Up To 65 Percent Of Asia's Glaciers Could Be Lost By 2100 Thanks To Climate Change


B00Mer
#1
Up To 65 Percent Of Asia's Glaciers Could Be Lost By 2100 Thanks To Climate Change | IFLScience
 
Danbones
+2
#2  Top Rated Post
Well, but then we could have two mile high glaciers like the good ol days...which melted...
and the sea levels rose (almost 400 feet)...and THEN man got civilization happening....

Say, hows the real estate value of Al Gore's sea side estate which he bought with his climate change money doing?
 
B00Mer
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by Danbones View Post

Well, but then we could have two mile high glaciers like the good ol days...which melted...
and the sea levels rose (almost 400 feet)...and THEN man got civilization happening....

Say, hows the real estate value of Al Gore's sea side estate which he bought with his climate change money doing?

Don't know, you tell me....

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...climate-change

https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-07-...g-matter-faith

Climate change map: Much of coastal U.S. under water by 2100, estimates show - Sun Sentinel
 
Durry
-1
#4
Time to reduce the population, less people, less GHGs.

Gotta implement birth control in many of these useless, high birth rate, countries.
 
JLM
+1
#5
The operative words are "could be"!
 
DaSleeper
#6


 
Walter
#7
Glaciers could double in size by 2100 due to climate change.
 
captain morgan
+1
#8
If only there was something we could do
 
coldstream
+1
#9
NONE of the AGW's catastrophic predictions have been realized. They have to be continually adjusted to reflect the sheer nonexistence of systemic planetary warming.. much less that which can be attributed to human carbon emissions.

The whole scam has become an exercize in smoke and mirrors, drawing on selective examples, which disappear and are never heard of again once they fall into familiar cycles and patterns.

Why should this be any different than the disapperaring polar ice which magically reappeared in record amounts 2 years after its disappearance was declared permanent by the AGW industry and their running dogs in the popular press. The failure of the prediction was, of course, deemed unnewsworthy.. and we moved on to the next calamitous prognosis. It's fodder for fools.
 
petros
+2
#10
What is wrong with climate change? Y'all wanted to save the rainforest and now you don't want the entire earth enveloped in rainforest?

WTF?
 
petros
#11
Global cooling can be thwarted with geoengineering - Washington Times
 
pgs
+1
#12
Without even reading the article I can say with definite certainty that the author COULD be dead and forgotten by 2100 .
 
Jinentonix
#13
Hmmm let's see. It took the Greenland ice sheet about 400 years to extend from the northern part of the island all the way down through the interior. Why is it so shocking when they go in reverse at about the same speed?
Better yet, why do people insist on thinking that the climate during an inter-glacial period is the way it's always supposed to be.

Maybe you didn't catch the memo there Boomer, but just before the start of the Industrial Revolution the Little Ice Age came to an end. Now, this isn't rocket science so you should be able to figure out what happens when things are no longer subjected to cold temperatures. You can even do an experiment right in your own home to see this effect. 1)Take a tray of ice cubes out of the freezer. 2) Wait a bit. 3) Observe how the ice melted after it was no longer subjected to freezing temps. 4) Realize you've bought into a global scam the likes of which has never been seen or attempted before.

You know, I would buy the argument that this is all for the future of our children and grandchildren, but the same dickbags pushing this argument are pretty much the same dickbags who are selling those kids' future out by going into massive debt to give money away to other countries, just because we're soooo goddam nice and caring. "Oh look at me virtue signalling by giving away money I don't have to poor countries."

And it's the same dickbags who shoved globalism on us as well. If AGW is your big panty twister then globalization would merely exacerbate the situation.

We're also not going to build the Energy East pipeline because somehow, it's more environmentally friendly to get our oil from a war torn region, from a country that's the world's largest sponsor of islamic terrorism, to be shipped across thousands of miles of open ocean on ships that generate more GHGs than every ICE powered vehicle in Canada.

Yeah, when govts actually do something other than erect giant whirlygigs and mirrors in a rather impotent gesture to "save the planet", come wake me.
 
tay
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeper View Post



Yes but this one doesn't count because it's in the 'Faith' thread .........