Global Warming

[daniel01 0]

Yes Coolotter88 Global Warming may, or not cause Australia's drought, Australia for we know may be going through another dreadful year of El Nino, which makes little rain, and dries up the area,

But recently its been a bit too dry, that the past El Nino Years.

Maybe Global Warming may be not.

daniel01

[confused04 14]

Originally posted by: coolotter88 but airplane contrails are also proven to keep our planet warmer by up to 3 degrees Celsius!

can you prove that an increase of 100 ppm of carbon dioxide since the industrial revolution is caused by carbon dioxide? with the huge impact of contrails on the temperature, how can we tell whether if our "global warming" is caused by CO2 or just lots of red eye flights?

also "Global warming" wouldn't really cause droughts, austrailia's drought was just any regular drought.

Besides, the interior of antarctica has cooled alot, about .7 degrees celsius. Antarctica isn't melting away yet.quote>

From the data I've read, contrails have possibly increased temps locally a few tenths of degree celsius to perhaps as much as 1.5 C.  Unfortunately, this data has only one replicate, in one area of the world (NYC after Sept 11) and this data is in doubt cause the measurement was taken as a change in diurnal temperature range where local weather such as humidity has a huge affect.  This estimated range was considered to be the "largest" range for the same time period for that region in 30 years.  A simple, extra dry day could have been responsible for the results and as this is the only study with actual, hard observational data, the assumptions are in doubt.  Finally, cloud albedo may offset what contrails contribute to anyway.  Compared to the output of all other processes on Earth, contrails aren't anywhere near as influential.  Can I prove an increase of 100 ppm of carbon dioxide is caused by carbon dioxide?  I'm not exactly sure what your asking... Can I prove an increase in stock prices is caused by an increase in stock prices? I'm guessing your asking can I prove the CO2 increase is caused by man.  Several things to look at.

CO2 in all other interglacial periods, similar to what we live in today... have seen a decrease in CO2, and not only has this trend been bucked, but conveniently in just a short period of time.  Volcanicism hasn't been terribly high and wildfires of recent years are balanced by the very small amount of the early 20th century (due to poor forest management which humans started paying for as crown fires became devastating).  If deforestation for human development has increased CO2 concentration, then thats still a result of human influence.  Generally, the only reason for CO2 concentration rise is from CO2, particularly from electrical/combustion proccesses.  Imagine all the gas that has ever been used, which is a mind boggling amount saying humans uses millions of barrels a DAY and have for awhile.  All that carbon dioxide was once locked below the surface of our planet, and now its in our atmosphere. 

Global warming can cause drought... it can cause any meteorological phenomenon... drought is just another form of weather.  As stated earlier, wind patterns change, some for the increase of moister, others for a decrease in moisture.  I definately agree that any particular occurence can't be blamed specifically on global warming.

I'll get back to the Antarctica bit later, but I have to get ready for the day.

Edit:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/01/0125_020125_antarcticaclimate.html

Good read there.

Plus, the edges of Antarctica (areas that will always be susceptible to melting anyway) have seen increases of 2.5 to 3 C.  Paradoxically, ice shelves can increase in thickness due to increase preciptation in the short run, but in the long run, will gain enough weight to beginning moving faster into ever warming water creating a net decrease over a longer period of time.

[coolotter88 2]

LOL I didn't think this morning. Yeah, I meant what you said about proving the increase was caused by humans.

that is true, the outsides of Antarctica is melting but the interior is cooling down!

and how do you explain the growth in glaciers across the world as our temperatures "increase"?

[jvlm.123 0]

Just a question, coolotter88, where are these glaciers?

[coolotter88 2]

iceland's glaciers grow, greenlands glaciers grow. only a few alpine glaciers are shrinking.

[Barbarossa 51]

I think some facts are in order. I would like to know who says Greenland is growing, when every climatologist (who doesn't have god in their britches) tells you it is shrinking. And by the way, you ever so cleverly omitted Antartica and the Arctic from your comments. Last time I checked, they were the best indicators of temperature effects, and the most heavily affected. Let's see, just how many ice sheets have collapsed in Antarctica in the last two years, including one of the largest? What about Glacier National Park here in the states? Pretty soon, that name will be a joke.

Barbarossa

[____----____ 37]

Originally posted by: coolotter88 iceland's glaciers grow, greenlands glaciers grow. only a few alpine glaciers are shrinking.quote>

 

the other way around almost all north american glaciers

are shrinking the continental US will have only Ranier

Shasta Baker and a couple other washington peaks i forgot

left soon, greenlands glaciers are shrinking incredibly fast 

your info is just totally bogus

[coolotter88 2]

actually antarctic sea ice is growing as i've stated before and so is the antarctic ice sheet. our global warming threat has been blown way out of proportion. the global warming theory says that our poles should be experiencing warming first, well guess what? antarctica has COOLED a total of .7 degrees celsius. and like confused said, more than half of a degree is a MAJOR change.

http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=192

Does anyone have any concrete data that sea levels are rising?

[Barbarossa 51]

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060227/pf/060227-10_pf.html

http://www.livescience.com/environment/051116_greenland_melts.html

Happy reading.

Barbarossa

[daniel01 0]

I found this to answer your question Coolotter88

Athough its not talking about sea level rise it is talking about the ice sheets thickness in 2050. 

It explains the sea ice thickness of how much we had, and by 2050 the world heating up over the years has caused the decrease of ice sheets not only in the arctic, Greenland...., but even Antarctica.

info www.wikipedia.org

daniel01

[SpecialEddie 3]

Originally posted by: coolotter88 iceland's glaciers grow, greenlands glaciers grow. only a few alpine glaciers are shrinking.quote>

 

I see you've been reading Michael Chricton's State of Fear...

[coolotter88 2]

lol, yeah...but i realizer that my comment on growing glaciers is wrong, i'll admit that.

however, daniel01, your graph is going to be wrong, definetly. we can't really predict what will happen in the future. besides, the loss of sea ice in the north will be compensated by growth of sea ice in the south pole. refer to one of my previous posts.

and a yearly loss of ice from ice shelves causes only a .4 mm increase in the sea level... .4 mm is not a very dramatic change now is it?

[Haljackey 17,325]

According to Enviorment Canada, the Artic region (anything north of the Artic Circle) has seen a REALLY above average summer this year. Temperatures this summer for the whole region were more than 2 degress Celcius higher than the average, which is very significant especially because it was the summer. This is the time when most glaciers melt, and this warming has actually created a trend over the past 20 years. Scarry stuff, eh? We better have a really chilly winter there this year in order to try to relieve a bit of the strain this has had on the artic landscape, and wildlife.

[Micah 16]

Perhaps this world is just too old to live on.

[confused04 14]

According to Bjorn Lomborg, a notorius "skeptical" environmentalist, admits to a historical rise of the sea level by 10-25 cm over te past century and an additional 12-19 inches over the next century, using a model that is already out of date. The previous model he used (from the IPCC) came out before recent studies discussed the melting glaciers of Greenland and the possibly decreasing ice sheet of Antarctica. 0.4 mm might not be a lot, but thats just per year and assuming a constant rate of melting. Any intervariable calculus student knows the troubles of an increasing acceleration of a variable and melting has taken on this characteristic. Not only is it melting, but melting faster. The major question is about whether or not the rate of melting will ever slow. If it does slow, then sea level rise won't be a problem. But, since the polar regions seem more affected by global warming, this trend is highly unlikely and chances are the rate of melting will only increase. If ALL of Greenland's glaciers were to melt, the increase would be devastating.

[moganite 4]

Like I said earlier the rate of meltwater flowing off Greenland has doubled over the last tecade and it is likely to do so again in the next one. This flowrate is equvialent to several times the flow from the Amazon river. We could see the collapse of the Greenland icesheet withoun my life time and I am 30, if not it will almost certainly happen by the end of this century. The result would be a 6 m rise in sea levels and thousands of trillions in damage from innundation and having to rebuild infrasructure not even counting the loss of great cities like London and Newyork and Tokyo. Also this will hit the poorest people worse than the richer people as the rich can often adapt of move out.

Other evidence I have seen is a reduction of 50 percent of sea ice in the artic in 1 year 2004 to 2005.

The melting will not slow but increase as the typical residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is hundreds of years and we are still emitting the stuff at an ever increasing rate despite kyoto etc.

[confused04 14]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/09/25/warming.earth.reut/index.html

Hmmm....

[daniel01 0]

I just found this news story, which explains the earth being it's hottest in a million years... 

same story by confused04 from CNN.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20479015-663,00.html

This story comes prior after half the state's stonefruit and pear crops were obliterated by snap frosts. (Which will make these fruits cost a fortune as well as Bannanas, from Cyclone Larry)

Here is story 2:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20479014-661,00.html

and another major story about Victoria's growing water crisis, it is now believed that the water is drying up more quickly than experts predicted.

Already Melbournians are facing Water restrictions Stage 1, which means no watering during the day.

But it is even worse in country towns because they are hardest hit, and they are not aloud to water at all.

This may become the worst drought Victoria, will be seeing. Not only in Victoria, but all around Australia. if not Global Warming then the devestating impacts of El Nino

Here is the story 3:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20476439-661,00.html

daniel01

[____----____ 37]

Originally posted by: SpecialEddie

Originally posted by: coolotter88 iceland's glaciers grow, greenlands glaciers grow. only a few alpine glaciers are shrinking.quote>

 

I see you've been reading Michael Chricton's State of Fear...quote>

 

lol omg don't get me started on that clown chricton....

[Jasoncw 11,841]

I don't know if it's been said yet, but the ice melting thing is more like a threshold.  What I mean is, it's not going to gradually melt and then not be there, it's going to melt a little bit and then completely melt really fast.

The reason for this, is that the thicker the ice, the lighter color it will be, and the more sun it will bounce back.  The thinner it gets, the darker it gets as the water starts showing through, and the more sun it will absorb, making it melt and get darker faster.

[____----____ 37]

smart point ^^above

[David.Stoner 0]

Hello, sorry I didn't get chance to read the full debate but I think this is correct. People are worried about the ice metlting due to a land loss point of view. If all the ice on land areas melted this would actually result in more habitable areas for man than there are now and this isn't happening "over night" so people would migrate in small numbers as and when needed.

Global warming won't kill the planet - switching of magnetic poles will when we have no protection from solar flares etc n such - BURN BABY BURNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

[____----____ 37]

just because the glaciers over greenland melt doesn't mean that the land that

is exposed will be comprable to the land lost in climates and regions that have

much more productive potential-such as the river deltas of south east asia

the crop loss would be the issue and even though there may technically be \

land in places that were previously ice try growing corn there.

[confused04 14]

Melting ice will not cause a net gain in land. Lets take an extreme example...

If Earth had no polar ice caps, sea levels could be significantly higher (estimates can place it as high as 400 ft, but whatever). Low lying areas such as Florida, the Gulf Coast, South East Asia, Caribbean, Netherlands, and portions of ALL coastal countries will be submerged. Now, it would be true that land such as Greenland and Antarctica will be more accessible. BUT growing anything in those regions and setting up permanant settlements will still be difficult, similar to parts of Northern Alaska and Canada. The land lost is far more valuable to human needs and ecosystems than any land gained.

The Magnetic poles have switched many times before... life seems to have gotten past such difficulties. I'm sure we'd somehow get passed it

[Barbarossa 51]

Global warming won't kill the planet quote>

- David.Stoner

Funnily enough, this is a true statement, although the rest is, well, inaccurate. Global Warming will not kill the planet. But... I will kill us! Isn't that the whole concern? No one is really interested in the planet... everyone is interested in themselves, which is extrapolated to mean mankind. Yes, yes, there is concern for wildlife and nature, in general. But as much as some people care (I'm one of them), in the long view, it is mankind that is endangered, not the planet. It will recover, and will likely THRIVE, if we bite the bucket.

Barbarossa

[coolotter88 2]

okay, you guys win, look at this, its the warmest since a while

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20060925/?print=1&1=1&2=2&3=3

lets talk solutions then...what do you guys think about burying all the excess CO2?

the earth's geodynamo is a natural process (like global warming) it will cause power grids to shut off and stuff like that but nothing to worry about. we won't die because of a lack of magnetic field. just because tinseltown makes a movie doesn't mean everything is true.

[David.Stoner 0]

i'm sorry your all experts obviously

[____----____ 37]

solutions good idea: reducing co2 emissions imo will be too little to

late and cost too much, besides i really don't think that the governments

of the world will shoulder the responsibility (even myself as a die hard liberal

find it hard to blame global warming on humans given the planets natural

volatility) that aside regardless of what caused it, it is happening and we will

have to adapt first and foremost agriculture.

Besides sea levels rising the % of land defined as desert is increasing especially in

Sub Saharan Africa and Interior Asia, arable land is being lost at the rate of over 100,000 km

[Barbarossa 51]

David.Stoner: Heh, I can't say we are experts... each to his own, right? Since you included a "smiley", I can only hope you aren't being truly sarcastic, but maybe my hopes are dashed? This is a convoluted topic, so don't feel shy if you have more to say than we "experts", to use your term.

=)

Take care,

Barbarossa

[nealos101 20]

I think global warming is actually happening, but really I wouldn't say it is JUST due to US polluting.  Yet I have to admit a HUGE chunk of it was US.

I see the seasons change positions in the year, over in England we are having heavy showers which was *supposedly* was meant to happen in april, and we actually had snow in March!!! This could be due to gloabal warming, may be, but it seems everyone draws straight to that conclusion instead of working out some sort of other reason... Or heck... Using the darn research money to help the economy adapt to a less polluting industry!

I have had enough of listening to scientists blabber about global warming... I think it is time to act on this now, not only becuase pollution probably is destroying our future, but then economical things look prettier too.  Image Earth that wasn't ugly... Wow... It isn't impossible that's for sure!

- N -