Remember me
▼ Content

East Antarctic Ice Shelf Weaknesses



Page 2 of 6<1234>>>
20-01-2017 19:41
thaw
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
It's easy to rebuild London after the blitz. Your q was about cost and you can read that again.
" 970,000 homes in the 2020s, £2.2bn a year,
"A National Assessment of Flood Risk", UK Environmental Agency, 2009 said a sixth of UK homes are at risk of flooding.
20-01-2017 23:57
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1132)
thaw wrote:
It's easy to rebuild London after the blitz. Your q was about cost and you can read that again.
" 970,000 homes in the 2020s, £2.2bn a year,
"A National Assessment of Flood Risk", UK Environmental Agency, 2009 said a sixth of UK homes are at risk of flooding.


So for the third time,

3 days ago I said;

Please link to a property on google maps and we can look at how easy it would be to protect.




You have avoided doing that because you know that we will look at it and see that it will be very easy to protect from the worste case scenario of sea level rise.


Let us talk about a specific place and see exactly what would be needed to protect against sea level rise.

The flooding in the UK has nothing to do with sea level rise. The buildings you are talking about in that report are almost all inland.

Try to stay on topic.
21-01-2017 00:18
thaw
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
If English is your first language at home you would fully comprehend that quote:
"..to keep pace with climate change.."
"£20m more, each and every year out to 2035 to keep pace with climate change. According to the Met Office December 2013 and January 2014 were the wettest since records began in 1910. The effects of flooding cost the country about £2.2bn a year, compared with the less than £1bn spent on flood protection and management."

If you need 20 x 1 ft of pipes you need 20 ft.
Tim if you have a nice google map of Grimsby-under-sea then let it rip.
Edited on 21-01-2017 00:20
21-01-2017 16:44
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1132)
thaw wrote:
If English is your first language at home you would fully comprehend that quote:
"..to keep pace with climate change.."
"£20m more, each and every year out to 2035 to keep pace with climate change. According to the Met Office December 2013 and January 2014 were the wettest since records began in 1910. The effects of flooding cost the country about £2.2bn a year, compared with the less than £1bn spent on flood protection and management."

If you need 20 x 1 ft of pipes you need 20 ft.
Tim if you have a nice google map of Grimsby-under-sea then let it rip.


Yet again, choose a single place that is likely to be affected by sea level rise.

Then we can look at how much of a problem that will be.

I fully undersand why you wish to avoid thinking about this.
21-01-2017 20:22
thaw
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
Grimsby-under-sea
22-01-2017 11:28
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1132)
thaw wrote:
Grimsby-under-sea


Do you think that Grimsby will be flooded by a 3 feet sea level increase?

How much do you think they will have to add to the defences to stop that? 1m of concrete wall?
22-01-2017 12:00
thaw
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
yes at 1 billion pounds a year for 1 country just for water. Agricultural damages for wet / dry changes on top of that.
22-01-2017 14:27
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1132)
thaw wrote:
yes at 1 billion pounds a year for 1 country just for water. Agricultural damages for wet / dry changes on top of that.


You think it will take a billion pounds per year to build a 1m high concrete wall around Grimsby???

You and I live on different planets!!
22-01-2017 18:36
spot
★★★☆☆
(925)
Tim the plumber wrote:
thaw wrote:
yes at 1 billion pounds a year for 1 country just for water. Agricultural damages for wet / dry changes on top of that.


You think it will take a billion pounds per year to build a 1m high concrete wall around Grimsby???

You and I live on different planets!!


And you did not read what was written.

Anway defending Grimsby properly against rising sea levels or any other coastal settlement would not be a trivial cost, what services would you cut to pay for it? Or do you think people will vote for someone willing to stump up the extra money in taxes?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
22-01-2017 19:47
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
http://myhealthbowl.com/2017/01/21/antarctic-ice-shelf-rift-grows-as-massive-chunk-tries-to.html
As the Larsen C is about to separate from Antarctica, this article has some new or in-depth quotes:
1) If Larsen C goes the way of A and B, it will join a dozen other major ice shelves that have either broken up or significantly retreated in the last few decades, including Prince Gustav Channel, Larsen Inlet, Wordie, Muller, Jones Channel, and Wilkins, the BBC reports. (I report that many of the ice shelves were 4000 to 10,000+ years old.)
2) Researchers.... reported.... it.... expanding another six miles in just the past two weeks.
3) We have previously shown that the new configuration will be less stable than it was prior to the rift....
22-01-2017 20:27
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1132)
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
thaw wrote:
yes at 1 billion pounds a year for 1 country just for water. Agricultural damages for wet / dry changes on top of that.


You think it will take a billion pounds per year to build a 1m high concrete wall around Grimsby???

You and I live on different planets!!


And you did not read what was written.

Anway defending Grimsby properly against rising sea levels or any other coastal settlement would not be a trivial cost, what services would you cut to pay for it? Or do you think people will vote for someone willing to stump up the extra money in taxes?


Having been on Google maps, Grimsby and Immingham could be walled all around witha 45km wall.

At £200 a meter that's 2 million pounds.

I know that it would be more expensive due to the legal hoops and the other not actual building costs but then most of it would be unnecessary.

2 million pounds by 2100 is less than that area will spend on traffic lights.
22-01-2017 21:01
spot
★★★☆☆
(925)
Do you have any expertise in civil engineering or are you just pulling all these numbers out of your arse again?

Like when you said that it was 2 grand for the budget of the ICEBRIGE program that you never heard of till I told you about it?

Or when you tried to tell me the Andes were above the troposphere.

Or when you said the warmer the better when it comes to the oats crop?

Or when you tried to tell us that more precipitation falls on Greenland then the Mississippi basin by orders of magnitude?

Just want to be sure that what you say has some basis in reality for a change and you are not thinking; "I'll post just random numbers and people might be fooled into thinking that I'm smart.".

Thanks xx
23-01-2017 17:32
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
Tim the plumber wrote: 2 million pounds by 2100 is less than that area will spend on traffic lights.


Miami just spent $400 million.... & that was just to pump water back to the ocean after a storm surge inundates downtown streets. More money is being spent to raise streets & the most vulnerable buildings. & that isn't enough.
23-01-2017 19:04
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1132)
spot wrote:
Do you have any expertise in civil engineering or are you just pulling all these numbers out of your arse again?

Like when you said that it was 2 grand for the budget of the ICEBRIGE program that you never heard of till I told you about it?

Or when you tried to tell me the Andes were above the troposphere.

Or when you said the warmer the better when it comes to the oats crop?

Or when you tried to tell us that more precipitation falls on Greenland then the Mississippi basin by orders of magnitude?

Just want to be sure that what you say has some basis in reality for a change and you are not thinking; "I'll post just random numbers and people might be fooled into thinking that I'm smart.".

Thanks xx


That is how much, £200/m I would expect it to cost to build a long 1m high concrete wall based on paying about £120 per cubic meter of concrete delivered and the time it would take to cut the trench, build the shuttering, remove the shuttering after pouring and then enbanking the wall both sides.

The snowfall levels over Greenland are much higher than those over the Mississippi basin and all of it is supposedly melted in a very short summer.
23-01-2017 19:44
spot
★★★☆☆
(925)
Why do you expect it to cost that much, we both have Google, you don't think the costs of projects like that are reported on? you don't think I checked? You expect to get away with such stupidity?
24-01-2017 09:16
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
Along with major cracks, like Larsen C, Robert Scribbler also delineates the increasing Antarctic melt ponds occurring on Ice Shelves, which were rare before the 21st century:
https://robertscribbler.com/2017/01/23/abnormal-antarctic-heat-surface-melt-giant-cracks-in-ice-shelves-more-troubling-signs-of-a-world-tipping-toward-climate-chaos/
24-01-2017 23:17
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
Global sea ice extent is the lowest its ever been recorded.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2118093-global-sea-ice-is-at-lowest-level-ever-recorded/
We'll see how T-rump's new "sigh-ants" (polit unscience... including alternative facts) will diverge from truth..... global cooling starts next month. The White House website has expunged mention of man-made global warming, replacing it with exxon propaganda pr poop. Suspect many top scientists will explore employment in foreign countries. U.S. advanced science explorations of Earth have & will grind to a halt.
25-01-2017 11:15
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1132)
spot wrote:
Why do you expect it to cost that much, we both have Google, you don't think the costs of projects like that are reported on? you don't think I checked? You expect to get away with such stupidity?


You think it will be cheaper than £20million pounds to protect Grimsby and Immingham from a 1m sea level rise??

I think it would cost more due to all the costs of the legat stuff and closing roads whilst you git the diggers in etc.

But hey please tell us your guess as to what the cost would be.
02-02-2017 03:00
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
thaw wrote:
It's easy to rebuild London after the blitz. Your q was about cost and you can read that again.
" 970,000 homes in the 2020s, £2.2bn a year,
"A National Assessment of Flood Risk", UK Environmental Agency, 2009 said a sixth of UK homes are at risk of flooding.


What is your idea of "easy"? In the 60's there were still large areas in piles of rubble from the blitz. That was easy?

Or is your fear the 7" of sea level rise each century?

Earth's surface gained 115,000 km2 of water and 173,000 km2 of land over the past 30 years, including 20,135 km2 of water and 33,700 km2 of land in coastal areas.

Nature Climate Change
02-02-2017 10:14
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
thaw wrote:
It's easy to rebuild London after the blitz. Your q was about cost and you can read that again.
" 970,000 homes in the 2020s, £2.2bn a year,
"A National Assessment of Flood Risk", UK Environmental Agency, 2009 said a sixth of UK homes are at risk of flooding.


What is your idea of "easy"? In the 60's there were still large areas in piles of rubble from the blitz. That was easy?

Or is your fear the 7" of sea level rise each century?

Earth's surface gained 115,000 km2 of water and 173,000 km2 of land over the past 30 years, including 20,135 km2 of water and 33,700 km2 of land in coastal areas.

Nature Climate Change

How can the Earth be gaining both land and water? That makes no sense at all.
02-02-2017 17:21
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
thaw wrote:
It's easy to rebuild London after the blitz. Your q was about cost and you can read that again.
" 970,000 homes in the 2020s, £2.2bn a year,
"A National Assessment of Flood Risk", UK Environmental Agency, 2009 said a sixth of UK homes are at risk of flooding.


What is your idea of "easy"? In the 60's there were still large areas in piles of rubble from the blitz. That was easy?

Or is your fear the 7" of sea level rise each century?

Earth's surface gained 115,000 km2 of water and 173,000 km2 of land over the past 30 years, including 20,135 km2 of water and 33,700 km2 of land in coastal areas.

Nature Climate Change

How can the Earth be gaining both land and water? That makes no sense at all.


Perhaps if you had any idea of what you were talking about you would be so ready to make critical remarks about things you don't understand purely on the basis of a political stance
02-02-2017 17:24
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
thaw wrote:
It's easy to rebuild London after the blitz. Your q was about cost and you can read that again.
" 970,000 homes in the 2020s, £2.2bn a year,
"A National Assessment of Flood Risk", UK Environmental Agency, 2009 said a sixth of UK homes are at risk of flooding.


What is your idea of "easy"? In the 60's there were still large areas in piles of rubble from the blitz. That was easy?

Or is your fear the 7" of sea level rise each century?

Earth's surface gained 115,000 km2 of water and 173,000 km2 of land over the past 30 years, including 20,135 km2 of water and 33,700 km2 of land in coastal areas.

Nature Climate Change

How can the Earth be gaining both land and water? That makes no sense at all.


Perhaps if you had any idea of what you were talking about you would be so ready to make critical remarks about things you don't understand purely on the basis of a political stance

That's a complete non sequitur. You claimed that the Earth be gaining both land and water. How can this be so? Are you claiming that the Earth is expanding?
02-02-2017 18:48
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
thaw wrote:
It's easy to rebuild London after the blitz. Your q was about cost and you can read that again.
" 970,000 homes in the 2020s, £2.2bn a year,
"A National Assessment of Flood Risk", UK Environmental Agency, 2009 said a sixth of UK homes are at risk of flooding.


What is your idea of "easy"? In the 60's there were still large areas in piles of rubble from the blitz. That was easy?

Or is your fear the 7" of sea level rise each century?



Earth's surface gained 115,000 km2 of water and 173,000 km2 of land over the past 30 years, including 20,135 km2 of water and 33,700 km2 of land in coastal areas.

Nature Climate Change

How can the Earth be gaining both land and water? That makes no sense at all.


Perhaps if you had any idea of what you were talking about you would be so ready to make critical remarks about things you don't understand purely on the basis of a political stance

That's a complete non sequitur. You claimed that the Earth be gaining both land and water. How can this be so? Are you claiming that the Earth is expanding?


"The geological stability and existence of low-lying atoll nations is threatened by sea-level rise and climate change. Funafuti Atoll, in the tropical Pacific Ocean, has experienced some of the highest rates of sea-level rise (∼5.1 ± 0.7 mm/yr), totaling ∼0.30 ± 0.04 m over the past 60 yr. We analyzed six time slices of shoreline position over the past 118 yr at 29 islands of Funafuti Atoll to determine their physical response to recent sea-level rise. Despite the magnitude of this rise, no islands have been lost, the majority have enlarged, and there has been a 7.3% increase in net island area over the past century (A.D. 1897–2013). "

- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/01/new-papers-confirm-sea-levels-arent-rising-fast-enough-coastal-land-area-growing-not-shrinking/#sthash.WaxmdDIA.dpuf

Perhaps you can explain why you are so stupid you cannot actually look these things up yourself? Is it because you have a political agenda and not one iota of scientific knowledge?
02-02-2017 19:02
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
thaw wrote:
It's easy to rebuild London after the blitz. Your q was about cost and you can read that again.
" 970,000 homes in the 2020s, £2.2bn a year,
"A National Assessment of Flood Risk", UK Environmental Agency, 2009 said a sixth of UK homes are at risk of flooding.


What is your idea of "easy"? In the 60's there were still large areas in piles of rubble from the blitz. That was easy?

Or is your fear the 7" of sea level rise each century?



Earth's surface gained 115,000 km2 of water and 173,000 km2 of land over the past 30 years, including 20,135 km2 of water and 33,700 km2 of land in coastal areas.

Nature Climate Change

How can the Earth be gaining both land and water? That makes no sense at all.


Perhaps if you had any idea of what you were talking about you would be so ready to make critical remarks about things you don't understand purely on the basis of a political stance

That's a complete non sequitur. You claimed that the Earth be gaining both land and water. How can this be so? Are you claiming that the Earth is expanding?


"The geological stability and existence of low-lying atoll nations is threatened by sea-level rise and climate change. Funafuti Atoll, in the tropical Pacific Ocean, has experienced some of the highest rates of sea-level rise (∼5.1 ± 0.7 mm/yr), totaling ∼0.30 ± 0.04 m over the past 60 yr. We analyzed six time slices of shoreline position over the past 118 yr at 29 islands of Funafuti Atoll to determine their physical response to recent sea-level rise. Despite the magnitude of this rise, no islands have been lost, the majority have enlarged, and there has been a 7.3% increase in net island area over the past century (A.D. 1897–2013). "

- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/01/new-papers-confirm-sea-levels-arent-rising-fast-enough-coastal-land-area-growing-not-shrinking/#sthash.WaxmdDIA.dpuf

Perhaps you can explain why you are so stupid you cannot actually look these things up yourself? Is it because you have a political agenda and not one iota of scientific knowledge?

You claimed that the Earth's surface is gaining both land and water. The passage you quoted does nothing to clarify your claim. How can the Earth be gaining both land and water?
02-02-2017 19:14
spot
★★★☆☆
(925)
I'm wondering if he reads the responses to his posts or it's just a matter of copy-pasting any random crap until his opponent gives up.
02-02-2017 19:24
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(997)
Surface Detail wrote:
How can the Earth be gaining both land and water?


Hey, I'd still like to know how CO2 causes drought and flooding rains.

And don't tell me we can't discuss weather and climate change together because climate is by definition the average of all weather.


02-02-2017 19:33
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
How can the Earth be gaining both land and water?


Hey, I'd still like to know how CO2 causes drought and flooding rains.

And don't tell me we can't discuss weather and climate change together because climate is by definition the average of all weather.

That's a perfectly reasonable question, but first I'd like to find out WTF Wake is going on about when he/she claims that the Earth is gaining both land and water. You got any idea?
02-02-2017 19:34
spot
★★★☆☆
(925)
It heats up the atmosphere disrupting weather patterns.


fool


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
02-02-2017 19:46
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(997)
Just that simple? Huh.

You people will steer clear of natural drivers at all cost. Pathetic.
03-02-2017 00:22
spot
★★★☆☆
(925)
Well its the reason in a nutshell, if you were really interested you could look into it.

Like I could about these natural drivers, What exactly does that even mean? Tell me all about them. Do they always counteract non-natural drivers? Do you think that people who study this stuff are unaware. Do you think there is a conspiracy to promote non-natural drivers vs natural drivers in the public mind?
03-02-2017 00:27
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
In early January, 2017 some bettors gave odds, whether Larsen C would calve in January, February, March or latter. Now that January is over, I don't see any bets being held....
http://www.paddypower.com/bet?action=go_event&category=SPECIALS&ev_class_id=45&ev_type_id=28524&ev_id=11685222&force_racing_css=&ev_desc=When%20will%20the%20next%20Iceberg%20detach%20from%20the%20Larsen%20C%20Ice%20Shelf
03-02-2017 00:56
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(997)
spot wrote:
Well its the reason in a nutshell, if you were really interested you could look into it.

Like I could about these natural drivers, What exactly does that even mean?


What I mean is that you are a perfect lib who can't stand the thought of not being in control, proven by your unwillingness to even talk about anything that happens naturally. You can't control what happens naturally. After all, that's what this entire debate is really about...control over the worlds resources.

I say flooding and drought happens 100% naturally. You said CO2 causes increased flooding and drought. I say prove it and I've still got nothin intelligent from you.


03-02-2017 12:51
spot
★★★☆☆
(925)
Sure I'm willing to talk about it but it seems I'm the one who has to do all the reserch, decipher what exactly you are referring to, only for you to counter with some half remembered thing you might have read on a blog and we are back to square one.
03-02-2017 13:55
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
spot wrote:..I'm the one who has to do all the research, decipher what exactly you are referring to, only for you to counter with some half remembered thing you might have read on a blog and we are back to square one.

Ah.... you know those old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' AGW denier liar whiners well, I see. Oh, yeah, they never present information & research that they could have done, IF they had taken science chemistry astronomy physics algebra & pre-calc in their non-existent hi skule DEE-plooomaas.
03-02-2017 18:02
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
That's a perfectly reasonable question, but first I'd like to find out WTF Wake is going on about when he/she claims that the Earth is gaining both land and water. You got any idea?


So information from satellite surveys is MY claim? Showing that where sea levels have risen the most the islands, by actual measure, have grown is MY claim?

Why are you quaking in fear and asking me to hold your hand instead of looking it up yourself? Is this the sort of scientist you are?

This actually most important because you demonstrate that the Global Warmies are nothing more than a pack of sheep with nothing more behind them than a political agenda. You don't even know who the flock herder is.

Here's a clue - he has made almost a trillion dollars crashing the economies of half the world.
03-02-2017 18:05
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
spot wrote:
It heats up the atmosphere disrupting weather patterns.


fool


Where have these weather patterns been disrupted? After all, there has been not one single weather pattern that is outside of the norm.
03-02-2017 18:31
spot
★★★☆☆
(925)
Well for a start;


http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/%E2%80%98beyond-the-extreme%E2%80%99-scientists-marvel-at-%E2%80%98increasingly-non-natural%E2%80%99-arctic-warmth/ar-AAmvwVZ?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp
03-02-2017 18:45
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(997)
spot wrote:
Well for a start;


http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/%E2%80%98beyond-the-extreme%E2%80%99-scientists-marvel-at-%E2%80%98increasingly-non-natural%E2%80%99-arctic-warmth/ar-AAmvwVZ?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp



Nothing in here about global flooding rain and drought...just another localized weather event.


03-02-2017 18:49
spot
★★★☆☆
(925)
Scientists marvel at 'increasingly non-natural' Arctic warmth,

Whats just normal and run of the mill about that?
03-02-2017 19:05
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
Tim the plumber wrote:
thaw wrote:
It's easy to rebuild London after the blitz. Your q was about cost and you can read that again.
" 970,000 homes in the 2020s, £2.2bn a year,
"A National Assessment of Flood Risk", UK Environmental Agency, 2009 said a sixth of UK homes are at risk of flooding.


So for the third time,

3 days ago I said;

Please link to a property on google maps and we can look at how easy it would be to protect.




You have avoided doing that because you know that we will look at it and see that it will be very easy to protect from the worste case scenario of sea level rise.


Let us talk about a specific place and see exactly what would be needed to protect against sea level rise.

The flooding in the UK has nothing to do with sea level rise. The buildings you are talking about in that report are almost all inland.

Try to stay on topic.


The greater part of Holland is below Sea Level and has been for over 100 years. The highest point in Holland is only 1000 feet or so. Will they disappear beneath the waves in rising sea levels? Of course not, they already have sea walls in place and need only extend them in the worst possible scenario.
Page 2 of 6<1234>>>





Join the debate East Antarctic Ice Shelf Weaknesses:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Antarctic ice melting faster than ever, studies show3218-06-2018 20:14
Headed For A New Ice Age? Latest Data Says Yes!1505-05-2018 01:44
Arctic ice still rapidly decreasing10330-03-2018 23:34
Winter Sea Ice Sets Record525-03-2018 18:27
Change in sea volume due to sea ice melting4320-03-2018 21:09
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact