Larsen C Crack Is in Its Final Stages; Will Produce One of World's Largest Icebergs Ever Recorded

Over what time period are these mass gains, and how significant are they? Can you show them relative to the previous mass losses?

 

Yeah we never had icebergs before.

 

No use arguing with invective and hyperbole.

 

Unfortunately if whatever is causing us to warm continues we will get 2 F of warming by 2100. If that cause is human activity then CO2 emissions will likely keep increasing and the warming will accelerate to something greater.

 

When I get this sort of talk, I love to take you back into the past. Recall the history of ice covered USA? Did you find out about the slabs of rock in Central Park in NY City where glaciers gnawed on the rocks?

Then you have the beauty of the Great lakes all caused by natural forces that melted more glaciers.

Two degrees is non significant.

Given the population of earth expels carbon dioxide with each breath they take, as well as the millions of domestic animals used as food, I do expect there to be more carbon dioxide. But the planet has a reply. It greens a lot more.

My car sits a lot. I however spend 24 hours per day breathing. I sure plan to keep this up.

 

That came from NASA. I am a bit surprised you question them.

 

Ahhh no the current models show if we do everything the Paris Accords call for we MAY get .2C cooler but then to believe science can predict that almost a century away is shear folly. But lets just say the difference then and now would be 1C. What would be better cooler or warmer?

 

Dont patronize me. Ridiculously childish you are.

 

Third, it is also a false choice to suggest that by America withdrawing from non-binding deals that allow some countries to pollute at increasing levels for another decade while punishing America for not restricting her carbon output enough right now, would have any impact on global warming.

 

If these events were to happen today this would cause trillions in economic damage.

Yes, but 4-6 F more degrees is. That brings us back to the dinosaur era.

Yes, but plants soak up that CO2 and for the last million years CO2 levels have oscillated slowly between 180-280 PPM. Human activity has caused it to spike to 410 PPM in just 150 years. CO2 levels will reach 600-800 PPM by 2100 and will continue to rise.

Russia and Canada will green a lot more but the US, Europe, Asia, and Africa will see expanded deserts.

 

I would say more of the same is best. We have a lot more dry land that can become desert than tundra that can become green.

 

I am not. I am just wondering how significant are the gains compared to the losses. Without a numerical comparison then this is all meaningless.

 

I thought that the link explains that.

Off the cuff, I don't recall.

Professor Dyson, formerly at Princeton believes this is a lot about nothing. That we get more benefits than costs.

 

Science is Chinese liberal propaganda

 

You must be telling me if the glaciers instantly melted. But I mostly bring up the melted glaciers as evidence of non man created melting leaving fertile soils behind.

We don't know a future temperature. We think models work, but thus far they have failed.

There is no magic for any number of Carbon Dioxide. Be it 200 ppm or 800 ppm. We do not know what will take place. I can't predict my future to the end of this year much less to 2100. As to my health and all that.

What made me more comfortable years back was e mailing to Professor Lindzen and seeking his expert knowledge.

I was long suspicious. But until he explained it to me with his 240 papers or so, i had questions.

 

What I mean is that saying that there has been ice gain means nothing if we don't know how much, and how it compares to the losses over the last few decades. If could easily be some small short-term gain that means nothing relative to the decades-long trend.

This loss of ice is a problem because if Antarctica melts that is 200 feet of sea level rise. And an ice free Antarctic isn't unusual and has happened often in the past.

 

I am fairly familiar with the Deserts in the USA and also to the causes.

I don't understand how carbon dioxide could expand them. Maybe one on the other side of this can explain it.

But this is my training results. We have serious mountains on the western side of the USA. Notice where our deserts are. How many are east of the Rockies? None at all.

The coastal hills of the western states drain a lot of water from the clouds. Then the winds that prevail from west to east meet the Sierra Nevada. The mountains act as huge wringers. They literally remove water from the clouds. East of the Sierra to the Rockies you find the deserts. The air over deserts is a drier air thus the Rockies have less to remove. But the Rockies also get water in several forms. Now, you also get water further east, but no more deserts. Deserts are related to our two high mountain ranges.

 

I supplied the link to the NASA report that explains that.

The problem with the so called losses is they are not significant. Gains are though.

 

The glaciers have been melting over decades not instantly. They will certainly be good for Greenland, Canada, and Russia but warming will cause droughts in most other places. Look at what heat waves do to the US.

Models aren't perfect especially over the short-term but they do give us a good idea of where things are going. If we simply look at the direction temperatures are going and continue that trend we get a lot of warming by 2100, that is undeniable. Between 1970 and 2015 we have seen a consistent 1.5 F of warming. This is about .3 F per decade. That is actually about 3 F per century. If our CO2 output increases its probably going to accelerate.

If CO2 levels are 800 PPM that means the CO2 is trapping a lot more heat and this will raise temperatures. We can actually estimate how much heat that will be trapped in Kilowatts per square meter.

Are you trying to throw fancy titles at me instead of giving me real data?

 

Deserts for the most part are creatures of mountains than carbon dioxide.

Simply said, you will find it is mountains creating deserts.

 

Mountains aren't the only thing creating deserts, high temperatures are also involved. higher global temperatures will result in larger deserts.

 

We are simply chatting. Me with my background going back to 1980 in weather and yours since????

 

Higher temperatures globally is the speculation. I prefer to deal in facts.

 

Let's look at deserts and mountains.

http://geologyclass.org/deserts_concepts.htm

 

Would you please be so kind as to provide links to the most important of these papers? I will leave it to you as to
that number, but I maintain a great deal of information on my desktop and laptop on this very subject. If you prefer not to release them publicly, then contact me privately.

Your Friend,
CE

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” – Ottmar Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015
http://www.investors.com/politics/e...mist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/

______________________________
“The inconvenient truth is that it’s not about carbon – it’s about capitalism. … we can seize this existential crisis to transform our failed economic system and build something radically better [socialism, of course].” – Naomi Klein, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate