• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Environmental Mega-disaster within 100 years

Well it's not that apathy against overpopulation is something special to humans. Every species multiplies and consume resources as much as it can. If opportunity shows up, they will do so beyond proportion, which will then lead to massive dying when the resources are spent.
That wont lead to extinction though. It will just drastically reduce the population. Even all out nuclear war wouldn't kill all human, much less climate change.
 
Donn said:
As the waters rise, the denial cult will finally be in de nile.
Click to expand...

But melting all of the ice won't have much effect. Icebergs and ice shelf are floating, already displacing their weight in sea water. The whole center of Antarctica is a fresh water ocean, mostly below sea level- 10 miles deep? Same for Iceland. Glacier melt will rise sea levels, but isn't that mostly already happened?

Good joke though.
 
casebro said:
The whole center of Antarctica is a fresh water ocean, mostly below sea level- 10 miles deep? Same for Iceland. Glacier melt will rise sea levels, but isn't that mostly already happened?
Click to expand...

No. Greenland and Antarctica have ice miles above sea level that will melt. There is so much ice in Greenland that it pulls sea levels up by hundreds of feet.

When ~1/2 of Greenland and west Antarctica melted 125K years ago it pushed sea levels up 20 feet higher than they are today. That was caused by temperatures ~3 deg warmer than 1950 average or less than 2 deg higher than today. Melting central Antarctica would raise sea levels several hundred feet on average. Ironically local sea levels would drop because the gravity exerted by the ice sheet would be gone.
 
casebro said:
But melting all of the ice won't have much effect. Icebergs and ice shelf are floating, already displacing their weight in sea water. The whole center of Antarctica is a fresh water ocean, mostly below sea level- 10 miles deep? Same for Iceland. Glacier melt will rise sea levels, but isn't that mostly already happened?

Good joke though.
Click to expand...
Doh!
Why didn't I think of that?!

Is there someone we can call to let all these "scientists" know how they must have missed such an obvious consideration? Won't they be relieved that we have worked it out for them.
 
casebro said:
But melting all of the ice won't have much effect. Icebergs and ice shelf are floating, already displacing their weight in sea water. The whole center of Antarctica is a fresh water ocean, mostly below sea level- 10 miles deep? Same for Iceland. Glacier melt will rise sea levels, but isn't that mostly already happened?

Good joke though.
Click to expand...



You do know it's supposed to go:

- Observe
- Hypothesise
- Test


Not

- Just make **** up


Don't you?





Don't you?
 
Anybody here old enough to remember George Wald and Paul Erlich?

Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
Click to expand...

Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”
Click to expand...

I remember listening about 20 years ago to an episode of Science Friday on NPR. They had a couple of environmental reporters on talking about how hard it was to pitch stories to their editors. One reporter bemoaned that his editor's response would be, "Another end of the world story? We just ran that last week!"
 
Donn said:
I'm not seeing it:
https://lima.gsfc.nasa.gov/img/elevation.jpg

From:https://lima.gsfc.nasa.gov/antarctica/
Click to expand...

Highest elevation is 4000m, Didn't I lately read that they found germs in an ice core from a bodacious depth?

". The deepest known ice rests 2,555 meters below sea level, where the ice is over 4 kilometers thick. "

"The mean thickness of the Antarctic ice sheet is 2.16 km;"

So lots of it is below sea levels. Same for Iceland?/Greenalnd. So all that which is below sea level will NOT raise sea level when it melts.

And yes, ice shelves and ice bergs are already displacing sea water, so will not raise sea level when they melt either. DIY experiment: fill a glass with ice water, let it melt. see if the level changes.

But also, for the 3rd time in this thread, anybody want to discuss the good parts that a warmer climate will bring? Historically, farms on Iceland? Or are you all doom sayers?
 
casebro said:
So lots of it is below sea levels. Same for Iceland?/Greenalnd. So all that which is below sea level will NOT raise sea level when it melts.
Click to expand...

I think you're missing a bit of detail, which is that antarctica will rise as the weight of the ice above it diminishes.

Also, it's nice that you've got this all figured out. Those idiot scientists sure could use you.

And yes, ice shelves and ice bergs are already displacing sea water
Click to expand...

They don't represent the bulk of the ice that'll melt.

But also, for the 3rd time in this thread, anybody want to discuss the good parts that a warmer climate will bring? Historically, farms on Iceland? Or are you all doom sayers?
Click to expand...

Considering how much arable land we'll lose on the continents, there are no net benefits to a 2+ degree increase.
 
wiki
Ice shelves float on the surface of the sea and, if they melt, to first order they do not change sea level. Likewise, the melting of the northern polar ice cap which is composed of floating pack ice would not significantly contribute to rising sea levels. However, because floating ice pack is lower in salinity than seawater, their melting would cause a very small increase in sea levels, so small that it is generally neglected.....

As most of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets lie above the snowline and/or base of the permafrost zone, they cannot melt in a timeframe much less than several millennia; therefore it is likely that they will not, through melting, contribute significantly to sea level rise in the coming century. They can, however, do so through acceleration in flow and enhanced iceberg calving.
Click to expand...

I gues there is a reason they call it "Permafrost". Sounds to be impervious to a few degrees of global warming.

**** a bunch of doomsayers. And tell me about shipping wheat from Canada's Tundra north from Hudson's Bay.
 
casebro said:
Highest elevation is 4000m, Didn't I lately read that they found germs in an ice core from a bodacious depth?

". The deepest known ice rests 2,555 meters below sea level, where the ice is over 4 kilometers thick. "

"The mean thickness of the Antarctic ice sheet is 2.16 km;"

So lots of it is below sea levels. Same for Iceland?/Greenalnd. So all that which is below sea level will NOT raise sea level when it melts.
Click to expand...

Wow. Did you really just invert a continent in prose?
 
I read a very interesting series of twitter comments that rebutted the doomsday scenario of this article (and no it was not written by a denier) I will endeavor to locate it...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom