Slashdot Mirror
Big Arctic Perils Seen in Warming
gollum123 wrote in with news of a new study of warming in the Arctic, showing that warming from greenhouse gases is causing vast changes in the region. If your lifestyle depends on cold and frozen rather than mild and damp, you're in deep trouble.
You're confusing scientists with political officials...
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
I guess I'll be buying property in Antartica. "The Sunshite State - Reloaded"
More like politically motivated moderating.
Shame. I thought we were promoting discussion, not censorship.
Another non-liberal geek? Nah I must be seeing things. The amount of greenhouse gases that the civilized world has output since the Industrial Revolution is still less than what is output in one major volcanic eruption. SAVE THE EARTH... PLUG A VOLCANOE!!!
Oh come on... we all know that this is just a LIEberal scam to get more money to "protect the environment". [/sarcasm]
Meh.
RE:#4
Well. When all that ice melts... There is this thing called sea level. Not important to you now, but you know... when you can swim in your living room, you just might be a bit conerned.
I'm not trolling I just have an honest question...
When that big lump of ice out there in the North Pole melts, will we *notice* it at all?
My reasoning is that most of the ice is underwater, and ice takes up more cm than water, so there would be a smaller volume of water than there is ice. Sure some of the ice is above sealevel but surely the difference in volume compensates for this?
Where am I wrong?
I am a viral sig. Please help me spread.
Actually melting the permafrost is likely to produce less usable landmass. According to the article:
"Oil and gas deposits on land are likely to be harder to extract as tundra thaws, limiting the frozen season when drilling convoys can traverse the otherwise spongy ground, the report says. Alaska has already seen the "tundra travel" season on the North Slope shrink to 100 days from about 200 days a year in 1970."
Manufacture in China
If you read the article, rather than the blurb on Slashdot, it doesn't unequivocally state that greenhouse gases are responsible
... comprehensive four-year study ...
What? Do they have any idea how short that is in geological time? That's a fraction of a jiffy compared to the real history of Earth's warming and cooling cycle. After that line, it's not even worth reading the article.
A four year warning trend doesn't really mean anything. You can take any graph, chop out a whole lot of it, and only look at a portion that is trending upwards or trending downwards, but it doesn't tell you anything about the big picture. It'd be like making bond decisions based on nothing more than a five minute window of some graph. Maybe it's trending upwards in that five minute window, but 15 minutes on either side you can't see could be causing the whole thing to trend downwards.
Four year study? Give me a break. Do a 4,000 year study and then we'll talk. 4,000 years is still short, but it's a little better than four.
this is my sig
You are not allowed to question Global Warming.
Global Warming is a fact. It is not open to discussion. It caused by Republicans and Big Industries, and it will kill us all.
Do not question Global Warming. Global Warming is a fact. Do not question Global Warming.
Hasn't the artic been warming for the last 10,000 years since the last Ice Age? I'm sure mankind is contributing somehow to this process but why is what seems to be a natural cycle of the earth an inherrently bad thing? Its just another natural phenomenon we must learn to deal with with like earthquakes, volcanoes, storms etc.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
...and we should accept it. Is it fault of humans? Maybe, maybe not. But remember there were times where glacier covered half the Europe, there were times when Sahara was a green country, when what today is mediterran sea was a valley of a huge river... It just happens. Now just be wise and prepare to face it instead of looking who is to blame.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
1: Show me ACCURATE 1 million year tempature records. Wait!! We only have 80 years of records
2: Show me this hasnt happened before.
3: Tell me the "scientists" studying arent also getting grants from... greenpeace or ELF..
4: WHY exactly is global warming bad? Wont it give more landmass (eg, melts permafrost siberia) and lessen the "nice tropical -120F on antartica?
5: WHY is the water level in my kitchen up to my neck.... blub... blub...?
[Hint: Less ice == more water.]
-_-_-
There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
I'll start with the last comment first:
Do you assume that global warming means that temperatures will rise uniformly across the globe?
Do you assume that global warming would cause no shift in weather patterns?
Do you assume that any shifts in weather patterns would not be disruptive to agriculture?
Do you assume that disruptions in agriculture can be easily accomodated, say by rapidly shifting agricultural production to different parts of the globe (assuming, of course, that there would be vast new tracks of arable farmland as a result of changed weather patterns)?
If the answer to any of these questions is "no", then global warming should make you nervous.
If your answer to any of these is "yes", then it's you, not the environmental scientists, who have some explaining to do. They seem like pretty shaky assumptions.
> when you can swim in your living room, you just might be a bit conerned.
The people living in low lying areas are well aware of the risks.
If you build your house on a cliff, what do you expect will happen over time? For the hole to fill in and save the house?
The people who live in low lying areas will simply move inland. Like the areas that are constantly eroded away.
Let's see: the Sun is at an 8000-year high for solar activity, Mars is emerging from its own Ice Age and its polar caps are disappearing, and the Earth's magnetic field strength is approaching nil before it reconstitutes with an opposite polarity. And we are to believe that human activity is somehow solely resposible for global warming?
I live in the Northwest Territories (Canada) and I can say in the last 15 years the winters have become much warmer. I remember stretched where is was -35 C for 3 weeks at a time. Now it only reaches that occasionally. I cannot speak for long term trends however. And yes, I did walk to school both ways uphill.
1: Show me ACCURATE 1 million year tempature records. Wait!! We only have 80 years of records
Holy shit man, don't you know it gets warmer in the summer than the winter? We're all doomed! Doomed!
this is my sig
Let me guess: you are an American. Let me answer at least a couple of the questions you just brought up: 3) Scientists are scientists (unless owned by a politician like the ones working for Bush that say global warming is OK..) and they are people who stay true to facts. If scientists are continuously telling you something bad's coming, it means they reviewed quite a few facts before reaching this conclusion. And finally, the above being said, I'd listen to what they have to say. On a side note, you may want to look up the IPCC (www.ipcc.ch). Those guys are from all over the place and they have been working on global warming for a while now. They are saying the same thing. 4) I'm sorry, this is just a stupid question. Global warming (or massive amounts of ice melting) doesn't just make the climate a bit warmer. It actually starts a chain reaction of events which take place in a land slide and end with a signifant portion of the earth's biosphere dead or extinct. Yes, this coming from the same guys that can tell you what your weather will be like tomorrow correctly 90% of the time.
Now you can't say the cold was holding you back.
...people will soon start to realize the potential harm these issues can do to our society as a whole. I cannot understand how any sane person is able to ignore the simple fact of environmental problems getting worse over time.
The US government still manages to deny cooperation on the Kyoto Protocol with most stupid arguments, a treaty already ratified by 125 countries all over the world.
"The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. This is a challenge that requires a 100 percent effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change. Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere." -- George W. Bush
???
The greenhouse gas problem will grow at a steady level for decades after we have started countermeasures, I hope then there's enough time left afterwards.
Hint: If you take 1 cubic centemeter of water, and freeze it, you get *gasp* more than one cubic centemeter of ice!!!
This means that if the ice melted, we'd have more water, but since the ice that was floating in the water was displacing a lot more water than it actually contained, the sea level would probably drop.
Nice troll, btw.
"4: WHY exactly is global warming bad?"
We are at a unique point in Earth history where the temperature has been low (in the oceans) for a long enough time (geological time) that significant volumes of methane hydrates have accumulated. Once the temperature of the bottom of the oceans reaches a certain point, the methane hydrates melt releasing methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. Since this will be a positive feedback cycle (in addition to the less solubility of CO2 in seawater as temperature rises), a step rise in temperature of the Earth could occur in a relatively short period of time. A step rise would most likely be devastating to most land life (if it were on the order of 5 or more degrees F).
From a long term perspective, moderate global warming is not necessarily bad. Earth will likely find a new balance, and the ecosystem will adapt. Total biodiversity and bioproductivity may drop, or, quite possibly, increase. Some humans (or their evolutionary successors) will certainly survive.
Of course the long term is a couple of million years. In between, the change, and the probably unprecended speed of the change, puts an enormous additional stress on an eco (both -logic and -nomic) system that has adapted to colder, stable temperatures. Some may profit, some may lose, but on average we will all lose significantly. Nice beachfrotn property on the Kola penisula will not be of much use to a Florida retiree whose condo is washed away by a hurricane.
Of course, there is also a non-zero chance at a runaway greenhouse effect...
Stephan
On the assumption of ignorance, as it is like that the AC cannot read the article, the publication of the report was delayed. The delay may or may not be political. It was requested by the US, agreed to by the diplomats. It is interesting that, once again, Bush ignored the scientist, in much the same way he ignores the soldiers, and just assumes his beliefs are facts.
To answer the AC directly, the leak was absolutely political. Most leaks, reports, and articles are. This is good as in the US we have a democracy and the game of politics is what makes the system work. It is agressive, adversarial, and productive. If it bother's anyone, I hope you already live in a dictatorship.
I am prepared to send two of my ex's to the north and south poles respectively. Those cold hearted frigid bitches will soon put an end to any thawing going on.
All I ask for saving humanity is a tropical island paradise where I can be surrounded by nubile maidens.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
---I'll start with the last comment first:
---Do you assume that global warming means that temperatures will rise uniformly across the globe?
Course not. Look at the midwest here during 1850's. MUCH more desertlike and much less water. And the earth took that area FROM less livable to more livable.
---Do you assume that global warming would cause no shift in weather patterns?
The natural forces are more destructive than most things we can make. Tornadoes, earthquakes, VOLCANOES (1 spew=100 years of 'pollutants), hurricanes/tsunamis..
The only thing more destructive than most of those are nuclear warheads.. And even 50 years cures most of those problems. Look at Bikini atoll.
---Do you assume that any shifts in weather patterns would not be disruptive to agriculture?
The sahara was a wonderful wilderness. Now its sand. And LOTS of it. The "americans" sure as hell didnt do it. Nature CHANGES weather patters naturally. Whether it be good or bad for us, I dont know.
---Do you assume that disruptions in agriculture can be easily accomodated, say by rapidly shifting agricultural production to different parts of the globe (assuming, of course, that there would be vast new tracks of arable farmland as a result of changed weather patterns)?
Easy as in 1 year, or 100 years? The human race wont die out, but most will. Darn.
---If the answer to any of these questions is "no", then global warming should make you nervous.
---If your answer to any of these is "yes", then it's you, not the environmental scientists, who have some explaining to do. They seem like pretty shaky assumptions.
Im just looking at previous happenings in general. Though, you gotta love that false dichotomy at the end.
1: Impossible. But that doesn't mean that the somewhat less accurate material that we do have can just be ignored.
2: Irrelevant. Example: There have been ice ages before, but that doesn't mean that a new one wouldn't be a disaster to Mankind.
3: I don't know. But I do know the even US Govt. funded scientists have reached conclusions about global warming that your type don't like.
4: Oh yes. No problem. We will just relocate billions of people and buildings along with infrastructure from the low-lying parts of the world to the newly regained lands in Siberia and Antarctica. No sweat. And I'm sure it will be a peace of cake politically too. I mean, isn't it obvious that Russia would give up vast amounts of her territory to other countries?
Humans are adaptable, yes-within a particular set or limitations. It is our duty as a species to modify whatever is necessary to perpetuate our survival, whether it is artificially regulating the climate by any means necessary or limiting particular actions that contribute to health problems or in a minor way to the trends that we must abate for survival. Environmentalism has nothing to do with this apart from the aspects it derives from scientific study on trends that are common with the prompts for necessary actions for our species survival on the extended scale. Whether this is a "natural" trend or not does not matter, that it will produce inconvenient situations for humans does matter though and makes it a thing to seek control over.
Heh, typical. *"piece of cake", *"that even US govt."
One theory I'd heard is that one short term result is that more icebergs than 'normal' would descend into warmer waters, thus cooling them (because the vast bulk is underwater, and slowly melting). If enough icebergs descend into the Gulfstream it'll cool down enough to severely worsen the Western European winter climate. This would make winters here bitter cold, and summers less attractive than they are now. This, I think, people would notice.
"Suffering effects of global warming; send blankets."
To summarize some thoughts:
That big lump of ice out there probably has a large effect on global climate in general. The mass-concentration and distribution at the poles might somehow be important to the rotation of the earth? I think the volume of ice underwater will shrink more than the above-surface portion will provide (certainly after shrinking)
IANAE (Environmentalist)
Blame Bush! Everybody else does........ Skuz
~UltraSkuzzi
This comment is liscensed by SCO.
The concern is not the ice in contact with the water, it is the ice in glacier form that will become deposited into the water when the retaining walls that prevented it from reaching the sea melt away. That is how sea levels will increase.
The new york times is coming under a lot of criticism for the types of articles they are running lately.
http://www.timeswatch.org/
I was not aware that ELF gave out grants.
Unless you count some hippy passing you the bong as a "grant" or something.
This means that if the ice melted, we'd have more water, but since the ice that was floating in the water was displacing a lot more water than it actually contained, the sea level would probably drop.
You are forgetting that this ice at the Southern pole lays on land mass and it's not floating in the water. This is why it is one of the continents. This means that you have a lot of ice that is not currently displacing that sea water but will be if they melt down.
Just think about that before calling the grandparent a troll.
1) By analyzing fossil layer contents we can quite accurately estimate temperatures of given year. Some plants grow better if it's warmer, so you'll find more seeds, more remains etc. Of course there are accidents - fires, epidemies etc that change the results a lot. But examine the data from several places around the globe and you'll come up with quite decent estimates.
2) I won't. It did. The results were catastrophic. Human/industry fault or just natural order of things, we face it and should prepare to it.
3) Tell me scientists who claim the opposite aren't getting grants from government?
4) It may create some inhabitable land in some areas. It will make some currently inhabitable areas uninhabitable (deserts, dry steppes, flooded areas). It will also send most of the most inhabitated land under water. Think both US coasts, mediterran sea, Holland and quite a bit of European shores, most heavily inhabited areas of India, pacific islands, quite a bit of Japan...) - I hope profit of gaining new places to live will outweight the necessity for some 60% of Earth population to migrate and find new homes?
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Let me guess: you are an American. Let me answer at least a couple of the questions you just brought up: 3) Scientists are scientists (unless owned by a politician like the ones working for Bush that say global warming is OK..) and they are people who stay true to facts. Many scientists have postulated a theory on global warming. There is not fact. Science has continually rewritten its "interpretation" on things. As you might know physics has different theories that do not agree with each other. The same in earth sciences. Bill
"the ice that was floating in the water was displacing a lot more water than it actually contained"
*gasp*
Out come the enviro-trolls.
Yes, here you come.
1: Show me ACCURATE 1 million year tempature records. Wait!! We only have 80 years of records
It's called paleoclimatology. It was developed by people who actually studied when they went to school, as opposed to following your apparent curriculum of eating glue and getting your head stuck in bannisters.
2: Show me this hasnt happened before.
What does that have to do with anything? If it happened before it can't happen again? I mean, remember the last time you got your head stuck in a bannister? Did the fact that it had happened before prevent it from happening again?
3: Tell me the "scientists" studying arent also getting grants from... greenpeace or ELF..
Well, if you read the article then you would see who commissioned the study. But I guess it's more fun to accuse the scientists of being bribed liars. Because who wouldn't be corrupted by those climatology grants; you can really live the high life on those.
4: WHY exactly is global warming bad? Wont it give more landmass (eg, melts permafrost siberia) and lessen the "nice tropical -120F on antartica?
See, those pesky laws of thermodynamics mess things up. Maybe you should have taken junior high school physics instead of eating all that glue. Water, like many, many substances, tends to increase in volume when you add heat. So sea level rises. So you may gain part of Siberia, but you also lose a sizeable chunk of the world's coastal areas.
Free Flat Screen HERE!
Let's hope you are right, just to be on the safe side don't drive that SUV :)
roamingfeet
Water, like many, many substances, tends to increase in volume when you add heat.
Really? Is that why my beer cans shrink when they freeze? I think you are missing something.
Viv
Gmail invites for ip
Take a glass jar and fill it totally with water, all the way to the top, seal the lid on it, then freeze it! The result is a block of ice bigger than the jar with a busted jar around it.
"And so the Trekkies were executed in the mannor most befitting virgins - thrown into volcanoes" - Futurama
Anyone else wipe the sleep from their eyes as they read "Big arctic Penis seen...".
Yeah, it was only me. Dear lord, im going back to bed.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
Do not taunt Global Warming.
Correction: the ice replaces exactly the amount of water it occupies when floating (=law of Archimedes). Proof: take a glass of water, put in ice cube, fill up glass to the edge (but not overflowing!). Ice melts, and water is still exactly up to the edge.
Secondly: the bigger part of ice masses aren't floating, but piled hundreds or thousands or metres thick on top of land masses. And a glacier isn't usually found in an ocean or lake either. So if these ice masses melt, you get more water -> sea level up -> less land for people to live on.
My next comment will be ready soon, but subscribers can't beat the rush or see it early!
4) There are also theories that, after a short period of global warming, the increased area of water will cause an increase in cloud mass, reflecting more of the sun's energy and causing global cooling, plunging the world into another ice age. Why is global warming bad? Because we don't know which potentially harmless or potentially horrific chain reaction might occur, but it most likely will make the world MUCH different than it is now, and when things are MUCH different on a global scale, it's usually not a good thing.
-- I prefer the term "karma escort."
A recent study conducted by USGS and reported on NPR indicated that the last 30 years has been the wettest in the UnitedStates. Using tree's and buildings with verifiable construction dates, they have built a rainfall / overall weather record going back over 1000 years.
It pointed to a 400 year drought that affected America starting in like 900AD. It is pretty interesting to see reports like that. The globe is on a large pattern. I think that the "Global Warming" theory is vague at best. We don't know what they Earth would be like w/o us. The research on all this is amazing. The conclusions that we are being drawn are lame.
We have no clue what this Earth is doing, nor why. We can research, study, compile, review, etc. However, we are blind leading blind.
That being said, there are good reasons to reduce pollution. Good reasons to find more efficient ways of using our natural resources. But inventing hysteria to create a better world if insane.
Actually, that's not necessarily the case. During the last ice age the effect of all the additional water being locked up in the arctic ice cap caused the sea levels to fall. As a result land that is currently underwater was exposed by the declining sea level, forming amongst other things the land bridge from the European mainland to the British Isles. As the ice age came to an end and the ice sheets melted, those areas of land were again submerged, opening up the Irish Sea and, sometime later, the English channel. This is why there are fewer species of mammals in Ireland than there are in the UK mainland; they never got the chance to cross the land bridges before they were submerged by the melting ice.
Of course, saying there is going to be more or less land kind of misses the point. What's the use of having an extra few million square km of land, if it's under an icesheet a few km thick? Or if we go the other way, having a nice warm, but somewhat smaller, Eurasia/North America if all the lands around the equator get to become an infertile desert like the Sahara? Those are two extreme examples of course, the reality is likely to fall somewhere in between; but gains in one area of the globe will still be off set by losses in another.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
What about increased erosion? Erosion is a big problem for many coastal areas. Also should some of the largest coastal ice sheets in antarctica break loose; we would be looking at higher ocean levels and flooding out of coastal lands and islands around the world. That would displace a good amount of the world's population and wipe out many species that depend on salt-water marsh areas.
*It's not what you can do for the Dark Side but what the Dark Side can do for you!*
Really? Is that why my beer cans shrink when they freeze? I think you are missing something.
Which is why I used the word "tends". Water is somewhat unique; when it changes from liquid to solid it expands, due to the formation of a crystal lattice.
But that behavior only happens in a narrow band of temperatures. It doesn't kick in until water hits about 4 degrees celsius; above that temperature, water behaves like other liquids, and expands when it's heated. Ocean temperature varies by latitude, but over much of the earth water doesn't hit the 4 degree mark until you go down more than a kilometer. So the water above that will, in fact, expand if you add heat.
CO2 is not a pollutant, It is not toxic at ppm concentrations. It is, in fact, the lifeblood of the planet, and the key to the food chain. It also has little to do with global warming, even at it current level. Water vapor is by far the primary contributor of the greenhouse effect, accounting for 96 to 99%. CO2 accounts for 1 to 3%. The greenhouse effect lets solar radiation in, but, like a blanket over the planet absorbs some IR heat that would otherwise radiate out. This keeps the Earth's mean temperature somewhere around 15 C, instead of roughly -15 C. This vital 30 C swing is the reason that the Earth is habitable. During the current interglacial period, the Earth has been about 2C cooler (The little ice age around 1600, when the Thames was frozen over and Europe was dieing off from famine and disease), and it has also been about 2C warmer (The medieval warm period around 1200, when Greenland was colonized by the Vikings.) We are currently about in the middle of this natural variation, which occurred without manmade CO2. Incidentally, the 500k year Vostok ice core data: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm shows CO2 either in phase or lagging temperature by up to 1000 years, over four temperature oscillations. This means the CO2 does not drive temperature, but that temperature drives CO2. The most likely explanation is that the ocean outgases, and releases more CO2 when temperature increases, and holds more dissolved gasses as the oceans cools. I'm not disputing the Earth may be getting relatively warmer (as we are coming out of the little ice age). One reason is likely the unusually active Sun. This report: http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/aah4688.pdf shows that over the last several centuries, solar activity is at its highest levels. The IPCC determined that the Sun's variation in energy output were too small to explain global warming. They didn't consider the effects of cosmic radiation on low level cloud formation. Recent studies, an article summing it up can be found here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2333133. stm
show it goes like this: When the sun is highly magnetically active, the increased solar wind shields us from cosmic radiation. Low levels of incoming comic reduce cloud formation. Increased low level cloud formation increases reflectivity (i.e., the Earth's albedo). The difference from active Sun to inactive Sun was about 3% global cloud coverage. The jury is still out, but it could explain the correlation between the Maunder minimum of the 1600's and the little ice age, and account for the warming in the last 3 decades that corresponds with unusually high solar activity at the same time.
Finally, and most damningly, the "Global warming from manmade greenhouse gasses" hypothesis, requires that the upper atmosphere must warm up first, and then cause warming at the surface. Satellite data from the 70s to the present shows no significant warming in the troposphere. Since basis for all current computer models predicting warming is invalid, NO VALID CONCLUSIONS can be based on their results.
Please, to all who have bought into the Global Warming hype: Climate change is normal and unavoidable from century to century. Question authority, and do some of your own research before swallowing everything the green lobby feeds you. The best protection against climate change is a rich, technoligically advanced society that can adapt to natural variation. Don't damn the 3rd world to extended time in poverty by crippling the world's economy.
</sarcasm>
"VOLCANOES (1 spew=100 years of 'pollutants)" yeah so that PLUS the pollutants we put out means it's extra bad... so we should be preventing both :-)
just cause a volcanoes do it.. doesn't mean it's good.
------
insert sig here,here, and here
ELF has less organization than your average local Linux User's Club. They don't give grants you moron.
As far as question four, Refer to the end of my second sentence.
I fail to see how this is so insightful.
It's easy to say "I don't care" about some environmental issue, because natural processes also cause cataclysmic effects. The fact is that humans CAN alter the environment and humans DO breathe the air the environment produces, drink the water, and eat the fruit of the land.
The planet will survive no matter what we do, I'll grant you that. On the other hand, it need not support mamillian life. Though the course of history many classes of living organisms have become extinct though natural proccesses. It's quite possible that given a critical mass of people, all producing some minor atmospheric effect, we could alter the environment on the order of those natural processes, such that mamilian life were no longer sustainable. Natural selection would weed out the mammals and a new form of life would emerge.
If you're OK with that, go ahead and ignore the research about global warming. I for one would like to preserve the human race. I'm not saying all the science about global warmning is good. It isn't. However, to say that 6 billion people on the planet cold never affect the environment in a negative way is quite silly. We do need to take environmental research seriously, debunk the bad research, and heed the good research.
Ice floats. Nice try.
Two days to the election, Kerry behind in the polls, of course the NYT is going to run this story. They need something to distract from the fact that OBL now sounds more reasonable than Al Gore.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine...
Viv
Gmail invites for ip
Why is this assertion repeated every time this topic comes up? It's patently false. We annually burn up couple of km^3 pure carbon and turn it all into CO2. A very major volcano spews only a few km^3 of material, most of which is just rocks that fall to the ground next to the volcano. Do you have any valid links to back up your claim?
and Republicans and "Liber-I-always-vote-for-republicans-tarians" will say "The flooded costal cities are big lie that the liberals are pushing. What we need are bigger SUVs and more logging."
http://undoit.org/ - Global Warming: Undo It is an Environmental Defense campaign that addresses the critical issue of climate change. Our number one objective is passage of the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act, which would dramatically cut polluting emissions.
1: Show me ACCURATE 1 million year tempature records. Wait!! We only have 80 years of records
Ice-cores.
Varves.
Pollen analysis.
Dendroclimatology.
etc.
STFU.
Who do you think has more money to pay scientists' salaries: Greenpeace or industrial polluters? Dumbfuck.
holy crap - you must not work with any scientists. A few facts: they are not all Spock (perfect logic machines incapable of inserting their own presuppositions into their). In fact many scientists are just like you and me, normal people who make mistakes, have flaws, etc.
And who do you think "owns" these other scientists? Do you really think they are all these do-gooder knights with no financial interests? You really think that a scientist at a liberal university who is looking for tenure and who wants to get published in a liberal science journal is going to be inclined to rock the boat?
And that last part about global warming making "a significant portion of the biosphere dead or extinct" is the most inflated propaganda I have seen in a long while. You clearly need to finish high school science before speaking if you think that Bob the weatherman predicting rain tomorrow is the same as projecting 100 year global weather patterns. That's like saying because I can guess some user's password, I can break 3DES encryption in my head.
Doesnt anybody know about the 'little ice age' that lasted until the 18th century ?
Ice floats because its less dense than water. If you had ice which was frozen onto the bottom of the seabed, then melting that ice would cause a drop in sea level (because the water takes up less space as a liquid than a solid). If you have ice which is floating in the ocean, then melting that ice has no effect on ocean level (an ice block displaces an amount of water with mass equal to the total mass of the ice block). If you have ice which is anchored to land which is above sea level, and it melts, then it can cause an increase in sea level.
So the question is, what fraction of ice is in the form of icebergs, what fraction in submerged structures, and what fraction fixed to land above sea level.
I KNOW principals involved in this research. You think politicians are crooked? Some of these guys will write anything to get their next round of funding. Some will FORGE RESULTS! Others are trying to do honest science. All of you who claim BUSH is employing the hysteria of insecurity to garner votes need to realize that the same mentality exists in the scientific community. You see it in business too. Even the honest execs don't want to 'rock the boat' when the money is flowing in. Reading a scientific report on a hot, highly fundable subject is an exercise in weedoing out the real science from the money grubbing science.
IMO, while there is some correlation between projections of the effects of 'greenhouse gasses' and observation, it's still a stretch to infer causality.
Furthermore, the associated hysteria is unwarranted. There have been rapid warming periods in the past. There have also been rapid cooling periods. Through it all, life goes on.
Sigh. no I'm sure we are somehow responsible for that too. Those remote-controlled SUV's we sent over there is surely the cause
wanted: one clever sig,apply within
Comment removed based on user account deletion
> The amount of greenhouse gases that the civilized world has output since the Industrial Revolution [...]
You are merely making an unfounded statement, but still got moderated up. Care to back this up?
According to "Gerlach, T.M., 1991, Present-day CO2 emissions from volcanoes: Transactions of the American Geophysical Union (EOS), v. 72, p. 249, and 254-255." CO2 emissions of all volcanoes are surpassed by us humble beings by a factor of 150.
Sulphourous-emissions of volcanoes and all other natural sources are surpassed by 330%.
I guess, you'll now have to retort to doubting the integrity and/or qualification of the scientist in question.
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
The main fear is that of a catastrophe occuring. That is a catastrophe in the mathematical sense. A very good way to familiarise yourself with the concept is by going through the first chapter of James Murray's Mathematical Biology, an Introduction.
In this, Murray discusses mainly the equilibria in population dynamics, i.e. what concentrations of foxes and rabbits are likely to be able to coexist in a regular pattern.
When a catastrophe occurs, the equilibrium has been so perturbed that the system is unpredictable until it finds a new one. Once this new equilibrium has been reached, it is not possible to "go back". This is called a hysteresis effect.
Population dynamics is very similar to weather in that sense.
If you're wondering why global warming is bad, suppose we produce a sufficient ripple in the system (e.g. through rapid increase in carbon monoxyde concentrations) to initiate a catastrophe, which brings to say five degrees centigrade hotter or lower on average. This would have such monstruous consequences for the planet it's very hard to imagine.
For some extreme predictions, see Hubert Reeves' three scenarii (unfortunately I was unable to find this information in english, apparently Reeves' book Mal de Terre (Earthake) has not been translated into English)
Yes, this coming from the same guys that can tell you what your weather will be like tomorrow correctly 90% of the time.
Who are also the same guys who can tell you what your weather will be like in exactly one month from now correctly less than 5% of the time.
So, if their weather forecasting skills have anything to do with the correctness of their global warming theories, which are a lot more long-term than even just "next month," you've just said that we shouldn't pay any attention to them.
Or, in other words, emotional hyperbole is of no value to a scientific debate.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
>>That's like saying because I can guess some user's password, I can break 3DES encryption in my head.
You can, can't you?
What do 'conservatives' seek to conserve exactly?
Seems to me they're mostly intent on destroying stuff (environment, foreign people, wildlife, dissenters etc.).
It only takes one straw to break the camel's back. The environment is all balances, and human pollution breaks that balance - pushing to a new balance, where the ice caps melt. Or don't you believe that we're directly affecting the climate? In the 1970s, you'd have been littering, because we're too insignificant to make enough trash to matter. You probably still do, expecting that the rest of us who know how to act will make up for your abuse of our environment.
--
make install -not war
...Show me this hasnt happened before...
The reason oil, coal and gas are called fossil fuels is that they once came from living organisms. All energy used by man on this planet other than nuclear comes from the sun. Oil, coal and gas represent stored sunshine from a very long time ago.
These stored fuels are mostly composed of hydrogen, oxygen and carbon atoms that were bound together by the internal chemistry of living organisms. In order for the living creatures to be able to convert solar energy into these fuels, the elements must have been on the surface of the Earth in a form that made them available to photosynthesis. All of the carbon was therefore in the earth's atmosphere before the fossil fuels were stored underground.
This means our planet must have been much warmer before all that carbon was trapped in the underground deposits from which we extract them today. We find fossils, oil and coal in the polar regions made by tropical organisms. It is no accident that most warm blooded creatures have an internal temperature in the range of 95 to 105 deg F (35-40.5 deg C) because this is the range where life molecular processes operate at optimum.
If every known drop of oil, every ounce of coal and every last cubic foot of gas were burned by mankind, would the earth again be at a temperature approaching the internal temperature of warm blooded animals? If this temperature became the average temperature of the whole planet, uniformly from the deepest ocean depth to the highest mountain peaks and from pole to pole, what would be so bad about that?
The dire predictions about coastal flooding would not happen because the moisture holding capacity of the warm, carbon dioxide laden atmosphere would increase to more than offset the molten ice. The amount of water a hurricane can dump demonstrates the huge quantities of water that can be suspended in warm air.
What would be so bad about growing bananas in Siberia and fruit trees in the Sahara? Houses and clothes, as we know them today would be largely superfluous. Wild weather, such as hurricanes, tornadoes and nasty winter storms would be gone. These things are due to temperature gradients in the atmosphere and oceans. The warm, humid, uniform atmosphere would eliminate hot and cold deserts.
One of the mysteries of the past is how the fossils and fuels got preserved and stored underground for our convenient use today. Normal observations today show that when a living organism dies, its remains are rendered back to carbon dioxide and water in a short time or are used again by another living entity.
In order to preserve the hydrocarbons, oxidation and decay have to be prevented in a short time after death. This could have happened by a quick burial such as to exclude oxygen and apply enough heat to prevent micro-organisms from acting to break the organic molecules back into their basic components.
Global warming is definitely happening because of the increase of carbon dioxide in the air. However, the amount of carbon mankind has released into the air so far, compared to how much carbon is known to exist in the world's fossil fuel stores, does not amount to much. This includes only the known reserves of such fuels and does not take into account the undiscovered quantities stored at depths and in places where we could not get them even if we knew they are there. So far, the average global temperature has changed only a very short distance toward the ideal life temperature.
The scare-mongers are right, the warming effect is real, but would ultimately result in a very livable planet. So let's burn up the fossil fuels and then we'd return to a warm global paradise where we would not need any fuel to stay warm. Since it would take a while to burn it all, living things could adapt to the new climate, just as they adapted from what it once was to what it is now.
All theory is gray
Get yourself to Mars.
Whoops. Get yourself some reading glasses.
"WHY exactly is global warming bad?"
;-) Badnarik 2004"
Global "warming" is bad for humans who eat food that evolved our mild climate.
"And about non-liberal.. I voted Bush 2000, but dont think he's conservative ENOUGH
You are making the right move - vote your conscience!
--
make install -not war
I can...
...signifant portion of the earth's biosphere dead or extinct....
There is evidence the whole earth once was very much warmer, approaching the temperature of your blood. There are TROPICAL fossils in the arctic regions of Earth.
All theory is gray
What is up with the American education system ? , First it produces creationists, then global warming deniers. Study the science mate, have a good hard look at it , a lot of scientists being funded independently have done a lot of work before coming to any conclusions. I won't even respond to your points since they follow the same urban logic that creationists favor and we all know there is no point arguing with them. But I would recommend you and read the scientific literature about global warming (both sides, and avoid the ones funded by oil companies, republicans and environmental nut jobs) and you will see that the majority opinion in favor of global warming has a very well researched argument that make your points look rather juvenile.
Whoever controls the present controls the past, whoever controls the past controls the future
If all of the icecaps melt, the result is to raise the global ocean level about 200 feet. IIRC, over 80% of the world's population lives in places that are less than 200 feet above sea level. At current rates it will take a few hundred years for this to occur, but the implication is that a large part of the human race and much of its wealth (in the form of cities and associated means of production) will have to be relocated.
....land under water.....
The dire predictions about coastal flooding would not happen because the moisture holding capacity of the warm, carbon dioxide laden atmosphere would increase to more than offset the molten ice. The amount of water a hurricane can dump demonstrates the huge quantities of water that can be suspended in warm air.
All theory is gray
Not usually. While a super-eruption may be able to put out more in one eruption than humans can in a single year, these eruptions are few and far between. The last one of this magnitude, IIRC, was Krakatoa, and before that was Taupo, and before that I think was the volcano in the Med in ancient Greek times. However, such eruptions also kick a lot of ash into the air, which causes a cooling effect, so really, some people should be asking for more volcanos to erupt.
BTW, I'm on the side of the skeptics. I just like for everyone to be on the same page.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Anyone who is concerned with a major shift in the earth's climate is a troll? Even if you disagree with their conclusions, isn't it better to err on the side of caution and at least listen rationally to what they have to say? I mean, if they *are* right, the future of the entire human race might be in jeopardy...
Quite frankly, your post itself seems like a right-wing troll to me. However, I'm going to respond to it in the most rational manner possible just in case someone impressionable reads your post and thinks "well, he might have a point."
Short answer: you don't have a point.
Long answer...
1: Show me ACCURATE 1 million year tempature records. Wait!! We only have 80 years of records
Wrong. We have ice cores from Antarctica with 400,000 years of temperature records *and* CO2 concentration measurements. The data is chilling: the CO2 concentration is very well correlated with the temperature of the lower atmosphere over 400 millennia, and the CO2 concentration today (370 ppm) is higher than the maximum value in the last 400 millennia (300 ppm). Mind you, there have been numerous volcanic eruptions and major climate shifts (several ice ages, for instance) in that time period. Even considering those factors, the CO2 concentration is higher now than it has ever been in 400 millennia of recorded data.
Now, if you read that link carefully instead of just looking at the plots, you'll notice that they mention that 460 million years ago, CO2 levels were at 4400 ppm while the climat was roughly the same as it is today. That seems odd given that I'm claiming that there is a strong correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration (based on the fact that CO2 blocks infrared light but is transparent to visible light, thus trapping heat in the earth's atmosphere).
My answer to this conundrum is that we can only make projections on relatively short time scales. Correlating CO2 concentration and global temperatures over several hundred millennia is one thing; attempting to correlate them over timescales 1000x longer is quite another. For one thing the entire ecosystem of the earth was vastly different 460 million years ago: life was confined to the oceans. The sun may have had a lower radiative output than it does now, etc, etc.
2: Show me this hasnt happened before.
It doesn't seem to have happened at any point in the last 400,000 years.
Even if this kind of global warming *had* happened before, that's irrelevant. The point is that the earth's climate *does* shift naturally all the time. It doesn't shift by this much, of course (or at least the CO2 levels haven't been this high in the last 400,000 years), but it does change. The bottom line is: we couldn't survive a *natural* climate shift, let alone a bigger artificial climate shift. If global temperatures change by even a little bit, it will destabilize our civilization in frightening ways (which I describe below). If the climate shift is natural (which I don't believe it is) then we need to fight it to survive. If the climate shift is artificial, then we need to fight the industries that are causing it in order for humanity to survive.
3: Tell me the "scientists" studying arent also getting grants from... greenpeace or ELF..
Look at the links on the bottom of the page I already linked to. See all the references to Nature articles?
Lemme let you in on how the scientific debate process works. Scientists get grants from lots of different places. Honestly, I've never heard of anyone getting a grant from either Greenpeace or ELF (both of which are borderline terrorist organizations IMHO), but even if a scientist gets a grant from an organization you don't like, that is completely f*cking irrelevant! The research has to be s
Article is archived here.
There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production- with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas - parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia - where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree - a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.
To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. "A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, "because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century."
A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth's average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras - and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the "little ice age" conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 - years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.
Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data," concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."
Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large
...So sea level rises....
But you who took a junior high school physics course forgot that warm air can hold HUGE quantities of water. All and more of the water from the ice would be suspended in a warm atmosphere. The whole Earth once was a VERY warm place and it would be nice actually if it were warm again, as long as the change takes place slowly. There are tropical fossils in the arctic!
All theory is gray
There was an article a number of years ago in Scientific American about growing plants in terreriums with an increased CO2 content. The authors found that the plants used grew much faster and larger than normal. They suspected that this might bring the levels down to normal, but were carfull not to assert it. They couldn't be sure, as they'd kept the levels up, rather than seeing what the plant growth did to them. I wonder if that experiment ever got done and what the result was. If, as seems likely, the growth did bring down the levels, excess CO2 in the atmosphere might be just a temporary issue until the biosphere corrects it.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
These issues were raised last year at the Sierra Club, but unfortunately, LaRaza and various other racist groups began tagging the concerned members (of the Sierra Club) as "racists" or "bigots". As a result, the Sierra Club voted down a proposal to designate population growth and unfettered immigration as an environmental concern.
Anyone who supports unfettered immigration is basically feigning concern about the environment and is a hypocrite who should be ignored.
Death is a natural end to life. But I don't contribute to mine by sucking on an exhaust pipe.
--
make install -not war
Maybe not. We can always learn from The Netherlands and build dikes. Then we can all learn what it's like to live in a polder.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
You are totaly right about the temperature/volume will matter. The problem is that it will not only be melting ice that will change the volume. Water getting warmer than 4 degrees celsius will also expand, and from what I have understood this change is bigger than the difference caused by melting underwater ice at the northpole.
No matter which, there should be no doubt that the human impact on the climate is big, and that it will change our life in the future.
" Workweek Causes Climate Fluctuations"
--
make install -not war
RE: your sig:
Having moderated I am starting to get sick of using the "overrated" tag because it does not actually express the factual inaccuracy I sometimes mod people down for. A post that contains bullshit that is later refuted with evidence is usually not a "Troll" or "Flaimbait" because the author is just plain ignorant. It isn't "Redundant" either.
I read this thread at -1, and let me tell you a "Refuted" or "Wrong" or "Factually Challenged" tag or something like that would have applied to something like 25% of the posts here.
The other problem is that if someone posts bullshit, and then someone else posts good evidence to the contrary, and then based on that evidence, the parent gets modded down, then that effectively punishes both submissions because when the parent gets below a reader's threshold, all replies to it go to the bottom of the list, after more complete threads. Though maybe that's a prefs setting I could change, I haven't checked.
So right now I am inclined to leave factually wrong posts at level 1. If I see one modded up beyond that, I will mod it down. If I see an anon coward that has a 0, with a lot of good replies attached to it, I'll mod it up to 1. That would give good results to anyone who filters at 1. It would be better to have a +1 "Strawman" tag or something to do the latter with as well.
Someone had to do it.
Once again, the Conservative mind is completely, 100% absolutely right. Anything anyone has ever attempted to say about the earth, environment, EVOLUTION, and other politically movitated liberal sciences is questionable. There is no way we can say anything intelligent about living on the planet earth unless we have a controlled experiment. That means two identical planets: one where Bush and the consume until we drop SUV crowd lives...and another where the conservationists live.
Speaking of which, if someone is planning on doing this experiment...I would like to live on the planet with the conservationists...
"Sulphourous-emissions of volcanoes and all other natural sources are surpassed by 330%."
Sure, now.
But volcanic activity is nothing if not variable; the Earth goes through periods of intense vulcanism; vast areas covered in lava. Check out what caused the Deccan Traps in India for one example.
Massive volcanos which we today think of as just large islands with a few volcanos scattered around like North Island New Zealand where lake Taupo is a *crater* lake; the whole island is (probably) one gigantic monoclastic volcano.
Sure, *today* and for the duration of human history we have outdone all of the volcanos of the world, but take in the big picture.
All it would take is just *one* of those massive events and nature will have accelerated past us in greenhouse (and other noxious) gas production.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Yes; it's kinda funny how many people completely fail to understand this basic concept. A couple of years ago, I saw a full-page ad in an issue of National Geographic, warning about the dangers of global warming. Their visual demonstration was, you guessed it, a glass of water in which was suspended a picturesque iceberg, complete with water spilling over the side. :-/
meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.
./ experts on greenhouse gasses, fossil fuels, and politics is that shit will be so bad in ten years that it won't matter. I'm grabbing that cash while I can and spending it!
Show me a meteorologist who can tell me anything reliable more than three days out and I'll show you a liar.
This ten year food calamity will occur right about the same time as peak oil.
I don't know about you but I'm going to go ahead and go to an adjustable rate mortgage and negative amortization. What I read from all the
I'm not worried at all about this 'global warming' thing.
... that there is no way possible that global warming could be true.
Dubya Bush, the guy who can't pronounce nuclear properly, says it's all crap, therefore I have nothing to fear from it.
Bush feels so strongly that 'global warming' is crap that he's paid his own science advisors to eliminate any government records that support global warming, and to produce contrary false evidence to counter the thousands of scientists around the world that have run unbiased, scientific tests that have shown global warming is real.
Dubya feels so strongly about this global warming thing, fighting so hard against all the evidence
I love Dubya.
This major climatological disaster brought to you by: The Day After Tomorrow, now availabel on DVD.
NOTHING! We know nothing. Not all scientists agree on what happened in the past. Not all scientists agree on what is happening now. And we can't say that we will never agree on what is going to happen! Also, human knowledge is constantly changing.
So many theories! These are generalizations of theories proposed in the past: The world is flat. The world is a round. The world is an oblate spheroid. We get sick because we have evil spirits. We get sick because of microbes. Antibiotics will kill all microbes. Microbes can't survive at temperatures above 100 degrees C. Microbes live in volcanic ocean vents in the ocean at 240+ degrees C. Global warming will cause us all to roast. Global warming will cause us to freeze. Ozone is a pollutant at surface level, but a vital protective barrier at altitude. C'mon people, when are you going to realize that we really don't know what's going on... just be responsible and polite and don't step on my toes.
BTW, Why did the first "Earth Day" protest tout the horrors of global cooling???
Yes I am sure it's that simple! They only effect will be that we will have year round summer right? Thank God that we have clear thinkers like you in the world!
Not American scientists - Not even all American politicians. Just the Bush administration and a few other representatives in the house and senate. Hell, even McCain thinks it's happening. And the Bush administration actually recently admitted that it poses a threat. So, yeah. Way off.
We do need to take environmental research seriously, debunk the bad research, and heed the good research.
But if the "weeded-out" bad research demonstrates that the global warming fears are unfounded, will the alarmists go away? Nope.
The only solution to this problem is to take off in all directions at once and spend trillions on dubious fixes.
Just because something is changing from the way you found it doesn't mean it is worse. We live on a dynamic, changing, planet, get used to it. And we are part of it and part of what changes it. We need to bend nature to our will, for our own good, and not try to patch things that are broken. Let the freakin spotted owl go extinct!
My Linux Command of the Day site : LCOD
"But you who took a junior high school physics course forgot that warm air can hold HUGE quantities of water. All and more of the water from the ice would be suspended in a warm atmosphere."
Oh, gee - it seems like you have found an important factor for predicting the sea level rise due to rising temperatures. I wonder why the International Panel Climate Change has not included that effect as one of the major effects on sea level change - maybe all them scientists are dum?
The truth is that the atmosphere on average holds 2.9 cm of water. In a warmer climate that might be somewhat larger - but it is not of the same magnitude as for example the thermal expansion of the oceans due to heating (which is already observed with very high accuracy - google for Levitus and Science).
Do you have any evidence to back up your argument?
Yes, ice does expand when it freezes. In the ocean this ice will end up floating, no net change in sea level. The change in sea level comes from the melting of continental ice... ice which was not previously buoyed up by liquid water. This is the stuff that will increase water volumes.
I also remember at one time calculating the rise in sea level from thermal expansion as the oceans warm up. I recall that even one degree change would have a measurable effect on ocean levels. But this was also assuming that the oceans warmed evenly, and was a pretty rough guesstimate on average ocean depth.
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
My Linux Command of the Day site : LCOD
Yes, that would be nice, those old forms of life could exist again, doesn't matter that those lifeforms that developed in colder climates (like, say, homo sapiens) would go extinct, would it?
Just because it can accomodate life doesn't mean it can accomodate humans.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
While it is true the waterlevel will not be affected when the ice is melting, I think trouble might start when the extra water reaches a temparature over 4 degrees centigrade, wich is the temperature where water has it's highest density (and thus smallest volume). Above and below that water will expand, and at a certain point will take more volume then it displaced as ice. Don't ask me at wich temperature that would be, but I'm not at all sure it won't be reached.
What person will donate an airborne act of love?
But you who took a junior high school physics course forgot that warm air can hold HUGE quantities of water.
Oh my, where to begin...
Alright, first of all, we're not talking about atmospheric H2O causing sea level rise. What I'm referring to is water that has been heated, expands, but still doesn't evaporate. How much vapor the atmosphere holds is irrelevant, because the water that will be flooding coastal cities will be in its liquid form.
Secondly, atmospheric changes like that are extremely disruptive. An early frost or slightly less rain than usual can destroy entire crops; slow changes on a geological scale have immediate and destructive impacts.
Thirdly, if the Arctic is tropical, think what the rest of the planet will be like. Would you really want to live in a perpetually hot swamp?
You're correct that the US would have to reduce the highest amount of greenhouse gases of all Kyoto Protocol participants.
Have you ever asked yourself if that might be because the US is the worlds largest greenhouse gas producer, therefor also earning the most money on cost of natural resources?
Or if ecological politics might be bad for people having to feed their family everywhere in the world, because there always has to be an economic price for ecological measures?
We are all sitting in the same boat...
Thinking of current economics being more important than a stable environment is both shortsighted and stupid. No offense, but wether the current global warming has natural or human causes, working towards destroying our environment will have serious long term effects.
Disclaimer: I am European.
Well, the coastal cities of the US are where all the liberals live. So why should we care about what happens there at all? Sounds like a useful bit of "urban renewal" to me.
Coastal cities tend to vote democratic, so they probably wouldn't mind so much.
It seems that Dubya has a Slashdot account now! Did you figure out how to register an account yourself, or did Karl Rove help you?
It is bad because it will cause temp extremes, we will lose the moderating effect that the frozen poles and ocean currents cause. You see, as the poles melt off their ice, they dump huge quantities of ice cold fresh water into the salty seas. These hit ocean currents like the gulf stream and japanese current, which bring heat to the northern latitudes, moderating the cold. When this new and huge qwuantity of ice cold fresh water hit the currents, they slow them down, and depending on how much ice melts, they could almost stop. What happens then is the lower atlantic and gulf regions get really hot and stay hot,which means there's a lot more hurricanes and probably way too much rain in the south east,along with more tornadoes, and the northern regions of North America on the east coast and northern europe will get REALLY cold and stay cold longer in the season.
There's other stuff that will happen, the ocean currents keep things stirred up and are an important part of ocean animals life cycles, so it will mess with the food supply there as well as on land.
Just think, to make it easier, where humans mostly live now, in what we call the temperate zones, the normally warmer areas now will get much hotter, and the cooler areas will get much colder, as in ice age style action.
No, we don't know the time limits on this happening, and we don't know exactly when and where a tipping over point might be, but it's happened in the past over and over again.
So it IS cyclical, but some scientists think that it can also be partially induced by human activity with burning fuels. ( I don't see how it couldn't really) So, I tend to agree it is from *both methods*, not one or the other. We are also at a solar activity maximum point which is thousands of years cyclical, so we have that as well to contend with.
Could get real interesting quickly, might take a hundred years or something, so ya gotta ask yourself..feeling lucky?
Greenland, as well as much of Antarctica is covered by mile high glaciers, much of it indeed piled up on dry land. If much or all of this ice melts, the result will be much like dropping an ice cube into a glass of water, in that it will raise the level in the glass. If you own real estate in the Netherlands or much of the southeastern US, as well as other low lying parts of the world, you can kiss it goodbye under a rising sea level. Unfortunately, this also includes a number of large coastal cities, which will require their relocation inland to make way for the expanding coastal fishing areas. Our skyscrapers will make good structure for sheltering marine life, and will one day be on many sea captain's list of fishing hotspots. If the Antarctic and Greenland glaciers melt, the sea level could rise 200 feet. All of the current major seaports would be inundated, and cities on rivers even hundreds of miles inland would be at least partially inundated by the rising waters.
Not to make your comment worthless, but it's not "interesting", moderators. We're talking about a 15-year time period (where real trends are measured at least in 50 years, if not 50,000). Over the past 15 years here, in beautiful, exciting Delaware (USA), we've had some mild winters but we've also had some cold winters with lots of snow. Ask ten people in the Northeast about the biggest storm we've had in the past 10 years (all which broke records) and you'll get 10 different answers. Last winter was really snowy, but we had one in 1996 I believe (maybe?) where schools closed because temperatures dropped to 255 Kelvin, er 0 degrees, and below and remained there for a week. Sadly, no one's regional reports are really going to establish anything.
That being said, the driest, hottest, summers in the past couple of years around here have been followed by colder, wet winters. This summer was relatively mild, and certainly wet enough. I expect this winter then to be mild and with little precipitation.
In other words, really boring.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
There are well established formulas for calculating the water holding capacity if a given air mass at any temperature. A hurricane is a demonstration of the awesome water holding capability of a very small fraction of the Earth's atmosphere.
All theory is gray
Sure. And those types of huge natural events have been among the prime suspects to explain some of the mass extinctions that have occurred over the eons. Maybe that should tell us something.
Was that "study" done by the same frauds who predicted mass starvation in the '90's?
I clicked on this article specifically to see the Libertarian environment trolls come out and scream about how it's all a left-wing conspiracy and climate change is just fine, and boy, I was not disappointed.
Well, I was disappointed in the human race I guess
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
, if our changes are expensive (which they are, and "expensive" automatically translates into human lives)
...unless you are an entrenched energy company, in which case you short-sightedly see new energy technologies as a potential threat to YOUR revenue stream.
Uh, excuse me-- how does expensive "automatically" translate into human lives (which if I'm not misunderstanding, you mean lives ENDED)?
Besides, short-term expenses in this area would translate into long-term savings. Investing now in environmentally-conscious technologies, whether alternate fuel sources, more efficient engine and factories, recycling, or whatever-- all this creates new high-end jobs (cutting-edge research, manufacturing, etc.), it increases effeciency and reduces waste overall, SAVES money overall, and it makes you a leader in this technology (meaning you can license your inventions to others). AND it's friendlier to the environment.
It's a win-win.
W
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
There are millons of humans enjoying life today in the tropical regions of the Earth. So what if the whole Earth once again becomes tropical. It would not happen suddenly so the succeeding generations of humans would get used to it and think of it as "normal" just as we consider today's climate normal.
All theory is gray
"The reason oil, coal and gas are called fossil fuels is that they once came from living organisms."
Actually, this 'fact' is still very much disputed: Fossil Fuels and Suspected Fuel
So, if "every ounce of coal and every last cubic foot of gas were burned by mankind" the world would be covered in an atmosphere of CO2 that makes Venus look like a pleasant place to vacation (not that all the ozone smog, radioactive and toxic chemicals output from burning the coal, and violent weather changes associated with climate change wouldn't kill us first, regardless of which theory of fossil fuels was true).
You're talking about events that scale to where they kill nearly every human within 200 miles of the eruption by parboiling them in a cloud of superheated steam. The amount of ash dumped in such a case would create a year without a summer, and such erruptions probably kill 20% to half the living creatures on the planet every time one happens.
So what's your point? Everyone disagreeing with you on the amount hunams contribute to the greenhouse effect right now is a fool that isn't more concerned about the 0.0005% chance of another Thera scale erruption instead? Nature could hit us with something that would dwarf all our efforts, so we should just lie down and wait for the ash to bury us all?
I have some bad news for you that you evidently haven't heard. You're going to die someday. Better quit striving now and avoid the rush. Let's not stop at your big picture - the really big one is the Sun is going to blow up in a few billion years. The even bigger one is the fine structure constant isn't constant, and the universe will eventually fly apart as even individual elementary partuicles push each other away at ever increasing speeds.
Who is John Cabal?
> but take in the big picture.
The point is, the big picture (1 billion years of earth history) doesn't matter for us. Yes, there have been episodes of massive vulcanism in the past. Yes, there have been changes of climate in the past. Yes, there were phases of higher CO2 concentration. Hell, there were even several massive asteroids colliding with earth.
But for us humans, maybe only the last 10 millenia are of interest. This is were we developed our civilisation. Fairly stable climate (1 degree variation), slightly cooler than today, and finally less CO2 concentration.
Speaking of the big picture. How do you think it will affect a world of 8billion people of inhabitants when (relatively) suddenly large areas of land become inareable and others uninhabitle?
> All it would take is just *one* of those massive events and nature will have accelerated past us in greenhouse (and other noxious) gas production.
Maybe. But you are sounding to me like a smoker, telling me, that it is much more likely to die from an car accident than from smoking. This time, however the odds reversed.
Those are independent possible causes, and on one we have an limited influence on the other not.
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
Look at the midwest here during 1850's. MUCH more desertlike and much less water. And the earth took that area FROM less livable to more livable.
Sure it was. (I guess the Great Lakes don't qualify as "water.") Do you have any evidence to back up this assertion? Besides, didn't you say in another post that we only have 80 years of temperature data?
The natural forces are more destructive than most things we can make.
This is precisely why we need to be careful what we do to the climate.
VOLCANOES (1 spew=100 years of 'pollutants)
Wrong. Volcanoes contribute an insignificant amount of carbon dioxide compared to human activities.
The only thing more destructive than most of those are nuclear warheads.. And even 50 years cures most of those problems. Look at Bikini atoll.
The Bikinians are still trying to get the money to clean up their atoll. Like the carbon we're spewing into the atmosphere, the radioactive contamination didn't just go away.
The sahara was a wonderful wilderness. Now its sand. And LOTS of it. The "americans" sure as hell didnt do it. Nature CHANGES weather patters naturally. Whether it be good or bad for us, I dont know.
Nice logical fallacy. Past changes occurred independently of human activities; therefore nothing we do now will affect the climate.
The human race wont die out, but most will. Darn.
The extent of your compassion is quite touching. I'd rather avoid fighting an endless global war over dwindling resources if possible.
Can I have a play on that slippery slope once you're done with it?
This may seem like a slippery slope fallacy, but it is indeed based on solid evidence. Analysis of historical climates indicates that climate changes are indeed very sudden.
source
source
source
source
But hey... we can wait untill our society has been crushed by global climate change before we take off our blinders.
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
...vapor the atmosphere holds...
The water held in the air is not available to flood anything. A warm humid atmosphere would make the temperature difference between the poles and the equator very small. There are TROPICAL fossils and fossil fuels in the arctic. How did they get there?
These changes take a long time and living things are very adaptable. We will also adapt over the many generations that such changes happen.
All theory is gray
You missed a major element of the Vostock ice core data analysis: It shows CO2 either in phase or lagging temperature by up to 1000 years, over four temperature oscillations. This means the CO2 does not drive temperature, but that temperature drives CO2. The most likely explanation is that the ocean outgases, and releases more CO2 when temperature increases, and holds more dissolved gasses as the oceans cools.
There are fossils imbedded coal and remnants of living cells in oil, showing that these fuels were made by living processes.
If we burned all the fuel, the carbon content of the air might increase from the present 2% or so to perhaps 10%, but the amount of water vapor in the air would go up much more as the temperature increases. A hurricane demonstrates the huge quantities of water that can be held in only a very small fraction of the atmosphere if the temperature is elevated. As the temperature rises over time, life forms become more prolific and the increased growth on land and the sea would accelerate the removal of carbon from the atmosphere. Eventually things would reach some equilibrium.
Venus has a lot of methane in its atmosphere and is too close to the sun, so you would not want to go there.
All theory is gray
The natural forces are more destructive than most things we can make. Tornadoes, earthquakes, VOLCANOES (1 spew=100 years of 'pollutants), hurricanes/tsunamis..
Everything except volcanoes affects a few square miles, and even a large volcano maybe affects 50 square miles. Climate change on the other hand affects millions of square miles.
VOLCANOES (1 spew=100 years of 'pollutants)
Well, I can gaurantee that you have no facts to back up that ridiculous statement.
The sahara was a wonderful wilderness. Now its sand. And LOTS of it. ... Nature CHANGES weather patters naturally.
Yea, nature can change weather patterns, and yea, global warming is probably inevitable. If those changes happen slowly, we will adapt, probably with mild impact. The supporting infrastructure can shift if there are slow but significant population shifts. People can install air conditioners or heaters. Cropland in less productive areas are slowly abandoned while newly productive croplands are put under cultivation, and the infrastructure to support them and get crops to market are built.
With slow changes, all these are quite feasible. But the faster those changes occur, the bigger the disruption. Extremely rapid changes (where extermely rapid is measured in years) could concievably lead to catastrophic disruptions. It is in our interest, even if the changes are inevitable, to make them occur at the slowest rate possible. Unless making a buck now is more important than starving people in the future.
The human race wont die out, but most will. Darn.
Oh, never mind. You answered my question.
Cars do kill the environment, despite what dubious, paid-by oil companies, "scientists" say. Check this out. It's written by the same people who claimed that Linux was not written by Linux (and that it's Minix instead).
The Raven
Of course it has happened before. Back then my entire country was a single, tiny island.
Numerous countries (Bangladesh, in Oceania etc) are hardly above sea level. Add another 4 m to seallevel and they are gone.
Your lack of empaty is disturbing.
"The point is, the big picture (1 billion years of earth history) doesn't matter for us."
Surely this disinterest only applies if you don't intend to reproduce?
Actually, one of the things that amazes me about modern humans, is that they do seem remarkably disinterested in their own survival into the future.
Its as if they think that the species ends with them or something. Very wierd. Very... counter-Nietzscheian, counter-survivalist. Self destructive.
My point was that someone else played down natural sources of climactic change and I don't believe that this is justified given the scaling of disaster levels involved.
Its like someone says 'oh we are producing *far* more noxious gasses than mere volcanos' which needs to be moderated by noting how *huge* 'mere' vulcanism can get.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Yes, not to mention all the ice which is currently frozen on the land in the Artic Circle such as in Greenland, Alaska and Northern Russia.
I think I remember seeing some study which shows the amount of water flowing into the Arctic Ocean from a few large Russian rivers has increased by a factor of 3 or 4 in the last few decades.
Apparently the parent poster doesn't realise that ice occupies more space than it's equivalent amount of water. Example: if you have a million molecules of water and freeze it, it will occupy more space as ice (but still be 1 million molecules). It's mass will be the same, but it's volume will be different. Try this little experiment at home if you don't believe me: Pull out a glass tumbler and fill it with water, then put it in your freezer. Wanna bet the glass tumbler breaks when the water turns to ice? Water turned to ice is responsible for breaking rocks, causing asphault and concrete roads to break, and other serious damage. The molecular mass is identical. The volume grows because of the way ice forms (it's related to the 212 degree angle the hydrogen atoms relate to the oxygen atom in the water molecule). This expansion process is also what kills plants. When a flower or vegetable freezes, the water in the cells expand, causing the cell wall to burst. When the thawing process occurs, the cell wall is broken (actually all of the plants cell walls), and the plant is soft/mushy/wilted/dead. Root vegetables are less succeptable due to the lower volume of water they store in their cells.
Less drilling of oil and gas with more co2 sinks ..just kidding
will reverse the situation in no time.
You are making the right move - vote your conscience!
I never understood people who said this.
The libertarians have barely 580 people holding elected office nationwide. A vast majority of them aren't even lawmakers, but members of the school board, water board, and such things. If you took every member of town, village, city and borough councils and promoted them to the US senate they still wouldn't have a majority.
This party has no legislative experience, an unproven record, basically nothing but promises.
Why does your conscience say you should vote for them?
I agree with some of the LP's stand on things, but I'm not going to appoint someone with no track record of any kind to an important job. If they were campaigning for the local town council, I'd take them seriously and give them a second look. But now they're just a bunch of people trying to get attention. If they want to be taken seriously, they need to start small. Till then they don't deserve any attention from the media and should stop whining.
Sure we do ... it's just that some people would rather pretend it didn't happen.
Well, now we know why you have so many ex's.
Arctic ice is melting at such a fast rate that the Northwest Passage is going to be navigable by commercial ship traffic within 20-30 years, something that in all of recorded history has never been possible. That means that even in the medium term (centuries) the trend is a warming one.
Some background on the Northwest Passage: the ancient European explorers had long been seeking a shorter route for trade with the Orient, and some, like Magellan did find a route, but it was a very long one, by rounding the tips of the southern continents. No similar consistently navigable route through the North was found at the time. This seems to show that the temperatures in the Arctic have been colder in the past (or that northern explorers were more incompetent than southern explorers). Even today, only a few ships have ever made it through, and it is certainly too dangerous for commercial shipping.
If you want to read more about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_passage
The water held in the air is not available to flood anything.
Do you have any credible reason to think that the amount of increased atmospheric H2O will counteract rising sea level temperatures?
There are TROPICAL fossils and fossil fuels in the arctic. How did they get there?
Why do you keep asking this question? Nobody's disputing that the greenhouse effect was more pronounced a few million years ago. But just because champsosaurs didn't have a problem with the climate, don't assume that we won't. If you haven't noticed, we're not semi-aquatic alligators. But you know, you're just proving my point: climate change can mean extinction. And I really don't want to be extinct.
These changes take a long time and living things are very adaptable. We will also adapt over the many generations that such changes happen.
a) it could happen faster than that, and b) "adapting" requires a lot of organisms in a species dying.
Ah ha.
:-\
Chalk that up to my lack of education...I've never heard of the law of Archimedes, and didn't realize that the North Pole had a landmass beneath...and forgot about glaciers
Super Volcano's
Yellowstone is one huge volcano. There is a measured magma pocket that is 50km by 30km by 10km deep and if/when that thing blows it will spew ash across the whole US, effectively killing the majority of our crops under 6 feet of ash. Not to mention blacking out the Sun for a long long time. Anyone living near the site will be killed by an enormous shockwave.
A hillside above the magma pocket is near the lake and it has risen enough to move the lake many feet over the last 50 years.
Supposedly blows every 600,000 years or so and we are about due for an eruption.
is there really a problem if we loose 80% of the billions of humans on earth, seeing as we're a bit over crowded in those areas as it stands?
FACTSHEET: Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Center for the Study of CO2 and Climate Change
? id=24
DETAILS
P.O Box 25697 Tempe, AZ 85285-5697
Phone: 480-966-3719
Fax: 480-966-0758
The Center's current mission is to "disseminate factual reports and sound commentary on new developments in the world-wide scientific quest to determine the climatic and biological consequences of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content."
When the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change's web site debuted September 23,1998, The Western Fuels Association-funded Greening Earth Society issued the press release announcing The Center's new site. Fred Palmer, head of Western Fuels, stated in the release, "The Center's viewpoint is a needed antidote to the misleading and usually erroneous scientific claims emanating from the Federal scientific establishment and adopted by leading politicians, such as Vice President Al Gore." The Center has since tried to distance itself from the Western Fuels Association, but still regularly publishes articles on the Greening Earth Society website. The Center is run by Keith and Craig Idso, along with their father, Sherwood. Both Idso brothers have been on the Western Fuels payroll at one time or another. Keith Idso, then a doctoral candidate at the University of Arizona, was a paid expert witness for Western Fuels Association at a 1995 Minnesota Public Utilities commission hearing in St. Paul, MN, along with MIT's Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, and Robert Balling. (The Heat is On). According to news from Basin Electric, a Western Fuels Association member, Craig Idso produced a report, "The Greening of Planet Earth." Its Progression from Hypothesis to Theory," in January 1998 for the Western Fuels Association. (The Center also came into being in January 1998, according to information provided by the Center). (Basin Electric Latest News no date given)
FUNDING
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has received $65,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
1998
$10,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Source: ExxonMobil 1998 grants list
2000
$15,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
project support
Source: ExxonMobil Foundation 2000 IRS 990
2003
$40,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Climate Change Activities
Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Corporate Giving Report
---
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php
and you expect us to believe that this site is the "truth" ?
haha you people are more stupid that you act
1. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is, in fact, the lifeblood of the planet, required for growth of vegetation. It is the cornerstone of the food chain. The increased CO2 aerial fertilization effect has contributed to the greening of the planet, as confirmed by satellite photography.
2. Water vapor is by far the primary contributor of the greenhouse effect, accounting for 96 to 99%. CO2 accounts for 1 to 3%. Methane and others trace gasses account for 3. During the current interglacial period, the Earth has been about 2C cooler (The "Little Ice Age" around 1600-1700, when the Thames regularly frozen over), and it has also been about 2C warmer (The medieval warm period around 1200, when Greenland was colonized by the Vikings.) We are currently about in the middle of this natural variation, which occurred without manmade CO2.
4. The 500k year Vostok ice core data: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm/ shows CO2 either in phase or lagging temperature by up to 1000 years, over four temperature oscillations. This means the CO2 does not drive temperature, but that temperature drives CO2. The most likely explanation is that the ocean outgases and releases more CO2 when temperature increases, and holds more dissolved gasses as the oceans cools.
5. I'm not disputing the Earth may be getting relatively warmer (as we are coming out of the little ice age). One reason is likely the unusually active Sun. This report: http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/aah4688.pdf/ shows that over the last several centuries, solar activity is at its highest levels. The IPCC determined that the Sun's variation in energy output were too small to explain global warming. They dismissed the sun as a likely source of Earth changing climate!. Here is a link to a recent study showing how the sun's variation could have a feedback that would drive earth's climate change: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2333133. stm/ The theory goes like this: When the sun is highly magnetically active, the increased solar wind shields us from cosmic radiation. Low levels of incoming comic reduce cloud formation. Reduced low level cloud formation reduces reflectivity (i.e., the Earth's albedo). More energy is absorbed instead of reflected, and the temperature increases. The difference from an active Sun to an inactive Sun was about 3% global cloud coverage. The correlation in the study is remarkable. The jury is still out, but it could explain the correlation between the Maunder minimum of the 1600's and the little ice age, and account for the warming in the last 3 decades that corresponds with unusually high solar activity at the same time.
6. In November 1991, Danish scientists Eijil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen, startled the climatological world with a paper in "Science" describing a 0.95 correlation between solar cycle length and global temperature (IPCC version). "Science" writer, Richard Kerr described it as "one dazzling correlation". The blue line is temperature, the red line is solar cycle length.) As can be seen, global temperature has tended to increase in lockstep with shortening of the solar cycle length (ie. solar maxima becoming more frequent) I hope you follow the link, because one look at it, and you are forced to say, "Its the Sun, stupid." The graph is at the bottom of this link: http://http//web.dmi.dk/sol-jord/projekter/rum_vej r/oversigt.html/
7. The best protection against climate change is a rich, technologically advanced society that can adapt to natural variation. Don't damn the 3rd
-I should know better than trying to use the "less than" symbol in an html format. -Sorry
Yeah. Do you have a globe handy at all? Look at the area (never mind the volume) of Ice supported by land. Compare that to the area of the Pacific ocean, that's just one of many oceans.
Since I know you won't (ideologues are so predictable.
Antarctica 14 million square kilometers
Pacific ocean 165.384 million sq km
Atlantic ocean 82 million sq km
Indian ocean 68.556 million sq km
Or to compare
Antarctica (and yes there are other glaciers but Antarctica is far larger than any of them) is roughly 5% the area of the 3 largest oceans, if we start talking in terms of volume, forget it, the ice cap is less than 0.1% of the volume of these oceans.
So anyway. How do you compare emptying one ice tray in your freezer into a large bath tub, or small pool to raising the water levels of the entire world to anything beyond negligible.
Oh and PS
Ice from compacted snow actually does contain less water, by volume, than the water it displaces. Due to trapped air. Air in water is bouyant, but above water it is the same as eqaul density air around it, but still has weighht being trapped within a mass.
Of course this effect is pretty negligible except for at the very surface.
But remember. Snow takes up approx 3x the volume of water. Multiple this time massive amounts of surface snow and while negligible, is still a measurable effect. Pushing the # towards less volume, rather than the same.
You'd be correct if ice sank, but floating objects displace their mass, not their volume. The sea level wouldn't change at all from floating ice melting, but, as others have pointed out, the salinity may affect currents, and there's quite a significant amount of ice that's covering land.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Yeah! Anyone that calls for any sacrifice that puts *my* happiness in jeopardy is an alarmist and should be ignored! Fuck the human race! I don't care if I die as long as everyone dies with me!
Is the USA willing to start a war over it?
If global warming gets worse, and the USA is seen to be the major culprit, then it's concievable that quite a few countries might gang up on the USA to prevent future abuses...
Great, if 50% of people die, then that means there will be more housing/cars/roads room in the cinema for me.
Less people to compete with me for jobs too.
With 50% of people gone, there would be sooo many houses/apartments vacated and empty that I could buy real dirt cheap, because sellable supplies would SKY ROCKET, while demand would FALL on its ass, so then I can buy that 8000sqft mansion witha pool/tennis court.
But wait.. this is going to happen regardless with all those older baby boomers dieing off leaving soo much of their goods and stuff behind for us to buy real cheap. And no Mr Rich Manager CEO, you cant take your SUV and stock portfolio with you to the grave, unless you burry your self in an SUV.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Well, the coastal cities of the US are where all the liberals live. So why should we care about what happens there at all? Sounds like a useful bit of "urban renewal" to me.
Of course, not coincidentaly, it's also where most of the money is made, most technology developed, and most progress occurs.
The downside would be that all of the welfare states would have to start paying their own way instead of having the evil liberals subsdize their power, phones, etc. etc.
The people who live in low lying areas will simply move inland.
Tell that to the people of the Maladives. At the current rate of rising sealevels the islands will be submerged before the end of the century. No inland to move to, at least not in their own country.
If the oceans were fresh water, yes, but they are not. The oceans are salty. Salty water is denser than fresh water. When the ice melts, as it is mostly fresh water, it will fill a space slightly larger than the space it displaces in the salty water.
As you point out, this effect is minor compared with the ocean rise potential of ice on land. There is about 0.4 cm of potential sea level rise from sea ice, and about 4 cm from ice shelves. These are minor compared with the 5 meters from Greenland, and the 75 meters from Antarctica.
But if the sealevel rises, and the coast line is redefined, then that is going to spur a huge economic boom during the rebuild. Think about this, war economies can spur growth with all the rebuilding after you've bombed the crap out of everything, just think about how much economic growth there will be to build all the new coastal cities.
Who knows, maybe the water line will end up being where some joe sixpack parks his trailer now, and suddenly he'll be sitting on top of a new economic opportunity.
I just hope they get some good camera angles when it happens, because I bet it's going to look a lot cooler than anything hollywood can produce on a render farm.
Yes, but volcanos also spit out other shit besides CO2, so at least give all the details, thank you.
= ns999 94321
But OTH, have you read other news about how OUR STAR, the SUN star, has been more active in the last 70 years than average for the last 8000 ???
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id
Quite possibly this could be causing warming too.
Also recent measurements of the amount of light reflecfed from the DAY SIDE of earth onto the dark side of the moon shows that is has increased, so thats another wierd effect. Again, caused by more crap in the air? or more light from the sun? or both? hmmm
Theres a lot of factors, but if the sun will go NOVA or mini NOVA or just 25% brighter, we cannot control it.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Yes, and if you plug in the numbers you will see that any heating of the atmosphere will result in neglible water uptake by the atmosphere on average.
g es /Image1.gif
9 0_ satellite_finds_warming.html
I just took a quick look at this figure:
http://www.tesag.jcu.edu.au/subjects/ge1400/Ima
You can see that a temperature increase in the atmosphere of 10 degC results in roughly a doubling of the water holding capacity of the atmosphere. The upper limit of the IPCC estimates of the global mean atmospheric temperature change is 5.8 degC.
Furthermore most of the atmosphere is undersaturated (that is the relative humidity is less than 100%). In a future warmer climate the relative humidity is expected to drop further.
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2004/mar/HQ_040
This means that we will probably see less than a doubling of the water vapour content if the temperature rose 10 degC. An upper estimate would thus be 2.8 cm sea level drop due to more moist in the atmosphere. This is neglible in comparison with the expected total sea level change
And yes, I am a climate scientist (although a physical oceanographer - but I had a substantial portion of meteorology during my education).
The thing is, there certainly IS evidence that at least a significant portion of the proven surface warming (we only have a couple decades of atmospheric data) is strongly correlated with natural phenomenon, it also seems to be correlated with human CO2 output after the start of the industrial revolution.
Look, there certainly is a correlation, both between human CO2 output and non-human effects on global climate. The problem is that due to measurement error, model specification, and the size of our data pool, it makes it very hard to come up with accurate estimates of the exact magnitute that each variable has on our climate. Thus, without solid information, the level of uncertainty makes it very hard to make any real solid recommendations about policy. Policy positions are more about politics (and economics?) than science.
(Well most public choice is about politics. Scientists are more qualifed than most of us to tell us the consequences of our actions, but they have no more "moral authority" than we do when it comes to making tradeoffs between multiple alternatives. The minute they imply that they do, they are imposing their values on the public.)
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
>>>Correction: the ice replaces exactly the amount of water it occupies when floating (=law of Archimedes). Proof: take a glass of water, put in ice cube, fill up glass to the edge (but not overflowing!). Ice melts, and water is still exactly up to the edge. actually wrong. if you do it that way the ice will melt to form less volume of water than ice (i.e. under the edge). This is because ice is less dense than water. This is why icebergs and icecubes float. the fact that water expands when it freezes is why your water pipes can burst in winter.
This is true, but you forget that these things come at a cost and that increasing energy efficieny happens at a decreasing rate. Thus, once past the low hanging fruit, you quickly end up driving inflation basically (assuming that everyone follows the rules.) If there was no cost to higher efficiency then we would all be doing it willingly now because we would save more $$$ than it costs. The other problem is that CO2 is much harder to reduce than other pollutants (which you can just "scrub out" or use "cleaner" technology (Since any fossil fuel consumption will produce it).
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
with no shoes, after doing a 15 hour shift in't pit through the night?
thats the yorkshire (england, uk) version of the story anyway.
(in't pit is yorkshire for working down in the mines, if you couldn't guess)
If you haven't noticed lately all the fuel economies are starting to shoot up on vehicles in anticipation of the new EPA emmissions standards as well as a marketing angle to counter act the price of gas. On top of that alternate forms of power have been severly dropping in price. Solar panels have twice the out put at half the price they had 5 years ago and windmills are going up like weeds here in California. I see a new one every week around town. Throw that on top of the extra money going into hydrogen research.
The only thing we should be helping the third world with is population control, which we do, whether it be by injection, the pill, contraceptives, or with precision munitions.
[anal-retentive screed]Once again?? When did Bush "ingnore the soldiers"? You may think that the battle plan in Iraq was poor, but it was the one the commanders decided on. Just like in any group, there was some disagreement about which plan would be best. But at the end of the day the majority of the commanders got their way. Of course we'll never know how well or poorly any alternative plan would have worked since we don't have an alternative copy of the universe to test this one out in.[/screed]
Who is presuming that his beliefs are facts? It's certainly not limited to Bush. (on the "other-side" many biologists etc have an almost religiouly dogmatic (Gaia) view of the environment) It's not just modern science that suffers from dogma. Humanity always has, because it is composed of humans. Individuals filled with beliefs and biases that frequently cannot be changed (at least without time) even with facts.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
Actually I'd say that most of the scientists (at least the biologists and climatologists) don't work for Greenpeace or industrial polluters. They probably work for some government institution such as a University, NASA, USFWS, or NOAA. So their bias (and that of their collegues) is much more influencial than that of an industrial giant or even Greenpeace.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
fucking nazi
Gee, not speaking in broad generizations or painting with a broad brush or anything?? How exactly does immigration INCREASE the population?? And we are headed for global population decline well before the end of the century. The biggest problem for most of the "developed" world is the aging of the population and preventing a rapid fall in their population.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
Global warming is a myth perpetrated by the left. It is hyped by liberals and atheists who want to destroy america and turn it into a replica of the soviet union. First they will come for our cars, then our houses and finally they will take our jobs and our families. Who wants to join the fight? I live in Austin, TX and the local Wise Use group is meeting this month to talk about what *direct* and *forceful* action we can take to stop the destruction of the traditional American way of life against these insane communists and satan worshippers who wish to destroy it. Please join us.
That's funny. I clicked on it to hear the idiotarian liberal rhetoric. And what do you know, I got it! You guys seem to think that humanity is the problem and getting rid of us is the only solution, but I am here to inform you that we will NOT submit to your stupidity and scientific ignorance. We will fight you and we will prevail. Now go crawl back under a rock and join your anti-american friends in france and afghanistan or something.
I just want that rightwingnut to vote Badnarik, so President Kerry can help fix the country, rather than turning the country into an ideologically pure anarchy.
--
make install -not war
How can you walk uphill bothways unless you happen to live in a part of the time space continum where you can go uphill bothways between 2 points!!
**Life is too short to be serious**
"Big Arctic Perils Seen in Warming!"
Big Solar Sun Seen in Warming!
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Crafty ;)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Let me guess. You're an American, right?
This ought to make drilling for oil in the region a little easier and less expensive. Might give us more room for off shore drill up there too. What with the situation in the middle east, burning oil rigs and all, we really could use this.
Here is the explanation. The population in the USA is still growing, primarily due to the children of illegal aliens. Without unfettered immigration, the American population would decline gradually.
Population decline is not the biggest problem facing developed countries. The biggest problem facing developed countries is the fact that the 3rd world is brimming with angry people who want to flood into the 1st world.
Advocates of unfettered immigration play this strange spin game in which they insist that the only way for the 1st world to continue to enjoy a good standard of living is to constantly grow the population. Note that such a scenario is not sustainable. Nonetheless, these advocates continue to "invent facts" because they need such invented "facts" in order to support their agenda.
Anyone who refuses to admit that a larger population is more environmentally damaging than a smaller population is a bigot and should be ignored. There is plenty of such bigots in LaRaza.
Why are people ignoring deforestation? It seems to me that the biggest issue here is not just the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere but also the amount of CO2 sinks on the planet the more rainforests we destroy the less chance we have of neutralizing the impact of the increased CO2 levels.
Why are conservatives so blind to environmental concerns? You would think that they're inflated self-interest would make them pay attention.
I'm from Alaska. It is very, very green in summer. It wouldn't be nearly so if it wasn't frozen for as much of the year as it is. Precipitation is fairly low (I've seen the interior referred to as "semi-arid"), but you wouldn't know it to look at it. That's because the northern parts of Alaska get a whole year's worth of precipitation dumped on them in just a couple of months, and the plants just love it.
Still, compare trees in AK to those elsewhere (note that I'm not sure how much of this is accounted for by them being different species, but I think they should be roughly comparable)...an interior Alaska white spruce is probably about twice as old as an Arizona ponderosa pine of the same diameter. And that isn't exactly a fast-growing tree or lush, green environment.
Oh, and who cares if volcanos put out more (of anything) than humans do? We're talking about complex dynamic systems here, where changing one input is going to affect so many other things you can't be exactly sure what it will do, and where small changes are just going to build into bigger ones.
In other words, shit not to be fucked with lightly.
WHY exactly is global warming bad? Wont it give more landmass (eg, melts permafrost siberia) and lessen the "nice tropical -120F on antartica?
Unless you happen to live in a coastal area or a state like Florida in which case you'll either have to grow gills or move.
Americans, I beg of you, SELL YOUR SUV's!
Actually no the Toba eruption near indonesia 75,000 years ago was huge, on the order of the kind of catastrophe that was predicted by scientists in the aftermath of a nuclear war, huge amounts of ash and a huge tsunami and blast damage.
I think people will notice. What they will notice I am not sure.
The arctic ocean is not stagnant. it circulates, mostly pacific to altantic (top of Greenland).Ice can impeed this flow , lack of ice would likely speed it up.
Already the summer icefree area of the actic ocean
are growing. The water is also being diluted by more
fresh water, some russian river have been increasing in flow.
As for what this means , take a number....
I don't know that we would gain ground. I would think that the uncovered, new ground would be somewhat offset by the losses occured due to the "sea level" raising, but I'm no geologist. I'M with ya tho'!
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
sea levels rise some,
.....
Japan current gets partialy diverted thru Bering strait.
Warm Japan current flushes ice out of Acrtic Ocean.
Might plug up around north end of Greenland and stop
flow from Arctic Ocean. Would this change Gulf Stream?
Or might push lot of cold water into north atlantic, affecting European climate.
and so on and so on
I think maybe we don't know.
They won't notice the polutants. Can see 'um for the smog.
Do you assume that global warming means that temperatures will rise uniformly across the globe?
Not at all. In fact, I certainly hope that it's NOT uniform (if it were something very strange and difficult to explain would be going on).
Do you assume that global warming would cause no shift in weather patterns?
Again, I hope not. I'd like to think that temperature change is going to affect climate.
Do you assume that any shifts in weather patterns would not be disruptive to agriculture?
Hmm... depends on how you define disruptive. Certainly warming is likely to make some places more suited to growing while doing the opposite for other places. I imagine Canadians are drooling at the idea while Mexico is not so thrilled. For the US it would probably just shift agriculture northward (more in some places, less in others) while increasing the size of some of the south-western deserts, south-eastern swamps and north-western temperate rain forests.
Do you assume that disruptions in agriculture can be easily accomodated, say by rapidly shifting agricultural production to different parts of the globe
"Globe"? No. "Nation"? Yes. Large nations like the US and Russia produce most of the food that the developed world eats and they would probably have to shift (slowly over decades) production northward if warming continues.
In the 500-1000 period of warming many groups of humans in Europe were wiped out, but they were relying only on their own food production.
Global warming, or global cooling?
http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm
Can somebody please get it right?
If global warming is really occurring, can anyone prove it's not directly caused by the Sun ?
No, you can't.
...we're not semi-aquatic alligators....
There are a lot of ordinary humans living in the tropics today, not just alligators. It is no accident that most warm blooded creatures have an internal temperature in the range of 95 to 105 deg F (35-40.5 deg C) because this is the range where life molecular processes operate at optimum. If the entire Earth gets to near that temperature, most species will not only survive, but thrive, including the likes of you!
I suspect however that mankind will not be able to find much of the fossil fuel that is buried in unknown or unaccessible spots and so the temperature is not likely to get that high. Also, as life proliferates because of the warmth, more carbon gets stored in the living matter and eventually there will be an equilibrium. As to the timeframe of all of this, nobody really knows, but it is happening very slowly now and will take a long time in human terms, like most geologic processes do.
All theory is gray
Well,
with this news, I think it's high time that we all grabo our clubs and go take the poor little seals out of their misery, babies first. Oh, and while we're at it, can we just get rid of all these stupid penguins???
or even, hmmm, perhaps the earth is warming up since the last ice age and we're not getting cooler yet as we have not reached the peak temperature that it will rise to before starting our cooling towards the next ice age? If it's warmer during this mid-ice-age period is it because the earth is growing older and things change in the universe with time? not one thing can be absolutely proven, the global warming freaks do what they can to scare, but the have nothing substantial to base any facts on.
screw them, let them go join a commune
...most of the atmosphere is undersaturated...
In the tropical areas of the world the saturation is generally quite high. At one time the whole Earth was much like the tropics of the Amazon and other warm wet places in the equatorial areas. The river bed of the Amazon continues on the present continental shelf of South America out for almost 200 miles. All of that is under water now, but at one time, the river flowed there. This is because the so much of the water was in the warm atmosphere and above it.
Water vapor is lighter than air; that is why clouds float upwards. When the air cools the it becomes supersaturated. Condensation takes place if there are particles around which drops can form, which eventually get too heavy and fall as rain. As the air gets warmer the upper atmosphere also gets warmer and so condensation level is much higher up where there is little or no dust to condense raindrops on. This means the upper atmosphere could be a layer of almost pure supersaturated water vapor. There is very little water in the upper atmosphere today, because the condensation level is low enough where there are plenty of particles around which raindrops can form and therefore the water continually precipitates out.
All geologic processes take a long time and extrapolating from our miniscule observation time perspective is an uncertain business.
All theory is gray
I don't know how to put it in any other way, but honestly, I don't give a flying banana about the human race. Sure I am part of it, but ultimately nothing matters at all (yeah, an atheist speaking here.)
You can't handle the truth.
I welcome the extinction. People are making life so painful that a stop must be put to this, and I hope that nature acomplishes this successfully, gets rid of the human species and goes on, on its merry way to create the semi-aquatic alligator champsosaurses back.
You can't handle the truth.
The reporting over the last 7-10 of the NY Times has been a down right embarrassing example of journalistic bias. Above the fold it has been story after story after story of just non-stop Bush bashing.
Look at the collusion between the Times and CBS. What are they doing discussing holding back anti-bush stories to two days before the election? Stories based on information that is so muddled and unclear that they approach CBS's wonderful Bush memo. And people wonder why old media is dying (no, netcraft has not yet confirmed this).
I've just signed legislation that'll outlaw Russia forever. We'll begin bombing in five minutes.
I for one would like to preserve the human race.
Ok; enough with the humans and mammals dealie.
Barring extreme global catasrophe of the world-ending variety, e.g. comet, asteroid impact of a huge magnitude, possibly a huge thermonuclear exhange (maybe), Sun going Nova - nothing, repeat nada, is going to eliminate every human from the face of the planet. It's not going to happen.
What will happen is civilization -as we know it- would end. Billions of people might die, maybe. Countries as we know them may end. But homo sapiens is not going anywhere.
There is enough energy on this planet from nuclear and non-nuclear sources (coal) to sustain humans for a very, very, very long time. A limited population centrally managed, a long damn time. It is quite easy to generate shelter, food, oxygen and clean water on earth provided you have a reasonable technological infrastructure and most importantly an abundant energy source and knowledge. Unlike prior times, engineering and scientific knowledge is extremely widespread in the world.
Would it suck to live in such a world? Likely.
It is quiet possible the natural course of events on this planet is the destruction of the ecosystem. Man is a part of nature; we are not aliens thrust upon the planet. There are many very serious challenges facing mankind in the near future and all of them have to do with one thing, and one thing only: ENERGY.
One thing I can guarantee you though, until that comet from the sky comes - and maybe even after - there will be a bunch of naked apes - somewhere - living nearby available energy.
Worry more about funding research into real clean sources of energy - highly efficient solar panels, fusion reactions, even the potential to extract energy directly from the vaccum of space itself. Once you have enough clean energy, we can make every other problem go away. If you do not believe such a source of energy is possible, then we are headed for global catastrophe of another kind anyway.
Period.
..don't panic
the world is melting... cnn is gonna need something to run with after the election is over.
All the torrents you could want.
How come only imbeciles tries to ignore global warming. If you don't know of Archimedes law you should remain silent in this question as in any other question. EVER. I can't understant why uneducated people even wants a say, leave that to those who understands reasoning. I for example wouldn't question the doctor performing a complicated operation on me, as I know next to nothing about such matters. Likewise idiots should be watching BigFoot shows or similiar and not interfere with climate research.
While many of the things you say are true, you missed one point.
"(unless owned by a politician like the ones working for Bush that say global warming is OK..)"
Just for reference, they don't say it's "OK".
What happened to the projection just 20 years ago of global freezing? Made by many of the very same scientists? Scientists who receive grants from the gov's to continue their climate research jobs. As we have seen in the recent past, such scientists are not above scewing their research to further their job security (eg. hockey stick).
Also show me some accurate weather forecasting at all, then I will believe their extremely tenuous long-range forecasts.
As I've stated here before, we can and should capture and reuse all waste we can. But, neither side is above lying and the climate models we have right now are so worthless they couldn't predict next week, much less next century.
Folks, this isn't about tree hugging or saving cute furry critter... well it is, but their kind of incedental. This is about preventing the extinction of a medium sized bipedal ape, that seems more concerned about being able to drive it's SUV, than preserving an environment capable of the continuation of it's own species.
The Arctic is melting... a whole bunch of critter are gonna go bye bye soon. The same can be said all over the planet. In the tropics the sea water is so warm, huge coral reefs are dying. For an in depth look at the variety of problems developing at this very moment as we write and read, check out National Geographic two months back... the whole issue is devoted to global warming and the impact of said warming. Oh, and if one had bothered to exercise google, there are now accurate and reliable methodologies for measuring climatic conditions going back hundreds, thousands, and millions of years... as well, we have cores of ice, permafrost, earth, sea mud, and a dozen other materials that give us exquisite information about atmospheric chemistry and environmental conditions going back tens of thousands of years.
The models are getting better every day and they are pointing to some very bad news if we don't start getting a whole lot more responsible about our use of fossil fuels. The permafrost is fast melting and the permafrost is itself a huge CO2 sink. If it should melt completely, global CO2 levels will double almost over night. The haline cycle is looking very unstable in the light of decreasing salinity and rising ocean levels. This would cause terrible climate changes, causing cold in the northern latitudes and concentrate a tremendous amount of heat in the tropics. Storms of unheard of proportion, as well as droughts and heat waves that would make normal agriculture nearly impossible in the tropics. At the same time the northern latitudes would be too cold for any but eskimos. This would force the entire world population into a narrow temperate belt only several hundreds of miles wide in both the southern and northern latitudes. The ecological collapse would be extreme and billions of people would die in the subsequent migration and battle of arable land.
There are so many things we can do now, to forestall or prevent such a disaster. So far, we're doing virtually none of them. The United States must be a world leader in establishing sustainable technological practices, and instituting new technologies for improving the quality of life. Instead, we've subsidized the very businesses causing the worst problems, and supporting the third world to jump in and make the same mistakes we have in the past.
Coming up with efficient, effective, and immediate means for reducing global atmospheric carbon, and moving our global economy away from fossil fuels to nuclear, and/or alternative renewable sources should be one of the highest priorities in our society. To continue to do as we have done, is to beg disaster.
Genda
One of the side effects that can turn out to be very alarming is the fact that when the ice caps melt, the earth will absorbe more sunlight because of the change in color.
This will speed up the global warming effect, and may lead to a very vicious circle.
Good luck with that. Here's a little mental exercise. Downtown New Orleans (to pick an example) is a few feet below sea level. Assume the ocean level rises by the worst-case 200 feet, and that you need another 30 feet to account for hurricane storm surge and waves. Next time you have the chance, look up at the top of a 23-story building. You're talking about a dike that tall. Hundreds and hundreds of miles of a dike that tall to defend New Orleans. Relocate the city -- it's cheaper.
Here's your leg back; it seems to have come off in my hand. I was being facetious.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
ENMOD is the real reason behind arctic warming....not greenhouse gases or global warming which are just the foreign owned medias cover storys for this supposedly top secret nwo plan....the elite want the oil under the ice...and the minerals....seismic activity way up too in arctic area...wait till the balance at the poles is upset, as it will be soon, and the whole crust shifts, as has happened periodically here over and over again...you have seen these ops for the last four years, believe it or not, its real, and ENMOD is just one small aspect of the overall project.......go here:
M L
a s/index.h tml
YOUR LIFE AS A HUMAN TEST SUBJECT
By Bill Gallagher 051404
http://www.luxefaire.com/electro.html
PATENTLY OBVIOUS AEROSOL PROGRAMS
PATENT LIST
http://users.ev1.net/~seektress/patlist.htm
THE METHODIC DEMISE OF NATURAL EARTH
An Environmental Impact Overview
By Dr. R. Michael Castle
http://www.wnho.net/methodic_demise.htm
SOVIET SCALAR ELECTROMAGNETIC WEAPONS
The Coin used by Russia to buy a BIG piece of the New World Order
At American Expense
http://www.luxefaire.com/SCALARRUSSIA.HT
THE SUNSHINE PROJECT
http://www.sunshine-project.org
ATMOSPHERIC CHARGED-ION PLASMAS
http://www.luxefaire.com/chargedionplasm
Light Happens.
The problem with this discussion, and every time and every where it starts up again, is that its more political than scientific (tho, I must say, that this particular one in Slashdot has had much more reasoned discussion, and refs to real science than I expected) and "philosophical" than intellectual ... and it tends to just keep going round and round again, repeating the "same ol" "same ol". I could jump in and say what I think at any one of a dozen points, and choosing this one is pretty arbitrary...
I've already written a half dozen essays (with lots of citations, etc. etc.) so I'm not going to repeat myself here. If you want, go visit my blog, Alcaide's Cafe. But, I do want to at least add a couple of comments.
Truth is, before global warming was the mantra, the coming ice age was the thing. We were constantly harangued about how we had to go back to the lifestyles of the poor and primitive (or at least 1800's) or else be responsible for the death of everyone, and everything. That was only a couple of decades ago,
Now, when the ice age didn't pan out, the mantra switched to the opposite. Partly just because normal climate cycles went the other way again. Any way, if you really do do some research, you'll find that the majority of scientists have not joined the band wagon. In fact, if you want to just count "votes", far more have signed statements and petitions, etc. saying that the whole global warming thing is not a very pressing threat, if any at all, and that the real science on the issue is far from solid or conclusive. Most scientists have appealed for more caution and more research before we decide to turn ourselves around and head back to a lifestyle of the 1800s. Which position, btw, is that which the Bush admin took. The fact that after 3 years they have decided there are some concerns, but hardly of the urgency the real doomsayers (a la Hollywood) would have us believe, should suggest maybe they are a bit more open and honest than oft accused.
When science becomes politics, folks with political agendas (and wanting the US or the world to head back to the golden lifestyles of a century ago is a political agenda, too) tend to listen just to their own camp, and try to decide issues with nosecounts rather than real science. Kyoto is exactly that sort of thing. If 125 countries sign, that doesn't mean its a good approach, or proving the science. Half (well, closer to three fourths) are countries who would gain politically and economically by putting others (mostly the economic powerhouses) into the protocol's shackles. And having some "president" of some banana republic "voting" by signing on to Kyoto is hardly anything that should prove warming is a real threat.
My last article on this topic concerns Russia's signing on. The points I made there are that (1) Russia never was very concerned with the environment before, but has only just now got religion Why? Because their economy has tanked so badly, the past few years, that their emission goals for the next ten are already "met". Their economic engine shut down for lack of efficiency and relevance! So, if they can push the US into complying, they will only hurt the US, now, not themselves. There's more than one way to skin a cat. Analysis (which I cite) suggests that Kyoto, over its lfetime, will only (at best, if honestly followed and China and a few other "exceptions" don't just boom enough to undo even that) reduce warming by 0.19 degrees C. But it will very quickly reduce the US economy by 2.3 percent! Quite an edge for stumbling Russia and the EU! And, for those who castigate Bush for the fact our economy only grew at a 3.7 percent this last quarter (and thus should be booted out of office) what will they say if Kerry signs Kyoto, and the US economy spins down that 2.3 percent?
Those who are more anti-modern age, or anti-US than anti-warming, won't mind at all, will they?
Well, that's enough time on this...
Alcaide's Cafe,
C'mon people - typing the keywords "north pole ice melting sea level" into Google got a ton of answers to the question, the very first link of which was
m
http://science.howstuffworks.com/question473.ht
Could we please stop rewarding those who are too lazy to look stuff up ? It's one thing for someone to say " I read this article about warming and melting ice; does anyone have an opinion?" but this poster was just lazy.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
"Global "warming" is bad for humans who eat food that evolved our mild climate."
So those of us who eat penguin* and camel are fine, then?
*OK, I've never eaten penguin. But heed well: camels taste slightly worse than they smell, which is saying something!
"The river bed of the Amazon continues on the present continental shelf of South America out for almost 200 miles. All of that is under water now, but at one time, the river flowed there. This is because the so much of the water was in the warm atmosphere and above it."
s .h tml
Would you care to back that up by a reference to a popular or scientific article. To be frank I don't believe it.
"Water vapor is lighter than air; that is why clouds float upwards."
Just to nitpick. This is not true. Clouds are formed by vertical advection of air (you can see what can cause this advection in the link below). When the air rises the temperature drops due to the lower pressure at higher altitudes (just like a spray can gets cold when release the compressed gas inside it out to 1 atmosphere of pressure). The temperature drop then causes the dew point (the amount of water a given air parcel can contain) to drop - and therefore the air at one point might get (super-)saturated.
http://www.rcn27.dial.pipex.com/cloudsrus/cloud
"As the air gets warmer the upper atmosphere also gets warmer and so condensation level is much higher up where there is little or no dust to condense raindrops on."
Yes, except that dust would also be present there then due to the advective processes I just referenced.
"This means the upper atmosphere could be a layer of almost pure supersaturated water vapor. There is very little water in the upper atmosphere today,..."
Even if this were true you should realise that the temperature of the upper troposphere would be _very_ low even in a drastically warmer climate. If you take a look at the figure I referenced in an earlier post you will note that this means that the water vapour holding capacity of the upper troposphere or lower stratosphere will be negligble.
"All geologic processes take a long time and extrapolating from our miniscule observation time perspective is an uncertain business."
OK, we are talking about different things. I am talking about human induced warming - which is estimated to be around 2.8 degC over the next century. You are talking about a temperature increase 5-10 times that.
...To be frank I don't believe it....
I have a big Atlas of the world put out by National Geographic which shows the known topography of the world's oceans. There is an under sea structure labelled the "Amazon Cone" which shows the continuation of the river bed outward far beyond the continental shelf. Other major rivers also have this under sea structure shown, such as the Mississippi and rivers on the west coast of Africa. The Nile river bed is also depicted on such a map extending far into the present Mediteranean. The Atlas was published back in 1975 and has no ISBN number listed. I have also seen some of these fascinating maps in the magazine some time ago. I'm sure that if you really want to check this out, and are willing to take the time to do so you can find such a map.
As far as warming, I am talking about the ultimate endpoint, where all the carbon that was once in the air is put there again to the extent that the air would be about 10% CO2. I doubt that this will happen because a lot of the buried carbon is unknown or inaccessible to man and will likely remain so for a long time.
As the greenhouse effect becomes greater, the climate will definitely get warmer and will have major effects on all inhabitants of spaceship earth. Some of these will be beneficial for some and some detrimental, but the amazing adaptability of living things will continue to cope with the changes of the future, just as they have in the past. In think that for most living creatures a warmer planet will be a positive thing. We are very transient residents of this world and the effects I am talking about would take place over many generations.
All theory is gray
Who read that as "Big Arctic Pen1s"....
I've been reading too many spam mails...
I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
"I have a big Atlas of the world put out by National Geographic which shows the known topography of the world's oceans. There is an under sea structure labelled the "Amazon Cone" which shows the continuation of the river bed outward far beyond the continental shelf."
Sorry I did'nt make myself clear - I do believe that there Amazon Cone exists:-)
The reference I requested was that a warmer climate caused the lowering of the sea level. In fact I think that the lowering of the sea level in the Amazon Cone was due to lower temperatures. During the last glacial maximum the sea level dropped 120-130 meters (globally).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(prehistoric)
...warmer climate caused the lowering ....
This extension of the river beds onto and beyond the continental shelf also happened in areas that would have been frozen solid during the last ice age. There is also plenty of fossil and other evidence that the arctic areas of Earth were once tropical. Some of the living creatures in Siberia were entombed quickly by some cataclysm. They are preserved in their entirety like in a giant freezer. No slow process that we know about can preserve living matter so scientists can study these creatures from long ago. There are also numerous dinosaur remains found in the now frozen regions.
All theory is gray
I'm curious, how many scientists do you suround yourself with on a daily basis, how many scientific papers have you read on the subject, and have you done any serious scientific research projects on the subject?
I can speak for what I see in the scientific community over here at University of California, Riverside. The consensus seems to be, in the Atmospheric Science, Soil Science, Environmental Science, Biology, Physics, Chemistry, and Environmental Engineering circles, this:
1) The mean global temperature is rising and has been rising.
2) This rise is highly correlative with the rise in Carbon Dioxide emissions since the dawn of the industrial revolution.
3) A correlation by itself does not mean anything.
4) Carbon dioxide is a known greenhouse gas, whose output has indeed increased steadily over the past two centuries, due to human activity.
5) So have other types of greenhouse gasses, including Water, methane, CFC's, etc
6) Water has a residence time in the atmosphere of about 11 days, meaning a water droplet, after evaporation, will on average stay in the atmosphere for about 11 days before condensing and precipitating down. The majority of this ends up in the ocean or in soil, where it's residence times are far greater. Translation -> warming effects of water are most likely negligable.
7) Methane - everyone farts. We can't really revolutionize how Cows are raised or decrease their farts. The main way to control methane production is via landfills. This is begining to be done.
8) CFC's are already highly regulated.
9) Carbon Dioxide has a residence time in the atmosphere is quite high in human terms, over 100 years. That means, when it gets up there it stays up there for a while, keeping heat close to the surface of the earth, warming it. This is believed to be fact, backed up by countless papers and objective experimentation.
10) Taking into account that mean global temperature is indeed rising, CO2 has been emitted at an ever-increasing rate since the 1800's, and this rise is correlative to the rise in mean average temp, we might have a connection. It could also, indeed, be a natural climate shift.
11) Whether it is a natural phenomena or not, we should do what be can to fight it, because it could mean more dramtic climate variability, more extreme storms, and perhaps a shift of the green belt north and south - which would be bad for the US economy. Canada would be the new bread basket of the world.
12) The Day After Tomorrow was a pretty funny movie, but was not accurate at all.
That seems to be the scientific consensus. The evidence is convincing, but like everything else in science, you can't prove anything - only disprove it. This global warming model has not been effectively disproven. The news letter for the American Geophysical Union has articles in nearly each issue about global warming, it's causes, and it's effects on the global climate system. This is real science. It is not laughed at in the main stream science community. While i'm sure you can find sources to the contrary, you can also find minority scientific sources to back up creationist theory and the existence of God. Both of which cannot be known, both of which there exists some evidence for, one of which the evidence against is fairly voluminous (creationist theory).
Now for my little bit of opinion
One of the largest emitter of CO2 is not industry, it's not factories that employ hundreds of thousands of workers - it's cars. It's technology that can CHANGE. That can be forwarded, not to the detriment of our society, but for the betterment. Creating more efficient cars, developing viable hydrogen fuel cell cars will not destroy our economy, it anything it will improve our economy. R&D dollars will go to fund research initiatives that will create jobs - high paying, high-tech jobs. There will always be a need for fossil fuels - that industry won't just die
Not trying to flame, but did you ever learn about techtonic plates in elementry school. The world didn't always look like this and the arctic wasn't always the arctic, things move over millions of years and hey it did take millions of years to make the fossil fuels right?
redvsblue.com
::BANG!::
Sarge: Did you just shoot yourself in the foot?
Simmons: Yeah I do that sometimes now..
Thanks for pointing that out!
We need a long-term solution that eventually phases out the dominant role of fossil fuels as our main source of energy. But thats going to have to happen anyways as our use of energy expands and our we move forward in time. Bottom line, Kyoto is a very expensive feel-good proposition that doesn't truly address our problems, but it does drain resources away from potentially more productive solutions. Committing to Kyoto is like standardizing, early in the game, on an inferior strategy in the face of a panic that we have no strategy at all.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
Apparently when people actually go and measure Maldives sea level history they find that it's recently been falling, not rising and at least one fishing boat route is no longer used because it's fallen enough that they scrape bottom now along a non-growing subsurface bit of geology.