Sea level rise is no longer a threat, Antarctica and Greenland GAINING ice.

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: Robotswilltakeover

thats a relief.

So we can start pumping carbon into the atmosphere irresponsibly and without any regrets? I was getting really worried about the profit margins of energy producers but now with this new info, we can breath a sigh of relief. I mean polluting our earth would never cause anything to happen, she's indestructible. I'm sick of all these hippies telling me polluting our Earth is wrong



I'll just close my eyes and ears and let future generations deal with it.

CO2 is not pollution. What will future generations have to deal with exactly? I suggest you do not really know and neither do I but climate change is not a big deal.

a reply to: ispyed
That would depend on your point of view.
Those living in Florida might disagree.
www.miamiherald.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ispyed
That would depend on your point of view.
Those living in Florida might disagree.
www.miamiherald.com...

According to the comments section from your link, these assessments were done by liberals with degrees who also are onboard the global warming political frenzy. They support wealth redistribution and all that.
Other people say these things have always been happening in Miami, so it's nothing new.

Me? I don't care either way since I don't live there..

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

According to the comments section from your link, these assessments were done by liberals with degrees who also are onboard the global warming political frenzy.

They have degrees? Oh my. That's dreadful.

According to the OP, NASA says rising sea levels are not a problem. If you base your opinions on reader comments...never mind.

Me? I don't care either way since I don't live there..

How nice for you.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

According to the comments section from your link, these assessments were done by liberals with degrees who also are onboard the global warming political frenzy.

They have degrees? Oh my. That's dreadful.

According to the OP, NASA says rising sea levels are not a problem. If you base your opinions on reader comments...never mind.

Me? I don't care either way since I don't live there..

How nice for you.

Don't you know how dangerous liberals with degrees are?
It's like giving matches to a baby!

I never formed any opinion on this, merely mentioning the funny comments in the comments section. And before you buy real estate in the keys, you just might want good flood insurance. And remember, the best flood insurance is not living there in the first place. But now liberals with degrees are going to want everyone else to pay for other peoples problems. Especially if they can blame it on climate change. (an ongoing thing with the climate for the past 5 billion years give or take.)

Quick quick .. my carbon credits are for sale .. 50% off and we still plant the full tree...

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

And before you buy real estate in the keys, you just might want good flood insurance.

As well as hurricane coverage. But the problem being talked about here is not hurricane or flood damage. But if you're taking out a mortgage, the bank will indeed require that you carry that insurance.

And remember, the best flood insurance is not living there in the first place.

Ok. And the mid-west is bad because tornados. And the west coast is bad because earthquakes. Mississippi valley..floods.

But now liberals with degrees are going to want everyone else to pay for other peoples problems.

You know, other people's problems can often become your problem. Even if you don't pay for it.

a reply to: flyandi
There are no carbon credits for trees. Not in the US.
You made that up.

a reply to: Phage

That's actually an easy way to see that global warming is legit. The insurance companies have hard data that has assessed the increasing damage from "natural disasters". The trending upwards in $$$ is rather sharp, and so have been the spikes in rates so that the companies continue to make profits.

They don't work off politics, or wild speculation, they work off taking data and making predictions within a degree of certainty.. funny, there was something else that did this as well... oh yea, science...

a reply to: Phage

Noo .. not at all ... just buy it and we will send you an awesome certificate. Who doesn't like an certificate on their wall. You can show your friends what you did for the environment. Your family will be so proud of you.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

Oh we can agree that there is global warming. But not because of Humans. Global warming started 10k years ago with the end of the last glacial period.

That is also scientific and proven over and over again.

Global warming is not just an idea from the "government"...Farmed raised salmon for example is farmed raised in the ocean a few miles off the coast in pens. The locations are picked for a number of reasons and one thing the companies monitor is the temperature in the pens. They are also confirming a rise in ocean temperature. The other cause of global warming is called ocean acidification. The ocean is rising in acidification, which is another obstacle.

The other thing is commercial fishing reporting a rise in ocean temperature. What commercial fishermen deal with is a change in migration patterns. This means they are out at sea longer looking for the fish. Fish like to live in water at a certain temperature so if it gets too warm they find colder water. Ocean temperatures are rising, fish are migrating differently, so that means "fishing spots" relocate. Commercial fisherman have to stay out at sea longer to fill their catch, and finding the fish has become more difficult because they're not in the spots they've been known to be at for decades.

a reply to: flyandi

Great, you're aware of natural cycles now understand how our actions interact with them.

The earth has day and nite, until someone harnesses electricity and uses it to light the face of the earth. A few generations later we observe this face from the outside and realize humanities greatness once again.

Naural cycle altered by human intervention.

a reply to: flyandi

Global warming started 10k years ago with the end of the last glacial period.

Are you claiming that temperatures have been rising for the past 10,000 years?

That is also scientific and proven over and over again.

No, it hasn't.

Just check the officials findings at NASA:

www.giss.nasa.gov...

The truth is that glacier temperatures have been much higher than today over the past 100k years and the temperature distribution of rising and falling is nothing new if you look at a scale that makes sense for a planet like Earth.

Life has been around of almost 5 billion years and earth and Humans are barely 200k years old. In those time scales, the surface temperatures were way warmer than we have it today and still life succeeded.

Sure we have global warming and there is probably a good percentage that we contribute - I don't deny that. But can we affect the cycle of an Planet or even the weather because of this? Highly doubtful.

But one thing is sure, we as Humans took a lot of liberty to terraform this planet to our needs with fully constructed cities in deserts, artificial islands, etc.

We were so great that we even created a scapegoat just in the case a typical for a particular region natural disaster hits. We call it Global warming - bohooo bad humans. destroying the planet!

Look, just read the redistributed stories of the NASA article of the OP. Most of the newspaper falsify the entire story by mixing statements of the lead scientist on the mix that are not even related to this story. Like the IBTimes, who quoted a article from Meier about storms that potentially could fracture sea-ice where he said that the "ice is thin and can be easily harmed". That statement lead to the headline: "Ice is growing but it won't last". Seriously?

Almost every news station which picked up that story falsified the story - how is that different from a scam?

Argh - so done with this discussion.

Global warming is for those who believe in that. Same as religion, you have to have faith in it, because it's very unlikely that it's real.

a reply to: flyandi

The truth is that glacier temperatures have been much higher than today over the past 100k years

Source?

In those time scales, the surface temperatures were way warmer than we have it today and still life succeeded.

Survived, yes. There are not many who are claiming that the current warming trend will result in our extinction. That's not really an issue. It's more about increasing misery.

Most of the newspaper falsify the entire story by mixing statements of the lead scientist on the mix that are not even related to this story.

I don't read "most of the newspapers" but do you think that the OP's distortion is valid?

Global warming is for those who believe in that. Same as religion, you have to have faith in it, because it's very unlikely that it's real.

No. Science is quite a different thing than religion.

a reply to: Phage

see the problem with this topic is that we agree to disagree. There is no way you will convince me or I will convince you.

Religion was once the center point of science .. only we shifted the viewpoint today. So it's not that far from each other. A lot of faith goes into Science in the hopes that it could be right. See just 15 years ago we thought that water within our solar system only exists on Earth .. today we know that there is hard evidence and confirmed water on various planets and moons in our solar system.

See the biggest flaw with that is that science is every changing which is a generally a good thing. But Global warming was assessed very different 10, 15 or even 30 years ago. Sensor data collected in the 70s, 80s, 90s even 2000s can't be compared with findings today because the technology was completely different. That's why all these values are put into a statistical model which scales and interpolates the data with the hopes that they make sense.

Just take the recent attempt by Google to collect city air pollution data. That data is collected with ONE single data point per year and that one single data point is the source of indicating the air pollution. Those are calculated values not real values. I see that as the primary source of flawed data.

Another good example is the whole spinach disaster where a Scientist literally miscalculated the value of the vegetable.

a reply to: Robotswilltakeover

Interesting, I was having this debate with a friend just now and I also need to show him the data on Greenland so we can have a proper debate.

I did not see that data in the link you posted. Please can you post it here.

Thanks

One thing I have always found interesting is that there was a Medieval warming period in AD 950 to 1250, The Piri Reis map is a world map compiled in 1513 showing coast lines of Antarctica.

Its very possible we have been through this before but with far less human population to see the worldwide effects of something like a Medieval warming period.

What we do know is that there are many ancient sunken cities off the coastline in the Mediterranean and it also seems the same of the coast of India.

Both could indicate potential trends.

originally posted by: gazzerman
One thing I have always found interesting is that there was a Medieval warming period in AD 950 to 1250, The Piri Reis map is a world map compiled in 1513 showing coast lines of Antarctica.

Its very possible we have been through this before but with far less human population to see the worldwide effects of something like a Medieval warming period.

What we do know is that there are many ancient sunken cities off the coastline in the Mediterranean and it also seems the same of the coast of India.

Both could indicate potential trends.

You fell for Internet conspiracy the peri reese map does not show the coast if Antarctica it was covered in ice.. In the map Drakes passage doesn't exist and it shows South Amarica extending down into the arctic. Several reasons to believe this was not antartica. First as I said no drakes passage second the coast line is hundreds of miles north. The map is inaccurate. Look at north amarican coast line its wrong. The virgin islands are on the map twice probably from using two different maps as a source. Not to mention the mythical island of antilles which at the time there were much better maps of the Caribbean so that error shows the map was a lot of fiction.

As for the medievil warm period global temperatures now are higher.