Do you have an support for your claim that this volcanic activity is the prime cause for (recent) Western Antarctic melting, rather than just a small additional factor ?
Yes, sea ice extent has been mentioned several times. That's the stuff that freezes on the sea surface every winter, and melts every summer. It's not very important, and it's not what this article is about.
This article is about total ice volume, and how it's declining year over year.
No, the land is pretty much permanently covered by ice, and since the land area is fixed, any changes in ice area must be from the sea ice only.
Also note that your graph is called "ant-sea-ice_fig.JPG", and that it appears on this page http://www.worldclimatereport.... titled "Another IPCC Error: Antarctic Sea Ice Increase Underestimated by 50%" So, clearly they're talking about the sea ice changes.
The ice loss that this article is talking about is a reduced thickness of the land ice. That's not something you can see on a 2D picture from a satellite.
Now, how do you propose to raise the tens of trillions of dollars necessary to build this massive solar-hydrogen power generation and distribution infrastructure you're talking about?
The same way you would have to do when oil runs out.
Fossil fuels "will" run out eventually, but is that in 10 years, 50 years
Probably between 10 and 50 years is when we can expect shortages. That doesn't mean the reserves will run out, but maybe your local pump does.
Why is climate change touted as THE MOST IMPORTANT issue? When that's just a wild speculation about risk?
I don't think it's fair to summarize the current insights on global climate change as "wild speculation". We have very useful models that match pretty well with reality. Common sense dictates that we use those as a basis for policy, and we'll start with the things we need to do anyway.
It takes decades for a "heat signal" to penetrate 1-2 miles of aerated ice
That's not the only mechanism. A bigger and faster mechanism is the melting of the ice shelves from the bottom up because they are sitting in warmer water. The ice shelves are currently slowing down the glacial transport. Without that, the glaciers would be going much faster.
I'm saying that you have no guarantee ahead of time that your model won't turn out to be useless and harmful.
There are no guarantees. It's about risk assessment. Waiting for better models may be more harmful than using whatever we have now. Besides, fossil fuels are going to run out anyway, and we'll have to deal with the harmful consequences of finding replacements anyway. All we need to do is start a bit earlier.
Why spend money on something that has a payback period of more than 5 years, when we have easier solutions right in front of us that have a payback period of as little as 1 year?
Because the low hanging fruit isn't very plentiful. LED bulbs don't have much of an impact on overall energy consumption, for instance.
You are correct about the models. It was not expected. Either way, Antarctic sea ice growth is not very important. It doesn't chance the sea level, for instance.
It seems to be growing despite volcanoes under western Antarctica.
That's sea ice. It shows up in the winter when temperatures are cold enough to freeze the ocean. It disappears again in the summer. Yes, the maximum winter area of sea ice is growing, but that's expected.
The article is about loss of Antarctic land ice and ice shelves.
Slashdot Mirror
What are you going to do with all the shitty compost when you live in a city apartment ?
Seriously: I've looked through 200 comments, and no one had the same thought I did?
Maybe some people had the same thought, but decided to google it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
Do you have an support for your claim that this volcanic activity is the prime cause for (recent) Western Antarctic melting, rather than just a small additional factor ?
Yes, sea ice extent has been mentioned several times. That's the stuff that freezes on the sea surface every winter, and melts every summer. It's not very important, and it's not what this article is about.
This article is about total ice volume, and how it's declining year over year.
Thanks. I couldn't have done it without your input, though.
This is the one that brought up sea ice. I agree he's confused.
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
You were trying to say something here or just nit pick ?
I was trying to say that you're an idiot.
Both. "These guys" are talking about total ice volume, while your link talks about sea ice area.
Also note that these guys are using NASA data: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/ear...
No, the land is pretty much permanently covered by ice, and since the land area is fixed, any changes in ice area must be from the sea ice only.
Also note that your graph is called "ant-sea-ice_fig.JPG", and that it appears on this page http://www.worldclimatereport.... titled "Another IPCC Error: Antarctic Sea Ice Increase Underestimated by 50%" So, clearly they're talking about the sea ice changes.
The ice loss that this article is talking about is a reduced thickness of the land ice. That's not something you can see on a 2D picture from a satellite.
You cannot be skeptical of the facts. You can only deny them.
Now, how do you propose to raise the tens of trillions of dollars necessary to build this massive solar-hydrogen power generation and distribution infrastructure you're talking about?
The same way you would have to do when oil runs out.
It's a step in the right direction. It contributes towards thinking towards a solution.
The step is far too small, and it carries the risk that people get complacent, because "we are taking steps".
Some are just skeptical of assertions that:...
You mean, they are denying these assertions.
If the warmunists have such overwhelming evidence in their favor, why do they need to stifle dissent with a label that has such obvious baggage?
If people deliberately ignore that evidence, they deserve that label.
We are 12,000 years removed from the last Ice Age
And those effects stopped about 8000 years ago. Since then, it is been very slowly getting cooler again.
And there is total ice.
No, that's another sea ice graph.
We're not talking about Antarctic sea ice. We're talking about the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which is a totally different thing.
Right. That's what I said to GP who posted the sea ice graph. Do try to keep up.
Vostochny isn't finished yet either, so in that case, they're comparing estimate to estimate.
Fossil fuels "will" run out eventually, but is that in 10 years, 50 years
Probably between 10 and 50 years is when we can expect shortages. That doesn't mean the reserves will run out, but maybe your local pump does.
Why is climate change touted as THE MOST IMPORTANT issue? When that's just a wild speculation about risk?
I don't think it's fair to summarize the current insights on global climate change as "wild speculation". We have very useful models that match pretty well with reality. Common sense dictates that we use those as a basis for policy, and we'll start with the things we need to do anyway.
So, do you have any actual arguments, besides the assumption that a large group of experts are all wrong ?
It takes decades for a "heat signal" to penetrate 1-2 miles of aerated ice
That's not the only mechanism. A bigger and faster mechanism is the melting of the ice shelves from the bottom up because they are sitting in warmer water. The ice shelves are currently slowing down the glacial transport. Without that, the glaciers would be going much faster.
I'm saying that you have no guarantee ahead of time that your model won't turn out to be useless and harmful.
There are no guarantees. It's about risk assessment. Waiting for better models may be more harmful than using whatever we have now. Besides, fossil fuels are going to run out anyway, and we'll have to deal with the harmful consequences of finding replacements anyway. All we need to do is start a bit earlier.
Why spend money on something that has a payback period of more than 5 years, when we have easier solutions right in front of us that have a payback period of as little as 1 year?
Because the low hanging fruit isn't very plentiful. LED bulbs don't have much of an impact on overall energy consumption, for instance.
You are correct about the models. It was not expected. Either way, Antarctic sea ice growth is not very important. It doesn't chance the sea level, for instance.
It seems to be growing despite volcanoes under western Antarctica.
That's sea ice. It shows up in the winter when temperatures are cold enough to freeze the ocean. It disappears again in the summer. Yes, the maximum winter area of sea ice is growing, but that's expected.
The article is about loss of Antarctic land ice and ice shelves.