Su Moo Nein The Belgium Comeex Foliatet Hist Wat Is Leepking Ingin Thes Tifler
-
for my children or for my children's children
I really don't think this is a worry you should have.
-
This year I invested in pumpkins. They've been going up the whole month of October and I got a feeling they're going to peak right around January.
-
Because the problem is going to keep getting worse and worse and worse and worse,
But not badly enough to effect me, or my children, or my children's children, and frankly? I'm sorry but I got a statute of limitation on this shit.
I know for a fact we're only a century away from developing warp drive and contacting the Vulcans, and honestly at that point who cares?
-
Except you know why pumpkins are more valuable in October, and you know that the Halloween season ends at Halloween. CO2 emissions aren't just going to end.
-
eventually consume a substantial portion of the Earth's land mass
Yeah, that is not going to happen.
http://www.amnh.org/ology/features/askascientist/question18.php
If all the ice covering Antarctica, Greenland, and in mountain glaciers around the world were to melt, sea level would rise about 70 meters (230 feet). The ocean would cover all the coastal cities. And land area would shrink significantly. But many cities, such as Denver, would survive.
However, all the ice is not going to melt. The Antarctic ice cap, where most of the ice exists, has survived much warmer times.
Emphasis mine.
-
But many cities, such as Denver, would survive.
FINALLY! A reason to go to (or even briefly think about) Denver!
-
You don't even need to go that far.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/rising-seas/if-ice-melted-map
Goddamn, I can go to AGW websites and debunk the shit that the fox is spewing from his mouth.
-
They seem to be based on vagaries, though. That's my issue. You don't know the specifics.
I do know the specifics. I haven't sat down and calculated when, based on current trends, every single bad thing is going to be really bad, but I do know that they will eventually. For one particular and very specific thing I do know, at the current rates of melting and freezing that the Greenland Ice Sheet is experiencing, the entire ice sheet will be gone in about 310 years. The second largest ice sheet in the world will have melted entirely, which, on its own, will raise sea levels by 6 meters. I haven't personally estimated when the Arctic Ice Sheet will be gone or how much the sea levels will go up from that, but considering the North Pole will probably be underwater after a few more hot years like 2015, it probably won't last to 2050. It's hard to estimate when the largest ice sheet, the Antarctic Ice Sheet, will melt, since data on its melting is new, but since it's larger than Greenland it'll probably take longer. However, if that melts, sea levels will have risen 60 meters as a result.
-
Holy crap, even the pro-AGW websites say that most of that will never happen.
-
I do know the specifics.
Then why have you been dodging my questions for days? Lay 'em out.
I haven't sat down and calculated when, based on current trends, every single bad thing is going to be really bad, but I do know that they will eventually.
Then how have you prioritized what action is appropriate to take?
For one particular and very specific thing I do know, at the current rates of melting and freezing that the Greenland Ice Sheet is experiencing, the entire ice sheet will be gone in about 310 years.
And so what? More arable land is a good thing, isn't it?
The second largest ice sheet in the world will have melted entirely, which, on its own, will raise sea levels by 6 meters.
Oh is this like when you said it was going to rise 3 meters by 2100? Or is this one actually founded in fact somehow?
And again: I'm not trying to pick on you, I'm just trying to prod you into showing SOME form of independent thought here.
-
I'm just trying to prod you into showing SOME form of independent thought here.
Good luck with that.
-
How much? In how much time?
I remember seeing a map of the US showing what areas would be flooded by a couple of different amounts of rise. For a 1m (IIRC) rise, low-lying areas like Louisiana and south and central Florida would be underwater. Barrier islands like off the Carolinas would, I assume, be pretty badly affected. In most of the rest of the US, The shoreline would move inland by, I dunno, maybe up to tens of miles in some area. Heavily populated coastal cities would definitely suffer. (I assume the situation would be pretty similar in other parts of the world. Some of the Caribbean and Pacific Island nations would be pretty hard hit.) On a global scale, though, I find it very hard to believe that even the worst-case, "OMG, the sky is falling" scenarios predict a land area loss of more than 1 or 2%.
If we accept, for the sake of argument, a rate of 0.12 inches/year, that 1m rise will take 328 years. If we believe the rate is increasing exponentially, like fox claims, let's say it's so bad that the average goes up to 0.5 inches/year (unlikely), that's still 79 years. Sure, some areas are affected before then as the level rises, but it hardly takes 80, or even 40 or 20 years to build dikes around some coastal cities, and a more likely rate of rise allows a lot more time.
-
I remember seeing a map of the US showing what areas would be flooded by a couple of different amounts of rise. For a 1m (IIRC) rise, low-lying areas like Louisiana and south and central Florida would be underwater. Barrier islands like off the Carolinas would, I assume, be pretty badly affected. In most of the rest of the US, The shoreline would move inland by, I dunno, maybe up to tens of miles in some area.
Right; and I could see how that would be a huge disaster if it happened in, say, a week and a half.
But we're talking about decades or centuries. It doesn't take centuries to build a dike, or relocate people.
-
FINALLY! A reason to go to (or even briefly think about) Denver!
You don't even need to go that far.
You hardly need to go anywhere. Even most of Everett is more than 230 feet above sea level.
-
But we're talking about decades or centuries. It doesn't take centuries to build a dike, or relocate people.
Or, just stop building where it will flood, and start building farther inland. If it takes centuries, as most models show, the buildings and infrastructure that are in the flood plain will be EOL by then anyway.
-
Good, because fuck Denver.
Hey maybe you're interviewing with Fluke. They do hardware and make some interesting stuffs?
-
but considering the North Pole will probably be underwater after a few more hot years like 2015,
Huh? The North Pole is in the middle of a fucking ocean. Any shred of credibility that you might have ever had you have just completely, utterly destroyed.
-
Or is this one actually founded in fact somehow?
Yes, it's a fact. If all of the ice in the Greenland Ice Sheet were to melt and that water were to flow into the oceans, sea levels would rise 6 meters.
-
Hahaha, I didn't even notice that.
Yeah, the North Pole's underwater now, so it figures it'll still be underwater after a few hot years.
-
No it isn't. It's in the middle of the fucking Arctic Ice Sheet.
-
Yes, it's a fact. If all of the ice in the Greenland Ice Sheet were to melt and that water were to flow into the oceans, sea levels would rise 6 meters.
Awesome. When that happens, you have permission to come find me and point and laugh.
-
Huh? The North Pole is in the middle of a fucking ocean. Any shred of credibility that you might have ever had you have just completely, utterly destroyed.
He thinks there is actual pole there.
-
http://media.education.nationalgeographic.com/assets/photos/000/270/27049.jpg
I GUESS THESE PEOPLE ARE JESUS THEN, WALKING ON WATER AND SHIT.
-
No it isn't. It's in the middle of the fucking Arctic Ice Sheet.
How is it possible for submarines, like the USS Nautilus in 1958, to visit the North Pole?
I need to hear an answer. PLEASE.
(BTW that slip is amazing. "Longitude: Indefinite". Love it.)
-
-
-
I guess that ship is standing on land then?
-
I GUESS THESE PEOPLE ARE JESUS THEN, WALKING ON WATER AND SHIT.
Guess what is under that ice? Guess what also extends out in to space? Do you really think that the North Pole is one specific point in space?
-
Brafox has it on good authority from various unnamed scientists that Russian ice breakers can walk.
-
-
I thought it was implied that "the North Pole will be underwater" meant "The section of the Arctic Ice Sheet at the North Pole will melt"
Clearly I'm still too lenient in assuming you people have any common sense whatsoever.
-
Clearly I'm still too lenient in assuming you people have any common sense whatsoever.
You are the least persuasive person that has ever lived. I am not a skeptic of AGW, but you spout so much bullshit when you attempt to convince people that I want to go start a fucking forest fire.
-
You are the least persuasive person that has ever lived. I am not a skeptic of AGW, but you spout so much bullshit when you attempt to convince people that I want to go start a fucking forest fire.
:oneofus.doc:
-
:oneofus.doc:
Not quite, but that idiot really fails when he has a person who believes in AGW debunking his bullshit also.
I am not a skeptic of AGW, but I am definitely anti-bullshit.
-
It's in the middle of the fucking Arctic Ice Sheet.
Which is floating on the fucking Arctic Ocean.
-
Which is floating on the fucking Arctic Ocean.
Nonsense. It is riding on the back of a turtle. It is turtles all the way down.
-
Goddamn, I can go to AGW websites and debunk the shit that the fox is spewing from his mouth.
Also, No, you can't, because I'm saying the same things that those websites are saying.
- Many of our major cities would be underwater, as shown on that map, including New York City, Washington, DC, Miami, and San Francisco.
- "If we burn all of Earth's supply of coal, oil, and gas, adding some five trillion more tons of carbon to the atmosphere, we'll create a very hot planet, with an average temperature of perhaps 80 degrees Fahrenheit instead of the current 58. Large swathes of it might become too hot for humans. And it would likely be ice free for the first time in more than 30 million years."
-
Which is floating on the fucking Arctic Ocean.
- Emphasis added.
- *scrolls up*
@Fox said:I thought it was implied that "the North Pole will be underwater" meant "The section of the Arctic Ice Sheet at the North Pole will melt"
Clearly I'm still too lenient in assuming you people have any common sense whatsoever.
-
And it would likely be ice free for the first time in more than 30 million years."
Shitloads of AGW websites say that will not happen, because the Antarctic ice sheet has withstood much higher global temperatures than are projected to be likely.
-
"If we burn all of Earth's supply of coal, oil, and gas, adding some five trillion more tons of carbon to the atmosphere, we'll create a very hot planet, with an average temperature of perhaps 80 degrees Fahrenheit instead of the current 58.
Awesome. Let's get started. More sun, more coastline, surf's up, dude!
-
Awesome. Let's get started. More sun, more coastline, surf's up, dude!
Canada and Minnesota will actually be habitable. What's not to like?
-
Canada and Minnesota will actually be habitable. What's not to like?
They will still be Canada and Minnesota though, so there's that.
Plus, can you imagine a warmer Minnesota? The mosquitoes would be the size of Predator drones.
-
Shitloads of AGW websites say that will not happen, because the Antarctic ice sheet has withstood much higher global temperatures than are projected to be likely.
No it hasn't. Like, wtf.
-
No it hasn't. Like, wtf.
That mentions thawing and glaciation, it says nothing about it being gone.
-
Oh man Benthic Petroleum.
Now I wanna watch The Abyss again. Love that movie.
I still move that the two mini-subs chasing each other is one of the best "car chase" sequences ever filmed.
I wonder if I still have it on DVD or if I sold it at that garage sale.
Love that movie.
-
[thaw (thô)v. thawed, thaw·ing, thaws v.intr.
1. To change from a frozen solid to a liquid by gradual warming.- To lose stiffness, numbness, or impermeability by being warmed: left the frozen turkey out until it thawed; thawed out by sitting next to the stove.
3. To become warm enough for snow and ice to melt. - To become less formal, aloof, or reserved.]1
[gla·ci·ate (glā′shē-āt′, -sē-)tr.v. gla·ci·at·ed, gla·ci·at·ing, gla·ci·ates
- a. To cover with ice or a glacier.
b. To subject to or affect by glacial action. - To freeze.]2
Your lack of knowledge of the English language is presenting a problem for the purposes of debating once again.
- To lose stiffness, numbness, or impermeability by being warmed: left the frozen turkey out until it thawed; thawed out by sitting next to the stove.
-
Thawing.
Not thawed.
-
Your lack of knowledge of the English language is presenting a problem for the purposes of debating once again.
Your lack of being able to express yourself completely, your insistence that everyone read between the lines, insistence that people do your homework for you and your redefining words at random is presenting a problem for the purposes of debating once again.
-
To help you wrap your head around the extremely complex topic of ice melting, I simplified it a little.
Also, global temperatures are projected to go up a hell of a lot more than the ~4 degrees celsius between the current temperature and the pre-glacial temperature.
-
But what if the aliens are just innocent explorers, and the submarine crash was a complete accident???