Antarctica conundrum

Congressional discussions over climate change have reached such a low point that during this week’s House hearing on the national security risks of climate change, former Secretary of State John Kerry, who was testifying, broke down and just asked his Republican questioner, “Are you serious?”

Kerry's incredulous question was in response to Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, the GOP star of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform hearing, which also featured testimony from former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel. Kerry's and Hagel's testimonies were followed by several hours of, at times, excrutiating questioning from committee members.

Republicans made a big show of the fact that Massie has an engineering degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The conflict with Kerry arose when Massie tried to undermine Kerry's testimony on climate change because he has a political science degree from Yale.

Massie said, “I think it’s somewhat appropriate that somebody with a pseudoscience degree is here pushing pseudoscience in front of our committee today.”

If science degrees are important to Massie, he must have somehow missed the thousands of climate scientists around the world who have studied, published, tweeted, marched, and repeated that climate change is real, caused by humans, and having major impacts now.

During this hearing, Massie wasn’t alone in displaying bizarre logic to attack science and the reality of climate change. Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) apparently thought holding up a fossil disproved that humans are causing climate change.

“Climate change has been changing all through the life of this planet. I’ve got a fossil right here from Western Wyoming — a desert — but that once was under an ocean,” he said.

Read more:

https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/04/10/john-kerry-republican-oversight-he...

 

On this site we are on top of the issue:

 

Please read again and again: http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/33287

 

and: 

celebrating the madness of life...

 

dealing with the moronic one notion’s crew and the noah’s social club's chief, on a chemically lucky planet…

 

Accelerating policy, innovation and finance for zero carbon cities 
Registration now open for Climate Innovation Forum 2019 during the first ever London Climate Action Week, 1-8 July, 2019 
 

 

Climate Innovation Forum 2019 will champion innovation to accelerate the zero carbon economy and mobilise cross-sector collaboration to develop – and deliver – innovative products, services and systems across four key areas that can be scaled up on city, regional and national levels:

 

 

The weather bureau has been tampering with temperature data in order to "perpetuate global warming hysteria", according to an under-fire Coalition candidate.

Key points:

• Mr Rennick has accused the BoM of rewriting weather records to suit a 'global warming agenda'
• The BoM says the integrity of its data was confirmed by the nation's leading statisticians and mathematicians
• Labor has called on Scott Morrison to sack Mr Rennick from his winnable position on the Qld LNP Senate ticket

 

The Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) has strongly rejected the conspiracy theory being peddled by Queensland Senate hopeful Gerard Rennick.

The ABC yesterday revealed Mr Rennick's unconventional views on pre-school, which were shot down by the Prime Minister.

Federal Labor is now calling for Scott Morrison to sack the candidate from his winnable position on the Liberal-National Party Senate ticket.

Mr Rennick last month accused the weather bureau of "rewriting weather records to fit in with the global warming agenda!"

"Our public servants are out of control," he said on Facebook.

The spray was in response to an article published in The Spectator magazine that accused the federal agency of concocting "a consistent global warming trend".

 

Read more:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-23/lnp-senate-candidate-gerard-renni...

 

The Spectator is an ultra-right wing denialist ragmag that should have gone out of business long ago for promoting ultra-right wing denialist porkies... Remember this ugly cover when Turdy managed to destroy the Price on Carbon — with the help (IT WAS A secretly SET double-cross CONSPIRACY) of Clive Palmer (place him last on all voting papers):

 

 

In this ugly spectacle we can see ALAN JONES, ANDREW BOLT AND TONY ABBOTT rejoicing like turdy idiots having passed the end of wearing nappies exams — about the saddest day in Australia's history. 

Gerard Rennick should be sacked from any political duties for having the unfortunate traits of being a liar, a deliberate ignoramus and an ill-intended man with the attention span of squashed gnat.

Yes, Morrison should sack this idiot, otherwise it WILL SHOW IN NO UNCERTAIN TERM THAT SCUMMO HIMSELF IS a liar, a deliberate ignoramus and an ill-intended man with the attention span of squashed DEVIOUS gnat. But we know this, don't we?

 

Read from top.

 

https://therealnews.com/stories/earth-day-how-can-climate-activists-fight-misinformation

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hCRafyV0zI

 

One of the major problem in the second video (2011) is that at no stage has professor Steven Schneider been able (or allowed) to explain HOW GLOBAL WARMING WORKS (it's complicated, yet far simpler than quantum mechanics. This was quite tragic as he tried to EXPLAIN but was cut off by the moderator who threw questions at PEOPLE WHO BASICALLY KNEW NOTHING ABOUT THE SUBJECT, except about the hype. Should you wish to know with more precision the problem of global warming go to:

http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/33287

 

Jenny Brockie included... (including an Ian Plimer video rant as a counterpoint to professor Stephen Schneider was RIDICULOUS)...

In the video with Jenny Brockie and professor Stephen Schneider above, there was one segment about filling a bathtub. Apparently the analogy was not fully understood by Doctor Ian Rivlin. With no disrespect to the doctor, we have to make a few points.

 

Most of the points about global warming are made in http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/33287 and in Antarctica conundrum. There are also many other Gus Leonisky posts to see.

 

But some of the comments made about the video extract (2011), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZ7A1dWcNMY, were sarcastic and some completely wrong. Here on this site we're not afraid of tackling big issues, including giving "little easy" bites on quantum mechanics and about global warming. 

 

The good doctor Rivlin begs for fairness:

 

Please don't be offensive - I haven't been offensive to you or anyone else. Politeness costs nothing. I have degrees in physics, engineering and medicine. I've studied climate science since the early 1970's. Schneider said we were all going to succumb to global COOLING in 1972. He had his ardent supporters 40 years ago, who were just as passionate as the present AGW proponents.  (Where are they now?) You have been mislead by this false prophet's disingenuity.

Yes sir... Read again (and again) http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/33287... But it is about the bathtub that this article is about. One of Rivlin (possible) supporter, John Eurek comments:

Funny, If you don't change the drain size, as the water level goes up, the pressure at the drain will raise. This will cause the water to drain faster.  Nature can balance herself fairly well.  Which is what makes his tub anology [sic] so funny, if the inflow goes from 1.0 gpm to 1.03 gpm the water level will raise --- A little, and the tub will find a new equilibrium, it will not flood the house.

 

In fairness to all, this is crap. The image of the filing bathtub may not have been the best analogy to describe global warming, but there is a point (an EXTRA portion of gallons per minute) at which, the outflow won't match the inflow — and the tub will spill out. This is where we're at.

 

And I believe Dr Ian Rivlin did not mention the cumulation of anthropogenic CO2 as he mentioned "3 per cent". At present we're at more than 25 per cent of natural maximum (we have added more than 100 ppm on a natural maximum of 300 ppm) of CO2 for the last 500,000 years. I hope that since this episode of Insight, Ian has gone back to his denialist books and seen how they have been wrong. But who knows... Meanwhile, calling professor Stephen Schneider views "false prophet's disingenuity" is below the belt.

 

I have been studying global warming since 1979 and I have observed major climatic changes since the 1950s. Daily, I study clouds (since the 1950s), posting many pictures of such. I have studied the Milankovitch cycles, investigated the time when the earth was "iced-up" and I have studied paleogeology in major details, including the major (near) extinctions. On this site, I only use titbits of my information. I have studied weather in both hemisphere and spent time in quite a few countries around the globe. I have also studied volcanoes under professor ..., I wont mention any names here. I have studied quantum mechanics in the 1960s and have been updating my knowledge regularly, daily. I did some in depth studies of atomic bomb and fast-breeder (plutonium based) power generator technology in the 1970s. I did my first cartoons in 1951. I also write about "philosophy" and have many friends, mostly in Germany, with whom we discuss ideas. Mad? Me? Sure...

 

I will point out that my exclusive article at http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/33287 is only a thinned version of a more complex study of global warming, made for people to easily understand the problem, which I have harped on about on this site since its creation in 2005.

I cannot stress any more:

 

GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL AND ANTHROPOGENIC.  And the risk factors are getting more and more dangerous. 

 

I leave the ball in your court.

 

(note I had to remove some links otherwise this comment was rejected by the site.)

 

"Schneider said we were all going to succumb to global COOLING in 1972?" I do not know if Schneider said such but one must look at the lack of information back then, when sciences were still iffy on the subject of global warming. The end of WW2 was only 27 years prior and (not strangely) things had cooled a bit after the war, pardon the pun about the cold war but this was about climate as well. And according to the Milankovitch cycles, we should be going towards an ice age. 

 

Before hand, svante Arrhenius had done some nifty calculations which were very close to the mark, back then in 1896-7. The amount of present information and observations available to correlate Global Warming should place doubt in the dustbin and we should start seriously do better mitigation than what we're doing presently.

Climate change activist Greta Thunberg: 'Listen to climate scientists'

Teenage climate change activist Greta Thunberg has said that climate change is an "existential crisis" and has urged politicians to "listen to the scientists".

She told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the onus was on "corporations and states" to bring about change.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-48018034/climate-change-activist-greta-th...

 

Menanwhile:

 

The release of methane and carbon dioxide from thawing permafrost will accelerate global warming and add up to $70tn (£54tn) to the world’s climate bill, according to the most advanced study yet of the economic consequences of a melting Arctic.

If countries fail to improve on their Paris agreement commitments, this feedback mechanism, combined with a loss of heat-deflecting white ice, will cause a near 5% amplification of global warming and its associated costs, says the paper, which was published on Tuesday in Nature Communications.

The authors say their study is the first to calculate the economic impact of permafrost melt and reduced albedo – a measure of how much light that hits a surface is reflected without being absorbed – based on the most advanced computer models of what is likely to happen in the Arctic as temperatures rise. It shows how destabilised natural systems will worsen the problem caused by man-made emissions, making it more difficult and expensive to solve.

They assessed known stocks of frozen organic matter in the ground up to 3 metres deep at multiple points across the Arctic. These were run through the world’s most advanced simulation software in the US and at the UK Met Office to predict how much gas will be released at different levels of warming. Even with supercomputers, the number crunching took weeks because the vast geography and complex climate interactions of the Arctic throw up multiple variables. The researchers then applied previous economic impact models to assess the likely costs.

 

read more:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/23/melting-permafrost-i...

 

 

Read from top.

At around 8.2, today's oceans are mildly alkaline, and we know that rising CO2 levels are currently increasing the oceans' acidity (decreasing pH). ... CO2 and water produce carbonic acid, so it stands to reason that the early oceans would have been more acidic...  Meanwhile a slight change in the pH of the oceans, has consequences for some animals. 

 

------------------------

 

The surface ocean pH has declined by about 0.1 so far, and is predicted to further decline by 0.2–0.4 by the end of this century, depending on future CO2 emissions. Geological records show that the present rate of change in the seawater chemistry is 10 to 100 times faster than it has been for many millions of years.

Although some scientists had recognised more than 50 years ago that rising CO2 concentrations will affect seawater chemistry and cause ocean acidification, this phenomenon has only recently emerged as one of the big knowledge gaps in marine science, and has now become a global research priority.

 

Read more:

https://www.aims.gov.au/research/climate-change/ocean-acidification

 

--------------------------------

Many marine organisms--such as coral, clams, mussels, sea urchins, barnacles, and certain microscopic plankton--rely on equilibrated chemical conditions and pH levels in the ocean to build their calcium-based shells and other structures. A new analysis published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology provides a holistic analysis of how species will be affected worldwide under different climate scenarios.

"Calcifying species are indispensable for ecosystems worldwide: they provide nursery habitats for fish, food for marine predators, and natural defenses for storms and erosion. These species are also particularly vulnerable to ocean acidification triggered by increased fossil fuel emissions," says IIASA researcher Ligia Azevedo, who led the study.

Just as carbonated soda water is more acidic than flat tap water, higher levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the ocean cause the water to become more acidic. And high acidity makes it more difficult for calcifying species to make their calcium structures such as shells, reefs, and exoskeletons.

"Previous studies have shown that marine species were being negatively affected by decreasing ocean pH levels. But until now most studies looked at individual species. This study is one of the first to analyze the impact on the whole community of calcifying species, while also looking at both pH levels and CO2 partial pressure," says Azevedo.

The study examines the impact of increased ocean acidity on species growth, reproduction, and survival. It used two climate change scenarios from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5): In the low CO2 emissions scenario, ocean pH is projected to decrease from 8.1 to 7.95, while in the high CO2 emissions scenario, median ocean pH is expected to decrease to 7.80. (Lower pH indicates higher acidity).

The analysis finds that under the high emissions scenario, between 21-32% of calcifying species would be significantly affected, based on a threshold of 10% of a species population being affected. In the low emissions scenario, only 7-12% of species would be affected.

 

Read more:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150203112131.htm

 

 

Read from top.

Yet another study has shown that glaciers in Antarctica are melting at accelerating rates. 

Almost 25 percent of the West Antarctic ice shelf is now thinning, and the Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers are losing ice at five times the rate they were in the early 1990s, CNN reported. 

"In parts of Antarctica, the ice sheet has thinned by extraordinary amounts," study lead author and Leeds University Prof. Andy Shepherd told The Guardian.

 

The study, published in Geophysical Research Letters, comes four months after another study of the entire Antarctic continent found that it was losing ice at six times the rate it was 40 years ago. The latest study found that ice loss from both East and West Antarctica had raised global sea levels by 4.6 millimeters since 1992, according to CNN.

The study relied on 25 years of satellite data covering 1992 to 2017. The satellites were fitted with altimeters to measure height changes to the ice sheets. Researchers then used weather models to separate seasonal variation due to snow fall from melting and ice loss caused by long term climate change, BBC News explained.

"Using this unique dataset, we've been able to identify the parts of Antarctica that are undergoing rapid, sustained thinning―regions that are changing faster than we would expect due to normal weather patterns," co-head of the UK Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling (CPOM) and Lancaster University Environmental Sensing Reader Dr. Malcolm McMillan told BBC News. "We can now clearly see how these regions have expanded through time, spreading inland across some of the most vulnerable parts of West Antarctica, which is critical for understanding the ice sheet's contribution to global sea level rise."

 

Read more:

https://www.ecowatch.com/antarctica-melting-rapid-2637302310.html?rebell...

 

 

Read from top.

Global polar science elite meets in Coimbra to discuss the effect of climate change on Antarctica life

27 polar scientists from 12 countries will meet at the University of Coimbra between June 24 and 27 to identify the scientific progress in the Antarctic region in relation to climate change in the last 10 years in the lives of the animals that live there.

At this meeting, which opens at 4 pm on the 24th at the Science Museum, a number of issues of concern to scientists studying Antarctica will be discussed and analyzed, including how animals respond to climate change, changes in the Antarctic Ocean as regards the life of marine animals, species adaptation and resilience to climate change and the impact of pollution on Antarctica.

The SCAR AnT-ERA international meeting will result in a document to be published as a product of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) in order to assist all interested parties : policy makers, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), but also scientists, younger generations and the general public.

Читайте больше на http://www.pravdareport.com/science/142472-climate_change/

In regard to mining under the Antarctic ice cap, one must be aware that by 1959, the US were planning to implant a few nuclear power stations, including Nukey Poo, on this frozen continent to supply electricity to the 24/7 activities below and on top of the ice...

The Antarctic Treaty, which came into effect on June 23, 1961, bans military activity in Antarctica, military personnel and equipment may only be used for scientific research or any other peaceful purpose (such as delivering supplies) on the continent.[1]

The Antarctic Treaty specifically prohibits military activity on land or ice shelves below 60°S. While the use of nuclear weapons is absolutely prohibited, the Treaty does not apply to naval activity within these bounds (in the Southern Ocean) so long as it takes place on the high seas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_activity_in_the_Antarctic

 

------------------------

 

Australia's Defence Force is looking to install its technology in Antarctica even though the Antarctic Treaty explicitly bans military activity.

Key points:

• Document reveals Defence's desire to roll out technology with both civil and military use in Antarctica
• Australia has historically been a vocal proponent of the Antarctic Treaty and its goals of science, environmental protection and non-militarisation
• China, Russia and the US have already installed "dual-use" military technology

 

The revelation forms part of Australia's most detailed assessment of threats and "military opportunities" in Antarctica ever released publicly.

A senior official in Defence's strategic policy branch presented to a private "future strategic leaders' congress" in June. Speaking notes for the presentation were contained in a document obtained by the ABC under freedom of information law.

'Valuable opportunities'

The overarching laws of the southern continent are contained in the 60-year-old Antarctic Treaty. They prohibit measures of "a military nature".

China, Russia and the US have satellite navigation capabilities in Antarctica that can potentially be used for military purposes in times of conflict.

This kind of technology — with dual civil and military uses — is not strictly banned by the Treaty.

The briefing by the Defence official noted "there are a range of valuable opportunities to enhance military capability by implementing certain technologies in the Antarctic".

"Australia and other likeminded states need to maintain a collective influence in the Antarctic Treaty System in order to prevent the gradual undermining of its strength," the document declares.

"This does not mean that we cannot, or should not, utilise the opportunity for implementing dual‐use capabilities where we can, but priority should always favour legitimate scientific utility."

It is not clear what technologies Australia would consider implementing, but the document highlights the potential of space object surveillance in Antarctica, including "tracing and monitoring satellites of other nations".

 

Read more:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-19/australia-antarctica-military-dua...

 

 

Read from top.

 

See also:

http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/28201

I may have mentioned this before, but in the 1980s and 1990s while doing some work with eminent scientists studying the surface of the planet under ice ages and warmer conditions, we already accounted for the "flexibility" of the said-surface and the change "in altitude" that the weight of the ice made to continents floating on the magma. At the time this was hard to calculate, but more precise measurements came to light last year. This article published 22 June 2018:

According to a consensus estimate published in Nature, the continent has lost 3 trillion tons of ice in the past 25 years—most of it from the vulnerable West Antarctic Ice Sheet, where the loss rate tripled over the study period. Although West Antarctica contributed just 6 millimeters of sea level rise in that time, scientists say ice-sheet collapse there could raise global sea levels by 3 meters in the coming centuries. The accelerating loss could be a sign that the catastrophe has already been set in motion.

But a study in this week's Science offers a glimmer of hope, documenting a process that could slow the collapse. As ice melts and the load on the crust lightens, the bedrock beneath West Antarctica is rising rapidly. In places it could rise 8 meters over the coming century—potentially protecting the ice from the warm seawater that is melting it from below. "It may just buy the world a few extra decades," says Rick Aster, a seismologist at Colorado State University in Fort Collins and an author of the new study.

The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is vulnerable because its bed lies far below sea level, forming a giant basin that slopes inland to a depth of more than a kilometer. Glaciers—"rivers" of ice—shed ice into the ocean. For the moment, some are snagged on ridges in the sea floor, slowing their flow. But as the warming ocean erodes them from below, they could retreat behind the ridges. Seawater would then pour into the basin, lifting ice off the bedrock and melting it in a runaway process. "It's a very unstable situation," says Natalya Gomez, a geophysicist at McGill University in Montreal, Canada.

Read more:

doi:10.1126/science.aau5507

 

--------------

"It may just buy the world a few extra decades," is hopeful (for the Antarctic region) but it won't make much difference on the fact that GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL AND ANTHROPOGENIC.

 

 

 

Read from top.