Originally Posted by Taskiss
Hands Sandon, I've watched the video - Anyway, it contained little I haven't read about before. I would be interested in more studies on the physics behind supraglacial lake ice acceleration and mass balance. I agree with the video that there isn't enough information yet to be able to know the full effects of this phenomenon.
One thing to note - Places like Byrd Glacier that experience increased ice flow dynamics aren't doing so from effects of atmospheric or ocean warming. In Greenland, perhaps, but the ice flow rate there has returned to normal, according to Faezeh Nick.
Additionally, I understand that any item published with backing from Exxon is suspect by folks that want the information unadulterated by bias. I'm of the opinion that any information from James Hansen falls in this same category.
To recap my position on higw in case you've searched for my previous posts on the subject, I don't think any additional studies are necessary to encourage serious reductions in pollution, I am against carbon credit schemes like cap and trade carbon dioxide emissions programs and such, and finally...
I don't believe that there is anything - short of an epidemic wiping out 90% of the worlds' population - that can have any effect on the current or future accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere without a new form of energy being developed and used. The use of carbon based fuels will result in carbon dioxide pollutants, and energy usage isn't going to be reduced at the present and future population levels.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7733509.stmhttp://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...d-ecd53cd3d320http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...-inconvenient/
Thanks for your reply first off.
Just briefly as I have only as yet followed your first link. Two billion tons of water is a lot. The first link clearly states an increase from 20 billion tons to 22 billion tons and that that had the effect of greater movement. Therefore, I don't understand why you are sure there are no human induced global warming effects involved? Even though the article states it's not climate related for the natural melt-water to happen as a perfectly normal event, I would be surprised if they believed that the 'increase' was not climate related, as this has been a recognized fact of CC.
"It should be stressed the events seen at Byrd are not of themselves climate-related. The lakes probably flood and drain on a regular basis that has nothing to do with atmospheric or ocean warming."~article
I will get back to you as I follow your links and other questions regarding your reply.
The second link, even I can discern to be a blatant misrepresentation of scientific knowledge. This will explain why the same old arguments, constantly used to mislead the public about fluctuations, notably in ocean temperatures are factually incorrect. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y15UGhhRd6M
Your third link sustains your argument no better than the previous two.
To say it was scant of details and facts would be an understatement. That's not altogether bad though, as facts are used by those who espouse your thinking to confound and misinform with an uninspiring and error ridden monotony. (please don't take any personal offense at that, it's not directed at you personally)
Take this as an example-For another, Gore’s “massive destabilization” mechanism for which the earthquakes were a supposed bellwether (meltwater lubrication of the flow channel) has been shown to be ineffective at producing long-term changes in glacier flow rate (e.g. (Joughin et al., 2008; van de Wal et al., 2008)
You say "I believe it to be a rebuttal of critical analysis of statements made by Al Gore?" regarding the video I posted, which if it does contradict anything of Al Gore's, please explain to me what exactly and why you make no other comments on those two videos. They backup what Al Gore is saying not the contrary. I've seen things dismissed before, but for me that takes the biscuit!
I'm not sure about cap and trade, I simply don't know enough about it to make a reasonable judgement one way or the other. But I do support serious efforts being taken to deal with CC and for all I know it's the right decision.
I hope it doesn't take a pandemic along the lines you are talking to prevent such high CO2 emissions. Things are bad, especially China building so many new coal plants. Nuclear is put forward as are other new 'green technologies'. Even nuclear has a limited supply capability and fossil fuels remain the main building block for our production of energy and goods.