Ice Shelf Collapses

or the heating effect of the caldera under Jellystone?

I suspect (don't let them hear me) that we better establish control over the climate whatever the cause, be it MMGW, sunspots, lava activity

Scary concept, but we live in a world where volcanos blow off, we know we have periodic glacial activity - better we find an effective thermostat.

Then begins the contending interest groups, and trying to extend our reach to controlling drought and such.

How about not tring to fix these things but instead adapt to them? It seems like every time we try to "fix" something we screw it up more.

Just look at the fertilizing project in the south Atlantic. Feed iron to the plantkon who absorb more CO2 then the higher life formes eat the plankton and release the CO2 right back in to the ecosystem. What will the excess iron do at deep water levels? Are they even checking? Maybe the iron is poisoning the animal life at the bottom?

Establish control over the climate? Usually edignan is quite rational, even when pushing the global warming theology, but establishing control over climate is pretty over the top. Even the estimable Mr. Pink doesn't go that far (or hasn't yet).

You can believe or disbelieve in a Higher Power that runs the show, but one thing is incontrovertible. We, as mankind, a single species on planet Earth, do not control climate or any other natural function of the planet. We can screw things up, when we try to modify the balance of nature (think rabbits in Australia), but we control nothing.

I hope we can all agree on that. If we can't even agree with that, there is no point having these discussions - there is no common ground between reality and pure, unadulterated myth.

I'm assuming that first sentence is dripping with sarcasm. Too bad, I respect most of your posts, but then it's obvious I'm not trying to win a popularity contest out here, so let the chips fall where they may.

I am sincerely hoping that you don't mean controlling the planet's climate, because if that is what you really mean, then "a certain amount of hubris" is the understatement of the decade. Controlling the climate would be beyond what most people nowadays would attribute to even a Deity. Most people think weather just happens. A few still think that various calamities are the wrath of a righteously angry God, but fewer and fewer think that way these days, at least in Europe and North America.

I am hoping that what you meant to say was controlling emissions of "greenhouse gases" which is something we could do, although it is still debatable whether we should do it.

But controlling the emission of greenhouse gases is not tantamount to controlling climate.

(Aside) Due to confusion in the early days of email I do my best to never write anything that depends on tone of voice etc. And the two most dangerous areas for misunderstanding are sarcasm and irony. Humor in general is dangerous, especially crossing cultural lines.

I was not being sarcastic in the least and have come to respect your opinion greatly in our association here. I am honored to find you feel the same.

And despite what I just said - the hubris comment was a violation of policy - that was intended as tongue-in-cheek.

And I suppose I fall guilty of a scifi stretch, but I DO think that is what we are really talking about - have always been talking about - the next logical extension of this kind of effort.

If we take, pick one *average mean temp* or *CO2 concentration* or whatever we decide to control the process TO; we are talking about creating and managing our technologies and our economies TO that index.

Initially we will stumble along just trying not to kill ourselves. But every bit of knowledge along those lines lends itself down this road; more satellites so we can search for emissions violations just means better monitoring of the process in general, monitoring the overall environment as emissions reductions go into effect lends clues about the underlying earth process in general.

As I have mentioned before - when you create a target, you implicitly have created decisions and value judgements. Do we swamp the Seychelles just a little, or do we give them up as lost. Do we decide to take our carbon targets low enough to rebuild glaciers, or does Greenland become green?

Take that a tiny stretch farther and we start talking about actively managing our climate. We have a lot to learn, but we HAVE learned a lot in the last few years.

SciFi has been playing with terraforming alien places for years, and a great deal of what they use in these plotlines is perfectly feasible using commonplace science and biological processes. See the Mars trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson.

And if you look at the efforts in sub-Saharan Africa to slow/stop/reverse desertification - we are not in the least afraid of such efforts as terraforming. Perhaps we SHOULD be afraid, but we are not.

So while we would be amazed (insert your own)to hear anyone say such a thing as *actively manage climate*, I don't think our grandchildren will find it that far-fetched.

Once you create a thing, someone will use it.

The next step after that will be to figure out how to prevent it becoming a weapon.

Very true about humor, and tone of voice, sarcasm and irony.

I have violated all precepts, by being ironic, or humorous, in my attempts to contain in all works strength, wisdom, beauty, and humor.

Back in the day, The Last Whole Earth Catalog by Stuart Brand had a nice touch.

Guess what, Earth is a Spaceship!

Wasn't farfetched to me.

Actually I'd like to see Venus Terraformed, and I'd think better of the Vatican if they put money towards it.

I have read recently that some are suggesting that the recent ice bridge along the Wilkins Ice Shelf may have been caused by recent volcanic activity in the Pacific Ring of Fire. It's been suggested that volcanism can account for some recent warming.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/1810/massive-volcano-beneath-antarctic-ice

However recent evidence suggests that emissions of CO₂ and Methane, gases that trap radiation that would otherwise lost to space, might be responsible.

Isn't it time that the volcano crowd stop their scare tactics of increased volcanism and considered the possibility that global warming could be responsible?

This is just a question for speculation, volcano and "natural cause crowd" extremist don't need to respond.

.......And cue the ad hominem attacks......

My concern is that it it always the other man that causes the climate change, pollution or whateva.

During our period of load shedding there were a workshop (loafshop) about the pollution of rivers at a venue next to a heavily polluted river.

Before load shedding raw sewage was already dumped into the river (I witnessed dumping between 3-5 in the morning).

The main topic on the workshop was however the pollution caused by fertilizers of irrigation farmers.

Maybe the word we use for fertiliser is the problem. If translated directly it would be "artificial-dung".

I agree with #3,4,& 5. This topic is destined to become a political foodfight. Ed, if you put your faith in people to come up with the answers, they have already done so. We are at the mercy of those bottom dwelling scum suckers called politicians. Those are the same people who needed more research 40 years ago, and continued up untill the last (what? as$#0le?) President.

As far as volcanism goes, the heat is already there, has been, and will continue as long as the core of this planet spins faster than the mantle. The particulate from an eruption has been shown to produce a cooling effect by reflecting sunlight. And what is 'perceived' as in increase in volcanic activity, is more of an effect of scare tactics than hard science.

What can we do? Paint your roof white haha. Do like I did, build a solar house. Change all your incandesent bulbs for compact flourescents. Plant a garden. Combine your vehicle usage. Buy from the country you live in whenever possible. Turn off the frackin TV. If there was anything on it they advertise that you really needed, you'd already have it. Take one less shower a week. (It's estimated that the increased divorce rate is caused by potential mates not being able to smell each other properly). Watch your utility bill go down. Suspend disbelief.

I could go on, and on, and on. But why bore you? Leave it to the other guy, YOU have a lifestyle to maintain. ( I'm being facetious here. I know that most of you are well aware. Let's put in in action)

Namaste'

Carl

Hi DaddioAZ,

I posted this link about volcanoes melting Antarctic ice, but nobody commented on it. I was considered an extremist there, so that makes you an extremist too?

-S

Once we lock up all the CO2 and bury it in the ground, the cycle will reverse and we will have to run around like Kris to find out where we buried our nuts for safe keeping. Or else all the trees will starve. I believe we should try to control the pollution and waste. The earth will take care of the climate changes, as in the past, and we will need to adapt or evolve.

Planning to overcome the effects of change will far outweigh what we think we can control. What we can control, (ie pollution, waste, misuse) should be our main concern.

Is the ice bridge collapse due to global warming?

Some years ago a brief report in New Scientist noted that melting of ice in Antarctica was probably due to a pool of "warm" water which slowly circulated as an eddy around Antarctica.

This gave warming of certain areas while the whole was actually staying fairly stable.

In addition http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/10/11/antarctic-ice-sheet-and-the-plot-thickens references reports that Antarctic ice overall is actually thickening and this cannot be explained by increased precipitation due to hotter conditions.

The real situation is by no means cut and dried.

I'll do another post on AGW itself, rather than make this one too long.