The only thing going green is the Arctic.

[shortlived]

The Americans certainly did not invent 'global warming', but will seek to leverage advantages while mitigating disadvantages. The "changing Arctic" presents a mix of opportunities and challenges.

ok maybe created global warming was more appropriate than invented, sorry I should remember to give credit where it is due, the skill to which you have mastered so greatly.

Edited March 12, 2013 by shortlived

[bush_cheney2004]

ok maybe created global warming was more appropriate than invented, sorry I should remember to give credit where it is due, the skill to which you have mastered so greatly.

Thank you....and it is with such mutual respect and understanding that we can go forward in a warmer, wealthier world. I want to take this moment to proudly admit that I have not needed or desired to start my dirty, emissions belching two-stroke snow blower for the past eight years, so great has been the gift of so called 'global warming'.

[waldo]

Permafrost - the 'Tipping Time Bomb'

if you've chosen to view this video posted earlier, its emphasis is more on tundra permafrost melting impacts in terms of the release of CO2 and methane... also of a significant concern is the methane (methane clathrate and as a gas) associated with underwater permafrost covering seabeds, most notably the accumulations of the East Siberian continental shelf, with amounts quantified to be not less than 1700 gigatonnes. Recent studies have shown that, given the shallow depth of water covering the continental shelf, direct methane venting to the atmosphere is occurring in response to seabed permafrost degradation... to the more potent methane directly, without time to oxidize to the far less potent CO2.

for perspective, in regards to this estimated 1700 gigatonnes amount of seabed permafrost trapped methane, to-date, the total industrialized greenhouse gas emissions contribution by humans (since 1750) has been 350 gigatonnes

[bush_cheney2004]

The permafrost carbon feedback loop will flip to a net carbon source from the sink it is today by the mid 2020's. This change cannot be stopped, so steps to adapt and exploit should be undertaken now.

[roy baty]

I know my 2 cents will ruffle the environmentalist flag bearers in here but this I believe this so-called "Global Warming" theory will someday go down as one of the biggest scientific scams in history. Believers can post charts of CO2 emmissions per country, scientific studies and Al Gore documentaries as they'd like but until they can undenyably DISPROVE what many other studies now claim are natural cycles in global temperature and weather anomolies associated with it, it's still just a form of environmental theology.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/3824/a-really-inconvenient-truth-global-warming-is-not-real

In the past 10 years, the left has embraced this global warming phenomenon as the trendiest thing to talk about at a liberal dinner party since the acid rain and the ozone layer panic of the 80's.

http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/14489/truth-about-acid-rain-msm-wants-bury-climaquiddick/henry-payne oh and

http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2007/09/ozone-the-hole-truth

See, I can post some opposing "denier" propaganda instead just as easily that many consider just as valid.. It's what you choose to believe in personally that matters and that we in the very least respect each side's opposing views. Then again, if the environmentalists that seem prodominent in big government these days decide to wreck the economy based on theology, I guess it will matter for all of us.

Humm... I wonder who is right and who is wrong? It is certainly possible a global warming denier like me could be wrong about it all, then again so could the global warming believers. I believe we'll all find out soon enough..

One final thing. Why is it that so many on the left will believe any theory science throws @ them as the undenyable truth even to the point of being wildly zealous about it, yet scoff at a mere whisper of the slightest possibility of a divine creator who may be responsible for the weather patterns and the earth's behaviour as we appoach the end times in biblical prophecy?

Edited March 13, 2013 by roy baty

[kairos]

You completely contradicted yourself Roy. You denied global warming and then said there was global warming, but that it was a natural cycle.

At least try to be consistent next time.

[eyeball]

I know my 2 cents will ruffle the environmentalist flag bearers in here but this I believe this so-called "Global Warming" theory will someday go down as one of the biggest scientific scams in history.

One final thing. Why is it that so many on the left will believe any theory science throws @ them as the undenyable truth even to the point of being wildly zealous about it, yet scoff at a mere whisper of the slightest possibility of a divine creator who may be responsible for the weather patterns and the earth's behaviour as we appoach the end times in biblical prophecy?

We don't believe any old theory we hear at all - take this so-called theory that the whole issue of AGW is the result of some conspiratorial globe-spanning inter-generational research funding scam for example.

[waldo]

Believers can post charts of CO2 emmissions per country, scientific studies and Al Gore documentaries as they'd like but until they can undenyably DISPROVE what many other studies now claim are natural cycles in global temperature and weather anomolies associated with it, it's still just a form of environmental theology.

undenyably (sic) DISPROVE... what? Please, don't hesitate to bring forward examples of legitimate studies solely and/or principally attributing GW/CC to "natural cycles/weather anomalies"... studies that can't be/haven't been refuted. Considering that if such a legitimate study actually existed, other than in your fevered denier imagination... existed as a long-standing piece of seminal work/research/analysis, that study would have caused world-wide ramifications, casting aside decades of knowledge/understanding. That study would have set forward a whirlwind of disruption, reaching far and wide into all manner of scientific organizations, academia, industry, etc. and, of course, national/international political bodies. Like I said, don't hesitate to bring your examples of those studies forward!

anything to say about the greening Arctic... about this thread's topic? You must have some studies, right... those that can't be, as you say, "undenyably (sic) DISPROVED".

[waldo]

The permafrost carbon feedback loop will flip to a net carbon source from the sink it is today by the mid 2020's. This change cannot be stopped, so steps to adapt and exploit should be undertaken now.

by the by, congrats in actually posting thread related content... but really, c'mon, your post is crazy talk... what kind of an alarmist are you? Your post certainly doesn't fit/mirror positions you've espoused in the past. What's up - have you finally come over to the dark green side?

of course, your pointed comment is simply a prediction from, as I'm aware, a single study - Amount and timing of permafrost carbon release in response to climate warming. You've presented your comment as a somewhat defacto statement. As follows, I've quoted from the study and bold-highlighted a summation that is clearly at odds with your, "adapt and exploit" approach... where the study authors speak to a requirement for larger fossil-fuel emission reductions to meet a target atmospheric CO2 concentration.

We predict that the PCF (permafrost carbon feedback) will change the arctic from a carbon sink to a source after the mid-2020s and is strong enough to cancel 42–88% of the total global land sink. The thaw and decay of permafrost carbon is irreversible and accounting for the PCF will require larger reductions in fossil fuel emissions to reach a target atmospheric CO2 concentration.

just a few posts back you made it your thread derailing mission to chastise me over, as you stated, "proper scholarship and attribution". And yet, here we have you failing to provide your source reference, your study attribution and doing so... while offering a summary recommendation not drawn from or supported by the very study you're referencing. Oh my!

[roy baty]

Both sides of the scientific and ideological spectrum can provide both relevant and irrelevant scientific data up the wazoo to support AGW and GW etc.. etc... However, none of it can truly prove either side is correct or incorrect. All of it is still theory. Period. Many of you "believers" believe this is all man-made and we need to spend trillions to fix it. That's great. You're entitled to believe that, but just stop and acknowledge the "possibility" that there just may be other reasons behind the current changes in global temperatures and weather patterns that are not man-made before supporting mass spending that could lead to economic ruin long before environmental ruin.

Oh, and Kairos. In your effort to completely discredit anything I said, please note that I never contradicted myself, I just didn't differentiate "man-made" from "natural". I'm sorry you were unable to figure that out for yourself. I'll be more clear next time..

[waldo]

Many of you "believers" believe this is all man-made and we need to spend trillions to fix it.

That's great. You're entitled to believe that, but just stop and acknowledge the "possibility" that there just may be other reasons behind the current changes in global temperatures and weather patterns that are not man-made before supporting mass spending that could lead to economic ruin long before environmental ruin.

no - natural forces are factored; however, the principal causal tie to account for global warming is mankind's burning of fossil-fuels. Nothing other than anthropogenic sourced increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration can account for the relatively recent accelerated increase in warming - nothing other than. Legitimate skeptics have accepted this and have moved on to question/challenge the degree of warming that will/may occur - just how sensitive is the climate... just how warm will/may it get? Your speaking broadly and most generally of, 'spending trillions, mass spending, economic ruin', is simply an alarmist strawman position that is a blanket avoidance of an actual discussion of related policy changes required to support/enact mitigation, adaptation and prevention measures intended to reduce and manage the effects of global warming.

[Wayward Son]

Both sides of the scientific and ideological spectrum can provide both relevant and irrelevant scientific data up the wazoo to support AGW and GW etc.. etc... However, none of it can truly prove either side is correct or incorrect. All of it is still theory. Period.

People who have absolutely no clue what a theory is should probably learn the basics about how science works before they enter a debate about a scientific issue.

[bush_cheney2004]

by the by, congrats in actually posting thread related content... but really, c'mon, your post is crazy talk... what kind of an alarmist are you? Your post certainly doesn't fit/mirror positions you've espoused in the past. What's up - have you finally come over to the dark green side?

Wrong....despite your consistent denier slurs against other members here and an entire nation (which inexplicably provides a great deal of the very data you use to form an alarmist position), I have always acknowledged warming as fact regardless of cause and the need for adaptation policies and solutions.

of course, your pointed comment is simply a prediction from, as I'm aware, a single study - Amount and timing of permafrost carbon release in response to climate warming. You've presented your comment as a somewhat defacto statement. As follows, I've quoted from the study and bold-highlighted a summation that is clearly at odds with your, "adapt and exploit" approach... where the study authors speak to a requirement for larger fossil-fuel emission reductions to meet a target atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Yes, with the help of America's Google and 'climate change' research investment, you too can become more informed about the topic.

just a few posts back you made it your thread derailing mission to chastise me over, as you stated, "proper scholarship and attribution". And yet, here we have you failing to provide your source reference, your study attribution and doing so... while offering a summary recommendation not drawn from or supported by the very study you're referencing. Oh my!

Incorrect, as no such study would be so bold as to suggest 'exploiting' the looming 'doom'. Economics shall determine the course of action, not alarmists from Canada or the U.S.A.

[eyeball]

Economics shall determine the course of action, not alarmists from Canada or the U.S.A.

More specifically though, the physical building blocks of our economic system - the environment and ecosystems - will be the main determinant.

[waldo]

The permafrost carbon feedback loop will flip to a net carbon source from the sink it is today by the mid 2020's. This change cannot be stopped, so steps to adapt and exploit should be undertaken now.

by the by, congrats in actually posting thread related content... but really, c'mon, your post is crazy talk... what kind of an alarmist are you? Your post certainly doesn't fit/mirror positions you've espoused in the past. What's up - have you finally come over to the dark green side?

Wrong....despite your consistent denier slurs against other members here and an entire nation (which inexplicably provides a great deal of the very data you use to form an alarmist position), I have always acknowledged warming as fact regardless of cause and the need for adaptation policies and solutions.

.

no - the label 'denier' is not a slur; again, it's an accepted identifier within the lexicon. Whining about elevating the label, the identifier, to the, as you say, "entire nation (U.S.A.)", is simply a more grandiose play on your one-trick pony show. As I said... "Apparently, you can't understand there's a difference between recognizing and referencing the active work/research advancing knowledge and the opposite efforts coming from the denier side, whether that reaches directly into the political spectrum, or not."

now, I wasted a few cycles just to remind me of some of your past gems... of course, I knew where to start and wandered around a couple of past threads. So you acknowledge warming... bully. Only the fringe of the fringe don't. Perhaps you should carry your (now) stated position just a bit farther and speak to attribution... don't forget to factor in your past statements - some of those fronting vulcanism, perhaps, hey? My short walk down MLW 2010 memory lane also showcased you were incessantly feeding your pony then, as well. Like I said, no one cares about your pony!

of course, your pointed comment is simply a prediction from, as I'm aware, a single study - Amount and timing of permafrost carbon release in response to climate warming. You've presented your comment as a somewhat de facto statement. As follows, I've quoted from the study and bold-highlighted a summation that is clearly at odds with your, "adapt and exploit" approach... where the study authors speak to a requirement for larger fossil-fuel emission reductions to meet a target atmospheric CO2 concentration.

We predict that the PCF (permafrost carbon feedback) will change the arctic from a carbon sink to a source after the mid-2020s and is strong enough to cancel 42–88% of the total global land sink. The thaw and decay of permafrost carbon is irreversible and accounting for the PCF will require larger reductions in fossil fuel emissions to reach a target atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Yes, with the help of America's Google and 'climate change' research investment, you too can become more informed about the topic.

that's all ya got! I was more interested in how you decided to elevate a single study to a de facto level... how you decided to attempt to leverage only one part of a study, while leaving out its summary assessment while countering its summary assessment with your own! That's what I was more interested in you commenting on.

.

just a few posts back you made it your thread derailing mission to chastise me over, as you stated, "proper scholarship and attribution". And yet, here we have you failing to provide your source reference, your study attribution and doing so... while offering a summary recommendation not drawn from or supported by the very study you're referencing. Oh my!

Incorrect, as no such study would be so bold as to suggest 'exploiting' the looming 'doom'. Economics shall determine the course of action, not alarmists from Canada or the U.S.A.

no - very correct! You contradicted the summation of the study you referenced. If you're now identifying the authors of your referenced study as, 'alarmists'... what does that make you when you present one of their findings, particularly when you present it as factual, as a matter of fact prediction?

speaking of alarming... a few posts back I dropped an image that presented Arctic sea-ice volume that was simply a comparison of 1979-and-2012 volume levels shown against the backdrop of volume decline over that period... with the 2012 volume now at 1/5th of its 1979 measure. Perhaps an even more dramatic visual is one that follows the 'ebb & flow' of yearly sea-ice recovery balanced against sea-ice melting. As I said earlier, any single season recovery must, in turn, be measured/balanced against its accompanying season melting...

[Bonam]

.

no - the label 'denier' is not a slur; again, it's an accepted identifier within the lexicon.

It's "an accepted label within the lexicon" by those who use it, just like any other slur or insult. This should be obvious to anyone who reads your posts, as they are uniformly dripping with condescension and rudeness.

[bush_cheney2004]

.

no - the label 'denier' is not a slur; again, it's an accepted identifier within the lexicon. Whining about elevating the label, the identifier, to the, as you say, "entire nation (U.S.A.)", is simply a more grandiose play on your one-trick pony show. As I said... "Apparently, you can't understand there's a difference between recognizing and referencing the active work/research advancing knowledge and the opposite efforts coming from the denier side, whether that reaches directly into the political spectrum, or not."

Welcome back......then I would certainly look forward to your glowing praise of the United States of America for climate change research in at least equal measure to the drum beat of criticism for per capita emissions. Still, the 'denier' label does not apply to those who not only acknowledge warming, but are looking for ways to exploit our pending doom. No matter how you choose to go forward, the U.S. A. will continue to provide you with the data you need even as you call it a 'denier' nation. Choosing to adapt is not denial.

now, I wasted a few cycles just to remind me of some of your past gems... of course, I knew where to start and wandered around a couple of past threads. So you acknowledge warming... bully. Only the fringe of the fringe don't. Perhaps you should carry your (now) stated position just a bit farther and speak to attribution... don't forget to factor in your past statements - some of those fronting vulcanism, perhaps, hey? My short walk down MLW 2010 memory lane also showcased you were incessantly feeding your pony then, as well. Like I said, no one cares about your pony!

This is not necessary, as the running score of this game is well known. Ponies are your interest, not mine, and that's OK. Your credibility and stance will remain suspect as long as the 'denial' of Canada's laughable commitment to a ratified Kyoto Protocol treaty persists, all while labeling a nation that is a leader in climate change research as 'denier'. Redemption is possible by admitting Canada's 'Kyoto Fail' and respecting other nations investment and contribution to climate change research.

that's all ya got! I was more interested in how you decided to elevate a single study to a de facto level... how you decided to attempt to leverage only one part of a study, while leaving out its summary assessment while countering its summary assessment with your own! That's what I was more interested in you commenting on.

I needed no such study to arrive at such an obvious conclusion. Permafrost warming and sublimation was happening decades ago in Alaska, and I personally witnessed the impact back in the late 1970's. No American Google required.

.no - very correct! You contradicted the summation of the study you referenced. If you're now identifying the authors of your referenced study as, 'alarmists'... what does that make you when you present one of their findings, particularly when you present it as factual, as a matter of fact prediction?

You are assuming that I used the same reference, and you would be wrong. Most of your links, even though many are American, remain unclicked.

speaking of alarming... a few posts back I dropped an image that presented Arctic sea-ice volume that was simply a comparison of 1979-and-2012 volume levels shown against the backdrop of volume decline over that period... with the 2012 volume now at 1/5th of its 1979 measure. Perhaps an even more dramatic visual is one that follows the 'ebb & flow' of yearly sea-ice recovery balanced against sea-ice melting. As I said earlier, any single season recovery must, in turn, be measured/balanced against its accompanying season melting...

Excellent, as I look forward to the safe navigation of a predictably ice free Northwest Passage.

[waldo]

It's "an accepted label within the lexicon" by those who use it, just like any other slur or insult. This should be obvious to anyone who reads your posts, as they are uniformly dripping with condescension and rudeness.

no - as stated, it most certainly is understood and accepted as a label identifying a position held... do you target your fake outrage equally to those who use the alarmist label?

by the by... do you actually have anything to contribute to this thread?

[Bonam]

no - as stated, it most certainly is understood and accepted as a label identifying a position held...

Just like "nigger" is understood to mean a person of black skin color or African American origin. And yet that does not mean it is an acceptable or polite term to use. To have meaningful intellectual debate, it is important to use terminology that is acceptable to both sides of said debate, rather than offensive. If you want to talk about abortion, talk about "pro-choice" not about "babykillers", and "pro-life" not "rape defenders", etc. Seems pretty simple.

do you target your fake outrage equally to those who use the alarmist label?

Alarmist does not have the same negative connotation as denier, but yes, it is not a good word to describe people who present scientific data regarding climate change.

Edited March 14, 2013 by Bonam

[bush_cheney2004]

....Alarmist does not have the same negative connotation as denier, but yes, it is not a good word to describe people who present scientific data regarding climate change.

Agreed, as the term and context for climate change 'alarmist' was created in direct response to the 'denier' slur and stereotype used to shout down any opposing views.

[Accountability Now]

The idea of AGW has always been interesting for me in that I was once a strong denier and I have since move to being truly on the fence. I find it odd that Roy Baty used the ozone example as I have always understood that to be an environmental success story. They identified the problems of CFC...changed them to HCFCs and saw improvements. Unlike the ozone issue, AGW has to consider many factors that can and do cause global warming and not just a single direct cause. I understand that CO2 is viewed as the direct source but the various sources and sinks for the CO2 and their implication on the matter is still in question. There still exists the question of which comes first....temperature rise or C02 rise. There have been times in history when atmospheric CO2 was quite high and temperatures were low which gave deniers the proof they needed. However, the thought of a lag was then presented however it was very difficult to trend this lag and match it up. Research in the Antarctic however seems to be given some insight.

http://news.ku.dk/all_news/2012/2012.7/rise_in_temperatures_and_co2/

It appears that the temperature and CO2 levels follow each other quite consistenly in the Antarctic and consitently lags by 200 years. This is important as it allows researchers to get a grip on what is natural and what is anthropogenic.

Speaking of the Antarctic, other research (shown in the link below) suggests that due to the ozone depletion, the surface winds have drastically increased on the ocean surfaces and therefore increasing polar circulation. This affects global warming because the Southern Oceans provide 40% of the world's carbon sink. As such any disturbance in the this sink could cause major disruptions in the amount of carbon taken out of the atmosphere.http://www.climatecentral.org/news/ozone-holes-shifting-winds-may-be-sapping-major-carbon-sink-15530. The reality is that natural causes create these same winds so again...how much is man made?

If this is true then perhaps the ozone depletion had more to do with global warming then we thought. And of course me being a fence sitter would suggest that the repair of the ozone layer may help restore this carbon sink and reduce the effects of AGW. Probably not though.

It seems obvious that we should be looking to the oceans for the answer considering they take up 70% of the earth's area. Not to mention, one El Nino immediately and drastically changes global temperatures.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCarbon/

[waldo]

Welcome back......then I would certainly look forward to your glowing praise of the United States of America for climate change research in at least equal measure to the drum beat of criticism for per capita emissions.

glowing praise??? Please, check your sensitivities at the MLW login! You continually trumpet U.S. consumerism and earth-scorching efforts as symbolic measures of your personal/country prowess... why would you take exception to someone pointing out the historical CO2 emission contributions of the U.S.?

Still, the 'denier' label does not apply to those who not only acknowledge warming, but are looking for ways to exploit our pending doom. Choosing to adapt is not denial.

no - there are degrees of denial. You're simply choosing to couch your adaptation exploitation by denying attribution... you presume to use that attribution denial to ignore mitigation.

while labeling a nation that is a leader in climate change research as 'denier'.

no - your strawman won't fly. Again:

As I said... "Apparently, you can't understand there's a difference between recognizing and referencing the active work/research advancing knowledge and the opposite efforts coming from the denier side, whether that reaches directly into the political spectrum, or not."

I needed no such study to arrive at such an obvious conclusion.

then I guess you didn't 'need' to use that study, the one you didn't identify... use its prediction as a de facto statement while countering its summary assessment. Right?

You are assuming that I used the same reference, and you would be wrong.

well, no problem... I quoted a study that provided a prediction that matched your statement - the statement you presented as a matter of fact prediction. I also implied relying upon a single study as the basis for a de facto prediction was... a leap (on your part). If you can provide the actual study you were referencing, I'll certainly retract my attaching your predicting statement to the study I referenced.

Excellent, as I look forward to the safe navigation of a predictably ice free Northwest Passage.

of course, that prediction burns many a denier... pointing out the ever diminishing Arctic sea-ice extent and volume does not sit well, at all - not one bit!

[waldo]

Just like "nigger" is understood to mean a person of black skin color or African American origin. And yet that does not mean it is an acceptable or polite term to use. To have meaningful intellectual debate, it is important to use terminology that is acceptable to both sides of said debate, rather than offensive. If you want to talk about abortion, talk about "pro-choice" not about "babykillers", and "pro-life" not "rape defenders", etc. Seems pretty simple.

over-the-top much... you've certainly been here long enough to know this same discussion on labels has occurred several times previously. It's a nonsense distraction. What is your label, du jour?

Alarmist does not have the same negative connotation as denier, but yes, it is not a good word to describe people who present scientific data regarding climate change.

what's the negative connotation that you personally associate with the label denier, the label understood and accepted within the lexicon?

[bush_cheney2004]

glowing praise??? Please, check your sensitivities at the MLW login! You continually trumpet U.S. consumerism and earth-scorching efforts as symbolic measures of your personal/country prowess... why would you take exception to someone pointing out the historical CO2 emission contributions of the U.S.?

Only when they omit recognition of their own nation's emissions contribution, energy use per capita, hydrocarbon based exports, etc., all while happily citing 'climate change' research and investment made in the U.S. that far exceeds domestic efforts.

no - there are degrees of denial. You're simply choosing to couch your adaptation exploitation by denying attribution... you presume to use that attribution denial to ignore mitigation.

No, adaptation or mitigation efforts render any degree of 'denial' slurs as logically bankrupt and only exposes the political nature of the 'anti-denier' faithful.

no - your strawman won't fly. Again:

then I guess you didn't 'need' to use that study, the one you didn't identify... use its prediction as a de facto statement while countering its summary assessment. Right?

Nope...didn't need no fancy study to convert Alaskan common sense into a modern sink vs. source theory.

well, no problem... I quoted a study that provided a prediction that matched your statement - the statement you presented as a matter of fact prediction. I also implied relying upon a single study as the basis for a de facto prediction was... a leap (on your part). If you can provide the actual study you were referencing, I'll certainly retract my attaching your predicting statement to the study I referenced.

Of course it was a leap, but not a very brave one given that this is the year 2013 and the net sink/source transition is already under way. Frankly, I think I heard the 2020's guess years ago on a PBS program that was focusing on practical impacts on home foundations, other infrastructure, even grave sites. The grave site thing reminded me of the same issue personally witnessed in Alaska about 35 years ago.

of course, that prediction burns many a denier... pointing out the ever diminishing Arctic sea-ice extent and volume does not sit well, at all - not one bit!

Maybe, but I am not a denier and never have been. Heat this mutha up ! Thermodynamics can be your friend.

[waldo]

Only when they omit recognition of their own nation's emissions contribution, energy use per capita, hydrocarbon based exports, etc., all while happily citing 'climate change' research and investment made in the U.S. that far exceeds domestic efforts.

like I said, please check your sensitivities at the MLW login. Keep flogging your strawman... are you still ticked over my refuting your per-capita emissions claim?

.

Nope...didn't need no fancy study to convert Alaskan common sense into a modern sink vs. source theory.

can you... did you... see Russia from there?

.

Of course it was a leap, but not a very brave one given that this is the year 2013 and the net sink/source transition is already under way. Frankly, I think I heard the 2020's guess years ago on a PBS program that was focusing on practical impacts on home foundations, other infrastructure, even grave sites. The grave site thing reminded me of the same issue personally witnessed in Alaska about 35 years ago.

yes, it was a leap - yours. But thanks for acknowledging it. You think you heard it! So you have no study then, hey... fine, my reference stands, then! But this is interesting... you are now calling it a guess, yet you spoke of it as a definitive... a fact. Not sure what your 35-year old anecdote has to do with... anything.

.

Maybe, but I am not a denier and never have been. Heat this mutha up ! Thermodynamics can be your friend.

again, degrees of denial. You appear to favour not accepting consensus attribution, and by so doing, as I stated, you avoid discussing mitigation. Again, you deny the consensus attribution. Have I slurred you by saying this?