New climate report confirms Arctic melt accelerating, sharply raises sea level rise projection

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

New climate report confirms Arctic melt accelerating, sharply raises sea level rise projection
By Associated Press, Updated: Tuesday, May 3, 8:36 AM

STOCKHOLM — A new assessment of climate change in the Arctic shows the ice in the region is melting faster than previously thought and sharply raises projections of global sea level rise this century.

The report by the international Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program, or AMAP, compiles the latest science on how climate change has impacted the Arctic in the past six years.

A summary of the key findings obtained by the AP on Tuesday shows Arctic temperatures during that period were the highest since measurements began in 1880.

It said melting Arctic glaciers and ice caps are projected to help raise global sea levels by 35 to 63 inches (90-160 centimeters) by 2100. That’s up from a 2007 projection of 7 to 23 inches (19-59 centimeters) by the U.N.’s scientific panel on climate change.



Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/new-climate-report-confirms-arctic-melt-accelerating-sharply-raises-sea-level-rise-projection/2011/05/03/AFQQGufF_story.html

[drm604]

1. K&R so this doesn't get buried by all the other news.

:kick:

[Xipe Totec]

2. I don't understand how Arctic melt raises sea levels

Since the Arctic ice cap is floating and when ice melts volume is reduced by 1/10th.

I can see that Antarctic ice melt will raise sea levels because all that ice is sitting above ground on top of the Antarctic continent. But the Arctic?

It seems the article may be oversimplifying the facts.

[Pharaoh]

3. All the Ice on Greenland is on land

And I think that any arctic ice above sea level would add to the rise in sea level. But I admit I'm not clear on the science of it.

[forty6]

4. You have it about right. People forget that not all ice in the Arctic is

just floating in the ocean. Much of it is on land, and ice on land melts just as fast as ice in water above 0 degrees centigrade.

[backtomn]

34. Yes....Greenland is a problem

Much of the ice there is on land and, if melted, runs into the sea.

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. Arctic ice melting exposes more surface water. That surface, no longer

reflecting heat but now absorbing heat, rises in temperature. Warm water expands. This off-sets the loss of volume in the ice-to-water transition.

Additionally, with warmer arctic water the entire region increases in temp, increasing the melt rate of ice on land.

[jdlh8894]

7. Ice on land = Glacier Ice in water= ICE!!

4th Grade Science

Take glass(any size will do)
Fill w/ice
add water to fill to top
Wait a few hours
Less than a full glass

Any ?'s ?

[M155Y_A1CH]

15. Sorry, neither sea ice nor icebergs were mentioned

The article is about glaciers and ice caps;both are land based.
Back to school for you!
:kick:

[backtomn]

35. Vast majority of this ice is floating

Yes, there is some ice in the Arctic Circle (not generally referred to as the "Arctic") is on land (Canada, Greenland), but most is floating. From what I know, there is no evidence that sea levels are increasing in New York, Boston, Miami, etc. I am not disagreeing that something needs to be done.....just that we don't need to exaggerate to make it happen.

[backtomn]

36. Ice caps are not automatically land-based

Most of it is in the water......just part of a major ice mass at the pole.

[muriel_volestrangler]

62. Strictly, ice caps are only land based ice

see eg http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLC,GGLC:1970-01,GGLC:en&q=define%3Aice+cap

[JDPriestly]

77. Lobelia? Or something else?

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. Take that glass of water and heat it to 200 degrees.

It will overflow.

All water expands as it warms. Even if it is a seemingly negligible amount, which you would never notice at room temperatures. Even at the difference between 33 and 34 degrees. And this is in oceanic volume.

There are feedbacks on feedbacks that are simply not modeled for, which is why the best scientific estimations consistently and continually come up short.

One of those models is the assumption that the melting of floating ice adds nothing to to rise of sea levels.

They take that out of the equation, and get blindsided by it.

As demonstrated above, the melt of floating ice does increase water volume. Not only that, but the increased water volume - sea level rise - stresses coastal ice sheets (which are also discounted, for the same reason) lifting them while they are anchored to the shore. This causes them to break and float away from the shore. Those ice sheets serve as 'stoppers' at the shore for glaciers. Without the blocking sheets, glaciers flow more quickly to the ocean adding yet more floating ice to the ocean.

Voila! Higher sea levels, and dramatically increased glacier loss, all unexpected because "melt of floating ice does not increase the sea level."

[backtomn]

38. OK......where are the higher sea levels??

Cutting to the chase.............where are they. Living near the coast, I don't see them.....they are being reported....they are not causing problems. You can say "the sky is falling" too, but it doesn't mean it actually is.

I disagree with your information above.....and my opinions are backed by the fact that we are not seeing sea levels rise. I am not saying that it can't happen, but words without proof mean nothing. Right now, the people saying that the melting in the Arctic does not raise sea levels appear to be supported by facts. Please explain and I would be happy to join you. I thought that we were supposed to be the fact-based people.

There are plenty of ways to describe the potential damage from climate change......and this ain't it.

[NickB79]

44. Sea level rises will not be uniform across the globe

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29038051/ns/us_news-environment/

"This vast swath of ice is the anchor for numerous glaciers that drain into the polar sea and is bounded by the Ross and Ronne Ice Shelves. Whether or when this ice sheet might melt is still very uncertain, but even a partial melt would have a bigger impact on some coastal areas than others.

The new research found that sea level rise would not be uniform around the globe, owing to odd gravitational effects and predicted shifts in the planet's rotation."

As to not seeing the seas rise: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentslc.html

"Sea levels are rising worldwide and along much of the U.S. coast. (IPCC, 2007) Tide gauge measurements and satellite altimetry suggest that sea level has risen worldwide approximately 4.8-8.8 inches (12-22 cm) during the last century (IPCC, 2007). A significant amount of sea level rise has likely resulted from the observed warming of the atmosphere and the oceans."

snip

"While the global average sea level rise of the 20th century was 4.4-8.8 inches, the sea level has not risen uniformly from region to region.

In the United States:

* Sea level has been rising 0.08-0.12 inches per year (2.0-3.0 mm per year) along most of the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf coasts.
* The rate of sea level rise varies from about 0.36 inches per year (10 mm per year) along the Louisiana Coast (due to land sinking), to a drop of a few inches per decade in parts of Alaska (because land is rising). See Figure 1 for sea level trends in selected cities."

Unless you've lived on the coast for decades, and have been keeping precise records for that entire time, it's not likely you'd even notice much of a change, depending on where you live. According to all the major scientific organizations reporting on the issue, we have indeed seen sea level rises in the past century, so your opinion is NOT actually backed by any facts.

[RaleighNCDUer]

51. It's called centrifugal force.

If you lived in the tropics, you'd be seeing it.

[tclambert]

80. According to the IPCC report, sea levels rose about 6 cm from 1961 to 2003.

Not quite 2.4 inches. We ARE seeing it. It's measurable, but small. So far. A few inches in 30 years, who cares, right? Make it a few feet and it's a BFD. That's what they are predicting over the next 90 years. So far, their predictions have been uniformly wrong . . . on the low side.

[kenfrequed]

27. Actually that is a science fail.

To do a proper illustration you would need a pan of dirt that you would stack at an angle tapering from the top of the pan to a miniscule amount of dirt. Then half fill it with water assuring that some of the dirt and rock is out of the water. After that put ice cubes into the pan with most of them on land and a few bobbing in the water.

[Thor_MN]

68. Yes, What school teachs that? Better try it sometime. The water level will not change.

Ice floats, because it is less dense than liquid water, displacing the precise amount water that the ice contains. The ice will rise above the rim of the glass, but as it melts, the water level will remain exactly (igoring neglible evaporation) where it was when the glass was filled.

[tclambert]

79. Yes, because that's wrong.

Floating ice displaces exactly its own weight in water. When ice melts, the water it turns into exactly replaces the amount of water it displaced. The 10% of ice sticking up above the water while floating sinks into the space that was filled by the 90% of the ice below the water.

Wait a few hours and you may see some evaporation lower the water level, but it's not from the ice melting.

Does somebody need to forward this one to the Mythbusters?

[Pharaoh]

64. Plus

This ice melting is all freshwater, spilling into a salt water environment, this is the north Atlantic gulf stream. the salinity of the water allows it to dive, massive amounts of fresh water will neutralize this salinity effect. Already it is said the BP oil spill has also affected the gulf stream, hence the foul weather and cold.

This is resulting in droughts, floods and freak weather which is creating a food crisis.:party:

[progressoid]

67. And maybe another ice age!

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/05mar_arctic/

Global warming could plunge North America and Western Europe into a deep freeze, possibly within only a few decades.

That's the paradoxical scenario gaining credibility among many climate scientists. The thawing of sea ice covering the Arctic could disturb or even halt large currents in the Atlantic Ocean. Without the vast heat that these ocean currents deliver--comparable to the power generation of a million nuclear power plants--Europe's average temperature would likely drop 5 to 10°C (9 to 18°F), and parts of eastern North America would be chilled somewhat less. Such a dip in temperature would be similar to global average temperatures toward the end of the last ice age roughly 20,000 years ago.

[kestrel91316]

11. GREENLAND.

[Xipe Totec]

12. Noted. Thanks!

Also Canada's Northern territories?

:hi:

[kestrel91316]

25. Well, the Northern Territories aren't capped by a mile or more of ice like Greenland is.....

[liberation]

24. Not all artic ice is on water: Greenland, Northern Canada, Nordic ice sheets, etc. are land based

Also more ice melting adds to the overall water volume affected by the pull of the moon (i.e. tides) thus the overall sea level rise.

[backtomn]

32. You are correct

There certainly may be other consequences to melting of Arctic ice, but not a sea level rise (sounds like simple science). Sometimes we want everything to be a sign of impending disaster, even when it is not. Many of the problems with the climate change movement come from trying to claim everything as the end of the world. It is like crying wolf. Eventually people quit listening. The evidence of global problems should be there.....no need to exaggerate.

The Antarctic is another case altogether. As a continent, there is land under there. That is where we need to focus.

[NickB79]

39. There are far more islands under the Arctic ice sheets than most people realize

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110420143608.htm

"Melting Ice on Arctic Islands a Major Player in Sea Level Rise

ScienceDaily (Apr. 21, 2011) — Melting glaciers and ice caps on Canadian Arctic islands play a much greater role in sea level rise than scientists previously thought, according to a new study led by a University of Michigan researcher.

The 550,000-square-mile Canadian Arctic Archipelago contains some 30,000 islands. Between 2004 and 2009, the region lost the equivalent of three-quarters of the water in Lake Erie, the study found. Warmer-than-usual temperatures in those years caused a rapid increase in the melting of glacier ice and snow, said Alex Gardner, a research fellow in the Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Sciences who led the project. The study is published online in Nature on April 20."

[PATRICK]

6. Propaganda rising

meet facts rising. Something has to recede.

My own pet theory- and that's all it is- is that science is skewed to looking out for rosy economic scenarios often in a blind, subconscious institutional way. Science is funded and works for human economics. Research is subtly de-funded and pressure brought to bear when truth costs profits. Phony science and political pressure is brought to bear AGAINST even this bias tainted scientific establishment.The shift is toward optimism or silence and away from prevention, planning, fact-based caution. Scientists are thwarted in studying threats to business like oil spills, radiation and climate change. Scientists are enjoined to enter the time-wasting game of PR and politics. In this light we will more ofter be "surprised" by the true course of fairly predictable events and outliers(so long as they are qualified experts) on the negative side will be closer to the truth than either the mainstream or the pollyanna for profit scientists(or pseudo experts).

Of course there is still place on the spectrum for mistaken doomsayers but they only help in a perverse way the majority wrong opinions on how science should be conducted for the actual benefit of the human race and the biosphere.
Even a discussion of whether the obvious evolutionary purpose of the planet's only tool intelligent species- to protect and evolve like- is practically impossible as the blinders of plain greed degrade our potential.

[plumbob]

8. ONLY tool-intelligent species? Really? Here's 10

http://www.livescience.com/9761-10-animals-tools.html

Scientists once thought of tool use as a defining feature of humans, but increasingly research is showing adept tool users on land, air and sea in the animal kingdom. Investigating how such behavior developed in this diverse mix promises to shed light on how tool use might have originated in humanity.



Careful there, your speciocentric bias is showing.

[xocet]

17. Thanks for pointing this out and for the link. n/t

[defendandprotect]

22. +1 -- thanks!

[SpankMe]

30. How does this refute PATRICK's hypothesis?

Are you saying his whole theory is flawed or wrong because this bit of verbal flair on "the planet's only tool-intelligent species" is debatable? What does this little disconnect on tool-intelligence have to do with his main point that "...science is skewed to looking out for rosy economic scenarios often in a blind, subconscious institutional way..."? His theory sounds reasonable to me. I think your correction is nit-picky, off-point and distracts from the substance of the debate here.

[pscot]

40. I'll give you a quarter

if you can explain Patrick's theory. I read his comment, and couldn't figure out what he was saying.

[plumbob]

45. Verbal flair or misstatement of common fact?

Look, if someone is so sloppy in their thinking and writing that they miss the number of tool using species by an order of magnitude, why should I give prima facie credibility to his theory?


If rigor is not required, then why would it be called science?

[xocet]

89. ??

Since when is the correction of an incorrect statement "nit-picky"?

It is ridiculous to present any argument and not to expect its content to be examined. If some of the content is false, this discredits the argument and the argument's author. No one really need explain this to you, however.

So, what is your point and why have you not come back to the discussion of PATRICK's theory?

P.S. "Verbal flair" is only a euphemism for bullshit. Thinking about it that way might clarify the other posters' responses.

[defendandprotect]

103. A little more help for you ---

from poster "Javaman" --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4837036&mesg_id=4838408

[titaniumsalute]

9. I live 8 miles from the atlantic Beach. Maybe I'll have ocean front property?

[jdlh8894]

10. You lucky SOB !!!

I'm about 100 in(as the crow flies)
I'll be long gone before I have Beach Front Property

[defendandprotect]

42. ... or maybe you'll have BP oil at your front door -- ???

[titaniumsalute]

61. Umm well yes that could happen also...

[Bandit]

13. I live in an area surrounded by glaciers that are melting rapidly

and yet the land is actually rising. Where does the water from melting ice and snow go. I have heard a few theories as to why this is happening but I don't buy them. The land is rising even a thousand miles from a galcier which would seem to deny the rebound effect. they say as a glacier melts the land rebounds from the loss of all that weight, but if that is the case then there shouldn't be any worry about rising water if the land is rising faster..

[pscot]

41. Greenland rising

doesn't help Miami.

[ronnie624]

14. Kick. n/t

[xocet]

16. K & R n/t

[KansDem]

19. Don't worry...just a natural phase...!!!

:silly:

[AlphaCentauri]

20. kick

[defendandprotect]

21. Melting will continue to accelerate ever faster -- we are only seeing effects of our

pollution up to about 1960 --

because there was a 50 year gap in Global Warming's harmful effects appearing.

And this is probably also the place to try to get out the message that Global Warming

will not only be about increasing droughts/floods -- increasing numbers and severity

of cyclones, tornados, hurricanes -- but also earthquakes increasing in number and

severity.

Earthquakes also generate new volcanic activity.

That the oil industry -- in collusion with our political parties and elected officials --

have been able to hide all of this from the public for 50 years now is astonishing --

though I don't know what's more astonishing ...

the power of rightwing propaganda bought by elite wealth --

or the gullibility of the public?

[ronnie624]

26. The term 'global warming' refers strictly to the atmosphere, not the planet itself.

The layer of life on this planet is impossibly thin and vulnerable. It is that, that our poisoning of the atmosphere endangers. Whatever damage we do to the biosphere, it will have no effect on the titanic forces at work within the earth.

[defendandprotect]

43. Nonsense -- Global Warming has the power to change weather systems ....

including El Nino and La Nina -- and wind patterns!!

El Nino and La Nina were once rare --

[NickB79]

46. And what does that have to do with increasing volcanoes and earthquakes? nt

[defendandprotect]

47. Melting of the glaciers = shifting of tectonic plates --

which creates more earthquakes -- and more severe earthquakes --

that's another reason why keeping nuclear power plants going into the future is

increasingly dangerous --

And, again -- earthquakes cause more volcanic activity.

[NickB79]

52. Melting of glaciers does not affect tectonic plates to the degree you think

The fact you think they can shows that you don't understand just how massive tectonic plates are, and the force needed to move them.

Melting glaciers have been causing more small, localized earthquakes where land bounce-back is occurring, but these are unable to translate into large earthquakes hundreds or thousands of miles away in populated areas. The amount of energy needed to shift tectonic plates is almost beyond what we can comprehend, and the small tremors we've seen aren't even close to what would be needed to do so.

The same goes for volcanism: the earthquakes we've seen from bounce-back are just not large enough to kick-start any volcanic activity that wasn't already going. Saying that earthquakes cause more volcanic activity is overly simplistic. Earthquake zones and volcanic zones are usually found together, so you can make a similar argument that the volcanic activity of the area is what is causing earthquakes.

It's like the ridiculous claims now going around that blowing up that levee on the Ohio River could set of the New Madrid fault-line. You have to understand the scale of what you're talking about.

[defendandprotect]

57. Well, then, I guess we aren't getting more earthquakes and of increasing severity -- !!

You win!!

:rofl:

[NickB79]

88. Except, according to the USGS, we aren't seeing an increase

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/faq/?categoryID=6&faqID=110

"Although it may seem that we are having more earthquakes, earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or greater have remained fairly constant throughout this century and, according to our records, have actually seemed to decrease in recent years."

[defendandprotect]

98. Japan's scientists are telling us that the plants were built to withstand 7.0 earthquakes ....

or a bit more and seismic activity has been increasing --

the last one was a 9 or a bit more!!

They report seismic activity increasing ---

Look at the aftershocks in Japan -- more than 350 the last I saw of the counting!!

And very high activity aftershocks -- some of the last ones very high!!



Repeating part of a previous post ...


The March 11 magnitude-9.0 earthquake and ensuing tsunami, which wiped out large swaths of Japan's northeastern coastline, are believed to have caused an estimated $300 billion in damage, making it the most expensive disaster ever. More than 26,000 people are dead or missing.

From the time the plants were built, until this earthquake -- activity and severity have only

increased -- which is why it is so dangerous for Obama to contemplate any new generation of

nuclear power plants here in US.

[NickB79]

110. Yes, Japan had a 9.0 quake. Large quakes have happened before, though

The largest earthquake on record was Valdivia, Chile, in 1960 at 9.5 magnitude: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes#Largest_earthquakes_by_magnitude

Do you have anything backing up your claim that "From the time the plants were built, until this earthquake -- activity and severity have only

increased"? The USGS disagrees with you.

[defendandprotect]

112. If you read the post, you understand that Japanese officials are telling us that not only

is seismic activity continually increasing, but they point to the fact that the

current plants are now way behind the new calculations/estimations for earthquakes --

AND for the earthquake just suffered --

Again, seismic activity continues to be increasing.

The Pentagon disagrees with you ---

[Pharaoh]

66. perhaps all that water melting

is lubricating the plates/faults:shrug:

[defendandprotect]

70. Perhaps ....

you should look up some earlier information on Global Warming and earthquakes --

or check google --

[Javaman]

82. Shockwaves from melting icecaps are triggering earthquakes, say scientists

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/shockwaves-from-melting-icecaps-are-triggering-earthquakes-say-scientists-401693.html

Scientists monitoring the glaciers have revealed that movements of gigantic pieces of ice are creating shockwaves that register up to three on the Richter scale.

The speed of the arctic ice melt has accelerated to such an extent that a UN report issued earlier this year is now thought to be out of date by its own authors.

>snip<

The accelerating thaw and the earthquakes are intimately connected, according to Mr Kallio, as immense slabs of ice are sheared from the bed rock by melt water. Those blocks of ice, often more than 800m deep and 1500m long, contain immense rocks as well and move against geological faults with seismic consequences. The study of these ice quakes is still in its infancy, according to Professor Correll, but their occurence is in itself disturbing. "It is becoming a lot more volatile," said Mr Vallio. Predictions made by the Arctic Council, a working group of regional scientists, have been hopelessly overrun by the extent of the thaw. "Five years ago we made models predicting how much ice would melt and when," said Mr Vallio. "Five years later we are already at the levels predicted for 2040, in a year's time we'll be at 2050."

[NickB79]

87. Like I said, bounce-back of the land is causing earthquakes

They're just small and localized, and incapable of creating the kind of energy needed to cause shifting of the tectonic plates.

Thanks for the link, it proved my point nicely.

[defendandprotect]

99. Thanks Javaman -- !!! Obviously when something the size of Rhode Island falls ....

like an avalanche into the ocean there is going to be some kind of a reaction!!

Plus, Japanese scientists tell us that seismic activity is increasing -- which is

why the plants in Japan, built to withstand something in area of 7.0 quakes, were

the subject of a battle to shut them down -- pre this most recent earthquake!!


Again, this is only going to speed up even faster -- we are only now seeing the results

of human activity up to about 1960 at this point -- this is because there was a 50 year

delay in our feeling the effects of Global Warming!!


And, thank you again for the info -- saved it -- !!

:)


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4837036&mesg_id=4838408

[NickB79]

111. You do realize his link only spoke of earthquakes up to 3.0, right?

Basically, it confirms what I said and disproves what you said, unless you think that a 3.0 earthquake is actually large.

[defendandprotect]

113. No -- "shockwaves" of up to 3 on the richter scale -- and 350 aftershocks in Japan ....

many now registering still in the high numbers --

and seismic activity increasing steadily in Japan as reported by their scientists/

officials --

making all of their plants susceptible to any earthquake over what was expected at the

time they were built --

Dangerous to keep them open -- any of them!

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

58. Global Warming effects everything to do with nature and the planet ---

every natural system is effected by Global Warming!!

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

60. Tectonic plates and volcanoes are part of nature -- !!!

And, btw, do you think that ExxonMobil and the rest of the oil industry spent tens of

billions of dollars over the last half century because this Global Warming was a lie

by scientists? :rofl:


NATIONALIZE THE OIL INDUSTRY -- our natural resources should not be in private hands!!

[EC]

73. Okay, I'll wade in....

How about the melting ice is entering aquifers and increasing in size causing erosion or weight on the plates?

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

92. Evidently the Pentagon was wrong when it included "earthquakes" in its Warning

to Bush --

and later the reference to "earthquakes" was scrubbed?


This is the point where the public wakes up -- as they begin to see the deaths rising --

and begin to understand the full scope of Global Warming ---

and the 50 years of lies by the oil industry, funded with tens of billions of dollars!

I'm sure they did that because Global Warming was a scientific lie!!

There is plenty on the internet which makes clear that Global Warming will create more

earthquakes and increasing severity of earthquakes.

What is Japan going thru now -- they've had more than 350 AFTERSHOCKS of high severity

after the initial hit.

[defendandprotect]

100. Here you go --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4837036&mesg_id=4838408

[snooper2]

85. D&P come on, you can't just make this stuff up as you go...

And if you do, try to have a "little" bit of a logical flow. It makes for a better read :)

[defendandprotect]

101. Here you go --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4837036&mesg_id=4838408


Guess I didn't put you on ignore?

Lucky you!!

:rofl:

Usually I wait til a thread ends to put someone on ignore --

but it worked out to your benefit, at any rate!!

We'll see what happens from here -- likely you'll end up on ignore --

but we'll see --

[ronnie624]

76. I don't dispute that.

Naturally, as the atmosphere warms, it will affect weather patterns.

You are having trouble understanding geologic scale relative to the atmosphere and the tiny amount of moisture on the earth's surface (including all of the oceans and glaciers).

But you are a genuine progressive, and your heart is in the right place. Disputing you was not easy.

Please post some material on your claimed causal relationship between the warming atmosphere and an increase in volcanic activity and earthquakes.

[defendandprotect]

93. HEAT in the atmosphere creates chaotic weather .... that's where we are ....

and why Frank Luntz, GOP propagandist, told W to change the name of Global

Warming to "Climate change."


Can you try to clarify what you're saying here ....

You are having trouble understanding geologic scale relative to the atmosphere and the tiny amount of moisture on the earth's surface (including all of the oceans and glaciers).

and, before you respond I'd refer to you discussions re mixing of fresh water from melting

glaciers and salt water. See: Song for a Blue Ocean by Carl Safina

Song for the Blue Ocean - Carl Safina

In this lively, well-written survey, marine scientist Carl Safina encourages readers to take a wider interest in the oceans, especially because so much of that great blue ...
carlsafina.org/publications/books/song-for-the-blue-ocean - Cached

What Is the Most Influential Environmental Book ...
In this wonderfully written book on the marvels of nature, renowned Harvard ... Song for a Blue Ocean Carl Safina. Chronicling Safina’s ocean expeditions and encounters with ...
www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentID=6470&s_src=ggad&s... - Cached


But you are a genuine progressive, and your heart is in the right place. Disputing you was not easy.

Please post some material on your claimed causal relationship between the warming atmosphere and an increase in volcanic activity and earthquakes.

Thank you! ... and presumably if you're trying to "dispute" what I'm saying, you've looked at

info on the internet. What did you find?

Certainly I'm not trying to intimidate anyone -- I'm trying to get people to look at the

situation for themselves and to use their own common sense.

Many here can give you better arguments re Earthquakes than I can -- I picked it up quite a few

years back from the Pentagon Memo to Bush -- subsequently scrubbed of that reference!

Some would like to argue that the Pentagon just made an honest mistake in connecting earthquakes

to GW -- and corrected it. What do you think?

However, there are links now which discuss earthquake activity connected to GW --

AND, most of this has been discussed previously on DU so it will be in archives and/or in my

Journal --


http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2775162/recent_earthquakes_may_herald_more.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4837036&mesg_id=4837639

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=617007&mesg_id=621162


The March 11 magnitude-9.0 earthquake and ensuing tsunami, which wiped out large swaths of Japan's northeastern coastline, are believed to have caused an estimated $300 billion in damage, making it the most expensive disaster ever. More than 26,000 people are dead or missing.

From the time the plants were built, until this earthquake -- activity and severity have only

increased -- which is why it is so dangerous for Obama to contemplate any new generation of

nuclear power plants here in US.

[defendandprotect]

102. And, here's poster "Javaman" to help out --- :)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4837036&mesg_id=4838408


and, btw, I didn't even look for a link for you re earthquakes generating

volcanic activity -- it's pretty fairly common knowledge and I'm sure you

can check it for yourself.

:)

[ronnie624]

107. I asked for info showing that a warming atmosphere can cause volcanic eruptions and earthquakes

I'm aware of the connection between volcanism and earthquakes.

[defendandprotect]

109. A bit of a convoluted message --- however ....

you seem to be asking how HEAT creates earthquakes --

First, tour the thread -- there are answers there --

Second, HEAT is melting the glaciers which creates stress on the tectonic plates --

which causes earthquakes --


in turn earthquakes generate volcanic activity.

If you still don't get it -- you'll have to seek help elsewhere!!

[RaleighNCDUer]

54. Actually it refers to the entire biosphere.

The greatest change is in the ocean. As polar and glacial ice melts, huge weights are lifted from the land masses. At the same time, that same weight is added to the oceans. The changing pressure on the geologic plasts causes stress to those plates, causing earthquakes as they adjust. Earthquakes create instability, open up fissures, causing volcanoes to become active.

So yeah, it does have an effect on the titanic forces at work within the earth.

[ronnie624]

86. The 'biosphere'

includes every part of the livable, breathable atmosphere, and that includes oceans and glaciers, which have virtually no mass, compared to the planet itself.

The rest of your post is complete bunk.

You and others are in dire need of some lessons in physics.

[Uncle Joe]

23. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Judi Lynn.

[BobbyBoring]

28. This is 1 subject that baffles me

How in the hell can one risk being on the wrong side of the global warming debate? Even if you have a big dog in the race like the Koch bros or the Exon folks, the chance that you might make earth uninhabitable is one I can't see taking.

[neverforget]

37. It's not too baffling when all that matters to them is making money now.

[defendandprotect]

48. And what you're voicing is EXACTLY why people continue to trust capitalism and

corporatism and elites -- and elected officials, btw and political parties!

Because we all think this thru to the point where we recognize that it is suicidal

for us -- or for our children -- and we quickly understand that no one would be

that insane --

but we're wrong --

Because capitalism and elites are suicidal in their desires to control others --

and to own everything --

Hard for us to believe -- but sadly it is true.

What would it take for you to get up out of bed every morning with one single

thought on your mind -- how to gain control over other people?

Most of us are repulsed by those ideas -- but we have to understand that others live by them!!


Since time began we have been trying to figure out what to do with the few violent among us.

These are the people who will threaten you to get your land -- push you off it any way they

can find to do it. If you continue to resist, they raped your daughter. Continue to resist,

they'll kill you son. Nothing new about this. Same people.

Same problem --


Exploiting nature is insanity -- we are all part of nature and it only does harm to ourselves.

"Manifest Destiny" and "Man's Dominion Over Nature" are in plain sight licenses to the elite

to exploit not only nature, natural resources, animal-life -- but also other human beings

according to various myths of "inferiority."




Patriarchy -- and its underpinning =

Organized Patriarchal Religion -- and its economic invention =

Capitalism =

The Unholy Trinity




:)

[Prof Lester]

83. But they don't care one iota.

These lunatics have psychological tunnelvision. What they see is their egos, enhanced by the amount of wealth they amass for themselves. The Kocks are Randites.. they've fostered an evil philosophy which worships psychopathic greed and selfishness. Some think Ayn Rand (ie Whine Rant) was a communist plant sent to the US, like so many others, with the long term assignment to destroy capitalism by "increasing it's internal contradictions" ie making it worse by acting to defeat the ameliorative regulations that kept it more or less stable for many years. When I was young people used to smirk at Marx ie "no accumulation, no immiserisation of the working class, no sinking of the middle class.. therefore Marx is wrong." Whether or not Marx was right/wrong you can't say anymore that wealth is not accumulating in fewer and fewer hands. Nor can you say that the working class is not being reduced to abject conditions. And clearly the middle classes are being pushed downwards into penury. Communists hate socialists worse than capitalists because socialism acts to improve the status of working people and increases the lower middle classes. Some say Rand was part of a long term subversive movement called The Project which was operated by the extreme Marxist agent Alexandre Kojeve from Paris. Another member of this Project was the "father of the neoCons" Leo Strauss at the U of Chicago. The neoCons were "former" Trotskyites (if such a thing exists!) who "became" conservatives and eventually came to control the administration of George Bush the younger. Their aim is a single world power which can then be subverted by revolution to create a communist superstate (with them in control, of course!)

[RedCloud]

29. When Iceland loses all its ice, will we call it Land?

[defendandprotect]

49. It will be the new "UN" -- "UN-Iceland" -- !!

[Dont call me Shirley]

31. The globalists are speeding up their melting of the arctic is so they can get to the resources

before the people revolt. The global "elite" are cowards, bullies, willfully stupid, all of them, they have cursed the earth and all of her inhabitants.

[NickB79]

33. The melting of the Arctic is caused by all of us, not some shadowy "globalist" group

Anyone who uses modern technology, which is heavily dependent upon fossil fuels, is contributing to the problem.

[marions ghost]

69. there is no leadership

away from fossil fuels.

The people at the end of the pipeline have to be led. Consumers are not guilty. It is the corporates and leadership that have thwarted every attempt to find sensible solutions we all can live with. These are the organizers, the players, the deciders. They do it their way.

[defendandprotect]

71. It's also both political parties -- which are suicidally ignoring Global Warming ....

What we really need is for the public to wake up on that issue --

[marions ghost]

90. The public needs leaders

willing to take on these issues. The public feels powerless in this area, and to a large extent they are. Global warming is too big, too complex for people to get their heads around without leadership. Besides, it's very scary. I don't blame people for thinking there's not much they can do but recycle trash & use shopping bags.

Right, the government is ignoring Global Warming. Not good for bidness. It is a huge betrayal of public trust.

[defendandprotect]

91. Very much agree with you re "leaders" ... and often there is disagreement with that --

Corporate money seems most of all to be buying Democratic Party "silence" over

the past decades --

but re leadership -- yes -- !!!

In fact that's why over the rightwing has been so concentrated on taking out liberal

leadeship over the past 50+ years !!

In fact, they now take out leaders even before they rise up -- !!

Hoover's passion was to prevent the rising of "A Black Messiah" -- !!

I've no doubt that's why JFK, Jr. was taken -- and Wellstone.

The only way the rightwing can rise is via political violence --

[Nihil]

81. "It's not us, it's everyone else!"

> Consumers are not guilty.

I agree with you that it is the corporations (and their bought-out political
whores) who are actively fighting attempts to get sensible solutions out to
the people but not with your "consumers are not guilty" plea.

Denial of the truth on that score is only a few notches away from the total
denial of the truth on the climate change issue, the pollution issue and the
exploitation / resource-raping issue.

:shrug:

[marions ghost]

94. Consumers are either

outright global warming deniers (these tend to be corporates and their mindless followers), or pigs at the end of the trough trying to get by, triaging all the depressing news coming at them (ie. those who know it's true but have no power). Only a small minority will be trying to actually DO something about the situation. And what they do is important, but it has minimal impact. There's so much apathy and resignation. People have good reason to think they can do nothing. And the PTB like it that way.

I don't think consumers can really be expected to feel guilty about level of consumption, dependency on cars, dependency on lifestyle etc. They feel caught in a meat grinder these days. They will follow leaders, but there are none leading away from the practices that cause global warming, not in America anyway. Nah, consumers should not feel guilty. They've had this consumerist lifestyle sold to them for decades. What does it mean to let go of it?--Their entire world changes. That's a lot to ask. It takes leaders to ask it in a way the masses will hear.

America's whole economy is based on consumption. How do you change that? The average person has no clue.

[defendandprotect]

50. misplaced --

[PufPuf23]

55. Rec ced, ice melt above sea level, on land will increase sea level. A strange aside,

there are medieval and earlier maps that are assumed copies of older maps of the land masses in Antarctica that map land masses that were not "known" until late 20th century technology could penetrate ice. Part of Antarctica was ice free and visited by human map makers at one time according to these derivative medieval and older maps.

[krabigirl]

56. K & r.

[grahamhgreen]

63. Well, I hope climate change deniers like super tornados, super-hurricanes, and massive flooding.

[mountainlion55]

65. Wind Up Girl

Its a excellent sci-fi novel written by Paolo Bacigalupi. Here is some of the synopsis "What happens when calories are currency? What happens when bio-terrorism becomes a tool for corporate profits, when said bio-terrorism's genetic drift forces mankind to the cusp of post-human evolution?". Its sci-fi but so was H.G Wells, and other early authors and look how much of the stuff they wrote has come to pass. Anyway its well worth the read. :smoke:

[EC]

72. Won't we have other problems as more fresh water

dilutes the saline? Won't the oceans start flowing into the rivers ruining fresh water? Wouldn't this be long before the flooding from the Oceans?

[defendandprotect]

96. Many problems connected to that -- "Song for a Blue Ocean" by Carl Safina discusses that ....

and is available at most libraries, I think!!


:)

[emmadoggy]

74. "Faster than expected"...... Gee, where have I heard that before???? Hmmmm... nt

[defendandprotect]

97. One of the reasons for the speeding up is that there was a 50 year delay in our

feeling the effects of Global Warming ---

though we knew about it in 1957 from models ---

In other words, we're now only feeling the effects of human activity on the planet

up to about 1960!!!!

Imagine all the human activity after that date!!


That's another reason why the oil industry was so successful in lying to the public

about Global Warming -- in their 50 year propaganda effort to deny Global Warming and

their buying of science and PR for tens of billions of dollars to deny it over 50 years

now!!

A few years ago, the Royal Academy of Science came out and blasted ExxonMobil over that

campaign -- and told them to quit lying to the public -- quite distorting info -- quit

misinforming and disinforming the public!!


PS:

Looking for the original Royal Academy of Science article -- but did come upon this ....

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/global_warming_denial_machine.html


http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/900-papers-supporting-climate-scepticism-exxon-links


Can't find the original Royal Academy of Science 2006 report on ExxonMobil's lies, but many

references to it on the internet -- and some of the aftermath!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/jul/01/bob-ward-exxon-mobil-climate


A little more on Royal Academy of Science letter --

In an apparently unprecedented move, the British Royal Society has written to Exxon, stating that of the organization listed in Exxon’s 2005 WorldWide Giving Report for ‘public information and policy research‘, 39 feature


information on their websites that misrepresented the science on climate change, either by outright denial of the evidence that greenhouse gases are driving climate change, or by overstating the amount and significance of uncertainty in knowledge, or by conveying misleading impression of the potential impacts of climate change
(full copy of the letter here)

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2006/09/19/LettertoNick.pdf



AND, if you've never read the 1992 World Scientists' Warning to Humanity

http://www.worldtrans.org/whole/warning.html

FIVE essential things we must do --

1. We must bring environmentally damaging activities under control to restore and protect the integrity of the earth's systems we depend on.

We must, for example, move away from fossil fuels to more benign, inexhaustible energy sources to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the pollution of our air and water. Priority must be given to the development of energy sources matched to third world needs small scale and relatively easy to implement.

We must halt deforestation, injury to and loss of agricultural land, and the loss of terrestrial and marine plant and animal species.

2. We must manage resources crucial to human welfare more effectively.

We must give high priority to efficient use of energy, water, and other materials, including expansion of conservation and recycling.

3. We must stabilize population. This will be possible only if all nations recognize that it requires improved social and economic conditions, and the adoption of effective, voluntary family planning.

4. We must reduce and eventually eliminate poverty.

5. We must ensure sexual equality, and guarantee women control over their own reproductive decisions.

[emmadoggy]

104. I appreciate your post, defendandprotect.

You may have misunderstood my little joke of a post though. I was simply making a snide reference to the running theme we read in so many climate change reports and articles, which has now become a sort of running joke over on the Environment & Energy forum here at DU.

See Du'er Xemasab for reference. :)

[defendandprotect]

105. Thank you -- !! Probably I did and will try to follow your line and

figure it out -- !!

:)

[emmadoggy]

106. Here's a little example...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x292192


Cheers! :)

[defendandprotect]

108. Thanks -- !! Will have to stop in and visit you all in the environmental forum ....!!

[highplainsdem]

75. K&R

[StarsInHerHair]

78. I knew the Kyoto Protocols were WAY too "happy woo!", that we are not

rapidly changing some of our systems to deal with this directly is another symptom of our various leaders' refusal to take the long-term view.

[defendandprotect]

95. Here's another excellent book on Global Warming -- "The Heat Is On!" by Ross Gelbspan

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

Most libraries have it -- !!



I'd also point to the polluting of source information -- at least on Yahoo --

It's a very contrived effort to keep a search for direct and specific info from being gained.