|
|
||
|
Navigation User login Who's online There are currently 6 users and 64 guests online.
Online users
Support OlyBlog OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation: Who's new
|
Submitted by Mike on Sun, 06/22/2008 - 8:23am.
As Olympia ponders the development of the waterfront and the downtown area I thought it might be helpful to review the weather report. The City of Olympia is already attempting to develop plans for sea level rise of 1 foot, 2 feet, and 3 feet and the planners state that these plans will be useless if the Greenland glacial melt speeds up. I think the quote from Steve Hall and Mike Mucha on Greenland was that all bets are off if Greenland melts. We have no plan to respond to a sea level rise of that scale. Here is a roundup of some of the latest thinking:
The potential problem here is the release of huge amounts of methane that are currently frozen away. The arctic melt has potential to release the methane and methane is a potent greenhouse gas. This is not a knife-edge type change where the impact could go either way, this is a tipping point, a feedback loop, that can reasonably be expected to accelerate and contribute to rising temperature. The upside to this story is that methane has potential as a relatively clean burning fuel. If it was possible to start trapping and using methane to replace fuels that produce more greenhouse gases, there might be a silver lining to the methane question. Unfortunately, I think the methane is spread over a very large area and I have no idea how we might trap significant amounts of it instead of just letting the rising temperature release this gas into the atmosphere. But instead of working on that kind of technological challenge we are trying to increase drilling for petrol deposits offshore that we really can't use because of the carbon footprint of that fuel. Good money in that venture for Halliburton, Exon, KBR over the next few business cycles. from Science Daily, June 20 2008:
This is the fact that people just know in their guts. The weather has changed. Folks in Florida and the Gulf Coast who watch hurricane season with more than passing interest know it. Folks living near the Mississippi River know it as they see 100 year flooding every 15 years. Folks living in California know it as they watch for wildfires and wonder when the drought will end. Folks living in the Northwest know it as we experience flooding and torrential rain more often. As Bobby Dylan noted: You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. From Science Daily June 19 2008:
Not really much of a surprise. I have said repeatedly that the changes will happen more quickly and be greater than expected because of the inherently conservative nature of science and the political pressure that has brought to bear on climate scientists over the past couple of decades.
Keep in mind that the 2007 IPCC report was a bit of a wake-up call and raised lots of complaints that it was making too much of the problem, but as the data continues to accrue it becomes clear that the recommendations and findings of the 2007 IPCC climate report were conservative and cautious, not wild and unfounded. So if actual sea level rise from 1961 to 2003 was actually 50 percent larger than estimated, what can be inferred from the sea level rise predictions in the 2007 IPCC report? On a local level, how long before we see water on Water Street? From National Geographic June 19 2008:
I found nothing new in the Catalytic Converter Global Warming category.
|
OlyBlog.net OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you. If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here. Latest Classified Ads Upcoming events
|
NYT reporting things may not be
Submitted by JT on Thu, 07/03/2008 - 2:57pm.all gloom and doom for Greenland ice.
A Tempered View of Greenland’s Gushing Drainpipes
By Andrew C. Revkin
I have a story coming tonight in print on a new paper tracking the impact over time of those iconic drainpipes for meltwater forming each summer on the warming flanks of the vast Greenland ice sheet. Here’s the nub, with varied reactions coming from glaciologists later:
One of the most vivid symbols of global warming used by scientists and campaigners to spur society to curb climate-warming emissions is photography of gushing rivers of meltwater plunging from the surface of Greenland’s ice sheet into the depths.
Recent studies have shown these natural drainpipes, called moulins, can speed up the slow seaward march of the grinding ice by lubricating the interface with bedrock below. The faster that ice flows, the faster seas rise. Now, though, a new Dutch study of 17 years of satellite measurements of ice movement in western Greenland concludes that the speedup of the ice is a transient summertime phenomenon, with the overall yearly movement of the grinding glaciers not changing, and actually dropping slightly in some places, when measured over longer time spans.
Read more.
"A dog is not 'almost human', and I know of no greater insult to the canine race than to describe it as such." - John Holmes
itchyhitch.blogspot.com
From NASA:
Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 07/03/2008 - 3:37pm.Greenland Ice Sheet Losing Mass
A new study of the mass of ice capping Greenland reveals that the giant ice sheet burying the island has rapidly lost mass in recent years due to melting and iceberg calving. Between 2003 and 2005, the island’s low coastal areas shed 155 gigatons (41 cubic miles) of ice per year, while snow accumulation in the interior of the ice sheet was only 54 gigatons per year. The amount of ice lost in two years is roughly the same as the amount of water that flows through the Colorado River in 12 years. “In the 1990s, the ice was very close to balance with gains at about the same level as losses. That situation has now changed significantly,” said lead researcher Scott Luthcke of the Planetary Geodynamics Laboratory at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center.
clmate change...
Submitted by chad360 on Thu, 07/03/2008 - 3:55pm.From your pre Oct 2006 article Rob,
Submitted by JT on Thu, 07/03/2008 - 4:50pm."Continued monitoring in the future is needed to determine whether this ice loss is a long-term trend, the authors point out. The new study appears in Science Express, the advance edition of the journal Science, on Oct. 19." Read here.
Do you have anything less dated, perhaps? The NYT article I linked to is dated today, yours is from sometime pre Oct 2006.
Also, I wasn't saying that Greenland isn't losing ice through melting. The article indicates the phenom of water lubricating the ice sheet beneath the glaciers is probably not really as likely in Greenland as once believed.
This is an interesting article, originally written in 2003 but updated in May 2008.
"A dog is not 'almost human', and I know of no greater insult to the canine race than to describe it as such." - John Holmes
itchyhitch.blogspot.com
Science...
Submitted by chad360 on Thu, 07/03/2008 - 5:01pm....changes, that is for sure.