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 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
#305 11/09/04 04:36 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
I know it is so depressing to be reminded of reality Uncle Al but here is another dose:

The Arctic is warming much more rapidly than previously known, at nearly twice the rate as the rest of the globe, and increasing greenhouse gases from human activities are projected to make it warmer still, according to an unprecedented four-year scientific study of the region conducted by an international team of 300 scientists.

1000 Years of Changes in Carbon Emissions, CO2 Concentrations and Temperature. (Graphic courtesy of Arctic Climate Impact Assessment)

Related News Stories


Scientists Zero In On Arctic, Hemisphere-Wide Climate Swings (August 30, 2002) -- In the late 1990s, as scientists were reaching consensus that the Arctic had gone through 30 years of significant climate change, they began reading the first published papers about the Arctic ... > full story

Recent Warming Of Arctic May Affect Worldwide Climate (October 24, 2003) -- Recently observed change in Arctic temperatures and sea ice cover may be a harbinger of global climate changes to come, according to a recent NASA study. Satellite data -- the unique view from space ... > full story

Warm Winters Result From Greenhouse Effect, Columbia Scientists Find, Using NASA Model (June 4, 1999) -- A team of scientists from Columbia University has shown that warm winters in the northern hemisphere likely can be explained by the action of upper-atmosphere winds that are closely linked to global ... > full story

> more related stories

At least half the summer sea ice in the Arctic is projected to melt by the end of this century, along with a significant portion of the Greenland Ice Sheet, as the region is projected to warm an additional 4-7 C (7 to 13 F) by 2100. These changes will have major global impacts, such as contributing to global sea-level rise and intensifying global warming, according to the final report of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA).

The assessment was commissioned by the Arctic Council (a ministerial intergovernmental forum comprised of the eight Arctic countries and six Indigenous Peoples organizations) and the International Arctic Science Committee (an international scientific organization appointed by 18 national academies of science).

Source: http://www.acia.uaf.edu/

Of course because this work was performed by an international team of highly respected researchers means you can deride their work while providing not a shred of contrary evidence of merit. So have at it.

The rest of us will just be reminded of the chant "ignorance is bliss."


DA Morgan
.
#306 11/09/04 08:13 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 23
K
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
K
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 23
Wouldnt the icy waters, melted from the arctic, create other major problems. Not so much as the rise in sea water, but the cooler temperatures overall of the waters as they melt.

Perhaps it might be a reverse of global warming, and puts us into a new ice age instead. Perhaps also this is normal occurance as well, expecially since the polars are supposedly getting ready to flip again.

Mind you the above paragraph is just my thoughts on this. nothing concrete smile

#307 11/09/04 10:18 PM
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 39
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 39
The reverse of global warming you may be referring to is the threat of the shutdown of the Gulf stream and the deep salt water conveyer (from Iceland to mid Pacific).

It is proposed that this occured when fresh water flooded the Greenland/Icelandic area, reducing the salinity (a major climatic trigger - bigger than el nino/la nina).

I am not sure that the climate theorist have taken into account the large dose of pollution (added salinity?) in comparing their models to the prehistoric record.

There is another state of oceanic equalibrium found in the paleontological record and that is one of the ocean settling into two or more layered zones. If I recall properly, this record correspondes to periods of high temps and high seas.

Another potential missing part of the climatic model is the impact of human activity to thwart the coming of an ice age. All our traffic, night lights, air conditioners, heaters, power plants, autos, and so on create a large heat footprint that was not in effect the last time the Gulf Stream flipped "off".

The most likely result of the Gulf Stream stopping would be an Ice Age, but another steady state has dominated the planet and its lifeforms in the past.

Those who think human activity has no influence on the planet and its atmosphere must think we as a species are insignificant in comparison to cyno-bacteria and lichens - the first settlers and builders of the world we have inherited.

"polars flipping again", a reference to the Magnetic Poles - the shifting of which is long overdue. This would have some impact on the climate because the ionosphere and the earth's magnetic fields would flux, possibly a decrease in ozone. Which is a whole different set of problems.

#308 11/10/04 02:54 AM
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 2
M
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
M
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 2
Perhaps there are 25,000 scientists as well as a boatload of satelite imagery that suggests global warming is not occuring as the 700 who are owned by the KYOTO treaty proponents would have us believe?

Methinks so...


-Marcel
#309 11/10/04 05:16 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
As if the arctic melting was not enough to perhaps catch attention ... how about this?

Environmentalists are warning that the melting of glaciers in the Himalayas could spell disaster for millions of people living in the region.

They claim the situation is not being adequately monitored; the last studies having been done in the 1990s.

Swelling glacial lakes would increase the risk of catastrophic flooding.

In the long term, the glaciers could disappear altogether, causing several rivers to shrink and threatening the survival of those who depend on them.

"It is high time we did field studies to assess the situation or else a big natural catastrophe could hit us anytime," said Arun Bhakta Shrestha from Nepal's Department of Hydrology and Meteorology.

There are 3,300 glaciers in the Nepalese Himalayas and 2,300 of them contain glacial lakes. These lakes are quietly growing due to global warming, but no one is keeping a close eye on them.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3998967.stm


DA Morgan
#310 11/11/04 03:18 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 23
K
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
K
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 23
I don?t understand how our government and all others can?t see the light in the end of the tunnel, when most information is pointing towards a global catastrophe. At least the information that has not been tampered with or put away for a rainy day.

I suppose it is against their way of thinking, or is it lining their pockets.

#311 11/11/04 04:53 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Let me help you understand ... you see those "other" people aren't as important as "our" people are. We are in favour of a right-to-life but only when it suits our political purposes like winning elections or getting rich. If those "other" people have wars, starve to death, don't have medicines and health care, or live in disease and misery it is their own fault and the fact that they haven't embraced "our saviour."

You see good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people so they must be bad people.

Does that clear it up?


DA Morgan
#312 11/22/04 02:35 PM
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 39
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 39
Here is an interesting link about changing sea water compositions over time and its impact on corals

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041116232307.htm

I wonder if anyone is looking at the impact the changing chemical composition from human waste and building material run off is having - could this be another factor in the coral die-off?

If anyone has other links about this, I would be interested in reading them.
thanks

#313 11/28/04 08:11 PM
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 18
A
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
A
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 18
Does anyone have any numbers about how quickly CO2 is converted to Oxygen via photosynthesis in plants? Like how much is converted per hour given a constant supply?

Also, does anyone know how quickly methanotrophic bacteria (aerobic bacteria that oxidize methane as an energy source) metabolize methane?

Last one I promise, does anyone know how quickly methane-consuming plant life does the same?

Thanks. Can't seem to find any real numbers on anything.

#314 11/29/04 08:10 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Factors affecting Photosynthesis;
http://www.marietta.edu/~spilatrs/biol103/photolab/globexpl.html

http://library.thinkquest.org/22016/photo/rate.html
(watch for typos) Will tell you in general what affects photosynthesis, and how the effects of increasing or decreasing components are exerted.


Methanotrophic bacteria are by necessity anaerobic. Thus the answer to your second question as you stated and amended it is zero.

For methanotrophs, try:

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v356/n6368/abs/356421a0.html

http://www1.dupont.com/NASApp/dupontglobal/corp/index.jsp?page=/content/US/en_US/science/sharpe.html

http://www.newscientist.com/conferences/confarticle.jsp?conf=amgun200006&id=22421100

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=91497

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-04zzzu.html
(again a typo alert in this one)

Beam me up, Scotty.

I'm sorry to disappoint you but there is no methane-consuming plant life on this planet anymore. It all died out when the oxygen level in the air got too high. wink

#315 01/11/05 11:36 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
I think those of us who have read about the issues involved in global warming appreciate that something is happening.

I think it is up to people like ourselves who have some understanding of the issue (I will confess right now to not being an expert, but an interested layman in this field) to raise awareness in the populus.

Whilst solutions will be a matter of great debate, I think it is clear that we stand at a crossroads, where we need to make some decisions. I say we, because we can't leave it to politicians to act. It is people that drive carbon dioxide emmisions, by our atitudes and actions. I have been doing some basic calculations based on the simple act of ditching your screensaver in favour of standby mode on your computer. Of course the savings are tiny, but use the fact that most computers are networked, and our social small world networks give us the opportunity to spread the word, and before you know it you have reduced CO2 emmision by a few hundred tonnes, (no big deal I know) but more importantly you have got people talking about the issue. You can find a calculator for working out the savings here: Carbon Saver

#316 01/13/05 11:23 PM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
I like the way that Andy is think. Everyone talks about global warming as if the only thing we can do is to try and reduce our CO2 emmissions, its time to realise that might not be enough. There are a lot of very clever people on this planet, surely there must be other solutions to remove some of the CO2 that we have pumped into the sky.

How about a man made plant that takes sunlight and CO2 and makes electricity, that would solve the heating problem and would give us another renewable source of energy.

#317 03/23/06 12:31 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
the only think man is doing, is accelerating global warming, and not by that much. the earth is attempting to return to its natural state, which happens to be 15 degrees or so warmer than it is now. as the ice melts, there is less reflection of solar energy, causeing the earth to warm up. this cause more melt of the ice, and another increase in the tempature.

good news for those concerned that the earth will get too warm for humans. the worlds largest super valcano is about to pump hundreds of cubic miles of sulfer dioxide into the upper atmosphere, where it will reflect tons of solar energy, dropping the tempature back and bring back lots of cool ice.

bad news: that super valcano will pump hundreds of cubic miles of sulfer dioxide into the upper atmosphere, dropping the tempature about 40 degrees. the danger is the thermal runaway point is right in that area. if its breached, the pacific ocean will freeze at the equator.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#318 03/23/06 05:37 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
dehammer wrote:
"the earth is attempting to return to its natural state, which happens to be 15 degrees or so warmer than it is now"

Oh poppycock. The planet does not think. It does not try. It does not attempt.

This planet is no more in a normal state of affairs 15 degrees warmer than it is 15 degrees cooler.

Your political views do not trump the scientific reality that there is far more CO2 in the air than before and that its rise, and the temperature rise correspond with human use of fossil fuels.


DA Morgan
#319 03/24/06 02:46 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 334
K
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
K
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 334
Things may be speeding up in any case and if we've only got 40 years before it's irreversible then it looks like a lost cause.

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20060223213957data_trunc_sys.shtml

#320 03/24/06 08:21 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
I wouldn't go so far as to say it is lost. But it is being lost.

What truly amazes me is that the younger generations, the ones we are gifting this too, are too self-centered and/or lazy to get off their bottoms and take my generation to task.

We're leaving this mess to you kiddies. Do you really want it?


DA Morgan
#321 03/24/06 07:53 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 137
C
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
C
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 137
No but we, the younger generation didn't create this mess and how do you propose that we clean it up when the older generation who is in control of the government is failing and has failed for decades to admit there is a problem.

When your generation was the younger generation, (hippies and such) who spoke about all these issues did the older generation listen? No. When we had the one and only president, CArter, who seemed to be willing to pay attention to the environment and govern with morality, the older generation replaced him with Reagan.

Stop the age bashing DA, it does not become you.

#322 03/24/06 08:22 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
What we have now is a kleptocarcy ... not a democracy. We have duplicted the Phillipines of Ferdinand Marcos.

I propose that you start by electing people pledged to dismantle the corrupt system that re-elects politicians that are wholly owned subsidiaries of corporate interests.

Lets see some real conservatives. Lets see some people paying attention to what the founding fathers actually said:

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
~ Thomas Jefferson

"I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
~ Thomas Jefferson

"Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor."
~ Thomas Jefferson

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
~ Thomas Jefferson

"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world."
~ Thomas Jefferson

Age bashing? Not at all? I consider my generation to be among the worst on record.


DA Morgan
#323 03/26/06 08:41 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
G'day,

I've never posted here so if my post is out of line, please let me know.

15 Degrees warmer is the earth's natural state? Actually, the earth for the last 50 million years or so has generally been much colder than now and only and a couple of very rare occasions hotter. An "ice age" (glaciation) is inevitable given the cycles the earth has been in for 120,000 years or so and how the natural state in this ice age is to be a great deal colder in the Northern Hemisphere than the last 11,000 odd years.

I do wonder about the latest study that was reported as the artic area is warming at a much faster rate than first thought. I predicted when gobal warming was first argued that the cycle would be:

Almost no one would believe it in the scientific community.

Grants would start to accrue to those that supported global warming and the "evidence" would swing towards global warming rather than cooling which had been the accepted trend until about 1979 (from 1922 or 1923 depending on how it was measured).

No major report would suggest catastrophic events, only worrying ones. No would would come out and say the sea level will rise 80 metres.

Once the global warming argument became the accepted philosophy, the warnings would gradually become more strident.

There would be somewhat of a backlash, with several scientists suggesting flawed studies, etc.

Very quickly thereafter, "the world is doomed", would start to be included in warnings with major cold events being written off as the weather becoming increasingly more "violent" because of global warming.

I wrote a paper suggesting this series of events in the 80s and had a few intellectual bets with those very few people who at the time were concerned with climate change. But I guess anyone could say that on a forum like this. I personally have felt rather smug that I managed to predict pretty much the whole cycle quite well.

Earth sciences was the poor cousin to most other sciences in the 60s and 70s. In the late 70s a small group of us were attempting to determine an indicator of the relative temperatures across the land in the northern hemispheres because a major cooling trend seemed to be showing up in anecdotal evidence. We couldn't even get the US Met service to provide data to assist. They just weren't interested. Global warming changed all this entirely. Now whole faculties are powered by global warming grants.

I'm not saying that the scientists are deliberitely being misleading in their studies, just that in it human nature to actually wish to receive grants so that one can work and pay rent etc and so studies end up being of the type that supports the theory that supplies the most money.

Computer modelling of climate change is a good example of just how bad good science can be turned to bad results. Since I have degrees in Science, Computing (and History and Law but they aren't greatly relevant to global warming), and have a great interest in computing and programing starting with programming punch cards when I was a kid, I understand more than most about what type of problems a global warming computer model faces. Indeed, I would suggest the best super computers or even massive arrays of computers, still do not have anywhere near the power needed to accurately create a climate predicting model. Actually, I would also suggest that the science of climate has not progressed enough yet to make the fundamental assumptions needed to create the model.

Taking melting ice caps for instance, it is not as simple as saying the melting ice cap will cause temperature rises. The equation has to include the greater amount of sea water at the equator and in the mid latitudes where most of the solar radiation actually strikes the surface of the earth, the change such an effect would have on jet streams, on cloud formation, on storm patterns and even on volcanic activity. Seven times out of ten, climate change on our earth has been accompanied by a major peak in volcanic activities. But it isn't even possible to work out if the climate causes the volcanic activity or the volcanic activity causes the climate change.

Even the very "simple" argument that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere (and there is no doubt that CO2 levels have been rising because of humans but as to whether this is greater than even a single major volcanic event is questionable) cause warming relies on assumptions that may be quite false. More CO2 and it is possible you get more refraction at the equator (warming), but also more cloud (warming in the short term - seriously cooling in the longer term), a change in the albedo readings at all latitudes (warming or cooling depending on your theory). An this does not even take into account changes in so many other factors. The trouble is the study of climate with respect to these factors is all very new.

The best weather programs can get the weather right about 80% of the time in temperate climates now four days out. That is a major advance over the last 50 years but try for seven days and the same programs are about as good as throwing darts at a board listing "hot", "cold", "rain", "clear". Now these programs are not theoretical. Weather forcasting is huge business and thus, unlike global warming programs which are very very hyperthetic, it is in a great many people's interests to get it right and extend the model to five days or work out the path of a hurricane more accurately or where a tornado might touch down more than 30 minutes before it actually happens.

Personally, I think the earth is currently warming, which is a good thing (although not for everybody of course). Had the earth not changed to an interglacial period when it did, civilisation would not have happened. That it lasted 11,000 years meant that man could actually develop civilisation to a point that even a glaciation is probably not going to put us back in the stone age. If cooling had occurred when the mini ice age occurred about three hundred years ago, man would have gone right back to the stone age. That is pretty amazing.

Another few degrees and the earth will be able to support far more agriculture than it presently does. Rainfall patterns change dramatically so that the arid parts of Australia become breadbaskets, as does more of Canada, parts of Africa, China and Russia. The downide is unlike the nice predictions of a few centrimeters of sea level rise, a real global warming will cause a very sudden shrinking or elimination of ice caps and major sea level rises, killing a great many of the world's population.

But far worse for mankind would be a glaciation. The last model that I saw indicated the loss of around 90% of the world's population in 3 years and getting up to only a 2% survival 5 years out (this assumes a three year changeover or flip between interglacial periods and glaciations - a theory that does have significant evidence in support of it even if the prevailing teachings state that the change takes in the order of thousands of years).

Which would you rather have? Problems because of warming that mean dislocation and movement of large amounts of the population but little loss of life due to starvation, etc, or a change something akin to the movie "The Day After Tommorrow" (I don't agree with the theories in that movie but I do agree with just how catastrophic a cooling event would be).

Because I am wheelchair bound from a serious injury I can only follow some of the studies and have not seen any detail of the latest study that suggests rapid loss of arctic ice coverage. I must say that even the broad brush stuff that I have read, does not give me much faith in the validity of the predictions. If the ice coverage were really to melt as predicted, then it would ALL melt. Once a major retreat of ice coverage occurs in the northern hemisphere, without some factor to reverse it, such as a meteor strike to throw up huge clouds of debris or volcanic activity to do much the same, the retreat actually causes a retreat. The difference in the albedo readings of Greenland's ice coverage and Greenland without ice in the same places, is staggering. It goes from about 95% to about 35%. Thus the area warms rapidly as the ground warms up and the air close to the ground follows suit, and this warming then causes the ice fringes to melt, resulting in an accelerating process. My best estimate of the last thaw across North America was that at its peak the retreating snow/ice coverage managed to reach around 50 kms per day.

Yet the assumption of this study seems to be that the artic warming will do no more than melt a percentage of the ice coverage. That just does not accord with historic evidence of both northern hemisphere retreat and return of ice in the last several cycles.

Climate is so complicated that even working out what should be happening to a single glacier has proved to be nigh on impossible. Much of the glaciers in the world are historic remnants. Except that glaciers create their own mini climates, most should have melted thousands of years ago. Most have been retreating, sometimes rapidly and sometimes slowly, ever since the warming 11,000 years ago. Maybe - because this interglacial period is somewhat longer than has been the norm - we have finally reached the point where glaciers no longer are able to exist.

Actually, I remember a theory of some time back that glacial retreat could actually be the cause of climate warming, when it reached a certain, unknown, critical point.

I'm probably rambling terribly and my guess is no one will read this, but if anyone does, and wants to know my point to all this, it is that I do not believe that any scientific evidence has been established yet that the world is warming other than because it has been in an interglacial period for a long time, or even if the longer trend is for continuing warming.

I remember a couple of years ago a major study was published concerning ocean temperatures. It was very detailed and the figures did seem to show the air temperatures just above the world's oceans had risen over the last 50 years. But immediately I read the study I found a major flaw. The statistics were taken from ships records. The temperatures recorded had no controlled environment or a fixed methodology. Indeed, as ships became much larger, the distance between the ocean surface and where the temperatures were measured increased dramatically. Now the study authors had suggested a formula to take this into account (although this was not in the major findings of the report) but the formula seemed to be no more than a guess. Since the variables are immense, no simple formula can account for enough of them, in my view, to return an accurate comparison.

The same thing seems to happen with land temperatures but in a much more biased way. Most people with an interest in climate change or even recent historic weather for an area, are aware that, the trend has been for the last 80 years for land temperatures in the northern hemisphere to increase in cities and decrease in smaller communities. It would seem that temperatures for major cities are used in most studies with a formula attempting to negate the heat sink effect of massive injections of concrete into the hearts of those cities, and the major increase in application of heat absorbing and retaining materials in the surrounding areas of the city. I have yet to see any scientific study that shows a way to actually determine just how much a change this hase caused. In order to do that, you need the temperatures to remain stable somewhere, so that the change in the city structure can be seen as the reason for any average temperature change. The trouble is there is no such thing as a stable temperature. Even in the most stable of periods in the earth's cycle of warming and cooling, there a fluctuations, year to year, and for several years at a time.

My suggestion has always been to only use land temperatures where the temperatures have accurately been recorded at exactly the same location for the study period, in a town with a population of no greater than 5,000, at least 80 kms from any city, where the recording area has not had any major change to its environs such as even a three storey building being built within several hundred metres of it, or a carpark being paved over, or even major trees being changed. One very big problem is that temperature recording equipment is periodically changed and in small towns, no one goes to the trouble of making sure that the new piece of equipment matches the old or a deferential is calculated and clearly inserted into the records.

Even with all these problems, there are enough small towns that fit the criteria for studies to be done. They just do not seem to be done for any climate warming studies.

You do not have to go back very long in time to find most earth sciences did not agree with plate techtonics as the major shaping force of our earth and its climate. Yet even though the scientists were in the vast majority, they were wrong. So I do not believe that because anyone can suggest that there are 25,000 scientists who accept global warming and a small number who do not, that this suggests anything other than once a theory gains favour it stays in favour even in the face of damming counter evidence.

A study of glacial retreat proves nothing but glaciers melt in interglacial periods - eventually. It might be that they are melting because the earth is warming but a study on the retreat does not prove that or even suggest it.

The fact that northern hemisphere winters have actually been worse in the past few years also does not suggest that global warming is not occuring. The climate has not become more violent or unpredictable. While records have been broken with the number of Atlantic hurricanes recently, records are always broken,and overall, the frequency or severity of hurricanes or any other major climate event does not seemed to have taken a dive for the worse. The cause more damage because more people live in the areas and because of rank stupidity such as building bridges and levies not capable of withstanding the force that a hurricane will one day exert.

I wrote a paper in 1979 matching the years 1974-1979 to the years that preceded the last switch to a glaciation, from the evidence then available. This was a time when there was real concern about cooling. The then Soviet had managed to have five major wheat harvest fiascos because of temperature drops, areas in Canada had much greater ice flows than a decade before, snow fell and stayed on the ground much further south in Europe, parts of the Soviet Union and North America than for the previous decade. Many animal species seemed to be responding to triggers that had not been recorded by civilised man, some winter coats were not changing in certain species back to summer coats, some herd and pack behaviours had been observed to have changed to what some specialists suggested was the behaviour required during a glaciation. But 1980 proved to turn it all around. There were several factors for this but all were events that were "special", thus seeming to alter the balance enough to stop what might have been a slide towards cooling.

Personally, I was very glad it happened. I didn't want half of the Soviet Union to starve. That might have started WWIII.

Global warming? It's possible, even probable. Has the scientific community proved it yet? Not in my view. Is it going to wreck the world? I don't know but it does seem to me that it is the lesser of two evils. As to the world's climate, the only real assumption that one can make with total accuracy is that the world's climate is not a static thing and the earth will get warmer and cooler several times in the next 100,000 years. A cooling event is likely to kill off much of the world's population (which might be a good thing if you are a member of PETA or believe that the world cannot keep on supporting us humans without it eventually being destroyed by polution, the using up of fossil fuels, loss of habitat and the earth's lungs in the form of forests, etc).

Regards

Richard


Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness
#324 03/26/06 12:57 PM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
C
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
C
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
Richard wrote:

Quote:
Even the very "simple" argument that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere (and there is no doubt that CO2 levels have been rising because of humans but as to whether this is greater than even a single major volcanic event is questionable) cause warming relies on assumptions that may be quite false. More CO2 and it is possible you get more refraction at the equator (warming), but also more cloud (warming in the short term - seriously cooling in the longer term), a change in the albedo readings at all latitudes (warming or cooling depending on your theory). An this does not even take into account changes in so many other factors. The trouble is the study of climate with respect to these factors is all very new.
I think that this is the most important point where I would disagree with you. The effects of increasing CO_2 levels is huge and that makes global warming a predictable effect. Without any greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, temperatures would be 33 ?C lower than they are today. It is likely that we are going to double the CO_2 concentration in the atmosphere, from 0.027% to more than 0.05% or more.

Strong feedback effects limit the temperature increase to just a few degrees ?C. But it is just not possible to have zero or negative temperature increase, because those feedback mechanisms only work because the average temperature has increased in the first place. You get more clouds because at higher temperatures you get more evaporation.

Global warming is ultimately just a consequence of conservation of energy. The exact temperature increase is model dependent, but the fact that it exists is not. By increasing Co_2 levels you effectively pump more energy in the atmosphere per unit time. Different climate models will make different predictions; the fact that these models can be criticised for not being 100% realistic does not invalidate the predicted global warming.

Similarly, if I turn on the heating now, then the temperature in my room will increase. I could write down a model for the thermal convection in my room, the thermal conduction through the walls and the convective heat transfer from the walls to the outside air, but the result of all those calculations will be that the temperature in my room will increase. Criticism about the simplified way of modeling the heat transfer would not invalidate the prediction of a temperature increase.

Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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