More Climate BS...

#1,376
#1,376
McDad said:
If the polar ice caps on Mars are receding at the same time our ice caps/glaciers are receding, is that:
coincidence?
abnormal human induced climate change spread to Mars?
normal cyclical planetary climate change?
Click to expand...

Don't forget we sent a couple of exploratory packages to Mars. We probably caused global warming there, too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland, 82_VOL_83, UT_Dutchman and 3 others
#1,380
#1,380
EasternVol said:
And if you don't abide, oua la, you're carbon.
Click to expand...

RELAX! Heisenberg sez the chemicals in the human body: 63 percent hydrogen, 26 percent oxygen, 9 percent carbon, 1.25 percent nitrogen, .25 percent calcium, .00004 percent iron, .04 percent sodium, and .19 percent phosphorous.

The 6 Best Science Lessons From Breaking Bad.

edit: (molecular based)

oh and pretty kewl that china will be at "peak carbon" in 7 short years!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#1,385
#1,385
So this article popped up on my phone today - can't read it all because I'm not going to subscribe.

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...e-could-melt-even-if-world-doesnt-get-warmer/

The findings show that even if the planet doesn’t get any warmer than it is now, ice loss from Greenland alone would add at least 1.5 metres to the global average sea level and possibly as much as 5 metres. This is in line with existing projections, but the study provides direct evidence to back them up.
Click to expand...

So a few years ago (about 1992) a group bored through roughly 270 ft of Greenland ice to reach and bring to the surface a WW2 P-38 fighter that landed on the Greenland ice sheet with five other P-38s and a couple of B-17s in July 1942. So Greenland's ice pack increased by 250 to 300 ft in fifty years from 1942 to 1992. The referenced article says Camp Century was abandoned in 1966 and was built on 1.4 km (almost 4600 ft) of ice. In the available part of the article there's no discussion of sea level decrease while all this ice in Greenland and in glaciers around the globe were being deposited. That seems to be an interesting point that we are going to be inundated, but somehow the water to build these ice packs even over the period that man has been around didn't leave much of the globe high and dry.

It's entirely possible that the whole article shows less alarmism and more common sense, but publishing snippets that spell doom and gloom are completely irresponsible. Some studies have shown that sea level as known by man during recorded time has not changed appreciably (perhaps measurably), so the question is how is the process of building and melting icepacks somehow an asymmetric process?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83, McDad and Orangeburst
#1,386
#1,386
AM64 said:
So this article popped up on my phone today - can't read it all because I'm not going to subscribe.

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...e-could-melt-even-if-world-doesnt-get-warmer/



So a few years ago (about 1992) a group bored through roughly 270 ft of Greenland ice to reach and bring to the surface a WW2 P-38 fighter that landed on the Greenland ice sheet with five other P-38s and a couple of B-17s in July 1942. So Greenland's ice pack increased by 250 to 300 ft in fifty years from 1942 to 1992. The referenced article says Camp Century was abandoned in 1966 and was built on 1.4 km (almost 4600 ft) of ice. In the available part of the article there's no discussion of sea level decrease while all this ice in Greenland and in glaciers around the globe were being deposited. That seems to be an interesting point that we are going to be inundated, but somehow the water to build these ice packs even over the period that man has been around didn't leave much of the globe high and dry.

It's entirely possible that the whole article shows less alarmism and more common sense, but publishing snippets that spell doom and gloom are completely irresponsible. Some studies have shown that sea level as known by man during recorded time has not changed appreciably (perhaps measurably), so the question is how is the process of building and melting icepacks somehow an asymmetric process?
Click to expand...
An astute conclusion, young man.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83 and AM64
#1,387
#1,387
AM64 said:
So this article popped up on my phone today - can't read it all because I'm not going to subscribe.

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...e-could-melt-even-if-world-doesnt-get-warmer/



So a few years ago (about 1992) a group bored through roughly 270 ft of Greenland ice to reach and bring to the surface a WW2 P-38 fighter that landed on the Greenland ice sheet with five other P-38s and a couple of B-17s in July 1942. So Greenland's ice pack increased by 250 to 300 ft in fifty years from 1942 to 1992. The referenced article says Camp Century was abandoned in 1966 and was built on 1.4 km (almost 4600 ft) of ice. In the available part of the article there's no discussion of sea level decrease while all this ice in Greenland and in glaciers around the globe were being deposited. That seems to be an interesting point that we are going to be inundated, but somehow the water to build these ice packs even over the period that man has been around didn't leave much of the globe high and dry.

It's entirely possible that the whole article shows less alarmism and more common sense, but publishing snippets that spell doom and gloom are completely irresponsible. Some studies have shown that sea level as known by man during recorded time has not changed appreciably (perhaps measurably), so the question is how is the process of building and melting icepacks somehow an asymmetric process?
Click to expand...
wonder where @VolStrom has been or is ok
hasnt posted in month
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top