Click images for more details
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
"GS; There was an interesting post a week or so back about the impact of methane releases,"Apr 17, 2014 at 5:55 PM | mikeh
Oh how interesting. Was it actually published in a genuine peer reviewed journal? Of course not, it was posted on a rubbish blog by some bloke who takes funding from the Heartland Institute.
You deniers are so tragically desperate. You'll seize on any blog nonsense and claim 'it's true, it's true', despite its complete failure to withstand academic scrutiny.
This proves doh!!
Good news, ancient tundra found under 2 miles of Greenland ice. This proofs that the Greenland ice has survived many periods of global warming in the last 2,7 million years, periods warmer than this interglacial. Also if we reverse Climate Change 2,7 million years there'll be tundra on Greenland again. The tundra was there for between 200K and 1M years so it was quite a lengthy warm period.
Woodland Trust say 200 early sightings of bluebell flowers are result of global warming.
Cherry trees in Washington DC blooming later -for some other reason presumably.
It's due to eating meatballs apparently
Macrame makes a change from knitting yoghurt.
Apart from creating a couple of minutes' work for the Bish in deleting your posts each morning, what are you hoping to achieve?
Macrame is an option worth considering.
Thanks, will have a read.
"if we encounter a polar bear"
and possibly another local inhabitant :-
" Feeding Habits — Fish constitute the largest portion of the Greenland shark's diet. They may also consume large sea mammals, such as seals. If something looks like food, however, this shark will gobble it down. Some Greenland shark stomachs have contained pieces of horses and polar bears. One shark even consumed an entire reindeer, antlers and all. "
GS; There was an interesting post a week or so back about the impact of methane releases, I think it was on WUWT.Unfortunately I did not bookmark it so I will see if I can find it after posting this - someone else may have seen it?The author pointed out that the absorption spectrum of methane overlaps heavily with that of water vapour. Thus massive increases in methane levels would have little warming impact because most of the energy which the methane could absorb would have already been picked up by the overwhelming mass of water vapour. Hence the releases from thawing permafrost and/or hydrates are a non-issue.It made sense to me but I am no expert in such areas.Update: here's the post: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/11/methane-the-irrelevant-greenhouse-gas/#more-107326
I credit a polar bear with a lot more speed and endurance than a water scooter. Anyone who is counting on such a thing to avoid the attention of such a well-adapted predator may be in for terminal disappointment.
Batteries don't work well in the cold, either. Remember the Catlin crew!
With Caroline Lucas being cleared of all charges in relation the (non) fracking protest at Balcombe I was taken by a statement she made afterwards: "I am pleased that the right to protest has not been undermined". Who said the woman does not have a sense of humour? (She has no other sense though).
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.