[djlnc]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

If the oceans are expected to rise by one inch in the next 50 years (I believe it might be sooner than that) then it would require pumping 92,000,000 gals/min for each and every minute of that 50 years to counter that one inch rise.

I was curious about your numbers so I did the calculation - you'll be happy to know I came out with the same thing. :>)

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by djlnc

I was curious about your numbers so I did the calculation - you'll be happy to know I came out with the same thing. :>)

I was surprised myself. Thank you for confirming.

[Laker14]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

No, but I don't make stuff up either. Unfortunately the "people who make decisions" may have an agenda (profit motive) that is not based on the true science. And the facts are so clouded it is hard to make a decision.

Like the fossil fuel industry just may (just maybe, I know they are above reproach when examining the history of how nicely they've always handled environmental consequences ) have a profit motive associated with their constant and continued denial of the effects of their industry on climate change.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

I never stated I was an expert. I do, however, know a fair amount about meteorology and methods of solutions for the N-S equations. The experts in climate dynamics are still working at a number of research organizations around the world. I have been retired for a bit. Most people don't understand the concept of time scales. The concern is what happens over the next 100 years. The longer term time scales, probably driven by the Milanvovitch cycles, are not the concern. The best estimate of the anthropogenic surface temperature anomaly is about 1C. This may very well grow to 2-3C over the next 100 years. That is the concern and it is a legitimate concern for geopolitical reasons. Please stop with the strawman arguments about the next so many tens of thousands of years. That is not the concern or the focus. Also, if your focus is on the political response to the scientific data about climate change then find another audience.

The comment ... "the anthropogenic surface temperature anomaly is about 1C" ... is not proven and just wishful thinking. People keep forgetting we are still thawing out from the Little Ice Age - and it's expected to continue for some time to come - regardless of what humans do.

[oldtimes]

Originally Posted by midiwiz

doesn't matter where it's located......

It absolutely does. If all of the ice is on a land mass and melts into a body of water the water is definitely going to rise.

[dhdallas]

Originally Posted by kp11364

In regard to a recently closed thread about rising water levels, try this:

1. Fill a drinking glass half-full with water
2. Add 2-3 ice cubes. Look at the water level.
3. Put the glass aside; let all the ice melt. You will see that the water level remains the same. Why? Because the amount of water remains the same, regardless of the state of the water.

First off, melting glaciers are on land & above sea level so all that water runoff is raising sea levels. Even inland mountain snowpack & glaciers are melting and that runoff eventually ends up in the oceans. Then there is the added effect of thermal expansion as the oceans become warmer, the water expands.

Your example of ice cubes in water is however comparable to melting sea ice. As ice on land melts, water flows into the ocean, and sea level rises. But sea ice, the stuff that forms a frozen cap floating on top of the water, has only a very minor impact on sea level. Ice is less dense than liquid water & that's why ice floats and a portion of the ice floats above water. When ice melts, the same mass fits into a smaller volume.

I will never understand laypersons who dispute proven scientific findings. Try telling the polar bears who are drowning as the Arctic Circle melts and shrinks that global warming is a farce. By promoting non-scientific theories, conspiracy theories, and just plain lies regarding global warming it is following generations who will have to deal with the problems caused by global warming and the short sighted and selfish views of the climate change deniers.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by dhdallas

First off, melting glaciers are on land & above sea level so all that water runoff is raising sea levels. Even inland mountain snowpack & glaciers are melting and that runoff eventually ends up in the oceans. Then there is the added effect of thermal expansion as the oceans become warmer, the water expands.

Your example of ice cubes in water is however comparable to melting sea ice. As ice on land melts, water flows into the ocean, and sea level rises. But sea ice, the stuff that forms a frozen cap floating on top of the water, has only a very minor impact on sea level. Ice is less dense than liquid water & that's why ice floats and a portion of the ice floats above water. When ice melts, the same mass fits into a smaller volume.

I will never understand laypersons who dispute proven scientific findings. Try telling the polar bears who are drowning as the Arctic Circle melts and shrinks that global warming is a farce. By promoting non-scientific theories, conspiracy theories, and just plain lies regarding global warming it is following generations who will have to deal with the problems caused by global warming and the short sighted and selfish views of the climate change deniers.

Polar Bears have been increasing for many years thanks to global warming and more CO2. In fact, there are now too many, which is why they allow "harvesting" from 700 to 800 a year. It only costs $50,000 each - with gun or bow. There is no climate change crisis - just a climate education crisis. Nunavut Territory Polar Bear Hunting - Worldwide Trophy Adventures

[Two Bills]

Originally Posted by sounding

Polar Bears have been increasing for many years thanks to global warming and more CO2. In fact, there are now too many, which is why they allow "harvesting" from 700 to 800 a year. It only costs $50,000 each - with gun or bow. There is no climate change crisis - just a climate education crisis. Nunavut Territory Polar Bear Hunting - Worldwide Trophy Adventures

Nothing to do with CO2 or global warming etc.
There has always been Polar Bear hunting in Canada, and there is no number restriction on the indigenous population.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by Two Bills

Nothing to do with CO2 or global warming etc.
There has always been Polar Bear hunting in Canada, and there is no number restriction on the indigenous population.

It's amazing how climate alarmists push junk science to scare people, and when the data proves otherwise, they make up more junk science and actually deny their original claim. However, with relentless support from CNN and other similar junk science outlets, the scam goes on ... even for the so-called desperate polar bears (and the same goes for corals) ... Study finds direct link between greenhouse gas emissions and polar bear survival | CNN

[Two Bills]

Originally Posted by sounding

It's amazing how climate alarmists push junk science to scare people, and when the data proves otherwise, they make up more junk science and actually deny their original claim. However, with relentless support from CNN and other similar junk science outlets, the scam goes on ... even for the so-called desperate polar bears (and the same goes for corals) ... Study finds direct link between greenhouse gas emissions and polar bear survival | CNN

Not pushing any junk science at all. Just some facts.
Canada is only country that allows Polar Bear hunting and it has always done so.
Russia in '50's, and Norway and USA banned it in 70's when PB numbers declined due to poaching and over hunting.
The numbers have since risen to somewhere between 20-30,000 worldwide.
Comeback has nothing to do with rising CO2, Global warming etc. at all.
You are the one making the spurious claims regarding PB's

[sounding]

Originally Posted by Two Bills

Not pushing any junk science at all. Just some facts.
Canada is only country that allows Polar Bear hunting and it has always done so.
Russia in '50's, and Norway and USA banned it in 70's when PB numbers declined due to poaching and over hunting.
The numbers have since risen to somewhere between 20-30,000 worldwide.
Comeback has nothing to do with rising CO2, Global warming etc. at all.
You are the one making the spurious claims regarding PB's

1. There are countless claims by the media and climate alarmists that polar bears are dying because of too much CO2. There are even scamsters claiming to save them if you donate money - like the WWF.

2. True. locals are allowed to hunt bears, but people don't know that anyone can now hunt them - just for $50,000 a hunt - because the herd continues to increase thanks to global warming and more CO2.

[jebartle]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

To be absolutely fair, SOME people and 97% of scientists believe that during the recent (last 30 years) we have seen much evidence of man-made Global Warming CAUSED by our old friend - the infernal combustion engine - the kind found in Golf Cars, automobiles, snowmobiles, motorcycles and the LOUD non-catalytic converter equipped lawnmowers and lawn blowers - very LOUD that we hear every day. I BET that if they were using battery-powered lawnmowers and lawn blowers, The Villages would sound more quiet and peaceful. Yes, that would be PROGRESSIVE and fewer workers would suffer hearing damage.
The world's oceans ARE rising as proven by scientist's measurements. And the thing is, despite the occasional climate denier, we ALL know that the cause is the infernal combustion engine's excessive use in the richer 1st world countries like the US, Europe, and etc. We as a human species have been SLOW to accept these facts and last year hurricane IAN took a bite out of Florida. And humans have had many, many other warnings related to climate.

And please lets not forget the farm animals pooooop!
Actually this has been a very interesting read, all experts I'm sure, we must have all stayed at a Holiday Inn!

[sounding]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

To be absolutely fair, SOME people and 97% of scientists believe that during the recent (last 30 years) we have seen much evidence of man-made Global Warming CAUSED by our old friend - the infernal combustion engine - the kind found in Golf Cars, automobiles, snowmobiles, motorcycles and the LOUD non-catalytic converter equipped lawnmowers and lawn blowers - very LOUD that we hear every day. I BET that if they were using battery-powered lawnmowers and lawn blowers, The Villages would sound more quiet and peaceful. Yes, that would be PROGRESSIVE and fewer workers would suffer hearing damage.
The world's oceans ARE rising as proven by scientist's measurements. And the thing is, despite the occasional climate denier, we ALL know that the cause is the infernal combustion engine's excessive use in the richer 1st world countries like the US, Europe, and etc. We as a human species have been SLOW to accept these facts and last year hurricane IAN took a bite out of Florida. And humans have had many, many other warnings related to climate.

"To be absolutely fair" about your facts .... how much did man-made CO2 warm the earth last year? This is so well known, it should be very easy to find.

[Two Bills]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

No, YOU (and others) are the ones complaining that increasing CO2 is killing them off...

We are simply asking why their numbers have increased 4 fold if they are being killed off...

Think you should bother to read my previous posts regarding PB's.
At no time have I complained/stated that CO2, or global warming is killing the bears.
I disagreed with the other posters repeated claims that CO2 and global warming are responsible for bears numbers rising.
The ban on hunting in the 50's and 70's by all bar Canada are the main reason for the returning to previous population figures.
Canada allows hunting in one area, and the numbers killed is controlled by the local indigenous population.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Two Bills

Think you should bother to read my previous posts regarding PB's.
At no time have I complained/stated that CO2, or global warming is killing the bears.
I disagreed with the other posters repeated claims that CO2 and global warming are responsible for bears numbers rising.
The ban on hunting in the 50's and 70's by all bar Canada are the main reason for the returning to previous population figures.
Canada allows hunting in one area, and the numbers killed is controlled by the local indigenous population.

According to the articles posted in this thread, the increase in PBs are due to their increased food source. Not a ban on hunting...