Irony?
According to a Weekend Worldwatch documentary on Sunday morning, states bordering the arctic sea are racing to lay claim to large tracts of the sea. (I can’t find a = link to the Worldwatch doco, but here’s a similar story )
The reason being that global warming is melting ice in the area and thus making it much easier to explore. And what they want to go exploring for is more oil and gas. Wait, let me check I heard that right. Global warming, caused in large part by burning oil and coal, is creating the opportunity for energy companies and Arctic rim countries to potentially discover and burn more oil and gas. With NCEA English exams coming up this week, secondary students may want to note this down as an apposite example of irony.
Bookmark to:
November 22nd, 2006 at 5:11 pm
But wait, there’s more! We NZers can criticise all this, but in the meantime the NZ govt is also rushing to get people to develop more NZ gas and oil fields. A second layer of irony, methinks?
November 22nd, 2006 at 6:47 pm
It’s a pity I read this just AFTER my NCEA Level 2 English exam.
November 22nd, 2006 at 7:50 pm
irony..?
irony is an anti-smacking bill that still enables smacking..
now that’s irony..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 23rd, 2006 at 11:06 am
It is hard to know whether I should laugh or cry! And yes Phil, you are totally right - but Sue Bradford has come out of this, in my opinion, much more respected by the general Kiwi and by her parliamentary colleagues. When the Greens negotiate an actual deal that has meaning with Labour - ie real positions of influence for Green MPs in cabinet - Sue should be a strong candidate.
November 23rd, 2006 at 11:20 am
As somebody who intensely dislikes this Labour Government I fully support any move to introduce Sue Bradford to the cabinet.
November 23rd, 2006 at 5:03 pm
Thankfully recent evidence suggests that the Greenland Ice Sheet is growing, and the East Antarctic Ice Sheet is also growing.
Yeah, you can claim this is an expected consequence of increased precipication as IPCC model states. But they do state that this effect is thought to be slowing sea level rise to the order of 0.12mm/annum. See also the map of ice change in a Nature Article - some parts are gaining mass, some losing it.
November 23rd, 2006 at 7:24 pm
mug: You really should stop cherry-picking the papers you like, while ignoring the ones you don’t. The most recent data (here: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/greenland_slide.html) suggests that while the interior of Greenland is thickening, ice loss from the edges is significantly greater - giving an overall loss of ice of 100Gt per annum over recent years.
The picture in the Antarctic is also not as clear as those well-known cherry-pickers at CO2 “Science” might like. The same satellites that produced the Greenland data suggest that net mass loss is 152+/-80km^3 per annum (here: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/antarctica-20060302.ht ml).
If you want to blind people with science, make sure your science comes from real scientists.
November 23rd, 2006 at 7:36 pm
Oh, and as Russell’s talking about sea ice, not ice sheets, you might want to read this NASA report: http://nasadaacs.eos.nasa.gov/articles/2006/2006_seaice.html
which eloquently shows how the amount of Arctic sea ice is in steep decline in both summer and winter.
November 23rd, 2006 at 8:11 pm
Somehow, a post addressing mugwump’s assertions about Greenland and Antarctic ice mass balances got lost deep inside Frog… the mind boggles…
Anyway, mug, you’re not up-to-date. Latest figures (Greenland here: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/greenland_slide.html - Antarctic here: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/antarctica-20060302.ht ml) from analyses of NASA’s GRACE satellites show Greenland losing around 100Gt per annum over recent years, and the Antarctic 152+/-80km^3 pa.
There is also a suggestion that the rate of loss is accelerating, but we don’t have enough data to be sure about that.
In other words, mug, if you’re going to try to blind people with “science”, be careful where you find that science…
November 23rd, 2006 at 9:06 pm
mugwump -
on the off chance you are interested in understanding this here is a great article that explains that there are two important things happening in Greenland, both of which support the observations and models of Global Warming.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=267
The first is the increased snow fall which is expected (so what is your point?) and the second is the increased acceleration of the slide of the ice into the sea. The problem is (according to the _Climate Scientist_ who wrote this summary of the recent science) that the balance of probabilities is that the overall mass of ice is reducing because of the increased rate of speed at which the ice is sliding into the sea is outstripping the increase in snow fall.
I suspect you know this but choose to mislead those who would just glance at this blog and think everything is ok (no need to worry, keep on burning).
Oh - and co2mag is funded in part by ExxonMobil who have invested a lot in their campaign to create the illusion of uncertainty:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=24
not that I am trying to suggest in anyway that the quality of such “skeptic” sites are in any way suspect. LoL.
November 24th, 2006 at 10:38 am
and irony is that V8’s are being seen as the great economic hope for certain nz cities - and irony is that this weekend thousands will drive to ruapuna - often in gas guzzling cars to watch other gas guzzling cars drive around in circles ( y-a-w-n) for hours on end - and irony is that this govt just gave $2m to a Taupo motor racetrack to hold more races for gas guzzling cars .. ah did i mention that these gas guzzling cars usually use high octane leaded fuel ?
November 24th, 2006 at 11:02 am
haz
Come on, it is evident that you do not like motor sport (and nor do i really) but lets be honest here, a few days of motor sport will hardly melt the ice cap, it also brings in bucket loads of money into the local economy.
November 24th, 2006 at 11:35 am
I’m glad that the tone and content of the rebuttals to the points I raise is getting more civilised and fact-centred. Of course there are studies showing both net losses and net gains. You could call this situation a lack of consensus. Nasa’s are by no means more final than anyone else’s; calling them “THE latest figures” is misleading. Though of course they should be respected greatly and not discarded.
co2mag might be exxon-funded, but they are largely linking to peer reviewed articles (from “real scientists”) in respected journals, so I hardly see why that matters.
My key worry is that the environmentalist movement will suffer if a key issue like CO2 climate forcing is shown to be a minor influence in global warming. Will that be detrimental to the movement as a whole? I think there are other much more real angles to attack gas guzzlers on, such as dirty exhaust fumes or the non-renewable nature of oil.
November 24th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
i didn’t suggest motor racing was causing melting ice caps - i DO think its ironic - you’re right i’m not one of those salivating at hamilton’s V8 ‘coup’ - i think motor racing is nothing more than a bloody good advertising effort by oil and car companies - hell - people even PAY to walk around wearing clothes advertising Holdens
this guy says some interesting stuff about motor racing - and other sports http://observer.guardian.co.uk/osm/story/0,,1931004,00.html
Govt should be encouraging Green Motor Racing though - stuff like this - now this IS exciting because its all new - not the same old same old that racing is at present : http://www.fuelcellmarkets.com/article_default_view.fcm?articleid=9656 &subsite=388
November 24th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
haz
as one who does like motorsport, (to the extent of being involved personally)
i have to agree that this is a ‘bit’ of an issue .. here is the start of a solution..
the race series that i am involved in http://alfa-racing.blip.tv/ is through the the viewing of its video, and future possibilities is sponsoring the ecological restoration project that i have being doing for three years now
http://ecologicalnz.wordpress.com .. there is no way a balance has been anywhere near reached yet , but probably shows some potential direction that most, sports , wasteful personal activities, etc will have to take .
the links to green motor racing are great, thanks , but me thinks the actual fuel used by the racing cars on the day is a but a tiny fraction of the energy consumed it create the spectacle ……. like most activities
November 24th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
Thanks Haz for the link to the Monbiot article; it was interesting reading.
In these days when climate change is discussed everywhere, I think that we are surrounded by irony. The media continue to glamourise all sorts of fossil fuel burning activities - international travel, large cars, …. it has to end!
I have been around for some decades now and it continues to strike me how little our basic lifestyles have changed in the last 20 years - other than everyone working more hours to make this juggernaut run ever faster. I shudder to think of the next 20 years continuing in the same way. Even as this past year has gone by, I have seen little change out there. People are still driving their cars, noone is walking much anywhere I look, the shops are still selling the same stuff, etc etc. One more year of inertia; one more year of nothing done, while the planet slides closer to the poo.
November 24th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
ah yes… but i suspect it has another advantage and that’s that it’s quieter …. but would people go along to watch cars racing if the cars whooshed by - the only noise being the sounds of tyres on the track ?
I read a good article in the SS Times a year or so ago about motor racing of the future being drivers sitting at consoles - simulators - usng the same skills that they use now - spectators join in virtually - .. no oil .. no noise..no pollution - and why not ?
i’ve been to two motor racing events - and i wouldn’t bother again - watching a seemingly endless stream of loud cars going around in circles just about had me in tears - of boredom … i left thinking that oil companies and car manufacturers were pretty bloody clever really - they’ve built another few levels of business on top of their basic stuff …and as i said before, people even PAY to advertise THIER products - pssst wanna buy an AMP Insurance jacket ? clever stuff.
November 24th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
Haz
“and as i said before, people even PAY to advertise THIER products - pssst wanna buy an AMP Insurance jacket ? clever stuff”
So you have never owned a pair of Levi jeans or any piece of clothing with a label?
November 24th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
i do actually try hard NOT to wear “labels” : ) never in danger of being mistaken for a fashion plate thats for sure and having a relative in the rag trade - who taught me at an early age that non label and label clothes are often sewn up in the same factory using very similar patterns and fabrics - helped i have to say - but i’d never pay to walk around emblazoned with the name of a car company or oil company all over me .. but whatevers spins ya wheels i guess - if I could get the punters paying to advertise MY business i’d be stoopid not to !
November 26th, 2006 at 6:29 pm
just one example for you haz..
go and buy..say..a long-sleeved t’shirt from one of the low-end chains..(hallensteins/farmers etc..)
six washes later it’s a shapeless mess…
go and buy a ‘high quality’ long-sleeved t….and it will hold its shape etc..’till it rots off your back..
2day i’m wearing a ‘quicksilver’ that is so old it has a grey beard..
and it’s still like a second skin..
whereas in my washouse is a pile of long-sleeved (shapeless) t’s..(hallensteins..bought last year)..that i am sending to the op-shop…
false economy..eh..?
‘tho for things like canvas chuck taylors..(the shoe of choice for non-wearers of the animal skins) the generics at $19.95 from the shoe warehouse do the job..eh..?
(ahem..!..i recommend high-end grunds..too..cotton preferably..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 26th, 2006 at 6:44 pm
..and in my wardrobe i have a teeshirt with a logo printed on with a date - 1997 - its a Chinese Teeshirt -cost under $10.00 - i know because a team i belong to had them printed up .
Its in pretty good nick too - considering its been through hundreds of washes
The trick is to get a fairly heavy weight shirt - anything under 170 gsm ( grams per sq metre) is a waste of time - best weight is 190 - 230 gsm - altho often you can’t see it on a label anywhere - they FEEL heavier too.
I’d rather be buying Made in NZ tees - but they’ve all gone to China I think .
November 26th, 2006 at 6:52 pm
not so with the weight..
the hallensteins ones i bought were heavy-duty winter ones…
they just use cheap cr*p material…
which piles/matts..and the waist on them turns into a hoop skirt..
you could catch a good following wind wearing one of them..
phil(whoar.co.nz)