https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/16/arctic-sea-ice-shrinks-to-second-lowest-level-ever-recorded

The Earth's climate is changing rapidly by geological standards.

Mother Nature doesn't care about our made up political boundaries or nationalities or cultures.

Populations will be displaced as people begin to seek water and arable land.

The changes won't happen overnight but over many decades.

The evidence for this is right before our eyes.

We have a very slim window to try and prevent the worst but it may already be too late.

If you can't accept this, help me understand why.

Is it your faith?

It is your culture?

Where is your reason?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/16/2016 01:01PM by anybody.

I accept it.

I will adapt.

It's the human thing to do...

(1000-1300AD), Greenland was green but the water level at the Tower of London was the same as it is today.


mmmmmm

Really?

https://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-green.htm

all truth is found on the internet.....

Yes, I've looked at a lot of info about the Little Ice Age and the Medievel warm period, because I wanted to undertand it since the climate change deniers I know use that as their argument--the Earth was warmer than it is now and cooled back down. And there were very little man-made carbon emissions then. But most things I find first off explain that it was not a global warming. And they can pinpoint the volcanic activity and specific anomalies that contributed to it in the Northern Hemisphere. Unlike our current warming that IS global and is documented.

Yes, there will be people, even scientists, who will always claim there is no way it is man made. I have no clue whether they're right or wrong. I hope they're right. But they will be dead, as we all will be, by the time the real devastating effects take place, if it is. Same as the people who will always claim we don't need to worry because the world is about to end anyway. I never could understand how people don't want to err on the side of caution for their grandchildren and beyond. But then, I don't know what it's like to be so convinced that you cannot possibly be wrong, that you're willing to stake your grandchildrens' lives on it. But that's just me. They ARE convinced, they don't really care that much about anything that happens after they are gone. And you know what? They might be right. I will never know enough to feel sure one way or the other. But I have read enough to have doubts both ways. It's like Pascal's wager. We lose nothing if we believe we have to work to change it and then the warming turns around. Our posterity loses everything if we do nothing and it stays on course.

Carbon dioxide is building up rapidly, so if the window is slim, radical changes have to be made NOW.

We'd better start capping off all the volcanoes to stop them spewing CO2 into the atmosphere then.

Well why don't you study a little. Global warming is correlated with human production of CO2. But do go ahead and ignore scientific facts.

What good does it do to ignore global warming? I just don't get those that put their head in the sand.

mhmm. We heard this before. As an example, ten years after the much talked about "An Inconvenient Truth", all of the most dire predictions turned out to be complete horseshit.

Funny sidebar, my friend recommended reading a book from the 1970s entitled "Lucifer's Hammers". I had largely forgotten about it, but it references how many in the scientific community were convinced of the next ice age coming in the 1980s. That prediction was also complete and utter horseshit.

I'm not saying global climate change isn't something to take a serious interest in, but every time the extreme predictions are trotted out, the case to do just that is harmed grievously. But continue to spin the doom and gloom crap and enjoy being wrong time and time again. It is kind of funny. :D

How is the Antarctic ice doing? Serious question as I'm not terribly interested in joining the death cult of man-made climate change so soon after leaving the death cult of Mormonism.

The window is closed. The CO2 levels have oscillated between 170 ppm (ice age) and 270 ppm (interglacial period). The earth was at the high end of that range until a few centuries ago when it started to climb.

A few months ago it passed 400 ppm, and nobody alive now will ever see levels below 400 ppm in their lifetime.

The earth is not going to be destroyed. Humans won't die out. But a lot of low-lying areas are going to be underwater. That window is closed. Don't buy land as a long term investment in southeast Florida, south Louisiana, south Bangladesh....

I think the biggest danger would be something like a nuclear war when 30 million people from southern Bangladesh are forced to relocate into India, and India objects militarily, or some similar circumstance.

The Salt Lake Marina near Saltair, which had about 20 feet depth back in the 1980s, is essentially closed now. I don't expect it to come back anytime soon. Lake Mead is so low water level is almost below the intakes for water for Las Vegas. There is starting to be serious talk about emptying Lake Powell and putting all the water into Lake Mead (which now could hold the total contents of both reservoirs), to reduce losses from evaporation. If the current drought hangs on for the next 20 years, I think that is all but guaranteed to happen.

Big unknowns:
will increased water vapor in the air cause increased clouds, and at what altitude? Will the clouds trap more heat than at present, or reflect more sunlight, causing some cooling. Surprisingly (at least surprising to me), the answer is not clearly known.

How much methane hydrate is trapped in cold ocean waters/sea floors, and will rising temperatures release the methane? That could be a major big deal if that does indeed happen.

Could major ocean currents change? We don't really know. They could get stronger, weaker, or move. If the Gulf Stream changes in any way, Europe is not likely to be a happy camper.

But some significant sea level rise - that's going to happen. When and how much is still an open question, but "whether" is not.


Oh, and it will take several thousand years to melt the Antarctic ice. National Geographic estimated 5,000 years. the "petrocene" will be long over by then. We will have adapted or not well before then. We're conducting a world-wide uncontrolled science experiment. We are not positive what will happen, but can make some good guesses. For the most part, the predicted changes are not improvements on the status quo climate, which has been uncharacteristically stable for ten thousand years, give or take.

We don't really know why the climate has been stable, but the goosing we are giving it now is likely to change things.

<sigh> Thought as much.

Our only hope now is in geo-engineering and atmospheric processing -- and we don't even know if they are even feasible at present.

If we can stop fighting and killing and work together to save our world.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/16/2016 08:47PM by anybody.

400 PPM? The plants and trees must be loving it. My, the sacrifices we make for our plant friends. I never imagined the people with beachfront property were such rabid tree huggers.

You forgot thawing permafrost. Lots of methane in those peat bogs.

Perhaps the Earth will shake us off like a bad case of fleas, but I think it will adapt to us. The Earth has an amazing capacity to heal itself. The hills of Harpers Ferry are covered with forest. You wouldn't think that 150 years ago they were stripped bare to create battlefields.

CO2 levels are high because there aren't enough plants. Even if we succeed in turning the Amazon basin into the next Sahara, plant life will find a way. I do agree that the Earth would benefit if we could stop being idiots.

And anthrax. Don't forget about that. O_O

"The window is closed. The CO2 levels have oscillated between 170 ppm (ice age) and 270 ppm (interglacial period). The earth was at the high end of that range until a few centuries ago when it started to climb.

"A few months ago it passed 400 ppm, and nobody alive now will ever see levels below 400 ppm in their lifetime."

From:

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/10/07/scientist-carbon-dioxide-doesnt-cause-global-warming

"In taking on lawmakers pushing for a cap-and-trade plan to deal with emissions, Steward tells Whispers that he's worried that the legislation will result in huge and unneeded taxes. Worse, if CO2 levels are cut, he warns, food production will slow because plants grown at higher CO2 levels make larger fruit and vegetables and also use less water. He also said that higher CO2 levels are not harmful to humans. As an example, he said that Earth's atmosphere currently has about 338 parts per million of CO2 and that in Navy subs, the danger level for carbon dioxide isn't reached until the air has 8,000 parts per million of CO2."

My oh my...

https://drugsandotherthings.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/time-glbl-warming-v-ice-age.jpg

Or so it seems to me...

Why does change have to be a bad thing? The world used to be a lot warmer when all this CO2 was in the air way back when in dinosaur times. We're in a colder period of earth's history right now... so it will warm up. We will adapt. I don't think it's worth panic; just planning.

I also think this is a suspiciously religious move on the media's part-- "Change is coming, so you have to do things our way!" Sounds like taking advantage of a crisis to control people/make money etc. Is there any certainty that radical changes would fix the "problem," or that it's even a problem we want to fix?

I just feel like the picture is never presented 3D.

"Why does change have to be a bad thing? The world used to be a lot warmer when all this CO2 was in the air way back when in dinosaur times."

Indeed. From https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been

"Another stretch of Earth history that scientists count among the planet’s warmest occurred about 55-56 million years ago. The episode is known as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM).

"Stretching from about 66-34 million years ago, the Paleocene and Eocene were the first geologic epochs following the end of the Mesozoic Era. (The Mesozoic—the age of dinosaurs—was itself an era punctuated by "hothouse" conditions.) Geologists and paleontologists think that during much of the Paleocene and early Eocene, the poles were free of ice caps, and palm trees and crocodiles lived above the Arctic Circle. The transition between the two epochs around 56 million years ago was marked by a rapid spike in global temperature...

"During the PETM, the global mean temperature appears to have risen by as much as 5-8°C (9-14°F) to an average temperature as high as 73°F. (Again, today’s global average is shy of 60°F.)...

"Earth’s hottest periods—the Hadean, the late Neoproterozoic, the PETM—occurred before humans existed. Those ancient climates would have been like nothing our species has ever seen.

"Modern human civilization, with its permanent agriculture and settlements, has developed over just the past 10,000 years or so. The period has generally been one of low temperatures and relative global (if not regional) climate stability."

Also, from http://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html

"Dinosaurs that roamed the Earth 250 million years ago knew a world with five times more carbon dioxide than is present on Earth today, researchers say..."

alyssum wrote:

"We're in a colder period of earth's history right now... so it will warm up. We will adapt. I don't think it's worth panic; just planning."

Some people would rather just panic and run around as though they think the world is going to end tomorrow. Like religious fanatics, I suppose that makes them feel like they're doing something of value by warning all of us Co2-emitting sinners that we're doomed.

Personally, I'm going to walk to my fridge and get some ice water.

and finally acknowledge what has been happening for years but by then it will be too late. They will wonder why their god (or rather their concept or interpretation of god) would tell them back then that none of it was real, it's not happening and it's all lies only to have the world around them begin crashing down before their eyes.

It's easy to stop a roller coaster at the top when it's moving slowly but it's a lot harder to stop at the bottom after it gets going.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/17/2016 05:37AM by anybody.

...and none of the info in my post above has anything to do with religion. The fact is that the earth has been warmer in previous eras than it is now, humans had nothing to do with it, and life on earth has gone forward for tens of millions of years whether it was a few degrees hotter or colder, or whether there was more or less Co2 in the air.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/17/2016 10:52AM by randyj.

randyj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...and none of the info in my post above has
> anything to do with religion. The fact is that
> the earth has been warmer in previous eras than it
> is now, humans had nothing to do with it, and life
> on earth has gone forward for tens of millions of
> years whether it was a few degrees hotter or
> colder, or whether there was more or less Co2 in
> the air.

Well, if life on earth is the standard, then I'm with you. Insects probably stand the best chance of inheriting the earth in the long term.

However, I think most people are worried about their life and that of their offspring. A few degrees hotter or colder are the difference between survival and extinction for most species in earth's history - to which humans are only a very recent addition.

Your appeal to life on earth going forward for tens of millions of years is about as short-sighted and ignorant as it gets.

randyj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Another stretch of Earth history that scientists
> count among the planet’s warmest occurred about
> 55-56 million years ago. The episode is known as
> the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM).
>
> "Stretching from about 66-34 million years ago...

> "Dinosaurs that roamed the Earth 250 million years
> ago knew a world with five times more carbon
> dioxide than is present on Earth today,
> researchers say..."

Yes; notice the really warm periods had no humans. And then:

> "Earth’s hottest periods—the Hadean, the late
> Neoproterozoic, the PETM—occurred before humans
> existed. Those ancient climates would have been
> like nothing our species has ever seen.

And that is why there is legitimate cause for concern. At least, if you care about human being around...

Huh?

The reason humans didn't exist during those warmer periods is not that it was too warm for humans, but simply that we hadn't evolved yet from the small mammals that had survived the mass extinction inflicted upon the dinosaurs.

And you alarmists accuse the skeptics of being illogical, anti-evolution, and generally ignorant of science?

surprenant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Huh?
>
> The reason humans didn't exist during those warmer
> periods is not that it was too warm for humans,
> but simply that we hadn't evolved yet from the
> small mammals that had survived the mass
> extinction inflicted upon the dinosaurs.

That's "the reason?" You're certain of that, are you? Is it coincidence that mammals didn't "take over" until after the really warm periods ended? Might mammals have had a different path of evolution had past climates been cooler? Might it be that really warm climates aren't that suitable for mammals, especially larger ones, including humans?

> And you alarmists accuse the skeptics of being
> illogical, anti-evolution, and generally ignorant
> of science?

When you notice facts, you're not an "alarmist."
Just observant.

Jet fuels alone contribute as much as 4-9% of the global warming effects, from air travel today. Emissions from nuclear testing and wars, how do we measure that?!

With every nuclear test done by Pyongyang, five so far this year alone (and that's without an actual all out war,) each one of those is emitting radioactive chemicals into the atmosphere that affect climate change and global warming.

Guess if we don't blow ourselves off the face of the earth first, we may go extinct when the earth becomes too hot for human survival.

"Climate change is all about degrees.

Six degrees Celsius of warming may not sound like much -- probably because "temperatures can swing by 6 degrees within an hour if a warm front passes, and it doesn't mean the end of the world," said Mark Lynas, author of a book called "Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet."

But if we raise global average surface temperatures by just 6 degrees above pre-industrial levels, Lynas told me, we'll create "a scenario which is so extreme it's almost unimaginable."
"Most of the planetary surface would be functionally uninhabitable," he said. "Agriculture would cease to exist everywhere, apart for the polar and sub-polar regions, and perhaps the mid-latitudes for extremely heat-tolerant crops. It's difficult to see how crops could be grown elsewhere. There's a certain level above which plants just can't survive.

"There's a certain level where humans biologically can't survive outside as well ... The oceans would probably stratify, so the oceans would become oxygen-deficient, which would cause a mass extinction and a die off in the oceans, as well -- which would then release gases and affect land. So it's pretty much equivalent of a meteorite striking the planet, in terms of the overall impacts."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/21/opinions/sutter-6-degrees-climate/

"There's a certain level where humans biologically can't survive outside as well"

The earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Humans have only existed for about 200k of those years. The majority of species that ever lived on earth went extinct long before humans existed. So why are you so concerned about the future survival of humans? Is it because of religious beliefs?

"So it's pretty much equivalent of a meteorite striking the planet, in terms of the overall impacts."

A lot of meteorites have struck the planet in the past. The earth's still here, and life still goes on, in one form or another.

our modern industrial, technological civilisation probably will not.

Extreme weather events will become more and more common place. Imagine hurricanes like Katrina and Sandy happening every ten years instead of every thousand years. That's only one example.

Our entire way of life depends on just a few food crops and animals -- rice, wheat, maize, potatoes, soybeans, cattle, pigs, chickens, goats and sheep -- and they only grow and live in a few places.

Populations will be displaced as they seek places to live. Multiply the European migrant crisis a hundredfold and you start to get the picture. People will fight to hold on to what they've got if they are living in a favourable climate.

It won't affect you today but it will affect your descendants.

A few people alive today will see begin it if they are still living by 2100-2150.

This has happened before -- there is reason to believe that a change in climate in the sixth century contributed to the collapse of the Roman world and western civilisation and set in motion a dark age that lasted for almost a thousand years.


The most striking thing is how religion is preventing people from trying to prevent this:

http://thebulletin.org/2015/september/why-conservative-christians-dont-believe-climate-change8722



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/18/2016 11:27AM by anybody.

And what I don't understand is how people who used their logic and reason to extricate themselves from of the clutches of the Mormon cult -- sometimes at great personal cost -- turn around and deny the same logic and reason that leads scientists to the conclusion that anthropogenic global warming and climate change are real and the consequences grave.

I thought being an "ex" Mormon meant that you would stop basing things only on feelings and emotion even though they defied common sense.

Does religion have such a powerful hold on people that they can't change their views even after they escape the control of the cult?

Someone mentioned Greenland. There's another story about the Viking settlers that you might not know of. They were Europeans from a meat eating culture. When the climate changed and they were no longer able to feed themselves, they died out -- even though they were surrounded by food that could be obtained from the sea. They would have survived if they learned from the native Inuit but they didn't.

"And what I don't understand is how people who used their logic and reason to extricate themselves from of the clutches of the Mormon cult -- sometimes at great personal cost -- turn around and deny the same logic and reason that leads scientists to the conclusion that anthropogenic global warming and climate change are real and the consequences grave."

And some Ex-Mormons lack the common sense to realize that they have merely abandoned one form of fanaticism and latched on to another.

"There's another story about the Viking settlers that you might not know of. They were Europeans from a meat eating culture. When the climate changed and they were no longer able to feed themselves, they died out -- even though they were surrounded by food that could be obtained from the sea."

Sounds like their problem was stupidity, rather than climate change.

"They would have survived if they learned from the native Inuit but they didn't."

So, one group of humans, the Inuit, survived in that climate, but another group, the Vikings, died out? So the problem was not the climate, but rather the resourcefulness of one group, right?

+100 ---- I wish more people were 'awake'!!!!!

Since I have left mormonism, I have simultaneously decreased in my tolerance for absolutist, extremist doomsday perspectives, and increased in my appreciation for the powers behind human ingenuity, creativity and adaptability, as well as the ever driving force of human greed that will continue to create the need for the aforementioned ingenuity, creativity and adaptability.

I do accept that climate change is real and is primarily caused by human activity. I think a lot of people also accept these truths but don't care.

I think finalistic, otherworldly religion is a bigger part of this problem than we realize. If we are going to a "better place" when we die, what reason do we have to care if this world is being destroyed by pollution? We have only a matter of decades spend in it and then we are done. And isn't the world going to end anyway? Drive whatever you want and have a good time here - Jesus is paying for all your sins!

Of course as a reincarnationist I have a much different perspective, that it's worth making sacrifices to so something about it. Last January I started taking the bus to work which cuts my commute by car from 14 miles to about 1.5. The greatest cost to me is not money but time - it takes and additional 45 minutes both ways. I think I can honestly say if I were to become a Christian or an Atheist I would take back my 45 minutes in a heartbeat!

Beliefs do matter when they take us in the right direction!

The ice caps at one time covered Pennsylvania. Its neighbor New Jersey was once under water. The ice cap retreated and melted from Pennsylvania yet New Jersey is dry. Go figure.

If you think man is not the cause try this: go outside and look at all the plants in your area. The earth is covered with them. Plants take CO2 from the air and keep the CO2 in balance, but human burning of fossil fuels has overwhelmed the system and the concentation of CO2 has risen 33% in 50 years. As a result of the 33% rise in CO2 temperature has gone up. It takes real mental gymnastics to deny facts like this.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/18/2016 08:20PM by perky.

The dependence of polar bears on sea ice poses an enormous threat to their population. So sad, in my opinion, that global warming is threatening the very existence of these beautiful creatures.

Polar bear populations are booming, actually.

Climate change hysteria is the modern day non-theist doomsday cult. Climate change is used an excuse for more taxes and more government regulation. Even the language around climate change is not very scientific, climate change deniers.. burn them at the stake!! which happens figuratively to those scientists who dare to doubt or merely point out inconsistencies

Pollution is bad, we should be good stewards of the earth. But in the end the earth will change regardless of what humans do.

Climate is constantly changing and it has shifted in extreme ways in the past without human beings being around at all. There is barely 100 years of accurate information on temperatures in the world. The sciences of meteorology and climatology have advanced so much in the past 50 years with satellite data etc. According to the climate change dogma we should already be seeing the sea levels rise dramatically and my home in Florida should be underwater for several years now. It is not.

When I was a kid we were going to have a new ice age is something was not done. Fast forward a few years and it was global warming.

BTW I am a Libertarian Bisexual Agnostic

Are the data false?


Why would it be necessary to fake climate change?


Who would benefit from this supposed hoax?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/19/2016 03:01PM by anybody.

Why?

- Grants
- Carbon taxes
- Carbon offsets

Use your imagination.

Get people all riled up that the end is nigh, and the money flows to people ready, willing, and able to cash in on the panic with promises that they have the solution to the problem.

Isn't that what all of us recognized as the basis for paying tithing to TSCC?

It would be impossible to fake this.

In science, unlike religion, if you get caught faking data or experimental results you get found out very quickly:


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/south-korean-human-cloning-pioneer-admits-to-fake-evidence-519669.html

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/dec/23/stemcells.genetics


https://www.wired.com/2014/09/fantastically-wrong-n-rays/

and the "end" isn't nigh. The effects will creep up on us very slowly -- as in decades and centuries. It's just stopping it the easy way isn't possible now.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/19/2016 03:41PM by anybody.

The East Anglia University scandal proves the climate scientists have already been faking the data and have hidden the raw data from other scientists wanting to confirm their findings.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html#.V-CBl7Ff1EY

If this isn't sufficient, why don't you go and buy a mass spectrometer and start collecting the data yourself.

It may not go that way. With the permafrost areas thawing and releasing larger amounts of methane it could speed things up. I'm not sure of the data surrounding this, but it's an interesting component to the problem.

I am not saying the date are false or made up necessarily ... I am just saying that reliable information has been around for barely 100 years on temperature. The earth has been around for millions of years. 100 years of data are just not sufficient to claim the sky is falling. The dire consequences are no different than the end of the world predictions that come out every few years. All of us lived the 12/21/2012 and Y2K, we are still here.

Weather observation data is valid maybe back to 1880. There are many more observation points in the world now as well ( how many weather stations were there in remote areas of the world in 1920... not many)

Tropical cyclones how many were there in 1822? What is a cat 5 hit South Florida in that year, there was no one there to observe. What about as they are called Fish Storms that we see on satellite but that never hit land. If a ship reported it it was known.

Co2 levels do have ice core samples but the end of the world cant be based on limited data and computer models

Climate change won't end the world -- just vastly change it from what humans have known for the last fifteen thousand years. Agriculture didn't start until around 8000 BC when the climate stabilised. We are used to certain geographical areas being places to live and grow food. That's going to change. Most humans live near coasts or large bodies of water. Temperate areas where people live now are going to be uninhabitable. There are going to be more storms, fires, floods, tornadoes, etc just as there were between 11,000 BC and 8,000 BC when the last ice age ended.

The world won't end. But the world as we know it will -- if we do nothing.

If the amount of Arctic sea ice reduces then this proves the church is true. If the amount of Arctic sea ice increases then this also proves the church is true. If the amount of Arctic sea ice is unchanged then you can be extra certain that something big is about to happen regarding the Last Days and the church is definitely true. One of the fundamental teachings of the church is that the prophet teaches the truth and that anything that contends against this or against testimonies is of the devil. So you might disagree on this but we should close my mind to such criticisms as the prophet hasn't taught its important to consider. And besides we're too busy cleaning toilets at the chapels, paying 10% of our gross income as tithing, and doing numerous other things to build up the kingdom to have time for such thoughts anyway.

The greatest "scientific minds" of our country (Bill Nye, Al Gore, Obama, Kerry, etc.) the oceans will cover many now coastal areas. Al claimed some places would be under water now!!! Wait ----- news to the alarmists.

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/ ---The link doesn't seem to work.

The Earth’s surface has actually gained 22,393 miles of land mass, including 13,000 miles in coastal areas. And, as CNSNews.com reports, four recent peer-reviewed studies show “no observable” effect from man-made global warming on sea levels:


Four peer-reviewed scientific studies found “no observable sea-level effect of anthropogenic global warming.”

The Earth’s coasts actually gained land over the past 30 years, according to another study published August 25 in Nature Climate Change.

Researchers led by Gennadii Donchyts from the Deltares Research Institute in the Netherlands found that the Earth’s surface gained a total of 58,000 square kilometers (22,393 square miles) of land over the past 30 years, including 33,700 sq. km. (13,000 sq. mi.) in coastal areas.

“We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world,” study co-author Fedor Baart told the BBC.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/19/2016 11:41AM by spiritist.

spiritist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The greatest "scientific minds" of our country
> (Bill Nye, Al Gore, Obama, Kerry, etc.) the oceans
> will cover many now coastal areas. Al claimed
> some places would be under water now!!! Wait
> ----- news to the alarmists.

Some places *are* under water now. And oceans *are* covering many coastal areas.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/underwater-land-loss-coastal-louisiana-1932

>
> http://www.mrctv.org/blog/ ---The link doesn't
> seem to work.

Then why post it?


> The Earth’s surface has actually gained 22,393
> miles of land mass, including 13,000 miles in
> coastal areas.

Only a few coastal areas show a gain. The gains come largely from human activity (filling in tidal basis/bays with rock/dirt fill). Most places show a net loss. Other "land mass gains" come from volcanic activity. None of the "gains" mean sea levels aren't rising, and coastal areas in general aren't losing land -- they are.

https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/stories/atlantic-epa.html


> And, as CNSNews.com reports, four
> recent peer-reviewed studies show “no
> observable” effect from man-made global warming
> on sea levels:

What a surprise, the "conservative news service" denies global warming. I'm stunned.
So, where are these four recent "peer-reviewed studies?"
Hmm?

> Researchers led by from Gennadii Donchyts the
> Deltares Research Institute in the Netherlands
> found that the Earth’s surface gained a total of
> 58,000 square kilometers (22,393 square miles) of
> land over the past 30 years, including 33,700 sq.
> km. (13,000 sq. mi.) in coastal areas.

The vast majority of the "gains" came from (to quote the study) "drying of lakes, sedimentation of rivers, and man-made reclamations." And, "By far the biggest change from water to land over the past 30 years is Lake Aral that almost completely dried up because of irrigation to produce cotton and wheat." Which of course has nothing to do with sea level rise or not.

In fact, if you'll actually go read all of their study (rather than just cherry-pick something from "conservative news" sites), you'll find the study explicitly shows loss of coastal area from climate change, and they document where this is the case.

Here's their tool that lets you see just that:

https://www.deltares.nl/en/news/how-the-earth-has-changed-over-the-past-30-years/

Thanks for proving my points.

No proof of 'man-made global warming' and we are gaining land not losing it!!!!

Many 'unbiased studies' have to be done overseas as the US will not fund/eliminate funding from US studies that don't support Bill NYe, etc. etc. agenda!

spiritist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks for proving my points.

I showed every one of your "points" was false. Didn't you read the post?

> No proof of 'man-made global warming' and we are
> gaining land not losing it!!!!

Clearly you didn't read the post. Or go to the links I provided. Not surprising.

> Many 'unbiased studies' have to be done overseas
> as the US will not fund/eliminate funding from US
> studies that don't support Bill NYe, etc. etc.
> agenda!

The "unbiased study" you never read confirmed rising sea levels, loss of coastal area to rising sea levels, and the effects of human activities on climate change. Try reading it. It works better than asking spirits what to think.

Hey, we can at least give spiritist points for being able to totally ignore/distort evidence in more than one field of study.

Yep, inland seas drying up all around the world is not the best imaginable argument against climate change. It takes pretty determined willful ignorance to think that it is.

And it is going to snow in the SL mountains Thursday. What more proof does one need that all is well in Zion, yea, Zion prospereth?

402 ppm and climbing.