Originally Posted by Justin '77

I've looked a fair bit on the website, and can't seem to find how to contact this guy to make my easy few grand off him. Any advice?

He might have more takers if he was a bit more accessible. At least one more (me) for sure...

It took me 30 seconds to get his email.

He's the editor of Climate Progress

You can email him at climate@americanprogressaction.org

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Aha. But Mike tried to make the implication that the marginality of the counter-position was somehow demonstrated by the lack of 'money-where-your-mouth-is' takers.

No, I was offering information. I happened to read an article in which a columnist had made bets very much like you were talking about and so I googled for the article and gave you the link.

What you are saying, on the other hand, is that the 'bet' offered on the website Mike put up was merely a staged stunt. Which maybe it was.

Nevertheless, I did ask for terms, and the ones put up during that stunt seem fairly reasonable...

Don't you think you should at least contact the guy before you assume its a stunt?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

It took me 30 seconds to get his email.

Sweet. I've sent my acceptance off to him just now.

Thanks for subsidizing my laziness, Mike.

(BTW, I wasn't assuming it was a stunt; that was Finch. My comment was made in the context of his assumption. We shall see shortly whether the challenge made was a serious one or not)

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Oh yeah? I'd be willing to put up €5000 against you on that (I'd put up more -- never having been one to turn down easy money -- but I can only afford to set that much aside right now to make sure I can afford to pay off on the remote chance that you accidentally turn out to be correct). We'd have to nail down your 'mostly' into something measurable, but in principle I'd take that bet.

So what do you say?

I wasn't literally asking for a bet, it's a figure of speech ya know.

Well.. That was a short email exchange. I reprint here:

-------
Subject: RE: Arctic Ice modeling wagerFrom:"[him]" <[his email]>

Date:Wed, Jan 02, 2008 8:29 pmTo:<[my email]>I have visited St. Petersburg, when it had a different name, and you are fortunate to live in one of the most beautiful cities in the world.

My wife thinks my betting has gotten a bit out of hand -- I already have two $1000 bets going. So I'm going to say no to your offer, even though I very much believe in my side of the bet.

[him]
Senior Fellow
Center for American Progress
Editor, ClimateProgress.org



-----Original Message-----
From: [me] [mailto:[my email]]
Sent: Fri 12/28/2007 12:12 PM
To: climate
Subject: Arctic Ice modeling wager

Good morning.

I am intrigued by your offer -- one of the first I have seen with concrete terms -- to wager on a prediction made by the current iteration of global climate models. If you are interested, I would like to discuss wagering against your contention of catastrophic ice sheet shrinkage. To the terms you mentioned on your webiste, I would ask to add automatic-cancellation terms to include in addition to vulcanism, man-made massive disruptions (like a local nuclear exchange, for example), or other totally-unpredictable outliers like asteroid strikes and the such.

If you are interested, I am willing to put up as much as 5000 euro (I would prefer not to use US dollars, but would be willing to put up an equivalent amount in specie, rand, or NZ dollars). Please let me know your interest in this offer.

Best Regards,
[me]
Saint-Petersburg, Russia

-----

I suppose it's still not clear whether or not this was just a stunt; but his response does little to refute that contention.
-sigh-
guess I have to get my money the hard way, then...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Well.. That was a short email exchange. I reprint here:

-------
Subject: RE: Arctic Ice modeling wagerFrom:"[him]" <[his email]>

Date:Wed, Jan 02, 2008 8:29 pmTo:<[my email]>I have visited St. Petersburg, when it had a different name, and you are fortunate to live in one of the most beautiful cities in the world.

My wife thinks my betting has gotten a bit out of hand -- I already have two $1000 bets going. So I'm going to say no to your offer, even though I very much believe in my side of the bet.

[him]
Senior Fellow
Center for American Progress
Editor, ClimateProgress.org



-----Original Message-----
From: [me] [mailto:[my email]]
Sent: Fri 12/28/2007 12:12 PM
To: climate
Subject: Arctic Ice modeling wager

Good morning.

I am intrigued by your offer -- one of the first I have seen with concrete terms -- to wager on a prediction made by the current iteration of global climate models. If you are interested, I would like to discuss wagering against your contention of catastrophic ice sheet shrinkage. To the terms you mentioned on your webiste, I would ask to add automatic-cancellation terms to include in addition to vulcanism, man-made massive disruptions (like a local nuclear exchange, for example), or other totally-unpredictable outliers like asteroid strikes and the such.

If you are interested, I am willing to put up as much as 5000 euro (I would prefer not to use US dollars, but would be willing to put up an equivalent amount in specie, rand, or NZ dollars). Please let me know your interest in this offer.

Best Regards,
[me]
Saint-Petersburg, Russia

-----

I suppose it's still not clear whether or not this was just a stunt; but his response does little to refute that contention.
-sigh-
guess I have to get my money the hard way, then...

Would you offer odds? If so what would they be?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Would you offer odds? If so what would they be?

Any number I picked would be just the product of my own ass. Someone else would have to offer odds. I'd take (of course) any odds favoring payout to me, and I could see some level of counterweighted multiples being fair. The question really becomes, how much of a payout is worth my time. 500 euro would probably be worth the effort of setting up and maintaining the bet; a mere 50 euro becomes pointless. I'm in this to make easy money off overconfident fools, not to make a point. The cost to the mechanics of this sort of betting set a lower bar on the payoff for it to be considered 'easy'.

Are you offering?

Last summer we had some serious alarms raised about ice loss in the Arctic. With summer gone south, we now have some alarms being raised about Antarctica. The Washington Post writes of Escalating Ice Loss in Antarctica. For discussion purposes...

Climatic changes appear to be destabilizing vast ice sheets of western Antarctica that had previously seemed relatively protected from global warming, researchers reported yesterday, raising the prospect of faster sea-level rise than current estimates.

While the overall loss is a tiny fraction of the miles-deep ice that covers much of Antarctica, scientists said the new finding is important because the continent holds about 90 percent of Earth's ice, and until now, large-scale ice loss there had been limited to the peninsula that juts out toward the tip of South America. In addition, researchers found that the rate of ice loss in the affected areas has accelerated over the past 10 years -- as it has on most glaciers and ice sheets around the world...

I got this article from my synagogue listserve. From ABC News.

Israel's government on Monday endorsed the ambitious plan of a private entrepreneur to install the world's first electric car network here by 2011, with half a million recharging stations to crisscross the tiny nation.

Supporters hailed the undertaking as a bold step in the battle against global warming and energy dependency, but skeptics warned that much could still go wrong along the way.

In a signing ceremony with the Renault-Nissan Alliance -- under the slogan "Transportation without fuel, making peace between transportation and the environment" -- Israel's leaders pledged to provide tax incentives to customers to make Israel's cars fuel-free.

The project is a joint venture between Renault-Nissan, which will provide the electric vehicles, and the Silicon Valley-based startup Project Better Place, which will operate the recharging grid. The replacement and charging of the lithium-ion batteries is supposed to work like that of a cell phone battery.

"For the first time in history, all the conditions necessary for electric vehicles to be successfully mass-marketed will be brought together," the companies said in a statement.

The initiative is the brainchild of Shai Agassi, a 39-year-old Israeli-American entrepreneur and high-tech star, who raised $200 million to get the project off the ground.

"Our planet's battery got charged over hundreds of millions of years, and yet we have consumed half the world's oil in one century. In the process, we got addicted to oil, polluted our cities and altered our planet's climate," Agassi said. "Finally, we are running out of out most precious commodity of all -- we are running out of time."

Less than a year ago, Agassi quit as a top executive at the German software giant SAP AG to pursue his green dreams. Along with his partner Idan Ofer, he founded Project Better Place, aimed at helping reduce greenhouse emissions by building a network of charging stations for electric cars across Israel.

Agassi's spokesman said his home country of Israel was the ideal laboratory to market his vision because of its high fuel prices (around $6.30 a gallon), dense population centers and supportive government. In Israel, 90 percent of car owners drive less than 45 miles per day and all major urban centers are less than 100 miles apart, making the use of battery operated cars more feasible than in countries with longer average commutes.

Green cars are also particularly attractive to Israel, which hopes to weaken the political clout of its oil-rich enemies.

"Today is a new age with new dangers and the greatest danger is that of oil," President Shimon Peres said. "It is the greatest polluter of our age and oil is the greatest financier of terror."

Other automakers have produced plug-in hybrid prototypes, which switch from pure electric to gas engine to a blended gas electric mode. But the Renault model is the first mass-produced model designed to be completely fuel-free.

"Zero emission, zero noise," Renault-Nissan Chief Executive Carlos Ghosn said. "It will be the most environmentally friendly mass-produced car on the market."

Ghosn said the cars, with a range of up to 100 miles per charge, would have a top speed of 110 kilometers per hour (68 mph) -- the top speed limit in Israel. And Aggasi vowed that, in the long run, the electric car would be cheaper to operate than one based on fuel.

Israeli leaders said they hoped the country would prove to be a trailblazer in the field of alternative energy. "This initiative will revolutionize cars in Israel and throughout the world," National Infrastructure Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer said.

Aaron Bragman, an auto analyst with Global Insight, said he was unfamiliar with this specific electric model but said there were plenty of pitfalls ahead before it could be up to par with the performance of fuel-based cars.

"The electrification of the car is definitely coming. Whether it will come that soon (by 2011) is another question," he said. "It doesn't sound impossible but a lot of things would have to go right for it to happen."
The project has also been met with skepticism in Israel, where newspaper articles have derided it as dreamy and unrealistic.

"Apparently people are again willing to invest in a technological idea without having seen a detailed business and technology plan," wrote Ora Cohen, a columnist for the Israeli Haaretz daily, in November. "Real problems remain to be solved before they start working on virtual ones."
But Agassi enjoys the enthusiastic backing of the government.

"There was a time when people said you couldn't stop smoking," Peres said. "Using gas is like smoking."


Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures

If there is any country where this makes sense, it's Israel, a country the size of New Jersey that is very dense.

Global Warming Threatens Super Bowl Teams

For discussion purposes...

It turns out that global warming poses a dire threat to 14 football teams, including the two playing in the Super Bowl. Environment America, a federation of environmental groups, issued an “analysis” this week, complete with a fact sheet of weather statistics, warning that a warming trend in Northern cities like New York and Boston is eroding the traditional advantage enjoyed by their teams when playing at home in cold weather.

“As if we needed another reason to tackle global warming, now even football could be affected,” said Nathan Willcox, who was identified as the energy and clean air advocate of Environment America. “Congress must get serious about global warming before rising temperatures fumble away cold weather teams’ home field advantage...”

That does it. Surely now people will admit that we have to take action? ™

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Any number I picked would be just the product of my own ass. Someone else would have to offer odds. I'd take (of course) any odds favoring payout to me, and I could see some level of counterweighted multiples being fair. The question really becomes, how much of a payout is worth my time. 500 euro would probably be worth the effort of setting up and maintaining the bet; a mere 50 euro becomes pointless. I'm in this to make easy money off overconfident fools, not to make a point. The cost to the mechanics of this sort of betting set a lower bar on the payoff for it to be considered 'easy'.

Are you offering?

I might be interested in 10:1 in my favor--say 500 if you win versus 5000 if I win. After all the arctic has never melted in all of recorded history so I would be betting on a long shot and so I think I should get long shot odds.

The water loss in the southwestern US is much worse than previously thought.

A few weeks ago, I posted a story about how the reservoirs out west, providing states like Arizona and California, might run dry by 2050.

The study was wrong. It could happen in the next decade:
Climate change and a growing demand for water could drain two of the nation's largest manmade reservoirs within 13 years, depriving several Southwestern states of key water sources, scientists warn.

Researchers at San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography said Wednesday that there's a 50 percent chance that lakes Mead and Powell will dry up by 2021, and a 10 percent chance the lakes will run out of usable water by 2013.
2021. That's fourteen years away, but there's worse news.

See, a lot of energy generated in the west is from hydroelectric dams along the Colordao river, like the Hoover Dam which forms Lake Mead. As water levels drop, the power generated by the flows of water decreases. Estimates are that within ten years, 2017, water levels will have dropped sufficiently much that power could not be generated by the Colorado at Lake Mead in Arizona. Already, a drought has dropped water levels to below 50% of normal capacity for this time of year (that's before the snowpack run off).

An energy efficent way to desalinate Pacific Ocean water had better be found PDQ!

Originally Posted by herbal tee

The water loss in the southwestern US is much worse than previously thought.



An energy efficent way to desalinate Pacific Ocean water had better be found PDQ!

Possibly a ban on swimming pools, golf courses, out door fountains, turf lawns, etc. would be a smart first step. Americans should try experiencing the "sense of place" that the desert southwest affords rather than trying to turn all places into a warmer version of the midwest.

Originally Posted by Skabungus

Possibly a ban on swimming pools, golf courses, out door fountains, turf lawns, etc. would be a smart first step. Americans should try experiencing the "sense of place" that the desert southwest affords rather than trying to turn all places into a warmer version of the midwest.

I do know that in most of the southwest now one must plant their yard in native, water conserving spiecies. That's quite a contrast to my childhood out west when it was a true status symbol to have the greenest lawn in the neighborhood.

I have recently been hearing a radio ad proclaiming that water will be to the 21st century what oil was to the 20th. It will be hammered home that it is a diminishing resource not to be taken lightly. The water problems in the southwest can no doubt be traced to all the people who moved there in order to escape the harsh midwestern winters. But what they lose there they make up for having to deal with the equally harsh southwestern summers, where 100 degrees is a near daily occurrence. But even in the midwest there has been some attention paid to water concerns in that you don't automatically get water served at your local restaurant. You have to ask for it. Does anyone really see a coming decline in bottled water sales? This has become the healthy alternative to soda and other carbonated drinks, hasn't it?

This is an interesting letter in response to a Joseph Romm Salon article on Global Warming.

The nonsensical hatred of Al Gore notwithstanding, the deniers posting here are missing a key point. What argument remains will not be settled until the ice is finished melting and the sea levels has risen to its maximum. Then we will finally know if the models were accurate, or an over/underestimate. Meanwhile, follow the money. People whose lives and livelihoods depend on future climate direction are betting strongly on warming.

I have spoken directly with winemakers here in Australia who are on their last years of production of certain varietals which depend on cool weather. They are switching to wine grapes that thrive under hotter, dryer conditions. The key here is that they have to plant at least 7 years in advance before the new vines bear fruit.

Similarly, oil companies and shipping companies are investing heavily inside the arctic circle, betting that in the next 5-10 years, there will be a summertime Northwest passage and access to oil and gas that is currently covered by sea ice.

Pipeline companies are contending with the loss of permafrost in Alaska and Siberia, which has the potential to literally break the pipes as newly softened tundra subsides... the list goes on.

These are not "liberal" or "green" industries, and include some of the people and groups making the most noise in denial of human influences on climate change. Follow the money- Exxon, Chevron, BP etc. are putting capital into play that will only yield returns if the temperature keeps rising.

There is more to say, but here is where I will leave off- Follow the money.

I am a professional scientist whose livelihood depends on government funding of research in a field completely unrelated to climate issues (neuroscience). Still, I believe strongly that climate change is the single most important scientific issue facing humanity. It is literally an existential threat, and I would be willing to see ALL funding of science by governments around the world directed exclusively to this problem for the next 10 years. It's simply that important.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Global Warming Threatens Super Bowl Teams

For discussion purposes...

That does it. Surely now people will admit that we have to take action? ™

Report: Climate change will threaten beer production

For discussion purposes...

We all know already that climate change will affect everything from food prices to cute baby polar bears.

But now it's really hitting home, folks. A report from a researcher at the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research in New Zealand suggests that rising temperatures may threaten beer.

An Associated Press report details the findings from climate scientist Jim Salinger, who presented his research at the Institute of Brewing and Distilling's annual convention in Wellington, New Zealand. The grim results? Climate change may affect the production of malting barley, an ingredient crucial to the tasty beers we all know and love.

If we aren't careful, the regions in Australia and New Zealand in which malting barley can grow could experience some tragic shrinkage. Salinger's study didn't extend beyond those two countries, but he did warn that "similar effects could be expected" across the globe.

"It will mean either there will be pubs without beer or the cost of beer will go up," the Associated Press article quoted Salinger as saying.

One word: Noooooooooooo!

Mind you, in other parts of the globe, it might be easier to shift the planting of barley closer to the poles than in Australia and New Zealand...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/....ap/index.html

updated 1 hour, 57 minutes ago


Bush shifts on climate change

* Story Highlights
* Speech reveals change in stance on global warming
* President proposes stopping growth of greenhouse gas emissions
* Bush wants to avoid court-forced regulations, spokeswoman says
* Conservatives see move as step toward 'cap-and-trade' plan

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Revising his stance on global warming, President Bush proposed a new target Wednesday for stopping the growth of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions by 2025.

The president also called for putting the brakes on greenhouse gas emissions from electric power plants within 10 to 15 years.

"To reach our 2025 goal, we will need to more rapidly slow the growth of power sector greenhouse gas emissions so that they peak within 10 to 15 years and decline thereafter," Bush said in the speech, released early by the White House.

"By doing so, we will reduce emission levels in the power sector well below where they were projected to be when we first announced our climate strategy in 2002. There are a number of ways to achieve these reductions, but all responsible approaches depend on accelerating the development and deployment of new technologies."

Bush was not to outline a specific proposal, but he'll lay out a strategy for "realistic" emission reduction targets and "principles" he thinks Congress should follow in crafting global warming legislation.

The new goal for curtailing greenhouse gas emissions is an attempt to short-circuit what White House aides call a potential regulatory "train wreck" if Congress doesn't act on climate change. The president's speech is aimed at shaping the debate on global warming in favor of solving the problem while avoiding heavy costs to industry and the economy.

The Bush administration has been a staunch opponent of a mandatory "cap-and-trade" approach to reducing greenhouse gases. Although it has backed some mandatory programs, it has preferred largely voluntary measures to broadly address global warming. In his speech, however, the president will not slam the door on discussing market-based approaches to stem the rise in greenhouse gas emissions.

"We aren't necessarily against cap-and-trade proposals," White House press secretary Dana Perino said this week. But she added quickly, "What we've seen so far from Congress is not something that we can support."

The president remains opposed to a Senate bill that would require mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions, calling that proposal unrealistic and economically harmful.

"I believe that congressional debate should be guided by certain core principles and a clear appreciation that there is a wrong way and a right way to approach reducing greenhouse gas emissions," Bush said. "Bad legislation would impose tremendous costs on our economy and American families without accomplishing the important climate change goals we share."

Bush will speak forcefully about concerns he has over a possible rush to address the Earth's warming through a hodgepodge of regulations under existing federal laws such as the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act.

Senior White House officials told a group of conservative Republican lawmakers in a private meeting las week that the administration wants Congress to act on climate change to avoid regulating carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping -- or greenhouse -- gases under existing laws.

Several of the conservative GOP lawmakers who heard the White House presentation last week said they viewed it as a move toward endorsing a limited type of "cap-and-trade" emissions reduction proposal, targeting power plants, and a reversal of long-standing administration climate policy.

The new White House climate initiative comes as Bush appears, in the view of congressional Democrats and environmentalists, as increasingly irrelevant in the climate debate both on the domestic and international stage.

All three major presidential candidates -- Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama and Republican Sen. John McCain -- favor a more aggressive program on climate change than does Bush, all supporting mandatory limits on greenhouse gases.

Senate Democratic leaders plan to begin debate in June on legislation that would cap greenhouse gases and allow polluters to ease some of the cost by buying emissions credits. This cap-and-trade approach is aimed at cutting the emissions by 70 percent by midcentury. The House also is moving toward considering a cap-and-trade proposal. And many industry lobbyists have become resigned to some type of cap-and-trade proposal moving forward -- if not this year, probably next -- and are trying to find ways to limit the damage.

"The key is whether the president supports a mandatory cap on emissions," said Tony Kreindler, a climate specialist at the advocacy group Environmental Defense. "You never achieve any real reductions in pollution without legal limits. That's what we're going to be looking for."

Meanwhile, many environmentalists maintain that the congressional debate may be overtaken by the courts -- the same prospect the White House is fretting over.

The Environmental Protection Agency already is under orders from the Supreme Court to determine whether carbon dioxide is endangering public health or welfare. If so, the court said, the EPA must regulate CO2 emissions.

Carbon dioxide is the leading greenhouse gas, so named because its accumulation in the atmosphere can help trap heat from the sun, causing potentially dangerous warming of the planet.

At the same time, the Interior Department has been told by another court to decide whether the polar bear should be brought under the protection of the Endangered Species Act because of disappearing sea ice, a phenomenon blamed by scientists on global warming.

"The Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act were never meant to regulate global climate change. For example, under a Supreme Court decision last year, the Clean Air Act could be applied to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles," Bush said in prepared remarks.

"If these laws are stretched beyond their original intent, they could override the programs Congress just adopted. ... Decisions with such far-reaching impact should not be left to unelected regulators and judges," he said.

The United States and other countries agreed at a meeting in December in Bali, Indonesia, to work to set firm targets for reducing greenhouse emissions by the end of 2009, as a follow-up to the Kyoto reduction targets that expire in 2012.

There was a horrendous cyclone recently in Burma. Does anyone know if people have pointed to global warming as a reason for it?

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

There was a horrendous cyclone recently in Burma. Does anyone know if people have pointed to global warming as a reason for it?

I just did a quick Google search on "burma cyclone global warming" and got hits (many involving comments made by Al Gore) from the Melbourne Herald Son, USA Today, Timesonline in the UK, and elsewhere.

Mind you, that I didn't see any of it until I went looking for it, but it is certainly there if you look.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I just did a quick Google search on "burma cyclone global warming" and got hits (many involving comments made by Al Gore) from the Melbourne Herald Son, USA Today, Timesonline in the UK, and elsewhere.

Mind you, that I didn't see any of it until I went looking for it, but it is certainly there if you look.

Well, you obviously don't spend enough time listening to right-wing talk shows. They were all over it the very next day, claiming that Al Gore had blamed the cyclone on global warming... except, he didn't.

Originally Posted by Finch

Well, you obviously don't spend enough time listening to right-wing talk shows.

Sorry. I just haven't been keeping up with the right wing talk shows lately...

Originally Posted by The Rani

All I'm saying, and all I've ever been saying, is that keeping an open mind instead of declaring things "impossible" is the only way to learn anything new.

And if you would open your mind instead of just trying to pretend you are so tolerant and clever Mike wouldn't have had to explain to you, again (this is the second time he has had to explain this to you), why the volcano theory you keep wanting to bring up doesn't explain very much.

Here is what he just posted to you this afternoon in the other thread you mentioned this in:

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Thanks for the url. I was surprised that such a big volcano wasn't picked up on seismographs. Perhaps the depth affects the amount of shaking.

I looked into it a bit and found tons of wingers peddling your thesis that a big ole volcano could be melting the ice. Looks like they all stole your idea.

Anyways the idea that the heat from volcanos is significant in melting ice is wrong. All one need do to a quick calculation on the amount of ice a volcano's heat can melt. This Arctic volcano is estimated as comparable to the Vesuvius eruption in AD 79.

According to this book the Vesuvius eruption was 1000 times as powerful as the Hiroshima bomb which works out to 20 megatons. A megaton is 10^15 calories so the energy output from this volcano is on the order of 2 x 10^16 calories.

How much ice can you melt with this amount of energy? It takes about 80 calories to melt a gram of ice. A cubic meter of ice is roughly one metric ton (on million grams) so it takes about 80 million calories to melt one cubic meter of ice. Dividing this into the heat output above yields 250 million cubic meters of ice. If we assume the ice is 10 meters thick this would be an era of 25 million square meters or 25 sq km (about 10 sq miles).

But to melt the ice you first have to warm the water underneath the ice. This water is 4000 meters deep. The volume under this 25 sq km of ice is then 100 cubic km (25 sq km x 4 km deep). One cubic km is one billion cubic meters. A cubic meter of water is a million grams. So one cubic km of water is one million-billion grams of water or 10^15 grams. We have 100 cubic km of water so that means 10^17 grams of water.

A calorie is the energy needed to heat on gram of water one degree so if we take 2 x 10^16 calories and divide it by 10^17 grams of water we get a temperature rise of only 0.2 degrees C.

That's not much warming. Obviously a good deal of the volcano's heat is going to go to warming the water between the sea floor and the ice. So likely a lot less than 10 meters of ice could get melted. But a lot of this arctic ice isn't all that thick so it is not unreasonable to estimate that as much as 10 sq miles of ice could have been cleared by such a volcano, if it was under some thin ice. Even so, 10 sq miles out of hundreds of thousands of square miles of melted ice is a drop in the bucket.

Simply put, volcanic energy is very very small compared to greenhouse forcings. The ~0.8 watt/m^2 global greenhouse forcing that has occurred over the past 30 years applied to the ~10 million sq km of arctic ice cover at winter maximum comes to about 3000 times the volcano's energy over a single year. That is, the greenhouse forcing provides an impact of a size similar to 3000 volcanoes like this erupting every year under the ice.

This is why scientists simply say the volcanos don't have an impact on the melting.

Originally Posted by The Rani

It's not a "volcano theory." It's proof that sometimes what was thought was impossible is not only possible but the truth. According to Mike, they should have seen fairies and unicorns frolicking on top of those volcanos.

Who said that volcanoes are impossible underwater? I doubt Mike meant anything like that. Whether they are pyroclastic or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that is it is very, very, very unlikely that volcanoes are melting the ice cap. Why bring up the volcano at all other than to be intentionally annoying or to display ignorance for some perverse or neurotic reason?

Originally Posted by The Rani

Why are you bothering talking to me again anyway? Since I'm just a drama queen playing games and all.

Very good question.

Zarathrusthra said "And if you would open your mind instead of just trying to pretend you are so tolerant and clever Mike wouldn't have had to explain to you, again (this is the second time he has had to explain this to you), why the volcano theory you keep wanting to bring up doesn't explain very much." And, "Why bring up the volcano at all other than to be intentionally annoying or to display ignorance for some perverse or neurotic reason?