PowerSwitch

Here's Rolling Stone's treatment of the melting Greenland ice sheet:
www.rollingstone.com/greenland-melting

Talk about thinking outside the Box!

Sigh. We're in trouble. It was predictable.

What's that phrase? "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging". How apt. Tell that to John, sorry, 'Lord' Browne, the twat.

The picture about 2/3rds through the report shows really dirty looking snow, which is not soot but the cryophile bacteria mentioned, known as cryoconites.

Each year their range advances up slope, (rather faster where there are most glaciologists working . . .) and they now occur well within the ring of mountains bedrock watershed of Greenland, and so contribute meltwater (via albedo loss) into the moulins that feed it down to an arterial meltwater system and water table under the ice cap.

If anyone can post the lovely poem about how "fleas have little flleas that bite 'em" I'd be grateful, as it apears to apply to feedbacks dirven by feedbacks driven by feedbacks, etc


Chris - An off topic issue that's been puzzling me for a while might be straightforward to you - so I'm hoping you can help.

It's about the role of biofuels and renewables in maintaining the affordability of their fossil equivalents. If biofuel liquids weren't available, what sort of saw-tooth price range would we now see on Brent & WTI ? And if Wind & Solar were switched off, what sort of percentage rise in traded coal and gas prices would occur ?

These questions arise from the recognition that the non-fossils are being heavily pushed globally, while nothing is done to halt the sale of any fossil fuels locally displaced. Their role, de facto at least, is simply to help meet energy demand, and without a treaty contracting all nations' CO2 output and so the sale of displaced fossil fuels, they have no relevance to the climate issue.

The core question is their effect on fossil market prices - are they actually working to keep a fossil-based economy afloat ?

Regards,

Lewis

Ooo, that's a tricky question.