Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
A new NASA study has found that in 2005 the Arctic replaced very little of the thick sea ice it normally loses and replenishes each year. Replenishment of this thick, perennial sea ice each year is essential to the maintenance and stability of the Arctic summer ice cover. The findings complement a NASA study released in fall 2006 that found a 14-percent drop in this perennial ice between 2004 and 2005. The lack of replenishment suggests that the decline may continue in the near future. For the full article: Click Here . Look at the satellite data provided by NASA/JPL. It puts the lie to the prevaricators.


DA Morgan
.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Quote from article
"Kwok points to a possible trigger for the declining perennial ice cover. In the early 1990s, variations in the North Atlantic Oscillation, a large-scale atmospheric seesaw that affects how air circulates over the Atlantic Ocean, were linked to a large increase in Arctic ice export. It appears the ice cover has not yet recovered from these variations. "

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Canuk,
Isn't it the large temperature differential between the poles and lower latitudes which keeps several cycles (incl. NAO) going?

My point being that what we're seeing may be the beginning of (one of many of) those positive feedback loops where change in one factor causes the other to change...(I think we all know the scenarios).

Yes, or may NOT be the beginning....

Regardless of cause or course (into the future), wouldn't it be nice to have a thermostat control over the earth? For whatever reason, climate changes. God has kept the planet very stable for our species infancy and adolescence. I think it's time to go out and start making our own way now.

I think we need some satellites? to either increase or decrease solar insolation in the polar regions by some small percentage of up to 1 or maybe even two percent.

Am I being too presumptious God?
Are we going to sit around waiting for the rapture, or are we going to do something?

Bring it on, I can take it!

~~SA
(Sam or samwik)


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
samwik wrote "Bring it on, I can take it!"

Sorry Sam - I'm not going to play that game. I've come to learn that honest discussions regarding climate change are not welcome on this board. There's simply no room on this board for opinions that don't line up with Morgan's.
It's a pity that when somebody simply asks a question, they get accused of being a person with mulitple accounts, or on the payroll of Exxon.

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
WTF

I suppose that's why nobody responded to my posts on CO2 to Fuel either.

Just ignore whatever you don't like, that's what I do.

What a petty response on your part (to me personally). I suppose it is a noble response relative to the whole forum, but I am insulted. I am not a puppet!

~WTF


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
You say "I'm not going to play that game. I've come to learn that honest discussions regarding climate change are not welcome on this board."

...and then you put on your own post! WTF


I suppose I'll get kicked off for a week because of this, but what does it matter.
This forum is the important one. I enjoy the philosophical and physics discussions and enjoy contributing, but it's only to pass the time waiting for someone to help me evolve my thinking on climate change.
I learned a lot last Fall reading and conversing a bit on this topic, did a lot of reading this winter while recovering from a back injury, and now I'm finally back online ready with new positions from which to learn.

And I can't get as much as a hello due to gradeschool politics.

Good going; way to perpetuate the problem!



Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Sam - I'm sorry, but I have no desire to get into a discussion with somebody who finishes his opening salvo with "Bring it on, I can take it!".

It's a sure sign that the person is not looking for a honest exchange of ideas, but rather a fight.

No thanks.

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Well, that is a meaningful answer; and understandable given the climate on this forum.

It was totally an afterthought; simply an attempt on my part to encourage some response (since I had received none on CO2 to fuel bla, bla, bla).

If you look at any of my other posts, you'll see that I don't attack others.
The worst I've ever done is directly above.
I think the second worst I've ever done was to write:
"C'mon DA, doesn't the rest of my post indicate that I have picked up a few physics books in my life." -I'm sure you can imagine what I was responding to. (and that was my second post ever on SAGG)

I got a good ironic chuckle when I realized that my attempt to encourage response actually had the opposite effect. If you could re-read my posts without the little (intended) tease at the end (and the other post too), I'd sure appreciate a response, even if to say I'm all wet.

As impossible as it is to predict the climate of Earth, maybe it's just as impossible to be certain of the climate here on this forum.

Hopefully,

~SA
(shower-curtain tech) -google that phrase

Last edited by samwik; 04/25/07 02:35 PM.

Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Sam: "it's just as impossible to be certain of the climate here on this forum."

It's not just this forum, is it Sam? I've toured the net quite a bit, and it looks like forums do this to people. Making a post is often like stepping into the arena, and I understand your line "I can take it". It's the kind of anticipation that builds up with forum experience. I sometimes think forums are not worth the time, but then there are some interesting people around with fascinating ideas.

When I was still at school (40yrs ago!)we kids used to say "discuss anything with your friends except religion and politics." Some of us never learn...

Good luck. I'll let you get back to the topic grin


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
(shower-curtain tech) -google that phrase

Okay Samwik - I googled it. Which of the 220,000 results should I be reading?

smile

Blacknad.

Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
I googled it as well - turned up a bunch of...............wait for it............shower curtains shocked



As far as your post Sam, I gather what you're getting at is an engineered solution to global warming (either through increasing the productivity of the ocean, or "sun-shades").

Without going into the issues of whether the solution will have any impact on the problem, or the cost of the solution compared to the cost of the problem, or our ability to carry out those solutions - here's my take on it (coming from an engineer).

Creating an engineering solution to an engineer-caused problem will never work in the long run. They're usually band-aid solutions, that don't get at the under-lying problem.

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Sorry about the misgoogle. Never mind....

It seemed to me that it'd be cheaper, especially considering you get food/fuel in the deal also. I figured sunshades would cost about the same as an asteroid deflecting mission, or even 10 or 50 times as much (still pretty cheap considering the result).
I'm mostly guessing at these numbers, obviously.

Even as a temporary solution, if very effective, wouldn't it be worth it?
***

Mainly though I'd like to discuss your point:

Originally Posted By: Canuck
They're usually ...solutions, that don't get at the under-lying problem.


It seems to me that the ocean's dwindling ability to soak up CO2 is the underlying problem.

I think most people see air pollution as occurring inside of a sealed system like a glass jar. But isn't it more like a glass jar with a giant sponge for the lid?

That is my main goal -understanding the root of the problem (I know, overpopulation; but how...).

Probably the numbers don't add up, or there is more to it in some way. Should I just dig deeper or should I go in a different direction? Have others gone down this road before?
I'll appreciate any more input.

Thanks muchly,

~samwik




Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Canuk, something you said on that "Is Science the answer?" thread made me realize that I'm assuming CO2 is problematic, as well as assuming that there is a problem.

We do know that climate changes naturally (and sometimes suddenly).
Whether our climate is changing or not, shouldn't we as a species try to prepare to maintain our climate knowing that it will change at some point?

~SA


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Hi Sam - sorry I've been busy recently, and don't have sufficient time for a full post, so this will be short.

Instead of trying to influence our climate (whether that is in response to anthropogenic or natural causes) in hopes of mitigating damages, I'd rather see us try to improve our ability to adapt. Why, being more adaptable will not only help us deal with a changing climate, but a host of other possible issues as well.

Just my 2 cents

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: Canuck
Instead of trying to influence our climate (whether that is in response to anthropogenic or natural causes) in hopes of mitigating damages, I'd rather see us try to improve our ability to adapt.

Either way, adaptation is being forced upon us; but I think what you're saying is that resources should be diverted from climate modification to adaptation technology, right?

What do you have in mind?


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Yes, good question. Do we adapt for a hotter, wetter world; hotter, drier world; colder, wetter world; Euro glaciers & American deserts; etc.?
Are there other examples of adaptation preceding the pressures in evolution?

Don't we see historical evidence of rapid (decadal) climate change. Adaptation will allow some to survive (it's the law!), and there won't be any wars to stifle cooperation or drain resources.

Wouldn't adapting in such a way as to prevent the problem be just as easy or easier? It's easier to maintain the status quo, than to adjust to unknowable changes.

I think there would be enough change to adapt to, even if we do manage to maintain a relatively stable climate.

~~SA


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Samwik asked:

"Don't we see historical evidence of rapid (decadal) climate change."

I think it's accepted the change at the end of the last ice age was spectacular. I'll try to find a link. From memory, temperature rose rapidly, over a decade or two, about 10,000 years ago to warmer than today, dropped back to near ice age temps again, then rose more slowly from about 8000 years ago.

You also asked:

"Are there other examples of adaptation preceding the pressures in evolution?"

I very much doubt it. There have probably been times when some members of a species are pre-adapted to conditions that develop.
Then that gene combination would take over the population. If we pull off adaptation preceding evolutionary pressure I would say this could be the first. Unfortunately we don't really know what we need to adapt to.

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Yes, that whole adaptation tactic (to deal with climate change) strikes me as a kind of "non-solution." It's like saying nature isn't a problem, our ability to adapt is a problem.

Gee, I think I'd agree with that, as a general philosophical statement.
But in this case....

I guess it's a semantic problem. What do we mean by adapting?

Would being smart enough to change the climate be an adaptation?

Hmm, we've been doing that for thousands of years already.
That's been the secret to our success, so far!

Maybe it's time to start changing climate on a larger, more intentional, sustainable scale.

~~SA


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: samwik
Yes, that whole adaptation tactic (to deal with climate change) strikes me as a kind of "non-solution." It's like saying nature isn't a problem, our ability to adapt is a problem.

Gee, I think I'd agree with that, as a general philosophical statement.
But in this case....

I guess it's a semantic problem. What do we mean by adapting?

Would being smart enough to change the climate be an adaptation?

Hmm, we've been doing that for thousands of years already.
That's been the secret to our success, so far!

Yes, "Adapt, Improvise and Overcome" (U.S Marines). It's the secret of our success, but it may transpire that it's the secret of our failure. Humans have impeded genetic adaptation to many of their habitats because they have instead modified the environment to meet their needs. This is self-perpetuating: we modify the habitat, so obviating the need to evolve - i.e., we preclude the opportunity for Darwinian evolution - and so are compelled to continue to modify it. The result is the ever increasing complexity and sophistication of human civilization. Human beings are a phenomenally successful product of evolution.

So, we evolved with the ability and propensity to modify our environment. We can only hope that this evolutionary strategy proves successful enough to get us over the major hurdles that lie ahead.

How do we adapt?

(a) Do we modify the clmate?
(b) Do we develop technology to counter adverse climate changes?
(c) Both (a) and (b)?



"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Redewenur wrote:

"So, we evolved with the ability and propensity to modify our environment."

But most species do. Here in NZ many people wish to preserve parts of the environment in some sort of pre-European, or even pre-human being, state. But native birds are continually spreading seeds, especially berries, from introduced plants. These introduced plants invade native woodland and change it, providing a bigger variety of food for indigenous birds. Sure, the birds are not conciously changing the environment for their own advantage but have humans always known how and why they were changing their environment? Do we even know today?

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5