ADVERTISEMENT

Earth is on its way to the biggest mass extinction since the dinosaurs, scientists warn

A friend of mine sent me a link to a gigantic chunk of ice, the size of Lake Erie, that broke off in Antarctica. Of course, he's preaching to the choir with me.

In my view, let's say the consequences are vastly exaggerated... big deal. It just makes practical sense to me to be proactive about cleaning up the messes we make and having a cleaner environment, in general. Recycle, push for renewable energy, innovate in that direction, do whatever you can to cause less of a disruption.

My biggest gripe with people who resist this is that they're 1) lazy and 2) only resisting and ridiculing it for completely political partisan reasons. I understand skeptics who are suspicious of government using the threat of the outcomes to scare people into paying them money to "protect us." I understand it to a point. I've always been disappointed in how the whole thing has become so politicized that it will always be a political chip and will never get the favor it needs because of the way these two parties took sides on it.

But, I'm personally very active in-person, locally, to contribute to alleviating the harmful effects of what I know we create. I don't need a forecast of what might happen to know I want to lessen the waste we create and lower the usage of fossil fuels.

Yeah.... that's not Climate change.... but I can see where the hope comes from,...

Antarctica’s Larsen Ice Shelf Break-Up driven by Geological Heat Flow Not Climate Change

Figure 1) North tip of Antarctic Continent including Larsen Ice Shelf Outline (black line), very active West Antarctica Rift / Fault System (red lines), and currently erupting or semi-active volcanoes (red dots).

Progressive bottom melting and break-up of West Antarctica’s seafloor hugging Larsen Ice Shelf is fueled by heat and heated fluid flow from numerous very active geological features, and not climate change.

This ice shelf break-up process has been the focus of an absolute worldwide media frenzy contending man-made atmospheric global warming is at work in the northwest peninsula of Antarctica.

As evidence, media articles typically include tightly edited close-up photos of cracks forming on the surface of the Larsen Ice Shelf (Figure 2) accompanied by text laced with global warming alarmist catch phrases.

This “advertising / marketing” approach does in fact produce beautiful looking and expertly written articles. However, they lack subsidence, specifically a distinct absence of actual scientific data and observations supporting the purported strong connection to manmade atmospheric global warming.

Working level scientists familiar with, or actually performing research on, the Larsen Ice Shelf utilize an entirely different approach when speaking about or writing about what is fueling this glacial ice break-up.

They ascribe the break-up to poorly understood undefined natural forces (see quote below). Unfortunately, comments by these scientists are often buried deep in media articles and never seem to match the alarmist tone of the article’s headline.

“Scientists have been monitoring the rift on the ice shelf for decades. Researchers told NBC News that the calving event was “part of the natural evolution of the ice shelf,” but added there could be a link to changing climate, though they had no direct evidence of it.” (see here)


Figure 2) An oblique view of crack in the Antarctic’s Larsen C ice shelf on November 10, 2016. (NBC News Article credit John Sonntag / NASA via EPA

This article discusses what more properly explains what is fueling the Larsen Ice Shelf break-up. A theory that is supported by actual scientific data and observations thereby strongly indicating that the above mentioned undefined natural forces are in fact geological.

Let’s begin by reviewing the map atop this article (Figure 1). This map is a Google Earth image of the local area surrounding, and immediately adjacent to, the Larsen Ice Shelf, here amended with proven active geological features.

If ever a picture told a thousand words this is it. The Larsen Ice Shelf lies in and among: twenty-six semi-active (non-erupting but heat-flowing) land volcanoes, four actively erupting land volcanoes, two proven semi-active seafloor volcano (seamounts), and a proven actively heat flowing major fault system named the West Antarctic Rift.

Not shown on this map are known seafloor hydro-thermal vents (hot seafloor geysers), likely heat emitting fractures, and prominent cone-shaped seafloor mountains that are most likely seamounts (ocean volcanoes).

This geological information paints a very clear and compelling picture that the Larsen Ice Shelf is positioned in an extremely active geological setting. In fact a strong case can be made that the Larsen Ice Shelf owes its very existence to a down-faulted low valley that has acted as a glacial ice container (see research on the Bentley Subglacial Trench of the West Antarctic Rift / Fault).

Next let’s review in more detail a few of the key very local areas on the Figure 1 map which will help clarify the power and recent activity of these areas.

First up, the Seal Nunataks area which is labeled on the Figure 1 map as “16 Semi-Active Volcanoes“. In general, these volcanoes lie within and push up through the northern portion of the Larsen Ice Shelf (Figure 3).

More specifically, the Larsen Ice Shelf is formally divided into three sub-areas: northern “A” segment, central “B” segment, and southern “C” segment. The 16 Seal Nunataks‘ volcanoes are strongly aligned in a west to east fashion and are designated as the boundary between the Larsen “A” and B” segments.

This 50-mile-long and 10-mile-wide chain of visible land volcanoes has likely been continuously volcanically active for at least the last 123 years based on limited amounts of data from this remote and largely unmonitored area.

Each time humans have visited this area they have recorded obvious signs of heat and heated fluid flow in the form of: fresh lava flows on volcanoes, volcanic ash on new snow, and volcanic debris in relatively new glacial ice. Remember, these observations only document volcanic activity on exposed land surfaces, and not the associated volcanic activity occurring on the seafloor of this huge volcanic platform.

More modern research published in 2014 by Newcastle University is here interpreted to indicate that the Larsen “B” portion of the greater Larsen Ice Shelf pulsed a massive amount of heat in 2002. Research elevation instruments showed that a huge portion of the Larsen “B” area quickly rose up, likely in response to swelling of underlying deep earth lava pockets (mantle magma chambers).

This process heated the overlying uplifted ground. This heated ground then acted to bottom melt the overlying glaciers (quote below). This is an awesome display of the power geologically induced heat flow can have on huge expanses of glacial ice.

“Scientists led by Newcastle University in the UK studied the impact of the collapse of the giant Larsen B ice shelf in 2002, using Global Positioning System (GPS) stations to gauge how the Earth’s mantle responded to the relatively sudden loss of billions of tonnes of ice as glaciers accelerated. As expected, the bedrock rose without the weight but at a pace ‚Äì as much as 5 centimetres a year in places ‚Äì that was about five times the rate that could be attributed by the loss of ice mass alone”, said Matt King, now at the University of Tasmania (UTAS), who oversaw the work.

“It’s like the earth in 2002 was prodded by a stick, a very big stick, and we’ve been able to watch how it responded,” Professor King said. “We see the earth as being tremendously dynamic and always changing, responding to the forces.” Such dynamism – involving rocks hundreds of kilometres below the surface moving “like honey” – could have implications for volcanoes in the region. Professor King said. (see here)


Figure 3) Map of the Seal Nunataks 16 Semi-active volcanoes relative to the three Larsen Ice Shelf segments, “A”, “B”, and “C” (see here). Also, a historical aerial photo of several Seal Nunatak volcanic cones pushing up through the Larsen Ice Shelf.

Read Full Story here.

http://climatechangedispatch.com/an...n-by-geological-heat-flow-not-climate-change/
 
Yeah.... that's not Climate change.... but I can see where the hope comes from,...

Antarctica’s Larsen Ice Shelf Break-Up driven by Geological Heat Flow Not Climate Change

Yep....NOTHING unusual going on worldwide....

global_sea_ice_extent_2017_day_191_1981-2010.png
 
Welcome to HROT, get an avatar.

No - an avatar is going to far...I have been on the site a long time and it used to be the middle reasonable 80% of American out therethat would post cool threads like boobs, wouldyas, poop, and casey pizza and invading other boards. When the rare political discussion came up I don't remember it being is divisive. Then came the crack down and the 10% fringes took over and its all super liberal and super conservatives who will never see eye to eye
 
No - an avatar is going to far...I have been on the site a long time and it used to be the middle reasonable 80% of American out therethat would post cool threads like boobs, wouldyas, poop, and casey pizza and invading other boards. When the rare political discussion came up I don't remember it being is divisive. Then came the crack down and the 10% fringes took over and its all super liberal and super conservatives who will never see eye to eye
It's because conservatives abandoned the truth. It's a lot harder to have civil "arguments" when one side just lies all the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
It's because conservatives abandoned the truth. It's a lot harder to have civil "arguments" when one side just lies all the time.

Agree - but also a lot harder when liberal assumptions are conservatives are stupid and repeatedly point it out. For the record I am neither conservative or liberal. Leaned libertarian for awhile but really just form my own opinions on the issues. For instance I agree with a lot of libertarian views but fully support the death penalty and have a tempered view on laissez-faire capitalism
 
It's because conservatives abandoned the truth. It's a lot harder to have civil "arguments" when one side just lies all the time.
Conservatives abandoned the truth?!?!? In the last 30 years, liberals have been brainwashed to think it's ok to kill babies, cops are bad guys and Christians are worse than Islamic terrorists. Get a fricken grip, buddy.
 
Conservatives abandoned the truth?!?!? In the last 30 years, liberals have been brainwashed to think it's ok to kill babies, cops are bad guys and Christians are worse than Islamic terrorists. Get a fricken grip, buddy.

Not liberal but

I am Pro Choice - don't think it is okay to kill babies but an unborn fetus should be allowed to be removed from a woman's body if she chooses
Not all cops are bad guys but not all are good guys either - its not one or the other, be realistic and choose one side of the argument
Christians kill more Americans per year than Islamic terrorists
 
Your Opinion is just as worthless as it was before,....I see nothing has changed,.... You must get yours handed to you on a daily basis then....

You know when you get attacked, and you have not even spoken to the person, (who's attacking) ...Yet,.... You have already gotten the best of that one,.... Posters who are no challenge, do not get addressed like that....only ones who have OWNED you in the past, ...do.....so thanks.... I'll admit, you were no challenge before....and I doubt you have gotten any smarter.....so.... I do not see a problem,... but you can keep trying if you like and I'll keep knocking them out of the park,.....

I see that you have still not mastered....,,,,,punctuation, or When to Capitalize Words, or basic logic.
But hey, at least you can still cut and paste cartoons from the Blaze, so you've got that going for you!
 
I see that you have still not mastered....,,,,,punctuation, or When to Capitalize Words, or basic logic.
But hey, at least you can still cut and paste cartoons from the Blaze, so you've got that going for you!
If you remember correctly, I do that because I hate the grammar police....congrats.... you are a victim multiple times..... another word for it, is Wuss bait......

You have that going for you....
 
Not liberal but

I am Pro Choice - don't think it is okay to kill babies but an unborn fetus should be allowed to be removed from a woman's body if she chooses
Not all cops are bad guys but not all are good guys either - its not one or the other, be realistic and choose one side of the argument
Christians kill more Americans per year than Islamic terrorists
You may not be liberal, but you've still been brainwashed.

How society has gotten to a point where they think killing an unborn baby is beyond my wildest beliefs. It's flat out the worst thing on earth right now. The woman's choice was when she hopped her slutty ass into bed with somebody she didn't want to have a baby with. I can maybe listen to exceptions and rape and things like that. But once she's knocked up, that unborn child should have rights too.

I don't choose a side on the cops vs criminals. I wait for the facts to come out. In fact I would say I'd side with Philando Castillo so far by everything I've seen. But every time a black person is killed by a cop, everybody on the left jumps up on their pedestal to talk about how horrible these cops are that are killing people before getting the story. It's ALWAYS immediately too. Don't need to see any proof of anything.

Christians kill more Americans than Islamic terrorists? Please expand. And here is most likely the difference and my argument back to you. The biggest difference is those Islamic terrorists would do anything to kill everybody in the world that isn't Muslim. Whatever Christian killers you are talking about don't want a complete genocide quite like the crazy Allahu Akbhar individuals.
 
If you remember correctly, I do that because I hate the grammar police....congrats.... you are a victim multiple times..... another word for it, is Wuss bait......

You have that going for you....
Sure, it's not because you were dropped on your head too many times by your mommy-sister. Do they still make you wear the helmet?
 
I think you have mine and your family mixed up.... And that would be about right if you were the one who was dropped on their head.....so.... get it straight... For someone you called an embarrassment, ....and,.... have since attacked, ....non stop,.... you sure do show a great deal of attention to someone who should be no threat to you....

Wonder why that is? Oh,... that'd be cause you know, who has gotten the better of the other in the past.... so,... I guess If I were as owned as you...I'd be upset as well,.... I must live in your rock filled head.....

Oh well,.. carry on with your brain injured ramblings.... Sure has been great comedy for others....
 
You may not be liberal, but you've still been brainwashed.

I am brainwashed because I form my own opinions that differ from yours?

How society has gotten to a point where they think killing an unborn baby is beyond my wildest beliefs. It's flat out the worst thing on earth right now. The woman's choice was when she hopped her slutty ass into bed with somebody she didn't want to have a baby with. I can maybe listen to exceptions and rape and things like that. But once she's knocked up, that unborn child should have rights too.

I think society has been a that point for a very long time.

I don't choose a side on the cops vs criminals. I wait for the facts to come out. In fact I would say I'd side with Philando Castillo so far by everything I've seen. But every time a black person is killed by a cop, everybody on the left jumps up on their pedestal to talk about how horrible these cops are that are killing people before getting the story. It's ALWAYS immediately too. Don't need to see any proof of anything.

I agree with this that it is fact based but as you challenged liberals that cops are bad, the other side of the coin is conservatives that defend police action no matter what

Christians kill more Americans than Islamic terrorists? Please expand. And here is most likely the difference and my argument back to you. The biggest difference is those Islamic terrorists would do anything to kill everybody in the world that isn't Muslim. Whatever Christian killers you are talking about don't want a complete genocide quite like the crazy Allahu Akbhar individuals.

I think we live in a world of fear mongering - yes Islamic terrorists are bad but I have many more things to be concerned about than that. i do believe we should protect ourselves against those peoples who wish to do us harm but using fear to justify some of the actions (Patriot Act) is flat out taking rights away from the citizens of this country. What is more likely to happen getting killed in a bicycle accident or dying from a terrorist attack. You argument will be it is because of these laws passed that we are protected but the fact is the country is a safer place than it was 20 years ago. I worry more about pedophiles, extremists, and non-rational people (on both sides of the aisle) then I do about foreign terrorists.
 
The Guardian Just Noticed Greens are Losing the Climate Debate
Eric Worrall / June 2, 2017




Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Greens are inventing elaborate fantasies of shadowy right wing conspiracies to explain President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Treaty – but still refuse to consider the possibility they are wrong about global warming.

Trump’s Paris exit: climate science denial industry has just had its greatest victory

Graham Readfearn

Trump’s confirmed withdrawal from the United Nation’s Paris climate deal shows it’s time to get to grips with the climate science denial industry.

Moments before the US president, Donald Trump, strode into the Rose Garden, TV cameras pictured his chief strategist, Steve Bannon, shaking hands and looking generally pleased with himself.

Bannon once called global warming a “manufactured crisis”.

Bannon, with Trump’s head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, were among the loudest and most forceful voices in Trump’s ear, imploring the president to pull out of the Paris climate change agreement.

During his speech, Trump claimed the Paris deal was bad for America. The themes were economic, but the speech was laced with jingoistic protectionism.

“Our withdrawal represents a reassertion of America’s sovereignty,” he said.

The foundation for Trump’s dismissal of the Paris deal – and for the people who pushed him the hardest to do it – is the rejection of the science linking fossil-fuel burning to dangerous climate change.



So what comes next? Hopefully, one realisation will be this.

Now is the time to learn about the methods, the tactics, the personnel, the structure and the reach of the global climate science denial industry.

They just convinced the leader of the United States to pull the plug on a historic deal signed by almost 200 countries, and instead join Nicaragua and Syria as the only countries not signed up.

It is time to take that climate science denial industry seriously.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environ...al-industry-has-just-had-its-greatest-victory

Why do Greens feel compelled to invent elaborate conspiracy theories to explain their failure to convert people to their cause? My guess is the reality is simply too hard for greens to swallow.

The climate alarmist cause is failing because it is based on a false premise. The idea that the Earth currently faces a manmade climate crisis is quite simply nonsense.

No amount of green money, psychological “inoculations”, propaganda and tub thumping can hide this simple fact from ordinary people who have access to the evidence.

Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06...noticed-greens-are-losing-the-climate-debate/
 
I think you have mine and your family mixed up.... And that would be about right if you were the one who was dropped on their head.....so.... get it straight... For someone you called an embarrassment, ....and,.... have since attacked, ....non stop,.... you sure do show a great deal of attention to someone who should be no threat to you....

Wonder why that is? Oh,... that'd be cause you know, who has gotten the better of the other in the past.... so,... I guess If I were as owned as you...I'd be upset as well,.... I must live in your rock filled head.....

Oh well,.. carry on with your brain injured ramblings.... Sure has been great comedy for others....

The "I know you are, but what am I defense!" Classic Guck.
Well, you'll certainly give some of the regulars worst posters a run for their money.
 
Ah gee....,,Guck...,,..,,.that...,..like..,,..really hurts. I Mean..,,...,if a poster so stupid ..,....,,,he was run off every.,,..Warchant affiliated.,,..board For Being.,...,Too Stupid for Florida thinks I'm wrong, well I guess there's just ..,,..one thing left to do..,,,,...
Celebrate.
 
Ah gee....,,Guck...,,..,,.that...,..like..,,..really hurts. I Mean..,,...,if a poster so stupid ..,....,,,he was run off every.,,..Warchant affiliated.,,..board For Being.,...,Too Stupid for Florida thinks I'm wrong, well I guess there's just ..,,..one thing left to do..,,,,...
Celebrate.


This is why I say, stop while you are just behind.... that was painful,.... really? Wuss bait gottcha twice in one day?

Poor little intellectual....
 
It's pretty simple. Stop population growth or none of this matters. But if the answer is that simple then what would Joe do to try to show that he is smarter than everyone else? Perhaps he can double down on "surgeons stop operating at 50." Just a thought.
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
this one too I suppose....


19894806_1498214783572729_8622476773904021883_n.jpg

Hmmm...something's WRONG here....when I look at the 'alleged data points' from your plot, I see NO CHANGE in temperatures in one plot from 1995 on, and maybe a +0.15°C change in the OTHER plot from 1995 on.

BUT when I plot Christy's ACTUAL UAH SATELLITE TROPOSPHERE DATA:

to:1997.75


OMG!!!! His OWN DATA shows a +0.5 to +0.6°C INCREASE!!! With a PEAK increase at +0.9°C!!! That's pretty much what the model runs show!!!!

What could POSSIBLY explain Christy's OWN DATA matching the MODELS!!!!
 
Why are the Alarmist scared? LOL

The Trump Administration Wants To Debate Climate Change On TV. Here’s What Scientists Think About It.

The head of the Environmental Protection Agency revealed plans for a TV debate on climate change. But scientists said that would be a terrible idea.

Originally posted on July 11, 2017, at 11:07 p.m.
Updated on July 12, 2017, at 2:57 p.m.

Jim Dalrymple II

BuzzFeed News Reporter

This is Scott Pruitt, the man President Trump appointed to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. On Tuesday, he said the agency was working to host a public climate change debate, which could potentially air on TV.

Yuri Gripas / Reuters
Pruitt revealed the debate plan in an interview with Reuters. He said the idea was inspired by a pair of articles he read, including one in the Wall Street Journal that suggested a "red team/blue" team approach to debating climate science.

The debate envisioned by Pruitt would involve a group of scientists who would have "a robust discussion for all the world to see." He also suggested it could be televised, adding that "the American people would be very interested in consuming that."

The EPA did not respond to BuzzFeed News' request for comment on Tuesday, and Pruitt did not tell Reuters when the debate might take place or who might participate.

But climate scientists contacted on Tuesday by BuzzFeed News said Pruitt's debate proposal was a terrible idea.
Peter Gleick, a scientist who cofounded the Pacific Institute, an environmental think tank, called Pruitt's proposed debate "bullshit." In an email, Gleick said that climate change has already been reviewed and assessed by "every national academy of sciences on the planet," and is already debated "every day by the very process of science itself."

"The effort by Pruitt and Trump's EPA to pretend to put together a 'debate' is no more than another attempt to open the door to the voices of climate denial, delay, and confusion that have already postponed international action almost to the point of disaster," Gleick added.

Michael Mann, a climatologist and geophysicist at Penn State University, said that a debate is already going on and "it's called science." He also said the debate amounts to a "bad faith effort."

"What Pruitt and his ilk really want is to stack the deck against mainstream science by giving cronies and industry lobbyists an undeserved place at the science table," Mann said.

Linda Duguay, who directs multiple environmental programs at the University of Southern California, said that "there is not much to debate" regarding the scientific consensus on climate change. Duguay also expressed skepticism that Pruitt and his team "would put together an honest forum on the subject."

"The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community and the great majority of nations around the world that signed the [Paris climate agreement] accept it as a reality," she said.

John Seinfeld, a professor at the California Institute of Technology who studies the atmosphere, said that "there’s nothing to debate," unless the discussion focused on "remediation measures."

"Climate change is a done deal," he added.

And Philip Mote, who studies climate change at Oregon State University, said that debating "settled" scientific topics such as climate change "is silly, counterproductive, and perpetuates a false sense of what’s true and what’s not."


Pruitt's "robust discussion" idea comes as the Trump administration works to undo Obama-era environmental policy and finds itself at odds with members of the scientific community — some of whom said the debate would cause more confusion than clarity.

Kevin Lamarque / Reuters
In June, Trump, accompanied by Pruitt, announced that the US would pull out of the Paris climate deal, a landmark 2015 agreement between nearly all of the world's countries. The announcement was greeted with dismay and anger by the scientific community.

Pruitt — who in March said he didn't believe carbon dioxide is a "primary contributor" to climate change — also recently tried and failed to delay an Obama-era rule on monitoring methane leaks.

Katharine Reich, associate director of the UCLA Center for Climate Science, pointed to Pruitt's record and said, "we’ve seen evidence that his team kind of tries to stack the deck against the evidence."

"There are plenty of interesting debates to have within climate science and climate policy," Reich told BuzzFeed News. "But the 'whether or not climate change is occurring and whether or not climate change is attributable to human activity,' those debates are closed."

She added that the debate is a problem because it gives scientists and those who deny science equal weight.

"That is inherently confusing to the public," Reich said.

At least one study seems to confirm that. Earlier this year, John Cook — a George Mason University researcher whose previous work showed a 97% scientific consensus on climate change — published a paper that found that providing climate change skeptics and scientists equal voices lowered people's perception that there was a consensus.

"I found that presenting climate change as a debate decreased acceptance of climate change," Cook explained to BuzzFeed News in an email. "It lowered people's perception of scientific consensus."

Cook added that he is "disturbed that this denialist strategy is getting institutional support."

Advocacy groups that work on climate change were similarly against the idea of holding a televised climate change debate.
Brett Hartl, a spokesperson for the Center for Biological Diversity, called the idea of a public, televised debate on climate change "destructive." Hartl referred to the proposed discussion as a "fake debate" that marginalized actual scientific discourse.

"This is going to tarnish the EPA's legacy for decades to come," he said.

Kimiko Martinez, a spokesperson for the Natural Resources Defense Council, told BuzzFeed News that the "science is clear," and that Pruitt's proposal "isn’t about scientific debate. It’s bad policy in search of excuses."

"The public isn’t buying Trump’s retreat from climate progress," she added, "and it won’t buy into this cheap charade."

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimdalrymp...evised-climate?utm_term=.uczAE7GY4#.aqLvq107g
 
Says a guy so far behind he can't even see my taillights.... you...are just a wanna be....

Just in case you missed it the first time,.... your side is on the left.....

19989372_1540453639359703_2362009025343144689_n.jpg

Nobody can see your tail lights. There's no light on anywhere with you, Gucky. You're an inscrutable black hole. Or, more accurately, a tightly puckered...well...you know.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT