Nociception

>>1992796
Welcome to adulthood

>>1992796
sea levels are still rising.
that can only be happening if water is warming or continents are sinking.

guess which one is more likely?

While they are spreading, they are also thinning. I'm not doing your homework for you, so Google it.

What an example of great journalism.

B R A V O
R
A
V
O

This November has been pretty warm.

You've quoted the Daily Express as a source.

Here is the guy who owns it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Htyb6W6H6IY

>>1993651
Yeah what the fuck. It dropped to 15 degrees in early October and now its really warm.

don't let the republicans see

>>1992796
>climate change is basically 1/4 of a degree shifts that add up to a few degrees after a couple decades, which would be terrible if continued, so isn't like The Day After Tomorrow, shit takes a while.
>North Pole melting like a mother fucker in Northern Summer
>at the same time it's winter below the equator, so the South Pole grows a bit with the cold.
>opposite 6 months later
>hurr climate change is a lie
Don't be stupid you shit, it's almost summer down there, and almost winter up here. It'll slow growth in a month or two, and up here it'll stop shrinking and start re-freezing.
The amount it freezes is what's been shrinking, so it has less to survive when it's the warmer months.
How is any of this hard for anybody?

I just don't understand how the people who think climate change is a scam to get their money don't mind siding with the big oil companies, or somehow think said companies are the good guys.

if ice melts into water, the water level doesn't rise. So the idea that melting ice causes sea levels to go up can already be thrown out with an experiment you can do in your kitchen with a glass and an ice cube.

>>1994757
But if land ice melts into the sea then the sea level will rise.

>>1994757
seriously?
man, I dont want to generalise everyone, but I am ready to bet that most people that dont believe in "global warming" are americans

>>1994860
I'm not the same anon
But ice has about 90% of the density of water, and icebergs have about 90% of their volume below the water's surface
Which means if an iceberg melted into the ocean, the water level wouldn't change.

I'm American by the way

>>1994908
bait desu desu

>I'm American

no you're not senpai~

>>1994757

Yes...

You might have heard of this landmass called "Antarctica" which has ice several KM thick in some places.

>>1994908
Anything above sea level is going to contribute to sea levels rising when it melts. I'll trust the scientists on this one.

>>1994918
>>1994944
44% of what constitutes Antarctica is just ice floating in water around the actual continent
You would have to go inland a significant distance before there was actual ground beneath the ice beneath your feet.

So after almost half of Antarctica melts, we will finally see the water level rising

>>1995115

Uhm, no.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/08/14/the_new_worst_case_scenario_for_ice_loss_in_antarctica.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/09/18/antarctic_sea_ice_is_hitting_record_levels_what_does_that_say_about_global.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/05/nikolay_lamm_climate_central_imagine_what_sea_level_rise_will_do_to_u_s.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/05/12/global_warming_antarctic_glacier_collapse_may_now_be_inevitable.html

While sea ice is expanding the land ice is shrinking at a record rate and sea levels are now rising year on year. Indeed the fresh water flooding into the Antarctic seas must be both cooling them down and reducing their salinity, which accounts for the spreading sea ice.

And that's just Antarctica. Once the Himalayan and Greenland glaciers thaw out sea levels could be several meters above where they are now with a modest change in temperature.

It really is time to stop this crap and introduce a carbon tax so heavy it renders fossil fuels completely unprofitable.

>>1992796
>nociception
>global warming is a lie
>keeping the name
1/10 not even trying ausfag

>live in Canada
>pretty cold

I wish global warming would hurry up.

>>1995560

Shuuussshh

>>1995546

> render fossil fuels unprofitable

So, you're a proponent of the nuclear industry, I see. So am I.

File: image.gif (980KB, 500x367px) Image search: [Google]

980KB, 500x367px

>>1997357
>mfw someone says they don't support nuclear power because it's too dangerous
>but explosive fuel that kills tens of thousands in car accident fires 'round the world and pollutes the air? Sign me up!

>>1998455

Plastic is worse than nuclear power.

>>1993464
Or because of erosion.

>>1992796
>http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/617144/Antarctica-not-shrinking-growing-ice-caps-melting

>As it turns out I was right but this angry alarmist was not going to let a few facts get in the way of his doomsday narrative.

pretty much on the money. (human induced) climate change as "settled science" is heavily politicized and comes with a big old load of confirmation bias. this is going to be an enormous joke in 20 years

Here is the new study mentioned in the article
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

Can someone explain if this is new knowledge and if it differs from the previous knowledge that many already mention here, aka
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/04/130401-global-warming-antarctica-sea-ice-science-environment/

I know that the IPCC reports have not been error free in the past, and they've worked to fix those errors. This shit is complicated.

I don't like the doomsday narrative but I kind of get why it is used, because the masses are very hard to get committed if you just give them complicated studies that often seem to contradict each other, but actually don't once you look at the big picture. And if it happens that the conclusions are definitely wrong (no that doesn't mean when some internet dude figured it out on a forum without accessing any of the vast data) they need to be corrected regardless of the politicss.

>>1998455
Yes and the tactical nuclear explosions that occur every time your Utopian cars collide and go super critical is going to be so much better.

The problem with nuclear is as always the incredible danger of long term contamination. If a gas power plant blows up you can pick up the pieces pretty much after they stop burning and build another one. It's a very different story when a nuke plant goes wrong.

>>1999203
I don't think it needs to explode, my understanding is that there are designs that this doesn't happen in but they're not studied because it's politically too complicated to allow for a plant that creates weapons grade fissile materials in it's normal running.

But my understanding may be wrong. In any case the politics must have had an effect in study of improving the design, and why we still use the same things from 50 years past.

I also don't understand why we don't build multiple layer containment over them with a possiblity to relieve the pressure somewhere else than the atmosphere if the worst somehow comes to be and coolant leak occurs. But seeing that FUkushima was caused by poor design, that's really appalling and doesn't give much hope that we can probably manage serious projects like these.

>>1999213
Oh also I was going to comment about nuclear waste, I have no doubt that we will figure out a way to either reuse it dispose of it in some clever way, maybe no more than 100 years, 1000 years at top into the future.

So the talk about 100 000 year problem is pointless in my view.

Certainly the geological repositories are not stable forever, and it's incredible that we have already had leaks in those. So again, I guess, appalling that we have difficulties in such a serious matter.

>>1999162
Have you ever considered reading things that aren't shitty opinion pieces from terrible newspapers?

>pretty much on the money. (human induced) climate change as "settled science" is heavily politicized and comes with a big old load of confirmation bias.
It's not. It's by far the consensus of people who actually study the Earth's consensus. It's only "politicized" because rejection of physical reality has become a part of many political platforms.

>>1999189
>Can someone explain if this is new knowledge and if it differs from the previous knowledge that many already mention here, aka
Because they're measuring in different places, and Antarctica is an entire continent.

The tl;dr for the NASA report is that Antarctica has been gaining mass for a very long time - much longer than we've been around - and it's taking a while for that trend to reverse. Nothing about it implies that global warming isn't real, and the shrinking rate of ice gain is actually cause for concern.

>>1998455
Nuclear power IS dangerous. That's why nuclear reactors require so many failsafes and layers of defenses.
If you have a reliable practical and technical environment, you can build safe reactors and maintain them to keep them safe. But if you don't have that environment, people will figure out that it's cheaper to bribe regulators than to do maintenance, and you end up with events like Fuckisima.

>>1999216
If you're willing to separate out the components of nuclear waste (which isn't a fun process), it becomes a lot safer to handle and actually quite valuable. There's a lot of unspent fuel and highly sought-after isotopes in there.

>>1999244
>If you have a reliable practical and technical environment...
If you have a reliable POLITICAL and technical environment...