Sign in / up

back to article Greenland ice loss rates 'one-third' of what was thought

The rate at which ice is disappearing from Greenland and Western Antarctica has been seriously overestimated, according to new research. Contrasting estimates of Greenland ice melt. Previous analysis in blue: New in red. The colour bands represent uncertainty. Credit: Nature Geoscience 'Deviates rather sharply from general …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Thumb Up

        @bws - It's true, run for the hills!

        Dihydrogen Monoxide is indeed very dangerous. I've seen reports that in severe cases of exposure, it can kill a person in around three minutes, and that's when it's in an inert state. And when it gets hot, it gets even worse, merely being near it can cause serious burns.

        And what's more worrying is that I can guarantee everyone has at least some in their house somewhere, it's generally included at the constriction stage, like asbestos used to be.

        How the governments of the world have kept this highly toxic substance quiet all this time is beyond me.

        Dihydrogen Monoxide is dangerous. FACT

        Dihydrogen Monoxide can cause serious injury. FACT

        Dihydrogen Monoxide can kill you. FACT

        People need to know these things.

        4 2
    2. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Flame

      Big scam.

      "The trouble with suppositions that global warning is not as bad as first envisioned is that even LESS will be done to stop the otherwise inevitable.

      Otherwise inevitable? Says who? Why is every planet in Solar System also warming if this is a man made phenomenon? And please don't try to give 'coincidence' as explanation, like some proponents already did.

      So called "global warming" is normal part of the Sun cycle (about 70 years, btw) and CO2 is brought to picture because state will and can tax you personally for producing it.

      Which part of "scam" you do not understand?

      0 0
  2. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    New results 'deviate sharply' from established wisdom

    No its called "Science". You have a theory and if the data doesn't fit you either have to refine your theory or throw it away and come up with a better one.

    There's no "established wisdom" only current knowledge. Unfortunately that doesn't fit in with the femtosecond news cycles of 24hr media organisations.

    19 1
  3. Tigra 07
    Thumb Down

    Hardly surprising

    Why is this not a surprise?

    They've been overstating the effects of climate change for years

    16 10
    1. Tigra 07
      Reply Icon
      Thumb Down

      Sheep! Sheep!

      I notice i got marked down for pointing out a fact.

      Clearly theres a few blog tourists who believe anything they're told, irrespective of putting 2 + 2 together themselves

      8 9
      1. Ian Yates
        Reply Icon
        WTF?

        tittle

        That's funny, I was thinking the same by reading your post.

        Since you obviously know the truth about climate change (I assume you're refering to AGW), would you mind sharing it with the world's scientists, since they're still doing their research (though, I'll concede a good proportion of it appears to be heavily biased in either direction).

        Personally, I don't know the answer. I read pro and con arguments and try to reason something from it. Since I haven't done any first-hand research, I don't call either side a lier.

        Regardless of the fact of AGW, what's wrong with people using less energy (in any form) if they don't need to?

        1 3
        1. Tigra 07
          Reply Icon
          IT Angle

          RE: Ian Yates

          I never said i knew what caused global warming if you read my posts.

          What i said was it's clear they stretch the truth a lot to scare people, and that is a fact as many examples have proved recently.

          What i disagree with most is how the pro climate change people are quick to believe humans cause global warming, despite it happening throughout history many times (including the ice age) and stating it as fact, even though there's no evidence of that.

          It was claimed with 95% certainty that humans are responsible with NO evidence.

          How is that 95% certainty with no evidence?

          At most it can only be 50% in that case

          If you want to mark me down then at least show some intelligence and show some proof that humans cause global warming.

          2 0
          1. Ian Yates
            Reply Icon
            Troll

            At risk of further bad karma

            "I never said i knew what caused global warming if you read my posts."

            No, but you did say: "They've been overstating the effects of climate change for years"

            Which is basically saying that you know that AGW is a lie. I don't believe that can be true.

            Perhaps I'm being overly pedantic, but maybe you meant something more along the lines of "They've yet to backup with proof their theories of AGW"

            Getting pissy because people marked down your post and saying everyone who believes in the possibility of AGW is "a blog tourists who believe anything" is petty.

            If AGW is real, the research that's being done and is finding evidence (because there isn't "NO evidence", as you put) needs to be reviewed and confirmed. If it isn't, the research that's being done STILL NEEDS to be reviewed.

            My problem is the disparate groups funded underhandedly bringing climate science in to disrepute by saying that their unrelated research disproves another piece of research in either direction.

            The scientific process has been completely thrown out for AGW in favour of passion and bias.

            In my opinion (and maybe I wasn't clear in my first post), "sheep" are the people that immediately say "it's all a lie" or "unbelievers are evil" (etc.). Unless you're involved in worldwide climate science research, what basis do you have for those absolute statements?

            "show some proof that humans cause global warming"

            Response: "I never said i knew what caused global warming if you read my posts."

            1 1
            1. david wilson
              Reply Icon

              @Ian Yates

              The tricky question is how to get even the appearance of rough consensus when there are people at one or both extremes desperate to have their view given more publicity than it might deserve, and/or desperate that no appearance of consensus is reached.

              If anything, the non-scientists or semi-scientists are possibly worse, whether from one or other pressure group, or one or other political viewpoint, many of whom are keen to just cherry-pick whatever looks like the most convenient current figure.

              Then there are the journalists, whether looking to choose the most pessimistic figure out of a given range of predictions so they can write an apocalyptic story, or, in the other direction, looking for any excuse to talk about conspiracies or the failings of science.

              Quite possibly both angles on different days for one journalist, depending on the desires of the editor or proprietor.

              Not to mention the bogus idea of 'balance', which even for many otherwise respectable outlets is really just a cover for 'getting a nice juicy argument'.

              Even if/when there is a broad consensus on what the temperature really was in year X, or what the effects of a particular rise in CO2 or temperature would mean, it's always going to be easy for a media organisation to find someone who'll disagree, whether they really believe what they're saying, or are doing it largely for the money.

              0 0
            2. Tigra 07
              Reply Icon
              Grenade

              Use your brain Ian, not someone elses

              "No, but you did say: "They've been overstating the effects of climate change for years"

              Which is basically saying that you know that AGW is a lie. I don't believe that can be true."

              No it's not, learn to read.

              It says clearly "they've been overstating the effects of climate change for years"

              That is a fact as even their own research now proves.

              While it is always claimed how many "scientists" support the man made climate change theory, there are more who don't believe it and are actually silenced if they make a statement

              The UN reports that they have about 2,500 "scientists" who state there is "global warming". There are more than 31,000 scientists who state otherwise and they are never heard from

              Man made global warming is a farce Ian Yates and you can't even present an argument to disprove that, you're just nitpicking and a sheep (a follower of others, with or without rational thinking of your own)

              There is still 0% evidence to prove people cause global warming, whether you argue or not

              On the other hand, theres more evidence people DON'T cause global warming http://www.petitionproject.org/

              1 2
              1. Ian Yates
                Reply Icon
                Megaphone

                Excuse me if I don't name-call

                I agree, it's wrong that the media are bias towards the pro-AGW people. I think it's equally wrong to assume that science/truth can be decided by a vote or general consensus.

                I'm aware of the 31k anti-AGW scientists of varying qualification, I'm also aware of two pro-AGW ones (totalling about 5k, I guess).

                Can't say either change my opinion. I've seen as much credible research for either case (words chosen carefully).

                "Man made global warming is a farce Ian Yates and you can't even present an argument to disprove that, you're just nitpicking and a sheep (a follower of others, with or without rational thinking of your own)"

                *sigh* And I'm out.

                I agree the whole discussion is a farce because of the partisanship and corruption on both sides.

                I've not once tried to disprove AGW (I opened with "Personally, I don't know the answer", I'm on the "cutting down our dependence on fossil fuels is a good thing" side) - I merely stated that you presented your opinion as fact, which is something I cannot stand.

                I didn't attack your character (I'll argue "pissy" was an adjective), and I actually didn't mark you down.

                You might also want to look up the meaning of "proof" and "evidence", though.

                0 1
                1. Tigra 07
                  Reply Icon
                  Welcome

                  Look at the evidence yourself Ian

                  I didn't present my opinion as fact, i presented facts for my opinion Ian

                  http://www.john-daly.com/press/press-01b.htm#cru

                  http://www.globalwarmingisafarce.com/

                  Just a few there who have been following this closely.

                  Look at the climate change evidence yourself and it quickly becomes obvious someone's tampering with it

                  If a graph is released showing one thing, when it's seen again it's been manipulated to show a catastrophe in a few years

                  1 1
  4. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    Climategate

    Betcha this doesn't make the BBC & ITV news tonight along with the obligatory footage of polar bears on ice floes or reporters on icebreakers.

    2/3 carbon tax reduction unlikely.

    16 3
  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    this article has a dishonest subheading

    Dr Bert Vermeersen: "We have concluded that the Greenland and West Antarctica ice caps are melting at approximately half the speed originally predicted."

    But somehow the later (reporters?) remark (based on taking a one-sided view of the error bars, perhaps?), "it could be that the current estimates are triple what they should be" is used for the subheader.

    Worthy of Orlowski!

    12 2
    1. Andrew the Invertebrate
      Reply Icon

      be fair

      at least Lewis puts his head above the parapit on these articles

      8 1
  6. Dunstan Vavasour
    Boffin

    Accurately determining rate of ice loss

    According to my O level maths, the most accurate way to measure the rate of ice loss would be as follows:

    1) Measure how much ice there is now

    2) See how long it all takes to melt

    3) Divide (1) by (2), giving the rate in kiloJubs per fortnight

    1 3
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      FAIL

      Get out your ruler then

      and start measuring the current ice....

      3 1
  7. Hermes Conran
    Pint

    Hooray!

    We're going to drown more slowly! Gin and tonics all round!

    (What do you mean there's no ice?)

    3 6
  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Cooling?

    Interestingly, the UK climate is now on a cooling trend: http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/graphs/HadCET_graph_ylybars_uptodate.gif

    Also, the rate of warming between 1818 and 1830 and 1890 to 1900 is not that much more remarkable than that of 1982 - 2000.

    4 3
    1. Tim #3
      Reply Icon

      Excellent news

      As someone who spent two years studying the forthcoming ice age that the scientists were then predicting, maybe I'll be able to put that knowledge to use after all. Should I update my CV yet?

      3 0
    2. L.B
      Reply Icon
      Thumb Down

      Try looking again with less biased eyes...

      "Interestingly, the UK climate is now on a cooling trend: http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/graphs/HadCET_graph_ylybars_uptodate.gif

      Also, the rate of warming between 1818 and 1830 and 1890 to 1900 is not that much more remarkable than that of 1982 - 2000."

      The graph is zeroed on the average between 1961-1990, a good century after the start of the industrial revolution so perhaps that chart is a little biased.

      Also the average increase in the last decade is almost a 1 whole degree higher that the previous 4 decades, and the last decades average is a good 1.5 degrees higher than the typical temps for the 2 centuries before that.

      As for trends; having two slightly cooler years, which are still 0.5 degrees above the 61-90 average, does not make a definitive trend at all.

      5 4
      1. Mark 65
        Reply Icon
        Flame

        @L.B

        Two centuries of data is fuck all in the timespan of the earth. We like assuming that observed changes can be fitted to Mankind's activity without having knowledge of what has happened throughout the much longer history of this planet.

        By all means pay your carbon taxes and generally lower your standard of living to avoid planetary destruction but I think I'll just use common sense and just not be utterly wasteful (given it costs to do so) instead of believing the current paid-for pseudo scientific whim.

        5 2
        1. Tigra 07
          Reply Icon
          Pint

          Climate sceptic right here

          "Two centuries of data is fuck all in the timespan of the earth."

          Exactly, and there isn't credible evidence going back that far anyhow, that's how all these wrong predictions were made in the first place.

          Climate change advocates can make as many arguments as possible, but they still can't prove people cause global warming and they can't make everyone forget there wasn't any cars when we last had an ice age

          1 0
  9. Charles King

    Only 600Gt? Must have fallen down the back of the sofa

    Non-pay link for the analysis by Bromwich & Nicolas: http://polarmet.osu.edu/PolarMet/PMGFulldocs/bromwich_nicolas_ngeo_2010.pdf

    Given the impoverished level of scientific understanding present among most 'decision makers', we can be sure that idiots will use this new calculation to race around shouting, "Don't worry folks! We've only lost 600Gt! Keep on partying!"

    1 1
  10. John I'm only dancing

    Headed for another Ice Age

    "The rest of Antarctica doesn't seem to be melting at all - indeed Antarctica as a whole is actually gaining ice area rather than losing it - but some regions in the West are melting. The reasons for this are under investigation."

    The angle of the earth's tilt on it's axis does change and this would suggest that this could be the case. One area is moving closer to the equator (relatively) while the other moves further away.

    The reality, accepted by most climatologists is this planet is, in fact headed towards another Ice age. They are cyclical and a global rise in temperature precedes these events. The evidence is in core samples of Ice taken in the Acrtic and Antarctica.

    I heartily await our new penguin overlords (not the Unix variety)!!

    4 3
    1. david wilson
      Reply Icon

      @John

      Surely, the only meaningful guide as to whether a region is melting or not on average is whether the *volume* of ice is going up or down, not how the *area* is changing

      If the volume is increasing, then talking about the area increasing is unnecessary.

      If the volume is not increasing, then talking about the area increasing is, at best, misleading.

      However, from the link provided, the 'area' being talked about doesn't seem relevant anyway, since it's actually sea ice.

      I rather wonder why it was mentioned in the first place, especially since the suggested explanations for the sea ice expansion relate to the area having warmed in recent years.

      1 0
  11. Grivas Bo Diddly Harm
    Pint

    Cheers!

    Surely 'Gt' is an El-Reg Standard Unit of Measurement, being the number of Gin and Tonics* a thirsty Moderatrix can neck in a lunch time?

    *Regional variations might refer to these as jynnan tonnyx, gee-N’N-T’N-ix, or jinond-o-nicks, but the effect is ultimately the same.

    2 0
    1. Marcus Aurelius
      Reply Icon
      Joke

      I am sure

      That the number of Gin and Tonics a thirsty Moderatrix can quaff in a lunch hour is a number for which there is as yet, no proper name.

      0 0
  12. Anonymous Coward
    Grenade

    easy fix then.

    Just blow up florida or build some kind of gulf stream deflector, Europe freezes over, no more global warming!

    1 1
  13. Sam Liddicott

    rubbish

    Measuring ice thickness across the entirety of greenland is no harder than measuring temperature across the entire earth.

    Slack laziness and guesswork is the problem. We just need more rulers and thermometers. And boy scouts.

    2 1
  14. Stuy

    But how clean is the floating Ice

    I've never seen anyone consider this in a journal but consider the following:

    You have a block of Ice in a of water glass with a small lead shot frozen in it. As the ice melts what happens to the water level?

    The dense lead pulls more of the less dense ice under the water level until it reaches neutral boyancy. As the ice melts the shot will fall to the bottom and the ice will generally rise to a new level of neutral boyancy and finish melting. The level of the water on the side of the glass will in fact be lower once the melting is complete.

    How much of the floating Ice in antarctica is glacial in origin and therefor full of rocks and other debris? How far will this go to offset the land based Ice melting?

    I'd love to see a reference to an article that has considered this variable in future sea level rises...

    1 2
    1. Charles King
      Reply Icon
      Stop

      It goes up and then down, but is still higher at the end.

      "The level of the water on the side of the glass will in fact be lower once the melting is complete."

      Err, no.

      If the block of ice (with shot inside) was floating at the start, then there was a volume of ice which was buoyed up above the water and thus was not contributing to the water level. The water level will be highest at the point where the ice+lead block has lost just enough ice to become completely submerged (since there's now no ice outside the water and the ice is, of course, less dense), and it will then decline as the rest of the low-density ice changes to water. But the final water level will still be higher than that at the start.

      0 2
    2. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Boffin

      Debris in icebergs unimportant

      Your average calved Greenland iceberg only has a life of a few years, mostly spent circling Baffin Bay until the berg gets kicked out into the North Atlantic. Once that happens, the icebergs only last a couple months at most before they melt.

      So even your "dirty" icebergs that ride lower in the water and displace more water are only around to do so for maybe 3-4 years. They don't have enough lifespan to accumulate and displace an increasing amount of water over time.

      0 0
    3. Nexox Enigma
      Reply Icon

      You're fully wrong

      """You have a block of Ice in a of water glass with a small lead shot frozen in it. As the ice melts what happens to the water level?"""

      Since the ice, by definition of the word 'float,' displaces a volume of water of the same mass as itself, when it melts the water level will remain unchanged. The theoretical extra mass in the lead will cause the ice + lead object to displace that much more water at t=0, the fluid statics equations will cancel neatly, and the over all water level will remain constant, except for possible evaporation.

      Will people please take a basic physics course before coming up with these sorts of theories?

      3 0
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        @ nexox

        OK, all kidding aside, what IS the hydrodynamic velocity of an unlaiden iceburg? Eastern/Western European non-withstanding?

        1 0
      2. Captain Thyratron
        Reply Icon

        Or, for that matter...

        ...before taking the word "theory" so lightly?

        0 0
      3. Tom 13
        Reply Icon

        @Nexorx: Or at least a basic course in Ancient Greek Geek History.

        Eureka! I found it! I found it!

        0 0
  15. strum
    FAIL

    Desperate Register

    El Reg is getting really desperate now. You're now presenting minor corrections in the existing research as if it invalidated the entire project.

    Get this into your head - certainty is only available in religions; science keeps on improving by checking and revising.

    El Reg doesn't, though; it's stuck on an anti-science kick, and can't seem to shake it.

    9 18
    1. Barracoder
      Reply Icon
      Paris Hilton

      No Title Required

      How do you get "anti-science" out of this article? Firstly, "climate science" isn't a science, it's bad software, bad statistics and, damningly, policy-driven. Secondly, reporting that things aren't as bad as the policy wonks have been telling us doesn't make this bad science unless you, like many AGW-apologists, are conflating "belief" with "proof". From my side, I'll go with the actual numbers, not the tree ring proxies, thanks.

      Paris, because there's no Wozniacki photo.

      9 7
      1. Tim Parker
        Reply Icon
        Flame

        ..all alone in your own little tiny world....

        > How do you get "anti-science" out of this article?

        strum didn't - the comment was referring to the perceived bent in the Registers coverage in general - learn to read.

        > Firstly, "climate science" isn't a science, it's bad software, bad statistics and, damningly, policy-driven.

        That's your opinion - and your quote. The OP didn't mention 'climate science', they talked about science in general and it's modus operandi.. to quote strum

        'science keeps on improving by checking and revising.'

        Learn to read.

        > Secondly, reporting that things aren't as bad as the policy wonks have been telling us doesn't make this bad science unless you, like many AGW-apologists, are conflating "belief" with "proof".

        They didn't suggest it was bad science - they said it was the way science should work. See above. Learn to read.

        > From my side, I'll go with the actual numbers, not the tree ring proxies, thanks.

        They did - perhaps you could do similar and reply the comments that were actually made - oh, and learn to read. I'd say learn to think but I don't want to push things too far.

        6 12
    2. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Reply Icon
      Happy

      @strum

      "You're now presenting minor corrections in the existing research as if it invalidated the entire project."

      In most fields a 50% *reduction* in a fairly important modeling variable would be viewed as *major*.

      But then I'm not a scientist.

      3 1
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        @ John Smith 19

        Yeah, being able to accurately predict whether or not an airplane simply "falls out of the sky" 50% of the time might be pretty cool (no pun intended)

        0 0
    3. Penguin herder
      Reply Icon
      Boffin

      Re: Desperate Register

      "Get this into your head - certainty is only available in religions; science keeps on improving by checking and revising."

      Don't look at evidence in oceanic mud cores - you won't like it. There are cycles in our climate, always have been. The Sahara cycles between wet/green and desert every 20,000 years or so (how many SUVs caused the last flip? Oh, wait...) and has been shown to turn into a desert in as little as two centuries - without our help. Raising taxes and crippling economies won't change any of that.

      2 1
      1. david wilson
        Reply Icon

        @Penguin herder

        >>"Don't look at evidence in oceanic mud cores - you won't like it. There are cycles in our climate, always have been."

        Which in your /scientific/ view proves that any changes at any later time must be just like those in the past, and/or because a past change was natural, that proves that it's impossible for humans to be influencing climate at the moment?

        1 2
        1. Penguin herder
          Reply Icon
          Big Brother

          Re: @Penguin Herder

          "Which in your /scientific/ view proves that any changes at any later time must be just like those in the past, and/or because a past change was natural, that proves that it's impossible for humans to be influencing climate at the moment?"

          I will respond scientifically when I preceive the global warming proponents to be basing their positions on science, instead of intimidation, misdirection and fraud. At present, they are locked into assuming that small changes are clearly bad and exclusively anthropogenic (of course all the fault of developed nations). My point is simply that there is credible research showing drastic changes in climate long before humans were capable of doing more than shaking sticks at mammoths and similar creatures. The Earth has been far warmer in the past than it is now and plants apparently liked it.

          Do I want to see us burn oil at ever increasing rates? No. Do I think for one millisecond that ANY money seized under cap-and-trade legislation would do one bit of good in fixing that? Hell No!

          2 0
          1. david wilson
            Reply Icon

            @Penguin herder

            >>"I will respond scientifically when I preceive the global warming proponents to be basing their positions on science, instead of intimidation, misdirection and fraud."

            So how are you responding at the moment?

            >>"The Earth has been far warmer in the past than it is now and plants apparently liked it."

            Do you honestly think that's news to climate scientists (or biologists), or that they knew it but somehow none of them managed to grasp the significance of it?

            I'd rather taken the impression that the issue wasn't about whether plants as a whole would survive any possible changes, but whether any changes might be hard (and/or expensive) for humans to comfortably deal with.

            0 0
            1. Penguin herder
              Reply Icon
              Big Brother

              Re: @Penguin herder

              >>So how are you responding at the moment?

              Politically, which is what this is all about. If you want to get scientific, I can start spouting about the signal processing involved in turning mud cores into some of the results I discussed, but the politics is really the key to this.

              >>"The Earth has been far warmer in the past than it is now and plants apparently liked it."

              "Do you honestly think that's news to climate scientists (or biologists), or that they knew it but somehow none of them managed to grasp the significance of it?"

              They are IGNORING the significance of it. One might call it An Inconvenient Truth from their perspective. Fraud.

              "I'd rather taken the impression that the issue wasn't about whether plants as a whole would survive any possible changes, but whether any changes might be hard (and/or expensive) for humans to comfortably deal with."

              Given that plants ultimately power the entire biosphere (and recycle the CO2 that we produce in the process), their well being is critical. More plants, more food. If you want a problem to consider, look forward to the next ice age.

              1 0
  16. No, I will not fix your computer
    Stop

    Forget the science.

    Fossil fuel is limited, whether that is 10 years, 100 years or 1000 years left is debatable, but come the end of the hydrocarbon age (as they will call it) we must have moved on, there is no practical reason (except expense of research) why we shouldn't work out alternative sources of power now, the sooner we do it the sooner we work out how to do it cheaply.

    Using less fuel by walking, cycling etc. will save you money and improve fitness, money that you save can be used to improve your quality of life, maybe to socialise, go to the cinema, for the price of three packets of cigarettes a month you can sponsor a child in Africa, or for the price of three packets of cigarettes you can have three packets of cigarettes (if that improves your quality of life), when I cycle to work I save about £6 a day and if I leave in rushour it's nearly as quick to get home.

    Even if global climate change can never be affected by man and maybe the changes that have been measured are nothing to do with us (although local changes such as smog, loss of fish, dried rivers, quakes cased by reservoirs etc. show us it has been), it's actually more sensible to consider it possible, it's a no-brainer, it's called "being safe rather than being sorry".

    Personally, I'll try and be energy efficient, run a cheap car, insulate, recycle etc. if you want to go on burning tyres in your back-garden that's up to you, future generations will judge us, who knows we may even reap the benefits in our own lifetimes?

    3 2
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Forget the science.

      "Fossil fuel is limited, whether that is 10 years, 100 years or 1000 years left is debatable, but come the end of the hydrocarbon age (as they will call it) we must have moved on, there is no practical reason (except expense of research) why we shouldn't work out alternative sources of power now, the sooner we do it the sooner we work out how to do it cheaply."

      There's no practical reason, and even the economics aren't prohibitive (cough, bailout, cough). The reasons are political, in the widest sense of the term: if you're running a company that takes hundreds of *billions* of dollars every year and whose profits are tens of billions - sums which some nations would envy - would you voluntarily choose a different path, or would you be pulling every lever of power you have to keep that money coming in?

      You can buy a lot of influence with oil money: let everyone worry about global warming, but keep policy moving glacially slow (or at least as slow as one not being lubricated by meltwater), and keep exerting pressure for more drilling in every region. That's the real cover-up: your vote and political "commitments" to sustainability versus brown envelopes and "let them do it - it's for the good of the economy".

      But don't forget the science.

      2 4
      1. No, I will not fix your computer
        Reply Icon

        Re: But don't forget the science.

        >>(cough, bailout, cough).

        That's not *real* money, that's devaluing currency to keep the economy from imploding, it's just a fast forward of federal reserve.

        Yes, oil is money and influence, blah, blah, blah, and people who make money from over consumption don't want us to reduce consumption, but this, like the science can be ignored and the problem can still be fixed by you and me switching to more eco-friendly things, like walking, cycling car share etc.

        Let me put it another way, it doesn't matter if the sea level has gone up by 2mm or 6mm over the last ten years, it doesn't matter if the Saudis underwrote two thirds of the gulf war, it doesn't matter who you vote for and why, nothing will change until people change, walking round NYC a couple of weeks ago, everytime I walked past a shop with open doors I got a blast of lovely cold air, A&F is positively fridge-like, the aircon bill must be phenominal, same is true for the cars, multi-litre monsters with a constant stop-go, the metro is great but imagine how a tram system would transform the city, these things don't happen over night, but they start with you and me, my recycling bin has more stuff in it than my rubbish bin (OK excess packaging is another problem, but you have to start somewhere, and that somewhere is to do something rather than nothing).

        0 1

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.