Swiss Town Obliterated As Glacier Melts

if the ice is sitting on top of cellophane on top of the glass, yes, it does.

 

well since NONE of our bodies of water are sitting on cellophane the answer is NO

 

Glaciers and Ice sheets are on LAND. So their melting DOES raise sea level. The melting of sea ice does not.

 

Or what, I don’t know, actual science tells us?
Winters are warming in Florida, despite the recent cold snap

Why is it so cold outside when the climate is warming? » Yale Climate Connections

 

The earth's temp moves in cycles even without man:s intervention. The temp of the sun moves in cycles. The Earth's orbit around the sun becomes more elliptical then more circular and then becomes more elliptical. The angle of the Earth's tilt towards the sun oscilates. All of these things affect the temperature. Right now the earth is coming out of an ice age.

The best move is to keep our economy strong and figure out a technological way to cool the earth (perhaps a space shield to block the sun?). This chart is pretty good. You can go here if the chart won't expand on your phone
https://scitechdaily.com/66-million...ry-uncovered-puts-current-changes-in-context/

 

I wonder what it is like to not care about the longevity of Earth as a utopian habitat for humanity and other species simply because you can’t see beyond your last dozen years or so on this planet. It seems wildly uncritical and self-centered.

 

In your effort to want a fight, you have misrepresented my words. I am NOT SKEPTICAL that we impact change, but rather how much.

Go fight with the guy calling it a hoax, I'm not interested.

 

at this point not realizing there is climate impact due to global industrialization,burning fossil fuels & deforestation - all on mass scale over the last 75/years is like not believing man walked on the moon.
Even Repub congressmen now admit it.

 

There really isn’t even a debate about that. It’s widely believed that current 150 year trend is primarily man made. But I understand you need to have some equivocation to keep one foot in each of the both sides camps.

 

I generally avoid any substantive debate with those types, because they obviously eschew any sort of evidence and debating them is the same as debating the existence of viruses - it is just troll feeding.

I’m more likely to argue with someone who I view as persuadable and is at least open to evidence based discussions.

 

Yeah, an emoji response is peak content for you, @g8orbill . Wasn’t expecting anything more.

 

I feel no such need. You like to say that.
If anything I try to keep all feet out of either camp.

I generally have my doubts about things where so much money is involved. It's called being skeptical. Even data can be worthy of skepticism in an area where so much money is involved. Data is easily manipulated and 99% of us have no idea how to parse climate change data.

 

Fair enough and agree.

 

A true Christian worldview demands a closer examination of this subject.

The scriptures tell is from the very beginning to take care of the earth.

Genesis tells us the Creator saw creation as "good".and "very good" and the idea of a Sabbath showed resting from a completed work...and the Hebrew interpretation of these words has a sense of completeness and perfection to it.

Genesis further tells us to take care of creation.

So why would I as a person inclined to follow a scriptural worldview not want to take great care of something very good and complete that God has given me watch over?

 

Sigh. I cant believe that is your response.

Ok..lets try this.

You put your FULL glass of tea (the ocean) under the ice/water despenser on your fridge. (A glacier). Now add some of that water or ice which is currently not in your full glass of tea.

What happens?

Ice floats..much of it above the liquid line. (Icebergs for instance.) If an iceberg were in your pool and the iceberg melted your pool level would rise from the ice above the waterline becoming liquid.

Now thing glaciers and icecaps. Much of the ice is not in the ocean. Much is on land, or floating above the surface....THAT ICE either falls into it or it melts into it ...ADDING WATER.

The only point I was making about your tea, was that ice melts due to a change in climate. Glaciers are clearly melting. That only happens from one thing...and it ain't from getting colder.

You see, if a glacier gets colder it can not melt.

 

I believe humans are likely doing great damage to the earth and I’m a big believer in conservation. What I don’t believe is that every bad thing that happens (wars, covid, human trafficking, etc.) can be blamed on climate change and that the way to fix it is taxes and batteries. The USA can do all it wants but the governments of China and India with far more folks don’t care. All conservatives are asking for is common sense conservation and a focus on technology over taxes. I don’t see the left offering any solutions other than tax hikes and electric cars (except Tesla now) which have their own issues.

 

A. China is installing a ton of green energy. They recognize that it provides them a substantial advantage in the long-term, due to their limited fossil fuel access.

B. Causation does not imply total causation. So, for example, could climate change make human trafficking worse? Sure. It could change incentives and conditions in a way that would make it worse. Is it the sole or even the primary cause? Unlikely, as that has to do with a variety of more human level variables.

C. In terms of solutions, the biggest one has been in technology, although it is one that, for political reasons, most Republicans still can't see: green energy. The push towards systems reliant on solar and wind has made the biggest impact. When combined with the push towards electric vehicles, especially the Chinese vehicles, it should be noted, this has the potential to dramatically lower CO2 emissions with essentially no decrease in standards (and, in fact, the potential to lower costs given that those forms of electricity, at a utility-scale, are currently cheaper than fossil fuel burning at a utility-scale). Even with batteries to even out load issues, these forms of power generation are currently cheaper in new constructions than fossil fuels.

So, the policy question becomes whether we want to push the replacement cycle up some via subsidies or accounting for degradation of the commons by fossil fuel plants via taxes, fees, or some other method, or simply allow these forms of energy to replace the existing forms of energy as we replace infrastructure. The later is likely slower, leading to more environmental damage prior to replacement, but is also less likely to be a fight.

 

for floating ice, I don’t think the water rises materially, if at all. Yes the ice on top is now lower, which in theory would make it rise a little, but ice is slightly expanded vs water so when it melts the displacement decreases, marginally, as most of the iceberg is underwater slightly. The net effect of those two is probably negligible.

Now glaciers and ice sheets that are on land, it’s like throwing ice in a full glass of water. So all of the discussion of sea level rise is due to land based (or affixed) glaciers and ice sheets.

 

My view, which is often proven wrong, that green energy for a while will turn out to be a supplement to existing sources to meet rapidly growing demand, especially due to AI and other technology. I doubt the world fossil fuel use decreases in the near future because of this. However without green energy we would not be able to take on these additional demands. That’s what so stupid about these green energy opponents is that it’s not likely fossil fuels could even keep up with increased demand.

There could be a point decades in the future where fossil fuels aren’t needed but that’s likely along way off. What happened in Spain shows that grid technology has to be upgraded or adapted to go near full green energy. My understanding is those adaptations are not easy and not cheap.

 

I suspect that there will be fossil fuels for decades in initial production of energy. The replacement cycle for plants is slow and a lot of plants were updated for Natural Gas just before the price of wind and solar shot down due to technological development. The grid is probably the strongest argument for a slower wind-down on this old technology, as there will need to be changes made to the grid (although, I suspect, that you might also see a more decentralized system that will, eventually, lower the costs on the grid as energy will not need to be moved as far). But right now, there are very few circumstances in which new fossil fuels really make financial sense, even before considering the environmental issues.