Ocean News

When the ice caps return to depress the Canadian Shield Miami will rise again.

 

This is what may happen to Miami between now and then...



PS
Glad your house survived

 

This is from someone who rebuked me saying: "But really, it's not your wardrobe color that is important, but the quality of your arguments on the relevant topics."

 

I'll take it from Leonardo

 

Bleak outlook for Asian glaciers | GEO.TV

A study published in the journal Nature says that under the impossibly-best scenario of holding temperature increases to 1.5C, one-third of the volume of Asia's glacier will have melted by the end of this century. With warming of 3.5C, 4.0C and 6.0C, Asian glacier losses could amount to 49 percent, 51 percent or 65 percent, respectively, by the end of the century. The loss of these glaciers would be critical as they feed many of the world´s great rivers, including the Ganges, the Indus and the Brahmaputra, upon which hundreds of millions of people depend.

Himalayas​

 

If instead of well thought out statements you want to post pretty pictures, compare the glaciers from the 1600s to those of 8000 years ago. That would be a really dramatic reduction. It must've been the arrowhead factories that caused it.

 

Possibly the basket weavers had a hand in it.

 

Doing what?

So, list the advantages of global warming.

 

In a court that would be called frivolous litigation, on the internet there is a different term.

They aren't.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/lakes-worldwide-feel-heat-climate-change

It isn't.
Guest post: The state of the Greenland ice sheet in 2015 | Carbon Brief https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-the-state-of-the-greenland-ice-sheet-in-2015

They got trapped.
Rescue from Antarctica | Alok Jha https://www.theguardian.com/science/antarctica-live/2014/feb/28/-sp-rescue-from-antarctica

I'm sure that in your mind you imagine the water suddenly froze all around them because of cold weather, which obviously proves the climate is getting colder, which by default proves AGW is a bogus, Deep State conspiracy to steal your money and freedom.
What actually happened was they got trapped by drift ice that suddenly got blown in and which then amalgamated into pack ice all around them. That is a weather event, and has little to do with climate change.
The type of ice that trapped them does have something to do with climate change though. They'd been motoring through thin, 1 year old seasonal sea ice with no problem, but the ice that was blown in overnight, that then packed and trapped them was multi year old ice from land ice and glaciers.
That ice was there because AGW had caused it to break loose from where it had been for years or decades or millennia.

Global warming is real.
What is imaginary is your notion that you understand the things you go on about.

 

The biomass will increase, new species will develop, oil and coal reserves will be repleted.

 

5% Chance of ‘Catastrophic’ Global Warming by Century’s End | Times of San Diego

A new study by Scripps Institution of Oceanography finds a 5 percent chance that rapid global warming will be “catastrophic” or worse for the human race.

“When we say 5 percent-probability high-impact event, people may dismiss it as small but it is equivalent to a one-in-20 chance the plane you are about to board will crash,” said Ramanathan. “We would never get on that plane with a one-in-20 chance of it coming down but we are willing to send our children and grandchildren on that plane.”

From the Scripps' study:

 

You guys always make so many predictions so far into the future so as to make checking veracity of claims more difficult. Most of these predictions have turned out to be false. I don't believe you.

 

The reason you never post any cites to back up your claims is because your claims are pulled out of your pocket, so to speak, or are from proven liars and corporate shills and are indefensible. You don't believe 97% of scientists but you believe in an imaginary guy in the sky. Your own veracity is very questionable.

You popped off a bunch of baseless claims, I showed they were wrong, but you don't say anything about that. You just blurt out more.

So, what predictions have turned out to be false?

Predictions that were made and have already come true, predictions of what will happen next year, or in 10 years are not far into the future. Predictions of what will happen in 100 years are not far into the future. You believe you'll be sitting in the clouds playing a harp for eternity and yet here you are complaining about 'so far into the future'.

 

It's not actually known how long it takes for oil to form, but it's generally thought to be hundreds of thousands of years. That seems to be a pretty useless advantage.

It's estimated that within a hundred years or so, 1/6 to 1/4 of current species will be extinct. It is also estimated that it takes from one generation to millions of years for a new species to develop. What advantage is there to wiping out what is already here? What advantage is there to new species developing that are completely unknown? What earthly advantage can there be to a crap shoot of possible new species that take hundreds of thousands of years to develop?

Biomass may increase or it may not. What is the advantage of more biomass anyway?