PDA

View Full Version : Thinning glaciers



WX
08-14-2009, 08:34 AM
The Arctic...now the Antarctic, which is much more serious.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8200680.stm

Pirate-at-heart
08-14-2009, 08:37 AM
youre right to post this, WX. a good man should care deeply about global warming.
thanks and cheers to you this fine friday.

TimmS
08-14-2009, 08:49 AM
I was just in Europe. We dove through the Swiss alps and over the Furka pass. The Rhône Glacier is shrinking at an alarming rate. They have an exhibit of photos similar to the ones shown here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rh%C3%B4ne_Glacier) Why are there still people who deny global warming?

J P
08-14-2009, 09:50 AM
Why are there still people who deny global warming?

Bad for business.

:mad:

Glacier National Park's namesake glaciers are predicted to be gone by 2030.

http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/glacier_model.htm

George Roberts
08-14-2009, 09:57 AM
"Why are there still people who deny global warming?"

We once had an ice age. Huge amounts of ice. Much more than in the past couple of centuries. Most of it melted. People liked the warmth. They prospered.

But in any case, it does not really matter if people deny global warming or not. A best (worse?) case analysis shows that there is not much difference between doing nothing and doing everything possible.

I read that in India and Western China ground water is being consumed faster than it is being replenished. 600 million thirsty people are a much bigger concern.

Cuyahoga Chuck
08-14-2009, 12:21 PM
"Why are there still people who deny global warming?"

We once had an ice age. Huge amounts of ice. Much more than in the past couple of centuries. Most of it melted. People liked the warmth. They prospered.

People, like all living things, are genetically programed to operate in a certain climatic niche. Man, because of his intellectual creativity has found ways to exist in a large array of climatic conditions. But the things man requires to survive don't have that same capability. If a climatic nich goes away things that live in that nich may die out. If some of what dies out are the things that supplies man with his daily sustinence man's numbers or or even his existence is imperiled.
For Oklahomans the critical commodity is water. Oklahomans drink from water impoundments on their rivers or, possibly, the Oglala Aquifer. Both of these depend on the vicissitudes of good ol' Mother Nature.


"Hey, Okie, if you see Arkie
Tell 'em Tex has got a job for him
Down in Californie
Diggin' oil wells
Playin'fiddle in the follies."

W. Guthrie

George Roberts
08-14-2009, 12:44 PM
"For Oklahomens the critical commodity is water."

I doubt that. Oklahomens are really smart. In the 30's (???) they learned that water was available elsewhere and moved. It seems that mother nature cannot shut the rain off everywhere.

Rigadog
08-16-2009, 03:13 PM
"For Oklahomens the critical commodity is water."

I doubt that. Oklahomens are really smart. In the 30's (???) they learned that water was available elsewhere and moved. It seems that mother nature cannot shut the rain off everywhere.

Just click your heels together.

TimmS
08-16-2009, 04:43 PM
My question was why there are still people who deny global warming. I can see that admitting to it would be bad for business......that one makes sense in a very short term outlook. Shame on those of you who think the earth is only here to serve you and do not give a **** about ruining it. We are all in this together and our children and their children will have to live with our choices.

Shang
08-16-2009, 04:55 PM
In our town they drilled deep wells to assure an adequate water supply--unfortunately the drilled into a huge salt deposit, so now the town operates a desalinization plant to make the water drinkable.

Up at the lake we are more fortunate. We don't draw our water from the lake, instead we rely on a drilled well that draws from huge underground water caves. There's no large industry in the area so the supply is probably assured.

jack grebe
08-16-2009, 05:11 PM
I don't deny global warming, I question whether it is
man made.

Paul Pless
08-16-2009, 05:15 PM
Up at the lake we are more fortunate. We don't draw our water from the lake, instead we rely on a drilled well that draws from huge underground water caves. There's no large industry in the area so the supply is probably assured.Lake of the Ozarks, right? Its my understanding that large impoundments actually almost ensure high quality aquifer wells nearby, by increasing the hydrological pressure in the aquifer.

BrianW
08-16-2009, 05:17 PM
Man we are always searching for water around here. ;)

...and game, and fish.

:D

WX
08-16-2009, 05:25 PM
In reference to the comment on Chinese and Indian water supplies, these come from Himalayan meltwater. Which in turn comes from glaciers, which are shrinking.
You may draw your own conclusions as to the consequences of this.

jack grebe
08-16-2009, 05:28 PM
In reference to the comment on Chinese and Indian water supplies, these come from Himalayan meltwater. Which in turn comes from glaciers, which are shrinking.
You may draw your own conclusions as to the consequences of this.
Less Chinese=fewer Walmarts:p

The Bigfella
08-16-2009, 05:59 PM
How about a list of glaciers that are growing.

http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm

Oh no - we are doomed.

NORWAY
Ålfotbreen Glacier
Briksdalsbreen Glacier
Nigardsbreen Glacier
Hardangerjøkulen Glacier
Hansebreen Glacier
Jostefonn Glacier
Engabreen glacier <FONT size=2>(The Engabreen glacier
is the second largest glacier in Norway. It is a
part (a glacial tongue) of the Svartisen glacier,
which has steadily increased in mass since the
1960s when heavier winter precipitation set in.)

CANADA
Helm Glacier
Place Glacier
Glaciers growing on Canada’s tallest mountain
17 Nov 08 – The ice-covered peak of Yukon's soaring Mount Logan
may be due for an official re-measurement after readings that suggest
this country's superlative summit has experienced a growth spurt.
See Glaciers growing on Canada’s tallest mountain (http://www.iceagenow.com/Glaciers_growing_on_Canada_tallest_mountain.htm)

France
Mt. Blanc

ECUADOR
Antizana 15 Alpha Glacier


SWITZERLAND
Silvretta Glacier


KIRGHIZTAN
Abramov


RUSSIA
Maali Glacier
GREENLAND See Greenland Icecap Growing Thicker (http://www.iceagenow.com/Greenland_Ice_Cap_Growing_Thicker.htm)
Greenland glacier advancing 7.2 miles per year! <SPAN style="mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt">The BBC recently ran
a documentary, The Big Chill, saying that we could be on the verge of an ice
age. Britain could be heading towards an Alaskan-type climate within a decade,
say scientists, because the Gulf Stream is being gradually cut off. The Gulf
Stream keeps temperatures unusually high for such a northerly latitude.

The Bigfella
08-16-2009, 06:00 PM
Plenty more at that linked site.

It seems to be something to do with climate change - which is the natural state of things on this planet.

PeterSibley
08-16-2009, 06:23 PM
It seems to be something to do with climate change - which is the natural state of things on this planet.
You are quite correct , change is normal , what is abnormal is the current rate of change .

Dan McCosh
08-16-2009, 06:49 PM
In reference to the comment on Chinese and Indian water supplies, these come from Himalayan meltwater. Which in turn comes from glaciers, which are shrinking.
You may draw your own conclusions as to the consequences of this.

If they stop melting, the Chinese and Indians will run out of water.

WX
08-16-2009, 06:53 PM
If they stop melting, the Chinese and Indians will run out of water. http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/images/buttons/quote.gif (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2289565)
At the present rate of melt and replenishment they are going to run out. The rate of melt is greater than the rate of replenishment.

George Roberts
08-16-2009, 07:02 PM
In reference to the comment on Chinese and Indian water supplies, these come from Himalayan meltwater. Which in turn comes from glaciers, which are shrinking.
You may draw your own conclusions as to the consequences of this.

My comment was about ground water not surface water.

While the ground water is replenished in part by a snow/glacier process, a simple rain cycle is as good. But that is not what the discussion is about.

The Bigfella
08-16-2009, 07:13 PM
It seems to be something to do with climate change - which is the natural state of things on this planet.
You are quite correct , change is normal , what is abnormal is the current rate of change .

.. got any proof of that? My understanding is that sea levels rose massively back in Noah's day. Isn't there also evidence of very rapid change a few hundred years back?

paladin
08-16-2009, 07:30 PM
It seems like all the experts here have no idea where all the fresh water in Oklahoma comes from......our deep wells have the largest untapped fresh water aquifers in North America....ya just gotta know where to dig and how deep.

The Bigfella
08-16-2009, 07:41 PM
Sorry to spoil the party, but rapid climate change is common on this planet - and has been for a long, long time.



Asked about the discovery of abrupt climate change, many climate experts today would put their finger on one moment: the day they read the 1993 report of the analysis of Greenland ice cores. Before that, nobody confidently believed that the climate could change massively within a decade or two; after the report, nobody felt sure that it could not.


http://www.aip.org/history/climate/rapid.htm

Milo Christensen
08-16-2009, 07:54 PM
. . . rapid climate change is common on this planet - and has been for a long, long time.


Careful you don't back yourself into a corner you can't get out of while pursuing this line of reasoning.

The Bigfella
08-16-2009, 07:59 PM
Careful you don't back yourself into a corner you can't get out of while pursuing this line of reasoning.

You need to give them a bit of a reason to pursue the argument Milo....

The only difference with rapid climate change this time round in recorded human history - is that this is the first time we can predict it in advance. The Egyptians, Mayans and others suffered from it - but didn't know what was happening in advance.

TimmS
08-16-2009, 08:27 PM
Any one seen An_Inconvenient_Truth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth) ?
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth)

Milo Christensen
08-16-2009, 08:30 PM
You need to give them a bit of a reason to pursue the argument Milo....

The only difference with rapid climate change this time round in recorded human history - is that this is the first time we can predict it in advance. The Egyptians, Mayans and others suffered from it - but didn't know what was happening in advance.

Predict a tipping point in advance, really?

Dan McCosh
08-16-2009, 08:37 PM
At the present rate of melt and replenishment they are going to run out. The rate of melt is greater than the rate of replenishment.

If the the rate of replenishment is adequate to supply the consumption, , there would be no problem, whether the glaciers are there or not.

The Bigfella
08-16-2009, 08:42 PM
Predict a tipping point in advance, really?

I'm not predicting anything. I simply pointed out that the postulation that climate change is now more rapid than ever before is bunkum.

There is accepted scientific evidence that wide scale, rapid climate change has occured many times in the past.

Shang
08-16-2009, 08:44 PM
If they stop melting, the Chinese and Indians will run out of water.

But if they continue melting the Chinese and Indians are up a dried up creek without a paddle.

Dan McCosh
08-16-2009, 08:45 PM
But if they continue melting the Chinese and Indians are up a dried up creek without a paddle.

No. If they stop melting the Chinese and Indians are up a creek.

Shang
08-16-2009, 08:45 PM
.. got any proof of that? My understanding is that sea levels rose massively back in Noah's day. Isn't there also evidence of very rapid change a few hundred years back?

Isn't it interesting that all of the animals on earth lived within walking distance of Noah's house...

Shang
08-16-2009, 08:47 PM
No. If they stop melting the Chinese and Indians are up a creek.

There's only so much ice up in the Himalayas, when that's gone what's left?

Dan McCosh
08-16-2009, 08:54 PM
There's only so much ice up in the Himalayas, when that's gone what's left?


What good is it going to do anyone who wants to drink it if it is frozen?

Shang
08-16-2009, 08:55 PM
Lake of the Ozarks, right? Its my understanding that large impoundments actually almost ensure high quality aquifer wells nearby, by increasing the hydrological pressure in the aquifer.

As a caver I've seen a some of the shallower underground pools. Wow! They are beautiful to see.
But from my home on Gulliver Ridge I see new houses being build every day, each one with its well that draws on the underground water. If the underground water is used up I suppose I could pump lake water to the house, but it's not so nice since fish phucque in it...

Shang
08-16-2009, 09:03 PM
What good is it going to do anyone who wants to drink it if it is frozen?

This isn't a brain-buster.
There is only X-amount of water contained in the ice in the Himalayas. It is melting more quickly than it is being replaced, so unless something happens to reverse the present warming trend (which doesn't seem likely) the people who depend on this water to live are going to run dry.
Since I happen to like the people of India and the surrounding areas this is distressing since there is nothing I can personally do to mitigate the situation.

As the poster says: "If you think oil is precious, wait until the water runs out !'

Kaa
08-16-2009, 09:05 PM
...this is the first time we can predict it in advance.

Really, we can...?

The forecasting record of the climate models is spotty at best...

Kaa

Dan McCosh
08-16-2009, 09:10 PM
This isn't a brain-buster.
There is only X-amount of water contained in the ice in the Himalayas. It is melting more quickly than it is being replaced, so unless something happens to reverse the present warming trend (which doesn't seem likely) the people who depend on this water to live are going to run dry.
Since I happen to like the people of India and the surrounding areas this is distressing since there is nothing I can personally do to mitigate the situation.

As the poster says: "If you think oil is precious, wait until the water runs out !'

Still don't get it. If you reverse the warming trend, the amount of water available will be less, not more, and the people who depend on it to live will run dry sooner, not later. If they are using the water faster than it is coming down from the sky, that is another issue. The glacier is simply storing it for a time--if are using it faster than it is being replaced, you are going to use it up.

BrianW
08-16-2009, 09:35 PM
This isn't a brain-buster.
There is only X-amount of water contained in the ice in the Himalayas. It is melting more quickly than it is being replaced, so unless something happens to reverse the present warming trend (which doesn't seem likely) the people who depend on this water to live are going to run dry.

Here's an interesting twist...

Just say the global warming, oops I mean global climate change, causes it to rain more in the Himalayas than it has in the past.

In that case there would be more water available, except none of it would be frozen.

In any case, if the Chinese and the Indians are drinking them, those glaciers are screwed no matter the climate.

Shang
08-16-2009, 09:37 PM
"...if [one is] ...using it faster than it is being replaced, you are going to use it up...'

Exactly.
This may happen sooner than later, or later than sooner, but it will happen-- or it is very likely that it will.
Water is already in short supply in India, they have to drill deeper and deeper to find it. The monsoons are not reliable, nor is the monsoon rain water stored.

I've seen the "river of sand" in Ahmedabad when the rains didn't come-- it is grim. And note, no glacier melt-off reaches this area.

Dan McCosh
08-16-2009, 09:40 PM
Here's an interesting twist...

Just say the global warming, oops I mean global climate change, causes it to rain more in the Himalayas than it has in the past.

In that case there would be more water available, except none of it would be frozen.

In any case, if the Chinese and the Indians are drinking them, those glaciers are screwed no matter the climate.

Might note that is why you build dams. Might check out the Colorado River.

George Roberts
08-16-2009, 09:45 PM
Still don't get it. If you reverse the warming trend, the amount of water available will be less, not more, and the people who depend on it to live will run dry sooner, not later. If they are using the water faster than it is coming down from the sky, that is another issue. The glacier is simply storing it for a time--if are using it faster than it is being replaced, you are going to use it up.

In general, the glacier issue is that glaciers store water during the snowy season and release it during the summer season. This makes the surface water flow more reliable and more year around.

Shang
08-16-2009, 10:10 PM
In general, the glacier issue is that glaciers store water during the snowy season and release it during the summer season. This makes the surface water flow more reliable and more year around.

Uhh... George...
The water in the world and in the glacier reserves is being used up more quickly than it is being replaced.
This appears to be related to Global Warming, although monsoon failures may be aggregating the situation (presumably also related to Global Warming).
When the water runs out some of the people in our global family are going to become desperate since it is only possible to live for about four days without water. They may even become desperate enough to come marching over to their neighbors to ask for a drink. Beyond the fact that there is a morality clause in our human compact, the implications are disquieting.
In the news today it was mentioned that the State Department and the CIA are discussing this matter as we speak.

If you aren't afraid you may not understand the problem.

Milo Christensen
08-16-2009, 10:44 PM
"All the water on Earth is all the water there is". R. Buckminster Fuller.

The Bigfella
08-16-2009, 11:09 PM
Gee, that's funny Tony - when you go to the source you quote, you actually do find that the majority of the glaciers I quoted actually did grow in 2006/07. Maybe instead of trying to do character assassinations, you should check the data.

The World Glacier Monitoring Service don't actually monitor all the ones in the quote that I posted, but if you scroll down to Section 2, you will see a lot of them there.

Yes, there's year on year variation, but that's to be expected - and a couple of the ones I referenced actually shrank very slightly in the two years of WGMS data. Yes, with us coming out of an ice age, its to be expected that more are shrinking than are expanding.... but how about some balance to the issue.

http://www.geo.uzh.ch/wgms/mbb/mbb10/sum07.html

Here's their 07 data for Norway for example - the numbers being the mm water equivalent mass balance change for the year:

Aalfotbreen
1270
Austdalsbreeen
180
Austre Broeggerbreen
-460
Blomstolskar



1880
Breidalblikkbrea
430
Elisebreen
n.a.
Engabreen
1030
Graafjellsbreen
780
Graasubreen
-710
Hansbreen
0
Hansebreen
840
Hardangerjoekulen
1170
Hellstugubreen
-670
Irenebreen
n.a.
Kongsvegen
-90
Langfjordjoekul
-810
Midtre Lovenbreen
-250
Nigardsbreen
1040
Rundvassbreen
n.a.
Storbreen
-390
Storglombreen
n.a.
Svelgjabreen
1350
Waldemarbreen
n.a


btw - no comment on the rapid change issue? You obviously accept that climate change has been this rapid many times in observable history?

George Roberts
08-17-2009, 12:04 AM
Uhh... George...
The water in the world and in the glacier reserves is being used up more quickly than it is being replaced.
This appears to be related to Global Warming, although monsoon failures may be aggregating the situation (presumably also related to Global Warming).
When the water runs out some of the people in our global family are going to become desperate since it is only possible to live for about four days without water. They may even become desperate enough to come marching over to their neighbors to ask for a drink. Beyond the fact that there is a morality clause in our human compact, the implications are disquieting.
In the news today it was mentioned that the State Department and the CIA are discussing this matter as we speak.

If you aren't afraid you may not understand the problem.

You don't read well. And you don't remember well.

I am the one who pointed out that subsurface water was being depleted. I might have even mentioned the consequences (But the are so obvious that they really need no mention).

I seem to be one of the few to understand the morality clause. Many time I have said that we should spend our health care dollars on countries where we can save lives for a couple dollars rather than in the US where saving lives costs thousands or millions. Perhaps those with "affordable" health care in Europe could part with some money also. How is that for a moral dilemma.

I am willing to accept that global warming is the cause of all of human suffering. I have pointed out that there are no proposals that would cool the Earth off. The best proposals allow issues like warming, sea level, and water distribution to get much worse. Don't blame me for not having a solution when no one else has one.

(I expect that killing off 99.999% of the population - leaving 6 million, might help resolve a lot of issues, but it seems unpopular.)

The Bigfella
08-17-2009, 12:30 AM
Tell me again that the glaciers are expanding. Look at all that year-on-year variation - downwards!



Tony, Tony, Tony .... how could you base a case on two year's data? It just isn't right mate.

So, I'll tell you again... some glaciers are expanding.

WX
08-17-2009, 01:00 AM
Some Norwegian glaciers are indeed expanding. This is because the North Atlantic current has moved further North bringing moist air further along the Norwegian coast. This precipitates as snow. Greenland now has more ice free Summer coastline than any other time in recorded history...not to mention increasing agriculture.
Now you can deny it has anything to do with Human activity, I don't really care because nothing we will do as a species will now make any difference...it's too late!
My reason for posting this information was more to bring to the attention of others here just what is happening.
BTW The temp predicted for the Gold Coast for today was 26c...not bad for a winters day.

The Bigfella
08-17-2009, 03:17 AM
Yep - they've been going since the 1890's IIRC - and it shows that we are coming out of an ice age.

PeterSibley
08-17-2009, 03:39 AM
Maybe Ian should give up being a management consultant and begin retraining as a climatologist .

pipefitter
08-17-2009, 03:40 AM
Although this recent study cites possible futuristic effect of "global warming", it does not use the term "man made global warming" in the article.


Release Date: June 21, 2009

BUFFALO, N.Y. -- Modern glaciers, such as those making up the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, are capable of undergoing periods of rapid shrinkage or retreat, according to new findings by paleoclimatologists at the University at Buffalo.

The paper, published on June 21 in Nature Geoscience, describes fieldwork demonstrating that a prehistoric glacier in the Canadian Arctic rapidly retreated in just a few hundred years.

The proof of such rapid retreat of ice sheets provides one of the few explicit confirmations that this phenomenon occurs.

http://www.buffalo.edu/news/10191

To those of you who keep saying that so many people are denying global warming, it is more accurate to say that many people, including many scientists, are denying or questioning that it is man made. So many of these discussions have to repeatedly include the disclaimer that there is global warming. I believe in global warming, just as I believe there has been global cooling. It would help greatly if you would set aside the alarmist theory before trying to enter into a 'constructive' scientific discussion on the topic.

It also helps to get a visual idea of the last glacial maximum, in order to understand the possibility of the recent glacial minimum(which is what we have now decided to be the norm dating back a few thousand years) in relation to geologic time scale and the possibility of rapid and exponential decrease and to note the difference of circumferential glacial mass and the reflectivity of white earth between that of the last glacial maximum to now as a possible contributor and or at least take this into account before deciding what man has decided what should be an ideal and sustainable glacial ideal.

http://thepoliticallyincorrectfish.com/pif2/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/0018.jpg

seanz
08-17-2009, 03:52 AM
C'mon people, a bit of consensus if you don't mind umpire.

What's it gunna be?


Surf or ski?

:D


The most important question of our time..........

martin schulz
08-17-2009, 04:55 AM
Why are there still people who deny global warming?

...because its just liberal media propaganda.

The Bigfella
08-17-2009, 05:32 AM
I seem to recall you saying land clearing was adding about a third of the CO2 loading, wasn't it Tony? No real data on it though. I guess 33% doesn't deserve proper investigation eh?

The Bigfella
08-17-2009, 06:05 AM
Aha! I thought it was about time to drop the ice age theory - whether coming or going, we never did decide, did we?:rolleyes:


The contribution of land clearing to the atmospheric CO2 load has been comprehensively investigated. There are whole sections of the IPCC reports devoted to it, and lots of data. Look up LULUCF - it's the IPCC acronym for Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry.

Which part hasn't been "properly investigated", dare I ask? Specifics please!:D

I guess, the part you referred to in this post ....



Large scale land clearing and agriculture can affect local climate. No-one is disputing this.

No causal connection has been drawn between land clearing and observed increases in global temperature that I know of (other than the contribution of land clearing to anthropogenic CO2 emissions).
(#10,415 on Oz Politics)

But hey... who cares?

The Bigfella
08-17-2009, 06:12 AM
LOL. No causal link has been drawn - but not through lack of investigation. Keep trying....

So.... 33% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions are due to land clearing, but there is no causal link to global warming eh?

Art Read
08-17-2009, 06:15 AM
"Scientists" and the popular media NEVER jump to conclusions, right?

__________________________________________________ __
From Time Magazine:

Another Ice Age?
Monday, Jun. 24, 1974

In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest winters within anyone's recollection.


As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.

Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world. Indeed it is the widening of this cap of cold air that is the immediate cause of Africa's drought. By blocking moisture-bearing equatorial winds and preventing them from bringing rainfall to the parched sub-Sahara region, as well as other drought-ridden areas stretching all the way from Central America to the Middle East and India, the polar winds have in effect caused the Sahara and other deserts to reach farther to the south. Paradoxically, the same vortex has created quite different weather quirks in the U.S. and other temperate zones. As the winds swirl around the globe, their southerly portions undulate like the bottom of a skirt. Cold air is pulled down across the Western U.S. and warm air is swept up to the Northeast. The collision of air masses of widely differing temperatures and humidity can create violent storms—the Midwest's recent rash of disastrous tornadoes, for example.
Sunspot Cycle. The changing weather is apparently connected with differences in the amount of energy that the earth's surface receives from the sun. Changes in the earth's tilt and distance from the sun could, for instance, significantly increase or decrease the amount of solar radiation falling on either hemisphere—thereby altering the earth's climate. Some observers have tried to connect the eleven-year sunspot cycle with climate patterns, but have so far been unable to provide a satisfactory explanation of how the cycle might be involved.


Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.

Climatic Balance. Some scientists like Donald Oilman, chief of the National Weather Service's long-range-prediction group, think that the cooling trend may be only temporary. But all agree that vastly more information is needed about the major influences on the earth's climate. Indeed, it is to gain such knowledge that 38 ships and 13 aircraft, carrying scientists from almost 70 nations, are now assembling in the Atlantic and elsewhere for a massive 100-day study of the effects of the tropical seas and atmosphere on worldwide weather. The study itself is only part of an international scientific effort known acronymically as GARP (for Global Atmospheric Research Program).

Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years.

The earth's current climate is something of an anomaly; in the past 700,000 years, there have been at least seven major episodes of glaciers spreading over much of the planet. Temperatures have been as high as they are now only about 5% of the time. But there is a peril more immediate than the prospect of another ice age. Even if temperature and rainfall patterns change only slightly in the near future in one or more of the three major grain-exporting countries—the U.S., Canada and Australia —global food stores would be sharply reduced. University of Toronto Climatologist Kenneth Hare, a former president of the Royal Meteorological Society, believes that the continuing drought and the recent failure of the Russian harvest gave the world a grim premonition of what might happen. Warns Hare: "I don't believe that the world's present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row."

The Bigfella
08-17-2009, 06:34 AM
Nah

PeterSibley
08-17-2009, 06:42 AM
Yep ,it's been a bit circular for a while .

Milo Christensen
08-17-2009, 06:46 AM
. . . So now you agree that CO2 emissions are causing global warming?

Bigfella? Nah. But we have, after hundreds of posts, gotten him to the point where he believes rapid climate change is possible.

Now, then, once he realizes that:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas and;
Humans are releasing multiple gigatonnes of CO2 annually.
Then, SNAP! We'll get him yet, Tony, keep up the good work.

PeterSibley
08-17-2009, 06:50 AM
Nah ,he'll deny the whole thing next post .

WX
08-17-2009, 07:05 AM
That's it keep denying it's happening, meanwhile the Antarctic ice shelves break up and the glaciers are collapsing.

Art Read
08-17-2009, 07:15 AM
"This particular furphy comes in at #7 on the list of these maintained by Skeptical Science."

Nice graph. Now show me a major media outlet with a rebuttal of the "Time" article. I remember those stories. Special reports at the end of the "Nightly News", local newspapers, etc... Right alongside the usual "doomsday" extrapolations of population, food/water shortages, air/water pollution, "zero sum" global economics and continent covering landfills filled with used "Pampers".... Ever read "Limits to Growth"? It's worth a look back once in a while. Keeps things in perspective.

PeterSibley
08-17-2009, 07:22 AM
"major media outlet" ? Why ?

Art Read
08-17-2009, 07:24 AM
A review of "Skeptical Science".... I guess everyone has opinions.

______________________________________________

Skeptical Science Website … So, What’s Your Point?
Posted on March 15, 2009 by Earl
There’s a website called “Skeptical Science … examining the science of global warming skepticism”, Skeptical Science: Examining Global Warming Skepticism.
While admitting that scientific skepticism is “a healthy thing”, he seems to take particular pleasure in deriding what he considers “skeptic arguments” while basically failing to put forward any arguments of his own to justify his support for “anthropogenic” global warming other than carefully picking his own sources, a number of which are becoming increasingly controversial. I suppose that’s a safe approach to take … ridicule those you disagree with while hiding in a closet with like-minded people.

There are articles on his site with numerous graphs and charts pointing out various things and there’s a lot of discourse related to those articles … if you want to delve into them. I did … regarding a few. And, I frankly found it enlightening regarding how much disagreement there was over data, trends, variables, models, and “anthropogenic” effect on global warming. I forgot to mention the cartoons he posts. I suppose they’re there for the “anthropogenic” global warming advocates that can’t read. The author of the site states,
“Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports anthropogenic
global warming and yet eagerly, even blindly embrace any argument,
op-ed piece, blog or study that refutes global warming.”
It sounds like he’s talking about himself on the other side of the argument. He goes on to say,
“So this website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do
their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed
scientific literature say?”

Yet, what does he offer in rebuttal? Frankly, nothing that I can discern other than referencing the same sources over and over again.
He conveniently lumps together people who don’t believe in global warming at all with people who are aware that global warming has been going on for tens of thousands of years but don’t wholeheartedly and blindly buy into the current fad that any recent changes in global warming are “anthropogenic”.
Mr. “Skeptical Science” states his scientific credentials then smugly and safely hides behind his ridicule of those he disagrees with while apparently doing his own cherry picking of facts, selectively ignoring valid questions by people visiting his site while repeatedly referring to his same ole’ defenses.
Even deceased Michael Crichton has fallen victim to his and his followers’ ridicule. One of the groups referred to for debunking Crichton, RealClimate, couldn’t get it straight whether croplands cooled or heated the climate.Apparently, none of them have left their cozy air-conditioned offices to go stand barefooted in a freshly plowed field on a hot summer afternoon or flown over fields and forests to notice the difference in updrafts or downdrafts, winter and summer.

So, I think back home we would consider him some kind of cowardly piss-ant of sorts and not worth the bother of more than pointing out his deficiencies.
I’m one of those people acutely aware that global warming has been going on for thousands of years but not completely buying into the hysteria of “anthropogenic” acceleration of the process. I’ll leave that to the smug schmucks that follow their high priest, Al Gore.
Meanwhile, I’ll ride my bicycle more and plan on taking trips on it because it’s healthier and fun even if a little dangerous.
I’ll be an advocate for passenger rail because it’s more fuel efficient than air or auto for intermediate and long term travel, albeit slower and for practical purposes … nonexistent in the U.S. except in, and to service the needs or desires of, the Northeast Corridor … and selfish union employees… a 20th century mistake. It is a necessity, although an apparently neglected component of travel for the future, in the world of the “electric car” … that can’t go more than 60 or 100 miles without an eight or ten hour charging.
I’ll also advocate for nuclear power and more oil exploration and use of coal. Somehow we’re going to have to generate electricity for those electric cars and with the current state of solar and wind power, land based and offshore, it’s going to take a while to get those energy producers up and running as well as time to determine if they actually will produce the energy we need … some more healthy skepticism regarding hypotheticals.
I don’t think the detractors of nuclear, oil and coal have considered the toxic manifestations of the disposal of millions of batteries large enough to power millions of electric cars. If you think coal and nuclear waste are polluting the planet, consider what those batteries are made of and how frequently they will have to be replaced … and at what expense. There’s some toxic waste to consider.
So …
Mr. “Skeptical Science”, what’s your point … other than an oxymoronic attempt to ridicule and suppress those you disagree with?

The Bigfella
08-17-2009, 07:39 AM
That's it keep denying it's happening, meanwhile the Antarctic ice shelves break up and the glaciers are collapsing.

I think you'll find that I've consistently said that climate change is the natural state on this planet.

I may even have said that the Chinese have implemented some of the best climate change mitigation strategies known, eg the one child policy....

Art Read
08-17-2009, 09:01 AM
August 17, 2009
'A Tax on Thin Air'
By Robert Tracinski and Tom Minchin
In a potential preview for America, the Australian Senate has just defeated that country's version of cap-and-trade by a vote of 42-30. Most of the overseas coverage of this event, however, has missed the most interesting feature of the defeat. The BBC report, for example, claims that the bill was blocked because "opposition senators...feared the legislation would harm the country's mining sector."

In fact, the bill was defeated because there is now serious disagreement in Australia on the very existence of human-caused global warming. That's the backbone behind the collapse of what was supposed to be bipartisan agreement. As Senator Nick Minchin put it in a blistering speech opposing the bill, "this whole extraordinary scheme, which would do so much damage to Australia, is based on the as yet unproven assertion that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are the main driver of global warming.... The Rudd government arrogantly refuses to acknowledge that there remains a very lively scientific debate about the extent of and the main causes of climate change, with thousands of highly reputable scientists around the world of the view that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are not and cannot be the main driver of the small degree of global warming that occurred in the last 30 years of the 20th century."


In a previous article, we have already described this "intellectual climate change" in Australia's global warming debate, and arguably no one is more responsible for the shift in opinion than University of Adelaide geologist Ian Plimer, whose new book Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science is an authoritative scientific refutation of the claims of human-caused global warming.

The influence of Plimer's book is particularly interesting because it is not a light introduction to the topic. It is a thick book, chock full of science. Plimer's prose is spirited, but there's so much detail it can be a lot take in. Yet that is part of the point of the book. If the book is comprehensive in its scope, that is because everything science has discovered about "history, archaeology, geology, astronomy, ocean sciences, atmospheric sciences, and the life sciences"-Plimer's list-refutes the global warming dogma.

What has Plimer been telling his Australian readers-including Australia's top journalists and politicians? Below are excerpts from Professor Plimer's responses in our interview with him, published last week in TIA Daily.

"The past is the key to the present. Previous rapid and large climate changes were not related to carbon dioxide.

"This has occurred on all scales of time. This century temperature has been decreasing, yet CO2 has been increasing. Over the last 150 years, temperature has increased (1860-1880, 1910-1940, 1976-1998) and decreased (1880-1910, 1940-1976, and 2002 to the present), yet CO2 has been increasing. If CO2 has been increasing, how can CO2-driven warming have driven cooling? Over historical times, there were the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval warmings, when temperature was a few degrees higher than at present. Sea level did not change. Over archaeological time, ice cores show that temperature peaks some 800 years before CO2 peaks, hence CO2 could not have driven temperature rise.

"In geological time, there have been six major ice ages. During five of these six, the CO2 content [of the atmosphere] was higher than now, and for two of these six, the CO2 content has been up to 1,000 times higher than now. If high atmospheric CO2 drives warming, then how could there be an ice age during times of high CO2? Furthermore, two of these six ice ages were at sea level at the equator.

"Over the history of time, climate changes have been driven by galactic, solar, orbital, tidal, and tectonic processes, and there has been no climate change in the past driven by CO2. The [current] rate of sea level change, CO2 release, and temperature rise and fall are well within variability, hence modern times are little different from past times....

"Geologists use integrated interdisciplinary science and look at planetary cycles over the history of time. Anything catastrophic that can happen has happened over the last 4,567 million years, and such events are preserved in the geological record. It is only if time is ignored that we can conclude that humans change climate by CO2 emissions...

"Climatology suffers from the same fads, fashions, dictators, and fraud that other fields of endeavor enjoy. In order to be funded well, climatology needs to be fashionable, and it is. The fundamental causes have been known for a long time, but predictions are only based on computer models that have very incomplete input. The IPCC models of 1990 and 1995 did not predict the 1998 El Nino nor the 21st-century cooling. So how can we use these to predict climate a century in advance?... The models have been spectacularly wrong, yet they are still used with no humility....

"The difficulty for politicians is that science is now politicized in the bureaucracy, universities, and research institutes and in many ways is forced to arrive at a predestined conclusion.... Most scientists are dependent upon governments for research funding, most universities have a large proportion of funding for climate research, and to challenge the popular paradigm is to guarantee [career] suicide. It is really only retired scientists or those few like me who are fearlessly independent who dare to question the popular paradigm [and] put up with the incessant ad hominem attacks....

"Environmentalism has many of the hallmarks of failed European socialism and Western (failed) Christianity. It has a holy book which few have read (IPCC reports), has prophets (Gore) who cannot be challenged, relies on dogma, ignores contrary evidence, has armies of wide-eyed missionaries...; imposes guilt, has a catastrophist view of the planet, and seeks indulgences."

When asked for his advice to politicians who are asked to make judgments on the science of global warming, he urges them "to understand that all science is contentious, where there is one theory there is a competing theory, and that as a legislator one must look to keeping maximum gainful employment of the electorate."

As for his advice to those who don't buy the global warming hysteria, he urges them to "Continually pester your politicians...write letters to the editor and start a groundswell of opinion. This needs to start like a guerilla war in rural, smokestack, and mining areas and to be brought into the cities, where there are queues lining up to make a fortune on cap-and-trade activities."

He concludes: "A tax on thin air is what we are being asked to approve."

Today, thanks in part to Professor Plimer, the people of Australia did not approve it.

Robert Tracinski writes daily commentary at TIADaily.com. He is the editor of The Intellectual Activist and TIADaily.com. Tom Minchin is a writer, researcher, and businessman in Melbourne, Australia.

Pirate-at-heart
08-17-2009, 09:04 AM
Shame on Australia.
The green ants are crying.

Art Read
08-17-2009, 09:24 AM
Wrong headline on that last one... This is THAT article:

Could Australia Blow Apart the Great Global Warming Scare?
By Robert Tracinski and Tom Minchin
As the US Congress considers the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, the Australian Senate is on the verge of rejecting its own version of cap-and-trade. The story of this legislation's collapse offers advance notice for what might happen to similar legislation in the US—and to the whole global warming hysteria.

Since the Australian government first introduced its Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) legislation—the Australian version of cap-and-trade energy rationing—there has been a sharp shift in public opinion and political momentum against the global warming crusade. This is a story that offers hope to defenders of industrial civilization—and a warning to American environmentalists that the climate change they should be afraid of just might be a shift in the intellectual climate.


An April 29 article in The Australian described the general trend—and its leading cause.

There is rising recognition that introduction of a carbon tax under the guise of "cap and trade" will be personally costly, economically disruptive to society and tend to shift classes of jobs offshore. Moreover, despite rising carbon dioxide concentrations, global warming seems to have taken a holiday….

With public perceptions changing so dramatically and quickly it is little wonder Ian Plimer's latest book, Heaven and Earth, Global Warming: The Missing Science, has been received with such enthusiasm and is into its third print run in as many weeks. [It's now up to the fifth printing.]

The public is receptive to an exposé of the many mythologies and false claims associated with anthropogenic global warming and are welcoming an authoritative description of planet Earth and its ever-changing climate in readable language.

One of the most remarkable changes occurred on April 13, when leading global warming hysteric Paul Sheehan—who writes for the main Sydney newspaper, the Sydney Morning Herald, which has done as much to hype the threat of global warming as any Australian newspaper—reviewed Plimer's book and admitted he was taken aback. He describes Plimer, correctly, as "one of Australia's foremost Earth scientists," and praised the book as "brilliantly argued" and "the product of 40 years' research and breadth of scholarship."

What does Plimer's book say? Here is Sheehan's summary:

Much of what we have read about climate change, [Plimer] argues, is rubbish, especially the computer modeling on which much current scientific opinion is based, which he describes as "primitive."…

The Earth's climate is driven by the receipt and redistribution of solar energy. Despite this crucial relationship, the sun tends to be brushed aside as the most important driver of climate. Calculations on supercomputers are primitive compared with the complex dynamism of the Earth's climate and ignore the crucial relationship between climate and solar energy.

To reduce modern climate change to one variable, CO2, or a small proportion of one variable—human-induced CO2—is not science. To try to predict the future based on just one variable (CO2) in extraordinarily complex natural systems is folly.

In response, this is Sheehan's conclusion: "Heaven and Earth is an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence." This cannot be interpreted as anything but a capitulation. It cedes to the global warming rejectionists the high ground of being "evidence-based," and it accepts the characterization of the global warming promoters as dogmatic conformists.

The political impact has been manifested in a series of climb-downs as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's government has been forced to delay its plans for cap-and-trade controls. On May 4, the government announced it would postpone the onset of the scheme until mid-2011, a year later than originally planned.

On June 4, this delayed emission trading scheme passed the House of Representatives despite a vote against it by the opposition. But it now faces almost certain defeat in the Australian Senate. Whereas the Labor government controls 32 votes in the Senate, the opposition Liberal-National coalition controls 37 and is committed to vote against it if the Rudd government will not grant more time to consider the outcome of the Copenhagen climate conference in December and US Senate deliberations. This itself is a compromise position, because many of the coalition parliamentarians now want to vote unconditionally against an ETS in any form.

There are 7 other votes in the Senate: five Greens who say the scheme doesn't go far enough but who could be induced to go along; one independent, Nick Xenophon, who has pledged to vote against the bill unless the government waits till after Copenhagen; and one other, Senator Steve Fielding of the Family First Party, who has decided to investigate the whole thing first hand. Fielding could turn out to be the single deciding vote.

His story is particularly interesting. Andrew Bolt, who has been leading the charge against the global warming hysteria for years, notes that Fielding's investigation "could blow apart the great global warming scare."

Fielding went to the US to assess the American evidence for global warming at close quarters. As Melbourne's Age reported on June 4:

Senator Fielding said he was impressed by some of the data presented at the [US Heartland Institute's] climate change skeptics' conference: namely that, although carbon emissions had increased in the last 10 years, global temperature had not.

He said scientists at the conference had advanced other explanations, such as the relationship between solar activity and solar energy hitting the Earth to explain climate change.

Fielding has issued a challenge to the Obama White House to rebut the data. It will be a novel experience for them, as Fielding is an engineer and has an Australian's disregard for self-important government officials. Here is how The Age described his challenge:

Senator Fielding emailed graphs that claim the globe had not warmed for a decade to Joseph Aldy, US President Barack Obama's special assistant on energy and the environment, after a meeting on Thursday…. Senator Fielding said he found that Dr. Aldy and other Obama administration officials were not interested in discussing the legitimacy of climate science.

Telling an Australian you're not interested in the legitimacy of your position is a red rag to a bull. So here is what Fielding concluded:

Until recently I, like most Australians, simply accepted without question the notion that global warming was a result of increased carbon emissions. However, after speaking to a cross-section of noted scientists, including Ian Plimer, a professor at the University of Adelaide and author of Heaven and Earth, I quickly began to understand that the science on this issue was by no means conclusive….

As a federal senator, I would be derelict in my duty to the Australian people if I did not even consider whether or not the scientific assumptions underpinning this debate were in fact correct.

What Fielding's questioning represents is just the tip of the kangaroo's tail. He speaks for a growing number of Australians who will no longer take green propaganda on trust.

And that's what makes Plimer so influential—not just his credibility as a scientist, but the righteous certainty with which he dismisses man-made global warming as an unscientific dogma. He writes: "The Emissions Trading Scheme legislation poises Australia to make the biggest economic decision in its history"—Australia generates 80% of its electricity from coal, which would essentially be outlawed—"yet there has been no scientific due diligence. There has never been a climate change debate in Australia. Only dogma."

Plimer is not a "skeptic," a term which would imply that he merely has a few doubts about the global warming claims. Instead, he rejects the whole myth outright, and this seems to have emboldened and liberated a great many Australians who were already chafing under global warming conformity. As Plimer puts it:

[T]here are a large number of punters [Australian for "customers" or "gamblers"—in this case, skeptical customers who may or may not buy what the government's selling] who object to being treated dismissively as stupid, who do not like being told what to think, who value independence, who resile from personal attacks and have life experiences very different from the urban environmental atheists attempting to impose a new fundamentalist religion. Green politics have taken the place of failed socialism and Western Christianity and impose fear, guilt, penance, and indulgences onto a society with little scientific literacy.

Australia is not that different from America. If a shift in public opinion against the global warming dogma can happen on one side of the earth, it can happen on the other—especially when the US edition of Plimer's book, scheduled for July 1, hits the stands.

His role, Plimer says, is to show "that the emperor has no clothes." After three decades of relentless global warming propaganda, it's about time.

Robert Tracinski writes daily commentary at TIADaily.com. He is the editor of The Intellectual Activist and TIADaily.com. Tom Minchin is a writer, researcher, and businessman in Melbourne, Australia.

BrianW
08-17-2009, 05:57 PM
So this is what you guys have been talking about in the Oz Politics thread.

Who'd a thunk it.

;)

WX
08-17-2009, 06:00 PM
Since the Australian government first introduced its Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) legislation—the Australian version of cap-and-trade energy rationing
As has been stated before this will have no effect on the level of CO2 emissions...that goes for Mr Turnbull's version as well. Even worse is both plans will negate any efforts to reduce carbon output by members of the public.
read this:
https://www.tai.org.au/file.php?file=/media_releases/IP%202%20Zero%20sum%20game.pdf

The Bigfella
08-17-2009, 06:22 PM
And so the circle turns once more. We've alreadY dealt with Ian Plimer's "science" - Bigfella put him foward a few hundred posts ago.

.. ahh, Tony, how did I know, comrade, that you'd be along to say that Plimer is bunkum?

The Bigfella
08-17-2009, 06:23 PM
So this is what you guys have been talking about in the Oz Politics thread.

Who'd a thunk it.

;)


Geez mate, someone has to save the world from you blokes.

Shang
08-17-2009, 06:47 PM
You don't read well. And you don't remember well.

I am the one who pointed out that subsurface water was being depleted. I might have even mentioned the consequences (But the are so obvious that they really need no mention).

I seem to be one of the few to understand the morality clause. Many time I have said that we should spend our health care dollars on countries where we can save lives for a couple dollars rather than in the US where saving lives costs thousands or millions. Perhaps those with "affordable" health care in Europe could part with some money also. How is that for a moral dilemma.

I am willing to accept that global warming is the cause of all of human suffering. I have pointed out that there are no proposals that would cool the Earth off. The best proposals allow issues like warming, sea level, and water distribution to get much worse. Don't blame me for not having a solution when no one else has one.

(I expect that killing off 99.999% of the population - leaving 6 million, might help resolve a lot of issues, but it seems unpopular.)

Hmmm... you could be right, George, it's possible that I didn't read your meaning clearly. We probably agree on more of the warming and water issues than disagree.

99.999% of the population gone? Yeah, the program might be hard to sell, but it would open up a lot of parking places.

James McMullen
08-18-2009, 09:28 AM
Meanwhile, about 250,000 people were born today, worldwide. Good thing that as mere infants, they won't drink all that much glacier meltwater just yet. That will buy us some time. Why worry?

Art Read
08-18-2009, 09:54 AM
"Geez mate, someone has to save the world from you blokes!"

__________________________________________________ _

Meanwhile, it appears YOUR senate was no more willing to ruin your economy by taxing "thin air" than ours is!:p

The Bigfella
08-18-2009, 06:29 PM
Meanwhile, about 250,000 people were born today, worldwide. Good thing that as mere infants, they won't drink all that much glacier meltwater just yet. That will buy us some time. Why worry?

Yeah, the pollies will save us.

By 2050, when the population will be 9 billion (barring calamity), we - well, they... I might be there, aged 95 - will be emitting only 20% of the carbon that the 5 billion who were around in 1990 emitted.

Yeah, right.

PeterSibley
08-18-2009, 06:34 PM
It's technically entirely possible .The technology exists and will certainly improve .

The Bigfella
08-18-2009, 06:45 PM
It's technically entirely possible .The technology exists and will certainly improve .

Yep, there's about an equivalent number of nuclear power plants being planned now as the 400 or so that already operate... going into places like Sweden, Finland and China (over 400 planned, and IIRC about 35 under construction) ... but not in Australia, where we have 40% of the world's uranium reserves, but the looney left won't allow us to use it.

PeterSibley
08-18-2009, 07:12 PM
Yep, there's about an equivalent number of nuclear power plants being planned now as the 400 or so that already operate... going into places like Sweden, Finland and China (over 400 planned, and IIRC about 35 under construction) ... but not in Australia, where we have 40% of the world's uranium reserves, but the looney left won't allow us to use it.

The Left ...you're delusional !!:D The financial markets would laugh you out of the building .

Look up grasshopper ...we have the very best and safest nuc plant imaginable directly overhead .:D

The Bigfella
08-18-2009, 07:25 PM
... and storing that energy for when people want to use it is real easy too.... sure. Wanna buy the Opera House? I'll sell it to you cheap.

PeterSibley
08-18-2009, 08:24 PM
Here we go again .Go and do some reseach on solar thermal .You have a very big bucket of red herrings mate .

The Bigfella
08-18-2009, 09:31 PM
I know this is Oz related ... but it is an interesting opinion on the rent-seeking that the renewables debate is encouraging.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25949700-12250,00.html

PeterSibley
08-18-2009, 10:27 PM
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-12250,00.html (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25949700-12250,00.html)

What a ludicrous bleat !

WX
08-18-2009, 10:28 PM
You can not consider nuclear without taking the cost of long term waste storage into account.

The Bigfella
08-18-2009, 10:32 PM
You can not consider nuclear without taking the cost of long term waste storage into account.

Well, you can, but you shouldn't.....

Bob Hawke is in the media today saying that Oz should be doing it as a business.



FORMER prime minister Bob Hawke has called for Australia to assess a nuclear waste industry as a moral, financial and environmental response to climate change.

Mr Hawke, speaking after the Australian-American Leadership Dialogue he attended as a participant, said: "This issue, frankly, seems to me to be straightforward in its obligations and benefits.
"I have spoken to Aboriginal leaders and to people from the environmental movement and they are prepared to consider the proposition."

With the nuclear power industry expanding rapidly around the world due to climate change and Australia supplying that industry with uranium exports for decades ahead, Mr Hawke said the issue arose from Australia's global obligations.

"There is a responsibility to deal with global warming and consider what role Australia should play," Mr Hawke told The Australian.
"Australia can make a significant difference to the safety of nuclear generation by agreeing to take waste from nuclear power stations. This would be an important contribution to safety and energy security. It would also become a strong source of national income for Australia that could be dedicated to our own environmental and water requirements.

"The fact is that Australia has some of the geologically safest places in the world to act as a repository for nuclear waste."

Mr Hawke floated this idea four years ago, only to have an immediate rejection from both the Howard government and the Labor Party that was strong on politics and weak on argument. He believes that in the interim, the argument has only strengthened. Mr Hawke says his idea should be examined if Australians are serious about the problem of climate change and accept at face value the moral obligations this imposes. He says the financial benefits from any decision would be immense.

PeterSibley
08-18-2009, 10:33 PM
A bloke I used to work for , of very similar opinions as Ian changed his mind about nuclear completely ...180 degrees , when he read up on the long , very ,very long ,term storage costs .But we don't have to worry about that , we'll all be dead eh ?

PeterSibley
08-18-2009, 10:35 PM
Hawkes right , a great idea but it's got a snowball's chance .No one wants it ....anywhere !

The Bigfella
08-18-2009, 11:15 PM
Where's the big ongoing cost?

Solidify it, bury it deep, somewhere geologically stable. Pay a security guard to sit on top of the pile. The more that goes in, the lower the cost.

What do you want instead? Melted glaciers?

PeterSibley
08-18-2009, 11:29 PM
Are you implying tha human caused GW is a reality ??! :D:rolleyes:

If it's such a good idea(and I agree that it is) how come your old hero never got it underway ? 10 years of Coalition government ,plus control of the Senate and not a squeak .How come ?

The Bigfella
08-19-2009, 12:10 AM
Cost. He had to get the economy back in shape before it could afford to pay for clean energy... but now the money that was there to do it has gone through the pokies.

seanz
08-19-2009, 12:23 AM
Are you implying tha human caused GW is a reality ??! :D:rolleyes:


Surely he's implying that humans wouldn't be stupid enough to cause GW and fortunately are smart enough to fix it.
:rolleyes:;)

The Bigfella
08-19-2009, 12:25 AM
I'm actually implying that politicians (whose main objective is to keep getting paid) will need to be seen to be doing something, and if they think that the uneducated masses want something, they will provide it.

seanz
08-19-2009, 12:37 AM
So it's carbon-cred and circuses then?

:)

PeterSibley
08-19-2009, 12:49 AM
Cost. He had to get the economy back in shape before it could afford to pay for clean energy... but now the money that was there to do it has gone through the pokies.

So what you are saying is that Howard passed up the opportunity to set up a long long term economic windfall for the country ,something that would have encouraged the nuclear industry and probably earned billions for the country ....for the very same reasons Labour won't do that either ? :rolleyes:

Really ? Even with control of the Senate ? :rolleyes: How very strange ! The bloke who set up an enquiry into the viability of nuclear in Oz ....and he missed the main benefit to the country ,a storage industry .

WX
08-19-2009, 02:16 AM
Solidify it, bury it deep, somewhere geologically stable. Pay a security guard to sit on top of the pile. The more that goes in, the lower the cost.

Okay let's look at this.
1 Where to put this facility, no one want's it in their backyard for a start but the best options are the Yilgarn Shelf in WA, this area hasn't seen serious upheaval for 3.5 billion years...well that's the age of some of the rocks there. Or the central NT area.
2 Security, what level? How long? Who get's the job? Who pays for it?
3 Nuclear power station decommissioning. Cost? This includes transporting demolished materials to secure storage.

There is more but I figure that's enough to think about.

WX
08-19-2009, 02:19 AM
One more thing:
Total income minus construction costs, running costs, decommissioning costs and waste storage costs.

Art Read
08-19-2009, 09:26 AM
Whoops... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcAajSQQn6E&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knJnOUgWbtc&feature=related
_______________________________________________

EXCLUSIVE: Lies Revealed — Greenpeace Leader Admits Arctic Ice Exaggeration
by Phelim McAleer & Ann McElhinney‏
The outgoing leader of Greenpeace has admitted his organization’s recent claim that the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030 was “a mistake.” Greenpeace made the claim in a July 15 press release entitled “Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts,” which said there will be an ice-free Arctic by 2030 because of global warming.
Under close questioning by BBC reporter Stephen Sackur on the “Hardtalk” program, Gerd Leipold, the retiring leader of Greenpeace, said the claim was wrong.
“I don’t think it will be melting by 2030. … That may have been a mistake,” he said.


Sackur said the claim was inaccurate on two fronts, pointing out that the Arctic ice is a mass of 1.6 million square kilometers with a thickness of 3 km in the middle, and that it had survived much warmer periods in history than the present.
The BBC reporter accused Leipold and Greenpeace of releasing “misleading information” and using “exaggeration and alarmism.”
Leipold’s admission that Greenpeace issued misleading information is a major embarrassment to the organization, which often has been accused of alarmism but has always insisted that it applies full scientific rigor in its global-warming pronouncements.
Although he admitted Greenpeace had released inaccurate but alarming information, Leipold defended the organization’s practice of “emotionalizing issues” in order to bring the public around to its way of thinking and alter public opinion.
Leipold said later in the BBC interview that there is an urgent need for the suppression of economic growth in the United States and around the world. He said annual growth rates of 3 percent to 8 percent cannot continue without serious consequences for the climate.
“We will definitely have to move to a different concept of growth. … The lifestyle of the rich in the world is not a sustainable model,” Leipold said. “If you take the lifestyle, its cost on the environment, and you multiply it with the billions of people and an increasing world population, you come up with numbers which are truly scary.”
(You can watch the full BBC interview with Leipold here, and to learn more about Greenpeace-style global warming hysteria and its potential toll on the American dream, go to www.noteviljustwrong.com, the Web site for the forthcoming documentary “Not Evil Just Wrong,” by Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney.)

Dan McCosh
08-19-2009, 09:58 AM
That 3 km thick arctic ice wouldn't leave much room for the water, would it?

Bob Triggs
08-19-2009, 01:43 PM
How about a list of glaciers that are growing.

http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm

Oh no - we are doomed.

NORWAY
Ålfotbreen Glacier
Briksdalsbreen Glacier
Nigardsbreen Glacier
Hardangerjøkulen Glacier
Hansebreen Glacier
Jostefonn Glacier
Engabreen glacier <FONT size=2>(The Engabreen glacier
is the second largest glacier in Norway. It is a
part (a glacial tongue) of the Svartisen glacier,
which has steadily increased in mass since the
1960s when heavier winter precipitation set in.)

CANADA
Helm Glacier
Place Glacier
Glaciers growing on Canada’s tallest mountain
17 Nov 08 – The ice-covered peak of Yukon's soaring Mount Logan
may be due for an official re-measurement after readings that suggest
this country's superlative summit has experienced a growth spurt.

See Glaciers growing on Canada’s tallest mountain (http://www.iceagenow.com/Glaciers_growing_on_Canada_tallest_mountain.htm)

France
Mt. Blanc

ECUADOR
Antizana 15 Alpha Glacier


SWITZERLAND
Silvretta Glacier


KIRGHIZTAN
Abramov


RUSSIA
Maali Glacier
GREENLAND See Greenland Icecap Growing Thicker (http://www.iceagenow.com/Greenland_Ice_Cap_Growing_Thicker.htm)
Greenland glacier advancing 7.2 miles per year!<SPAN style="mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt">The BBC recently ran
a documentary, The Big Chill, saying that we could be on the verge of an ice
age. Britain could be heading towards an Alaskan-type climate within a decade,
say scientists, because the Gulf Stream is being gradually cut off. The Gulf
Stream keeps temperatures unusually high for such a northerly latitude.

You can not effectively measure glaciers by maximum upper limit altitude. They retreat from the lowest margins first. Even retreating glaciers appear to be "growing" when only measured by the upper limits. Here in Washington we have some glaciologists who have spent their entire academic and professional careers studying our regional glaciers and they have not found any that are truly "growing" overall in all of that time. What they have found is that the glaciers are retreating,(melting), and that the upper altitude snowmass is not keeping pace with the losses.

WX
08-19-2009, 05:37 PM
the Arctic ice is a mass of 1.6 million square kilometers with a thickness of 3 km in the middle,Read 3 metres for that.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/icesat-20090707r.html

Art Read
08-19-2009, 06:48 PM
"Read 3 metres for that."

____________________________________________

WWII plane recovered in Greenland


June 23, 2007 - 11:19AM

A World War II US fighter plane once entombed under 100 metres of snow and ice in Greenland is back in the skies to complete a mission it began nearly 65 years ago.

Dubbed "Glacier Girl" after being recovered, the P-38 fighter left Teterboro Airport in the United States for another leg of a journey to Duxford, England, where it is scheduled to land on June 29.

The plane was part of a group that became known as the Lost Squadron which was forced by foul weather in 1942 to crash land onto a glacier in Greenland.

Brad McManus, 89, who was the first member of his squadron to crash land onto the glacier, is now the only pilot still alive from the group to see one of their planes attempt to complete the mission to Britain - a flight he never expected to see any of the damaged aircraft complete.

"I never would have thought that," McManus, 89, said, shortly before Glacier Girl took off to resume the journey across the Atlantic Ocean.

McManus, of Phoenixville, Pennsylvania, flew alongside Glacier Girl for 160 kilometres as a passenger in a small civilian plane.

"It's a great day. It's a historic moment, really, in aviation history," McManus said.

His P-38 remains under nearly 100 metres of ice and snow in Greenland, heavily damaged after its nose wheel collapsed when it ploughed into the snow upon landing. The impact flipped the twin-engine plane onto its back, leaving McManus bleeding from a cut to his arm in the cockpit.

McManus returned to Europe in 1944, flying 85 missions, many in P-38s, a number of them to Berlin. He retired as a colonel.

The Lost Squadron was part of a daring plan - Operation Bolero - that eventually brought hundreds of US fighters and bombers to England via Canada, Greenland and Iceland in the early months after America's entry into World War II.

The route was chosen because the planes could not carry enough fuel, and lacked the proper navigational and communications equipment to make the direct transatlantic flight. It was also faster than having the planes disassembled and shipped to England in convoys that were targets of U-boat attacks.

But Glacier Girl, once among the fastest aircraft on the planet with a top speed of more than 640 km/h, did not make it. Foul weather forced it, along with five other fighters and two bombers, to ditch onto the glacier in Greenland on July 15, 1942.

When it crashed, Glacier Girl had just five minutes of fuel left, said Steve Hinton, 55, the pilot who will fly the aircraft to England. He will rely on original equipment, augmented by a global positioning system (and two GPS backups), as well as an escort from a restored P-51 Mustang fighter.

The crews of the Lost Squadron were rescued, but the planes were left behind. They sank into the river of ice as snow piled atop for decades. They were untouched until American Roy Shoffner led an expedition of 40 people in 1992. They burrowed through 82 metres of ice to reach one of the P-38s. In 50 years, the glacier had carried the aircraft 1.6 kilometres from the point of impact.

The P-38, which has a 15.85-metre wingspan, was extracted, piece by piece, through a 1.2-metre-wide tunnel. Shoffner spent years restoring it, and it took flight again in October 2002.

Shoffner died in 2005. His family sold Glacier Girl in March 2007 to private company Lewis Aeronautical, which owns a collection of historic aircraft. The family said the sale was needed to realise Shoffner's dream that the plane would finish its mission, and to ensure its long-term preservation.

In a nod to Shoffner's efforts, Glacier Girl's first stop on its tour this month was in his hometown of Middlesboro, Kentucky, where it arrived on June 18 from Chino, California. It arrived at Teterboro Airport, New Jersey.

After leaving New Jersey, Glacier Girl is stopping in Presque Isle, Maine; Goose Bay and Frobisher Bay in Canada; Sondre Stromfjord and Kulsuk, Greenland; Reykjavik, Iceland; and Stornoway, Scotland; before reaching England.

____________________________________________

Getting downright tropical up there!

WX
08-19-2009, 06:57 PM
Art, we are talking Arctic sea ice not ice caps. The loss of the Arctic sea ice won't make much difference to sea levels. The loss of the greenland ice caps, however would.

The Bigfella
08-19-2009, 09:35 PM
... and another of Tony's favourite commentators is in the news again today...

Cutting future emissions is much cheaper than slashing present ones, argues Bjorn Lomborg
AT its heart, much of the debate over climate change deals with just one divisive and vexing question: How big should cuts in carbon emissions be? This narrow focus makes the debate unconstructive. Everybody wants to prevent global warming and the real question is: How can we do that best?

We should be open to other ways to stop warming, such as cutting carbon emissions in the future instead of now or focusing on reducing emissions of other greenhouse gases. Global warming will create significant problems, so carbon reductions offer significant benefits.
Cutting carbon emissions, however, requires a reduction in the basic energy use that underpins modern society, so it also will mean significant costs.
Prominent climate economist Richard Tol, of Hamburg University in Germany, has analysed the benefits and costs of cutting carbon now v cutting it in the future. Cutting early will cost $US17.8 trillion ($21.6 trillion), whereas cutting later will cost just $US2trillion. Nonetheless, the reduction in CO2 concentration -- and hence temperature -- in 2100 will be greater from the future reductions. Cutting emissions now is much more expensive, because there are few, expensive, alternatives to fossil fuels. Our money simply doesn't buy as much as it will when green energy sources are more cost-efficient.

more at....

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25954076-7583,00.html

one interesting item discussed is the issue of "black" carbon - which kills a lot of people, and is relatively easy to deal with. Some greenies claim that things like indoor fires for heating and cooking are benign, because they are current carbon cycle. They still kill several million people each year....

WX
08-20-2009, 01:36 AM
Ian have you read Zero-Sum Game, The human dimensions of emissions trading? It really is brilliant stuff.

The Bigfella
08-20-2009, 01:40 AM
I scanned it then got diverted around a whole bit of bomber stuff... and a bit of work. I'll give it a full read

PeterSibley
08-20-2009, 05:57 PM
Yep ,don't initiate efficiencies , keep burning coal , put it off til later ....sounds like the kind of commentary you expect from the Oz .

The Bigfella
08-20-2009, 06:51 PM
The good old "Ditch and switch" tactic again? What a surprise!

So are the glaciers melting, or growing?

Like most things, a bit of both.

PeterSibley
08-20-2009, 07:19 PM
Inconvenient ?

The Bigfella
08-20-2009, 07:33 PM
It isn't at all hard to say that. Yeah - more glaciers appear to be shrinking than are growing (there isn't data on all, so I didn't say all). Yes the overall mass of ice is shrinking.... as you would expect - given its been generally doing that for the last 20,000 years, and we are still coming out of the last ice age.... aren't we?

Is it so hard to say that guys? That we have been coming out of an ice age for the last 20,000 years, that is. It is called climate change.

Speaking of inconvenient truths .... nice graph of the Vostok ice core data here guys....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

and to look at a bit of a longer period, we see that the nice line goes up and down all the time eh?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png

and wow, here's another one, showing changes in Antarctic ice volume... oh no, the volume changes.... quick, chop the head off the chook.....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Ice_Age_Temperature.png

PeterSibley
08-20-2009, 07:37 PM
Good lad , now have a close look at comparitive speed of change .

The Bigfella
08-20-2009, 07:48 PM
Good lad , now have a close look at comparitive speed of change .

BTDT... remember, we came up with several periods where the speed of change was faster.

PeterSibley
08-20-2009, 07:55 PM
Were there any people around then ?

The Bigfella
08-20-2009, 08:23 PM
Were there any people around then ?

Not many - and that's just the point Peter.

The Bigfella
08-20-2009, 10:07 PM
We're exploring new territory.


Man has always been a great explorer.

The Bigfella
08-20-2009, 11:07 PM
No answer, huh?

Sorry mate - been adding dust clouds to the atmosphere in an attempt to cool the planet down.

Gotta go out and use the last sheet of sandpaper now... that's 50 sheets in the last 2 weeks.....

The Bigfella
08-20-2009, 11:47 PM
OK - more dust created, no sandpaper left....

Tony - a question. Remember how 1998 was supposed to have been the hottest on record... temperature anomalies and all that...? How come NASA, when it discovered some errors in its data at GISS, didn't shout it from the treetops that the 8 in 10 of the hottest years ever, had been revised to 3 in the top ten ... and that 4 of the new top ten were now in the 1930's - before man cranked up his big impact?

Yep, the record year isn't 1998 anymore (as I think you may have reported yourself...) its now 1934.

PeterSibley
08-21-2009, 12:06 AM
Link ?

The Bigfella
08-21-2009, 12:36 AM
Knowledge of the evolution of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations throughout the Earth's history is important for a reconstruction of the links between climate and radiative forcing of the Earth's surface temperatures. Although atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations in the early Cenozoic era (about 60 Myr ago) are widely believed to have been higher than at present, there is disagreement regarding the exact carbon dioxide levels, the timing of the decline and the mechanisms that are most important for the control of CO2 concentrations over geological timescales. Here we use the boron-isotope ratios of ancient planktonic foraminifer shells to estimate the pH of surface-layer sea water throughout the past 60 million years, which can be used to reconstruct atmospheric CO2 concentrations. We estimate CO2 concentrations of more than 2,000 p.p.m. for the late Palaeocene and earliest Eocene periods (from about 60 to 52 Myr ago), and find an erratic decline between 55 and 40 Myr ago that may have been caused by reduced CO2 outgassing from ocean ridges, volcanoes and metamorphic belts and increased carbon burial. Since the early Miocene (about 24 Myr ago), atmospheric CO2 concentrations appear to have remained below 500 p.p.m. and were more stable than before, although transient intervals of CO2 reduction may have occurred during periods of rapid cooling approximately 15 and 3 Myr ago.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6797/pdf/406695a0.pdf

WX
08-21-2009, 12:38 AM
Tony - a question.
Hang on Ian, you haven't answered Tony's...you ducked it and went outside to work on the boat.

WX
08-21-2009, 12:40 AM
it has a very succinct section on why deliberately fostering uncertainty is a favourite tactic of vested interests opposing climate change action. Page 29.

Yeah, i read that :D I've printed it out.

WX
08-21-2009, 01:28 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8205864.stm
Scientists say they have evidence that the powerful greenhouse gas methane is escaping from the Arctic sea-bed.
Researchers say this could be evidence of a predicted positive feedback effect of climate change.
As temperatures rise, the sea-bed grows warmer and frozen water crystals in the sediment break down, allowing methane trapped inside them to escape.
The research team found that more than 250 plumes of methane bubbles are rising from the sea-bed off Norway.

PeterSibley
08-21-2009, 01:47 AM
Oh goody !:eek::( Just what we need , let's export some more coal .

PeterSibley
08-21-2009, 01:50 AM
So what you are saying is that Howard passed up the opportunity to set up a long long term economic windfall for the country ,something that would have encouraged the nuclear industry and probably earned billions for the country ....for the very same reasons Labour won't do that either ? :rolleyes:

Really ? Even with control of the Senate ? :rolleyes: How very strange ! The bloke who set up an enquiry into the viability of nuclear in Oz ....and he missed the main benefit to the country ,a storage industry .

And Ian , you never did offer a comment on Johnny's efforts to set up a storage industry .... or not .

The Bigfella
08-21-2009, 01:54 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8205864.stm
Scientists say they have evidence that the powerful greenhouse gas methane is escaping from the Arctic sea-bed.
Researchers say this could be evidence of a predicted positive feedback effect of climate change.
As temperatures rise, the sea-bed grows warmer and frozen water crystals in the sediment break down, allowing methane trapped inside them to escape.
The research team found that more than 250 plumes of methane bubbles are rising from the sea-bed off Norway.

It might be evidence of sea monsters too. Those plumes are as old as the hills

The Bigfella
08-21-2009, 01:55 AM
And Ian , you never did offer a comment on Johnny's efforts to set up a storage industry .... or not .

He had to leave something for you to hate others for. He'd already got his full bile allocation from you lot

PeterSibley
08-21-2009, 02:38 AM
He had to leave something for you to hate others for. He'd already got his full bile allocation from you lot

He'd have got no bile from me if he'd setup a storage industry ...but then he always was better at politics than actually doing something eh ?

The Bigfella
08-21-2009, 02:53 AM
Danger, Will Robinson! Unsubstantiated assertion alert!:p

... this is the presumed cause of many mysterious boat disappearances btw.

The Bigfella
08-21-2009, 02:57 AM
Danger, Will Robinson! Unsubstantiated assertion alert!:p

try p 334 of this book - describing a 1978 plume....

http://books.google.com/books?id=RhFfigXasLQC&pg=PA332&lpg=PA332&dq=methane+plumes+north+sea&source=bl&ots=wix9_HITFi&sig=Wh8SNFqHAazZu6rQy7rwT1qgqu0&hl=en&ei=pVKOSvWTBYiBkQXW4eG7Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=methane%20plumes%20north%20sea&f=false

Don't you guys know anything?

Has everything gotta be CO2 caused?

MiddleAgesMan
08-21-2009, 06:52 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8205864.stm
Scientists say they have evidence that the powerful greenhouse gas methane is escaping from the Arctic sea-bed.
Researchers say this could be evidence of a predicted positive feedback effect of climate change.
As temperatures rise, the sea-bed grows warmer and frozen water crystals in the sediment break down, allowing methane trapped inside them to escape.
The research team found that more than 250 plumes of methane bubbles are rising from the sea-bed off Norway.

And that's a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of methane locked in the Siberian permafrost, now thawing:

http://www.planetextinction.com/planet_extinction_permafrost.htm

Another citation:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7107/abs/nature05040.html

And another:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/aug/11/science.climatechange1

skuthorp
08-21-2009, 07:22 AM
Um, reports today say this year has seen the highest ocean temperatures since records were kept.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jLv3LpI0fw21ULmgkJtinBFrwm7AD9A6OUF06

PeterSibley
08-21-2009, 07:46 AM
Nah ,he understands well enough .Just has a bucket of red herring to get rid of .

The Bigfella
08-21-2009, 07:54 AM
ROTFL! Is that it? Did you even read the one link that your Google search turned up? Some fishermen in the Adriatic in 1978 reported a disturbance in the sea. Even the scientist reporting this "observation" felt that it was most likely a release of high pressure gas due to seismic activity - not a plume from clathrates sublimating due to temperature changes.

Not the same thing at all.

Keep trying though - at least the source you quoted this time was reputable, even if you're still misinterpreting / misunderstanding the information it contains.

I take it you didn't read the preceding page?

Art Read
08-21-2009, 08:07 AM
Ian... Just accept it, Dude! The fact that Human Beings leave discernible evidence of our activities in the biosphere is proof positive that we are parasitically malignant presence on Beloved Mother Gia. We must be eradicated. It's the only "real" solution.:D

(Think I'm kidding? Check these folks out: http://www.vhemt.org/ "Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth's biosphere to return to good health. Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense.":eek:)

skuthorp
08-21-2009, 08:56 AM
Ian... Just accept it, Dude! The fact that Human Beings leave discernible evidence of our activities in the biosphere is proof positive that we are parasitically malignant presence on Beloved Mother Gia. We must be eradicated. It's the only "real" solution.:D

(Think I'm kidding? Check these folks out: http://www.vhemt.org/ "Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth's biosphere to return to good health. Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense.":eek:)


Maybe we need 'god' to put his Intergalactic Park Ranger hat on and conduct a cull. 'For the good of the species' of course.

WX
08-21-2009, 05:10 PM
Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth's biosphere to return to good health. Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense.":eek:)
Yeah that's likely to happen...right up there with abstinence.

WX
08-21-2009, 05:11 PM
Maybe we need 'god' to put his Intergalactic Park Ranger hat on and conduct a cull.

For "God", read large rock.

Art Read
08-22-2009, 06:48 AM
"Yeah that's likely to happen...right up there with abstinence."

_________________________________________________

You sound disappointed???? Would you prefer more "active" measures?:eek:

WX
09-04-2009, 12:58 AM
Arctic temperatures are now higher than at any time in the last 2,000 years, research reveals.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8236797.stm