What is the world's greatest environmental threat?

[El_Machinae]

Good. Melt already. More usable sea.

Wait, I thought your thesis was that the entire 'warming' idea was a farce?

 

[classical_hero]

Scientists in the Arctic are warning that this summer's record-breaking melt is part of an accelerating trend with profound implications.

Norwegian researchers investigating the state of the sea ice report that it is becoming significantly thinner and more vulnerable.

Last month the annual thaw of the region's floating ice reached the lowest level since satellite monitoring began, more than 30 years ago.

The scale of the change is large enough to make it likely that weather patterns thousands of miles away could be affected.

The melt is set to continue for at least another week - the peak is usually reached in mid-September - while temperatures here remain above freezing.

Why does no one mention what is happening at the Antarctic sea ice levels? The problem is that it is doing the exact opposite and it higher than normal. It seems like focus on what you you want to make looks like agrees with a problem.

 

[El_Machinae]

I don't know if I'd call this the exact opposite. It's not worrisome, obviously, but it's not "balancing out" the Arctic story.

Spoiler lol, it's giant, gonna find another one :

edit: don't even click, it's a giant picture.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Lol, that is a stupidly big graph. Here is the link, the browser auto-sizes it: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2012/05/Figure4.png

 

[innonimatu]

Wait, I thought your thesis was that the entire 'warming' idea was a farce?

No, my opinion is that global climate is not sufficiently understood to even say anything useful about global temperatures and its trends. But if the Artic ice is observably melting then it is melting. I don't know and don't care whether it is a localized phenomenon or part of some global cycle. Let it melt and let's make use of the place.

i've never expected i'll agree on anything with you

On more that one thing, judging from your avatar: I would disband the EU too.

 

[stfoskey12]

Urban sprawl may not be the world's greatest environmental threat, but it can definitely be detrimental to local environments, and increases pollution from general driving. However, it is occurring mostly in the Sunbelt, and thus meaning most effects such as deforestation are local.

 

[Crezth]

Good. Melt already. More usable sea.

I feel the same way about nuclear war. Let the nukes fly! Overpopulation is a problem anyway.

 

[Old Hippy]

Why does no one mention what is happening at the Antarctic sea ice levels? The problem is that it is doing the exact opposite and it higher than normal. It seems like focus on what you you want to make looks like agrees with a problem.

yes it looks very much like that...
far from the exact opposite some areas are declining others not... hope your wearing your 75+ factor sunblock tho ... we are still waiting for the last cap and trade agreement to fully work out.

Does the ozone hole have an effect on sea ice?

Recent research published by scientists from the British Antarctic Survey suggests that the ozone hole is delaying the impact of greenhouse gas increases on the climate of Antarctica and contributing to the increase in Antarctic sea ice (BAS press release). As ozone levels recover towards the end of the century, however, sea ice is expected to decline.

a link for the declining sea ice in Antarctica

Over most of East Antarctica surface temperatures are well below the freezing point, and a small increase in temperature cannot initiate melt. Warmer temperatures however allow the atmosphere to hold more water vapour, and thus lead to increased snowfall. An increased input of snow may be causing East Antarctica to grow slightly, but any gain here is more than offset by loss from West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula.

http://www.antarctica.gov.au/about-antarctica/fact-files/climate-change/ice-sheets-and-sea-level-rise

i thought it has been explained to us greenies that localized weather conditions do not a climate change make....

 

[Tee Kay]

I feel the same way about nuclear war. Let the nukes fly! Overpopulation is a problem anyway.

Radiation is natural!

Radiation cures cancer!

 

[Crezth]

We don't really understand the potential consequences of nuclear holocaust. Alarmists always like to drum up the possible bad things, but they ignore the fact that nuclear winter could be quite beneficial overall!

 

[TheLastOne36]

We don't really understand the potential consequences of nuclear holocaust. Alarmists always like to drum up the possible bad things, but they ignore the fact that nuclear winter could be quite beneficial overall!

Enlighten me.

 

[Crezth]

Averts disastrous overpopulation scenarios, encourages diversity of life via mutation, ends threat of further nuclear war, lower global temperature due to nuclear ice age improves biological mobility in lieu of landbridge formation.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Oh, goody. I'm gonna build a time machine and send you back to the day the asteroid/comet slammed into the Yucatan - that one caused the nuclear winter-like conditions that killed the dinosaurs and most of the rest of life on Earth.

I'm sure you'll enjoy it, since you deem nuclear winter to be a Good Thing.

 

[Crezth]

Listen, alarmists and liberal communofascists want us to believe nuclear war would be a bad thing. But where's the data? It's just a theory designed by corrupt scientists and politicians to brainwash Americans into believing that nuke power is bad.

All I'm saying is there's no proof that nuclear holocaust is a bad thing and some of the consequences of all of civilization being obliterated spontaneously in a hail of nuclear hellfire might actually be good things.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Averts disastrous overpopulation scenarios, encourages diversity of life via mutation, ends threat of further nuclear war, lower global temperature due to nuclear ice age improves biological mobility in lieu of landbridge formation.

Well that depends largely on the scale of a nuclear winter. If it blocks out the sun for a few years, Western governments and societies could probably survive relatively in-tact, whilst the rest of the world starves.

But if it lasts longer than 5-10 years?


Also a nuclear winter will probably kill more species than it would create through encouraged mutation.

 

[Borachio]

All I'm saying is there's no proof that nuclear holocaust is a bad thing and some of the consequences of all of civilization being obliterated spontaneously in a hail of nuclear hellfire might actually be good things.

I don't think you're being serious. But any sensible risk assessment would indicate it's just not worth taking the chance.

And by spontaneously I presume you mean instantaneously. And, actually, I don't think it would be spontaneous (sorry, instantaneous). Certainly not without seriously altering the basic structure of the earth - for a time.

But, hey, maybe I've misunderstood the scenario you have in mind, here. And much depends on what you mean by "good". Perhaps you mean "bad"?

 

[Murky]

What Crezth is doing is mimicking climate change deniers. It's to illustrate irrational logic that would lead to catastrophic results.

 

[Crezth]

Well that depends largely on the scale of a nuclear winter. If it blocks out the sun for a few years, Western governments and societies could probably survive relatively in-tact, whilst the rest of the world starves.

But if it lasts longer than 5-10 years?

The world is already starving but I don't see people willing to throw oodles of cash at solving that problem.

A nuclear holocaust eliminates a large portion of the human population, thus averting some of the disastrous qualities of the overpopulation scenario. It's a win-win.

Also a nuclear winter will probably kill more species than it would create through encouraged mutation.

Species as concrete blocks are a non-fungible concept anyway. The point is that life, in general, would benefit.

I don't think you're being serious. But any sensible risk assessment would indicate it's just not worth taking the chance.

A "sensible" risk-assessment? Good luck finding one in this polluted political environment. The scientists are bought off by Big Government to keep us confused and frightened, and individuals who speak the truth that nuclear total annihilation might not be all that bad are routinely shut down by the liberal media. I don't know why you would bother denying this; it's fact plain as day. Orwell predicted it and we're living in 1984 by ignoring facts and instead relying on government testimony.

And by spontaneously I presume you mean instantaneously. And, actually, I don't think it would be spontaneous (sorry, instantaneous). Certainly not without seriously altering the basic structure of the earth - for a time.

I guess it's too much to hope for that it would be spontaneous (and I did mean spontaneous). But thanks for helping me prove that nuclear holocaust wouldn't be so bad - in some ways it'd be quite good!

But, hey, maybe I've misunderstood the scenario you have in mind, here. And much depends on what you mean by "good". Perhaps you mean "bad"?

All I'm saying is that the politico-scientific atmosphere is too polluted by bad faith in order to get a reasoned estimation of the consequences of nuclear antigenesis. Oftentimes, eggheads and government-sponsored liars will tell us that nuclear end-of-humanity would be a bad thing, but there is first of all no hard proof or solid evidence that this is the case (and if there is, please show it to me, and I don't just mean mathematical models or extrapolation; show me a case study where nuclear armageddon factually caused all the bad things that the liberal media says it does), and second of all sufficient cause to believe that some of the things the lying scientist scum say actually have good impacts, not bad! This would obviously detract from their alarmism, but the nuclear ultracatastrophe lobby/conspiracy tries to keep a lid on any type of oppositional science to this effect.

 

[Tee Kay]

Oh, goody. I'm gonna build a time machine and send you back to the day the asteroid/comet slammed into the Yucatan - that one caused the nuclear winter-like conditions that killed the dinosaurs and most of the rest of life on Earth.

I'm sure you'll enjoy it, since you deem nuclear winter to be a Good Thing.

Psst... he's being sarcastic.

Though I agree it can be hard to tell with so many nutcases running around here...

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Psst... he's being sarcastic.

Though I agree it can be hard to tell with so many nutcases running around here...

There are some things about which I have NO sense of humor. This is one of them.