cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I think you're confusing pack and shelf ice. cn
antartic ice cap not melting after all
- Thread starter desert dude
- Start date
Why is it called the Larsen B Ice shelf then? Is it because it's an ice pack?
What was the depth 30 years ago, and what is that depth now?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
It's called an ice shelf because it's extruded full-thickness continental ice. The advance rate is typically meters per year. It cannot have healed 3 times in as many decades ... that's a pack-ice property. cn
jessy koons
New Member
Between January and March 2002 Larsen B ice shelf collapsed completely. It was 200 meters thick when that happened. It was the size of Rhode Island and was over 12,000 years old.
I see they have 3 different Ice Shelves and apparently I didn't read it closely enough.
canndo
Well-Known Member
the "we don't have to clean up after ourselves" crowd are the most dangerous, by far. They are the ones who hold that the earth is just so beeeeg that we can screw with it all we want and nothing is gonna happen, cause, after all it is soooo beeeeg. Of course they ignore the fact that we find ddt and mercury and lead at the poles, we have medical waste wash up on pretty much every sea shore on earth, we have plastic sargasso seas the size of texas floating in the middle of the oceans, oh but it is so beeeeg. Never mind that we are releasing carbon that was collected and sequestered over millions of years over just a few hundred. The crowd that is sure that we don't have to be responsible for our mess is the same crowd that seems to claim that actions have consequences and that we are all supposed to practice self responsibility - but not when it comes to where we live no sir, we can shit in our cave and the fairies will just come and clean it all up for us, no problem.
lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
Obviously pollution is a problem. however, I don't understand how people leap to the idea that burning of carbon is to blame for temperature fluctuations of the earth when the Earths temperature has fluctuated before humans existed, and before the Industrial revolution.
The rise in temperature is not abnormal and it begins to rise again before industrialization occured.
The rise in temperature is not abnormal and it begins to rise again before industrialization occured.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
But here is the big question. The tight preindustrial correlation of temp and pCO2 suggests a causal relationship. If high CO2 caused high global average temp, we're in for it. If however high pCO2 is a consequence of rising temp, we may or may not be OK. It depends on much that hasn't been nailed down yet. cn
canndo
Well-Known Member
Obviously pollution is a problem. however, I don't understand how people leap to the idea that burning of carbon is to blame for temperature fluctuations of the earth when the Earths temperature has fluctuated before humans existed, and before the Industrial revolution.
The rise in temperature is not abnormal and it begins to rise again before industrialization occured.
the graph is 11 years old and that little green line soars off the chart, we are at the top of the cycle and continuing to rise.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
We hit the 380ppm level in 2005, so the graph must be after that. cn
lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
Can you show me a chart that isn't time constrained? I'm having a hard time...
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
jessy koons
New Member
No one is blaming the burning of carbon for temperature fluctuations in the past but the addition of co2 into the atmosphere today is helping to retain heat. The past has been constantly ( in geological time ) fluctuating so variations in temperature are to be expected. The whole point of the scientific community bring up the issue of co2 emissions was that nobody seemed to care about this grand climate experiment we are conducting.Obviously pollution is a problem. however, I don't understand how people leap to the idea that burning of carbon is to blame for temperature fluctuations of the earth when the Earths temperature has fluctuated before humans existed, and before the Industrial revolution.
The rise in temperature is not abnormal and it begins to rise again before industrialization occured.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
This graph jogged my memory. Not too long ago (ten years,, twenty year?) the big hand-wringing worry was that we were about to enter another ice age. Now here we are worrying about having to tread water from the antarctic not melting.
Face it, the climate is not a trivial thing to understand; putting punitive taxes in place to save the planet from something you don't understand in the first place seems to me like an invitation to our overlords to pick our pockets.
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
The problem is the manufactured urgency that ALWAYS accompanies the agenda of the Eco-loons. I myself, as well as all of the talking heads that I watch and listen to that argue against the MMGW crowd all embrace the move to green energy. The difference is the time frame and a "sane" approach. All the whining and LYING about the impending disaster doesn't change the fact it's going to take 20+ years and we're going to be completely reliant on fossil fuels, coal, nuclear, etc, to get there. You don't shoot your burro today because you might inherit a draft horse in ten years.
canndo
Well-Known Member
I can't show you anything that isn't the stupid hockystick that Gore put forth, I can only show you responses. Gore did more to ruin decent science than anyone on the right has done. We have had most of the hottest years in history in the last 20 but that would do nothing but agree with your graph.
lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
That is what really turned me off is the deceptive time constrained graph that was pushed so much.