Slashdot Mirror

I don't know the answer for all of those glaciers in the 1930s, but here are a few examples of before-and-after photographs: Boulder Glacier 1932-2005, Swiftcurrent glacier 1930-2002, Mendenhall and Hugh Miller glaciers 1937-2005 and 1940-2006, Mount Stanley in Uganda, 1906-1958-1992.

The US Geological Survey web site linked above has similar photos of eleven glaciers in Glacier National Park, Montana, many from the early 1900s. They say that only a few glaciers there have not significantly changed since the 1930s, and that there were 150 glaciers in 1850, only 26 of which remain today. You might also check out the Wikipedia article Retreat of glaciers since 1850.

I don't know the answer for all of those glaciers in the 1930s, but here are a few examples of before-and-after photographs: Boulder Glacier 1932-2005, Swiftcurrent glacier 1930-2002, Mendenhall and Hugh Miller glaciers 1937-2005 and 1940-2006, Mount Stanley in Uganda, 1906-1958-1992.

The US Geological Survey web site linked above has similar photos of eleven glaciers in Glacier National Park, Montana, many from the early 1900s. They say that only a few glaciers there have not significantly changed since the 1930s, and that there were 150 glaciers in 1850, only 26 of which remain today. You might also check out the Wikipedia article Retreat of glaciers since 1850.

This is normally a taboo area for me as the tirades from the 'see no evil' brigade are normally more then I can stomach and aren't worth the time, however I have to say that from what I've read there's fairly significant circumstantial evidence that would imply they're already here and have been for quite some time. I don't necessarily believe that we're in contact with aliens but at the same time I can't prove otherwise. A theory has to be disproved or discredited before it can be discarded. Some of the people in the following links make some pretty big statements and the 'official' response is normally petty personal and defamatory attack which leads me to be just a little suspicious. Why deride someone when you can prove him wrong with fact? From what I've seen over the last decade regarding the BS media and outright lies from officials and governments I think if I had to I'd side with the ufoligists when it comes to trustworthiness. These are some of the best links I've found... anywayz as they say, The Truth is Out There. http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=us er.viewprofile&friendid=62955347 http://www.disclosureproject.org/ http://ida.wr.usgs.gov/html/m15012/m1501228.html http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS 15-P-9625

Calpine's "Geysers" geothermal power plant network in Lake County, California, are still online. http://www.geysers.com/ According to Wikipedia and Calpine's web page it is the largest geothermal network of power plants in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calpine & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geysers). According to the same sources, it is currently producing 750MW and they are pumping about 11 million gallons of "treated wastewater" (read: sewage) from Santa Rosa PER DAY into a geothermal area and producing steam to spin turbines to generate electricity. I haven't read that they are losing output - where did you read that? If anything the output has been steadily increasing. It was 700MW a few years ago, and it has been rising. http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/stor y?id=48784

For all it's non-CO2 generating goodness, however, it definitely produces a LOT of earthquakes. We have a house near Pine Grove, CA, (near the Geysers) and throughout the day the earthquakes are so frequent that it's like living next to a major freeway. Look at this map of California and Nevada http://quake.usgs.gov/recenteqs/latest.htm and then note the massive number of squares just NNW of the SF Bay Area on the map - or look at this list: http://quake.usgs.gov/recenteqs/Quakes/quakes0.htm and note the extremely high number that are situated around "The Geysers".

Geothermal is a neat solution to producing power, but to say that it has "nearly zero impact on the climate or the environment" as the original article states is a bit misleading. It may have zero impact on the environment around the world, but it has profound (and frequent) impacts if you happen to live near the power plant stations. No matter what anyone says, you never quite get used to them - either. They wake you up at night, they rattle the dishes during dinner - some of them feel like the house just dropped a foot, some shake like a large truck crossing on a bridge.

Calpine's "Geysers" geothermal power plant network in Lake County, California, are still online. http://www.geysers.com/ According to Wikipedia and Calpine's web page it is the largest geothermal network of power plants in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calpine & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geysers). According to the same sources, it is currently producing 750MW and they are pumping about 11 million gallons of "treated wastewater" (read: sewage) from Santa Rosa PER DAY into a geothermal area and producing steam to spin turbines to generate electricity. I haven't read that they are losing output - where did you read that? If anything the output has been steadily increasing. It was 700MW a few years ago, and it has been rising. http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/stor y?id=48784

For all it's non-CO2 generating goodness, however, it definitely produces a LOT of earthquakes. We have a house near Pine Grove, CA, (near the Geysers) and throughout the day the earthquakes are so frequent that it's like living next to a major freeway. Look at this map of California and Nevada http://quake.usgs.gov/recenteqs/latest.htm and then note the massive number of squares just NNW of the SF Bay Area on the map - or look at this list: http://quake.usgs.gov/recenteqs/Quakes/quakes0.htm and note the extremely high number that are situated around "The Geysers".

Geothermal is a neat solution to producing power, but to say that it has "nearly zero impact on the climate or the environment" as the original article states is a bit misleading. It may have zero impact on the environment around the world, but it has profound (and frequent) impacts if you happen to live near the power plant stations. No matter what anyone says, you never quite get used to them - either. They wake you up at night, they rattle the dishes during dinner - some of them feel like the house just dropped a foot, some shake like a large truck crossing on a bridge.

is to use the right dilution.
Right. I have worked in the Chemical Process Industry. I had to learn the basic ins and outs of e.g. RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act), &al. Here's an example. If the EPA regulations state that an effluent stream can contain no more than 3.7mg/kg of benzene (14mg/kg for refinery sludge...)*, then all that one needs to do is figure out that e.g. a water line will provide ~150 gal/min (3/4" hose with municipal line pressure), and 1 gal of water weighs ~3.78 kg, then you can safely dispose of a beaker (500 ml ~= 430e3 mg) of benzene by running the hose into the same drain that you dumped the solvent for 430e3/(3.7*3.78*150)~= 205 min. Run the hose (or faucet, &c.) all night, and you're golden. If you can locate your plant along a river (flow rate ~20,000 ft/sec ~=150,000 gal/sec)** then you can get away with dumping a heck of a lot more without running afoul of the EPA regulations.

As far as the old eyedropper in a boxcar argument, it's hogwash. Many of the toxins in question are bioaccumulative, so that the concentration in e.g. a fresh fish dinner will be much higher than that in the water which the fish was swimming in when caught. The "well mixed" assumption is not only inaccurate, it is just wrong.

* (IIRC... these numbers may have been changed, since the late 90's. It's not the specific numbers which are the point of my argument, however, but the philosophy that sufficient dilution makes it [dumping toxins into the biosphere] all right.)

**in case you're curious, this number was taken from a lower bounds government estimate of flow in the Hudson river [PDF warning]

"We can quite easily observe, for instance, that there are numerous rilles (canyons) on the rocky planets that move both up and down with the terrain of the planets. Furthermore, we can observe that these rilles will occasionally break up into chains of craters, and that craters are oftentimes associated with rilles. This is a very important observation that anybody can validate for themselves without an advanced mathematical degree, because it suggests that plasmas in space are electrical in nature, and that bodies in space can acquire and trade electrical charge over electrical plasmas (as we can see plasmas doing in the laboratory)"

Or, alternatively, that through the forces of geology (which can produce sinuous or linear lava tubes in volcanic areas or produce open fractures beneath the surface due to faulting), and gravity (which can cause overlying material to collapse into those same open spaces), a series of sinkhole or collapse pits can be produced that are called "pit crater chains".

Then there are examples of actual impact crater chains that may be produced when tidal forces tear apart an asteroid or comet into multiple chunks that can then impact in quick succession on the surface of a body (e.g., as happened for comet Shoemaker-Levy 9). The two processes are rather different, but superficially resemble each other in terms of the results.

As you say, in the scientific realm it's important to consider alternative possibilities.

Why not?

That doesn't avoid the problems with the dollar, since they are problems common to all fiat currencies (although it's true that the degree of problem varies with the particular fiat currency).

Well, name a currency that you don't have a problem with. Investing in Microsoft with USD is not related to the dollar. Sure, the value of the shares is tied to the dollar, but if the dollar were to cease to exist tomorrow, I'd still own a percentage of Microsoft. I could sell that portion of the company in other currency (as I could today, if I wanted to), or trade it for gold or such.

Actually, gold has gained quite a bit of value relative to fiat currency in recent years.

Yes, and in the long-term gold is running at about inflation and stock beat inflation. I don't care if gold went up the last 5 years, or if you think it will go up in the next 5 years. Where was gold 50 years ago? Where will it be in another 50 years? http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2000/of00-389/of00-389.pdf

Based off historical data, gold beats inflation by about 0.5%. Stock beat inflation by about 7%. You are losing 6.5% for greater certainty. That is reasonable, risk averse, and a bad choice for 99% of the people out there. I've given a nice little graph made by a 3rd party (the US gvt.). Feel free to counter it with something that shows how crappy stocks are over long periods. How about what they would have been if you bought the Dow Industrial stocks the day before the 1929 crash and sold them 20 years later? Oh, sorry, even with the Great Depression and the huge loss of stocks then, you'd still be better off than the average historical gains of gold. There exists no 20 year period in the history of Wall Street where the major stock indicies performed worse than the historical performance of gold, even if you were to pick the worst 20 years ever. Go ahead, try. I'll be laughing all the way to the bank.

It's actually the best way to get rid of unwanted radioactive waste.

I am not sure that the people and animals living around the Golden Gate area for the next few thousand years would agree.

http://www.sfweekly.com/2001-05-09/news/fallout/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farallon_Islands
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3720/is_20 0207/ai_n9128555/pg_2
http://ludb.clui.org/ex/i/CA3160/
http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/farallon/radwaste.html

As a slap in the face to environmentalists, Bush designated the nuclear waste dump as a marine sanctuary, ensuring that there was highly restrictive blanket of laws http://farallones.noaa.gov/manage/regulations.html regarding access to and use of the waters in and around the nuclear waste in order to prevent people from researching how badly all the radioactive materials are leaking and contaminating the water, sea bed and sea life in the area while at the same time pretending to do something pro-environment - the joke is on us. http://farallones.noaa.gov/manage/sac.html

Now the real problem is ... you can't really address the problem by shooting at something. So that makes it a downright un-American issue.

Now here's what to do about it.

First of all the NOAA has to be brought under the Department of Home Security because that's where the money is nowadays. Secondly, submit a {sizeable} donation to to e.g. the Cato institute or an equivalent, and have them bring together a posse of "intelligence experts", who go on record as being "worried" that hurricanes may be caused by Al-Quaeda, or that Al-Quaeda is somehow taking advantage of them. PR campaigns in the media are optional, but be sure to work the lobby circuit.

Then introduce the number of tracked hurricanes as a DOH success metric. That's important because it's a measurable and *achievable* goal.

Now you've created a win-win situation! The DOH gets a clearly visible and achievable success metric [they haven't got all that many of those], and the NOAA gets the funding to track hurricanes in every part of the globe. Problem solved.

There's actually a lot of research indicating most whale populations are increasing, or have reached their natural limit. In other words, this hunt is a curiousity because of the previous portion of spear found, but shouldn't be a concern or rallying point to press for changes in cultural heritage to "save" the population.

1. the opening would be elongated along the axis of the tube

Possibly, but only if the size of the hole is similar to the size of the tube. If this is a shot through the "ceiling" and doesn't come close to the walls, (and if the Dena guess of 130m for the diameter of the cave is close) then this could easily be just a punched "skylight". If the tube is, in fact, even larger, then it might very well be possible to see no difference in the edges. Lava tubes, at least from the data I've seen, tend to have mostly flat ceilings and are not purely cylindrical.

2. it should be more cracked and irregular since there would be little surface erosion to smooth things out

Actually, I'd expect that with only gravity to do it's work, and if it was caused by a meteor impact, that the shape would be almost perfectly circular, with any further cracks being either covered by the pervasive Martian dust (see the Spirit and Opportunity data.) Also, impacts in stone tend not to make many cracks (see this image for an example of how cement breaks. Admittedly volcanic basalt is not concrete, but the idea is similar. Also, how long has this cave been here? A thousand years, a million, a billion? It could be just about any of the above.

3. lava tubes tend to be fairly shallow so the bottom should be visible

Lava tubes tend to be shallow on Earth. However the Ape Cave lava tube in Washington is clearly at least as deep as it is wide [See here], and since we can't see walls on a 100m wide image, we can assume (and I know all about that word) that it might easily be 100m deep. Also, seeing the bottom depends on lots of factors. What is the angle of the sun (hard to tell from the lack of shadows) and the resulting angle to the spacecraft. There's a lot of ways to get near zero light, even given a cave only 50 meters deep.

4. lava tubes tend to be curved and smooth inside, so you'd expect more reflection

Lava tubes on Earth. Which are a few thousand years old. Look at Ape Cave in the above image and show me "smooth and shiny." I see bumpy and cracked. What happens when you expose basalt to ionizing radiation? Mars, lacking in a major magnetic field, allows a lot of radiation to impact the surface. What does that do to basalt? On the moon it makes it dark and bumpy. (see regolith)

5. the walls would be visible on two sides and at least one of them should be getting sunlight

Again, only if this hole spanned the width of the tube because of natural collapse. Lower gravity on Mars means you can have much larger air-supported structures. Lack of water or an erosion cycle means that the tube is less likely to collapse on its own. As some one else stated, these structures could act totally differently on Mars than on Earth. Perhaps on Mars, the thin, cold atmosphere leads to near immediate radiative cooling of the surface and almost all lava flows were under the surface. Once you form an insulating skin that prevents outgassing to proceed to the surface, it could be possible that a large gap would form between the ceiling of the flow and the current lava flow even without a noticable down-slope flow pool. Maybe the entire lava field is just the surface of one big bubble.

It's always dangerous to extrapolate Earth features to other planets and expect there to be no difference. This is a fascinating feature that deserves further study.

Either that, or the Martians are cloaking their secret base. One of the two...

And where do you believe terrestrial radiation comes from? The sun. What is being measured and observed is terrestrial re-radiation, with solar radiation as a control and baseline.

Now there's a "red herring" argument! I believe that quote refers to dating.

Ok, you got me there. Shot my mouth off with out doing the research. Mea Culpa.

And doesn't the burning of any hydrocarbon based fuel release carbon?

But at what cost? http://www.iisd.org/media/2006/oct_25_2006.asp

Not to mention that there is some question as to the actual origin of "fossil fuels". They may be naturally occuring.

The gallium isn't a static catalyst, as in a catalytic converter. A gallium-aluminum alloy goes in, and a mixture of gallium and alumina comes out. Which then has to be run through some kind of processing operation to separate the gallium. It's recyclable, but it's part of the fuel, not part of the engine.

Also, the price differential between low-purity and high-purity gallium isn't that large. In 1999, it was $250/Kg for low-purity from China and $400 for high-purity (mostly from France).

Gallium is a by-product of aluminum and zinc extraction. There's about 50ppm of gallium in bauxite, and only some fraction of that (maybe half) is recoverable. So it takes something like 40 metric tons of bauxite to yield one kilogram of gallium.

Basic lesson: when replacing oil, you have to find something cheaper, or at least not far more expensive.

Neither of these sentences are even remotely close to true. You have been demanding data sources, so where are your sources for this?

Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from subaerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at the present time. Gerlach (1991) estimated a total global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes. This is a conservative estimate. Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150 times.

After circling many more times, most of the ash settled to the Earth's surface, but some of the smallest fragments and aerosols remained suspended in the upper atmosphere for years.

I'm still highly amused that you have not provided a single graph, analysis or paper that supports your position or your claims. This, in spite of a lengthy post that must have taken a good chunk of time to write up. BTW, here's a quick link for you to peruse about volcanic emissions versus human emissions: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volg as.html

Oh how wrong you are about volcanoes. Sucks when you have no data to back you up, doesn't it? For someone who harps on data and models, you are amazingly bad at picking your supporting graphs, your supporting models and your supporting papers.

The Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), is the distributor of public sale National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) topographic maps, publications, and digital products.

... even if all CFLs were to break open, the mercury released would be less than would be released if the lights had remained incandescent ...

1. 2.931 * 10^14 watt-hours of energy produced by coal plants each year [1]
2. one-third of total electricity production if from coal [1]
3. 48 tons of mercury emitted by coal power plants, will eventually reduce to 15 tons under new rule [2]
4. 48 tons converts to 4.35 * 10^10 milligrams [3]
5. A compact fluorescent bulb lasts up to 10,000 hours
6. One 15 watt companct fluorescent bulb produced as much light as a 60 watt incandescent and contains 5 milligrams of mercury

• [1] http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/energy/stats_ctry/Stat1. html#1foot1
• [2] http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems /pollutioncontrols/overview_mercurycontrols.html
• [3] http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=48+tons+in+mi lligrams&btnG=Google+Search

No, shit. The US Govt has been doing this for decades. Most of it is archived here and that's one of the sources that Google uses. It's also pretty safe to say that Google probably doesn't do any of the orthorectification either. MSFT's terraserver used data from the USGS (the first people to see it choke & die from information overload are friends of mine).

and I think in the near future they'll(India) probably be buying Uranium from NPT countries like Australia

Actually, there is are earthquakes in Alaska. In fact, three of the the top 10 most powerful quakes in the world were located in Alaska. Just take a look here: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/world/10_large st_world.php

Yeah, I agree that other species will likely be affected (and perhaps they are, anyone know?) at least to some extent (maybe not so catastrophically), but it sounds like honey bees will be a primary indicator.

The geomagnetic field isn't particularly uniform, however. Check out this animated map (flash), or the others. It declines in spots all over, and we may even see localised temporary reversals in some areas.

Yeah, I agree that other species will likely be affected (and perhaps they are, anyone know?) at least to some extent (maybe not so catastrophically), but it sounds like honey bees will be a primary indicator.

The geomagnetic field isn't particularly uniform, however. Check out this animated map (flash), or the others. It declines in spots all over, and we may even see localised temporary reversals in some areas.

.1 Richter microquakes, yes, of course. Sometimes going up to even 2 to 3 on the Richter scale- but just because pressure is building for a larger quake doesn't mean that all movement is stopped. The Mid Atlantic ridge, while useless for the above energy example, is a good example of perpetual quakes, it's litterally spreading (divergent) apart at 2.5cm/year. On second thought, that's a good example- more traditional methods of geothermal energy extraction from that specific ridge line allow Iceland to generate Geothermal energy, with one hot plant producing over 90MW of electricity, and geothermal energy being 13% of the energy production for the island.

And it doesn't matter if you expose any one of those talking points as bogus(*), because two more will be invented for the next edition of the next radio talk show.

(*) Volcanoes, for instance. Here's the actual numbers on human and volcanic emissions of CO2.

Actually it is not much at all (from here):

These studies concluded that the maximum radiation dose to an individual living within 1 km of a modern [coal] power plant is equivalent to a minor, perhaps 1 to 5 percent, increase above the radiation from the natural environment.

I think I got that link from a slashdot comment a while ago.

Global cooling often has been linked with major volcanic eruptions. The year 1816 often has been referred to as "the year without a summer". It was a time of significant weather-related disruptions in New England and in Western Europe with killing summer frosts in the United States and Canada. These strange phenomena were attributed to a major eruption of the Tambora volcano in 1815 in Indonesia. The volcano threw sulfur dioxide gas into the stratosphere, and the aerosol layer that formed led to brilliant sunsets seen around the world for several years.

I had thought that the material thrown into the atmosphere and spread around the world by the rotation of the earth simply reduced the available sunlight that could warm the ground, but that link says it was sulfur dioxide gas, not just particulates. I remember the Mt. St. Helens aircraft warning, so they would not sustain damage from solid material blasted airborne from the volcano.

Didn't we have some effect from the material thrown into the atmosphere from Mt. St. Helens as far as overall global temperatures is concerned? That link refers to the "haze effect", resulting in very red sunsets.
So we would have 2500 times the 600 cubic miles of material (If all the force of the volcano results in material in the atmosphere) if the Yellowstone Supervolcano has a major eruption.
Would that not result in a lowering of temperatures worldwide, the Sun not able to warm the earth, and that meaning "a period without summers", perhaps years long, with no crops being able to be grown due to the cold?
Famine, freezing to death, or what.
Have to remember that these things are on a geological time scale, don't expect Yellowstone to appear on the evening news anytime soon. That said, there have been lots of big volcanos in the last century or so, plenty of them on film or television.
But that is volcanos worldwide, not for one that has been "asleep" for so long.

The full journal article is available here.

I'm not a geologist, but the fact that the crater is described as being oblate -- 30x40 miles -- puts it out of the vast majority of impact craters, which are circular; it takes an impact at a very low angle (under 10) to get significant distortion of the crater. Interestingly, if you look at the map of the crater location and compare it to a map of the previous eruptions of the supervolcano hot spot now under Yellowstone (larger image here), you could also draw the conclusion that it was the crater from an eruption of the hotspot around 18-20 million years ago. The violence of a supervolcano eruption compared to a normal eruption could account for the presence of shatter cones. Comparing this site to the other known calderas from that hot spot.

I'm not a geologist, but the fact that the crater is described as being oblate -- 30x40 miles -- puts it out of the vast majority of impact craters, which are circular; it takes an impact at a very low angle (under 10) to get significant distortion of the crater. Interestingly, if you look at the map of the crater location and compare it to a map of the previous eruptions of the supervolcano hot spot now under Yellowstone (larger image here), you could also draw the conclusion that it was the crater from an eruption of the hotspot around 18-20 million years ago. The violence of a supervolcano eruption compared to a normal eruption could account for the presence of shatter cones. Comparing this site to the other known calderas from that hot spot.

Sorry, I got cut off before I could add:

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volg as.html

>snipComparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!

Humans produce about 150x the CO2 output by volcanos.

Methane and CO2 levels are way, way up since the industrial revolution.

Basically, it's pretty irrefutable that mankind is having a significant effect on global warming. The fact that the sun is also warming doesn't mean, as the summary implies, that global warming is "not a human-induced" phenomenon, just that it also has other contributing factors. This should, if anything, spur humanity to greater levels of effort to reduce emissions.

May as well. We contribute less than a percent of the entire amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Everything else comes from volcanoes and water vapor.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volg as.html

"Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!"

In light of this overview, hydrocarbon economies are bad not because of Carbon Dioxide, but because we're draining our planet of its lubrication. This is probably a Bad Thing - I expect some major seismic activity in the next 50-1000 years.

In light of this overview, hydrocarbon economies are bad not because of Carbon Dioxide, but because we're draining our planet of its lubrication. This is probably a Bad Thing - I expect some major seismic activity in the next 50-1000 years.

Also don't forget that burning coal to produce electricity releases a large amount of mercury into the environment, so less efficient incandescent bulbs will, over their lifetime, cause more airborne murcury to be released than CFL's.

Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas, but measured over time, CO2 has more impact. The Methane breaks down after 10-15 years whereas the CO2 stays around for 200-400 years...

While methane decomposes or has a halflife that's a lot shorter than CO2 it still can have a much bigger impact on warming. It's not as though what's released now won't have an impact for 200 years, the impact is more immediate, on the scale of decades if not years. Then again a volcano, like the Yellowstone Super Volcano, can emit more greenhouse gas than humans can.

If it's not being reported, why was it so easy for me to find that the Hubbard glacier is expanding?

The valid point you make is that an article about one glacier does not help you determine global climate. What does is the fact that most of them are retreating.

Everyone knows this one already, right ? But just in case.

It is the case that life will find a way of adjusting the temperature accordingly, like in the daisyworld model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisyworld I had an idea that would be cheep and less expensive, detonte some explosives at key Volcano's to cause an erruption. Do it in the ring of fire to not effect populated areas. Erruptions have been known to cool the planet. Like Pinatubo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/VolcWeather/des cription_volcanoes_and_weather.html There might be some problematic issues with regard to ozone, but it would keep things cooler :-)

then why does man made smoke cause global warming? http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/of97-262/of97-262.htm l It appears to me that if we remove the sulfur filters from coal fired power station smoke stacks, the earth will cool down again...

When you equip the coal fired power stations with 30,000 ft smokestacks, then you will be correct. Ozone high up is good. Ozone at ground level is bad. Particulates high up and low have differing results. Volcanos spew their ash much higher than our little man-made fires.

then why does man made smoke cause global warming? http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/of97-262/of97-262.htm l It appears to me that if we remove the sulfur filters from coal fired power station smoke stacks, the earth will cool down again...

I'm pretty sure we already have plenty of experience surviving on an ocean world, since we already live on one. What we're not used to is surviving while sea levels rise, perhaps uncontrollably, which is probably what you meant.

The projected maximum rise in sea level due to total melting of glaciers is around 80m. The average elevation of exposed land is about 2870m, which is about 35 times as high. Melting everything won't inundate the globe, but it will require relocation from low-lying areas.

I guess I just can't help but reply to a highly-rated but retarded comment.

water will be replenished into the air from the oceans. how do we know this? how was this proven?

It's called Evaporation. In the United States, this concept is usually taught in 4th grade.

if the water content of oceans diminishes, the salt content increases proportionately.

70% of the Earth's surface is covered with water. Just 3% of the world's water is fresh, including all lakes, rivers, glaciers, snowpacks, etc. Thus, it's pretty unlikely that the water we're talking about will make
more than squat diddly bit of difference.

that would threaten to bring dramatic change to the fragile balance of the environment for marine life.

But not like the snapper you had for dinner last night, or the tuna sandwich you had for lunch? What about the ice-cream you ate? What happened to the turds when you flushed your toilet? Or what about the runoff from the farms that grew the food you ate, even if not seafood?

Seriously, dude. There is so much valuable information available for FREE - it might be a good idea to look up some of it before commenting.

when man plays with mother nature, we almost inevitably come out on the losing end.

Yeah. Sorta like playing with mother nature has screwed us over by providing massive increases in the amount of usable food. Like playing with mother nature has doubled our average life expectancy in just 100 years. Just like playing with mother nature has increased the per-capita wealth of even the poor by over 200% in just 30 years.

drain the swamps in new orleans, then lose 60% of the land's ability to absorb water.

But what about all the houses on that land? What, they don't count? Sure, they come at a cost. But they came. And those that live there have a better quality of life than before.

introduce pest-killing amphibians to the everglades, then they procreate without preditors and wipe out existing species.

(Ahem) It's called "evolution". Survival of the fittest. It's been happening for billions of years. Or do you happen to have a pet Tyrannosaurus Rex? See, your mammalian ancestors out-competed the mighty dinosaurs.

Sorry about the native yellow-bellied sap-frog. (or whatever) But species invade new areas, naturally, all the time.

water the deserts of nevada to make lush golf courses, then people in colorado go thirsty and firemen can't put out historically large forest fires covering hundreds of thousands of acres.

I remember reading about some newcomers to North California's central valley in the late 1800's. They described late summer nights as the "glowing of the devil" because of all the forest fires in the surrounding foothills. They were common, back then. Today, we fight those fires, and have massive bomber planes drop fire-retardant to stop the fires. By stopping the fires, trees are saved that would otherwise burn. They are logged, at a handsome profit to both the lumber companies and the local jurisdictions.

But try explaining that whole exchange to an environmentalist.

Are there environmental problems?

YES! But there were environmental problems long before we humans got involved.

PS: Properly formed sentences start with an upper case. It involves the shift key on either side of your keyboard. Try it: lower case UPPER CASE lower case UPPER CASE. It's easy!

I hope the parent comment was a joke, but if not, please take a look at this site:

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/waterdistribution.htm l

The oceans contain 96.5% of the water on the Earth. The soil moisture, which is what we would like to increase, contains 0.001% of the water. Even if you doubled the soil moisture with this technique, the the oceans would still contain 96.5% of the water. The change is simply too small to register on the same scale. So don't worry about the salt balance of the oceans.

Almost all the moisture taken from the atmosphere would btw end right back in the atmosphere again, as evapotranspiration. But in the process, it would allow plants to grow.