Impending doom from climate change

[AC_Exotic]

We are doomed! Doomed, I say. The climate has changed!

Now, don't confuse, climate & weather, but when we have rainfall of over 900 inches in one storm, it means something. It means we are doomed!

That's right more than 900 inches in one storm in Cherrapunji Assam, India. We cannot survive this.

Doomed, I say, doomed!

Spoiler

This day in 1861.

 

[HighStickHarry]

The cavemen almost killed us by melting the glaciers with their irresponsible human centric policies. We have a chance to save the planet.

And here you are with your jokes.

 

[Medic007]

 

[CBradSmith]

Lol. Beautiful.

 

[CSCOTTOSUPOKES]

I’m sure the melting of our polar ice caps has nothing to do with greenhouse gases or anything lol.

 

[CBradSmith]

I’m sure the melting of our polar ice caps has nothing to do with greenhouse gases or anything lol.

You sure don't seem like someone that scored a 27.

 

[AC_Exotic]

I’m sure the melting of our polar ice caps has nothing to do with greenhouse gases or anything lol.

I want a picture of those melted poles.

 

[Alpha Poke]

 

[squeak]

Thank you natural gas producers.

 

[Alpha Poke]

OP doesn’t realize, that rain in India started the American Civil War.

 

[aix_xpert]

I know the argument that China and India are still developing and thus will continue to see CO2 usage growing and thus was accounted for in the Paris accords and other Climate change multi-national agreements. But can one of our liberal friends explain why Canada, Spain and the EU are on the increasers list?

 

[imprimis]

In Canada's case is has to be all the hot air being spewed by Trudeau.

India and China have been given a pass since Kyoto in 1992.

 

[Syskatine]

I want a picture of those melted poles.

 

[aix_xpert]

You only detailed the North Pole here. The South Pole sea ice levels have increased in this same period.

https://neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov/csb/index.php?section=234

 

[BvillePoker]

You only detailed the North Pole here. The South Pole sea ice levels have increased in this same period.

https://neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov/csb/index.php?section=234

 

[Syskatine]

You only detailed the North Pole here. The South Pole sea ice levels have increased in this same period.

https://neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov/csb/index.php?section=234

Yes, and I'll also preemptively acknowledge the following standard arguments:

1. Fake news;
2. But somewhere else is colder than normal;
3. It's cyclical;
4. Science has changed so the entire field is suspect;
5. Chinese conspiracy;
6. The author defaulted on child support payments/was wrong about something else;
7. Lack of peer review;
8. Peer reviewed studies only confirm industry bias;
9. It's a good thing;
10. It could cost money therefore it's not true;
11. Jesus won't let it happen;
12. Al Gore flies so it isn't true.

I can't penetrate all the standard right wing narratives at this point. I just answered the OP. There's no chance of an intellectually honest discussion, as you can tell from the other posts.

If it's Antarctic you would like to discuss, I'd propose including this in your materials:

“Record low sea ice extent in the Arctic has, in a sense, become old news,” said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center. “But now the Antarctic is getting into the act. There are certainly many questions out there as to why Antarctic sea ice is also at a record low, but we can’t deny the reality that things are changing and they are changing fast.”

Then there's this:

Sea ice cover in Antarctica has dropped to its second-lowest on record, Australian authorities said Friday, adding that it was not yet clear what was driving the reduction after several years of record-highs.
The report came as scientists said earlier this week that the Arctic region was seeing record high temperatures, with sea ice covering the smallest area in winter since records began more than half-a-century ago.
The Australian Antarctic Division (AAD) said the latest satellite data showed a total 2.15 million square kilometres (830,120 square miles) surrounding the icy continent during the lowest point in February during the summer season.
The minimum record was set in March last year, when a summertime reading of 2.07 million square kilometres was recorded, the AAD, which manages Australia's Antarctic programme, said.
Last year also saw near record-lows for the wintertime maximum sea ice cover, at 18.05 million square kilometres.

 

[AC_Exotic]

Yes, and I'll also preemptively acknowledge the following standard arguments:

1. Fake news;
2. But somewhere else is colder than normal;
3. It's cyclical;
4. Science has changed so the entire field is suspect;
5. Chinese conspiracy;
6. The author defaulted on child support payments/was wrong about something else;
7. Lack of peer review;
8. Peer reviewed studies only confirm industry bias;
9. It's a good thing;
10. It could cost money therefore it's not true;
11. Jesus won't let it happen;
12. Al Gore flies so it isn't true.

I can't penetrate all the standard right wing narratives at this point. I just answered the OP. There's no chance of an intellectually honest discussion, as you can tell from the other posts.

If it's Antarctic you would like to discuss, I'd propose including this in your materials:

“Record low sea ice extent in the Arctic has, in a sense, become old news,” said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center. “But now the Antarctic is getting into the act. There are certainly many questions out there as to why Antarctic sea ice is also at a record low, but we can’t deny the reality that things are changing and they are changing fast.”

Then there's this:

Sea ice cover in Antarctica has dropped to its second-lowest on record, Australian authorities said Friday, adding that it was not yet clear what was driving the reduction after several years of record-highs.
The report came as scientists said earlier this week that the Arctic region was seeing record high temperatures, with sea ice covering the smallest area in winter since records began more than half-a-century ago.
The Australian Antarctic Division (AAD) said the latest satellite data showed a total 2.15 million square kilometres (830,120 square miles) surrounding the icy continent during the lowest point in February during the summer season.
The minimum record was set in March last year, when a summertime reading of 2.07 million square kilometres was recorded, the AAD, which manages Australia's Antarctic programme, said.
Last year also saw near record-lows for the wintertime maximum sea ice cover, at 18.05 million square kilometres.

The only solution is thinning the herd among all humanity.

I suggest for the good of Mother Earth, all concerned leftists off themselves on Earth Day in 2019. (This would include Marxists, Commies, Progressives, or whatever else they call themselves these days. This would not include traditional American liberals.)

 

[Alpha Poke]

The only solution is thinning the herd among all humanity.

I suggest for the good of Mother Earth, all concerned leftists off themselves on Earth Day in 2019. (This would include Marxists, Commies, Progressives, or whatever else they call themselves these days. This would not include traditional American liberals.)

That goes against their principles. They don't want to give up anything. They want you to make the sacrifices to meet their needs.

 

[aix_xpert]

Yes, and I'll also preemptively acknowledge the following standard arguments:

1. Fake news;
2. But somewhere else is colder than normal;
3. It's cyclical;
4. Science has changed so the entire field is suspect;
5. Chinese conspiracy;
6. The author defaulted on child support payments/was wrong about something else;
7. Lack of peer review;
8. Peer reviewed studies only confirm industry bias;
9. It's a good thing;
10. It could cost money therefore it's not true;
11. Jesus won't let it happen;
12. Al Gore flies so it isn't true.

I can't penetrate all the standard right wing narratives at this point. I just answered the OP. There's no chance of an intellectually honest discussion, as you can tell from the other posts.

If it's Antarctic you would like to discuss, I'd propose including this in your materials:

“Record low sea ice extent in the Arctic has, in a sense, become old news,” said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center. “But now the Antarctic is getting into the act. There are certainly many questions out there as to why Antarctic sea ice is also at a record low, but we can’t deny the reality that things are changing and they are changing fast.”

Then there's this:

Sea ice cover in Antarctica has dropped to its second-lowest on record, Australian authorities said Friday, adding that it was not yet clear what was driving the reduction after several years of record-highs.
The report came as scientists said earlier this week that the Arctic region was seeing record high temperatures, with sea ice covering the smallest area in winter since records began more than half-a-century ago.
The Australian Antarctic Division (AAD) said the latest satellite data showed a total 2.15 million square kilometres (830,120 square miles) surrounding the icy continent during the lowest point in February during the summer season.
The minimum record was set in March last year, when a summertime reading of 2.07 million square kilometres was recorded, the AAD, which manages Australia's Antarctic programme, said.
Last year also saw near record-lows for the wintertime maximum sea ice cover, at 18.05 million square kilometres.

I understand your position and I'm not raising any of the right-wing rhetoric here. I do find it interesting (and this is my conundrum) that your stories you posted run counter to my NASA.org post for the same sea ice measurements. Is it different interpretations of the same data? Different data sets? Why is it that one article clearly states that antarctic sea ice has increased (admittedly less than the decrease of Arctic sea ice), while the two you posted state that we are at record levels of Antarctic sea ice depletion.

 

[imprimis]

You only detailed the North Pole here. The South Pole sea ice levels have increased in this same period.

https://neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov/csb/index.php?section=234

Notice how they always show polar bears sitting on those little pieces of melting ice and claim they are losing their habitats due to global warming. Ice melts in the summer and polar bears can swim if the ice melts too much. Sort of like the spotted owl will fly away if the tree they live in is burning.

 

[AC_Exotic]

That goes against their principles. They don't want to give up anything. They want you to make the sacrifices to meet their needs.

Just trying to give practical advice.

If they love the environment, it's the only solution. We conservatives are too egotistical to commit such a selfless act.

 

[imprimis]

Just trying to give practical advice.

If they love the environment, it's the only solution. We conservatives are too egotistical to commit such a selfless act.

Yep, a couple billion of them need to lead the way and demonstrate how it's done.

 

[Ostatedchi]

They really should think of the children and act now.

 

[Syskatine]

I understand your position and I'm not raising any of the right-wing rhetoric here. I do find it interesting (and this is my conundrum) that your stories you posted run counter to my NASA.org post for the same sea ice measurements. Is it different interpretations of the same data? Different data sets? Why is it that one article clearly states that antarctic sea ice has increased (admittedly less than the decrease of Arctic sea ice), while the two you posted state that we are at record levels of Antarctic sea ice depletion.

I dn't have time to go back through them but I thought yours predated the stuff I posted. The point of the stuff I posted is that the anatarctic stuff has changed rapidly over the last 2 years.

yeah, there's plenty of conflicting information and it takes more time to sift through that I have.

 

[CBradSmith]

I dn't have time to go back through them but I thought yours predated the stuff I posted. The point of the stuff I posted is that the anatarctic stuff has changed rapidly over the last 2 years.

yeah, there's plenty of conflicting information and it takes more time to sift through that I have.

Didn't you shout at my ass in just the last 2 days, even after I called myself out?

Then you didn't address my argument points, similar to what you're doing here.

What is 24/7 to you? Seems like mental masturbation rooted in either sloth, ignorance, or both.

 

[aix_xpert]

I dn't have time to go back through them but I thought yours predated the stuff I posted. The point of the stuff I posted is that the anatarctic stuff has changed rapidly over the last 2 years.

yeah, there's plenty of conflicting information and it takes more time to sift through that I have.

I thought that but went back and looked. It clearly goes through 2018 on the NASA link. Maybe its just 'right-wing bias', but the WaPo article feels like its cherry-picking data points and using the 20 year model for the arctic reduction then only using the last 2 years of data for the Antarctic model to avoid actually stating that the 20 year Antarctic model has increased (although it has decreased over the last 2).

 

[Syskatine]

I thought that but went back and looked. It clearly goes through 2018 on the NASA link. Maybe its just 'right-wing bias', but the WaPo article feels like its cherry-picking data points and using the 20 year model for the arctic reduction then only using the last 2 years of data for the Antarctic model to avoid actually stating that the 20 year Antarctic model has increased (although it has decreased over the last 2).

\Yah dat's right.... it shows the green band for 18, no '16, and then the legend references 2016 as a minimum but no 2016 line. I gotta look at it when i have time.

I think the context of wapo article itt is it concedes your antartica point prior to 2 years ago, and now even that's suspect if the data and articles I posted are true.