• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

We Are "Chasing Our Tail" Trying to Save Glaciers, and Earth

Manc Skipper said:
A glacier in Switzerland lost more than a third of it's mass last week an entire village is flooded and hundreds of newly homeless evacuated. Rescuers dare not attempt clearup for fear of further landslides...

Click to expand...

Floods like this are normal. just look throughout history. it is not wise to build in flood plains.

In the video, it looks like an avalanche, which are also natural.
 
Look where the village is located. This is an expected natural disaster for the area.

1748725510826.webp
 
ataraxia said:
Yay! If we can’t have perfect let’s not do anything at all! And F our kids and grandkids- they are on their own!🤣👍🎉
Click to expand...
But if the recommended steps don't accomplish anything other than lowering living standards is that good?
 
JBG said:
But if the recommended steps don't accomplish anything other than lowering living standards is that good?
Click to expand...
No obviously not. Why do you ask?
 
vesper said:
Why do people develop villages in places where their existence is always doomed?
Click to expand...
Who knows.

I would bet that so many are not even aware of the dangers, or think they will not happen in their lifetime.
 
JBG said:
See Some Glaciers Will Vanish No Matter What, Study Finds (link) (no paywall, gift article)

Excerpts below
The New York Times is hardly a right-wing publication. Even it concedes that the expensive windmills, heat pumps and intermittent power from wind and solar will not do much. They advocate punishing the middle class by taking away car ownership, and to no effect. heir disguised interest is in de-industrialization and degrowth. The operative term for "climate activists" really want is "degrowth." See Degrowth or Economic Punishment for Affluence:
  1. Link - What is degrowth?
  2. Link - Degrowth – what's behind the economic theory and why does it matter right now?
  3. Link - Degrowth can work — here’s how science can help
Frankly it's a recipe for dystopia. Solutions to the use of fossil fuels that would alleviate the need for constriction are off the table. An example is nuclear power. Governor Cuomo forced the shutdown of Indian Point based purely on ideology. Europe has been busily closing its nuclear plants.

As to fossil fuels not all are created equal. Coal is worse than oil. Oil is worse than natural gas. New York Governor Hochul and former Governor Cuomo have barred fracking in New York, and blocked the flow of fracked gas through pipelines.

See also other articles listed above. All have one real enemy in mind; capitalism and freedom. This is a recipe for dystopia.

During the 1970's a belief developed that our consumption-based society was unsustainable. This philosophy of life was expressed in the U.S. via books such as the 1950's classic by John Kenneth Galbraith, The Affluent Society. This was foreshadowed by other authors and thinkers, such as Travels with Charley: In Search of America by John Steinbeck. In Travels Steinbeck rails against conspicuous consumption and other signs of affluence. There was also the Club of Rome report, written over a period between 1968 and 1972, affiliated with MIT (link). Still, the "intellectual" movement was largely ineffectual in changing anything. Thus, an emergency had to be conjured where we were doomed if we did not take "action," however futile. See also Stunning admission from Kamala: "Gone is the day of everyone thinking they could actually live the American dream." The "Green New Deal" is no more American dream; unless it's a dystopian world of everyone locked into their houses, and consuming what the "government" can provide.
Click to expand...
Why do i have to read ignorant posts like this here?
 
Steve Case said:
And when the glaciers lose a third of their mass, how does that screw our descendants?
Click to expand...


Well in many areas glaciers are the source of water in summer months for millions of people.

Heck Calgary and southern Alberta rely on glaciers for water in August and September. The bow river likely would dry up in those months quite a few years without glacier sourced water.


Much of India and Pakistan rely on glacier sourced water for a few months a year
 
vesper said:
Why do people develop villages in places where their existence is always doomed?
Click to expand...


Sometimes it is economics.

It us often the cheapest land so the only choice for some.

Other times it is because of the beauty of the place, like the barrier islands on the east coast
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Well in many areas glaciers are the source of water in summer months for millions of people.

Heck Calgary and southern Alberta rely on glaciers for water in August and September. The bow river likely would dry up in those months quite a few years without glacier sourced water.


Much of India and Pakistan rely on glacier sourced water for a few months a year
Click to expand...

Your argument pretends that glaciers create water and ignores
the fact that it's the rain and snow in the Rocky Mountains and
Himalayas that provide the water. They don't need no stinking
glacier in Hawaii for their water.
 
Manc Skipper said:
A glacier in Switzerland lost more than a third of it's mass last week an entire village is flooded and hundreds of newly homeless evacuated. Rescuers dare not attempt clearup for fear of further landslides...

Click to expand...


And this was caused by CO2 emissions?
 
Steve Case said:
Your argument pretends that glaciers create water and ignores
the fact that it's the rain and snow in the Rocky Mountains and
Himalayas that provide the water. They don't need no stinking
glacier in Hawaii for their water.
Click to expand...
Create water no,

Store water yes
 
JBG said:
See Some Glaciers Will Vanish No Matter What, Study Finds (link) (no paywall, gift article)

<snipped>
Click to expand...
I have a subscription to the nytimes. Here's the article referenced in the OP:


There’s news about glaciers, and it’s grim.

Regardless of climate mitigation strategies, the world’s glaciers are on track to shrink significantly over hundreds of years, according to a new study published on Thursday. They’re locked in to losing ice.

Even if global temperatures stayed where they are today for the next thousand years, essentially an impossibility, glaciers outside of ice sheets would lose roughly one-third of their mass, researchers estimated.

But there’s still hope to avoid the most severe losses, the assessment said. Limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, above the preindustrial average could save about twice as much ice in a millennium than if the planet warmed by 2.7 degrees Celsius, the trajectory the world is currently on for 2100, according to the study.

“Every tenth of a degree less of warming will help preserve glacial ice,” said Lilian Schuster, a glacial modeler at the University of Innsbruck in Austria who helped lead the research, which was published in the journal Science. “With ambitious climate measures, we can save a lot of ice.”

The massive ice sheets that cover Antarctica and Greenland get a lot of attention in the climate change discussion; if they melted, sea levels would rise more than 200 feet, flooding coastal cities around the world.

But glaciers found in mountains and near the margins of ice sheets play a small but significant role in the climate change story, too. They make up less than half of 1 percent of the world’s ice and, if they melt, they would contribute about a foot to global sea level rise.

As glaciers melt, they can also increase the risk of deadly floods and landslides. A glacial collapse in Switzerland this week destroyed most of an Alpine village. And if glaciers shrink enough, communities can lose crucial sources of freshwater for drinking, irrigation and hydropower.

Glaciers are melting much more rapidly than ice sheets in response to global warming, in part because they are smaller....
 
Pyrite said:
I have a subscription to the nytimes. Here's the article referenced in the OP:


There’s news about glaciers, and it’s grim.

Regardless of climate mitigation strategies, the world’s glaciers are on track to shrink significantly over hundreds of years, according to a new study published on Thursday. They’re locked in to losing ice.

Even if global temperatures stayed where they are today for the next thousand years, essentially an impossibility, glaciers outside of ice sheets would lose roughly one-third of their mass, researchers estimated.

But there’s still hope to avoid the most severe losses, the assessment said. Limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, above the preindustrial average could save about twice as much ice in a millennium than if the planet warmed by 2.7 degrees Celsius, the trajectory the world is currently on for 2100, according to the study.

“Every tenth of a degree less of warming will help preserve glacial ice,” said Lilian Schuster, a glacial modeler at the University of Innsbruck in Austria who helped lead the research, which was published in the journal Science. “With ambitious climate measures, we can save a lot of ice.”

The massive ice sheets that cover Antarctica and Greenland get a lot of attention in the climate change discussion; if they melted, sea levels would rise more than 200 feet, flooding coastal cities around the world.

But glaciers found in mountains and near the margins of ice sheets play a small but significant role in the climate change story, too. They make up less than half of 1 percent of the world’s ice and, if they melt, they would contribute about a foot to global sea level rise.

As glaciers melt, they can also increase the risk of deadly floods and landslides. A glacial collapse in Switzerland this week destroyed most of an Alpine village. And if glaciers shrink enough, communities can lose crucial sources of freshwater for drinking, irrigation and hydropower.

Glaciers are melting much more rapidly than ice sheets in response to global warming, in part because they are smaller....
Click to expand...
Any article that does not consider soot as a primary ice melting agent, is not worth reading.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Any article that does not consider soot as a primary ice melting agent, is not worth reading.
Click to expand...
Post #46


I'll take the conclusions arrived at by scientists and other professionals in the relevant fields - and the reporting in the nytimes - over that of an anonymous poster in cyberspace. If you want to bring information here about "soot as a primary ice melting agent", please copy and paste excerpts from credible sources to which you provide the links.

````````````````

more from the nytimes article:

...Using eight different glacial models and excluding ice sheets, the researchers analyzed how more than 200,000 of the world’s glaciers would respond to 80 different climate scenarios, over thousands of years, in which the planet reached a certain temperature and then stopped warming. The models showed the researchers how long it would take these glaciers to stabilize, or stop changing in response to the initial climate warming.

Even if warming stops at 1.2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, the average warming over roughly the last decade, glaciers are on track to lose significant volumes of ice within a millennium, the study found. The median ice loss was about 40 percent, which would add about 10 centimeters to sea level rise.

Because the planet has already warmed at least 1.2 degrees Celsius, that ice loss and its resulting sea level rise are unavoidable....
 
Pyrite said:
Post #46


I'll take the conclusions arrived at by scientists and other professionals in the relevant fields - and the reporting in the nytimes - over that of an anonymous poster in cyberspace. If you want to bring information here about "soot as a primary ice melting agent", please copy and paste excerpts from credible sources to which you provide the links.

````````````````

more from the nytimes article:

...Using eight different glacial models and excluding ice sheets, the researchers analyzed how more than 200,000 of the world’s glaciers would respond to 80 different climate scenarios, over thousands of years, in which the planet reached a certain temperature and then stopped warming. The models showed the researchers how long it would take these glaciers to stabilize, or stop changing in response to the initial climate warming.

Even if warming stops at 1.2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, the average warming over roughly the last decade, glaciers are on track to lose significant volumes of ice within a millennium, the study found. The median ice loss was about 40 percent, which would add about 10 centimeters to sea level rise.

Because the planet has already warmed at least 1.2 degrees Celsius, that ice loss and its resulting sea level rise are unavoidable....
Click to expand...
How many times each year will someone demand something posted many times before. Not my problem that you keep dismissing good papers. I have no time at the moment to find it for you again. Here you are denying the role black carbon (soot) plays.
 
Lord of Planar said:
How many times each year will someone demand something posted many times before. Not my problem that you keep dismissing good papers. I have no time at the moment to find it for you again. Here you are denying the role black carbon (soot) plays.
Click to expand...
Post #48

LOL....if you've posted the information about soot and global warming in the past, then you can access it easily. AND, of course, don't forget that you are the one who brought up "soot" in the context of global warming.

That you don't want to do this - to inform posters about the role soot plays in global warming - is on you.
 
Deuce said:
Quite a lot of people live near the ocean.
Click to expand...
And do you think they're just going to sit there and drown?

First it will probably take several centuries at the rate water is rising today for even Miami to be underwater but I'm betting and those centuries that people ****ing move.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom