Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - abbottisgone

Pages: [1]
1
The rest / Faux-conservative Terrorism
« on: October 26, 2016, 08:07:49 AM »
 The Murdoch empire is about to get a kick up the 'where the moral law don't shine' as donations roll in to fund an anti-anti-Climate-Change-Jibberish assault on the aformentioned media moguls weapons of environmental war.

 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/wotifs-graeme-wood-backed-2m-strike-at-rupert-murdoch/news-story/dcbdb1ab4dcaec67038642065957b418

 The fake conservatives we all know too well amongst us learn reams of standard attack diatribe against those who seek to save the environment from 500ppm CO2e within a decade.

 http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/milestone-global-greenhouse-gas-levels-accelerate-past-key-marker-20161021-gs888m.html

 Is this not the same as the death cult called ISIS?

 _> Some food for thought:

Now the tragedy about climate change is that we can solve it with a simple, honest approach of a gradually rising carbon fee collected from fossil fuel companies and distributed 100 percent electronically every month to all legal residents on a per capita basis, with the government not keeping one dime. Most people would get more in the monthly dividend than they'd pay in increased prices. This fee and dividend would stimulate the economy and innovations, creating millions of jobs. It is the principal requirement for moving us rapidly to a clean energy future.
15:03
Several top economists are coauthors on this proposition. Jim DiPeso of Republicans for Environmental Protection describes it thusly: "Transparent. Market-based. Does not enlarge government. Leaves energy decisions to individual choices. Sounds like a conservative climate plan."
15:24
But instead of placing a rising fee on carbon emissions to make fossil fuels pay their true cost to society, our governments are forcing the public to subsidize fossil fuels by 400 to 500 billion dollars per year worldwide, thus encouraging extraction of every fossil fuel -- mountaintop removal, longwall mining, fracking, tar sands, tar shale, deep ocean Arctic drilling. This path, if continued, guarantees that we will pass tipping points leading to ice sheet disintegration that will accelerate out of control of future generations. A large fraction of species will be committed to extinction. And increasing intensity of droughts and floods will severely impact breadbaskets of the world, causing massive famines and economic decline.


https://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climate_change/transcript?language=en

2
Consequences / "Ice melts ever quicker..": thus we panic evermore!!
« on: August 23, 2016, 08:03:16 AM »
Dorian Escanier

Ice melts ever quicker because its surface area grows relative to its shrinking volume. This is a scientific fact that you can prove with a drink and an ice cube.

<<

This was written on a comment page by the aforementioned contributor @ https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/aug/22/historical-documents-reveal-arctic-sea-ice-is-disappearing-at-record-speed.


3
Consequences / Peter Wadhams
« on: August 21, 2016, 11:10:18 AM »
His latest views have been captured in this article: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/21/arctic-will-be-ice-free-in-summer-next-year

 If he is saying that science is not entirely sure of the life span of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere AND that Nasa has already admitted that the atmosphere needs to be scrubbed of CO2 then shouldn't we be preparing for imminent market panic?

 (Surely if Nasa is saying that the atmosphere needs to be scrubbed of the CO2 already in it and we don't know how to do that then a critical mass of people are going to realise that sooner rather than later!)

4
Consequences / Peter Wadhams on the idea of certain panic...
« on: August 21, 2016, 09:48:56 AM »
If we cannot halt the emissions of carbon dioxide, what can we do?


In the end, the only hope we have is to find a way to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere once it has got there. Even the IPCC has admitted that we will have to find a way to extract carbon dioxide from the air. The trouble is that they don’t just how we can do that. The most favoured scheme is known as BECCS: bio-energy with carbon capture and storage. Essentially, you plant trees and bushes over vast swaths of ground. These grow, absorbing carbon dioxide in the process. Then you burn the wood to run power plants while trapping, liquefying and storing the carbon dioxide that is released.

source: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/21/arctic-will-be-ice-free-in-summer-next-year

  I (fear I) have made the mistake of assumption: I am assuming he is saying here that panic is certain!

 Am I incorrect because I don't like to be incorrect?

  ;D  ??? ???

5
Consequences / Peter Wadhams on Carbon Dioxides life-cycle
« on: August 21, 2016, 09:45:04 AM »
How intense is methane as a heater of the atmosphere compared with carbon dioxide?


It is 23 times more powerful. However, methane dissipates much more quickly than carbon dioxide. It gets oxidised so that it only lingers in the atmosphere for about seven or eight years. By contrast, carbon dioxide hangs around in the climate system for about 100 years before it ends up in the sea and is absorbed by creatures that die and litter the seabed. At least that is what scientists thought. Today, there are quite a number of researchers who think carbon dioxide could last 1,000 years in the atmosphere.

source: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/21/arctic-will-be-ice-free-in-summer-next-year

 The question is do we actually have a firm handle on how destructive carbon dioxide is?

6
Arctic sea ice / 2102 is an outlier, ...therefore (???)
« on: August 16, 2016, 04:07:52 AM »
..one must suppose the conversation (of it)((, as)) irrelevant?

7
Glaciers / Helheim and Fenris Glaciers
« on: August 05, 2016, 04:28:07 PM »
http://glacierhub.org/2016/08/03/melting-glaciers-through-the-artists-lens/

 By looking at the link above and comparing two glaciers from their 1930s photos to more recent examples one should really not conclude too much, should they?

 Are these just poor photos for comparisons sake or am I simply not appreciating the loss shown in them?

 For instance, the Glacier on the left doesn't seem to have lost much at all- to be fair. The one on the right seems to have lost a visible amount but given the 80 year time difference in the photos then one could be forgiven for saying they really don't demonstrate much at all... to my mind atleast!

 Could I be wrong?

  :o

Pages: [1]