Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
UM-Bot

Antarctica ice melt rate triples in five year

15 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

 
fred_mc

I wonder how much global warming that would be needed in order to make the climate warm enough on Antarctica to be able to move there (not just have research stations there). I guess it would be a lot more than what global warming will do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
37 minutes ago, fred_mc said:

I wonder how much global warming that would be needed in order to make the climate warm enough on Antarctica to be able to move there (not just have research stations there). I guess it would be a lot more than what global warming will do.

Hard to say, but it doesn't look like ALL Antarctic ice will melt within the foreseeable future.  Even had Hansen's forecast of temperatures approaching the boiling point proved out, there would likely still be some Antarctic ice around.  I don't think we can make that prediction yet.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Champagne Supernova

It's all part of a natural cycle as far as I'm concerned. It is my opinion that GW is a hysterical hoax. It's worth billions...

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
1 hour ago, Champagne Supernova said:

It's all part of a natural cycle as far as I'm concerned. It is my opinion that GW is a hysterical hoax. It's worth billions...

Agreed.  I'd be far more inclined to take it seriously as an anthropomorphic event if those presenting the evidence weren't standing there with their hands out for BILLIONS (or more) in taxes to "fight" the problem.  PT Barnum had it right a long time ago - or so it's been attributed. ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twin

I know 25 cm is a lot of water, but .5 cm/year doesn't seem to scare me like it probably should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kennp

25 cm is less than a foot... imagine sea levels rising less than 12 inches in the next 52 years. oh the horror !!
thats a total waste of time and money and completely laughable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Troublehalf
Posted (edited)

I was always under the impression that the issue wasn't rising water levels per se (though lowland countries like Netherlands might disagree, plus Pacific Islands like Tuvalu) but the effect on the natural cycle. Let us say this is all 100% natural and a part of a cycle. This doesn't change the fact it affects us. If humanity didn't exist, it wouldn't be much of a problem; but we do. So, what is the issue? As far as I can remember, the issue was the Gulf Stream was reliant on the salt levels being a certain level. The dilution of the salt levels by fresh water entering the oceans could cause the Gulf Stream to become distorted. Essentially preventing warm water cycles from moving into parts of the world, causing a drop in temperature. Other countries would get the stream instead, causing them to go up in temperature and rainfall. So on, so forth. The term 'Global Warming', I believe, is out of vogue. Hence the term 'Climate Change', which will result in change in temperatures, both up and down. Global Warming, to the best of my knowledge, applies to the general average temperature, but it does not mean that every place is going to be hot and so on.

So, regardless if it's man made or not, there is an effect on humans and preparation to mitigate it needs to be performed. Or not. Whether anything will actually happen is another story; but again, as I said, based on ancient stuff I read decades ago, the issue was to deal with other issues that was not related to water levels. Once again, this is just old knowledge I have and possibly incorrect, outdated or debunked. Was just commenting that I think the reason it's a concern isn't just due to water levels.

Edited by Troublehalf
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
12 hours ago, Champagne Supernova said:

It's all part of a natural cycle as far as I'm concerned. It is my opinion that GW is a hysterical hoax. It's worth billions...

I guess you haven't studied the subject then?

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TripGun

I think it is being slightly sensationalized. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
5 hours ago, TripGun said:

I think it is being slightly sensationalized. 

Of course.  The topic sells magazines, newspapers and TV commercials.  There's quite an incentive to hype it.  It wouldn't hurt at all if the media actually took a little time to learn what they're talking about.

Doug

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
openozy

I cant see how money comes into it when talking about our planet's well being.I don't think people know how fragile life is here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
18 minutes ago, openozy said:

I cant see how money comes into it when talking about our planet's well being.I don't think people know how fragile life is here.

Lets see... genetic studies seem to suggest life on Earth was present by no later than 4.1 billion years ago. Earth is about 4.6 billion years old. Earth's surface was virtually vaporized by a gigantic roughly head on collision with a proto-planet sized object usually called Theia about 100 million years after the early Earth formed. So life arose within that ~400 million year period after the Moon was formed. After a 4.1 billion year run, I'd suggest life on Earth is not fragile at all but quite robust and resilient. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose

I always knew that not only was climate change happening, but it was going to be worse than anyone realized, and faster.

That's just the way of things. 

Scientists are conservative about what they posit. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
openozy
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Lets see... genetic studies seem to suggest life on Earth was present by no later than 4.1 billion years ago. Earth is about 4.6 billion years old. Earth's surface was virtually vaporized by a gigantic roughly head on collision with a proto-planet sized object usually called Theia about 100 million years after the early Earth formed. So life arose within that ~400 million year period after the Moon was formed. After a 4.1 billion year run, I'd suggest life on Earth is not fragile at all but quite robust and resilient. 

Sounds like a Trump campain.Life may still exist but we won't be part of it,sooner than you think.Natures good at getting rid of plagues.

Edited by openozy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.