It's Not Easy Being Green(land)
In northern Greenland, a part of the Arctic that had seemed immune from global warming, new satellite images show a growing giant crack and an 11-square-mile chunk of ice hemorrhaging off a major glacier, scientists said Thursday.
And that's led the university professor who spotted the wounds in the massive Petermann glacier to predict disintegration of a major portion of the Northern Hemisphere's largest floating glacier within the year.
TAGS: Arctic, climate change, global climate change, global warming, greenland melting, Ross Gelbspan, ross gelbspan, Science
But as the article states,
But as the article states, it is unknown if this is related to GW. As NASA scientist Jay Zwally says:
"It's a signal but we don't know what it means."
University of Colorado professor Konrad Steffen goes on to say:
"The crack is not alarming... I would say it is normal."
Does Paul selectively quote? Why?
From the article:
-- "It's a signal but we don't know what it means." It is too early to say it is clearly global warming, Zwally said. Scientists don't like to attribute single events to global warming, but often say such events fit a pattern.
and
--"..."The crack is not alarming... I would say it is normal." However, scientists note that it fits with the trend of melting glacial ice they first saw in the southern part of the massive island and seems to be marching north with time. Big cracks and breakaway pieces are foreboding signs of what's ahead.
This article is a classic
This article is a classic example of why I find it difficult to take warmism and warmists very seriously.
That an eleven square mile sheet of ice is in the process of being calved from the Petermann glacier is interesting enough not to be classed as a minor event but, neither is it a "big deal". Ice islands in that size range have been seen floating around in the Arctic Ocean for as long as we have had the capability to find them - first with ice reconnaissance flights and then with satellites. Some have been several times larger.
The one with which I am most familiar, ice island T-3, was calved from the Ward Hunt ice shelf pre GW - probably in 1947. When first discovered, it had an area of about 35 square miles and was 150 feet thick. It drifted as far afield as the northwest coast of Alaska (where it ran aground for a couple of years) passed close to Siberia and eventually, much reduced in size and thickness, passed the northeast tip of Greenland in 1981, and disappeared into the Atlantic.
Just Ma Nature doing her thing folks, and it's irritating that a couple of the scientists quoted couldn't resist running off into conjecture and hyperbole.
keep moving, nothing to see here
ZOG, I haven't seen anything from you in awhile. (Any answer to why you capitalize every letter?) A bunch of people think, er, say the world is just continuing to warm coming out of the last ice age. This continuation of loss of ancient ice, they might explain, is just a continuation of a process. But what about when there is no ice left?
I agree that ice has been lost before and that loss hasn't always been balanced by gains. But you being irritated because scientists (who know relatively a lot about this compared to you) see this as part of a larger pattern -- well, that's laughable.
The Long Thaw
By orbital forcing, we know that for the past 6--8 thousand years the globe has, on average been slowly cooling (up until about 100--140 years ago). Indeed looking at the GISP2 ice core temperature proxy for the Holocene clearly shows this. The Holocene was to be a very long interglacial, maybe even longer that the interglacial in MIS 11.
Now that we have the Anthropocene, the interglacial may well be about another 30,000 years longer, a total of 50,000 more years of no massive ice sheets.
"Big cracks and breakaway
"Big cracks and breakaway pieces are foreboding signs of what's ahead"
thats pretty much whats happening to the alarmist movement. It's developing major cracks and pieces of it are floating away and melting in the heat of reality.
the ice on the other hand is just doing what it always does
uhuh, ice is always melting
yep, ice doesn't care about the alarmist movement; it just keeps on melting faster than it grows, whether it's Arctic sea ice or glaciers in Canadian and US national parks.
It would seem to be a good
It would seem to be a good thing ice breaks off and melts. If not all of the worlds water would be tied up in polar icecaps.
Most people do not realize
Most people do not realize that in the inter glacial periods the earth can only support a fraction of the life it support during the glacial period. That's because the area within 45 degree of the equator (where most of the land is) is too warm to support large amount of life. So the loss of ice is a very serious problem.
reference?
I think the loss of ice is a very big problem for a lot of the species we have now. But I think you're wrong regarding the 'amount' of life supported. We're in an interglacial now, and tropical rainforests support most of the worlds species and are highly productive.... Why do you say that land within 45 degrees of the equator is too warm to support much life?
You must be kidding. More
You must be kidding. More creatures die of cold than do of heat...winter kill. All? things florish during earths warm periods, including polar bears.
just as bad
Lots of things die come winter, but they grow back in the spring. I don't know that this gets at the issue, so let's think about lineages or productivity instead of individual lives.
I doubt there has been much accounting supporting the lack of life in warm areas (even fat Al Gore says, in AIT!, that the land masses are less productive in winter), but your assertions don't seem much better. Corals are the tropical rainforests of oceans, and when they bleach due to warmth, that is a negative for them and the critters who require them. Do terrestrial rainforests flourish more when they are dried out and heat-stressed? Would mammoths be better off in a world warmer than ours is now?
And now for something completely different
Which John Lefebvre?
It's been found that the `solar energy investments' which global warming denialists Christopher Monckton attributed last week to DeSmogBlog's John Lefebvre, actually belong to... a different John Lefebvre, living in San Francisco Bay Area!
http://tinyurl.com/6gnwej
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/0/117/6a0
Another denialist "fact" by Christopher "We Scientists" Monckton bites the dust...
And now for something completely different
Which John Lefebvre?
It's been found that the `solar energy investments' which global warming denialists Christopher Monckton attributed last week to DeSmogBlog's John Lefebvre, actually belong to... a different John Lefebvre, living in San Francisco Bay Area!
http://tinyurl.com/6gnwej
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/0/117/6a0
Another denialist "fact" by Christopher "We Scientists" Monckton bites the dust...
Steve L: "scientists (who
Steve L: "scientists (who know relatively a lot about this compared to you)..."
On what do you base that dogmatic and parochial remark?
Re my handle: The only place I see it capitalized, other than in the headers where everything, including "Steve L" is capitalized, is in your posts. If this question is of profound importance, check with the techies.
i can haz cheezburger?
"On what do you base that dogmatic and parochial remark?"
wii dun n33d n0 edumacash3n om nom nom nom...
testing
This is an experiment to understand capitalization on the website. Sorry, Steve L
I assumed (x2)
Okay, I'm sorry that I assumed people actively studying the Greenland ice (and receiving funding to do so) know more about it than you. Do you dispute that assertion? I'd happily be corrected as it would mean that I'm chatting with an expert -- a very fortunate learning environment.
I think first letters of proper names are often capitalized. Your handle is ZOG, not Zog, and you made a reference to an old coin in a previous thread, but there seems no reason for all-caps. Ah, but now I've done an experiment and it seems that if you don't use any capitals, the software gives you all-caps. I assumed you intentionally capitalized every letter, suggesting an acronym rather than a coin. Thanks for giving me enough information to figure that out.
I didn't figure nothin' out
It's odd that I never noticed that my own name is in all-caps.
I assume BIG OIL is funding
I assume BIG OIL is funding this whole capitalization thing.
Oh, I thought it was socialists
trying to make every letter equal
"Do you dispute that
"Do you dispute that assertion?"
Yes.
Further to the question of "expertise", sitting on one's ass and playing with satellite images and computers in Ohio or Colorado does not an "Arctic expert"** make. You, as a scientist who does real fieldwork are surely aware of that.
** a sardonic and mildly derogatory term from the 1950s.
Let's be clear:
You are saying that you know more about the science of the arctic than the folks who are actually doing the research, work in the field and have access to all of the most current data. Have I got that right?
Fern Mackenzie
This is interesting.
I assumed: quoted scientists' knowledge > zog's knowledge. Your challenge to that seems to rely on the fact that you haven't heard of those guys and the assertion that their work consists only of playing with images and computers from offices in the lower 48. So that leaves me wondering two things. First, don't we still need to assess your level of expertise? Second, how do you know those other guys haven't done real fieldwork?
BTW, in my work and I expect in most scientific work, some knowledge/experience is required regarding both purely analytical aspects and the practical [field] operations that produce the data being analyzed. But I doubt that means somebody who hasn't been to the Arctic can't credibly comment on observed patterns.
Fern, No, I'm saying that I
Fern,
No, I'm saying that I know more about it than office-bound "experts" practicing academic masturbation in the U.S. Jay Zwally (a topnotch glacialogist) is the only one of the three quoted scholars who I have previously heard of, and he was the only one who responded like a real scientist. (Of course, I'm assuming that all three were quoted correctly - a dangerous assumption as you are no doubt aware.)
Okay
How many of the arctic scientists who are sounding alarm bells fall into the category of office-bound "experts" practicing academic masturbation? I am reading reports from people out on the ice, who have been doing field research and observing conditions on the ground. And just because you haven't heard of them doesn't mean that their work doesn't hold up.
And for that matter, does it follow that any scientist who has not actually been to the moon is barred from commenting on what the data might tell him?
Here's my problem, Zog. No matter what you guys come up with to question the science, I can still find all kinds of scientific evidence to squash it. Not urban legend, not politically generated PR, but real, solid SCIENCE.
So suck it up, buddy. In a year or two you will be buying an electric car, and so will I.
Fern Mackenzie
Such fervor Fern. Up on the
Such fervor Fern. Up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?
"In a year or two you will be buying an electric car, and so will I."
And your point is??? (As soon as most of the engineering and logistical problems are overcome, I'd love to have one. However, I think that hybrids are more promising.)
"...you guys..."
Whoozat?
Hybrids are harder on the
Hybrids are harder on the environment than modern regular cars.
The only thing they are good for is impressing uninformed greenies.
Hybrids
Nope. Hybrids are not harder on the environment. But they often don't live up to their claims of incredible gas mileage. Just very good gas mileage. Clean diesels are often a better choice for right now.
Plug-in Hybrids (PHEVs) have a great deal of promise. And electric cars are coming down the pike that will change our world.
Right now, Israel, Denmark, and Portugal are building hundreds of thousands of charging stations throughout thier countries so that people can buy EVs, and never need to buy an ounce of gas. The charging stations be operational by 2010, and 2011. And Canada keeps chugging way with our head in the tar sands, falling farther behind in renewable energy and green technology.
Even if you don't believe in global warming, you must see that they'll soon be better off than we are.
Yup!
They are harder on the environment.
When all the factors from mining the materials to disposing of them are considered, they fare very poorly.
Also, Electrics only have advantages where power is not gernerated by Coal or oil.
Very few places at present.
Modern gas and Diesel engines are far cleaner than old power generating stations.
Net benefit - Minus.
And then there is the Tax issue.
When electric cars become popular, the government will just have to Tax the crap out of electricity to replace what they now get from gasoline. This will make pretty much everyting more expensive.
Net benefit - zero.
Diesels are indeed a good option now and electrics will be when we have abundant Nuclear Power.
Interesting take on the issue
From a (Left Coast) University of B.C. professor, a co-developer with Mathis Wackernagel of the ecological-footprint concept.
Hybrid cars 'won't save the planet'
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/features/15days/story.html?id=4b46a624-be9a-4cca-9c75-db6f2bcbf6e7&k=40547
Nope X 2
Clean Transportation (CT) is what I write about, day in and day out, oh great troll. I know the issues like the back of my hand. I read hundreds of CT stories and studies every week.
You obviously don't. There are new methods for mining lithium, for example, that you don't know about. Look up Simbol Mining, for example.
Electric Vehicles, even when powered by messy coal-fired power plants, still pollute less than traditional cars. But the nations that I mentioned earlier - Denmark, Israel, Portugal (and probably Spain, too) — will be powering their cars with wind and solar power, not nuclear. And the batteries in all these EVs and PHEVs will come with Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) software, so they actually stabilize the grid, and provide load balance, so that there is backup power in reserve for times when the wind doesn't blow, and the sun isn't shining. It's that incredible win-win scenatio, writ large.
In fact, EV owners will be able to use V2G software to sell energy back to the grid when rates are highest, and save recharging for when rates are lowest (overnight).
If we are smart about how we run the transportation system, the government will be putting its money into mass transit, and and not into roads, so they won't need to tax the shit out of fuel or electricity.
But on that, at least, we agree. The current government isn't very smart.
SLStreetcar: 2
Gary: 0
Fern Mackenzie
Yup X2 (this could get silly)
Powering transportation in Canada by solar and wind just simply won't happen in the forseeable future. Too small and unreliabe. Maybe in the far future when all the sheeple are forced into golf carts and busses.
It works (sort of) in Europe because they are socialists and are issued their approved mind set by the government.
You seem to be living is the usual greenie dream world.
SLStreetcar 2: Gary -10
SLStreetcar 2: Gary -10
Wow VJ...
Another thoughful articulate submission.
Your imput is just so valuable.
Sweet
"It works (sort of) in Europe because they are socialists and are issued their approved mind set by the government."
Sweet. Anything other sweeping generalisations you would like to make about us? Pillock!
Do you dispute it?
Socialists like the government to think for them and run every part of their lives.
Socialists like the government to take wealth away from those that have it and dived it up among the lazy.
Socialism is all about not taking any personal responsibility for anything.
They like having their opinions approved and given to them.
It is a perfect herd of sheep to control with scary myths like AGW.
What exactly are you objecting to.
More projection. Replace
More projection. Replace the word "Socialism" with the word "Gary" in every one of those statements.
I dunno what a "Pillock" is
But I think it was a hint that Richard C is a European and didn't like being called a socialist.
According to
the Wiki dictionary, pillock: a stupid or annoying person; simpleton; fool, and I hear it often from my cuz over the pond referring to her ex.
Fern Mackenzie
Can you provide a link?
I would like to see one of those articles that shows how current Hybrids are eco friently if you have a link handy.
One from a reputable source and not just some eco activist dreamer site if possible.
While I would never wast my money on a hybrid I would buy a full electric as soon as they cost less than a comparable Gas powered car.
Assuming the performance and range was at least equal.
Any Crystal Ball guesses as to when those will be available?
The only one I have found so far is the Tesla which costs $100,000.
Thanks
Electric cars
Wow. Can I give you links. :-)
I'm not going to bother with disproving your hybrid claims, so instead, allow me to regale you with some of the automotive successes coming down the pike.
Tesla has three projects in the works. The Roadster is fast and expensive; they've made about 30 so far, and will be making up to 100 per month by January. Their second project is the Model S, which will come fully electric, or as a range extended PHEV (so it could travel 60 or 70 miles before a small gas motor kicks in to recharge it). It will cost about $60,000. They are also said to be working on a mass-produced EV with a big automaker; my guess is Mercedes, since the companies have been collaborating on battery technology.
Mercedes plans a Smart EV for 2010, and MB electric cars (in small quantity) by 2012.
Nissan-Renault is diving into EVs. They will be supplying the electric cars for Project Better Place in Israel, and expect to be selling 10,000 per year in 2010, with mass production for their electric cars set for 2012. They will be one of the largest EV companies in the world.
Fisker Automotive has a luxury PHEV (80 grand) set to debut in 2009, and a two-door sporty model in 2010.
http://www.fiskerautomotive.com
Norway's Think Global is producing 10,000 EVs this year; a fun-to-drive city car. They are establishing a factory in the US, and hope to be producing 150,000 cars for the US market by 2011 (if memory serves). The Think City cars go about 120 miles before they need to recharge. They have a five-seater, called the Ox, set to debut in 2009.
http://www.think.no
Both Toyota and GM will have PHEVs ready to go by 2010, though in limited quantities to start. Hyundai will have a PHEV by 2012..
Aptera is producing a futuristic, three-wheel car that will be available later this year. It's a two-seater, and comes as a PHEV and EV; the PHEV will get more than 200 mpg. It passes crash tests better than many cars on the road today.
http://www.aptera.com
Canada's own ZENN has put their future behind a company called EEStor, which was developing a very secretive battery technology. Everyone thought it was vaporware, but EEStor recently broke its silence, and proclaimed that they hit a home run, with a battery that has an energy density that other companies only dream about. As a result, ZENN says they'll have an inexpensive EV by next year that will have a 250-mile range, and a top speed of 80 mph.
http://www.zenncars.com
These are just a few of the options available to car buyers who want to lower their carbon footprint over the next few years.
Thanks Streetcar....
A couple of these are new to me.
Most are not really what I would consider real cars however, like the Zenn which is no more than a really expensive golf cart.
The Teslas are nice but who has 60K to 100k to drop for them when a perfectly adequate honda civic is under 18K.
Then your PHEVs are several years out and will still require a signifigant increase in Power distribution capacity.
Bottom line:
There is still a lot of work to do before electrics are viable alternatives. It is going to cost a bundle of Tax money to build up the infrastructure and the cars themselves are still going to be prohibitively expensive.
Adoption will be slow.
I don't know anyone currently willing to pay the hugh premium just to LOOK Green. They like to talk green but they aren't stupid.
Then there is the other problem.
By the time the cars are ready, the Global Warming CO2 hysterics will be history so even fewer will buy in.
You guys have a long long row to hoe on this one.
ZENN
Sorry I didn't explain better about ZENN.
They do make a low-speed EV that is safe on Canadian roads as long as you don't go fast. The 2009 car will look and act just like a real car, and be safe at highway speeds. And you'll just have to plug-in at gas stations (for they promise a 15 minute recharge, again, if memory serves).
Well Good for Zenn
I hope they are able to make a go of it.
If they really do have a secret battery technology and can get the thing to perform half decent it just might sell.
Now where can I get a supercharger for it?
I really hope these things make it. Hybrids are not the answer and electric motors last forever with almost no maintenance.
They still need a lot of work on power delivery and production infrastructure however and that is going to take some time.
Well, Gary
. . . we have to start SOMEwhere.
A good friend of mine, a mechanical engineer (really smart guy, has his PhD & everything) drives a Prius he has adapted to be a tri-brid: electric, gasoline, and solar. He also owns a vintage Ferrari and an Austin Healey, just to take out once in a blue moon and appreciate as works of mechanical art. Greenies are not necessarily people content to drive "golf carts". I myself had a lift in the Healey (top down, full throttle) from Kingston to Toronto a number of years ago, and it was a memorable experience.
The point is that eventually, whether or not you buy in to the entire AGW theory, we are going to make the switch to an alternative power source. We are taking the first steps, and of course the "muscle car" guys and the "power delivery" guys are not going to be happy until they can do 0 to 150 in however many seconds to show off the size of their -- uh, er . . . engines.
But the day will come. Smart people like my friend Steve are working on it. Meanwhile, more power to the companies who are ready to put out products and develop "golf carts" for people who just need to get to work & back, and bring home the groceries, rather than prove their manhood.
Nice Try Fern
But you can't insult me. You havn't what it takes.
My manhood is just fine and has nothing to do with my mazda miata.
(The archetypical Chick car, but I love it)
I am all for small start up companies trying to make a living with inovative products. I would buy an electric if it was suitable and cost effective and there were enough recharging stations around. I would never attempt to deter or hamper them in any way.
My only objections on the whole topic concern the concept of using government regulation and taxes to force me to buy in because of a percieved "saveing the world" mentality.
Good products and inovations will do just fine without being forced on people by mythology.
Show me a benefit and I am in.
Lie to in an attempt to scare me into it and I will fight it to the end.
I am not trying to insult you.
And as for "not having what it takes", I take that as a compliment. But there are definitely cars out there that are being marketted to guys with real masculinity issues. Not necessarily you, but if thou protest too much . . .
Normally I would agree that good technologies will prevail, but I don't think we've got time. You can go on about socialism as much as you like, but it won't matter if, while we are arguing, we slip past a tipping point. Only governments have the means to make big regulatory shifts, and after doing an enormous amount of reading on the subject, asking questions and observing the world around me, my conclusion is that we have to make major changes now, and sort out who's socialist & who's not later. For myself, I don't care if you go off & accumulate all the toys you like. If you want to opt out of health care and UI and CPP and whatever else & go your own way, hell -- no skin off MY nose.
But there are certain things that affect all of us, and we have a responsibility to deal with it.
Fern Mackenzie
"not really what I would
"not really what I would consider real cars however, like the Zenn"
And real men smoke Marlboros, drive SUVs, beat their wives and children, and drop out of school before spelling lessons begin.