erranta Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 "Apparently a massive ice_bridge connecting two Antartic island to the Wikins ice shelf has collapsed" Now we have had some fun with this thread and it's died out - just want to point out a few things that crossed my mind a while ago! What hides under bridges - esp in ice-bound Nordic countries? 6 metres is taking things too far-for me! the original post was on "9/11" when you add up the date! Innocent thread-starter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youthoftoday Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 "Apparently a massive ice_bridge connecting two Antartic island to the Wikins ice shelf has collapsed"Now we have had some fun with this thread and it's died out - just want to point out a few things that crossed my mind a while ago! What hides under bridges - esp in ice-bound Nordic countries? 6 metres is taking things too far-for me! the original post was on "9/11" when you add up the date! Innocent thread-starter? Now you've got me thinking. Who has bought a stake in Innocent? Coca Cola. This implicates Bush and his fellow drug barons. http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cf...1125&page=2 From Bush you can link to many more cover-ups and conspiracies. My God it's huge! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youthoftoday Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 "Apparently a massive ice_bridge connecting two Antartic island to the Wikins ice shelf has collapsed"Now we have had some fun with this thread and it's died out - just want to point out a few things that crossed my mind a while ago! What hides under bridges - esp in ice-bound Nordic countries? 6 metres is taking things too far-for me! the original post was on "9/11" when you add up the date! Innocent thread-starter? Now you've got me thinking. Who has bought a stake in Innocent? Coca Cola. This implicates Bush and his fellow drug barons. http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cf...1125&page=2 From Bush you can link to many more cover-ups and conspiracies. My God it's huge! PS. Flee at once, all is discovered! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest anorthosite Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Who needs melting ice to flood London when its sinking relative to sea level anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 (edited) Who needs melting ice to flood London when its sinking relative to sea level anyway? Can you imagine the inevitable event of all those Scottish and Northern English exiles scurrying back home? "Well look who's crawled back......." Edited April 8, 2009 by PopGun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest anorthosite Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Can you imagine the inevitable event of all those Scottish and Northern English exiles scurrying back home?"Well look who's crawled back......." That's ok, Scotland's rising relative to sea level. We have loads of raised beaches around our coast line that we call "golf courses" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deeplyblue Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 I am conversant with plate tectonics, but I am also aware that both the North and South poles have been ice free in the past and a haven for lush forrests millions of years ago. Yes, the area around the poles have been ice free in the distant past, but I think the "lush forests" which, millions of years later, gave us the oil reserves, came from periods when the land masses involved were much nearer the equator. I thought I'd posted this already, but the search engine is refusing to find it, so maybe I didn't. (Does anyone else have trouble with this forum's search engine? I can use other forums' engines just fine, but this one nearly always defeats me.) Anyone, sorry if this is a repeat: Plate tectonics determines the location of oil and gas reservoirs and is the best key we have to understanding why deserts and arctic areas seem to hold the largest hydrocarbon reserves on earth. But there are other important locations of large reserves: river deltas and continental margins offshore. Together, these four types of areas hold most of the oil and gas in the world today.Oil and gas result mostly from the rapid burial of dead microorganisms in environments where oxygen is so scarce that they do not decompose. This lack of oxygen enables them to maintain their hydrogen-carbon bonds, a necessary ingredient for the production of oil and gas. Newly developing ocean basins, formed by plate tectonics and continental rifting, provide just the right conditions for rapid burial in anoxic waters. Rivers rapidly fill these basins with sediments carrying abundant organic remains. Because the basins have constricted water circulation, they also have lower oxygen levels than the open ocean. For instance, the Gulf of California, an ocean basin in development, is making new oil and gas in real time today. The Gulf of Mexico is also a great example of new oil and gas formation in a restricted circulation environment. The same plate tectonics that provides the locations and conditions for anoxic burial is also responsible for the geologic paths that these sedimentary basins subsequently take. Continental drift, subduction and collision with other continents provide the movement from swamps, river deltas and mild climates--where most organics are deposited--to the poles and deserts, where they have ended up today by coincidence. In fact, the Libyan Sahara Desert contains unmistakable glacial scars and Antarctica has extensive coal deposits--and very likely abundant oil and gas--that establish that their plates were once at the other ends of the earth. Plate tectonics is also responsible for creating the "pressure cooker" that slowly matures the organics into oil and gas. This process usually takes millions of years, giving the oil and gas deposits plenty of time to migrate around the globe on the back of plate movements. Because these hydrocarbons are much more buoyant than water, they eventually force their way to the surface. Alternatively, rifting, collisions between land masses, and other tectonic forces can free the mature oil and gas from deep within sedimentary basins and then trap these organic fluids in reservoirs before they escape to the earth's surface. We know these reservoirs as oil and gas fields. Scientific American on why oil and gas are found in arctic and desert areas db Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deeplyblue Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Also and dont laugh...............why not fill volcanoes with concrete and stop them spouting millions of tonnes of Co2 into the atmosphere ? Maybe a bit sci fi but they are dirty when it comes to pollutants. Okay, so just to be nice to you - I'm not laughing. Have you seen the footage of Mt Helen's blowing? Some volcanoes (like Etna, I think) spew magma our of their tops, but Mt St Helens didn't work that way - the entire side of the mountain blew out sideways, and the quantity of ash was phenomenal. Lots of volcanoes work that way, and I think that if you managed to "cork" an Etna-like volcano, the result would probably be that the pressure would build up and and the whole thing would blow out sideways, producing an even more catastrophic result. db Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest anorthosite Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Okay, so just to be nice to you - I'm not laughing.Have you seen the footage of Mt Helen's blowing? Some volcanoes (like Etna, I think) spew magma our of their tops, but Mt St Helens didn't work that way - the entire side of the mountain blew out sideways, and the quantity of ash was phenomenal. Lots of volcanoes work that way, and I think that if you managed to "cork" an Etna-like volcano, the result would probably be that the pressure would build up and and the whole thing would blow out sideways, producing an even more catastrophic result. db Its all to do with the silica composition of the magma. Andesite, which is what mountains like Mt St Helens & most of the Andes are made of are formed from recycled continental crust and have quite a high silica content. As a result, the magma is very sticky and viscous, allowing volatiles to boil off catastrophically in these huge explosions we see in places such as Mt St Helens & Mt Pinatubo. Silica poor magma, is usually rich in elements such as iron & magnesium & comes from deep down in the crust and is often associated with "hot spot" eruptions, such as Hawaii or Iceland. It is much runnier than silica rich magma, and is probably what you think of when you think of lava. It produces a black rock called basalt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warwick-Watcher Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 What exactly is going to be done to stop this "certainty" from happening? If it is certain, and we're talking about billions of tonnes of ice then we're doomed and may as well party while we can (except of course my house is about 200m above current sea level and 70 miles from the coast). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest anorthosite Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 What exactly is going to be done to stop this "certainty" from happening? If it is certain, and we're talking about billions of tonnes of ice then we're doomed and may as well party while we can (except of course my house is about 200m above current sea level and 70 miles from the coast). Looks like you've already done what needs to be done! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Looks like you've already done what needs to be done! I am building an ark out of old pallets in my back garden - so there! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest anorthosite Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 I am building an ark out of old pallets in my back garden - so there! Try a house extension instead, especially if you're more than a few metres above sea level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blankster Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Actually an ice shelf breaking away and melting will have virtually no effect on sea levels at all, since it is sea ice - it's already in the sea, like an iceberg - most of it is underwater, already displacing seawater. What is more worrying is the melting of ice caps and glaciers over land - that could cause a serious rise in sea levels. But there ain't nothing we can do about it, it's part of the natural cycle - we are in an interglacial period at the moment. The last ice age ended about 20,000 years ago, since when sea level have risen dramatically and we probably haven't reached the interglacial peak of global temprratures yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest anorthosite Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 But there ain't nothing we can do about it, it's part of the natural cycle - we are in an interglacial period at the moment. The last ice age ended about 20,000 years ago, since when sea level have risen dramatically and we probably haven't reached the interglacial peak of global temprratures yet. It'd be a good idea not to go all out to speed up the process though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24gray24 Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 It's pointless arguing science with institutions who don't believe global warming exists, for the simple reason that their main motivation is nothing to do with science, they just want to avoid any increase in taxation. They're known as Tories. They have a similar modus operandi when discussing care for the elderly, the NHS or anything else: deny anything is a fact, deny anything is a problem, say it can't be afforded etc. It doesn't actually matter if the argument is nonsense or cruel, it's just a smokescreen. What was the true motivation of the chap who came on all knowing a few pages back, and then was humiliated when his facts were shown to be so ignorant? He must have known he was an ignoramus, so what was his real motive for pretending to know? There is an answer to this: his motivation is simply to avoid tax. Which brings me to the point: 1. half the time governments are controlled by such people. They won't take effective steps before it's too late. We live in an Easter Island world. 2. The science is constantly underestimating the problem and having to revise upwards. (No one has even mentioned the permafrost in this thread for example). We might be lucky and find some unknowns reduce global warming, but it's also possible the unknowns could increase it and shorten the time-frame dramatically. But since we do know corporations will pay politicians and governments money to deny the science and prevent any action being taken, we are doomed to get the full effect, whatever that is.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Cook Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 It's pointless arguing science with institutions who don't believe global warming exists, for the simple reason that their main motivation is nothing to do with science, they just want to avoid any increase in taxation. They're known as Tories.They have a similar modus operandi when discussing care for the elderly, the NHS or anything else: deny anything is a fact, deny anything is a problem, say it can't be afforded etc. It doesn't actually matter if the argument is nonsense or cruel, it's just a smokescreen. What was the true motivation of the chap who came on all knowing a few pages back, and then was humiliated when his facts were shown to be so ignorant? He must have known he was an ignoramus, so what was his real motive for pretending to know? There is an answer to this: his motivation is simply to avoid tax. Which brings me to the point: 1. half the time governments are controlled by such people. They won't take effective steps before it's too late. We live in an Easter Island world. 2. The science is constantly underestimating the problem and having to revise upwards. (No one has even mentioned the permafrost in this thread for example). We might be lucky and find some unknowns reduce global warming, but it's also possible the unknowns could increase it and shorten the time-frame dramatically. But since we do know corporations will pay politicians and governments money to deny the science and prevent any action being taken, we are doomed to get the full effect, whatever that is.. Sadly.......yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikhail Liebenstein Posted April 9, 2009 Author Share Posted April 9, 2009 It's pointless arguing science with institutions who don't believe global warming exists, for the simple reason that their main motivation is nothing to do with science, they just want to avoid any increase in taxation. They're known as Tories.They have a similar modus operandi when discussing care for the elderly, the NHS or anything else: deny anything is a fact, deny anything is a problem, say it can't be afforded etc. It doesn't actually matter if the argument is nonsense or cruel, it's just a smokescreen. What was the true motivation of the chap who came on all knowing a few pages back, and then was humiliated when his facts were shown to be so ignorant? He must have known he was an ignoramus, so what was his real motive for pretending to know? There is an answer to this: his motivation is simply to avoid tax. Which brings me to the point: 1. half the time governments are controlled by such people. They won't take effective steps before it's too late. We live in an Easter Island world. 2. The science is constantly underestimating the problem and having to revise upwards. (No one has even mentioned the permafrost in this thread for example). We might be lucky and find some unknowns reduce global warming, but it's also possible the unknowns could increase it and shorten the time-frame dramatically. But since we do know corporations will pay politicians and governments money to deny the science and prevent any action being taken, we are doomed to get the full effect, whatever that is.. That's my outlook. Rather than bailout banks and dole claimants, spend £100bn on developing nuclear fusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bardon Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 It's pointless arguing science with institutions who don't believe global warming exists, Especially when we are in global cooling phase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1929crash Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 They won't take effective steps before it's too late. We live in an Easter Island world. Nicely put. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.