Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

[mcgurme]

Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

If the environmentalists were really serious about reducing the CO2 emissions from mankind, why do they oppose the construction of more atomic power plants? Why do they oppose the construction of more hydro-electric dams? ( Both dams and nukes have no CO2 footprint, and they provide large amounts of electrical energy. )

Not all environmentalists oppose dams and nukes, but most do. Witness the head of Greenpeace speaking-out a week or two ago against Ontario's plan to construct two new nuclear power plants at Darlington, Ontario.

Meanwhile, snowed-in once again on Vancouver Island (in spite of so-called global warming) I am burning log after log of wood to keep warm. So my carbon footprint is horrendous, yet I have the blessing of the environmentalists around me. No protests or overt concerns here from Greenpeace activists.

I even emit cyanide gas from burning tree sap in cut logs of wood. Yet, no overt concern from the environmental nuts here--- because they do the same thing.

And since the soils of Vancouver Island are made from granite rocks (by moss), it is a safe bet to assume uranium is in the local soil and in the logs that I am burning. Think of the uranium that is going up my chimney! But this is no issue with the eco-nuts because they emit the uranium too.

Shall I mention the pot farms and the eco-frauds who grow pot around me on Vancouver Island? How about discussing the diesel fuel they dump into the soil from their generators? How about discussing the solvents, pesticides, and herbicides they dump into the soil?

Let's tell it like it really is!

Yes, let's do that, tell it like it is.

Nukes: I doubt that you can deny there are risks to operating nuclear power plants. There is plenty of evidence that nuclear IS problematic. Now, it may be the case that nuclear is less problematic than ongoing carbon dependency - but that doesn't mean it is by any means environmentally friendly (do you want the waste in your backyard? I thought not). I happen to subscribe to this view - that nuclear is the least evil of the presently available evils. But to denigrate people who disagree as "frauds" (as you so often do) adds nothing useful to the conversation, because they aren't frauds. From Wikipedia: "In the broadest sense, a fraud is a deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual." Greenpeace isn't trying to prevent the building of nuclear plants in order to become rich - that is ludicrous. They may be misguided, and their views may disagree with yours - but they are not frauds. Not unless you have managed to redefine fraud as any person who just happens to disagree with Steve's own world view.

Wood burning: You have me laughing here. Do you know anything about CO2? Trees obtain carbon from the atmosphere as part of their respiration, during photosynthesis. That carbon is stored away in the cellulose. When you burn it, that carbon is released. Now, unless you are clear-cutting massive tracts of land, this is a carbon-neutral activity (excepting the fuel used by the chainsaw to cut them down). It has an EROI of > 10. Carbon is absorbed, then released. Absorbed, released. Neutral. Get it? The "eco-frauds" as you call them are ahead of you here.

That activity is very different from taking 100's of millions of years worth of stored-up carbon, that was nicely sequestered in the ground, then releasing it into the atmosphere in a very brief spurt. The only debate here is whether that spurt of CO2 is going to have a big effect or not.

As for uranium being released by your logs, again, I repeat: do you prefer to have a nuclear waste dump on Vancouver Island? There's just a tiny difference between the parts-per-trillion concentrations of Uranium floating around the environment, versus a concentrated source for a power plant. Woodburning is not ideal - no energy producing activity is (unless we actually achieve something like cold fusion). Each has tradeoffs. Woodburning (in places that trees grow readily) just happens to have less tradeoffs. But even then, if everyone tried to heat by wood, there would be many problems - because there is not enough of it.

On the one side, we have the oil and gas companies who just want us to keep doing the same thing, because they profit from it enormously. On the other side we have some folks, not very well funded and with not very much power, who push the idea that we should stop using all these sources (without proposing realistic alternatives).

What I don't get is why you love to spout on tirelessly about "eco-frauds" as if they caused all the problems. No, they are a reactive symptom of the problem. The actual problem is that energy production is messy, and is also a huge money-maker for those involved. That is not a good combination, and has led us to a situation that, regardless of whether you buy AGW theory or not, is far from a good one. We are sending over $600 billion per year to import oil to people who dislike us. We are polluting our cities and breeding a country here in the US of overweight and diabetic people.

Who are the real frauds that got us into this mess?

(BTW - this is the one and only time I'm going to be bothered to respond to your "eco-fraud" ranting nonsense. It is not generally worth my time, I've got better things to do).

[cmalbatros]

Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

Present global warming figures are somewhat screwed up as there were a lot of former Soviet station sites from Siberia etc.that have been closed down and so average temps' are higher than they should be and one has to deal with the Urban Island effect. Todays' temps are still lower than in Viking days or in Europe they called it the Golden Years when crops grew like crazy and everybody was happy and life was good. Would sooner be a 14/15th century serf than a car assembly worker any day as they got to keep more of their earnings and had more holidays too.

[jimmygu3]

Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

Pay the hell attention, dude! (Or are you making your own subtle point about anecdotal evidence, that I'm failing to grasp?)

I laughed out loud at that one. First, Toast's clever sarcasm. Then the c1ueless reply (sorry, I couldn't resist). Then "Pay the hell attention, dude!" from ASH. Still laughing.

I have done the same thing on these very boards, so don't feel bad, c1ue!

Jimmy

[ASH]

Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

I laughed out loud at that one. First, Toast's clever sarcasm. Then the c1ueless reply (sorry, I couldn't resist). Then "Pay the hell attention, dude!" from ASH. Still laughing.

I have done the same thing on these very boards, so don't feel bad, c1ue!

Jimmy

It's just that C1ue is so sharp....

I meant it in a jovial way, of course.

[llanlad2]

Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

Mcgurme.

You are so gullible and naive.

The only reason that the ice shelf is melting is because all the peer reviewed scientists meet down there for huge circle-jerks causing it to heat up and break off.

As for them not being fraudsters. Duh. Didn’t you know that they’ve all taken out massive long special derivative positions in silicon, long-life batteries and windmills where the counterparties must settle in gold and oilrigs? A few more jerk-off meetings should scare the world enough into believing and make them trillions.

It is at this point that the real reason for them hanging out at the bottom of the world with their scientific equipment will become apparent. Yes. They’ve been building a secret underground oil refinery/military base to take advantage of the all the oil down there just as peak oil is hitting.

Then it will be game over. Scientists take over the world.

I’m also privy to their global taxation and currency plan. It sucks.

I know you think I’m making it up but I’m not. I’ve got proof. In fact prove me wrong. More importantly I’ve set up a website that says I am right AND I’ve started a petition. My next door neighbour signed up already. He’s a professor of economics at my local university so he should know what he’s talking about.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

Yes, let's do that, tell it like it is.

Nukes: I doubt that you can deny there are risks to operating nuclear power plants. There is plenty of evidence that nuclear IS problematic. Now, it may be the case that nuclear is less problematic than ongoing carbon dependency - but that doesn't mean it is by any means environmentally friendly (do you want the waste in your backyard? I thought not). I happen to subscribe to this view - that nuclear is the least evil of the presently available evils. But to denigrate people who disagree as "frauds" (as you so often do) adds nothing useful to the conversation, because they aren't frauds. From Wikipedia: "In the broadest sense, a fraud is a deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual." Greenpeace isn't trying to prevent the building of nuclear plants in order to become rich - that is ludicrous. They may be misguided, and their views may disagree with yours - but they are not frauds. Not unless you have managed to redefine fraud as any person who just happens to disagree with Steve's own world view.

Wood burning: You have me laughing here. Do you know anything about CO2? Trees obtain carbon from the atmosphere as part of their respiration, during photosynthesis. That carbon is stored away in the cellulose. When you burn it, that carbon is released. Now, unless you are clear-cutting massive tracts of land, this is a carbon-neutral activity (excepting the fuel used by the chainsaw to cut them down). It has an EROI of > 10. Carbon is absorbed, then released. Absorbed, released. Neutral. Get it? The "eco-frauds" as you call them are ahead of you here.

That activity is very different from taking 100's of millions of years worth of stored-up carbon, that was nicely sequestered in the ground, then releasing it into the atmosphere in a very brief spurt. The only debate here is whether that spurt of CO2 is going to have a big effect or not.

As for uranium being released by your logs, again, I repeat: do you prefer to have a nuclear waste dump on Vancouver Island? There's just a tiny difference between the parts-per-trillion concentrations of Uranium floating around the environment, versus a concentrated source for a power plant. Woodburning is not ideal - no energy producing activity is (unless we actually achieve something like cold fusion). Each has tradeoffs. Woodburning (in places that trees grow readily) just happens to have less tradeoffs. But even then, if everyone tried to heat by wood, there would be many problems - because there is not enough of it.

On the one side, we have the oil and gas companies who just want us to keep doing the same thing, because they profit from it enormously. On the other side we have some folks, not very well funded and with not very much power, who push the idea that we should stop using all these sources (without proposing realistic alternatives).

What I don't get is why you love to spout on tirelessly about "eco-frauds" as if they caused all the problems. No, they are a reactive symptom of the problem. The actual problem is that energy production is messy, and is also a huge money-maker for those involved. That is not a good combination, and has led us to a situation that, regardless of whether you buy AGW theory or not, is far from a good one. We are sending over $600 billion per year to import oil to people who dislike us. We are polluting our cities and breeding a country here in the US of overweight and diabetic people.

Who are the real frauds that got us into this mess?

(BTW - this is the one and only time I'm going to be bothered to respond to your "eco-fraud" ranting nonsense. It is not generally worth my time, I've got better things to do).

So carbon emitted into the atmosphere on Vancouver Island is less important than carbon emitted into the atmosphere in Indiana where Duke Energy Company (DUK) is building some coal-fired power plants?

There are plenty of trees in Indiana and plenty of trees down-wind of Indiana. Why is my carbon footprint here on Vancouver Island OK while Duke Energy's carbon footprint in Indiana is not OK--- even with Duke Energy Company's plan to sequester (sp?) the carbon from coal?

Just asking?

As far as storing atomic waste from nuclear power plants, you can store it here on my former pot farm in East Sooke, BC, provided that you pay me. I can use some income.

Most atomic waste from atomic power plants is low level waste with long half-lifes. I welcome the waste, and I could use the rent. Thank you.

[flintlock]

Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

Its too bad both sides of this issue have political agendas. I'd really like to know the truth. But as long as there's so much money to be made by insisting on( or denying) global warming, it will be hard to get the truth. The medical industry is the same way. Lot of voodoo science and test results often dependent on who's paying for them. My gut tells me its more an attempt at a power grab than anything. If they'd just come out and say we want cleaner air, I'd be 100% behind it. But they don't. It has to be a crisis. We have to act now!

Sounds a lot like the reasons given for the bailout.

[loweyecue]

Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

Yes, let's do that, tell it like it is.

Nukes: I doubt that you can deny there are risks to operating nuclear power plants. There is plenty of evidence that nuclear IS problematic. Now, it may be the case that nuclear is less problematic than ongoing carbon dependency - but that doesn't mean it is by any means environmentally friendly (do you want the waste in your backyard? I thought not). I happen to subscribe to this view - that nuclear is the least evil of the presently available evils. But to denigrate people who disagree as "frauds" (as you so often do) adds nothing useful to the conversation, because they aren't frauds. From Wikipedia: "In the broadest sense, a fraud is a deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual." Greenpeace isn't trying to prevent the building of nuclear plants in order to become rich - that is ludicrous. They may be misguided, and their views may disagree with yours - but they are not frauds. Not unless you have managed to redefine fraud as any person who just happens to disagree with Steve's own world view.

Wood burning: You have me laughing here. Do you know anything about CO2? Trees obtain carbon from the atmosphere as part of their respiration, during photosynthesis. That carbon is stored away in the cellulose. When you burn it, that carbon is released. Now, unless you are clear-cutting massive tracts of land, this is a carbon-neutral activity (excepting the fuel used by the chainsaw to cut them down). It has an EROI of > 10. Carbon is absorbed, then released. Absorbed, released. Neutral. Get it? The "eco-frauds" as you call them are ahead of you here.

That activity is very different from taking 100's of millions of years worth of stored-up carbon, that was nicely sequestered in the ground, then releasing it into the atmosphere in a very brief spurt. The only debate here is whether that spurt of CO2 is going to have a big effect or not.

As for uranium being released by your logs, again, I repeat: do you prefer to have a nuclear waste dump on Vancouver Island? There's just a tiny difference between the parts-per-trillion concentrations of Uranium floating around the environment, versus a concentrated source for a power plant. Woodburning is not ideal - no energy producing activity is (unless we actually achieve something like cold fusion). Each has tradeoffs. Woodburning (in places that trees grow readily) just happens to have less tradeoffs. But even then, if everyone tried to heat by wood, there would be many problems - because there is not enough of it.

On the one side, we have the oil and gas companies who just want us to keep doing the same thing, because they profit from it enormously. On the other side we have some folks, not very well funded and with not very much power, who push the idea that we should stop using all these sources (without proposing realistic alternatives).

What I don't get is why you love to spout on tirelessly about "eco-frauds" as if they caused all the problems. No, they are a reactive symptom of the problem. The actual problem is that energy production is messy, and is also a huge money-maker for those involved. That is not a good combination, and has led us to a situation that, regardless of whether you buy AGW theory or not, is far from a good one. We are sending over $600 billion per year to import oil to people who dislike us. We are polluting our cities and breeding a country here in the US of overweight and diabetic people.

Who are the real frauds that got us into this mess?

(BTW - this is the one and only time I'm going to be bothered to respond to your "eco-fraud" ranting nonsense. It is not generally worth my time, I've got better things to do).

Excellent posts both of them. I wish I could make such reasoned arguments, but I get carried away too easily

[Chris Coles]

Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

In essense, the problem is very simple. The ice sits on a bed of liquid water. They only recently discovered that fact. because of the water, the ice will be free to SLIDE into the ocean. This report in Scientific American shows the potential for a sudden sea level rise of as much as 170 feet. By sudden, I should imagine they might mean over the period of a year or so.

Try this:
February, 2008 Unquiet Ice Speaks Volumes on Global Warming
Abundant liquid water newly discovered underneath the world's great ice sheets could intensify the destabilizing effects of global warming on the sheets. Then, even without melting, the sheets may slide into the sea and raise sea level catastrophically

By Robin Bell

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-unquiet-ice

And more here: http://www.sciam.com/search/index.cf...24&submit.y=10

[gwynedd1]

Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

If the whole solar system is warming up then, well....I'm just saying shouldn't we look into it?

http://www.livescience.com/environme...s_warming.html

[mcgurme]

Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

So carbon emitted into the atmosphere on Vancouver Island is less important than carbon emitted into the atmosphere in Indiana where Duke Energy Company (DUK) is building some coal-fired power plants?

Last time I checked, coal doesn't grow on trees, it is dug up from the ground. Has someone figured out how to grow it? (It may have once grown on trees or, more likely as big algae blooms, but that was in a world mostly covered by shallow seas - not very conducive to cities unless you were a fan of Waterworld)

And as to Duke actually sequestering enough carbon to offset emissions, they have a powerful incentive to cheat: it costs money. With trees, offsetting sequestration is automatic. It doesn't cost you a dime. Therefore, since there is no financial disincentive for trees to grow and sequester carbon, I'd bet my money that it is far more likely to happen that your trees will regrow, than some 10's of executives at Duke going without that extra golf vacation.

There are plenty of trees in Indiana and plenty of trees down-wind of Indiana. Why is my carbon footprint here on Vancouver Island OK while Duke Energy's carbon footprint in Indiana is not OK--- even with Duke Energy Company's plan to sequester (sp?) the carbon from coal?

Just asking?

Remind me what question it was you were asking, that relates to what I said before?

As far as storing atomic waste from nuclear power plants, you can store it here on my former pot farm in East Sooke, BC, provided that you pay me. I can use some income.

That's a nice rhetorical flourish there, volunteering to store nuclear waste in order to attempt to win an argument on the internet. Somehow I'm guessing that if the government suddenly wanted to put the waste in your backyard, rent free, that you wouldn't be so happy about it.

Most atomic waste from atomic power plants is low level waste with long half-lifes. I welcome the waste, and I could use the rent. Thank you.

That's funny. Ever heard of Radon Gas? It produces low-level radiation and is a known carcinogen (http://www.epa.gov/radon/). Waste from a nuclear power plant, which includes unspent uranium along with alpha emitting actinides, is far more potent. Oh, wait, I'm sure you think that the whole radon thing is just a scare cooked up by the eco frauds who are trying to steal all your money from you. Sounds like they succeeded in already making you destitute, since you are in such dire economic straits that you would invite a nuclear waste dump to your backyard for a few bucks rent (either that, or you really do have some great rhetorical abilities!).

Actually, I think I get the picture. I recall living in a beautiful canyon in the rocky mountains when I was younger. There was one guy in the canyon who liked to collect old cars. Not nice old cars - just old cars. And lots of them, all junkers that sat there rotting away in his yard, within plain view of everyone. And they were right next to the stream, with all their fluids leaking out onto the ground then into that stream. Kind of ruined the pristine feeling around there. When the county told him to clean up the mess, he protested, calling them all crazy environmentalists and tying them up in court for years (he eventually lost)*. Those damn eco frauds! They bankrupted this poor man! I sense that something similar has happened to you in the past. Thou doth protest a bit too much.

-M

*Don't mistake me for a nanny state proponent. I actually think the best solution to the old cars problem would have been to allow the guy to keep the cars, if he: 1) paid every dime of the cost to put in some kind of barrier to keep all the leaking fluids out of the soil and stream, and 2) put up some kind of a visual barrier so that it didn't ruin the visual environment for everyone.

[Uno]

Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

LOL. It's a cold winter and parts of north america are getting much needed rain after years of drought in many areas -> hence all the scientific work behind global warming is incorrect, ha ha ha.

Fox News cabbage heads beyond belief, there is a ton cellulose stored up within these cabbage heads and I believe we should tap into that as a source of renewable fuel.

It is amazing to me how anyone can be so dumb as to argue the science behind global warming. What you can argue is the predicted outcomes based on the science.

Science is NOT economics. LOL.

The cabbage head in this video has just proven that the world is flat and is now working on dis-proving the global warming myth. Waiting for Fox News to pick him up as an analyst.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v80C-_Zf41Q

[yernamehear]

Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

"Would sooner be a 14/15th century serf than a car assembly worker any day as they got to keep more of their earnings and had more holidays too." I hope this is somewhat in jest. Probably the two things that even rich folks didn't have back then were the ability to travel and medical care that we would call decent. If you had a tonsil infection you could easily die then (even up to the 1940's people died of routine infections- they cut them out like cancer if they could!). Life expectancy was probably about 45 years.

This is actually a very important argument about wealth creation. It is not just yachts and fur coats. Ask somebody who has friends or family saved from cancer. What we have today is truly a miracle and economic efficiency is worth fighting for. Allowing regulation and taxation to reduce it is immoral.

[Uno]

Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

Equal time to American Christians so as not to appear racist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbizzLzcpnM

Just an observation, it seems very obvious that this type of human ignorance is almost always rooted in a fundamental religious belief. State the obvious, it is outrageous! LOL.

Without this ignorance, one could argue that economic and political interests would have a much more difficult time taking advantage of it to drive thier own agenda. Seems that democracy might even improve without this type of institutionalized ignorance.

Perhaps that is a reason why the GOP corporate agenda found such a happy marriage with fundamentalist christians in the first place, just a thought.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

Last time I checked, coal doesn't grow on trees, it is dug up from the ground. Has someone figured out how to grow it? (It may have once grown on trees or, more likely as big algae blooms, but that was in a world mostly covered by shallow seas - not very conducive to cities unless you were a fan of Waterworld)

And as to Duke actually sequestering enough carbon to offset emissions, they have a powerful incentive to cheat: it costs money. With trees, offsetting sequestration is automatic. It doesn't cost you a dime. Therefore, since there is no financial disincentive for trees to grow and sequester carbon, I'd bet my money that it is far more likely to happen that your trees will regrow, than some 10's of executives at Duke going without that extra golf vacation.



Remind me what question it was you were asking, that relates to what I said before?



That's a nice rhetorical flourish there, volunteering to store nuclear waste in order to attempt to win an argument on the internet. Somehow I'm guessing that if the government suddenly wanted to put the waste in your backyard, rent free, that you wouldn't be so happy about it.



That's funny. Ever heard of Radon Gas? It produces low-level radiation and is a known carcinogen (http://www.epa.gov/radon/). Waste from a nuclear power plant, which includes unspent uranium along with alpha emitting actinides, is far more potent. Oh, wait, I'm sure you think that the whole radon thing is just a scare cooked up by the eco frauds who are trying to steal all your money from you. Sounds like they succeeded in already making you destitute, since you are in such dire economic straits that you would invite a nuclear waste dump to your backyard for a few bucks rent (either that, or you really do have some great rhetorical abilities!).

Actually, I think I get the picture. I recall living in a beautiful canyon in the rocky mountains when I was younger. There was one guy in the canyon who liked to collect old cars. Not nice old cars - just old cars. And lots of them, all junkers that sat there rotting away in his yard, within plain view of everyone. And they were right next to the stream, with all their fluids leaking out onto the ground then into that stream. Kind of ruined the pristine feeling around there. When the county told him to clean up the mess, he protested, calling them all crazy environmentalists and tying them up in court for years (he eventually lost)*. Those damn eco frauds! They bankrupted this poor man! I sense that something similar has happened to you in the past. Thou doth protest a bit too much.

-M

*Don't mistake me for a nanny state proponent. I actually think the best solution to the old cars problem would have been to allow the guy to keep the cars, if he: 1) paid every dime of the cost to put in some kind of barrier to keep all the leaking fluids out of the soil and stream, and 2) put up some kind of a visual barrier so that it didn't ruin the visual environment for everyone.

Yes, radon gas can cause lung cancer, but radon is emitted from the granite under my house, naturally. So, what difference does it make if the radon is from the very slow decay of uranium in nuclear waste or the radon is from the very slow decay of uranium in my granite? At least, I might get paid to store atomic waste. (This would be fun!)

Low levels of uranium are no worry, and they are part of the natural environment. Wherever there is granite, there is uranium.

If you are really worried about lung cancer, stop smoking cigarettes.

After witnessing as a boy the outright hysteria that the E.P.A. generated about cinnabar, the natural ore of mercury, by my parent's house in New Almaden in San Jose, California, I learned early in life what eco-frauds are all about--- especially if they work in government.

The E.P.A. put signs on the shores of Almaden Reservoir and Guadelupe Reservoir in San Jose warning of fish contaminated with mercury. (I ate fish from those reservoirs as a boy, and I am just fine, thank you.) :p