This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Remember Fukushima: Presenting The Radioactive Seawater Impact Map
A few days after the one year anniversary of the Fukushima disaster, nobody talks about it anymore. After all it's "fixed", and if it isn't, the Fed will fix it. Remember in the New Normal nothing bad is allowed the happen. So for those who have forgotten, here is a reminder.
From ASR, a global coastal and marine consulting firm, The Radioactive Seawater Impact Map
We use a Lagrangian particles dispersal method to track where free floating material (fish larvae, algae, phytoplankton, zooplankton...) present in the sea water near the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station plant could have gone since the earthquake on March 11th. THIS IS NOT A REPRESENTATION OF THE RADIOACTIVE PLUME CONCENTRATION. Since we do not know exactly how much contaminated water and at what concentration was released into the ocean, it is impossible to estimate the extent and dilution of the plume. However, field monitoring by TEPCO showed concentration of radioactive Iodine and Cesium higher than the legal limit during the next two months following the event (with a peak at more than 100 Bq/cm3 early April 2011 for I-131 as shown by the following picture).
Assuming that a part of the passive biomass could have been contaminated in the area, we are trying to track where the radionuclides are spreading as it will eventually climb up the food chain. The computer simulation presented here is obtained by continuously releasing particles at the site during the 2 months folllowing the earthquake and then by tracing the path of these particles. The dispersal model is ASR's Pol3DD. The model is forced by hydrodynamic data from the HYCOM/NCODA system which provides on a weekly basis, daily oceanic current in the world ocean. The resolution in this part of the Pacific Ocean is around 8km x 8km cells. We are treating only the sea surface currents. The dispersal model keeps a trace of their visits in the model cells. The results here are expressed in number of visit per surface area of material which has been in contact at least once with the highly concentrated radioactive water.
h/t Nolsgrad
»
- 57170 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Fukawho? Something happen in Japan that I should be made aware of?
Fook me and Fook you
http://youtu.be/vj1SyWntdo4
This is nothing compared to the impact of fossil fuels on the environment. Scientists predict that due to global warming we could see a sea level rise of 4 - 8 metres over the next few decades. This will totally decimate low-lying countries like Bangladesh, the Netherlands and the Maldives. We have a responsibility to our children and to the third world to vote for government programs that subsidize alternative clean energies and forward-thinking clean energy trading schemes like carbon offsets. I'm sorry to break it to conspiracy theorists, but nuclear is one of the options we simply have to pursue.
Deal with it.
I think we'll be under 4-8 metres of fiat long before Amsterdam's red-light district is shut down for water damage.
party on if the ho's don't raise their prices!
Meanwhile, Greece is about to get it's very own "Fukushima event": the Santorini caldera is about to blow up.
http://www.gatech.edu/newsroom/release.html?nid=116501
That stuxnet trojan was a BAD idea, bitchez.
[It could be sarc, but it might not be - that's how FUBAR the world is right now, amIrightBitchez?]
#MortgageCrisisIsAllBetterNow
#StocksHaveReachedPermanentlyHighPlateau
#WarOnIranShouldGoSmoothly&LowerOilPrices
#DevelopedNationDebt&DeficitLevelsAreProper
#BankingSystemAreWellCapitalizedWithSoundMarked-To-MarketAssetValuations
#PIIGSareSolventAgain
#TheSmallerTheMiddleClassGetsTheMorePeopleQualifyForSNAP&RentAssistance
#InflationIsTooLow
#AppleIsWorthMoreThanTheG8
#SupportNADA2012toPreventTerroristyThings
#keepJonCorzine&JosephKonyFree4ever
#REITsAreNotOnlyProperlyValuedButShouldExplodeHigher
#SellYourWorthlessStuffInYourBasementorGarageToTheBernank/MaidenLane
#AbacusHudsonTimberwolvesOhMy!
#IfYouSeeAnythingSayEverything:BigSis'
Everybody stop whining and buy AAPL!!!
Once they release iWorld (your own personal Earth), you won't have to worry about it!!!
Bernank's Virtuous Circle Magnum Opus:
Each citizen of earth buys at least one share of AAPL, AAPL ultimately rises to 1 billion USD per share, and the global citizenry retires rich, bitchez!
Nice, Jupiter has the great red spot and now the Earth has a great glow spot. This should give warning to aliens that this planet aint worth invading...its got billions of parasite and the water is contaminated to the extreme already. Move on.
Maybe we can push that great pacific trash gyre into the Fukushima aqueous water cloud to somehow contain it!
You got to lose! You cain't win all the time!
Better Santorini than Cumbre Vieja. If that monster explodes and falls into the sea the whole East Coast of the U.S. will be wiped out by a 100-foot tsunami 8 hours later. And that, by the way, is not enough time to evacuate everybody. I understand it will flow 40 miles inland. Don't worry, they will be sure to get the VIPs out in time.
Hopefully D.C. and Wall Street won't get the warning.
the whole East Coast will be wiped out
Is there a downside to this?
Don't worry, they will save your congress critter and Lloyd Blankfien. Everyone we hope gets wiped out in the disaster will be airlifted to safety. The hoi polloi will get a bath.
I hear it's beautiful in Atlantis this time of year.
Yes, I'm here! Now would that affect primarily the upper East or lower East coast?
I'm sorry - it is projected to extend from Iceland and Greenland all the way down to Brazil. Talk about a black swan. Here is a link showing the extent of the wave at 6 hours.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28657396@N00/75877497/in/photostream/
Georgia Tech engineers? I grad from that school and thats where all the Japanese Nuclear Engineers were educated. ooops.
That will probably be after the IDF vaporizes Iran, since they voted 8 to 6 to get Iran without Obamao, see article here at ZH.
The way things are going for Greece, I bet anything that this will erupt just to spite them.
The Santorum Caldera is about to erupt and explode?!
Wow. I didn't think the GOP primaries could get any messier or shittier...
Thanks for keeping Fukushima on the radar, I'm concerned over the implications of the cover-up's success.
For the most up to date news on Fukushima- www.enenews.com
The better illustrate the cited peak radioactivity: a cubic centimeter is a milliliter, there are 1000 milliliter per liter(obviously), Bq means radioactive decays per second; so 100 Bq/cm^3 means 100,000 radioactive decays per second in each liter of water. Not exactly what you want your sashimi swimming, breathing, or breeding in.
WHAT REALLY HAPPENED?
According to officialdom, the reactors exploded because the cores overheated. The emergency cooling systems failed because the backup generators were flooded by the tsunami.
All of this is bogus. First, a careful reading of an official report from the World Nuclear Association reveals that the tsunami did not flood the generators. There was another cause for their malfunction.
Second, three of the nine cooling systems needed no electricity. They used steam power from the reactor cores. They were the real emergency systems. Swamped generators would therefore have been irrelevant.
Third, these three passive systems kicked in at Reactors 1 and 3. Then the valves that fed them steam were shut. This required a command. It was a deliberate act.
Who, or what, shut those valves?
The most likely answer points to Dimona, Israel's "nuclear research" center.
ENTER STUXNET
Israeli security firm Magna BSP landed a security contract at Fukushima Daiichi shortly after Japan offered to enrich uranium for Iran. Soon after Magna BSP arrived, cybersecurity giant Symantec reported that the Stuxnet virus had infiltrated thousands of computers in Japan.
This is significant because Stuxnet is an Israeli invention. Magna BSP, an Israeli firm, had no previous history outside of contracts with Dimona, where the Stuxnet virus was born.
Stuxnet works by disrupting industrial hydraulics, the pipes and valves that drove Fukushima's cooling systems. Stuxnet runs amok while sending normal readings to the engineers at their control stations. Israel is documented to have used this virus to damage centrifuges at a nuclear facility in Iran.
The cooling systems at Fukushima were controlled by Siemens software, which the Stuxnet virus was designed specifically to attack.
Stuxnet can be administrated via the kind of data link that Magna BSP installed before scramming back to Israel just prior to the disaster.
As a hypothesis, Stuxnet explains why the generators failed. It explains how the valves in the passive cooling systems got shut. It explains why engineers are still getting containment pressure readings from Reactor 3, even though the containment is no longer there, and it explains a lot of other things as well.
If you want to debunk the Stuxnet hypothesis, you're going to have your work cut out for you. If Stuxnet was a duck, then everything about what happened at Fukushima would be quacking like one.
CONCLUSION
On 3/11/11, Reactors 1, 2, 3, and 4 were utterly destroyed, with 1, 3, and 4 suspiciously exploding.
Just more info to dissect and discuss:
Did the Dimona Dozen murder the Fukushima 50?The world needs this site translated to ALL languages, and I want you to. If you decide to translate this you will not be able to contact me to tell me, because every time someone does communication gets blocked and I never hear from them again. Please post your translations anywhere you can on the web and save the pictures locally also. This site may not exist for long, and if it vanishes the pictures have to come from somewhere, which could be you.
NHK released a bogus report - NHK PULLED IT, PROBABLY IN RESPONSE TO THIS SITE !!! - On Feb 26 2012, claiming they have the first aerial footage of Fukushima when far better aerial footage has been posted on this site since May of 2011! Furthermore, NHK modified their photos! What are they hiding? Well, what is reported here, of course!Lots of detailed info and pictures:
http://www.jimstonefreelance.com/fukushima.html
It's a good job the Israelis knew there was going to be an earthquake and got it all installed just in time.
Fuck off.
Interesting...
Does it really matter how the shit hit the fan at this point? Can't we just bulldoze the hole fucking mess and bury it with concrete ala Chernobyl? The real surprise is that fuel prices haven't risen as much as I thought considering the 3rd largest economy in the world now gets 100% of their power from fossil fuels.
Um, did you see the graphic above? You're suggesting that somehow we pave over most of the ocean?
Stuxnet/Fuku is total BS. The earthquake busted substandard ancient cooling pipes installed by Yakuza construction companies. But they don't want people to think the earthquake did the damage, they want them to think it was the tsunami, because all of their nukes are earthquake-threatened. Notice they have shut down all but 4 of 54 Japanese nukes...even the ones far from the ocean.
You lose contact with them because they figure out you are a world-class asshole.
Funny how you don't disappear though, isn't it?
Best you go watch some Gundam or play with your AKB48 dolls.
The Fukushima 50 are still alive...
While it can't be completely ruled out, it is highly unlikely that Stuxnet was responsible for the very same reason I took issue with Seymour Hersh when he publicly stated that Stuxnet probably did no harm in Iran's nuclear facilities as it hardly did any harm in facilities in China and India, and was resolved there within a week.
Stuxnet was SITE SPECIFIC, I repeat, the coding was site specific!!!
That means the program was hunting for specific systems made Siemens, Vacon, Fararo Paya and Profibus (and a Profibus subsidiary).
Unless those specific systems and SCADA, along with the Windows OS were at the Nipponese nuke facility, stuxnet should have just been a pain in the butt, but not a facility killer!
I'm afraid I have to cast aspersions on your piece, it is simply too tenuous.
Hmm, the plot thickens?
"The quake was significant, but only in a 6.0 sense, as recorded by the JAPANESE seismographs, and FAKED to a 9.0 by the USGS. This is important footage, because it proves the earthquake measured at a 6.8 was an instrumentation based richter reading. Confusion between the Shindo and Richter scale is being used to cover this up ."
and:
"A 9.0 will devastate an area over 1,000 miles across. That is how big a 9.0 is. The entire nation should be in ruins, especially judging from the damage the 6.9 Kobe quake did, and no where, no where outside the tsunami zone in the entire country is there a single damaged multi story building, a single collapsed bridge, a single structurally damaged wood framed house, or skyscraper"
ALL from here + much more:
http://www.jimstonefreelance.com/fukushima1.html
Are you fukin' stupid?
Steam power emergency cooling systems??
Link me serious evidence that *any* reactor in the world has such a thing.
(And if you are actually referring to steam powered self-generated electrity, such a system would not be very helpful if the plant's switching panels are flooded with seawater.)
LOL ... Laugh of the week!!
it's gonna take a lot of lil' wipes to clean up that shit stain
No problem with nuclear but why did the proponents of global warming have to fudge data if it is so obvious? I have a bit of science in my background and while making the data look as good and convincing as possible is allowable making major re-calculations and silencing opposing voices is kind of cheating. At least it makes you look weak if not directly leading to career termination. There is so much politics in this arena that I honestly do not know what to think. I am highly suspicious however when I see the problem being re-defined to fit 'solutions' that appear to have been prepared almost before the 'problem' existed.
The "climate-gate" issue is widely believed to be a lie among top scientists and environmental activists. There have been countless attempts by the right to discredit global warming despite the total consensus among top environmentalists and politicians.
When did MDB stop becoming a shoot-at-the-hip troll and become a debater with supposed "facts"?
Around the time he stopped being funny.
Dunno about that ... you may just have lost your sense of humour?!
For example, this gem was particularly hilarious on the "science" of global warming:
MDB merely serves up what the sheep are fed for dinner. If your taste buds are sharp, you'll recognise it as shit ... otherwise....
MDB, the planet is like an algebra equation: whatever you do to one side, you must take from the other. It's been a warm winter here in the northeast, but try telling that to Russia and a large part of Europe during this last winter season.
Global warming is bullshit, we're actually headed for a mini iceage.
Would you like to discuss the paper described here?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/foster-and-rahmstorf-measure-global-warming-signal.html
Please make my day...
Please........Your day is made!
6 Oct 11 - (Excerpts) - The U.S. National Solar Observatory, the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory and astrophysicists across the planet report that the nearly all-time low sunspot activity may result in a sustained cooling period on Earth.
Many reputable scientists have been warning for decades that we are nearing the end of the 11,500-year average period between ice ages. And the last similar crash in sunspot activity coincided with the so-called "Little Ice Age" in the 1600s that lasted nearly a century.
Shannon Goessling
What happens during a "Little Ice Age?" Food-producing land becomes scarcer, food-growing seasons become shorter, and the world becomes a much more arid and less hospitable place. Think food shortages and the social unrest that follows.
Ice age threat should freeze EPA global warming regs
The forces at work behind the global warming regulatory regime have, at worst, covered up, ignored and manipulated climate evidence to make the case that humans cause global warming and therefore humans should be punished.
At best, the mainstream scientific community is continuing to weigh the climate data as it becomes available. Caught in the flux are millions of Americans suffering under an economic tsunami that is anything but a theory.
Despite increasing evidence that "global warming" climate change is not the unified scientific theory it has been promoted to be, vested interests continue to push for stringent limits on carbon dioxide emissions.
Certain investment banks and trading houses that stand to make billions on so-called "carbon credits," and the environmental sociologists who have as a stated purpose to change our way of life, are a powerful bloc.
In the Obama administration, this cabal has a willing "big stick" in the form the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which has enacted draconian measures that will, by President Obama's admission, make energy costs "skyrocket."
The EPA regulations were enacted this year without congressional approval as required by the Clean Air Act and other laws. Estimates put the economic damage of these regulations at $1 trillion over the next 20 years, with a loss of between four and 10 million jobs.
Moving forward with global warming regulations is truly "absurd."
Shannon Goessling is executive director and chief legal counsel for the Southeastern Legal Foundation.
Hilarious... Shannon Goessling, a legal consel, is your reference... my fuck, now that is rich...
So you are arguing the the sun has lower output all the while global temps are up ~0.5 K in the past 30 years,
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022
So if anything, we are more than compensating for a decreasing solar output as shown here
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm
Zzzzzzzzzzzzz
Would you like to take up my bet?
Shhhhh, I'm sleeping.
Yep... just like you were in Science class...
AGW = GT. GT = GRAVY TRAIN.
Now that is a rebuttal of first rank...
So the trillions in the fossil fuel business is chopped liver??
How's that Peak Oil, "false-sell" fuels, resource scarcity, Agenda 21 gravy train working out for you Propmeister?
-1 within 5 minutes.
You really hang on your threads don't you...you on the clock? LOL
Another -1 within 5 minutes. I get it now you're an algo!!
Everything makes sense now....you're not Skynet but you are...sell-aware!
It's gonna be near 80 in MN this weekend. What's wrong w/ global warming again?
when the heat's up so high & the humidity is too that crops are dying without rain & you have nothing to eat but stored food, if you stored any, you might start thinking this global warming thing is a big deal. If you live on a coast line you will be welcome to live in denial until the house is washed away by the tide.
who are you?
Yes, "ice" ages and "warm" ages have been a "normal" part of the cycle. But let's make sure we understand your position. Has or does mankind have any impact on the environment? Define the environment. Can the introduction of elements effect an ecosystem? How much and for how long? Does it depend on the elements? Their volume? Is the earth an eco system? Can it be affected by this introduction of elements? Is the fact that CO2 is a "natural" element the only factor? Does the atmosphere require a balance of factors and elements? Do other ecosystems? Is both the extraction and burning of fossil fuels and the volume a unique event in human and global history? How about any of the other elements we produce and introduce?: to the ocean?, to water tables?, to land?, to the atmosphere?. Is there / can there be a cummulative effect? Can these elements have unique effects? Are the environmental changes being observed unique? The ice cores? The rate of change? Does the fact that these effects can possibly be "explained" by long term natural cycles by necessity and logic exclude effects through other sources including mankind, a unique and huge population, and the a unique processing disperison of elements in global history?
Is a corrupt EPA the only element to this disucssion? How about the corrupt Carbon Tax? Corporate interest? Are there Corporate interests on both sides of this issue? Is it fair to say that carbon corporate interests have influence on our government? Just as much or more than those raising concerns? Are those emails that show scientific and political bias a complete impeachment of the scientific data? Scientific theory? Was the entity that produced those emails the only scientific entity producing scientific data and concerns?
?
Flakmeister, always en garde with junk science.
Oh pray tell, what can you bring to the table??
That is, aside from evidence for the DK effect....
The researchers in the link you provided only looked at data back to 1979. Would that not be considered statistically insignificant given the age of the planet? In addition, their research appears to be another modeling exercise. I have yet to see anything that contradicts what was derived from the Volstok ice cores. Understand, I am not questioning whether or not the planet is warming (or cooling). It is. I am not convinced that it is unprecedented.
From the historical temp record going back 800,000 years, the current rate of rise in temp and C02 is essentially unprecedented....
How is FR2011 a modelling exercise? Did you read the paper? If anything it is devoid of climate models....
How was that historical temperature record derived?
Why don't use the internet and find out for yourself?
“From the historical temp record going back 800,000 years, the current rate of rise in temp and C02 is essentially unprecedented...” It is? Not according to the Volstok ice core data. In fact, the current conditions - coming out of a strong glacial period - fits nicely with the historical data.
The researchers, themselves, refer to the exercise as an analysis, not experimentation. IMO, that means modeling. They manipulated the data to fit what they were looking to prove.
Please show me a point in the Vostock data where dT/dt is demonstrably higher....
Here you go. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/vostok/vostok.1999.temp.dat
From this you should be able to pick your own point.
You clearly should take a calculus course as my comment flew way over your head....
I mulled for a bit trying to determine if your use of “d” meant derivative or delta. But then I figured you would have italicized the “d” if you meant derivative as in dT/dt. I figured wrong.
Too funny....
Pray tell, what would be the difference between the derivative and the delta?
Sure?
The data seems to show a series of sharp inclines in temp followed by an immediate drop.
But looking at the last 10,000 years, after a quick rise 14,000 years ago, the temperature leveled and remained.
We SHOULD be moving on into the next ice age. The regular cycles have been connected to the Milankovitch cycles and in fact, based on our current position in the Milankovitch cycles, global climate should be cooling. And we are currently receiving a MINIMUM of solar energy due to the Milankovitch cycles.
There are other unprecedented factors happening. The Vostok graph shows in the past 500,000 years, CO2 levels REMAINED CONSATANT between roughly 180 parts per million and 280 parts per million during all the cycles.
BUT ... CO2 levels are now close to 400 ppm and still climbing. Methane levels are also up - much more powerfull stuff.
180 to 280 ppmv is a fairly large range. I guess it all depends on the scale you use… http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/vostok.co2.gif
Yep,.. 180 to 290 ppm for 400,000 years and in the last 150 we ramp it up to 390 ppm.... and it still climbing at about 2 ppm and accelerating if anything (best fit has a quadratic term)
Nothing to see, move along...
yes funny how 400 is " a normal part of the cycle" kinda goes with that extracing and burning in 100 years ( and deforesting a shitload) not part of the normal cycle either......
but don't worry a 25% increase of any element in any system never makes a difference right?
I get it. My big block Chevy pick up is like a thermostat, the more I rev it, the warmer it gets. I'm ready for golf, time to do a few burnouts!
'the planet is like an algebra equation: whatever you do to one side, you must take from the other'
Wow, just... wow. Don't even know where to begin...
Like that? I pulled it straight out of my ass. But I think you get the point.....if it's hot and dry somewhere, it's cold and wet in others. There is too much waste, money and energy invested in overblowing global issues. Keep pollution and gases regulated inelligently but shut the fuck up about it.
The earth corrects itself.
MDB has nothing on you....
'The earth corrects itself.'
You must live under the delusion of Leibniz's 'Pre-established Harmony' theory to come up with these gems of insight. What's the latest Yahoo frontpage news about the 'God' particle anyways?
Nah Gene, my 'theory' has nothing to do with 'god' or the delusion of Leibniz. My point is as it gets a lil warm, you hear the Gores of the world wanting to dig into my back pocket. When there's 5 feet of snow outside......where are they? The Earth has been spewing its own gases forever. While the human species needs to be regulated, I think one little turn in the pattern of weather should not be exagerated.
yes, and the earth has always had 7 billion little creatures poking millions of holes in it to release something that took 100 million years to form up into the atmospehere in less than a hundred. "One little turn in the weather?" Your "scientific" logic is a little loose. There will always be Gores - on both sides of the issue.
And your scientific quantitative measure in that statement is....?
If his scientific logic is a little loose then your scientific calculus [apart from the appearance of the words 'billion/million'] is non-existent.
please then show us the historical equivalent of this release of these compressed elements into the earth's atmosphere. Please also explain why the CO2 levels remain much lower despite the ice and warm age fluctuation in the ice cores until now.
How about: Termites, cattle and other indigenous lifeforms produce more CO2 than all of the fossil fuels being burned per year presently and if you add in a volcanic eruption or 2 the amount being produced pales into insignificance.
As I had to state elsewhere to another poster here who brought up a similar red herring argument, your point is true, and yet irrelevant.
It is irrelevant because all those natural factors are, roughly speaking, a constant through the decades, centuries and millenia. What has NOT been a constant is human-induced deforestation and fossil-fuel burning. It is NOT a coincidence that CO2 levels started rising to unprecedentedly high levels starting around 1850, and continue to do so today, to levels higher by at least 50% compared to any ambient levels (as measured by the CO2 levels measured in air trapped in ice cores) of the last 100,000 years --- which includes the advance and retreat of the entire previous glacial epoch.
And those ice cores were located evenly distributed across the globe to reflect a proper locational measure of CO2 levels not biased by the cold temperature sink of the arctic pole?
Atmospheric CO2 levels do not vary to any significant degree over the surface of the earth, particularly at altitude, except, sometimes, in HIGHLY localized situations such as low-lying bogs during periods of still air, or during volcanic eruptions --- and such locations are rather unlikely to be present, to say the least, on a high-altitude polar icecap. And even if they were, such CO2 fluctuations are highly transitory, and would not show up to any meaningful level in an ice core atmospheric record spanning tens of thousands of years.
Our current measurements within that historical context are highly transitory so that argument is insufficient.
Are you denying that we cannot identify the component of C02 in the atmosphere that is anthropogenic??
Wow...
Yup, that's exactly what's being denied. Even though isotope analysis proves the deniers wrong. The hoaxers really are in some kind of strange denial. That denial won't last long once the oceans rise to cover many coastal resorts for decades to centuries.
Actually, the earth does have remarkable self balancing mechanisms. The massive ability to absorb carbon via photosynthesis is one. I have spent many a day in one 5 acre greenhouse in Nova Scotia that literally burns hundreds of tons of trees and/or nat gas (depending on which is cheaper at any given time) not for the heat, but for the CO2. The CO2 is piped into the facility where it is taken up by the plants, resulting in very large increase in tomato output. Much of the heat is actually vented out the automated roof windows which open and close to keep the preset air temperature maintained. The greenhouse and furnace equipment are all products of a dutch company that builds them worldwide. Yes, compared to the earth, smallscale. Still, this is the real "greenhouse" model; not the crap touted by Algore & Co.
and so...our systemic removal of forests helps or hurts the CO2 absorbtion factor? And what do the plants do for melting methane? You said it, "compared to the earth, smallscale"
When Greenland was green and much of Northern Europe was growing grape vines and the Vikings sailed the ice-free Northwest Passage to the west coast of North America...what was the status of forest removals and methane absorbtion at that time?
We should have this data, just to be consistent with the parameters of standard measure you have deemed to be defining measures at this point in time, at least...
you're telling us the deforestation was equivalent in timescale and volume back in the Viking era or you can't say cause you don't have the data?
I'm saying there was no deforestation and no equivalent release of anthropogenic CO2 at that time yet there was a significantly warmer climate than today.
Are the anthropogenic CO2 levels today healthy for the environment? No.
Have they been responsible for 'Global Warming'? Scientifically unproven but the warming is not historically unprecedented.
Just out of curiosity, have the owners of that greenhouse not considered utilizing carbon dioxide that is produced by manufacturing facilities rather than burning trees or nat gas? I know that many of the companies here on the Gulf Coast would welcome a way to utilize their waste output profitably rather than having to pay to dispose of it.
yes, but it's the "correction" process that I'm concerned about.
Hey HO... I missed this earlier, you said
So I can conclude that you believe in Gaia theory but not in AGW... now that is a strange combo...
I smell smoke....[stealth] Gaia theory and AGW is your smokescreen isn't it?
The lefties know this too, the problem is that they oversimplify the equation down to a few variables,attempt to control those through policy and then are shocked that there are unintended consequences. Then they add in just one more variable, rinse and repeat.
'Global warming' has always been a misnomer. A more accurate observation would be 'global climatic destabilization'.
I wonder what will happen with that methane being released from thawing permafrost.
Dear Mr. Miilion Dollar Bonus,
Thank you for coming to Zero Hedge and teaching us about the weather.
Some day when I become supreme Ultra-Lord of the universe I will not make you a slave, you will live in my 200 story castle where unicorn servants will feed your doughnuts off their horns.
I will personally make you a throne that is half platnum and half solid gold and jewel ecnrested.
Thank you again for teaching us about climate change, you’re more awesome than a monkey wearing a tuxedo made out of bacon riding a cyborg unicorn with a lightsaber for the horn on the tip of a space shuttle closing in on Mars, while ingulfed in flames….And in case you didn’t know, that’s pretty dang sweet.
Sincerely, Taint Boil.
Credit belongs to this little guy --> Link
Well, that space shuttle engulfed in flames ought to make the bacon tuxedo nice and crispy, just the way I like my bacon and, er, monkey.
MDB You are so funny. How much do you make per post.
When i was a child, they took us on field trips to Yosemite. They explained that Yosemite Valley was carved entirely by glaciers. When we asked where all that ice went they told us the earth has been warming for hundreds of years. Do fossils get credit for that too!!! Damn fossils!!!
Do you practice contructing flawed arguments or does it come naturally?
"top scientists and environmental activists"- now that's an oxymoron written by a regular moron.
MDB is a "top" poster here on ZH, but sure doesn't make him right!
Hah, you went over your skis on this one MDB. Even if every ice cap on Earth melted, I doubt it would raise sea levels by 25 feet (8 meters). Do you know how much water that would be?
You certainly don't.... I'll give you a hint, its a lot more than 25 feet....
How much water do those frozen ice caps displace already? How are they going to raise the sea level significantly?
The large majority of those frozen icecaps lie ABOVE sea level, particularly the Antarctic one, so their melting WOULD raise sea level by several hundred feet.
Incidentally, glaciers worldwide (the vast majority of them, too), from Alaska to Greenland to Scandinavia to Tanzania to Ecuador to Chile to to Tibet to Antarctica, have been melting and receding for at least the last century, proving beyond any doubt that the world IS and has been warming. One can debate the causes of that warming, but NOT its existence itself, which is beyond dispute.
Well said....
undisputed that it's warming and undisputed that the rate is unprecedented. An important part of the puzzle
Glaciers advance and retreat, CONTINUOUSLY.
The Earth warms and cools, CONTINUOUSLY.
It's been much hotter, with much higher CO2 levels for most of the past 570 million years, in which plant and animal life has spread all over the land surface of the planet, and corals developed and created gigantic fossil reefs all over the world,
And contrary to what the Greenpeace and cohort idiots would have you believe, that the Great Barrier Reef would be devastated by global warming. Corals adapted to hot water absolutely love hot water. And equatorial Indonesia, and a few other equatorial island chains, have by far the highest coral reef diversity on earth.
The Great Barrier reef has about 425 species of coral, but Indonesia has around 2,500. But Greenpeace and their affiliates will tell you that coral bleaching will kill the reef stone dead. Bullshit! The reason why the Great Barrier Reef has less coral species is because the waters are colder. As you go further south, into even colder waters, the reef gets emaciated with fewer and fewer coral species, until you get zero, and the Great Barrier Reef extends no further southward. Corals spawn and propagate via a planktonic larval state. So if it gets hotter they will settle further south. And species that like hotter waters will propagate from the equatorial zone around Papua and the Solomon Islands down onto the Great Barrier Reef.
That is what life does. It moves, it adapts. The 'greenies' eco-warrior morons don't know shit about it.
But according to the idiots at Green Peace the Reef would simply die due to global warming (and I'm sure they know it won't, but they use suck lies to obtain political leverage and funds so they can continue on their parasitic useless way, pretending to 'protect' the planet of somfing ... fuck-heads).
The fossil record shows very clearly that life LOVES more CO2 and higher temperatures and the higher humidity and rainfall it generates.
Have a look at Antarctica (land ice and water) to see how species diversity becomes precipitously lower as it gets colder.
I'm not interested in fun-facts from pseudo-science crack-head trivia merchants. I look at the big picture.
Animals go extinct, others take over.
Great extinctions also happen, then massive explosions in the diversity of entirely new forms, of even more impressive varieties occurs.
That is in fact what the actual physical 'fossil record' in outcrops and the derived palaeoclimatology and sedimentology not only shows, but is screaming it out so loud at you, that only a blind fool could fail to notice it.
I'm not the slightest bit interested in this mere insignificant noise blip of supposed "global climate change", because compared to the variability the rocks show us to be the norm, it doesn't even rate a mention.
Humans and the Socratic method have not been around even a mere thousandth of the time necessary to see what 'normal' actually is from nature's perspective.
Anyone who tells you global warming will be a cataclysm doesn't know much about what the rocks show is 'normal' for the Earth.
--
That's all that's happening akak, the reality is we have much larger and more tangible issues to concern ourselves with--to me global warming is a foolish and irrelevent red-herring.
.
That is true, and yet totally irrelevant.
It is irrelevant due to the fact that mankind does NOT live in the geological record, but on the earth AS IT EXISTS TODAY. What you fail to grasp is that this planet is grossly overpopulated, unsustainably so, and human civilization is living on a very narrow knife-edge --- ANY significant change to the environmental status-quo is going to radically alter things for the worst from our collective perspective, as agriculture and human development are all predicated on things remaining EXACTLY as they are today. Throw the environment into a new balance, and hundreds of millions if not billions of humans are going to be consigned to death. This is fact all too often overlooked and underappreciated by those who blithely claim that the earth's climate was warmer in the past. Yes, it was --- and human civilization did not exist then, either.
"If they're going to die, they'd better do it and relieve us of the excess population." -- Ebeneezer Scrooge
Yes but that is also quite irrelevant akak.
Do you seriously think it's likely I don't know about the 7-billion other humans, and the implications of Earth chucking a wobbly on us? Why throw that nonse in there? Obviously that isn't the case.
What consigns you to death is being born, not climate change, the only question is how and when that happens.
I said I'm looking at the big picture here.
Fossils are evidence of life AND DEATH in equal measures being a natural and normal state and dynamic process.
It's nice to be alive, yes, but let's not get too attached to the notion that it's our long-term natural state of existence.
I'm ok with the Earth changing and wiping out humanity, as in due course, it certainly will, the fossils make that very clear.
We will adapt until then though.
Rolling with the punches and adapting, not digging our heels in and expecting the Earth to not change under us, is the way to survive and thrive.
That's always been the case, and it always will be.
My main point is we have much more important issues to face, and this demented 'environmental' apoplexy and hysterics, dressed-up as mainstream science and debate, ain't helping us with that, and it ain't helping science any, either.
So your logic is that since we are all dead in the long run, it doesn't matter what we do, even if it fries the planet...
I suppose in that in some existentialist sense what you say is logically correct...
By the same token, It is pretty clear that you do not have children... or if you do, you really don't give a fuck about the planet they live on after you are gone....
BTW, the no-children hypothesis would explain a lot of your views....
Q: how many existentialists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: what's the point?
Meh, wine tastes better with candle light.
What the hell are you going on about?
Are you in denial of the fact that species develop, stay awhile, then go extinct?
That's what happens, and it will happen to humanity as well, we may last another 25 million years, in some form, perhaps much better off, perhaps much worse, but we will be going away. Do some formal study of palaeontology and you'll quickly realise that's what happens to all life.
In the interim, species are wiped out regionally, numerous times before they get wiped out globally and finally.
It's observable millions of times within geological history. It isn't subject to your denials.
And what does that have to do with some silly reference to existentialism (let alone some dickhead's reference to whether someone has children)?
You are saying that since we are doomed in the long run it does not matter what damage we inflict on the planet...
Sorry, but that is very existentialist.....Not that I think existentialism is wrong or a necessarily a bad thing.... But given that we are stewards of the planet by our acquired ability to change the planet, it is not a good basis for guiding our collective actions...
Whoaaaa..I saw [part of] the word 'sustainable'
-1 until proven innocent....
Don't buy the hype....SELL the reality (just do the research first!)
Why should the word "sustainable" bother you, palmereldritch?
Certainly it has been and is used by certainly statists with a political agenda in mind, but not EVERY use of the word necessarily implies a particular political agenda, as my use of it here does not. Or do you deny that "sustainability" is even a valid concept? I happen to believe that it is.
And if you were get to know any ecologists --- yes, it is a science of its own --- you would find that virtually EVERY one of them who deals with macroecology will tell you, regardless of political persuasion, that 7 billion humans (much less the several billion more that look likely to be added over the coming two or three decades) simply cannot be sustained on this planet indefinitely, or even for very much longer; simply the one issue of soil depletion (loss of fertility, loss of topsoil and ever-growing salinization) by itself ensures that fact, although there are many others that point to the same conclusion. I am neither drawing nor implying any political agenda from this fact --- it is simply a fact, one that the world ignores at its peril. Or must we blindly continue on a path of self-destruction, with no greater awareness of our own long-term plight than a petri dish of bacteria or a vat of yeast? Shouldn't humans be able to do BETTER than that?
'Sustainable' is a key buzz word of the Agenda 21 propaganda and accordingly it should appear in quotations or italics.
We are not bacteria and should be self-aware to our destructive consumption and waste but also should be aware to greater elite forces that wouild reduce us to such a disposable category.
Google Rosa Koire's interviews on Agenda 21 to understand the use of that word and its intended effect as resource scarcity programming.
"fun-facts from pseudo-science crack-head trivia merchants"....... so
when exactly have the "CO2 levels been much higher" than now?
"This is what life does"..? One species peforms these effects on the environment? THought mankind was "special" Everything we do is "special." We talk about how special we are on this site everyday. How many of our acts are contrary to a "healthy" global economic environment? acts that can cause lots of destruction.
"Great extinctions happen" - is this our don't worry be happy mantra?
Need a new script girl
No, it's a physical fact you fucking moron.
is your ability to spot sarcasm going extinct? or the knowledge to answer our 400 question? Are the cuss words what you meant when you described a "sophisticated" method of debate?
No, you were talking shit, so why treat you any differently.
I ask this in all seriousness.Since the '70's,when the earth was "cooling",and then apparently began "warming",how many feet have the oceans risen?With all the glaciers and Antarctic ice (and don't forget the poor polar bears)melting at such 'alarming' rates the number if feet should be impressive.How bout the number of inches?You should be able to show at least 6".If you lack 6",how about 3"?Or 2.Or are you a girl?
The apparent cooling in 70's was from the S02 aerosols, there was much debate and a lack of good data at the time to quantify what was going on....
Here is a discussion on a paper from 1975
http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-predictions-broecker.html
By the way, the answer to your can be found by putting ice in a glass of water and watching the level of the water after the ice has melted....
Thanks for your new math example. It must be that "fuzzy" math.
Ocean Surface area of Earth = 362,132,000 Km2
Anarctica Surface Area = 14,000,000 Km2
If it all melted at once = Instantly
Total rise in Ocean Level = 204.68969794978013579522169179139'
Now even troll morons should know that Antarctica melting instantly is never going to happen.
If it does, we won't be posting on Zero Hedge.
You should also note that after sea level goes up 1' there will not only be more surface area to cover but more evaporation will occur as well. More evaporation means more rain which means more water soaked into ground.
My evaluation is this: If you live 30+ feet above sea level you should be good to go for the rest of your life.
Caveat: If you get hit by a hurricane on the coast that's your fault. They predict them well in advance.
One additional item addressed in another thread is the amount of temperature elevation: 0.5K = 0.5C =0.9F
Which = Bullshit. Call me when you can't keep your beer cold.
what % of ice is land based vs. floating?
have you looked at any of the models on the effects of just a few meters? Try Indonesia, Florida, Louisiana, The SF Bay area, and many other places.
And frozen water is more volume than liquid water.
Your argument was almost lucid until you mentioned "global warming" in context of a human created problem. The earth itself spews more toxic fumes than does industry but no one ever acknowledges this. Especially Al Gore following dikheds.
MDB may be a comedic troll...but you are demonstrating that you are an idiot..
Provide a link for your claim... go ahead, make my day....
Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Classic red herrring argument and invalid....
Better yet, what fraction of the radiative imbalance is caused by C02??
You are aware that the global temperature changes under the influence of a radiative heating or cooling...
Doesn;t matter if C02 forcing is only 0.3% of the total GHE if it is not in equilibrium....
--
If your tub is leaking a 1 gallon an hour, the cold water tap is dripping at 1 gallons a hour, and the hot water is dripping at 0.03 gallons an hour, the tub overflows, capeche??
Climate Change advocate forced to admit that his own scientific data shows no warming for over a decade:
Yesterday Prof Muller insisted that neither his claims that there has not been a standstill, nor the graph, were misleading because the project had made its raw data available on its website, enabling others to draw their own graphs.
However, he admitted it was true that the BEST data suggested that world temperatures have not risen for about 13 years. But in his view, this might not be ‘statistically significant’, although, he added, it was equally possible that it was – a statement which left other scientists mystified.
‘I am baffled as to what he’s trying to do,’ Prof Curry said.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html#ixzz1pIvEapadToo funny...
Cherry picking the 1998 El Nino year (also close to the the last peak for the 11 year solar cycle) classic denier stuff...
Do you want to make a bet? You and I, one tube (25) Canadian Silver Leafs, on whether one of 2012, 2013 or 2014 will the warmest year on record...
Before you make your bet, I strongly recommend that you read this
http://www.skepticalscience.com/foster-and-rahmstorf-measure-global-warming-signal.html
I wouldn't want you to feel that you were suckered into a bad bet....
I didn't cherry pick anything. This is the BEST data assembled at Berkley by Climate Change proponents. Why do you deny science? Are you some kind of religious nut?
Ok... you make the bet?
You really might want to check what the effect of the ENSO and TSI on the temperatrehave been over the past 10 years before getting so cocky...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/FR11_All.gif
Note the massive upward effect of the El Nino in 1998....If that is not cherry picking, what is???
All I'm doing is looking at what the scientists at Berkley have said about what their data shows. If you want to suggest that the Climate Change advocates at Berkley are lying or falsifying data let's see the evidence.
If you don't believe that the Climate Change advocates at Berkley are lying then accept their pronouncement that there has been no warming in 13 years.
Simple as that.
Do you agree that we have warmed ~0.5 K since 1979? Yes or No?
Make the bet I proposed or shutup...
I will gladly put my physical silver on the table, in full confidence that I will be proven right, will you?
The way I see it, I'm a winner either way. If there is no AGW then that's that. But if there is AGW then the climate in Western Pennsylvania will likely be much more tolerable.
But the data shows no warming in 13 years and the AGW models did not predicted that. Could it be that those models are wrong? Recent NASA data which shows that heat dissipates into space more rapidly than previously believed also casts doubts on those old, flawed models.
Chickenshit.... make the bet or shutup...
How about this, has there been significant warming since 1992? Yes or No?
Here's the BEST data again...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47
Do you know what the 11 year solar cycle is? Do you know where we are in it?
Do you know the effect of the ENSO and what it is? Are we in a cool or warm phase now?