Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

[santafe2]

Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

Three hours on, and no-one in the world has posted an answer to my request for the details:

Over here in the colonies were were still working until just recently Mr. Starving, sir. I guess dinner isn't late at your house...

Show me the ISLAND that has been formed from the Wilkins Ice Sheet in Antarctica, not the ice sheet. And show me the calculation of how this supposed ISLAND is up to 1800 square kilometres in area.

By definition, it's not an island. An island is a land mass...an unconnected land mass not big enough to be a continent. This was a huge and ancient ice shelf, an extension of an island. Charcot is the island, not Wilkins, that's ice, or better said, that was ice.

Still waiting..........And I will wait and wait because no-one can show me the ISLAND. But they say they can, so do it. Show me.

Wait no more my friend, you can re-read the above.

I get very offended when I see eco-frauds take a picture of a glacier and porport (sp?) to show an island--- even stating the area of the island is up to 1800 square kilometres.... Then they claim their island is proof of accelerating global warming.

I'm not sure which of us "eco-frauds" you're referring to but the island is Charcot and it's, well, just an island. But I'm sure there are a couple eco-fraud scientists working there. I think Charcot is a British territory so you'll have to consult locally if you want pictures of these holigans.

SHOW ME THE ISLAND. SHOW ME THE CALCULATION OF ITS AREA. I WANT TO SEE LIQUID WATER AT THE EDGE OF THE ISLAND, NOT AN ICE SHEET AT THE EDGE OF THE ICE SHEET--- BECAUSE ICE BORDERING ICE PROVES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. AND I WANT SOMETHING ALARMING: LIKE YOUR CLAIM OF UP TO 1800 SQUARE KILOMETRES FLOATING AWAY, NOT A FEW SQUARE KILOMETRES FLOATING AWAY. I WANT SERIOUS CALVING, NOT THE SAME OLD SLOW CALVING THAT HAS TAKEN PLACE AROUND ANTARCTICA FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS.

Ah, dude, your caps lock is stuck.

[WDCRob]

Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

Steve... could you prove for me that 2+2 is 4? Mathmatically, I mean. And I won't accept anyone's work but yours. No referring to so-called 'experts.'

I'll give you three hours.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

Just thinking more about this new Wilkins Ice Sheet Island of up to 1800 square kilometres, where is the island? In other words, show me the ISLAND, not the ice sheet.

A related question to where's the ISLAND: How did you calculate the area of the island?

The devil is in the details: Show me the details of what you are saying, instead of showing me a picture of an ice sheet on Antarctica and telling me that I need to fear the picture because of some change in the texture of the Wilkins Ice Sheet. Show me the ISLAND meaning separation from the rest of Antarctica, and show me the calculation of the size of the island being up to 1800 sq. kilometres.


Like everything else with the environmental bunch to-day, they are long on fear and short on facts.

I remember the fraud with the so-called ozone hole in the atmosphere around Antarctica that the eco-frauds claimed existed and never existed before. Remember? The so-called man-made ozone hole caused by cloro-florocarbons was going to cause blindness in mammals, worldwide..... The fraud was exposed when people began to ask for the details: like show me the actual ozone hole and your calculation of its size. And the eco-frauds then went back into their university shelters (in ecology departments) and were not heard from again...... until now. And here's their next fraud to sell: global warming in The Inconvenient Truth, starring Al Gore, Greenpeace, Barack Obama, and Nancy Pelosi playing nightly on BBC World Television.

Three hours on, and no-one in the world has posted an answer to my request for the details:

Show me the ISLAND that has been formed from the Wilkins Ice Sheet in Antarctica, not the ice sheet. And show me the calculation of how this supposed ISLAND is up to 1800 square kilometres in area.

Still waiting.......... And I will wait and wait because no-one can show me the ISLAND. But they say they can, so do it. Show me.

Calving is nothing new. All glaciers calve at their edges to relieve a surplus of ice build-up at their centres. All glaciers transport ice from their centre outward and show crevases. These crevases are caused by gravity and ice flow.

I get very offended when I see eco-frauds take a picture of a glacier and porport (sp?) to show an island--- even stating the area of the island is up to 1800 square kilometres.... Then they claim their island is proof of accelerating global warming.

SHOW ME THE ISLAND. SHOW ME THE CALCULATION OF ITS AREA. I WANT TO SEE LIQUID WATER AT THE EDGE OF THE ISLAND, NOT AN ICE SHEET AT THE EDGE OF THE ICE SHEET--- BECAUSE ICE BORDERING ICE PROVES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. AND I WANT SOMETHING ALARMING: LIKE YOUR CLAIM OF UP TO 1800 SQUARE KILOMETRES FLOATING AWAY, NOT A FEW SQUARE KILOMETRES FLOATING AWAY. I WANT SERIOUS CALVING, NOT THE SAME OLD SLOW CALVING THAT HAS TAKEN PLACE AROUND ANTARCTICA FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

Just thinking more about this new Wilkins Ice Sheet Island of up to 1800 square kilometres, where is the island? In other words, show me the ISLAND, not the ice sheet.

A related question to where's the ISLAND: How did you calculate the area of the island?

The devil is in the details: Show me the details of what you are saying, instead of showing me a picture of an ice sheet on Antarctica and telling me that I need to fear the picture because of some change in the texture of the Wilkins Ice Sheet. Show me the ISLAND meaning separation from the rest of Antarctica, and show me the calculation of the size of the island being up to 1800 sq. kilometres.


Like everything else with the environmental bunch to-day, they are long on fear and short on facts.

I remember the fraud with the so-called ozone hole in the atmosphere around Antarctica that the eco-frauds claimed existed and never existed before. Remember? The so-called man-made ozone hole caused by cloro-florocarbons was going to cause blindness in mammals, worldwide..... The fraud was exposed when people began to ask for the details: like show me the actual ozone hole and your calculation of its size. And the eco-frauds then went back into their university shelters (in ecology departments) and were not heard from again...... until now. And here's their next fraud to sell: global warming in The Inconvenient Truth, starring Al Gore, Greenpeace, Barack Obama, and Nancy Pelosi playing nightly on BBC World Television.

[BadJuju]

Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

We all are asked to invest billions perhaps trillions of dollars in to solving the climate issue while they are many other just as pressing and (more important issues imo) easily measured and documented which could and should be addressed but are not and to which carbon trading offers no solution to. Some of which are

Habitat destruction
Peak water (discussed in another post)
Mass species extinction

All of the above problems at least in my opinion are driven to a large extent by the fire economy a financial system, which demands ever more consumption and growth in a finite world and could find no place in a suintable one, but these issues and many are not on the top table of politic around the world because solutions to which would mean the likes of Al Gore and friends would really need to take a haircut in regard to finance and power. Instead issues (such as climate change) where a quick buck can be made are vigorously pursued and dissent outlawed.

That is just the name of the game, my good man. There are numerous catastrophes on the horizon that are being ignored while others are being trumpeted up even though they are all equal in their capacity for destruction. And it is all done in the almighty pursuit of the dollar and soon to be yuan. :p

[Diarmuid]

Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

Natural variations in climate that coincide with AGW. The fact remains that CO2 and other gases, like methane, are greenhouse gases. Natural sources release far more greenhouse gases; however, they are balanced by natural sinks. Humans have been releasing these gasses into the environment at an unprecedented rate. Over time, the amount GHGs builds up in the atmosphere since there is no mechanism for their removal, thus ensuring warming occurs. Since the industrial revolution, we have seen a dramatic increase in temperatures across the world that cannot be explained by natural variations in the climate.

OK I am not going to argue the merits of global warming or cooling any longer as I have stated previously I am not a climatologist however the point I was trying to make is that AGW is now presented as dogma particularly here in Europe and debate is hardly tolerated, I personally believe that is not a healthy situation and imo the debate is far from over within the scientific community - I was trying to present alternative view points to the main stream one.

The proposed solution to Climate Change is carbon caps and trading schemes using credits. Some people have asked the question, what has this to do with a economics forum? - this new scheme is going to create a new multi billion dollar industry and again imo could easily be a precursor to the next bubble and will likely further globalisation; in so far as many "dirty" industries in the west will be moved to the south or the east and the carbon trading will further facilitate this move as well as taxing j6p to pay for the movement. While it is unclear as to how successfully this scheme will be in actually capping CO2 levels.

We all are asked to invest billions perhaps trillions of dollars in to solving the climate issue while they are many other just as pressing and (more important issues imo) easily measured and documented which could and should be addressed but are not and to which carbon trading offers no solution to. Some of which are

Habitat destruction
Peak water (discussed in another post)
Mass species extinction

My belief is all of the above problems are driven to a large extent by the fire economy, a financial system, which demands ever more consumption and growth in a finite world and could find no place in a sustainable one, but these issues and many others are not on the top table of politic around the world because solutions to which would mean the likes of Al Gore and friends would really need to take a haircut in regard to finance and power. Instead issues (such as climate change) where a quick buck can be made are vigorously pursued and dissent outlawed.

[BadJuju]

Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

I think many AGW skeptics would concede this however the question in my mind at least is:

The causation of this warming we are told is man made CO2 but why have temperatures decreased / leveled in the preceeding decade and CO2 increased ?. If CO2 is a causative effect then why have temperatures not increased as predicted in the models ?. The sun could be just as likely be a caustive effect, how can one be sure to any degree of certainty in such a dynamic system as the weather, what factors have over arching influencing on it ? - temperatures have always flucuated on the planet and it seems that saying that the current flucuations are caused by man made CO2 is far from decided.

Natural variations in climate that coincide with AGW. The fact remains that CO2 and other gases, like methane, are greenhouse gases. Natural sources release far more greenhouse gases; however, they are balanced by natural sinks. Humans have been releasing these gasses into the environment at an unprecedented rate. Over time, the amount GHGs builds up in the atmosphere since there is no mechanism for their removal, thus ensuring warming occurs. Since the industrial revolution, we have seen a dramatic increase in temperatures across the world that cannot be explained by natural variations in the climate.

[Diarmuid]

Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

Yeah, it is.. the key bit being "a la Einstein, Kepler" etc. I.e. know your shit and back it up with data.

Question the consensus, but not a la Alex Chiu.

Hey T these are some of the Alex Chi like sites I used for information for comments from my previous post

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...larcycle24.htm

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Sola...nd_October.pdf

[petertribo]

Re: Is this a Climate Change website?

I'm sure we'll find excellent uses for these and other amazingly complex systems AND we'll think we're smart enough to control them. But our profit motive based system that works just fine for selling toothpaste and solar panels will likely prove to be completely inadequate. As you said, economic complexity is just a prelude.

In the current disaster, I have seen no article or even discussion of the role that computers played. 8,000 Wild Cat Hedge Funds using what used to be advanced computers to trade. Little control over them. Without computers, no Derivatives problem. Amazing this is not even discussed or analysed.

As far as long term thinking and demonstrating that we have a whole set of new, highly volatile and technical problems here now and accelerating, I refer you to the Long Now Foundation with which you may be familiar. I am not a member but have listened to a number of the free talks at:
http://www.longnow.org/projects/seminars/
A few are in a civilized debate format. Even in these, however, one can detect gaps in thinking.

As a last observation, I think we may have Peak Technology.What may have peaked are the Benefits of Technology. The Detriments may now outweigh the Benefits culminating in one last onrush of Detriments just like we had an onrush of Benefits at the beginning.

[*T*]

Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

I thought the progression of science was utterly dependent on always questioning the concensus ala Einstein, Kepler, Gauss, Newton etc.

Yeah, it is.. the key bit being "a la Einstein, Kepler" etc. I.e. know your shit and back it up with data.

Question the consensus, but not a la Alex Chiu.

[Diarmuid]

Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

You need to widen your horizons and look, for example, at the recent report about the effects of pollution in the upper atmosphere. Try this on what was called Global Dimming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...Global+Dimming

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/prog..._summary.shtml

An extract from one of the articles from your your recommended reading list to broaden my horizons

"But it now appears the warming from greenhouse gases has been offset by a strong cooling effect from dimming - in effect two of our pollutants have been cancelling each other out." -they are using another unproven thereoy here to explain errors in another unproven thereoy

they are attributing global cooling to another sole factor, dimming caused by pollutants and then have this explain away the measurement differences between real measurements and expected model measurements in the CO2 AGW thereoy - this is even more dubious and gives rise to even more questions to validity

"Even the most pessimistic forecasts of global warming may now have to be drastically revised upwards. That means a temperature rise of 10°C by 2100 could be on the cards, giving the UK a climate like that of North Africa, and rendering many parts of the world uninhabitable. That is unless we act urgently to curb our emissions of greenhouse gases."


This quote I think fits nicely into the definition of junk science and scare mongering - even though temperatures have declined / leveled in the preceding decade we can explain it with more axiomatic apriori assumptive science and look now things look even worse, based on our new model, including many parts of the world could become uninhabitable - omg omg and much hand waving, implement Carbon Trading now (helps reduce green house gases CO2, water vapour, methane etc.) and start polluting more (in regard to particulates, helps keep those damned temperatures down you know), to save us from this impending disaster. :eek:

BTW for my own recommended reading list to broaden horizons one I would recommend

EUCLIDEAN AND
NON-EUCLIDEAN
GEOMETRIES
Development and History
Third Edition
Marvin .Jay Greenberg
University of California, Santa Cruz

This tells the story of how Euclids 5th postulate assumed to be true for thousands of years (concensus) once revised based on the manifold in which it was in situ changed the understanding of many sceintific physical principles and led to the development of hyperbolic geometry, Gauss's fundamental thereom of algebra, Reimann spherics, relativity etc..

Extract from the book

"This book presents the discovery of non-Euclidean geometry and the
subsequent reformulation of the foundations of Euclidean geometry
as a suspense story. The mystery of why Euclid's parallel postulate
could not be proved remained unsolved for over two thousand years,
until the discovery of non-Euclidean geometry and its Euclidean
models revealed the impossibility of any such proof. This discovery
shattered the traditional conception of geometry as the true description
of physical space.

The moral of this book is: Check your
premises."

[Chris Coles]

Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

I think many AGW skeptics would concede this however the question in my mind at least is:

The causation of this warming we are told is man made CO2 but why have temperatures decreased / leveled in the preceeding decade and CO2 increased ?. If CO2 is a causative effect then why have temperatures not increased as predicted in the models ?. The sun could be just as likely be a caustive effect, how can one be sure to any degree of certainty in such a dynamic system as the weather, what factors have over arching influencing on it ? - temperatures have always flucuated on the planet and it seems that saying that the current flucuations are caused by man made CO2 is far from decided.

Foremost in my mind however are the proposed solutions for dealing with the crisis - to my mind the Carbon Trading scheme will do nothing to address the so-called Climate Crisis even if CO2 is the causative effect however it will make connected insiders even richer (Al Gore and co.) whom are demonstratively using junk science and scare mongering and said parroted by the shills in the MSM , it seems to me at least to be perpetrating an agenda for their own personal gain. This sets my internal alarm bells ringing as to how genuine the scentific debate is and the motives behind the shills in the MSM continually rabbiting there is a concensus.

You need to widen your horizons and look, for example, at the recent report about the effects of pollution in the upper atmosphere. Try this on what was called Global Dimming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...Global+Dimming

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/prog..._summary.shtml

[santafe2]

Re: Is this a Climate Change website?

Complexity, complexity, complexity....I think Nassim Taleb speaks to this problem in BLACK SWAN where he claims all these Experts are wrong about risk analysis....we have much more dangerous risks about us than just economic.

I read Taleb's Fooled By Randomness several years ago and re-read last year, great book and speaks to your points above. I was making this modern system complexity point the other day with regard to nuclear energy. We do such a poor job managing complex systems, we've no way to guarantee we can deploy nuclear energy safely. I know others disagree as they've made that point here several times. And nuclear energy is nothing compared to truly complex systems we'll be dealing with in 20 years like self-replicating nanobots. I'm sure we'll find excellent uses for these and other amazingly complex systems AND we'll think we're smart enough to control them. But our profit motive based system that works just fine for selling toothpaste and solar panels will likely prove to be completely inadequate. As you said, economic complexity is just a prelude.

[petertribo]

Re: Is this a Climate Change website?

But I also know that I read and respect their opinions in other areas so it's great to hear their thoughts on this subject as well.

;)

Complexity, complexity, complexity. Humans are daily creating increased complexity beyond our capacity to manage that complexity. Climate change is a symptom of that problem. But it is not the real problem.

The real problem is: how do we create a system of human governance which will deal with Complexity? Bio-research, synthetic biology, nanotechnology and other emerging technologies are adding to this Complexity daily. These are not even on the general human agenda now.

(As support for the above, I cite the Financial Depression, where Humans, after thousands of years, have been unable to create governance which will manage something as simple as our Economy. How are we going to manage more complex problems?)

My opinion, of course, but I do base it on a number of books and articles I have read and also a number of talks I have listened to on related subjects. I think Nassim Taleb speaks to this problem in BLACK SWAN where he claims all these Experts are wrong about risk analysis. A pretty damning comment if true because we have much more dangerous risks about us than just economic.

[santafe2]

Re: Is this a Climate Change website?

What does Climate Change have to do with I-Tulip?

Must every website on the internet be hijacked by debates about the human contribution to global warming?

Why not post in favour of evangelical Christianity, while you are at it, or push your favorite diet?

I think others have answered the why question but it's also a great way for us to hear other iTulipers opinion on a fairly wide range of subjects. I know for example that GRG, C1ue, Starving and others don't agree with my ideas regarding global climate change. But I also know that I read and respect their opinions in other areas so it's great to hear their thoughts on this subject as well.

None of us will ever become reasonable thinkers by discussing subjects with only those who agree with us. To me, that's one of the greatest values of iTulip. There are many excellent minds here with very different points of view. Oh, and that EJ guy isn't bad either...;)