trident
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
AzzaMarch wrote:Is there anyone who seriously doubts this issue anymore? I just assume the likes of Bolt etc are just running a line to sell papers.
Who actually believes there isn't an issue??? just the usual luddites and racists
|
|
|
|
Murdoch Rags Ltd
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
trident wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:Is there anyone who seriously doubts this issue anymore? I just assume the likes of Bolt etc are just running a line to sell papers.
Who actually believes there isn't an issue??? just the usual luddites and racists :-s dafuq? Race =/= climate change. Unless they're angry at black people for global warming................. :-s
|
|
|
Murdoch Rags Ltd
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 0
|
benelsmore wrote:trident wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:Is there anyone who seriously doubts this issue anymore? I just assume the likes of Bolt etc are just running a line to sell papers.
Who actually believes there isn't an issue??? just the usual luddites and racists :-s dafuq? Race =/= climate change. Unless they're angry at black people for global warming................. :-s Research does show a relationship between intelligence & racism. I am guessing that is what he was referring to with 'luddites'
|
|
|
trident
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
Only have to look at this forum. Look at the form of the couple of deniers and now where are they...
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
Murdoch Rags Ltd wrote:benelsmore wrote:trident wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:Is there anyone who seriously doubts this issue anymore? I just assume the likes of Bolt etc are just running a line to sell papers.
Who actually believes there isn't an issue??? just the usual luddites and racists :-s dafuq? Race =/= climate change. Unless they're angry at black people for global warming................. :-s Research does show a relationship between intelligence & racism. I am guessing that is what he was referring to with 'luddites' I see but it's a long bow to draw assuming climate change deniers are racists........ I know some racists that aren't climate change deniers.... research f*cked. I don't at all deny climate change. I don't deny anthropogenic climate change. However some of the 'data' coming out these days appears alarmist. Imagine if we had data 1,200 years ago. Taking 100 years of data on a planet 4 billion years old isn't exactly concrete.
|
|
|
Murdoch Rags Ltd
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 0
|
benelsmore wrote:Murdoch Rags Ltd wrote:benelsmore wrote:trident wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:Is there anyone who seriously doubts this issue anymore? I just assume the likes of Bolt etc are just running a line to sell papers.
Who actually believes there isn't an issue??? just the usual luddites and racists :-s dafuq? Race =/= climate change. Unless they're angry at black people for global warming................. :-s Research does show a relationship between intelligence & racism. I am guessing that is what he was referring to with 'luddites' I see but it's a long bow to draw assuming climate change deniers are racists........ I know some racists that aren't climate change deniers.... research f*cked. I don't at all deny climate change. I don't deny anthropogenic climate change. However some of the 'data' coming out these days appears alarmist. Imagine if we had data 1,200 years ago. Taking 100 years of data on a planet 4 billion years old isn't exactly concrete. We can actually reconstruct historical temperature and carbon dioxide levels using proxies such as tree rings, plant stomata, ice cores, etc such that estimates have been made that go back over 50 million years. Here is a link that lists peer reviewed scientific papers that have attempted to determine paleo temperature & carbon: https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2011/07/06/papers-on-atmospheric-co2-from-proxies/FYI, when Earth was last at 400 parts per million of CO2, as we have currently reached and still climbing, it was 3 to 5 degrees Celsius warmer. Such an increase inside 2 centuries would be beyond catastrophic. Never in hominid history has the planet warmed so fast.
|
|
|
trident
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
Climate denial is equivalent to hate speech. I believe we should sanction it accordingly.
|
|
|
lolitsbigmic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 7.5K,
Visits: 0
|
trident wrote:Climate denial is equivalent to hate speech. I believe we should sanction it accordingly.
Ummm no. Jailing someone for not agreeing with your viewpoint is just plain wrong. Yes denial of climate change is supporting something that is faculty wrong. I always hate it when emotion is involved in debate. It's our moral right.... burn the deniers. I really blame the media on this on they need to present both sides of the story. Which is fine with politics. But when you talking about something that a scientific base issue. There is pretty strong evidence to one side of the argument. It's very damaging. But a scientist should always be sceptical. I like to see more done on the methane side of the story. Especially with the explosion of none standard natural gas wells in the past 10 years. I think the increased rate of change could be down to that. I don't read much into this as it's not my specialty. Someone tell me if there is alternative reason.
|
|
|
Murdoch Rags Ltd
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 0
|
Quote:The most powerful driver of annual rainfall variation globally is the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, in which warm surface waters slosh back and forth across the Pacific Ocean, creating flooding rains in certain places and times and droughts in others. This isn’t the only cause of rainfall variability around the world, but it’s one of the biggest in terms of its sheer scale and impact. Climate researchers say this year’s El Niño could be stronger than anything in living memory — stronger even than the event that pummelled large expanses of the New World and Western Pacific region in 1997-98. In that year, a single massive fire consumed over three million hectares of drought-choked rainforest, farmlands and indigenous territories in Brazilian Amazonia. Dense smoke caused more people to go to hospital for respiratory distress, and airports had to be closed repeatedly. https://theconversation.com/godzilla-el-nino-time-to-prepare-for-mega-droughts-46673
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
trident wrote:Climate denial is equivalent to hate speech. I believe we should sanction it accordingly.
It's equivalent to denying evolution because of religion.
|
|
|
trident
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
benelsmore wrote:trident wrote:Climate denial is equivalent to hate speech. I believe we should sanction it accordingly.
It's equivalent to denying evolution because of religion. its worse because climate denial is killing the planet
|
|
|
u4486662
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.8K,
Visits: 0
|
trident wrote:benelsmore wrote:trident wrote:Climate denial is equivalent to hate speech. I believe we should sanction it accordingly.
It's equivalent to denying evolution because of religion. its worse because climate denial is killing the planet People are entitled to freedom of speech and freedom of thought. Go read Orwell FFS.
|
|
|
trident
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
u4486662 wrote:trident wrote:benelsmore wrote:trident wrote:Climate denial is equivalent to hate speech. I believe we should sanction it accordingly.
It's equivalent to denying evolution because of religion. its worse because climate denial is killing the planet People are entitled to freedom of speech and freedom of thought. Go read Orwell FFS. People arent entitled to hate speech. We ban haters on this forum dont we?
|
|
|
Scotch&Coke
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 0
|
u4486662 wrote:trident wrote:benelsmore wrote:trident wrote:Climate denial is equivalent to hate speech. I believe we should sanction it accordingly.
It's equivalent to denying evolution because of religion. its worse because climate denial is killing the planet People are entitled to freedom of speech and freedom of thought. Go read Orwell FFS. Freedom of speech is fine. Until that freedom of speech negatively impacts the future of the entire planet
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
Scotch&Coke wrote:u4486662 wrote:trident wrote:benelsmore wrote:trident wrote:Climate denial is equivalent to hate speech. I believe we should sanction it accordingly.
It's equivalent to denying evolution because of religion. its worse because climate denial is killing the planet People are entitled to freedom of speech and freedom of thought. Go read Orwell FFS. Freedom of speech is fine. Until that freedom of speech negatively impacts the future of the entire planet Or is just plain ignorant stupidity. The worlds tolerance of draconian ideals and irrelevant myth's is making us weak and vulnerable. We've got a generation of overly PC easily offended socialist morons :lol:
|
|
|
u4486662
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.8K,
Visits: 0
|
benelsmore wrote:Scotch&Coke wrote:u4486662 wrote:trident wrote:benelsmore wrote:trident wrote:Climate denial is equivalent to hate speech. I believe we should sanction it accordingly.
It's equivalent to denying evolution because of religion. its worse because climate denial is killing the planet People are entitled to freedom of speech and freedom of thought. Go read Orwell FFS. Freedom of speech is fine. Until that freedom of speech negatively impacts the future of the entire planet Or is just plain ignorant stupidity. The worlds tolerance of draconian ideals and irrelevant myth's is making us weak and vulnerable. We've got a generation of overly PC easily offended socialist morons :lol: Freedom of speech and thought is anti-socialist. Its Libertarian.
|
|
|
trident
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
Libertarian is just an appropriation word for anti-government racist sovereign citizen luddite. Everything should be regulated, you dont have license to shout fire in a crowded theatre any more than you do to spread hate speech online or elsewhere.
|
|
|
u4486662
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.8K,
Visits: 0
|
trident wrote:Libertarian is just an appropriation word for anti-government racist sovereign citizen luddite. Everything should be regulated, you dont have license to shout fire in a crowded theatre any more than you do to spread hate speech online or elsewhere.
I hope you're not referring to me. I'm not a climate change denier by the way.
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
u4486662 wrote:benelsmore wrote:Scotch&Coke wrote:u4486662 wrote:trident wrote:benelsmore wrote:trident wrote:Climate denial is equivalent to hate speech. I believe we should sanction it accordingly.
It's equivalent to denying evolution because of religion. its worse because climate denial is killing the planet People are entitled to freedom of speech and freedom of thought. Go read Orwell FFS. Freedom of speech is fine. Until that freedom of speech negatively impacts the future of the entire planet Or is just plain ignorant stupidity. The worlds tolerance of draconian ideals and irrelevant myth's is making us weak and vulnerable. We've got a generation of overly PC easily offended socialist morons :lol: Freedom of speech and thought is anti-socialist. Its Libertarian. I meant socialist in that this new age of people seem to demand action for all of life's travesties providing someone else pays for it :lol:
|
|
|
trident
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
u4486662 wrote:trident wrote:Libertarian is just an appropriation word for anti-government racist sovereign citizen luddite. Everything should be regulated, you dont have license to shout fire in a crowded theatre any more than you do to spread hate speech online or elsewhere.
I hope you're not referring to me. I'm not a climate change denier by the way. I wasnt referring to you personally I was referring to Libertarians
|
|
|
trident
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
Quote:[size=8]The Next Genocide[/size] By TIMOTHY SNYDERSEPT. 12, 2015
New Haven — BEFORE he fired the shot, the Einsatzgruppe commander lifted the Jewish child in the air and said, “You must die so that we can live.” As the killing proceeded, other Germans rationalized the murder of Jewish children in the same way: them or us.
Today we think of the Nazi Final Solution as some dark apex of high technology. It was in fact the killing of human beings at close range during a war for resources. The war that brought Jews under German control was fought because Hitler believed that Germany needed more land and food to survive and maintain its standard of living — and that Jews, and their ideas, posed a threat to his violent expansionist program.
The Holocaust may seem a distant horror whose lessons have already been learned. But sadly, the anxieties of our own era could once again give rise to scapegoats and imagined enemies, while contemporary environmental stresses could encourage new variations on Hitler’s ideas, especially in countries anxious about feeding their growing populations or maintaining a rising standard of living.
In Bangladesh, millions of people have been displaced by floods and the rising sea level. Credit Kadir van Lohuizen/NOOR, for The New York Times The quest for German domination was premised on the denial of science. Hitler’s alternative to science was the idea of Lebensraum. Germany needed an Eastern European empire because only conquest, and not agricultural technology, offered the hope of feeding the German people. In Hitler’s “Second Book,” which was composed in 1928 and not published until after his death, he insisted that hunger would outstrip crop improvements and that all “the scientific methods of land management” had already failed. No conceivable improvement would allow Germans to be fed “from their own land and territory,” he claimed. Hitler specifically — and wrongly — denied that irrigation, hybrids and fertilizers could change the relationship between people and land.
The pursuit of peace and plenty through science, he claimed in “Mein Kampf,” was a Jewish plot to distract Germans from the necessity of war. “It is always the Jew,” argued Hitler, “who seeks and succeeds in implanting such lethal ways of thinking.”
As exotic as it sounds, the concept of Lebensraum is less distant from our own ways of thinking than we believe. Germany was blockaded during World War I, dependent on imports of agricultural commodities and faced real uncertainties about its food supply. Hitler transformed these fears into a vision of absolute conquest for total security. Lebensraum linked a war of extermination to the improvement of lifestyle. The chief Nazi propagandist, Joseph Goebbels, could therefore define the purpose of a war of extermination as “a big breakfast, a big lunch and a big dinner.” He conflated lifestyle with life.
To expand Germany’s Lebensraum, Hitler aimed to seize Ukraine from the Soviet Union, starve 30 million Eastern Europeans and transfer the food to Germany. When Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, the campaign had two major aims: the control of fertile Ukrainian soil and the destruction of Jews living there. It was this invasion that placed defenseless Jewish children at the mercy of the murderous Einsatzgruppen.
Climate change threatens to provoke a new ecological panic. So far, poor people in Africa and the Middle East have borne the brunt of the suffering.
The mass murder of at least 500,000 Rwandans in 1994 followed a decline in agricultural production for several years before. Hutus killed Tutsis not only out of ethnic hatred, but to take their land, as many genocidaires later admitted.
In Sudan, drought drove Arabs into the lands of African pastoralists in 2003. The Sudanese government sided with the Arabs and pursued a policy of eliminating the Zaghawa, Masalit and Fur peoples in Darfur and surrounding regions.
Climate change has also brought uncertainties about food supply back to the center of great power politics. China today, like Germany before the war, is an industrial power incapable of feeding its population from its own territory, and is thus dependent on unpredictable international markets.
This could make China’s population susceptible to a revival of ideas like Lebensraum. The Chinese government must balance a not-so-distant history of starving its own population with today’s promise of ever-increasing prosperity — all while confronting increasingly unfavorable environmental conditions. The danger is not that the Chinese might actually starve to death in the near future, any more than Germans would have during the 1930s. The risk is that a developed country able to project military power could, like Hitler’s Germany, fall into ecological panic, and take drastic steps to protect its existing standard of living.
In Sudan, drought led to conflict and the displacement of many civilians. Credit Lynsey Addario for The New York Times How might such a scenario unfold? China is already leasing a tenth of Ukraine’s arable soil, and buying up food whenever global supplies tighten. During the drought of 2010, Chinese panic buying helped bring bread riots and revolution to the Middle East. The Chinese leadership already regards Africa as a long-term source of food. Although many Africans themselves still go hungry, their continent holds about half of the world’s untilled arable land. Like China, the United Arab Emirates and South Korea are interested in Sudan’s fertile regions — and they have been joined by Japan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia in efforts to buy or lease land throughout Africa.
Nations in need of land would likely begin with tactfully negotiated leases or purchases; but under conditions of stress or acute need, such agrarian export zones could become fortified colonies, requiring or attracting violence.
Hitler spread ecological panic by claiming that only land would bring Germany security and by denying the science that promised alternatives to war. By polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, the United States has done more than any other nation to bring about the next ecological panic, yet it is the only country where climate science is still resisted by certain political and business elites. These deniers tend to present the empirical findings of scientists as a conspiracy and question the validity of science — an intellectual stance that is uncomfortably close to Hitler’s.
The full consequences of climate change may reach America only decades after warming wreaks havoc in other regions. And by then it will be too late for climate science and energy technology to make any difference. Indeed, by the time the door is open to the demagogy of ecological panic in the United States, Americans will have spent years spreading climate disaster around the world.
THE European Union, by contrast, takes global warming very seriously, but its existence is under threat. As Africa and the Middle East continue to warm and wars rage, economic migrants and war refugees are making perilous journeys to flee to Europe. In response, European populists have called for the strict enforcement of national borders and the end of the union. Many of these populist parties are supported by Russia, which is openly pursuing a divide-and-conquer policy with the aim of bringing about European disintegration.
Russia’s 2014 intervention in Ukraine has already shattered the peaceful order that Europeans had come to take for granted. The Kremlin, which is economically dependent on the export of hydrocarbons to Europe, is now seeking to make gas deals with individual European states one by one in order to weaken European unity and expand its own influence. Meanwhile, President Vladimir V. Putin waxes nostalgic for the 1930s, while Russian nationalists blame gays, cosmopolitans and Jews for antiwar sentiment. None of this bodes well for Europe’s future — or Russia’s.
When mass killing is on the way, it won’t announce itself in the language we are familiar with. The Nazi scenario of 1941 will not reappear in precisely the same form, but several of its causal elements have already begun to assemble.
It is not difficult to imagine ethnic mass murder in Africa, which has already happened; or the triumph of a violent totalitarian strain of Islamism in the parched Middle East; or a Chinese play for resources in Africa or Russia or Eastern Europe that involves removing the people already living there; or a growing global ecological panic if America abandons climate science or the European Union falls apart.
Today we confront the same crucial choice between science and ideology that Germans once faced. Will we accept empirical evidence and support new energy technologies, or allow a wave of ecological panic to spread across the world?
Denying science imperils the future by summoning the ghosts of the past. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/opinion/sunday/the-next-genocide.html
|
|
|
Unshackled
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 241,
Visits: 0
|
Farken lol. What an inaccurate distortion of history and fearmongering applied to climate change. Not surprised at all to see another of 'gods chosen' pushing this.
|
|
|
trident
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
New York Times or Andrew Bolt hmm
|
|
|
trident
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
Quote:[size=8]Climate change will shake the Earth[/size] A changing climate isn't just about floods, droughts and heatwaves. It brings erupting volcanoes and catastrophic earthquakes too As the Earth's crust buckles, volcanic activity will increase. Bill McGuire
Monday 27 February 2012 06.59 AEDT Last modified on Wednesday 4 June 2014 11.31 AEST
The idea that a changing climate can persuade the ground to shake, volcanoes to rumble and tsunamis to crash on to unsuspecting coastlines seems, at first, to be bordering on the insane. How can what happens in the thin envelope of gas that shrouds and protects our world possibly influence the potentially Earth-shattering processes that operate deep beneath the surface? The fact that it does reflects a failure of our imagination and a limited understanding of the manner in which the different physical components of our planet – the atmosphere, the oceans, and the solid Earth, or geosphere – intertwine and interact.
If we think about climate change at all, most of us do so in a very simplistic way: so, the weather might get a bit warmer; floods and droughts may become more of a problem and sea levels will slowly creep upwards. Evidence reveals, however, that our planet is an almost unimaginably complicated beast, which reacts to a dramatically changing climate in all manner of different ways; a few – like the aforementioned – straightforward and predictable; some surprising and others downright implausible. Into the latter category fall the manifold responses of the geosphere.
Sign up to our Bookmarks email Read more The world we inhabit has an outer rind that is extraordinarily sensitive to change. While the Earth's crust may seem safe and secure, the geological calamities that happen with alarming regularity confirm that this is not the case. Here in the UK, we only have to go back a couple years to April 2010, when the word on everyone's lips was Eyjafjallajökull – the ice-covered Icelandic volcano that brought UK and European air traffic to a grinding halt. Less than a year ago, our planet's ability to shock and awe headed the news once again as the east coast of Japan was bludgeoned by a cataclysmic combination of megaquake and tsunami, resulting – at a quarter of a trillion dollars or so – in the biggest natural-catastrophe bill ever.
In the light of such events, it somehow seems appropriate to imagine the Earth beneath our feet as a slumbering giant that tosses and turns periodically in response to various pokes and prods. Mostly, these are supplied by the stresses and strains associated with the eternal dance of a dozen or so rocky tectonic plates across the face of our world; a sedate waltz that proceeds at about the speed that fingernails grow. Changes in the environment too, however, have a key role to play in waking the giant, as growing numbers of geological studies targeting our post-ice age world have disclosed.
Between about 20,000 and 5,000 years ago, our planet underwent an astonishing climatic transformation. Over the course of this period, it flipped from the frigid wasteland of deepest and darkest ice age to the – broadly speaking – balmy, temperate world upon which our civilisation has developed and thrived. During this extraordinarily dynamic episode, as the immense ice sheets melted and colossal volumes of water were decanted back into the oceans, the pressures acting on the solid Earth also underwent massive change. In response, the crust bounced and bent, rocking our planet with a resurgence in volcanic activity, a proliferation of seismic shocks and burgeoning giant landslides.
The most spectacular geological effects were reserved for high latitudes. Here, the crust across much of northern Europe and North America had been forced down by hundreds of metres and held at bay for tens of thousands of years beneath the weight of sheets of ice 20 times thicker than the height of the London Eye. As the ice dissipated in soaring temperatures, the crust popped back up like a coiled spring released, at the same time tearing open major faults and triggering great earthquakes in places where they are unheard of today. Even now, the crust underpinning those parts of Europe and North America formerly imprisoned beneath the great continental ice sheets continues to rise – albeit at a far more sedate rate.
As last year's events in Japan most ably demonstrated, when the ground shakes violently beneath the sea, a tsunami may not be far behind. These unstoppable walls of water are hardly a surprise when they happen within the so-called ring of fire that encompasses the Pacific basin but in the more tectonically benign North Atlantic their manifestation could reasonably be regarded as a bit of a shock. Nonetheless, there is plenty of good, hard evidence that this was the case during post-glacial times. Trapped within the thick layers of peat that pass for soil on Shetland – the UK's northernmost outpost – are intrusions of sand that testify to the inland penetration of three tsunamis during the last 10,000 years.
Volcanic blasts too can be added to the portfolio of postglacial geological pandemonium; the warming climate being greeted by an unprecedented fiery outburst that wracked Iceland as its frozen carapace dwindled, and against which the recent ashy ejaculation from the island's most unpronounceable volcano pales.
The huge environmental changes that accompanied the rapid post-glacial warming of our world were not confined to the top and bottom of the planet. All that meltwater had to go somewhere, and as the ice sheets dwindled, so the oceans grew. An astounding 52m cubic kilometres of water was sucked from the oceans to form the ice sheets, causing sea levels to plummet by about 130 metres – the height of the Wembley stadium arch. As the ice sheets melted so this gigantic volume of water was returned, bending the crust around the margins of the ocean basins under the enormous added weight, and provoking volcanoes in the vicinity to erupt and faults to rupture, bringing geological mayhem to regions remote from the ice's polar fastnesses.
The breathtaking response of the geosphere as the great ice sheets crumbled might be considered as providing little more than an intriguing insight into the prehistoric workings of our world, were it not for the fact that our planet is once again in the throes an extraordinary climatic transformation – this time brought about by human activities. Clearly, the Earth of the early 21st century bears little resemblance to the frozen world of 20,000 years ago. Today, there are no great continental ice sheets to dispose of, while the ocean basins are already pretty much topped up. On the other hand, climate change projections repeatedly support the thesis that global average temperatures could rise at least as rapidly in the course of the next century or so as during post-glacial times, reaching levels at high latitudes capable of driving catastrophic breakup of polar ice sheets as thick as those that once covered much of Europe and North America. Could it be then, that if we continue to allow greenhouse gas emissions to rise unchecked and fuel serious warming, our planet's crust will begin to toss and turn once again?
The signs are that this is already happening. In the detached US state of Alaska, where climate change has propelled temperatures upwards by more than 3C in the last half century, the glaciers are melting at a staggering rate, some losing up to 1km in thickness in the last 100 years. The reduction in weight on the crust beneath is allowing faults contained therein to slide more easily, promoting increased earthquake activity in recent decades. The permafrost that helps hold the state's mountain peaks together is also thawing rapidly, leading to a rise in the number of giant rock and ice avalanches. In fact, in mountainous areas around the world, landslide activity is on the up; a reaction both to a general ramping-up of global temperatures and to the increasingly frequent summer heatwaves.
Whether or not Alaska proves to be the "canary in the cage" – the geological shenanigans there heralding far worse to come – depends largely upon the degree to which we are successful in reducing the ballooning greenhouse gas burden arising from our civilisation's increasingly polluting activities, thereby keeping rising global temperatures to a couple of degrees centigrade at most. So far, it has to be said, there is little cause for optimism, emissions rocketing by almost 6% in 2010 when the world economy continued to bump along the bottom. Furthermore, the failure to make any real progress on emissions control at last December's Durban climate conference ensures that the outlook is bleak. Our response to accelerating climate change continues to be consistently asymmetric, in the sense that it is far below the level that the science says is needed if we are to have any chance of avoiding the all-pervasive devastating consequences.
So what – geologically speaking – can we look forward to if we continue to pump out greenhouse gases at the current hell-for-leather rate? With resulting global average temperatures likely to be several degrees higher by this century's end, we could almost certainly say an eventual goodbye to the Greenland ice sheet, and probably that covering West Antarctica too, committing us – ultimately – to a 10-metre or more hike in sea levels.
GPS measurements reveal that the crust beneath the Greenland ice sheet is already rebounding in response to rapid melting, providing the potential – according to researchers – for future earthquakes, as faults beneath the ice are relieved of their confining load. The possibility exists that these could trigger submarine landslides spawning tsunamis capable of threatening North Atlantic coastlines. Eastern Iceland is bouncing back too as its Vatnajökull ice cap fades away. When and if it vanishes entirely, new research predicts a lively response from the volcanoes currently residing beneath. A dramatic elevation in landslide activity would be inevitable in the Andes, Himalayas, European Alps and elsewhere, as the ice and permafrost that sustains many mountain faces melts and thaws.
Across the world, as sea levels climb remorselessly, the load-related bending of the crust around the margins of the ocean basins might – in time – act to sufficiently "unclamp" coastal faults such as California's San Andreas, allowing them to move more easily; at the same time acting to squeeze magma out of susceptible volcanoes that are primed and ready to blow.
The bottom line is that through our climate-changing activities we are loading the dice in favour of escalating geological havoc at a time when we can most do without it. Unless there is a dramatic and completely unexpected turnaround in the way in which the human race manages itself and the planet, then long-term prospects for our civilisation look increasingly grim. At a time when an additional 220,000 people are lining up at the global soup kitchen each and every night; when energy, water and food resources are coming under ever-growing pressure, and when the debilitating effects of anthropogenic climate change are insinuating themselves increasingly into every nook and cranny of our world and our lives, the last thing we need is for the dozing subterranean giant to awaken.
Bill McGuire is professor of geophysical and climate hazards at University College London. Waking the Giant: How a Changing Climate Triggers Earthquakes, Tsunamis and Volcanoes is published by Oxford University Press.
Hear him on the Science Weekly podcast at guardian.co.uk/scienceweekly http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/26/why-climate-change-shake-earth
|
|
|
Murdoch Rags Ltd
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 0
|
Quote:The 2015 El Niño is well and truly here. Heat is building in the equatorial Pacific Ocean; subsurface temperatures in the middle of the affected region are more than 6C above average, and the ocean’s surface is warming up too. In terms of its strength, the current El Niño is comparable with the globally infamous 1997-98 event and is not showing signs of decaying until at least early next year. ...the odds are that this summer will bring more heatwaves than usual in northern and eastern Australia. There is also a chance that the heatwave season will start earlier and that heatwaves will be more intense over central and eastern areas. https://theconversation.com/this-summers-el-nino-looks-set-to-bring-more-heatwaves-to-australias-north-and-east-47704
|
|
|
trident
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
as Tim Flannery said, we're going to be in for a rough ride over the next decade
|
|
|
Murdoch Rags Ltd
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 0
|
trident wrote:as Tim Flannery said, we're going to be in for a rough ride over the next decade Actually, based on my research & conditional upon the biosphere's adaptive mechanisms for a 'rough ride', we are in for a rough ride for about a century or two after mankind manages to level off CO2 emissions below what the planet subsumes. It will take at least a thousand years after that to get back to something like the period 1950-2000.
|
|
|
trident
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
we need to reduce population, its the only way
|
|
|
lukerobinho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
trident wrote:as Tim Flannery said, we're going to be in for a rough ride over the next decade Just like he said it would never rain again and the dams would never be filled after 2010. Now every Australian state has a bunch of billion dollar desal plants gathering cobwebs Wonder if he's sold his waterfront properties yet ?
|
|
|