Arctic ice melt could trigger uncontrollable climate change at global level

  • Thread starter Thread starter lynnvinc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
vz71 said:
I and many others stand accused of murder based solely upon the beliefs of this individual.
It is not unfair to examine how my accuser weilds the weapons.
Click to expand...
It’s not my personal “beliefs,” but scientific facts from which we can easily conclude that we are harming and killing people – just connect the dots.

However, I can well understand why people would want to ignore or deny these psychologically painful facts and not connect the dots. Maybe what we need is a 12-step program to help pull us thru this.

Now re what we need to reduce as a whole – about 50% of the CO2 is reabsorbed into the earth system out of the atmosphere. So as a whole the whole world needs to reduce by about 50%. Since a portion of the worlds pop live in dire poverty, close to the margin, they cannot be expected to reduce, but can be helped to live better, healthier lives in ways that do not increase GHGs a whole lot (they don’t have to follow the dirty industrial path the West followed over the past century or so). They can do so in energy/resource efficient/conservative ways and use alt energy to the amount feasible.

Other poor people, not so poor, may actually be able to reduce their GHGs a bit while improving their living standards.

And the rich of the world can reduce their GHG emissions by even 75%, according to some estimates, without lowering their living standards or productivity. I’m thinking at least by 60% or so.

And then the rich, if they wish, can also sacrifice. Maybe Lent would be a good time to do that. It’s when I started in 1990. Then the joy at Easter will be so much greater…and be sure to participate in local Earth Day activities around Eastertime.
 
lynnvinc said:
It’s not my personal “beliefs,” but scientific facts from which we can easily conclude that we are harming and killing people – just connect the dots.
Click to expand...
Accusations of murder of people that do not exist is not scientific fact.
Nevertheless you appear convinced that I as well as others stand guilty of murder.
Your own writing indicates the accusations are merely rhetoric.
 
vz71 said:
I and many others stand accused of murder based solely upon the beliefs of this individual.
It is not unfair to examine how my accuser weilds the weapons.
Click to expand...
Has lynnvinc accused you personally of murder and is this a legal proceeding? Do you think it virtuous to run a guilt trip on others who are doing in, their personal lives, what they believe to be a prudent response to mitigate the climate change? In other words do two wrongs make a right?

Whether you believe it or not or whether its man made or not many lives including our children, grandchildren and yet to be born will be harmfully affected by climate change. Many of the tipping points for positive feedback loops have already been passed. Do whatever you think is prudent.

Feedback
Ice-albedo feedback (or snow-albedo feedback) is a positive feedback climate process where a change in the area of snow-covered land, ice caps, glaciers or sea ice alters the albedo. This change in albedo acts to reinforce the initial alteration in ice area. …warming tends to decrease ice cover and hence the albedo, increasing the amount of solar energy absorbed, leading to more warming.

The effect has mostly been discussed in terms of the recent trend of declining Arctic sea ice.
Source…

Just one example of what is becoming a large number of instances where climate models have underestimated the speed of climate change.

Greenland Ice Sheet Melting 600 Percent Faster Than Predicted by Current Models​
 
vz71 said:
Accusations of murder of people that do not exist is not scientific fact.
Nevertheless you appear convinced that I as well as others stand guilty of murder.
Your own writing indicates the accusations are merely rhetoric.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately CC is already contributing various harms that do lead to the death of people, so it is not only people in the future (our descendants) who are at risk from CC harms. However, if we do all we can to reduce our contributions to CC, then perhaps less people will be harmed by CC and its knock-on effects in the future.

OTOH, if we continue down a profligate inefficient prodigal path of maintaining or increasing our contributions to CC, then perhaps so many people will be harmed and killed sooner (say, within 500 years), that there will be less people, say, in 500 or 1000 years, to be harmed by CC. Maybe that would mean less people in total harmed and killed in the long-run due to a severe early “culling” due to CC and its effects.

It’s sort of like property damage from CC effects. Once cyclones enhanced by CC have totally demolished all the buildings & structures (sort of like what has been happening in parts of the Philippines in recent years), then the further increase in those same cyclones would not have done much more harm, since there isn’t anything left to harm. While a world without the added CC effects may not have led to those structures being demolished, but to much less damage.

Or floods. Once the levees have been breached and flood waters (enhanced by CC) have flooded out human habitat areas, then extra inches of flooding due to CC may not cause much more harm. While a world without the CC effects may not have led to those levees being breached in the first place.
 
vz71 said:
Actually, yes.
The accusation was written in this forum.

As to legal proceedings, no.
Click to expand...
You didn’t my other questions: Do you think it virtuous to run a guilt trip on others who are doing in, their personal lives, what they believe to be a prudent response to mitigate the climate change? In other words do two wrongs make a right?
 
frobert said:
You didn’t my other questions: Do you think it virtuous to run a guilt trip on others who are doing in, their personal lives, what they believe to be a prudent response to mitigate the climate change? In other words do two wrongs make a right?
Click to expand...
It is not a guilt trip.
It is a commentary on the ridiculous notion that people can be guilty of murdering someone that does not exist.

While the individual sits back and hurls such accusations, I am noting that their lifestyle does not at all reflect that they really believe in these lives they accuse others of killing.

In other words, they do not even believe themselves.
I am merely pushing it to the logical end.

It is a hypocrisy that one will throw around terms such as murder and killing while at the same time not living to their fullest the value of these lives.
 
vz71 said:
It is a hypocrisy that one will throw around terms such as murder and killing while at the same time not living to their fullest the value of these lives.
Click to expand...
In a way our western and especially our US use of fossil fuels are in fact killing people. If not about resources what do you think our endless wars in the Middle East and No Africa are about? Are you and I killing them personally, of course not, but we do bear responsibility. The US makes up 5% of the world population yet uses 20% of the world’s fossil fuels and nearly as much of most other natural resources.

By reducing her energy 60% lynnvinc is well beyond the trivial and well beyond being hypocritical. Most of us, myself included can do much much more and will probably be forced to do so in the future. I think it was Dick Cheney who said our lifestyle is non-negotiable but in the future we will find out that it is realty that holds the trump card in negotiations.
 
frobert said:
In a way our western and especially our US use of fossil fuels are in fact killing people. If not about resources what do you think our endless wars in the Middle East and No Africa are about? Are you and I killing them personally, of course not, but we do bear responsibility. The US makes up 5% of the world population yet uses 20% of the world’s fossil fuels and nearly as much of most other natural resources.

By reducing her energy 60% lynnvinc is well beyond the trivial and well beyond being hypocritical. Most of us, myself included can do much much more and will probably be forced to do so in the future. I think it was Dick Cheney who said our lifestyle is non-negotiable but in the future we will find out that it is realty that holds the trump card in negotiations.
Click to expand...
Plus we can point out that by causing serious problems thru climate change – diminishing a life-sustaining environment & resources (food, potable water, etc) – we are probably also contributing to social unrest, conflict, and wars. There has been a lot of study on that, including Pentagon studies.
 
In a way I am not upset with vz71 grilling me and being obviously angry that I’m pointing out that we are harming and killing people by our contributions to CC.

In fact, what it means to me is that he/she is alive, while so many Catholics appear to be “zombie-like,” just going thru the rituals and readings without much serious attention or genuine feelings. And, let’s face it, we are all a bit guilty of that.

I’ve been saying the Divine Office (morning and evening prayer) for over 27 years, but just recently (in the context of doing research on Dalit (untouchable) Catholics in India – the very poorest and oppressed of the poor – and their persecution by caste Catholics and the Catholic Church in India) I was saying the Magnificat during Evening Prayer, and suddenly came to realize after all these years of saying it that Mary was (is) a radical, perhaps well to the left of progressives in the US.

Read it slowly, without dismissing its words as empty platitudes to be ignored, and you’ll see what I mean. Especially: “He has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich [such as we who are contributing most to CC and destroying the food productivity of the poor, or those who are oppressing and harming Dalits] he has sent away empty.”

Pretty frightening.

RE live vs. zombie-like. When I first became a lay Carmelite in 1989 and started reading the works of the saints, I felt the readings were alive vs. other readings, esp in the secular world, which seemed dead.

So to me vz71 is alive (he/she feels), while many others are more zombie-like.
 
Theo520 said:
Ice that’s already floating on the water isn’t holding back anything when it breaks off.
Click to expand...
Do you have any authoritative proof of that claim? It seems to me that ice that is attached to the mainland ice can slow glacial slide whether or not it is supported by water.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Do you have any authoritative proof of that claim? It seems to me that ice that is attached to the mainland ice can slow glacial slide whether or not it is supported by water.
Click to expand...
Did you consider asking Lynn to substantiate her claim? I think one unsubstantiated claim is as valid as another.

Ender
 
Ender said:
Did you consider asking Lynn to substantiate her claim? I think one unsubstantiated claim is as valid as another.

Ender
Click to expand...
An unsubstantiated claim deserves to be challenged as unsubstantiated, not countered with another unsubstantiated claim.
 
Ender said:
Did you consider asking Lynn to substantiate her claim? I think one unsubstantiated claim is as valid as another.

Ender
Click to expand...
I only saw what was in the video. However, I have heard that there is some ice shelves there in Antarctica (I don’t know where or which ones) that are holding the ice on land back from sliding into the ocean. Maybe this was one of those. I look into it later…
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Do you have any authoritative proof of that claim? It seems to me that ice that is attached to the mainland ice can slow glacial slide whether or not it is supported by water.
Click to expand...
A basic understanding of physics shows my truth to be self evident.
Water provides no friction to resist the moving ice.
Only ice on land sees significant friction as it pushes down from the higher altitude
Water is a lubricant, it doesn’t have a ‘friction coefficient’

You’d have a stronger argument that ice on the water is pulling the land based glacier out to sea.
 
Theo520 said:
A basic understanding of physics shows my truth to be self evident.
Water provides no friction to resist the moving ice.
Only ice on land sees significant friction as it pushes down from the higher altitude
Water is a lubricant, it doesn’t have a ‘friction coefficient’

You’d have a stronger argument that ice on the water is pulling the land based glacier out to sea.
Click to expand...
 
Theo520 said:
A basic understanding of physics shows my truth to be self evident.
Water provides no friction to resist the moving ice.
Only ice on land sees significant friction as it pushes down from the higher altitude
Water is a lubricant, it doesn’t have a ‘friction coefficient’

You’d have a stronger argument that ice on the water is pulling the land based glacier out to sea.
Click to expand...
Up until the floating ice broke off, it was solidly connected to parts of the mainland ice that are not part of the glacier and were not moving. This connection to land makes it possible to exert a force on the glacier.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top