Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

RiverCityBronco

Antarctica Has Lost More Than 3 Trillion Tons Of Ice In 25 Years

Recommended Posts

Scientists have completed the most exhaustive assessment of changes in Antarctica's ice sheet to date. And they found that it's melting faster than they thought.

Ice losses totaling 3 trillion tonnes (or more than 3.3 trillion tons) since 1992 have caused global sea levels to rise by 7.6 mm, nearly one third of an inch, according to a study published in Nature on Wednesday.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/13/619543532/antarctica-has-lost-more-than-3-trillion-tons-of-ice-in-25-years

5812325074_d6d40a5a2c_b.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Studies, blah blah blah, statistics blah blah blah.  Boring!  What we need are more coal jobs and less regulations.  We need to let car companies sell whatever the market wants and forget about miles per gallon.  You think the earth has been warming with your precious little studies?  I'll bring a snowball to the Senate floor in DC to prove you are wrong.  You have to wait until winter, but i promise you it will be cold in DC.  Plus, didn't scientists get this all wrong in the 1970s.  There is some article about it, and we all know technology hasn't improved in the last 50 years.  Buy whatever you want, live however you want, and forget about the future.  This life is all about making money and power.  Just ask our fearless leader.

Pollution?  That is so last president.  Get with the program.  If you need any further explanation from, say the EPA,  some guy named Pruitt has all the details.  Only the best for the US and the world. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, alum93 said:

Studies, blah blah blah, statistics blah blah blah.  Boring!  What we need are more coal jobs and less regulations.  We need to let car companies sell whatever the market wants and forget about miles per gallon.  You think the earth has been warming with your precious little studies?  I'll bring a snowball to the Senate floor in DC to prove you are wrong.  You have to wait until winter, but i promise you it will be cold in DC.  Plus, didn't scientists get this all wrong in the 1970s.  There is some article about it, and we all know technology hasn't improved in the last 50 years.  Buy whatever you want, live however you want, and forget about the future.  This life is all about making money and power.  Just ask our fearless leader.

Pollution?  That is so last president.  Get with the program.  If you need any further explanation from, say the EPA,  some guy named Pruitt has all the details.  Only the best for the US and the world. 

How'd you get to work this morning?

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, modestobulldog said:

Oh my gawd, the sky is falling...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level

The question isn't whether the earth will exist, it's whether we want to abandon hundreds of trillions in infrastructure. We've had exceptionally static temperatures and sea levels for the last ~8,000 years and it's been economically beneficial for us to have that. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, happycamper said:

The question isn't whether the earth will exist, it's whether we want to abandon hundreds of trillions in infrastructure. We've had exceptionally static temperatures and sea levels for the last ~8,000 years and it's been economically beneficial for us to have that. 

So we're do?  :) 

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RiverCityBronco said:

Scientists have completed the most exhaustive assessment of changes in Antarctica's ice sheet to date. And they found that it's melting faster than they thought.

Ice losses totaling 3 trillion tonnes (or more than 3.3 trillion tons) since 1992 have caused global sea levels to rise by 7.6 mm, nearly one third of an inch, according to a study published in Nature on Wednesday.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/13/619543532/antarctica-has-lost-more-than-3-trillion-tons-of-ice-in-25-years

7.6 mm. That is it?? that doesn't seem very bad lol 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RiverCityBronco said:

Scientists have completed the most exhaustive assessment of changes in Antarctica's ice sheet to date. And they found that it's melting faster than they thought.

Ice losses totaling 3 trillion tonnes (or more than 3.3 trillion tons) since 1992 have caused global sea levels to rise by 7.6 mm, nearly one third of an inch, according to a study published in Nature on Wednesday.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/13/619543532/antarctica-has-lost-more-than-3-trillion-tons-of-ice-in-25-years

You do know that in the 19th century sea levels rose 6 feet. and that is a pretty normal amount of the last 1000 years.

 

Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess if the melting continues in Antarctica to where all the that ice melts then we are phucked as it would raise ocean levels 200 feet.  And, if the Greenland ice melts that would add another 25 feet.  1/3 of an inch right now isn't too bad.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, CV147 said:

A glacial ice age is less desirable for our species than a greenhouse effect earth.

Change my mind.

How is it either or?

Also... the earth has far more land between the tropics than it does in the polar regions, and for that matter, a greenhouse earth would raise the earth's sea level, removing much of the most productive land we have. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, happycamper said:

How is it either or?

Also... the earth has far more land between the tropics than it does in the polar regions, and for that matter, a greenhouse earth would raise the earth's sea level, removing much of the most productive land we have. 

OK. So civilization began when? During the interglacial period 10,000 years ago. It didn't begin in any other point during the 200,000 years of human evolution during glacial periods. I think it stands to reason that a glacial period would be catastrophic for our species.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tropics would be fine during a greenhouse earth. I doubt the tribes not contacted yet would notice a difference.

The polar regions would become arable, instead of permafrost. It would be a boon for food production. Desertification would be minimized by increased rainfall from increased sea evaporation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoyed pissing on the ice while in Antarctica.

Quote

Mike Bronson, on 27 Sept 2013 - 8:45 PM, said:

 

    Don't be mad because the refs are going to need Tommy John surgeries after this poorly played game.

 

Quote

mugtang, on 27 Sept 2013 - 8:49 PM, said:

 

    Your mom is going to need Tommy John surgery after jerking me off all night.

 

Cartoon-21-Final.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, CV147 said:

OK. So civilization began when? During the interglacial period 10,000 years ago. It didn't begin in any other point during the 200,000 years of human evolution during glacial periods. I think it stands to reason that a glacial period would be catastrophic for our species.

 

We weren't hardly human 200,000 years ago and our global distribution was far smaller. It was only 10,000 years ago when we were even distributed across all continents. For that matter, it is the stability that matters. The last 10,000 years have been remarkably stable in terms of climate; the previous 200,000, not so much. Furthermore, why do you think the option is "ICE AGE OR GLOBAL WARMING!!!"? 

15 hours ago, CV147 said:

The tropics would be fine during a greenhouse earth. I doubt the tribes not contacted yet would notice a difference.

Dude are you really this ill-informed? The tropics range from the tropic of capricorn to the tropic of cancer; that contains over half the population of earth, and if they heat up even 5 degrees on average, it can make vast swaths of them virtually uninhabitable. There's an enormous difference between highs of 100 and highs of 105 all year. Furthermore, what would that extra heat due to rain patterns, transpiration, glacial and snow melt, and all kinds of water cycles that we rely on for agriculture? 

Quote

The polar regions would become arable, instead of permafrost. It would be a boon for food production. Desertification would be minimized by increased rainfall from increased sea evaporation.

Again, the polar regions are FAR smaller than the tropics, for one. For two, look at a map. Most of the polar regions are sea! For three, no, they wouldn't! The permafrost exists because the rivers in Asia tend to run north. Do you have any idea how much warming we'd need for those rivers to not freeze at the arctic ocean? For four, you just pulled up "desertification" out of your ass. What studies have you seen that say there would be increased rainfall? For that matter, our water cycle is significantly more complex than "ocean water evapoates lol". There's monsoon cycles, there's snow storage vs rain storage, there's evaporation, there's the effect that increased heat has on plant life that vastly affects how water infiltrates into the soil and how much of it does. Furthermore, what about the millions of acres that would be flooded by rising ocean levels? What about malaria and yellow fever creeping north?

Seriously there's not going to be any convincing you. You already decided that A) it's either ice age or global warming!!! and b) that global warming is bettah!!!!. You aren't using facts, you're trying to pull reasons out of your ass as to why your false dichotomy is the one you choose. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, happycamper said:

Again, the polar regions are FAR smaller than the tropics, for one. 

No way man. This map proves that Greenland is bigger than Africa!!!!!!!!!!

Screen-Shot-2014-09-19-at-7.15.20-AM.png

 

 

 

 

 

 

:ph34r:

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...