"A large section of the mighty West Antarctica ice sheet has begun falling apart and its continued melting now appears to be unstoppable, two groups of scientists reported on Monday. If the findings hold up, they suggest that the melting could destabilize neighboring parts of the ice sheet and a rise in sea level of 10 feet or more may be unavoidable in coming centuries."
"Global warming caused by the human-driven release of greenhouse gases has helped to destabilize the ice sheet, though other factors may also be involved, the scientists said."
"Global warming caused by the human-driven release of greenhouse gases has helped to destabilize the ice sheet, though other factors may also be involved, the scientists said."
ADDED: Senator Marco Rubio weights in...
78 comments:
I tried to read that article yesterday
The "... in upcoming centuries" part had me laughing my ass off.
Couldn't get past that bit.
Mark Steyn posted this great pic of a cow properly outfitted to prevent bovine farts from polluting the atmosphere.
I suppose that this device successfully collects the methane generated by cow farts, which can then be used in the generation of electricity.
The upcoming centures should be fabulous.
That Greek center of all those legendary gay jokes will finally make the NFL!
Nice graphic. :)
As humans, we do like to dump carbon into the atmosphere. In fact, we have surpassed what Al Gore promised would unleash total destruction.
At one point in the not so distant past, Al Gore promised that our unacceptable and dangerous carbon emissions would spell the end.
Instead, average temperatures have NOT changed at all.
I purchased tickets for the drowning of the statue of liberty.
They are dated March 14th 2214.
oh crap. I didn't look at the date.
There was a time before refrigeration when sailing ships would go get ice and bring it back to England.
The loss from melting was enormous but the merchants still made a fortune, such was the demand.
I learned that from some audiobook or other by Bill Bryson.
Didn't a ship filled with global warming freaks get stuck in the Antarctic ice like ten seconds ago?
I shouldn't mock. The idea that the earth is static and will never change, and if it does change it's 100% human caused is such a manipulation and a crock.
It's hard not to mock.
Now each and every weather event is met with "Global warming".
Another fun fact: Ale is much more ancient than lager, as it is made using top-fermenting yeast.
I think they would eventually make lager in caves or something where it was cool enough to use bottom-fermenting yeast.
The lager style really came into its own with the advent of refrigeration.
No attribution needed. That's all common knowledge.
By 2214 you'll be in your second childhood, April, so it'll all be good for you.
Thanks Synova.
In a way, this idea that we are regulating climate connects to Chicks Hitchens post.
Something or Somebody has to be causing the ice to melt and if that somebody is not an almighty then it must be us.
The lager style really came into its own with the advent of refrigeration.
Indeed. People often credit the ethnic makeup of Milwaukee for the rise in popularity of lager beer in centuries pabst. Another reason was the ready availability of abundant ice which was stored in special warehouses throughout the year. Not even Chicago had access to as much ice and tended to use it for other industries like meatpacking.
Hey, are there still 2 mile thick ice sheets covering Manhattan? If not, why not?
Fuckin' fossil mammals must have had some bad ass SUVs, just sayin'...
And nobody wants to mess with a saber toothed tiger driving and Escalade, that's for sure.
Something or Somebody has to be causing the ice to melt and if that somebody is not an almighty then it must be us.
When moisture arrives in the Antarctic via airborne express, it releases a great deal of heat upon freezing. It takes a correspondingly large amount of heat to melt it back to water. I see accounting for one side of the ledger in this apocalypse.
Would it be possible to speed the process up? I can't wait a couple of more centuries.
If we were really worried about it, the recommendations would be in the style of Chinas 1 or 2 offspring limit.
I mean, if we are indeed the cause of the problem with climate, why not confront the problem head on?
Too unpalatable politically?
Why is that more unpalatable than killing the planet?
Stay tuned.. These and more to be revealed in the next episode of the price is right ;)
I thought there was more ice than ever.
"In one of the new papers, a team led by Eric Rignot, a glaciologist at the University of California, Irvine,"
I like to google these experts to see what their formal training in in. Rignot has a PhD in electrical engineering in 1991. It looks like he veered off into glaciar research so I suspect his livelihood depends a good deal on maintaining hysteria about climate "disruption" which is the newest term for glowbal warming aka climate change.
Btw, the chairman of the UN's Climate Change task force is a former railroad engineer. I guess almost anyone can become an expert in this stuff.
Ok, let's say that all of the ice melted on Antarctica. What if it exposed nice sandy beaches and great surfing. Wouldn't that be a plus?
AllenS:
Comfortably warm beats freezing cold any day of the week!
When I drive through the breathtakingly beautiful canyons of Southern Utah you see rock strata going back millions of years. Southern Utah is semi arid now. However, @ different times the rock strata shows, w/o a doubt it was also ocean, jungle, and desert. So, there's that.
Everything the so called 'experts' have proclaimed over my lifetime has turned out to be nothing more than a steaming pile of horseshit.
The Food Pyramid is wrong. Cholesterol doesn't mean what they said it did. Coffee is really good for you. So is alcohol in moderation. Butter and saturated fats are not going to kill you. Too many carbs can actually make you fat and cause diabetes. You need to eat meat. You need salt. The ice ages didn't happen in the 70's. Global Warming hasn't happened. On and on and on. They try to scare us. Control us. And they don't have a freaking clue what they are doing.
I don't believe anything that they say. Even so. What can WE puny little humans do about it. The Earth has been much warmer and much much colder in previous eons. Man is just a blip on the timeline. Get over yourselves. Ants and Roaches have seniority.
If they say it often enough it might come true! Just like in the fairytales. Erm.
Scientists are now just cogs in the state's political machine.
I've just update the post with a Marco Rubio video.
Bingo!
edutcher said...I thought there was more ice than ever.
Me too. In fact, just last week some guy at the Boston Globe, of all places, said that on the National Snow and Ice Data Center website, he found this info:
"During the past 12 months it’s been interesting to see how the decline in the ice has slowed and there has been an increase in multi-year ice as well. One year doesn’t buck a trend and it may be but a blip in the overall decline. Nevertheless it’s important to note."
LA Times had a big headline that Rubio said Climate Change wasn't happening... quoted him saying it wasn't happening *in the way described*... etc.
This is the video? Cool beans.
It must be a nice kind of reality denial to believe that severing off massive sheets of continental ice into the oceans won't add to their levels.
No one here is conservative in any way. It's all just about peevishness and cantankerousness, and not taking seriously anything that involves effort or thought.
Hate to burst your bubble, R&B, but it's getting colder, not warmer.
No one here is conservative in any way. It's all just about peevishness and cantankerousness, and not taking seriously anything that involves effort or thought.
There you go again.
Science-denying? Check.
Journalist-believing? Check.
Alternate-fantasy-reality- promoting? Check.
Peevish? Check.
Cantankerous? Check.
Unthinking? Check.
The Borg wakens from his nap for another fun evening of projection and fraudulence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg
Let me try to help you out here, Ritmo.
The guy who posted this bit is a pretty damned smart guy.
I know the skeletal resumes of several other commenters here. They are pretty damned smart people.
My first job out of college at the University of Illinois was as purchasing agent for the construction of the Illiac IV computer, one of the first computers to be capable of measuring environmental impacts in 3D space.
You are behaving like an oaf when you enter the conversation with this declaration that nobody but you is even trying to think. Why be a mannerless lout?
I always reject everything you say because you always behave like an juvenile lout.
Make sure to cite all the data you've accumulated and peer-reviewed publications on the matter you've written, FOX-Clone Amartel! We love how this data denial and misinterpretation of data kick you're on provides you the political rush you need, but your comment leads one to think you'd like people to believe you actually know something about it, and you wouldn't want to come off as just another cheerleading pundit wanna-be.
Unless that's your aim, of course. But then, that would be demeaning to cheerleading pundit wanna-be's.
Or, let me put this another way, Ritmo...
If you really do have anything worthwhile to say, nobody will ever know because you are a social moron.
Thomas, no one cares.
Not caring is a two-way street.
Computer programming has absolutely zilch to do with understanding the natural sciences.
Ad hominem attacks also don't change what the data mean.
You know this yourself, because mainstream America lacks the paranoid fear of race-war fantasies that captivate about 75% of every thought you have on any social issue, and you know that. And you scream bloody murder about it. And you resent the hell out of it and of their rejection of your thinking. Just because you think you're one of some "chosen few" selected to "wake America up", doesn't mean they don't think you're a juvenile crank, yourself.
So call me juvenile all you want. Tell me you don't read things that are lively, or angry, or cranky. I guess as with yesterday's advice, it must take one to know one.
But that still isn't what makes someone factually right.
You know that much.
That was jibberish, Ritmo.
You do that a lot, too.
The usual projection, too.
Kid, you've got problems with basic social skills.
You're a mess.
You are behaving like an oaf when you enter the conversation with this declaration that nobody but you is even trying to think. Why be a mannerless lout?
Are you seriously trying to convince me that the long-term, well-financed campaign to disbelieve mainstream climate findings has to do with the evidence not having been presented to them in a nice and objective and Victorian enough manner? That if only a plate of crumpets and tea were served on a silver dish while the charts came out, then this sudden feeling of "respect" connies would feel would make them rethink things, and go, "Hmmm.... Maybe knee-jerk verbal spitwads and cackles aren't the most sensible response?"
You've got to be joking.
Let me go on with the story of my nephew.
He's got the "authority" obsession you've got.
That's because my sister dragged half a dozen men through his life and demanded that he submit to each one as his father.
Both sides of the debate have a ton of money.
Another one of your stupid tactics is the florid verbal crap that is absolutely irrelevant.
You've got a lot of problems. Emotional and social.
That's all I ever get out of your posts.
Kid, you've got problems with basic social skills.
You're a mess.
Depends on the setting. I don't hang out in biker bars all that much, but if I did, I'd know what to do. Ditto with regular bars or clubs.
My interactions here aren't typical, for me.
OTOH, you remember how you were treated at LGF, which is a much more popular website than this one, and you know how much opprobrium your other, strong opinions engender. You wouldn't think of saying one-tenth the sort of racial stuff (or "garbage", depending on audience) that you spout off here and on-line IRL. You know that.
So why the fixation here with "appropriateness"? We've all got places that offer varying degrees of acceptance, and expect varying degrees of challenge. If you want just a club atmosphere when it comes to politics or more serious issues like this, that's fine. But don't say I didn't warn you. I mean, the request that it be a "proper opinion only" club already says everything that anyone serious needs to know.
But I do thank you for providing me the opportunity to realize this, and (since I'm a nice guy), point it out to you.
He's got the "authority" obsession you've got.
It's not my authority. Challenge what I say all you want.
But if I'm going off of sound data, challenge it with better data. Don't confuse messenger with message.
That website is beyond the pale.
I don't got there because the proprietors are nut cases obsessed with employing the most vicious tactics possible.
I visited that site one time, and decided that I didn't want anything to do with it again.
Whether or not you think those people scored a ego victory over me is of no concern to me. I don't need people like that in my life.
That's because my sister dragged half a dozen men through his life and demanded that he submit to each one as his father.
Well, that sounds horrible but that was never a problem in my life.
My parents liked to debate, less over time, but it was never a personal thing. Or they tried to have humor about it, as well.
The use of the word "submit" in the context of raising a stepkid sounds pretty creepy.
I don't pretend to have good advice for how to raise kids, but I can look at examples in my family and others and note what seems to work better than others. Having patience is hard, and trying to determine the right role as a stepfather is certainly not something that most guys would be able to cut right.
Again, sorry to hear about that situation.
There is a very prominent lawsuit going on right now, Ritmo, which will go a long way toward deciding whether that data is valid.
That is Michael Mann's lawsuit against Mark Steyn.
We'll learn a lot about the validity of the data you cite from that lawsuit, because Mann is going to be subject to full scale discovery.
Whether or not you think those people scored a ego victory over me is of no concern to me. I don't need people like that in my life.
Well, whatever anyone else says about you, they can't say you lack grit, that's for damn sure.
It's mostly a good quality. I know you think I don't listen to you, and there's one big thing that divides us even though I can understand where you're coming from from time to time on it, but don't think I don't believe you're interesting guy, in a way.
You are. And music's a good thing in anyone's life.
But you know full well you're damn crazy. ;-)
It's ok. Seal said we're never gonna survive unless we get a little crazy.
It's funny, you do have a lot of determination, and sometimes I've found things you've said reprehensible beyond imagination, but these other things about you I can actually relate to in a few ways.
I'll be ok. You won't fail for wanting to show me the right things. I'll still learn a thing or two.
My skepticism about global warming, which then morphed into climate change and is now morphing into climate disruption is this...
I've lived through dozens of predicted environmental apocalypses and predicted commodities collapses, all of which turned out to be false. This leads me to extreme skepticism.
The agricultural school at the University of Illinois played a prominent role in the development of high yield grains that lead to the "green revolution."
Paul Erhlich's guaranteed predictions of starvation, the collapse of commodities markets, food riots, etc., didn't come true because of the green revolution.
The future is much more difficult to predict that you are suggesting. We don't really know how humans will react to change, nor what technology will be in the future.
Did I actually just say that?
I agree that the future's difficult to predict, but I also think the science gets better all the time.
Also, what I heard about the other "predictions", some may have been actual predictions, but apparently some were more precautions about what could happen. I've also heard that the idea that there was concern as serious about cooling in the past as others are about warming has been inflated.
While it's important to be flexible with interpretations, I just think I'm missing a threshold for determining when we should ever act. It seems like people are saying that 1. If it's science, and 2. If it advises a significant shift in the status quo, then the skepticism becomes higher. But does that mean we should never take precautions, esp. those that accumulate more data or seem to become more serious the faster we drive into them, seriously?
I guess my only request is to get an idea of when a scientist, or many scientist, looking at one piece of data, or many, should be taken seriously.
Never?
Ok. But isn't faith that a technology will be invented to prevent the status quo from mucking things up just as whimsical as you accuse environementalists of being when they note (correctly, in the case of solar) that the technology and cost obstacles can be perfected or overcome?
No one, so far, has proven that the X% increase in man-made carbon has led to Y% increase in whatever [pick one: rain, snow, higher temps,hurricanes, etc].
They have only trotted out theories and consistently warn that the point of no return is jus around the bend.
Assume the worst case scenario...
What if technology to scrub CO2 from the stratosphere becomes practical?
What if there are unforeseen benefits from higher concentrations of CO2 in the environment that offset the negatives?
Faced with a truly catastrophic survival issue, humans always find a way to mobilize and find new solutions.
The part you don't seem to be considering is the massive economic catastrophe that is certain to ensue if we abruptly abandon fossil fuels. That economic catastrophe could easily lead to global political destabilization and warfare that would be a far greater environmental disaster.
What if technology to scrub CO2 from the stratosphere becomes practical?
That would be cool. I saw something in Wired recently that suggests a few of the remaining obstacles might be closer to being overcome.
What if there are unforeseen benefits from higher concentrations of CO2 in the environment that offset the negatives?
This is harder to see. When you throw into motion an extinction event from changes as drastic as what we do, that creates a lot of uncertainty.
But much of the success of human civilization results from mastering its environment in many certain, stable ways.
From the biological perspective, destruction events are easier than creation (of new species, ecosystems as habitable).
I'd put it this way: I was doing genetic research when the movie Waterworld came out. I mentioned the gills Keven Costner's character had, and he asked me what my opinion was of that.
The point being, a gene mutation is much more likely to lead to death, disease (cancer), or disadvantage than it is to lead to so advantage.
Fucking with nature can be done, but the importantce knowledgeable stewardship of the planetary resources you already understand shouldn't be dismissed.
Faced with a truly catastrophic survival issue, humans always find a way to mobilize and find new solutions.
Well, false. That's what I'm getting at. Our history shows that a few would, and the vast majority would succumb to the catastrophe. But it's in no way guaranteed that even a few would.
The part you don't seem to be considering is the massive economic catastrophe that is certain to ensue if we abruptly abandon fossil fuels. That economic catastrophe could easily lead to global political destabilization and warfare that would be a far greater environmental disaster.
I would never advocate anything abrupt. I would advocate continuing to incentivize alternatives and abruptly removing subsidies to the most powerful fossil industries, who can already do enough to artificially tilt the playing table in their favor without them.
Ok. That needs a change of pace. Maybe this?
If that doesn't work, I might instead try cleavage and covers.
I would never advocate anything abrupt. I would advocate continuing to incentivize alternatives and abruptly removing subsidies to the most powerful fossil industries, who can already do enough to artificially tilt the playing table in their favor without them.
Suddenly removing subsidies to fossil fuel industries would be abrupt and highly disruptive. It also smacks of vindiction which the Left is fond of.
If the grammar Nazis are lurking, I should have ended that sentence "of which the Left is fond."
...and abruptly removing subsidies to the most powerful fossil industries,..
The group of people most hurt by this would be the working poor -- the ones who have to commute to jobs for a living.
What if technology to scrub CO2 from the stratosphere becomes practical?
Better to channel that energy into finding cheaper ways to reuse the CO2 in carbon-based fuels. Carbon based fuels really are the best that nature can do for versatility.
Whatevs Chickie. You've always been a carbon whore.
If they want to repeal subsidies for renewables then it's only fair to remove the bigger and more longstanding ones for carbon. Evening the playing field is not disruptive; it's only disruptive to oil exec finances. That's not the interest of the U.S. people or their public servants.
I hope you realize how politically asinine Americans find the idea of coming out and admitting that you feel it necessary to continue subsidizing the most powerful industries. It's anti-libertarian and anti-liberal, and I don't think you can even get connies to say yes. It's almost purely unadulterated mogul worship.
Lol.
Carbon Warrior Whore-ior.
Your admission that carbon can't compete in the free market is a welcome one.
Carbon is the best element to mediate solar energy transfer. When I say "carbon" I mean the full range of carbon molecules from an oxidation state of -4 to +4. Think about it: we just need to master the biotech behind synthetic fat and carbohydrate production -- build better plants or even plant cells.
Unfortunately, silicon, unlike carbon, mostly exists as its dioxide (sand) and must be liberated from its oxygen captors before it can be put to good use. This requires enormous amounts of energy which, I believe, most people take for granted. I mean, I PV unit shows up and voila, it starts to make energy! What people are missing, as with corn ethanol, is that until very recently, solar panels used more energy than they created -- as an industry. Some very thoughtful researchers published their work here and mdea short video here. That's just the good news -- the thermodynamics. There is another consideration though. When SiO2 is reduced to silicon, the pair of oxides must be parked somewhere and presently they wind up on carbon as CO2 because coke fuels the reduction (giving its electrons). This happens in China BTW where we have no say). I wrote more about some helpful steps here if you want to discuss them (after you fact check them :)
I agree with everything you state, except for this idea that silicon wastes more than it makes - maybe that's why you were careful to refer to such deficit in a past tense. Manufacturing is a one-time process whose costs environmental and financial can be quantified. The amount of energy a product creates and saves though is only limited by the lifetime of the panel - which requires huge assumptions about its longevity.
Yes, photosynthesis is what made coal (and indirectly oil and gas) and photosynthesis is ultimately the most direct way to bypass that cycle to obtain its energy altogether instead of aerosolizing stored carbon. Whether they're doing that in the synthetic ways that excite you or further along with biofuels like algae I'm not sure.
Checking now. ;-)
Cool. Thanks!
But Ritmo, this means that until quite recently, PV cells haven't "created" a single joule of energy. Whether a given panel can recoup its cost depends on its lifetime. Do you know what the lifetime of a PV panel currently is?
I don't know and I'm sure it wouldn't be easy to get anything other than a wild approximation and it wouldn't be able to account for insane variability depending on the large number of manufacturers but what I do know is that technologies evolve and we wouldn't be recouping and surpassing any lost deficit by 2020 at the latest had it not been for continued encouragement of the industry all this time all along.
That's what development is all about. It's never the "easy" things that make a difference and win. You keep pushing the bounds of the concept until you get there or find something better while trying.
How many thousands of prototypes did Edison try for with the light bulb, for instance? I'm sure there were a number of people who told him it was easier to just keep doing kerosene.
But then, that's tenacity for you. He was so peeved at Tesla's abandonment and pursuit of competing AC that he even took to testing it for executions - all for the sake of giving bad PR to and badmouthing his former protege.
Here's a great recounting of the episode. Even showcases how the financial industrialists played their role in it.
If the serious goal is just to reduce CO2 emissions, why not subsidize an energy scheme which consumes CO2? For example this with modifications.
If the seawater scheme releases methane that would be a problem.
Nevertheless, I'm all for researching whichever alternatives have the backing. Solar has had the huge advantage of a long time in development, an infrastructure of benefiting industries all along, and the freedom for homeowners of creating their own. Huge momentum and continued efficiencies and breakthroughs consistently.
I'm not sure I can read the whole scheme tonight, but would try to tomorrow if you post on it. If it results in hydrogen as the fuel, I am favorable to that. But as long as we're talking seawater, (and I know it's been a while), weren't they talking of using boron at one point?
I don't know. You kids. I can't keep up. But I'm all for it. R & D until you can't R & D any more. And then more R & D.
That's what development is all about. It's never the "easy" things that make a difference and win. You keep pushing the bounds of the concept until you get there or find something better while trying.
The earliest transistors were all germanium based. Everybody wanted silicon, but nobody could do it. Until Gordon Teal at TI came along. Organic semiconductors (carbon-based) are the next generation -- the real future.
Carbon will also cling to its role as earth's solar energy broker no matter how hard silicon tries.
You call me a "carbon whore-ior"
I'm really just a carbo-whore.
That's fine. Carbon's coming into its own under the "organic" rubric. Now we have OLEDs. I don't know how biological they are (joke), but they have carbon and are useful.
Do you know how common rubisco is? It's like the most abundant enzyme on earth. That, and chlorophyll, are not simple molecules (although obviously enzymes are much more complex than alkylated planar pigments. Regardless, my point is that complex materials science is fine - there's no wedding of this to a certain element (silicon). I studied molec bio. I think chemists are inspired by what we know in that field. If anything, materials science and chemistry will take more from molecular biology and nano-biology than vice versa. It already seems to be quite the trend.
Don't hate on life, man. Be a biophile. Enliven your chemistry with the science of life.
Carbon already is "earth's solar broker". Chlorophyll is mostly carbon, and I'm sure so is rubisco.
I remember a physical chemist down the hall from the lab where I did research who was into the z scheme and water splitting. Try baking your noodle around a yen for those things.
Repeat after me, Chickie:
2 H2O + 2 NADP+ + 3 ADP + 3 Pi + light → 2 NADPH + 2 H+ + 3 ATP + O2
Night
Write about this stuff tomorrow, if you want. Much more productive.
Either that or pressure cookers. I'm becoming enchanted with idea of getting the perfect pressure cooker.
Post a Comment