folks only started following it 6 months ago. Do you think you could be more condescending? I'm betting no.
I think I could, don't you? I mean, the level of condescension is primarily dependent upon amount of space between the knowledge of the person speaking versus the ignorance of the person that is being spoken to. So yes, I believe we have some room for expansion. Seriously - I apologize for coming off as condescending (it's something I can't stand). This is not my field, and my knowledge is not substantial at all. The condescension comes from the frustration that people think they know about climate change, but obviously haven't read much to even attempt to understand it fully.
I read of this actual break six months ago. Maybe I should have been better informed about it before then. Calving is a complex process of natural reformation for the ice shelf. Just because something is a natural process (like warming, glaciers melting, artic ice melting, hurricanes, drought, etc...) it doesn't mean the process isn't connected to climate change. The scientist that you read quotes from is probably a very good scientist and chooses not to sensationalize the event by placing absolutes to the event. It would be like saying Katrina was a product of climate change.
Understanding the big picture is important. And that's something many are not doing. You (yes you dog), I'm guessing, fracture each aspect of climate change and find a way to minimize it as evidence. It's what the "counter science" effort on climate change denial is doing, and it literally is a #ccj.
as I've said, I merely quoted the article. If you have issues with it, write NBCNews, or find out who their researcher was.
I recall a lot of that actually. It was right up there with George Bush's weather machine and him not liking black people. That was a wild 18 months. I rode through Ivan, Dennis, Katrina, TS Cindy, and one other TS that I can't remember. Dennis center punched my house on landfall. When Katrina finally hit, I thought that there might be some credence to weather machine.
I've said I don't study on it at all and refrain from taking a hard and fast position on it other than to say that I don't think we know how much we are impacting the climate or how much our inititiatives will help. Climate Change is right up there with Gluten Free Diets on my Gives-aFvck-Ometer.
Once enough of the ice shelf breaks off with a domino effect, the glaciers themselves are at risk of being exposed to and melting in ocean water, this is the problem point (at which reversing the trend won't do any good). Trying to prevent catastrophic climate change effects, is a process that involves doing something about it while it's still possible to prevent catastrophe. If the ice shelf is in tact, and only natural breaks and reformation occurs, the potential for dangerous conditions of sea levels is lessened. This latest Delaware sized break doesn't bode well for the survival of the ice shelf.
Does your research tell us what effect snow accumulation (which equals weight) has on ice shelves?
All I know about snowfall is that the thicker the accumulation, the better chance there is that meltwater refreezes before running into cracks and crevices that contribute to the calving process. Weight? No, I don't know
From the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: “Current global model studies project that the Antarctic ice sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall.”
Big picture though Jason Born. This year es a good for da Antarctic ice a-shelf.....laist year and a years a-before...not a so much.
Now, if this trend continues in this direction for both poles....I will flip a flappy gee Willy, but it doesn't look likely.
Well that can't be right. I thought the ice sheets and glaciers were going to melt at such an accelerating rate that we're all going to be underwater within 50 years. Or something.
The trend will most likely not continue due to the effects of climate change as history tells us. Hell.....I understand that the report of the Ross ice shelf mega-berg was having an H.G. Wells / Al Gore effect on many of our friends.
NASA<<<
Excerpt: Sea ice surrounding Antarctica reached a new record high extent this year, covering more of the southern oceans than it has since scientists began a long-term satellite record to map sea ice extent in the late 1970s. The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.
The new Antarctic sea ice record reflects the diversity and complexity of Earth’s environments, said NASA researchers. Claire Parkinson, a senior scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, has referred to changes in sea ice coverage as a microcosm of global climate change. Just as the temperatures in some regions of the planet are colder than average, even in our warming world, Antarctic sea ice has been increasing and bucking the overall trend of ice loss.
ahem
AGAIN: The Pole's are cranking out ice. Where is it going to go when it reaches warm water and buckles under it's own weight? Jupiter to live with Cher?
To whoever inquired about snowfall. It is a factor in a very simple equation. annual snowfall > annual snow melt = glaciation. It's one of the simplest calculations in Geology; even simpler than Darcy's Law.
First of all, what you posted literally says that the growth of ice in Antarctica is only 1/3 of the rapid ice melt in the artic. So your statement that the poleS are "cranking out ice", isn't true at all. It does however highlight the complexity of our environment, yes. As one pole grew THIS year. However, the breaking off of this recent iceberg doesn't seem to indicate that the balance is sufficient on Larsen C. Both Larsen A and B were lost, and imo C will probably follow. Ocean temperatures have contributed to the losses of the ice shelves, and this trend will continue. This is a pattern, and it's sad that so many fail to see it for what it is.
You finished up strong.
edit:
"The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean."
ONLY a 3rd of what is happening on the other side of the World. A mere pittance.
Now that's funny. If we could get the same effort working on the National Debt, that will CERTAINLY affect the Grandkids and Great Grandkids, that would be a step in the right direction.
A good point was made above, we have far more pressing concerns of a $21 trillion national debt, but global warming carries far more fervor with you. And we're sad? Ok.
Only one fvcking planet genius, once we wreck it.....then what? Imagine if Boston, NY, Miami, LA, D.C., NO, among countless others require billion dollar seawall constructions to prevent annual flooding (projects like Holland is currently building)....what's the cost then? Add to that the thousand of beachfront cities on both coasts that won't be able to sustain. How much loss of wealth are we talking about now? In Naples and Malibu?
The debt can be reversed if we cut that defense budget down. But nah, cant give up those jobs can we? We need massive amounts of people earning tax payer salaries, when it comes to defense. But then we will turn around and rage about how people need to find ways to generate wealth for the nation, and not just take it away from others through tax revenue. I'm all for reversing our debt through ending a budget deficit, cutting programs that are redundant or ineffective, and tightening the contracting process for government funded projects (Trump is good on these issues, imo).
I guess not until your property in under direct threat will it matter to you. I bet then you won't care so much about our nation's debt when you want a seawall built to protect your ass ets.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-climate-change-golf-course-223436
Trump is building a seawall when he wants to protect his ass ets, climate change is real when your property is threatened I guess.
Developer wants to protect against immediate erosion, uses climate change as reasoning. Good lord, you people are naive.
Naive? That's what that is? "Global warming" is specifically cited as the reason for the build. Good lord, you people only care about money. I'm honestly surprised you have any souls left.
Let's put it into perspective. I own some very expensive sea side real estate. I want to ensure my property isn't impacted by sea erosion (happens naturally, all the time, see the west coast) but permits are a bitch to get just for the sake of protecting property. I mean, after all, there is a whole other group of pinko leftists concerned with damaging natural landscapes for the purposes of development. I put on my application "effects of global warming" a. It's a hot button right now, and b. Who can argue with 97% of scientists?
Using a little common sense, we know sea levels are likely not to rise due to global warming in any real capacity for decades. Is my sea wall really to guard against it? Or just immediate coastal erosion? Chances are extremely high that it will have to be replaced by then anyway. So basically, Trump used your pet as justification to protect his money, who can argue against climate change after all regardless of it having a true impact in the immediacy as it relates to his property.
Again, use some common sense.
A bunch of qualifiers of "if". If a frog had wings, he wouldn't be bumping his ass on the ground all the time.
Gotta readily see the difference when "if" is required in your sentence. Trump has money and can do what he wants. "If" we had money will not get us very far. If is a bit of a handicap.
Gotta readily see the difference when "if" is required in your sentence. Trump has money and can do what he wants. "If" we had money will not get us very far. If is a bit of a handicap.
Oh, that's right....I forgot that for the more intelligent, unbiased, conservatives integrity is just a punchline, and that money and wealth and "winning" are all that matter. You have NO idea what Trump was thinking, but yet you have no problem assuming you do.....and having those assumptions match up with your own ideology. The application for permit cited "global warming" and yet the man calls it a hoax in public......and your response is to praise his ability to manipulate the system by doing nothing more than fvcking lying. Call it "strategy", call it "genius"....I'm sure it makes you feel better every time you underhanded someone to get your personal gain.....but it's just chickensh1t, imo. Stand up and believe in what you believe. I thought that was why so many loved his big nasty mouth? Honesty. Bullsh1t! If the Irish government is filled with "pinko" nutjobs, like thou doth protest, then expose them and fight for what you think is right. If environmentalism is bullsh1t, then stand up and call it such. Walk to the line, and take your lumps. Don't play both sides against the middle....that's what con men....and pu$$ies do.
Oh, you mad!
I'm guessing you agree there was likely logic in my post that you agree as a likely scenario? And you're right, I have no idea if that's what he was thinking, but it's logical. Why "toe the line" against something you aren't committed to? That's expensive and time consuming, let alone dumb. Easier and cheaper to just say what needs to be said to get what you need. I'm sure there are things he is passionate about and won't waiver from, not sure what that is though. I have mine.
I learned a long time ago how to "use" the system for personal gain. Put idiotic restraints on people and don't be shocked when they navigate through them. We've had ponds built by the ACE, a stream significantly altered to reduce flooding of business space, and all manner of other shit done. You grease the right politician and anything you need is achievable. Look at most PACs for businesses, including Trump's, they donate to both sides of the aisle. It's called business.
Similar threads
