Except I specifically said I wasn't referring to the carbon tax, nor did I say anything about slashing our economy down to its knees.
Rising sea levels or sinking land masses?
- Thread starter Angel
- Start date
Except I specifically said I wasn't referring to the carbon tax, nor did I say anything about slashing our economy down to its knees.
Pack ice is floating and that is what is being measured. It matters nought if it is frozen or liquid for sea levels. Glacial ice is land based. It starts in the high altitudes where the temperatures never drops below freezing but slowly slides towards the sea where it eventually "calves" and icebergs are formed. This CAN effect sea levels.
I can't accept any of your points if you want to segregate changes in the environment from environmental impact
correct... bobbing ice vs masses of ice with ice loaded on top.
this will save me playign scientist:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/surfingscientist/iceberg.htm
hmm scotch and coke - perfect for these warmer days
I can't accept any of your points if you want to segregate changes in the environment from environmental impact
Environmental impact can only be discussed within the context of the carbon tax?
You do realise it is possible to be concerned about our environmental impact and the division/usage of our limited resources independent of climate change and that even some man-made climate change believers are against the carbon tax?
This is what I hate about climate change, all other environmental or resource concerns are overshadowed and become moot.
I do realise this thread was specifically intended to discuss climate change, but I specified in my post that I was not referring to climate change or the carbon tax and was instead commenting on the apathetic attitude of 'if it won't result in a significant change, why bother at all?'.
no I'm saying it needs to be discussed in the context of climate change... otherwise I can't see what we are talking about, hence my confusion.
if you are talking about environmental change that doesn't have an impact on the climate then i guess yeh it's just off topic??
Yes, I was off topic. I tend to do that. My bad.
hmmm, now I feel bad because I have no problems with threads going off topic - it usually improves them!
At the top of my head, some non-climate related environmental/resource concerns:
Resource usage/allocation/scarcity (eg. peak oil)
Water deterioration
Waterway pollution
Soil degradation
Landfill
Air quality
Deforestation/habitat destruction
Chemical contamination
etc..
The thing is, if we want all 7 billion (and the projected 10 billion+) of us to prosper economically, the above are unavoidable. Lessening man's environmental impact can't come at the expense of impeding economic development in developing nations, nor should we decimate the economies of developed nations.
I'm not naive enough to believe that we can stick a few solar panels on our roofs, sing Kumbaya and all will be well in the world.
At the same time, investing in and exploring renewable energies and developing more sustainable farming/manufacturing/construction/etc. practices is at least a start and I don't think we should dismiss it as 'not enough'.
Last edited:
If we're going off-topic, I have a BIG problem with the oft quoted "carbon footprint".
Here we have many thousands of guys'n'gals driving hugh dump trucks, two kilometer long trains, drag lines that dim the lights every time they take a bite. Others sit in air-conditioned cabins monitoring long conveyor belts or stacker/reclaimers.
Compare this to California. It is a much larger economy and does none of this stuff. They make movies, write software and design stuff made o/s. Smaller carbon footprint? Of course. Are they wasteful driving oversize vehicles and running aircon continually? That too.
Here we have many thousands of guys'n'gals driving hugh dump trucks, two kilometer long trains, drag lines that dim the lights every time they take a bite. Others sit in air-conditioned cabins monitoring long conveyor belts or stacker/reclaimers.
Compare this to California. It is a much larger economy and does none of this stuff. They make movies, write software and design stuff made o/s. Smaller carbon footprint? Of course. Are they wasteful driving oversize vehicles and running aircon continually? That too.
This is a good point. Some economies (eg. mining or manufacturing) are more carbon intensive than others, but provide much needed minerals/goods to the rest of the world. Basing a country or region's 'wastefulness' on their carbon output per capita is misleading and pointless.
It only becomes a vaguely helpful measure when looking at household emissions, but even then some countries or regions are more reliant upon energy than others because of, say, weather or geographical factors.
I think Cal has more cars than the whole of Australia. They're no saints either.
You forgot planes; just on one day - the day after the Olympics ended - 100,000 people flew out of Heathrow.
Considering each flight would prolly carry 300 or so folk, there's a decent "carbon footprint".....
And that's just one day, at one airport, on the planet.
Don't get me started on the planes in a holding pattern over Tullamarine every night waiting to land. I can see their lights from my balcony at home; sometimes there are 6 in the air, all wandering around wasting hundreds of thousands of gallons of fuel, waiting for their turn to land.
One airport, one day......
Arctic melting has never been attributed to causing sea levels to rise.
Yes there are some benefits to the Arctic melting, shorter sea routes for instance, & easier access to oil reserves & fishing grounds up there.
It's more just another sign of the earth heating up much faster than normal.
Downsides are less reflected heat so a positive feedback loop causing more ocean warming, and less habitat for many Arctic animals (e.g Polar bears may become extinct).
Actually the net benefits from the Arctic itself melting could be huge, it's the other ice sheets we have to worry about (Artarctica & Greenland), they can cause significant sea level rise.
Ah! So; the sea ice is not a problem, but the ice from the sold ground is......
Isn't it all still.......ice?
Forgive my ignorance, but I can't see how one is worse than the other; sea ice is frozen sea water from my understanding?
And solid ground ice is from rain (frozen) from my understanding.
But, doesn't rain fall all over the planet, all the time?
Isn't it falling into the sea constantly, all over the planet, as well as on the arctic/antarctic continents?
Isn't it also falling on solid ground, and then flowing out into the sea, all over the planet, constantly?
I can't begin to remember how many times over the last umpteen years I've seen Global Warming guff on the teev where there is footage of some giant ice collapse going on in the background.
It damn well is attributed, and gets trotted out to support their arguments on a regular basis.
What's "normal"?
Last edited:
Ah! So; the sea ice is not a problem, but the ice from the sold ground is......
Isn't it all still.......ice?
Forgive my ignorance, but I can't see how one is worse than the other; sea ice is frozen sea water from my understanding?
You really don't understand it ? Or are you pretending not to ? It's very simple physics.
- melting frozen water in water doesn't change sea level
- melting frozen water on land above sea level does change sea level
I get it.
What Global Warming fanatics/believers don't get is the con.
Correct.
I never said it does; but Global Warming knobjockeys do; of course it's a spin. "Look at all this melting ice; look what we've done! and the poor Polar bears; it's a disgrace"...
They always fail to mention the gabillion litres of rain water that fall from the sky into the ocean on a daily basis too, though.
According to who?
And how much in the last say; 1000 years.
While you're there; get a figure on sea temps.
I've been here 50 years - exactly during the time when we are supposed to have done so much damage - and haven't seen a sea rise myself yet. If only those damn waves would stop moving so I can get a reading.
Don't forget that the frozen water is rain at some stage, and that is falling on the water (and land; then draining back into the sea) every single minute of every single day.
The above sea level ice is merely a portion of it; it's rain in a different form, and I'll wager not as much of it as the rainfall hits the waves.
What I don't understand is how people who obviously have absolutely no knowledge of even the basics of a subject, can express such a strong opinion about it?
How can anyone label something a "con" when they obviously don't know even the first thing about it? I'm just staggered...
It's just like all those who come along here and write off property investing as an "mug's game" or "intergenerational wealth transfer" or whatever, who have never bought a property in their life.
Learn about the topic at hand first - then express an opinion about it.
How can anyone label something a "con" when they obviously don't know even the first thing about it? I'm just staggered...
It's just like all those who come along here and write off property investing as an "mug's game" or "intergenerational wealth transfer" or whatever, who have never bought a property in their life.
Learn about the topic at hand first - then express an opinion about it.
