Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Icelandic gletsjer declared dead.

  1. #1
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,313
    Points
    44,767
    Level
    65
    Points: 44,767, Level: 65
    Level completed: 40%, Points required for next Level: 783
    Overall activity: 46.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.

    Icelandic gletsjer declared dead.



    the Okjokull gletsjer existed for 700 years
    now it is declared dead

    that means the Okjokull gletsjer grew after the medieval climate optimum, which lasted from ca 800 AD till 1450 AD
    it means we are returning to temperatures before 1450 AD

    the death declaration is presented in the media as if we are reaching temeratures never registerd before

    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...climate-crisis
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ok_(volcano)


    I agree that climate change is a problem that has to be adressed
    but as long as this kind of desinformation is spread, and things are not put into perspective,
    a rational discussion and rational measures are made impossible

  2. #2
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,178
    Points
    269,815
    Level
    100
    Points: 269,815, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 out of 3 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    the Okjokull gletsjer existed for 700 years
    now it is declared dead

    that means the Okjokull gletsjer grew after the medieval climate optimum, which lasted from ca 800 AD till 1450 AD
    it means we are returning to temperatures before 1450 AD

    the death declaration is presented in the media as if we are reaching temeratures never registerd before

    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...climate-crisis
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ok_(volcano)


    I agree that climate change is a problem that has to be adressed
    but as long as this kind of desinformation is spread, and things are not put into perspective,
    a rational discussion and rational measures are made impossible
    Things have drastically changed because of politics. Once it was only the extreme right which denied science. Now, the left has embraced selective science denial in this and in other areas like genetics, and universities, once the bastions of free thought, are now the west's version of Mao's re-education camps.

    It's even worse in Europe than it is in the U.S. I have no idea how this will end. I'm beginning to fear for the future of western civilization. The barbarians are not only outside the gates; they're inside them.


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  3. #3
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,313
    Points
    44,767
    Level
    65
    Points: 44,767, Level: 65
    Level completed: 40%, Points required for next Level: 783
    Overall activity: 46.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Things have drastically changed because of politics. Once it was only the extreme right which denied science. Now, the left has embraced selective science denial in this and in other areas like genetics, and universities, once the bastions of free thought, are now the west's version of Mao's re-education camps.

    It's even worse in Europe than it is in the U.S. I have no idea how this will end. I'm beginning to fear for the future of western civilization. The barbarians are not only outside the gates; they're inside them.
    I wouldn't be that pessimistic.
    People are not stupid.
    But most of them chose their own biass, consciously or unconsciously.
    That is why we have Trump in America, and both the extreme left and extreme right coming up in Europe.
    Traditional politics is loosing because people are fed up with the propaganda they put up for decades and nobody believes any more.
    Rationality has never been, only façade.
    So today, it's not better, but also no worse than before.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    18-03-17
    Posts
    262
    Points
    1,797
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,797, Level: 11
    Level completed: 83%, Points required for next Level: 53
    Overall activity: 7.0%


    Ethnic group
    swiss,italian
    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    the Okjokull gletsjer existed for 700 years
    now it is declared dead

    that means the Okjokull gletsjer grew after the medieval climate optimum, which lasted from ca 800 AD till 1450 AD
    it means we are returning to temperatures before 1450 AD



    is it possible to make this conclusion? shouldn't we look when the glacier reached its maximum size and then we can see how long it took to build up and how fast it melted. before the glacier formed the temperatures in iceland may have been higher than when the glacier formed but maybe today it is way higher than before. of course this doesn't mean that the glacier would not have melted without the human made temperature increase. maybe a smaller natural increase, like an increase to temperatures comparable to those during the warm period, would have melted it too just way slower.
    if the temperatures are higher than a certain threshold the ice melts. thats all we can say right? just because it melts we don't know the temperatures we need to know things like the speed of the melting process to know more.

    in your wiki link about the medieval warm period we see that the temperature increased suddenly very fast in the last few decades.

  5. #5
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,313
    Points
    44,767
    Level
    65
    Points: 44,767, Level: 65
    Level completed: 40%, Points required for next Level: 783
    Overall activity: 46.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Ailchu View Post
    is it possible to make this conclusion? shouldn't we look when the glacier reached its maximum size and then we can see how long it took to build up and how fast it melted. before the glacier formed the temperatures in iceland may have been higher than when the glacier formed but maybe today it is way higher than before. of course this doesn't mean that the glacier would not have melted without the human made temperature increase. maybe a smaller natural increase, like an increase to temperatures comparable to those during the warm period, would have melted it too just way slower.
    if the temperatures are higher than a certain threshold the ice melts. thats all we can say right? just because it melts we don't know the temperatures we need to know things like the speed of the melting process to know more.

    in your wiki link about the medieval warm period we see that the temperature increased suddenly very fast in the last few decades.
    I don't know whether this gletsjer was still there during the medieval climate optimum.
    But it is quite possible it wasn't.
    My point is the fuzz the officials and the media are making without providing proper background data.

    Look at this graph.



    It doesn't look it is warmer today than during the medieval climate optimum.
    And 8 ka temperatures were even higher.

    As for rising sea-levels, the Eemian was the latest period which was comparable to the present holcoene, some 126-116 ka.
    It is estimated that sea-levels were 6-9 meters higher then than today.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#Sea_level

    And here, it is the graph you've seen.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2...Comparison.png

    In the text underneath they explain how the graph was reconstructed till 2004, but not till 2016.

    I acknowledge there is a man-made climate problem which has to be adressed, but let's try to see things in perspective instead of creating panick.
    We have to find long-term solutions, instead of coming up with a different emergency plan every 5 years.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-06-18
    Posts
    344
    Points
    5,193
    Level
    21
    Points: 5,193, Level: 21
    Level completed: 29%, Points required for next Level: 357
    Overall activity: 27.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-M269 (LDNA)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5a1b

    Ethnic group
    Thracian
    Country: Greece



    Just remember that without human interference, climate was measured in geological time. Changes were very gradual. We have managed to accelerate those changes to decades.

  7. #7
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,313
    Points
    44,767
    Level
    65
    Points: 44,767, Level: 65
    Level completed: 40%, Points required for next Level: 783
    Overall activity: 46.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by bigsnake49 View Post
    Just remember that without human interference, climate was measured in geological time. Changes were very gradual. We have managed to accelerate those changes to decades.
    I think the onset of the youngest dryas or the 8.2 ka climate event happened much faster than climate change we experience today.
    If we were to evolve into a new ice age again, I don't think 1 billion out of the 7.5 today could survive.
    We are 7.5 billion today because we have had a very favourable climate the last 10.000 years.
    And I don't mean the climate did cool down the last 10.000 years, it is because it was a warm period.
    Cold climate poses a much bigger chalenge than a warming climate.

    We have a little time to find solutions, we shouldn't waist it.
    But we must be sure the solutions are efficient and durable.
    Producing more batteries to store more electricity is not such a solution.
    Hydrogen might be, as well as hybrid solutions.
    Maybe we should go for nuclear.
    Look for alternatives and pick the best combination.
    But don't rush and waist your resources in technology that hasn't proven itself yet.
    That is what politicians and organisations do who want to profile themselves as green.
    Biogass power plants and emission right trading. What a nonsense. What a waist.
    I fear the same for the electric car.

  8. #8
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,178
    Points
    269,815
    Level
    100
    Points: 269,815, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    I think the onset of the youngest dryas or the 8.2 ka climate event happened much faster than climate change we experience today.
    If we were to evolve into a new ice age again, I don't think 1 billion out of the 7.5 today could survive.
    We are 7.5 billion today because we have had a very favourable climate the last 10.000 years.
    And I don't mean the climate did cool down the last 10.000 years, it is because it was a warm period.
    Cold climate poses a much bigger chalenge than a warming climate.

    We have a little time to find solutions, we shouldn't waist it.
    But we must be sure the solutions are efficient and durable.
    Producing more batteries to store more electricity is not such a solution.
    Hydrogen might be, as well as hybrid solutions.
    Maybe we should go for nuclear.
    Look for alternatives and pick the best combination.
    But don't rush and waist your resources in technology that hasn't proven itself yet.
    That is what politicians and organisations do who want to profile themselves as green.
    Biogass power plants and emission right trading. What a nonsense. What a waist.
    I fear the same for the electric car.
    I completely agree. The changes in the past were indeed fast. That's part of the reason why there was such a human cost. People didn't have the opportunity to adjust their survival strategies.

    I also think there's so much just plain illogical thinking. Who ever thought that electric cars were either better for the environment or practical??? Or what about ethanol? Totally wrongheaded.

    I do think nuclear should be included. Look at France. Unfortunately, Italy, with how prone it is to volcanic activity and earthquakes, is not a good candidate.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-06-18
    Posts
    344
    Points
    5,193
    Level
    21
    Points: 5,193, Level: 21
    Level completed: 29%, Points required for next Level: 357
    Overall activity: 27.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-M269 (LDNA)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5a1b

    Ethnic group
    Thracian
    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    I think the onset of the youngest dryas or the 8.2 ka climate event happened much faster than climate change we experience today.
    If we were to evolve into a new ice age again, I don't think 1 billion out of the 7.5 today could survive.
    We are 7.5 billion today because we have had a very favourable climate the last 10.000 years.
    And I don't mean the climate did cool down the last 10.000 years, it is because it was a warm period.
    Cold climate poses a much bigger chalenge than a warming climate.

    We have a little time to find solutions, we shouldn't waist it.
    But we must be sure the solutions are efficient and durable.
    Producing more batteries to store more electricity is not such a solution.
    Hydrogen might be, as well as hybrid solutions.
    Maybe we should go for nuclear.
    Look for alternatives and pick the best combination.
    But don't rush and waist your resources in technology that hasn't proven itself yet.
    That is what politicians and organisations do who want to profile themselves as green.
    Biogass power plants and emission right trading. What a nonsense. What a waist.
    I fear the same for the electric car.
    While the onset of the Younger Dryas was relatively rapid, the deglaciation preceding it took pace over thousands of years. Too much fresh water from glacier meltdown disrupted the North Atlantic Conveyor. There is also the hypothesis that the eruption of Laacher See volcano might have accelerated the onset.

    How much do you know about electricity production and transmission? It's my profession. Right now the average MWh from wind is very competitive with natural gas. Solar power is also getting very competitive. Storage is very helpful in smoothing out the peaks and valleys of electricity demand. We do want cleaner air don't we? The electrify sector has undergone a terrific transformation. Of course more can be done but we need to focus on the transportation sector next. Electric cars help cleanup our air on top of reducing our carbon footprint. Trucks are next. The long distance trucks are a bit tougher but the local delivery trucks are low hanging fruit because they all go to the depot at night. For the long distance trucks all that space under the trailer can be used for battery storage and also cut down on the drag. The operating cost of an electric truck is three times cheaper than a diesel. If they can bring the initial cost down and bring the range up then long haul trucks will also be replaced by electric ones.Again the side benefit of having electric vehicles is that they help cleanup our air and reduce noise pollution. Now if they can do something about those infernal motorcycles in Rome or Athens at 3:00 AM!

  10. #10
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,313
    Points
    44,767
    Level
    65
    Points: 44,767, Level: 65
    Level completed: 40%, Points required for next Level: 783
    Overall activity: 46.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by bigsnake49 View Post
    While the onset of the Younger Dryas was relatively rapid, the deglaciation preceding it took pace over thousands of years. Too much fresh water from glacier meltdown disrupted the North Atlantic Conveyor. There is also the hypothesis that the eruption of Laacher See volcano might have accelerated the onset.

    How much do you know about electricity production and transmission? It's my profession. Right now the average MWh from wind is very competitive with natural gas. Solar power is also getting very competitive. Storage is very helpful in smoothing out the peaks and valleys of electricity demand. We do want cleaner air don't we? The electrify sector has undergone a terrific transformation. Of course more can be done but we need to focus on the transportation sector next. Electric cars help cleanup our air on top of reducing our carbon footprint. Trucks are next. The long distance trucks are a bit tougher but the local delivery trucks are low hanging fruit because they all go to the depot at night. For the long distance trucks all that space under the trailer can be used for battery storage and also cut down on the drag. The operating cost of an electric truck is three times cheaper than a diesel. If they can bring the initial cost down and bring the range up then long haul trucks will also be replaced by electric ones.Again the side benefit of having electric vehicles is that they help cleanup our air and reduce noise pollution. Now if they can do something about those infernal motorcycles in Rome or Athens at 3:00 AM!
    Batteries might help store some energy, but don't expect it to solve the entire gap between production and demand in electricity.
    And to use heavy batteries for mobile solutions seems even more illogic to me.

    What I know about electricity production?
    I know some hydraulic power plants exist that use excessive electrict power to pump water back up when demand is low, to reuse the hydraulic energy when demand is higher.
    If batteries were so efficient, there would be no need to do this.

    The main disadvantage of solar and wind energy is that production and demand are not in phase. Now they want to build flexible gas power plants to close the gap.
    Only gas power plants produce more CO2/Mwh than classic power plants.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    18-03-17
    Posts
    262
    Points
    1,797
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,797, Level: 11
    Level completed: 83%, Points required for next Level: 53
    Overall activity: 7.0%


    Ethnic group
    swiss,italian
    Country: Germany



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Things have drastically changed because of politics. Once it was only the extreme right which denied science. Now, the left has embraced selective science denial in this and in other areas like genetics, and universities, once the bastions of free thought, are now the west's version of Mao's re-education camps.

    It's even worse in Europe than it is in the U.S. I have no idea how this will end. I'm beginning to fear for the future of western civilization. The barbarians are not only outside the gates; they're inside them.
    i can't see this denial at all among the left in europe. maybe the extreme left but not the left. but of course people on the right now think they know it better than the left leaning universities, those leftists who actually try to find solutions.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    14-05-17
    Posts
    347
    Points
    2,478
    Level
    14
    Points: 2,478, Level: 14
    Level completed: 10%, Points required for next Level: 272
    Overall activity: 3.0%


    Country: Lithuania



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Things have drastically changed because of politics. Once it was only the extreme right which denied science. Now, the left has embraced selective science denial in this and in other areas like genetics, and universities, once the bastions of free thought, are now the west's version of Mao's re-education camps.

    It's even worse in Europe than it is in the U.S. I have no idea how this will end. I'm beginning to fear for the future of western civilization. The barbarians are not only outside the gates; they're inside them.
    Left is for lies

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •