Glaciers

[goatboy]

CHECK this out!

 

LINK (only if you are willing to be educated)

[JayB]

How's that compliance coming in Canada and Euroland?

 

There are quite a few people out there like myself who have accepted the scientific consensus but who's opinions about the optimal policy response may be different than your own, and I think you do a massive disservice to your own cause to pretend otherwise, and wrapping yourself in the cloak of the righteous heretic/crusader bemoaning the ill-motives of everything else will succeed in hitting the auto-gratification button, but won't help winning over the people that you'll need to embrace the cause in some fashion or another. Worked great for Earth First, so I can see why it's such a compelling model, though.

 

Identifying the problem is easy - everyone agrees that AIDS, for example, is a problem - but within that consensus there's always been quite a bit of disagreement about what to do about it. Back in 1981 if a panel of experts had imposed a global AIDS tax to fund a trillion dollars worth of research into a vaccine - the leading candidate for an effective countermeasure at the time - it's not entirely clear that we'd be any closer to a cure than we are today, and a massive amount of resources would have been expended on a strategy that turned out to be impracticable in practice, when other therapeutic approaches in conjunction with low tech strategies like needle exchanges, condom, education, etc turned out to be the best available methods of countering the epidemic.

[catbirdseat]

Yeah, had we ratified it in 92, had we then gone on from there, had we NOT tried to manipulate the science, the scientists, the facts, had we not been more worried about energy company profits, then the kind of world our grand kids would inherit, had we been a leader in the solution instead of an obstacle, then yes it would have (and still would) make a difference. So please and by all means, vote next week.

I'll tell ya what, though. Gasoline prices wouldn't be what they are today, if we had ratified Kyoto.

[tvashtarkatena]

nice sentimental argument, if only two stark realities weren't stepping all over it.

 

1) Nukes are the most expensive form of power plant. Being the savvy business types they are, China's not going to build them, nor will many other countries...including ours, if you ask me.

 

 

What this chart tells us is that Japan is serious about nukes, but no one else, especially China, considering the size of its economy, is. Compare this chart to planned capacity for coal fired generation and those bars get really, really short.

[Dechristo]

Sorry, didn't mean to right a campaign speech.

 

Right. Write right. Write "write" right.

[dmuja]

Sorry, didn't mean to right a campaign speech.

 

Right. Write right. Write "write" right.

 

 

"wite", me and the philosopher Wittgenstein, can't spell for shit, and neither of us care.

[bwrts]

The type of fossil trees found near vantage are all hardwoods that grow just fine at our latitudes. It was wetter back then in that area because the Cascades weren't there to block moisture coming in from the ocean at that time. In addition, E Wa wasn't in the same spot on the earth as it is now due to tectonic movement.

 

There are no methane bubbles in the icecaps. There are air bubbles that contain varying PPM of greenhouse gases, of which methane is one.

 

Methane is produced by rotting plant material in swamps or animal lower colons. Rice patties are man-made swamps. Cows, also man-made, fart a lot. If the permafrost continues to melt, much more methane will be released from rotting tundra, accelerating the current warming trend. Then we won't just be farting, we'll be shitting our pants.

 

As for links, you can Google as well as I can. Sciam.com is a good, accessible source for science articles on the subject, as are many other science publications. You won't have to look far...the information is all over the place.

 

Ok, Thanks I remember now. I meant, what about gas hydrates, which occur in the polar regions and ocean floor. I recall from my oceanography class these little buggers are typically methane (ethane, CO2 or H2S as well) caged by water molecules and form at High Pressures and Low Temperatures (favorable stabilazation conditions). They are found on the seafloor continental shelves or slopes and permafrost of polar regions. Hydrates are agents of climatic change. That is, if sea levels lower (during glaciation), hydrates destabilize and the earth Temp trends shift towards global warming. If the sea levels raise, (during deglaciation), presure increases on the ocean floor and consequently is more suitable for gas hydrate formation. This may reduce global atmospheric methane levels and promote global cooling. However, the continental hydrates typically are not recaged very easily when the permafrost continues to thaw.

 

The point I was trying to say, was cycles are continuing constantly. The Earth was warm once, hot even. And it will be hot again. Just like another Ice Age will engulf our continents again. Of course, sofnwhat. The warming trend is accelerating at a rate faster than ever observed before. Yes this sucks. But there are so many things adding to the problem, really ALL of us would need to stop everything NOW and go live in caves (like they do in Afghanastan to avoid US marine heat.) But that means no computers, tv, radios, cars, trucks, cell phones, etc. or even a new Patagonia jacket or Mammut rope. I bet most if not all of you are not willing to give up such luxuries. I know I am not. Life is grand and awesome...love every day so I say make the most of it cuz really we are all doomed. The earth will soon remove us since we are merely a parasite feeding on her mojo and juju.

 

btw: Just because the Modern Cascades did not exist during the Permian when the Vantage Ginkgo forest may have sprung up does not mean that the protoCascades did not funnel weather around like the Olympics do to modern towns like Darrington vs. Bellingham. Thanks for the geo lesson on tectonics though, I am impressed with your vast array of knowledge. Seriously.

and also, the link to the pdf file does not work on my pc. Where did it come from? ? Please type path to follow from website as I do want to find it myself. Thanks.

 

 

Goatboy: I am not a climate changing skeptic. I do believe the earth is changing and getting warmer. Thanks for the link. It looks like a long waste of time and I am intrigued.

[rob_cranfill]

Re: The Seattle Times' quote

 

"the depth of ice on the Blue Glacier has dropped an average of 65 feet annually since 1987"

 

There was a correction in the paper the next day. They meant to say the average depth of the ice had dropped 65 feet since 1987.

[tvashtarkatena]

We know that atmospheric methane levels fall during ice age advancement and fall during retreat. This is probably due in part to gas hydrates, although the mechanism still isn't well understood. As an ice age advances, oceanic gas hydrates release their methane, but polar gas hydrates recapture some of it. Exactly how these two opposing processes interact remains unknown.

 

The release of oceanic gas hydrates will probably not a be problem during this period of human caused global warming because sea levels will rise. Unfortunately for us, as the permafrost melts, the enormous amount of methane trapped in hydrates there will be released. This is a major problem.

 

The gas hydrate cycle has little to do with the current unprecedented warming trend, however, the vast majority of which is caused by carbon from fossil fuel combustion.

 

I think you'll find that none of the proposed solutions for haulting human caused climate change require us to retreat to caves dimly lit with burning animal fat. Life could go on relatively normally, and may even improve as our environment gets cleaned up.

[tvashtarkatena]

but, but...everybody thought this was so righteous and cool...

 

"All we are saaayyy-ing, is give Three Mile Island a chance..."

 

"WPPSS there goes, a-nother pow-er plant..."

 

I seem to recall some pretty sound reasons to hault the sketchy US nuclear program at the time.

[RideT61]

Tvashtarhena, great info with respect to climate change. There is little doubt among the scientific community that global warming is occuring and that human activity has a mojor role in it.

As for nuclear power (or nucular if your last name is Bush) I disagree. While there are certainly drawbacks to nuclear power, I would argue that every form of power generation has a downside and that nuclear has the least impact. Speaking as an engineer, environmentalist, and former reactor operator (in the Navy) I believe a good energy policy would involve the following.

1 first and foremost - Conservation

2 localized use of wind and solar, i.e. solar panels and "windmills" on your house rather than large scales plants at remote locations.

3. Nuclear power supplying the remaining power needs- the newest pressurized water reacotor and very safe, clean and simple. If we standardized the designs (rather than having hudreds of diffent ones) it would make regulation much easier and safer.

Once again, I agree there are problems with nuclear power, but I believe that with the technologies currently available (and those on the horizon) nuclear power is the cleanest and safest. I doubt anyone believes me, but that is to be expected.

[tvashtarkatena]

As for nuclear power (or nucular if your last name is Bush) I disagree. While there are certainly drawbacks to nuclear power, I would argue that every form of power generation has a downside and that nuclear has the least impact.

 

Disagree with what? I never said I was against nuclear power. I just reminded certain folks that, at the time of the No Nukes campaigns, the American nuclear power program was riddled with safety, financial, and waste management problems. Just trying to prevent a little revisionist history, that's all.

 

The French nuclear program, with their smaller, less expensive, more standardized, and safer reactors, seems like more of a model to me. They still have the waste problem, however. I agree that that must be weighed against other environmental hazards, most particularly global warming. I'd rather see a radioactive salt mine than a dead planet, of course, but we should pursue conservation, wind, and other options with just as much vigor.

[RideT61]

Sorry Tvashtarkatena, I misread your intent. Clearly, conservation is the key. I will say that reguarding nuclear waste, reactors or becoming increasingly clean. It is still a problem, but less so, and much better than the alternatives IMHO.

[tvashtarkatena]

Conservation should always be step 1. We've just barely started.

[k.rose]

White Glacier about 1925,

maybe someone has a recent photo from same view point on Hoh trail to post up for comparision?

[Alpine_Tom]

Conservation should always be step 1. We've just barely started.

Anyone but Dick Cheney* ought to agree with that statement; I certainly do. One of the easiest ways to accomplish this is to drive a car that gets better mileage. So, where have the 40mpg cars gone?

I drive a '94 Ford Escort wagon that still gets about 40mph on the highway. It's getting old, though, and I've been looking to replace it. But its replacement from Ford, the Focus wagon, gets (they claim) 30mpg on the freeway. I've looked at the Honda Element, it's smaller but only gets 26mpg. The CRV is about the same, and the Forester...

Why the hell can't anyone make a car bigger than a roller skate that gets over 35mpg on the freeway?

 

 

* And no, I'm not slamming Cheney, I'm paraphrasing him. What he actually said was: "conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."

[RideT61]

What Cheney (and damn near every politician means) is that they don't want to encourage conservation because they are afraid to lose votes if the economy suffers (or because people just don't like being told what to do). Don't believe me, look at nearly every politician's website, no one will use the word conservation in reference to their energy policy. Apparently the only wat to energy independence involves either drilling in ANWAR (if you are a republican) or growing corn from coast to coast (if you are a Democrat). Call me crazy, but it seems unreasonable to think that either one of those methods would come even close to helping us achieve complete energy independence on thier own.

[tvashtarkatena]

AT, check out www.fueleconomy.com if you haven't already.

 

MPG has gone down. Lax inforcement of fleet mileage standards, non-inclusion of trucks/SUVs, and Cali backing off of its mandates are all factors during the Clinton/Bush admins. Import restrictions also played a role (bigger cars make more money).

 

Civics get mid to upper 30s, but that's about as good as you're going to get unless you get a hybrid. My friend's Prius gets 50, but it's $$$. Roomy, though. Nice car. Diesel VWs are also upper 40s, if you want to go that route.

[dylan_taylor]

ANWAR: a red herring that the republicans have sent evironmentalists on in order to distract them from pressuring their congressmen and representatives to vote on something that might actually matter, and might actually hurt Big Oil, like CAFE. The CAFE standards remain the same for the last 21 years.