Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Exxon Free Environmental Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: T L Comiskey who wrote (7016)	1/14/2011 10:17:32 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 49091

Global Warming Sunrise in Greenland Two Days Early January 14, 2011 08:30 PM EST 2 people recommend this \| comments: 10 After six weeks of darkness unbroken by so much as a single ray of golden sunlight, global warming threw a monkey into the wrench of tradition in Ilulissat, Greenland. Beginning December 22 (the day after the date of winter solstice) Greenlanders look forward with steadily building anticipation to January 13 when the first rays of sunshine have historically come to spend a few minutes in their company. Imagine their astonishment this year when, at approximately noon January 11, a full two days early, a few feeble photons illuminated the unsuspecting denizens of daytime darkness. Never mind that celebrations of the return of the big guy in the golden chariot were now going to be two days late… ignore the humiliation of politicians welcoming the first light two days after it arrived… forget that building excitement short-circuited is the let-down of the ages… the true issue is: how did this happen? Has axial precession taken a sudden lurch eastward? Was the Earth’s crust swollen by the heat of global warming, raising the Greenlanders above the horizon? Did the earth’s magnetic field wander afield and move the planet’s axis center-ward? Did the peripatetic wanderings of the Earth’s continents reach a tipping point, and suddenly leave too much mass on one side of the planet, causing irregularity in its rotation? No, none of those things happened. However, in a different way global warming does appear to be the culprit (but it didn’t expand the Earth’s crust; it’s the oceans that expand in the presence of heat, not the crust). What it did do was to raise Greenland’s mean temperature by three degrees centigrade (aka Celsius). The upshot has been a melting of its glaciers severe enough that sunlight generally blocked from the western half of Greenland until January 13 can now reach those previously darkened climes two days earlier. A useful graphic can be found in the linked Gizmodo article. news.gather.com

To: T L Comiskey who wrote (7016)	1/14/2011 10:23:06 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 49091

"BP has signed a joint" I like autographed joints. Auctioned off for charity? == CO2 May Actually Have Twice the Effect on Temperature Climate Models Predict! (NOT GOOD) No comments January 14, 2011 in Global Warming, Science Paleoclimate data suggests CO2 “may have at least twice the effect on global temperatures than currently projected by computer models” That’s the subheading of a piece over on Climate Progress covering a new review and analysis of CO2 and temperature data from our Earth’s history. The results are astounding because they show the possibility of much greater warming than climate computer models show due to positive feedback cycles (nothing climate scientists aren’t aware of, to be honest, since they know they do not include these tremendous feedbacks in their models, but something most lay readers are likely not aware of and something of tremendous importance). Here’s a full re-post of Dr Joe Romm’s piece, Science stunner: On our current emissions path, CO2 levels in 2100 will hit levels last seen when the Earth was 29°F (16°C) hotter, since it’s such an important one: The disinformers claim that projections of dangerous future warming from greenhouse gas emissions are based on computer models. In fact, ClimateProgress readers know that the paleoclimate data is considerably more worrisome than the models (see Hansen: ‘Long-term’ climate sensitivity of 6°C for doubled CO2). That’s mainly because the vast majority of the models largely ignore key amplifying carbon-cycle feedbacks, such as the methane emissions from melting tundra (see Are Scientists Underestimating Climate Change)... planetsave.com