Global Warming

[Goldfish4209 9]

Problem or not, why can't we try to fix it just to make sure we don't all die?

[AfroThunda 1]

coolotter88: Sea "levels" might not "rise"... However, the introduction of a vast amount of fresh water will likely distrupt the oceanic currents. Which, will likely disrupt weather patterns, tempuratures, and virtually everythings else on earth. There is plenty of more information on the internet, in movies, and in text books... So, if you'd like to educate yourself feel free.

-Afro

[MrCinatit 30]

Please discuss the issues, not the mental capacities of other users in this issue or you will be given some time off to think about it.

Mr. C.

[schm0 27]

Wake up dog! You ain't 'lowed ta sleep!

I was forwarded this email today:

The Story of Two Houses

LOOK OVER THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING TWO HOUSES AND SEE IF YOU CAN TELL WHICH BELONGS TO AN ENVIRONMENTALIST.

HOUSE # 1:

A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. It's in the South.

HOUSE # 2:

Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this

house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can

provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on arid, high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a

conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected

and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.

HOUSE #1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville,

Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and filmmaker) Al Gore.

HOUSE #2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas,

also known as "the Texas White House." It is the private residence of the

President of the United States, George W. Bush.

So whose house is gentler on the environment? Yet not a story you will

hear on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC or read about in the New York Times or the Washington Post. Indeed, for Mr. Gore, it's truly "an inconvenient truth."

NO KIDDING

quote>

I nearly pulled out my hair at work.

This attempt at smearing Good Mr. Gore's name and lifestyle might reach your desktop, so before it does, let me point out a couple things.

1) Neither man built the house.

2) Al Gore pays so much for his electric bill because he purchases renewable energy credits, which force the electric company to buy additional, non-polluting green energy.

3) The Gores are (and were) renovating their house to make it more energy effecient.

4) Al Gore's house is 2.5 times larger than GW's, thus consuming more energy due to the large space it needs to heat and cool.

5) Both Gores work out of their home.

See this article, and this quote from http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp

Here's the quote:

Kalee Kreider, a spokesperson for the Gores, pointed out that both Al and Tipper Gore work out of their home and she argued that "the bottom line is that every family has a different carbon footprint. And what Vice President Gore has asked is for families to calculate that footprint and take steps to reduce and offset it."

A carbon footprint is a calculation of the CO2 fossil fuel emissions each person is responsible for, either directly because of his or her transportation and energy consumption or indirectly because of the manufacture and eventual breakdown of products he or she uses.

The vice president has done that, Kreider argues, and the family tries to offset that carbon footprint by purchasing their power through the local Green Power Switch program electricity generated through renewable resources such as solar, wind, and methane gas, which create less waste and pollution. "In addition, they are in the midst of installing solar panels on their home, which will enable them to use less power," Kreider added. "They also use compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy efficiency measures and then they purchase offsets for their carbon emissions to bring their carbon footprint down to zero."quote>

[crazyyaya 4]

to say global warming is a swindle is ludacris and ignorant, even if greenhouse gases dont cause the earths temp to warm they still should work hard to ease pollution, if carbon dioxide dosen't cause global warming than we should lower pollution levels anyway, toxins can cause cancer, astma , countless other deiseise, destroys crops etc. and as for that guy who said ice breaking up dosen't raise sea levels 9coolotter88)you must not be thinking clearly, as the ice melts is floats on ocean currents eventually melting bit by bit , 1 ice burg may not make a difference but hundreds or even thousands could over years, flood thousands and thousands of acres of land, destroying cities .

[coolotter88 2]

as i've said before, the melting iceburgs are already in the water, they displace the same (if not larger) volume of water as the water that comes out of the melting iceburg.

[MrFingers 0]

sea ice does not impact sea levels because it is already in the water.

observe, take an ice cube and put it into a cup of water. when it has melted, has the water level gone up or down? neither, it has stayed the same. by the principle of buoyancy, the mass of the ice above the water is compensated for by the density of the ice.

and barbossa, you are wrong.  it is called a shelf because it has no land underneathe it.  if it was not sitting on top of land or water, the shear force would break it.

[crazyyaya 4]

u r wrong what about the ice in antartica or greenland the ice is on land and if temps continue to rise the ice will continue to melt and go into the ocean

[MrFingers 0]

yes, it is land ice that is of any concern. but antartica's ice mass has been growing for the last 30 years.  and it contains 90% of the world's ice.

[coolotter88 2]

yes to clear up the ice shelf sea ice thing...

ice shelves and sea ice are 2 different things, however, both float on the water. ice shelves are just thich sheets of ice attached to land ice.

however, only 1/9 of the ice is not in the water.

[MrFingers 0]

pollution, yes. carbon dioxide however, is not a pollutant.

read my article in the other thread

[crazyyaya 4]

even if global warming is being caused by nature we should still continue to lower pollution levels, protect forest etc

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: MrFingers yes, it is land ice that is of any concern. but antartica's ice mass has been growing for the last 30 years.  and it contains 90% of the world's ice.quote>

The ice sheet has been growing for 11 years, not 30. Normally, there is very little snow in the region because the temperatures are too cold to produce snow. Due to climate change, and warming temperatures around the globe, there has been more snowfall due to warmer temperatures. [source: L.A. Times]

Quote:

As glaciers from Greenland to Kilimanjaro recede at record rates, the central icecap of Antarctica has been steadily growing for 11 years, partially offsetting the rise in seas from the melt waters of global warming, researchers said Thursday.

The vast East Antarctic Ice Sheet — a 2-mile-thick wasteland larger than Australia, drier than the Sahara and as cold as a Martian spring — increased in mass every year from 1992 to 2003 because of additional annual snowfall, an analysis of satellite radar measurements showed.

"It is an effect that has been predicted as a likely result of climate change," said David Vaughan, an independent expert on the ice sheets at the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, England.

In a region known for the lowest temperatures recorded on Earth, it normally is too cold for snow to form across the 2.7 million square miles of the ice sheet. Any additional annual snowfall in East Antarctica, therefore, is almost certainly attributable to warmer temperatures, four experts on Antarctica said.

"As the atmosphere warms, it should hold more moisture," said climatologist Joseph R. McConnell at the Desert Research Institute in Reno, who helped conduct the study. "In East Antarctica, that means there should be more snowfall."

The additional snowfall is enough to account for 45 billion tons of water added to the ice sheet every year, just about equal to the amount of water flowing annually into the ocean from the melting Greenland icecap, the scientists reported in research published online Thursday by the journal Science.

Rising sea level, which could swamp many coastal and island communities, is considered one of the most serious potential consequences of global warming, according to the most recent assessment by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Overall, sea level is estimated to be rising by 1.8 millimeters a year worldwide because of the expansion of warming water and the added outwash from melting glaciers in Greenland, Alaska, tropical highlands and some areas of Antarctica.

Every millimeter of increased sea level corresponds to about 350 billion tons of water a year.

The growth in the East Antarctic icecap is enough to slow sea-level rise by a fraction of that — about 0.12 millimeter a year — the researchers reported.

All told, the fresh water locked up in the ice of East Antarctica is enough to raise the level of the oceans by about 196 feet, experts said. If it continues to grow as expected, the ice sheet could buffer some, but not all, of the effects of anticipated sea-level rise for much of the coming century, the researchers said. quote>

[MrFingers 0]

I've heard various numbers on that, but 20-30 is the most common one I see.

[MrFingers 0]

yeah I think the difference between sea ice and a shelf is that one is broken up and floats about, and the other is a rigid mass.

coolotter, note it does not matter how much ice is out of the water, the sea level will not change when it melts.

[toxicpiano 125]

There was a huge panic in the 70's about global cooling. Same thing here.

[hymewales 13]

The Milankovitch cycles take significantly larger spans of time to register changes that were much smaller than those we've seen recently.  The cycle might explain differences in temps between 2004 and 1704, but the position of Earth is not different enough between 1974 and 2004 to explain a rise of 0.8 C. 

Your research has failed you. We do not know what the orbit was in 1704. How do you know that a minute change in the orbit did not account for a certain percentage of that 0.8 C increase? I don't...you don't. There's no research on the topic...

http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/student/howard2/recent.htm

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~polsen/nbcp/cmintro.html

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/cli_sun.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/iceage_orbit_wg.html

http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/cl_record_milan.html

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL027817.shtml

You say that all the evidence comes from a few tree rings which is simply not true.  Evidence has been taken from ancient rock formations, trees (which you've pointed out), ice cores, sediment cores, and all from around the world.  Trees admittingly are the weakest pieces of evidence but a collection of evidence from around the world is enough to at least paint a disturbing picture.

You missed the point... I was never talking tree rings. I'm lost at how you as a graduate could ever think that is what I was talking about.  It leads me to believe that you do not carefully read what is written. Unless you thought I was referring to this:

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

Again: I'm saying you see one tree...I see the forest. Your one tree being something called the human effect (CO2) which you believe is the major, if not only factor in global warming. I see the forest...other factors of nature that effect climate that have yet to be fully studied.  I look at all possibilities and not rely on one. Again, you are trying to debunk each of what I have said one by one on why it could not be a certain thing causing the warming. The forest refers to placing them all at fault; not just one by one. If solar radiation is at most 30%, what percentage is the change in orbit for temperature increases and what about the weaking magnetic field? I can say they have not been calculated because enviromentalists are trying to hijack this cause.  (And yes, I believe we should rid ourselves of polluntant emitting vehicles and power plants so that one day I may breath fresher air. I believe in planting more trees. The U.S. is one of only two nations with growing acreage of forests. Yes, I recycle. Yes, I drive a vehicle that gets 30mpg.)

Your 1950 theory on solar irradiation  is not true...

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/irradiance.gif

Agreed, this debate will never sway anyone who has an opinion already.  Thats just human stubborness for you, and as I fall in the "human category", I too am at fault.  But I have done countless hours of research (as I might be going to gradschool for astrobiology and climate change is one significant thing I might need to know).  After tirelessly looking up peer reviewed studies for both sides and even the rebuttle studies for both sides, I'm still convinced that solar radiance, orbital cycles, and the weaking magnetic field are only small factors for what has been observed. 

You are as stubborn as myself.  The coorelation between CO2 and temperature in this graph shows me there is no correlation...

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Radiosonde.html

I'm gonna have to agree with whoever brought up the "financing these researchers" problem.  Having to compete for research money myself, I know what kinda benefits (or lack there of) University staff receives to do the research.  If its from a University, I will rarely ever doubt the intentions of the author.  By anyone else, and I will doubt it immediately.  Unfortunately, this leads to a lot of legitimate anti-anthropogenic forcing supporters being grouped with what I will for now call "false" scientists.  There is legitimate research projects by the opposition, but there image is marred by "corporate scientists".

Money keeps the research going and the research of today is global warming. What a better way to make money scaring people into thinking they have caused what appears to be a natural cycle.

Just a quick side note, can you post something in regards to a weaking magnetic sphere (and please don't let it be that scientologist).

Google it ...

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,837058,00.html

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/11/15/flip_pla.html?category=earth&guid=20061115103000

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0909_040909_earthmagfield.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/teachers/programs/3016_magnetic.html

No way would I listen to a scientologist. Maybe we should get a beer together and discuss this over pizza. No one man can say he knows everything. If man keeps an open mind, he can continue to learn for a lifetime.  Here's a good site for you:

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

[MrFingers 0]

toxicpiano,

I know. people are just inherently stupid.

[DOXXP29 5]

Evangelicals, Scientists Join on Warming

By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer

Wed Jan 17, 7:22 PM

WASHINGTON - Saying they share a moral purpose, a group of evangelicals and scientists said Wednesday they will work together to convince the nation's leaders that global warming is real.

The Rev. Rich Cizik, public policy director for the National Association of Evangelicals, and Nobel-laureate Eric Chivian, director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School, were among 28 signers of a statement that demands urgent changes in values, lifestyles and public policies to avert disastrous changes in climate.

"God will judge us for destroying the Creation. Therefore, we as evangelicals have a responsibility to be even more vigilant than others," Cizik told a news conference.

"Science can be an ally in helping us understand what faith is telling us," he said. "We will not allow the Creation to be degraded, destroyed by human folly."

Among the project's supporters are Edward O. Wilson, a two-time Pulitzer prize-winning scientist and author; James Hansen, a prominent NASA climatologist; and Calvin B. DeWitt, president of the Academy of Evangelical Scientists and Ethicists.

Chivian said evangelicals and scientists are not as odd a couple as they may seem.

"We discovered that we were both speaking from our hearts and our minds. We found that we really like each other," he said.

Not all evangelicals were on board.

The Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, formed by evangelicals who say scientific evidence counters claims of climate change, derided Wednesday's announcement as "just another attempt to create the impression of growing consensus among evangelicals about global warming. There is no such growing consensus."

The alliance charged that the National Association of Evangelicals' board never approved the new collaboration. The NAE said its board approved a "dialogue," but no specific actions.

The new effort represents the boldest evangelical step yet into the world of environmental activism.

To start, the coalition is meeting with congressional leaders, both Democrat and Republican, organizing a summit on environmental issues and developing public relations tools such as a "Creation Care" Bible study guide.

It also has requested a meeting with President Bush. Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, all signaled their support Wednesday for the collaboration of evangelicals and scientists.

Their pairing grew from a retreat last year at which all sides agreed that human behavior and public policy have put the environment at risk.

In the past, conservative Christians who embraced that cause have met significant resistance.

The Rev. Joel Hunter of Northland megachurch in Longwood, Fla., refused to become president of the Christian Coalition of America last year because he said the group would not expand its agenda to include the environment and poverty. Hunter has now endorsed the new project.

___

On the Net:

National Association of Evangelicals: http://www.nae.net/

Harvard Center for Health and the Global Environment: http://chge.med.harvard.edu

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. 

After reading the above article, I'm now more confused than ever. (Let me say that I believe Global Warming is VERY real and will probably be showing some major signs a lot sooner than previously anticipated in addition to the effects we've seen already.) I understand the position of the first mentioned groups that are joining the scientific community in spreading the word regarding global warming and taking the necessary steps to slow its progression and try to deal with the problem. What I don't understand is the second position. I'm not sure if they just don't believe it is real or if it is God's will or if they are just so opposed to anything from the scientific community that they won't acknowledge it. How anyone can deny that it is occuring is hard for me to comprehend. I can understand people not believing it is such a serious threat or disputing certain facts and figures. Even more baffling is how a group that is considered religious would not want to do what may be necessary to preserve the planet that they believe God created. 

There are religious groups that will go to great lengths to preserve a single life by fighting abortion and others who will strive to save human lives by protesting war efforts. (I'm not debating these positions, just stating them.) These are just some of the things that make it difficult for me to wrap my mind around the reason they have taken such an adamant stance against the global warming issue. I would think that whatever could be done to save the planet and save humanity or human lives would be a priority for those who view life and God's creations as something sacred. I dunno...maybe they consider it God's will that the planet be destroyed by his wrath as punishment and global warming is just as much a weapon of his destruction as plagues, famine, disease, etc. (I won't even speculate as to why the environment and poverty would be excluded from some groups' agenda. Rich people living in a planetary wasteland sounds good to them, I guess.)

[coolotter88 2]

That's nice....someone wants to decertify the television meteorologists if they say global warming is not true.

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/18/0421242&from=rss

[DOXXP29 5]

Interesting, Coolotter. I think there is always going to be some debate over the extent and impact of global warming, and who better to discuss and debate the issue than a meteorologist? To ban or decertify them seems a bit extreme. I think your article has a valid point regarding the "alarmists" trying to keep up their funding and their, which could be impacted if the local weatherman says that it's all a bunch of hype. Bozo and Bimbo might be watching the news at dinnertime, see the weather and decide to go out and buy a second SUV and not donate any more money to the Sierra Club based on what the weatherman says. I'm sure this is a real concern of the environmentalists, so they're trying to defuse and opposition to their agenda, and decertification would work well for them. They could then say "Oh, the guy doesn't know what he's talking about. Just look...he isn't even certified!" Censoring someone, trying to censor the media and trying to impact someone's professional career because they might dispute or (God forbid!) disagree with you seems just a little heavy-handed and it's tactics like this that can make the label "alarmist" seem justified and appropriate.

Thanks for posting, Coolotter. Interesting article.

[xiziz 11]

i am though muzz, its 18th of January, and ive have like 5 snowdays in Stockholm this winterseason, and its still plusdegress outside(celcius ofc) usually this time of year its -10-20 celcius, and last summer was really unbearably hot.

I do belive the globe is getting warmer, question is how much are we humans speeding it up (and he cattle we keep btw).

[The boy formerly known as Evil Muzz 27]

Still not convinced that Global Warming is anywhere as near as bad as we are told.

[Rochefort 13]

hmmm, if the evangelists are jumping on the bandwagon they can obviously see a way to make a buck....not that I'm cynical about their intentions of course.

[Cjah 15]

pfft...Its Freezing in California...I'll belive extreme climate shift that makes warm places cold and cold places warm before I belive the whole world is heating up like some bag of popcorn....

[Micah 16]

Odd... Houston got a horrible ice storm, Austin/Dallas/San Antonio had a horrible ice storm. California lost most of it's crop because of freezing weather.

[UltraGIR XL 3]

And it's that cold weather that's helping to prove Global Warming.

The atmosphere is experiencing off conditions and the planet's distribution of heat has gone haywire.

Precipitation has nothing to do with temperature in this case. Devnver, for example, may have lots of snow, but they're ten degress above average temperatures.

I understand that the Earth goes through regular periods of heating and cooling, but they shouldn't happen this fast. Such temperature increases in just 20 years is a lot to worry about.

[panthersimcity4 162]

I think there is Global Warming.. but of ALL people to acknowledge it, evangelicals? huh? Our world IS turning upside down!

[coolotter88 2]

This year, el nino is causing the weird weather, not global warming. global warming doesn't act this fast. we need to wait another 30-50 years before we actually see global warming take effect.

[connor_v 3]

In my town, the local paper actually published an article that said global warming is a myth. Of course, everyone in this town is either employed in the lumber and oil industries, unemployed, or a Newfoundlander working for the paper, so it's no surprise.