- Joined
- 8 July 2009
- Posts
- 465
- Reactions
- 0
Apologies if I've overlooked a more appropriate thread.
This is The Punch's view of the ETS:
They are suggesting a dawning awareness amongst the punters of how this scheme will affect their weekly budgets.
Before their first expedition, Hamilton and his colleague Leigh Stearns, from the University of Kansas, used satellite data to plan exactly where they would land on a glacier.
"When we arrived there was no glacier to be seen. It was way up the fjord," he says. "We thought we'd made some stupid goof with the co-ordinates, but we were where we were supposed to be." It was the glacier that was in the wrong place. A vast expanse had melted away.
When Hamilton and Stearns processed their first measurements of the glacier's speed, they thought they had made another mistake. They found it was marching forwards at a greater pace than a glacier had ever been observed to flow before. "We were blown away because we realised that the glaciers had accelerated not just by a little bit but by a lot," he says. The three glaciers they studied had abruptly increased the speed by which they were transmitting ice from the ice sheet into the ocean.
That outcome was painfully obvious before the average Australian had heard of ETS, CPRS or Kevin Rudd.More exposure must be given to this idiotic fallacy that an ETS will lower CO2 emmissions!
The melting of Greenland.
In Greenland it's now the science season for glaciologists, seismologists and climatologists. They are all scurrying around examining just how quickly the glaciers are peeling off the Greenland mainland.
It's a long story but worth the effort. If you are interested in exactly what is happening in Greenland and the implications for the rest of world (as distinct from the repeated assertion that IT JUST ISN"T HAPPENING) it's worth setting aside 15 minutes or so to read and consider. In fact the current scientific observations completely override all previous estimations.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/01/sermilik-fjord-greenland-global-warming
Armed forces may be the agents of climate change
THE oceans are getting warmer, coral reefs are increasingly under threat, Arctic ice is dropping into the sea. July was the warmest month in 130 years of testing ocean temperatures. Who are we going to call?
The admirals and the generals. It appears that the US military is as concerned about the fate of the Earth as the man and woman on Civvy Street. And, as history has shown, what troubles the US generals troubles the rest of the world.
Actually what is causing the hairs on the back of their necks to stand up is the effect climate change might have on America's national security. The depths of that concern emerged recently in a hearing of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations into climate change and global security.
The example to surface at that hearing by several speakers was a speck in the ocean, a place that has been described as a stationary aircraft carrier. Yet the tiny reef of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean may well hold part of the answer in getting the US, and therefore the rest of the world, to act against climate change.
Diego Garcia is a 50 kilometre-long strip of jungle and sand that barely rises above the waves: seven metres at its highest point, but mostly just one metre. It is also of crucial importance to America's military as a naval and airforce base for South Asia. It is owned by the British ”” who threw off the native Ilois people and transplanted them to Mauritius to accommodate UK and US military personnel ”” who lease it to the US. The Ilois have exhausted every legal avenue in Britain and Europe to win the right to return, but that's a story of conquest not climate.
The change in the climate just might do what the Soviets couldn't do and what terrorists cannot do: that is, sink the military facility. To keep the base, and therefore American security, afloat the ocean must not rise. The generals want the climate to stay the way it is or was, actually, about a generation ago. They don't want natural catastrophes because that would lead to power and hegemonic catastrophes. They don't want wars based on mass migrations of people, social dislocation or depleting resources.
It's all a bit surreal. Put the national interest as the primary reason in doing something about climate change, instead of the rainforests, for instance, and governments may feel the need to act more swiftly and decisively. If they don't the nation becomes vulnerable and its grip of global power becomes as slippery as the mooring ropes at Diego Garcia. It is a hard concept for anyone with a non-militaristic world view to grapple, but look at the greater good. Clearly the fate of the Earth is not much having effect on the world's politicians. Despite the rhetoric, the promise of developments from Copenhagen in December seems to be deflating by the day.
But this might help: "Addressing the consequences of changes in the Earth's climate is not simply about saving polar bears or preserving the beauty of mountain glaciers. Climate change is a threat to our national security. Taking it head on is about preserving our way of life." That was Vice-Admiral Lee Gunn, retired United States Navy, and now president of the American Security Project, addressing the Senate hearing.
Basilio, a very intense and interesting article on Greenland and yes Climate Change is real, but I do not believe it is caused by CO2 emmissions as stated, but rather by the intensity of the SUN.
The article fails to mention some 1000 years ago the Vikings migrated to Greenland because they could graze cattle and grow crops, when at that time, Greenland was green; hence the name Greenland.
Some 500 years later, it once again iced over and became useless for cattle and crops.
Currently, the residents of Greenland are rubbing their hands together for a multi billion dollar economy created by the fact they are now able once again to graze cattle and grow their crops for export.
The modelling by some of these so called experts have already been proven wrong, so it beggars beyond belief how acurate their predictions will be in the future.
So, the ice has melted in Greenland over milleniums and has been replenished under the right conditions. I can't believe the Earth would have been troubled too much by industrial CO2 emmissions in those times, but rather by natural phenomenals such as volcanos and bush fires.
Some amazing and frankly distressing footage of ice flows over the last two decades. Set your Controls for the heart of the Sun people...
http://blog.ted.com/2009/09/timelapse_proof.php
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?