T'others locked.
Scientists confirm that warm ocean water is melting the biggest glacier in East Antarctica

These waters, the paper asserts, are causing the ice shelf to lose between 63 and 80 billion tons of its mass to the ocean per year, and to lose about 10 meters (32 feet) of thickness annually, a reduction that has been previously noted based on satellite measurements.

This matters because more of East Antarctica flows out towards the sea through the Totten glacier region than for any other glacier in the entirety of the East Antarctic ice sheet. Its entire “catchment,” or the region of ice that slowly flows outward through Totten glacier and its ice shelf, is larger than California. If all of this ice were to end up in the ocean somehow, seas would raise by about 11.5 feet.

Click bait, read a bit more:

The large loss of ice from the ice shelf doesn’t raise seas because that ice is already afloat.

This is ice that starts on land, hence being called a glacier, therefore it will have effect on sea levels.

---

The large loss of ice from the ice shelf doesn’t raise seas because that ice is already afloat.

True in the present tense

This is ice that starts on land, hence being called a glacier, therefore it will have effect on sea levels.

True as new ice flows to the sea the sea level will rise.
Methinks you boys are having too much fun with semantics.

---

T'others locked.
Scientists confirm that warm ocean water is melting the biggest glacier in East Antarctica

These waters, the paper asserts, are causing the ice shelf to lose between 63 and 80 billion tons of its mass to the ocean per year, and to lose about 10 meters (32 feet) of thickness annually, a reduction that has been previously noted based on satellite measurements.

This matters because more of East Antarctica flows out towards the sea through the Totten glacier region than for any other glacier in the entirety of the East Antarctic ice sheet. Its entire “catchment,” or the region of ice that slowly flows outward through Totten glacier and its ice shelf, is larger than California. If all of this ice were to end up in the ocean somehow, seas would raise by about 11.5 feet.

Click bait, read a bit more:

The large loss of ice from the ice shelf doesn’t raise seas because that ice is already afloat.

This is ice that starts on land, hence being called a glacier, therefore it will have effect on sea levels.

The article calls it both, a common click bait tactic.

There also seems to be a physics error, an incorrect assumption of starting conditions. It appears as if they are arguing that the floating ice somehow is pushing against the ice on land and resisting it going into the water. However the ice shelf is in motion away from the land. Floating ice could push back if it was being accelerated, but it isn't. It is moving at the same speed as the glacier, has been for centuries. Once it floats it is out of the equation. Yes, we have ignored two factors, wind resistance and underwater currents. Without some strain gauge measurements deep in the ice it is entirely possible the floating ice is pulling the glacier into the water.

As to your statement WK, you are assuming that no ice is added to the glacier at the top to match what exits at the bottom. That is not stated at all in the article. And that is the actual cause of sea level rise.

---

There are a lot of hot spots around the world where more of this can be utilised:


World's hottest borehole nearly complete

... The researchers want to bring steam from the deep well back up to the surface to provide an important source of energy.

"We hope that this will open new doors for the geothermal industry globally to step into an era of more production,"...

... it is this supercritical steam that the team wants to bring back up to the surface to convert into electricity. They believe its special properties mean it could produce up to 10 times as much energy as the steam from conventional geothermal wells.

"If this works, in the future we would need to drill fewer wells to produce the same amount of energy, meaning we would touch less surface, which means less environmental impact and hopefully lower costs...



All on our only one planet,
Martin

You don't have to go deep...like in ma weekend house, there are thermal vents all around...so easily with 20-50m I can get boiling hot water for heating - but haven't got the initial investment (nor the licence from state) to do it! :/

So, it's more like a "find the right spot"! ;)

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

There are a lot of hot spots around the world where more of this can be utilised:
World's hottest borehole nearly complete
... The researchers want to bring steam from the deep well back up to the surface to provide an important source of energy.
"We hope that this will open new doors for the geothermal industry globally to step into an era of more production,"...
... it is this supercritical steam that the team wants to bring back up to the surface to convert into electricity. They believe its special properties mean it could produce up to 10 times as much energy as the steam from conventional geothermal wells.
"If this works, in the future we would need to drill fewer wells to produce the same amount of energy, meaning we would touch less surface, which means less environmental impact and hopefully lower costs...
All on our only one planet,
Martin

You don't have to go deep...like in ma weekend house, there are thermal vents all around...so easily with 20-50m I can get boiling hot water for heating - but haven't got the initial investment (nor the licence from state) to do it! :/
So, it's more like a "find the right spot"! ;)

Well, You don't find many real hot spots here in Europe.
Except in Iceland and some countries around the eastern Mediterranean.
Oh. You live in Croatia:)

You have to drill very deep otherwise.
At 2 km the water temperature is only 38 C here in Scandinavia.
Good enough for heating households and farming.
In Finland a pilot project will start next year and they soon bored the 7 km holes needed.
The water temperature is "only" 120 C at that depth and not like in Iceland where it's 500 C where you could also produce electricy.

There are a lot of hot spots around the world where more of this can be utilised:
World's hottest borehole nearly complete
... The researchers want to bring steam from the deep well back up to the surface to provide an important source of energy.
"We hope that this will open new doors for the geothermal industry globally to step into an era of more production,"...
... it is this supercritical steam that the team wants to bring back up to the surface to convert into electricity. They believe its special properties mean it could produce up to 10 times as much energy as the steam from conventional geothermal wells.
"If this works, in the future we would need to drill fewer wells to produce the same amount of energy, meaning we would touch less surface, which means less environmental impact and hopefully lower costs...
All on our only one planet,
Martin

You don't have to go deep...like in ma weekend house, there are thermal vents all around...so easily with 20-50m I can get boiling hot water for heating - but haven't got the initial investment (nor the licence from state) to do it! :/
So, it's more like a "find the right spot"! ;)

Well, You don't find many real hot spots here in Europe.
Except in Iceland and some countries around the eastern Mediterranean.
Oh. You live in Croatia:)

You have to drill very deep otherwise.
At 2 km the water temperature is only 38 C here in Scandinavia.
Good enough for heating households and farming.
In Finland a pilot project will start next year and they soon bored the 7 km holes needed.
The water temperature is "only" 120 C at that depth and not like in Iceland where it's 500 C where you could also produce electricy.

Well, one must question the wisdom of drilling 5km deep boreholes in the top of a volcano...

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Well, one must question the wisdom of drilling 5km deep boreholes in the top of a volcano...

You mean it will be worse than an oil well in the Gulf of Mexico?

---

Well, one must question the wisdom of drilling 5km deep boreholes in the top of a volcano...

In the top of a volcano?
Iceland's capital Reykjavik and Keflavik International Airport is located on the Reykjanes peninsula where they are drilling.

There are a lot of hot spots around the world where more of this can be utilised:
World's hottest borehole nearly complete
... The researchers want to bring steam from the deep well back up to the surface to provide an important source of energy.
"We hope that this will open new doors for the geothermal industry globally to step into an era of more production,"...
... it is this supercritical steam that the team wants to bring back up to the surface to convert into electricity. They believe its special properties mean it could produce up to 10 times as much energy as the steam from conventional geothermal wells.
"If this works, in the future we would need to drill fewer wells to produce the same amount of energy, meaning we would touch less surface, which means less environmental impact and hopefully lower costs...
All on our only one planet,
Martin

You don't have to go deep...like in ma weekend house, there are thermal vents all around...so easily with 20-50m I can get boiling hot water for heating - but haven't got the initial investment (nor the licence from state) to do it! :/
So, it's more like a "find the right spot"! ;)

Well, You don't find many real hot spots here in Europe.
Except in Iceland and some countries around the eastern Mediterranean.
Oh. You live in Croatia:)

You have to drill very deep otherwise.
At 2 km the water temperature is only 38 C here in Scandinavia.
Good enough for heating households and farming.
In Finland a pilot project will start next year and they soon bored the 7 km holes needed.
The water temperature is "only" 120 C at that depth and not like in Iceland where it's 500 C where you could also produce electricy.

The main idea, find a place where heat Spa is located, get the house there...& you don't have to drill deep! ;)

Otherwise, yes...you do!

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

Can this hold back at least some of the tide of Big Oil rape and pillage and pollute for greedy profits-at-all-costs?


Obama bans oil drilling 'permanently' in millions of acres of ocean

Outgoing US President Barack Obama has permanently banned offshore oil and gas drilling in the "vast majority" of US-owned northern waters.

... The move is widely seen as an attempt to protect the region before Mr Obama leaves office in January. Supporters of president-elect Donald Trump could find it difficult to reverse the decision.

Canada also committed to a similar measure in its own Arctic waters, in a joint announcement with Washington.

The White House said the decision was for "a strong, sustainable and viable Arctic economy and ecosystem."...

... President Obama is heeding advice from scientists warning that humans have already discovered three times more fossil fuels than we can burn without risking the climate.

Oil firms will still want to explore for further profits, though. And the next secretary of state, Exxon's Rex Tillerson, may offer the industry a route round the ban by paving the way to an Arctic drilling deal with Russia...


Meanwhile, it's being a bit windy over the north of the UK these last few days and...

At the moment, we have a steady 7GW of wind generated power (national grid maxed out) to give about 20% of UK demand. Similar proportion to nuclear and about twice that of coal. (Gas turbines supply the most at about one third at present, they also soak up the demand variation.)


There are good ways to go. How quickly can we bankrupt the polluters before they forever bankrupt the planet for us?...

All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Can this hold back at least some of the tide of Big Oil rape and pillage and pollute for greedy profits-at-all-costs?


Obama bans oil drilling 'permanently' in millions of acres of ocean

Outgoing US President Barack Obama has permanently banned offshore oil and gas drilling in the "vast majority" of US-owned northern waters.

... The move is widely seen as an attempt to protect the region before Mr Obama leaves office in January. Supporters of president-elect Donald Trump could find it difficult to reverse the decision.

Canada also committed to a similar measure in its own Arctic waters, in a joint announcement with Washington.

The White House said the decision was for "a strong, sustainable and viable Arctic economy and ecosystem."...

... President Obama is heeding advice from scientists warning that humans have already discovered three times more fossil fuels than we can burn without risking the climate.

Oil firms will still want to explore for further profits, though. And the next secretary of state, Exxon's Rex Tillerson, may offer the industry a route round the ban by paving the way to an Arctic drilling deal with Russia...


Meanwhile, it's being a bit windy over the north of the UK these last few days and...

At the moment, we have a steady 7GW of wind generated power (national grid maxed out) to give about 20% of UK demand. Similar proportion to nuclear and about twice that of coal. (Gas turbines supply the most at about one third at present, they also soak up the demand variation.)


There are good ways to go. How quickly can we bankrupt the polluters before they forever bankrupt the planet for us?...

All on our only one planet,
Martin

#1: Anything one president does can be undone by the next one. It isn't a permanent ban, only an indefinite one. With Republicans in the majority in both the House and the Senate, Do you honestly believe that even the law from the 1950s that allows an 'indefinite' ban by the President would survive?

#2: 3x more fossil fuel than we can burn without risking the climate... Horse manure. The climate is already 'at risk' from human activity, even if we had never burned ANY fossil fuel. The entire '2 degrees C' standard is crap. If the Governments of the world were serious about stopping Anthropogenic Climate Change, GHG emissions from ALL sources would have to be STOPPED, immediately. Remember, it takes on the order of 100,000 years for (only) about 93% of the CO2 to be removed by natural processes (weathering of rocks in the deep ocean and on mountaintops exposing minerals that chemically combine with CO2 forming other minerals -- see Dr. Archer's work --https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRDjsuA0oJc). The World Governments are not trying to solve the problem, but are trying to redistribute wealth around the world.

The notion is pervasive in the popular and scientific literature that the lifetime of anthropogenic CO2 released to the atmosphere is some fuzzy number measured most conveniently in decades or centuries. The reality is that the CO2 from a gallon out of every tank of gas will continue to affect climate for tens and even hundreds of thousands of years into the future.


The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks (2005) has the CO2 lifetime listed as 5-200 years, for example [1]. I have seen “hundreds of years” in scientific manuscripts and in environmentalist literature. David Goodstein in his excellent book The End of the Age of Oil states, “If we were to suddenly stop burning fossil fuel, the natural carbon cycle would probably restore the previous concentration in a thousand years or so.” I assume that Goodstein is conservatively applying several century-long e-folding times to derive his thousand years, but he implicitly assumes that the CO2 will relax toward its 1750 concentration. The point is that it does not.

When you release a slug of new CO2 into the atmosphere, dissolution in the ocean gets rid of about three quarters of it, more or less, depending on how much is released. The rest has to await neutralization by reaction with CaCO3 or igneous rocks on land and in the ocean [2-6]. These rock reactions also restore the pH of the ocean from the CO2 acid spike. My model indicates that about 7% of carbon released today will still be in the atmosphere in 100,000 years [7]. I calculate a mean lifetime, from the sum of all the processes, of about 30,000 years. That’s a deceptive number, because it is so strongly influenced by the immense longevity of that long tail. If one is forced to simplify reality into a single number for popular discussion, several hundred years is a sensible number to choose, because it tells three-quarters of the story, and the part of the story which applies to our own lifetimes.

However, the long tail is a lot of baby to throw out in the name of bath-time simplicity. Major ice sheets, in particular in Greenland [8], ocean methane clathrate deposits [9], and future evolution of glacial/interglacial cycles [10] might be affected by that long tail. A better shorthand for public discussion might be that CO2 sticks around for hundreds of years, plus 25% that sticks around forever.

Excerpt from:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/03/how-long-will-global-warming-last/

Read it... It is a good summary of his work in somewhat non-technical language for those of you that have difficulty reading his actual papers.

Seriously, many/most of you 'Warmists' either don't understand the extent of the problem or are not interested in actually solving it. Sorry, but the extent of the problem is such that putting up some solar panels/wind turbines and shutting down a few coal plants won't solve it. Sorry, but its way too late to be solved even by totally ceasing all fossil fuel use (btw, not the ONLY source of Anthropogenic CO2 emissions)... TODAY. Stop ALL Anthropogenic GHG emissions today, and the problems will continue for many, many thousands of years.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

+1 MK.

It is so disheartening to hear these warmists refuse to believe their own science and simply call for measures that will not have any appreciable effect beyond kicking the can down the road 5-10 years. We both know that their science says that depopulation is the only possible answer we have today. It also may well be why SETI hasn't found a signal. ET's can't advance beyond a point or they cause global warming on their planet. The length of civilization term in the Drake equation.

Now if there was research into a photosynthetic kind of solar cell that took CO2 and sunlight and produced electricity, that would be a step down the right path. If we are to have a population above hunter-gather on this planet we have to find methods to remove CO2 from the atmosphere because any level of industrialization generates lots of CO2.

---

Now if there was research into a photosynthetic kind of solar cell that took CO2 and sunlight and produced electricity, that would be a step down the right path. If we are to have a population above hunter-gather on this planet we have to find methods to remove CO2 from the atmosphere because any level of industrialization generates lots of CO2.

Hopefully in the process ripping the carbon from the oxygen so we could put it back into the ground where it belongs.

---

Kevin

+1 MK.

It is so disheartening to hear these warmists refuse to believe their own science and simply call for measures that will not have any appreciable effect beyond kicking the can down the road 5-10 years. We both know that their science says that depopulation is the only possible answer we have today. It also may well be why SETI hasn't found a signal. ET's can't advance beyond a point or they cause global warming on their planet. The length of civilization term in the Drake equation.

Now if there was research into a photosynthetic kind of solar cell that took CO2 and sunlight and produced electricity, that would be a step down the right path. If we are to have a population above hunter-gather on this planet we have to find methods to remove CO2 from the atmosphere because any level of industrialization generates lots of CO2.

More than just industrialization produces the CO2...

As to your gizmo you propose... it might work if it converted the Carbon from the CO2 into some semi-permanent solid that could be buried or otherwise disposed of perhaps on the subducting plate at a subduction zone where it would eventually be re-absorbed into the mantle. Perhaps diamond. This is not going to be very energy efficient. It is going to take a large number of devices to do any good, which is going to cause other environmental issues.

Remember, we are currently emitting around 40 Gigatons of CO2 per year, and the Earth can deal with perhaps 2 Gigatons per year.

Also, Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use (AFOLU) accounts for about 25% of CO2 Emissions. 25% of 40 GT is 10 GT, or about 5 times too much CO2 for the Earth to deal with. Humanity needs a rude awakening from the nightmare we are in, and it is NOT going to be pleasant.

Turn off Electricity and Heat Production (25%), not enough.
Also Turn off Industry (21%), not enough (total so far 46%).
Also Turn off Transportation (14%), not enough (total so far 60%).
Also Turn off Buildings (6%), not enough (total so far 66%).
Also Turn off Other energy uses (10%), not enough (total so far 76%).

That leaves only the 24% from AFOLU, most of which is from Agriculture.

We are Screwed.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

+1 MK.

It is so disheartening to hear these warmists refuse to believe their own science and simply call for measures that will not have any appreciable effect beyond kicking the can down the road 5-10 years. We both know that their science says that depopulation is the only possible answer we have today. It also may well be why SETI hasn't found a signal. ET's can't advance beyond a point or they cause global warming on their planet. The length of civilization term in the Drake equation.

Now if there was research into a photosynthetic kind of solar cell that took CO2 and sunlight and produced electricity, that would be a step down the right path. If we are to have a population above hunter-gather on this planet we have to find methods to remove CO2 from the atmosphere because any level of industrialization generates lots of CO2.

More than just industrialization produces the CO2...

As to your gizmo you propose... it might work if it converted the Carbon from the CO2 into some semi-permanent solid that could be buried or otherwise disposed of perhaps on the subducting plate at a subduction zone where it would eventually be re-absorbed into the mantle. Perhaps diamond. This is not going to be very energy efficient. It is going to take a large number of devices to do any good, which is going to cause other environmental issues.

Of course. It may have to almost be alive so it reproduces itself and its waste product might be buckyballs. At today's level of humans huge amounts of it would be needed, but at a significantly reduced population it could allow for the remaining humans to be fully industrialized at a steady balance with nature.

But we may be the result of a one shot event https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/Geoscientist/Archive/June-2014/The-Arctic-Azolla-event

---

But we may be the result of a one shot event https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/Geoscientist/Archive/June-2014/The-Arctic-Azolla-event

Interesting article. But.....

That fern (with its symbiotic cyanobacteria) only dropped the CO2 because after periodic dye-offs, the dead plants sunk to the bottom of the arctic ocean and quickly were buried by sediment. If not for the quick burial, it would have decomposed and released the CO2 back into the biosphere. Pretty much, as you said, a one-shot event.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

We are Screwed.

Good summary and with the present all-too-slow political response and the business-as-usual extreme profits and all else be damned business with no cares or morals, yes we are completely screwed.

However, that is still no excuse for the deniers and the corrupt oil sponsored FUD of: "It's not a problem, it's not a problem, it's not a problem, it's not a problem, SUCKERS - FOOLED YOU ALL! It's all now too late so just go home and die quietly."

Politics and business changes.

In this case, we really do need the politics and business to change more quickly for the better. The fabulous magic of Science does have physical limits to what can be saved...

This is all a Worldwide Experiment that we have no business to conduct on our planet.


All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

... Meanwhile, it's being a bit windy over the north of the UK these last few days and...

At the moment, we have a steady 7GW of wind generated power (national grid maxed out) to give about 20% of UK demand. Similar proportion to nuclear and about twice that of coal. (Gas turbines supply the most at about one third at present, they also soak up the demand variation.)


There are good ways to go. How quickly can we bankrupt the polluters before they forever bankrupt the planet for us?...

We're now slumbering over on this part of the planet and with the reduced electrical demand, the wind power is well on the way to providing 25% of the UK electricity supply. That is more than dirty old coal (7%) and that of the more efficient gas (16%). Nuclear is up at about 33% with hydro, bio and (wind) imports from Holland and nuclear from France making up the rest.

All a good move in the right direction but we can still do more and better and cleaner. All a question of "how soon"?


All on our only one planet,
Martin

[edit]
To update the numbers on that:

Interestingly, nuclear has increased to 8.4GW, whilst the wind power has eased to 6.1GW.

Demand is still decreasing for the night and so nuclear and wind will continue to increase in their proportions.
[/edit]

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

But we may be the result of a one shot event https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/Geoscientist/Archive/June-2014/The-Arctic-Azolla-event

Interesting article. But.....

That fern (with its symbiotic cyanobacteria) only dropped the CO2 because after periodic dye-offs, the dead plants sunk to the bottom of the arctic ocean and quickly were buried by sediment. If not for the quick burial, it would have decomposed and released the CO2 back into the biosphere. Pretty much, as you said, a one-shot event.

You missed that that arctic ocean was a lake then and the bottom was anoxic. No O2 to combine with the hydrocarbons hence no bacteria to break them down. The rate of sediment wasn't a significant factor. If it was then landfills wouldn't belch CH4.

We need to get busy playing god in our gene splicing labs and take the bacteria that eat dead plant matter and transform it so it only strips off the hydrogen and nitrogen but leaves the carbon elemental, not release it as CO2 but say buckeyballs or graphite. Now we add it as a symbiotic with Azolla and algae and release it in the wild. None of us will live to see it but we may be able to keep snowball earth for our great great grandchildren. We also have our first terraforming project.

So do you think Trump should take the couple trillion he wants to spend on nukes and instead spend it on some needed genetic engineering?

---

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/21/cutting-soot-emissions-arctic-ice-melt-climate-change

Reducing wood-burning, gas-flaring and global diesel emissions would be ‘quick win’ in combating irreversible climate change, scientists say. Such a “quick win” would be important to provide breathing space while world populations reduce their use of fossil fuels