Global Warming is really starting to run out of gas

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Oct 26 2007, 04:39 PM) [snapback]530888[/snapback]</div>

There's a big difference between "caused by man" and "primarily caused by man". I'd like to get a more precise definition of Anthropogenic in this context, if you don't mind (I'm assuming that you're labeling me as a member of your so-called "AGW camp", whatever the heck that is.)

Nonetheless, it's correct to say that human activities since the industrial revolution have rapidly increased the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, thereby speeding up global warming. How much human activities contribute to the problem may be debatable, but there's no question that we ARE contributing to the problem (much more than we're helping to solve it, that's for sure.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Oct 26 2007, 05:39 PM) [snapback]530888[/snapback]</div>

Why do you believe it is natural? That strikes me as a completely illogical postion given that nothing remotely like the recent warming has ever occured before. The RATE OF WARMING is unprecedented. This has been mentioned in this thread before and about every other thread on this topic and I never see a response to it. All I hear, over and over again is that "the planet has gone through this many times".

Of course it has. So what? Everybody knows that, but the warming and cooling cycles that have occurred in the past have taken place over thousands of years, not tens of years. Why do you suppose that is happening? Can you explain it?

Read this article from that left wing wacko organization, NASA. Try providing some intelligent commentary on it. Why do you think it is wrong? What are your sources?

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environme...rld_warmth.html

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Oct 26 2007, 12:21 PM) [snapback]530823[/snapback]</div>

You are the fundamentalist here because you don't let data be the ultimate arbiter and I do. If the majority of the science articles started showing that Global Warming was reversing then that's what I would accept as "the current truth" The decision on what to believe isn't just a choice. The way you arrive at your beliefs matters!!!!

That's what I said before and you can't seem to grasp it.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Oct 26 2007, 12:26 PM) [snapback]530827[/snapback]</div>

No, I don't even consider myself a environmentalist. I just expect us to keep our house in order.... who wouldn't? Cutting emissions is necessary - inconvenient, but not extreme in the least ....

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Oct 26 2007, 12:26 PM) [snapback]530827[/snapback]</div>

No, I don't even consider myself an environmentalist. I just expect us to keep our house in order.... who wouldn't? Cutting emissions is necessary - inconvenient, but not extreme in the least ....

 

At first it was "there is no warming". Endless arguments about how you stick a thermometer in the planet's, um, behind. Now the naysayers don't bother arguing that. Then it was "We're not causing the increase in CO2.". The fact that we are causing the increase is so incredibly well established, I don't hear that one as much anymore, except from the rather less informed naysayers, as seen on this forum.

Now I hear mostly, "The CO2 has nothing to do with the warming." "No causality has been shown." Etc.

Once they give up on that argument (I give it only another year or two), it will be "Hey, global warming is a good thing!". "Prove to me that it will be bad!" Etc. We're already starting to hear that one with "Hey, who are you to say what the right temperature is?"

After that one is disposed of when the bad stuff already happening is way too obvious to ignore, the only argument left will be "There's nothing we can do about it."

Unfortunately by then, they may be right.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Oct 26 2007, 07:06 PM) [snapback]530922[/snapback]</div>

How do you explain the rapid (and unprecedented) recent rise in atmospheric CO2 levels at a time when human activity is producing massive quantities of CO2 and releasing them into the atmosphere? Seems sort of coincidental to me, as in so much so that it almost impossible for me not to believe there is a direct connection.

http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html

 

A few points to consider: (I will quote easy to read for the "lay person" sites)

• Global Climate change happens naturally and in cycles at times but not always in perfect cycles like the tide unless you consider something like Milankovitch cycles.
• Carbon cycles through biological organisms, atmosphere, soils, geologic structures oceans etc.. Much like any other cycle or system, there is a limit to the amount of material it can effectively process. Man is creating enough extra CO2 that the natural carbon cycle has become overloaded and the excess CO2 is building up in the oceans, soils, and the atmosphere. This is evident by collecting data on soil samples aound the world and especially in ocean and atmospheric concentrations.
• CO2 acts as an amplifier in global climate change. Atmospheric warming can take place for many reasons but CO2 is a known greenhouse gas and as it's concentration increases so does the temperature. This is shown to happen throughout many warming and cooling cycles. Because CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas or climate forcing molecule out there, it does not always lead the warming cycle and may even lag behind it by a few hundred years to a few thousand years depending on many other variables. This does not refute the fact that it is a greenhouse gas and as very well studied one.
  
• Global Warming has a very large list of effects that can be considered very detrimental to us and other species if it occurs very quickly (a few hundred years) as opposed to very slowly (thousands of years). Biology and our infrastructures require ample time to adapt to new climates and the myriad changes that will take place when the temperature trend shifts by a few degrees C or more. This again, is adequatly modeled by paleontologists, palenologists, anthropologists, paleobotanists, archaelogists, oceanographers, chemists, microbiologists etc. etc. Fast change is bad in most situations, slow change is rarely bad and can be benificial to speciation (IE, good for some, bad for others).
  
• Peer-reviewed journals are not the end all be all of scientific evidence but they carry MUCH greater weight than does the typical journalistic attempt at science or some fellows geocities webpage with enlightening font and midi-music. In the scientific community, any resource that does not contain an abstract is going to be met with even more scrutiny and skepticism than even that scientists most ardent rival's newest paper. lol

My question is this:

How do you think the atmosphere is created and controlled on this planet? Do you know what the majority of scientists believe is the greatest factor in creating our atmosphere?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(madler @ Oct 26 2007, 06:04 PM) [snapback]530940[/snapback]</div>

I think we're already well into this one. The good news is that the life time of these stances is getting shorter and shorter.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Oct 26 2007, 09:41 PM) [snapback]531000[/snapback]</div>

Rush Limbaugh?

Seriously though, you mean the present atmosphere right? Stromatalites is my answer.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Oct 24 2007, 08:01 PM) [snapback]530026[/snapback]</div>

Thank you IsrAmeriPrius. Now I understand that the part of the ice that floats above the sea is not displacing any water because it is sticking up into the air. These are the "tips of the icebergs".

I read with interest your link which says in part:
In a paper titled "The Melting of Floating Ice will Raise the Ocean Level" submitted to Geophysical Journal International, Noerdlinger demonstrates that melt water from sea ice and floating ice shelves could add 2.6% more water to the ocean than the water displaced by the ice, or the equivalent of approximately 4 centimeters (1.57 inches) of sea-level rise.

So now I understand that if ALL the ice floating in the ocean were to melt, we'd better be prepared for a whopping 1.57 inches of sea-level rise. Don't leave home without your life vest!

Thank you for this valuable information which really puts into perspective the threat we are facing. Wow, one and half inch rise if all the ice melts.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(banjoman @ Oct 26 2007, 11:09 PM) [snapback]531021[/snapback]</div>

What will Earth's temperature be at that point (assuming somebody will still be alive at that point to measure it)?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Oct 26 2007, 06:26 PM) [snapback]530929[/snapback]</div>

Well, there's the crux of the matter. You "choose not to believe AGW". It comes down to a belief system for you, not science that has passed the scrutiny of other scientists. What we commonly consider as fact comes from a consensus of science and may be 'only theories'. Like gravity or evolution or plate tectonics or the idea that oxygen is in the air. So you can just pick and choose which scientists you wish to believe.

Must be nice to live in a pollyanna world where peak oil doesn't exist, overpopulation is nonexistant, nuclear accidents never happen and we can DNA fingerprint criminals without needing evolutionary theory.

Now that I understand you aren't listening to scientific progress your arguments make a lot more sense. And as Michael Crichton (the anti-AGW hero) says, it is impossible to argue with somebody who takes things on a belief system instead of a scientific system. So there's no point in arguing this case with you anymore.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(banjoman @ Oct 26 2007, 09:09 PM) [snapback]531021[/snapback]</div>

You have to look at the entire picture, not at just one component.

The projected 2.6% increase in water volume in the oceans is attributed solely to water that comes from melting sea ice and floating ice shelves without taking into consideration melting land ice masses and glaciers. In addition, that calculation does not take into account the increased volume due of thermal expansion as the seas absorb more heat from the sun when sunlight is no longer reflected by the ice.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, up to one meter (~40 inches) of sea level rise is projected by 2100. Half of the rise is attributed to melting ice and half to thermal expansion.

The Greenland ice sheet, which is the largest land ice mass in the Northern Hemisphere, holds enough fresh water to raise the earth's sea level by 24 feet if it were to melt completely. That is expected to occur when the temperature in Greenland rises 6 degrees Fahrenheit (estimated to occur by the turn of the twenty second century).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Oct 26 2007, 09:03 PM) [snapback]531012[/snapback]</div>

LOL

In essense yes. Various forms of bacteria that evolved to take advantage of different energy sources as the atmosphere changed in the first couple billion years. The point is, LIFE created the the conditions condusive to life. Is it all that incomprehensible that life could damage the systems required for life? The question was directed more towards the skeptics though Tripp.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(banjoman @ Oct 26 2007, 11:09 PM) [snapback]531021[/snapback]</div>

Um no. You're not thinking that this is the part that increases the sea level when it melts, do you? Because these tips of the icebergs are included in the displacement of water - displacement is determined by weight, and since ice is less dense than water, it will float, but the part above water is pressing down with its weight and adding to the total displacement. Ice floats in fresh water too, but doesn't increase the water level when it melts in fresh water.

Okay, maybe that effect isn't huge, in fact the floating ice is generally ignored in computing sea level rise. But sea levels are rising and will continue to rise if ice that is on land continues to melt like it has been. Adding this small additional increase only makes the existing problem that tiny bit worse, not better. So don't pat yourself on the back too hard for finding that bit of information.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(banjoman @ Oct 26 2007, 09:09 PM) [snapback]531021[/snapback]</div>

You are trying to be amusing but your failure to understand the basics of hydrology and chemistry is making your post less amusing.

floating ice can have an effect on sea level rise but less directly than you are trying to portray it. by reducing albedo (reflectivity) the ocean will absorb more of the suns energy and thus heat up the ocean temps and cause thermal expansion. This will also serve to amplify global atmospheric temps. and melt more ice, more specifically, land-based ice with will futher raise ocean levels and disrupt oceanic and atmospheric currents. The reduction in salinity, raise in temps, and the sudden increase or decrease in pH will have catestrophic effects on biological systems and further disrupt the carbon cycle. This system is much more complex than your cute joke can encompass. Feedback loops yo! Learn about em.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kingofgix @ Oct 26 2007, 04:34 PM) [snapback]530932[/snapback]</div>

Well, that the rate of warming is "unprecedented" is based on proxy temperature records, since obviously nobody was checking temps with a thermometer thousands and millions of years ago. The problem with these proxy records is that nobody can confidently validate their accuracy. If you want to read more about some of the problems and challenges, I urge you to visit http://www.climateaudit.org/

I should also point out the NASA website you refer us to uses this image:


This temperature construction is based on proxy data as well and the construction itself has been hotly disputed (and some would argue debunked) such as noted here.

Beyond that however, I think it is clear that northern hemisphere temperatures are rising in numerous places such as the arctic - although some scientists believe that as much as 90% of arctic warming may be due to "dirty snow" resulting from soot / black carbon fallout. Furthermore, in many instances the temperature "rises" may have as much to do with urbanization effects, such as seen here, where the temperature station site has localized temperature increases due to urban factors. If you want to learn more, please consider visiting http://www.surfacestations.org/



Furthermore, beyond the arctic, consider that antarctic and southern hemispheric temperatures have not trended upwards in recent years, that global ocean temperatures appear to have stabilized, and land-based temperature trends globally are exhibiting very little in the way of discernible upward trending over the past 5 to 6 years (some claim since 1998, though I think that claim is a bit fallacious given that 1998 was an unusually warm El Nino year). Regardless, the relatively stable temperatures of the current century - shown below - seem somewhat at odds with the continuing rise in atmospheric CO2, wouldn't you agree? Certainly it looks nothing like the "hockey stick" chart that was included on the NASA webpage to which you referred us.



Please consider that their are a myriad of other, often poorly understood factors that can contribute to local, regional, and global climate changes. Certainly CO2 has its role, but in my opinion that role is likely to be significantly over-stated.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kingofgix @ Oct 26 2007, 06:34 PM) [snapback]530932[/snapback]</div>

And this is an excuse for doing nothing how? (I know it's not the view of Kingofgix, but it is his quote.)

The planet has gone through forest fires many times - and yet we try to prevent them when we can.

The planet has gone through periods of flooding - and yet we try to prevent it when possible.

The planet has gone through hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. - and yet we try to prevent the damage and loss of life from being catastrophic when we can.

Perhaps the earth HAS gone through these cycles before. What will we do when the next ice age comes about? Simply say "this is normal, it's happened before!" or try to figure out a way to save our butts from extinction?

It still amazes me that people are so willing to gamble with the only planet they have. If you're right - great! We'll have become more energy-efficient and reduced our impact on the earth for no reason. But if you're wrong - what's plan B? Where are we going to settle if the earth becomes inhospitable?

Or will we just sit back and say "the earth has gone through periods of mass extinctions many times before" and just watch as it happens to humans?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(banjoman @ Oct 27 2007, 12:09 AM) [snapback]531021[/snapback]</div>

And if all the floating ice melts, what do you think will happen to all the ice that isn't floating? And how much might that change the sea level?
And if the temperature of the earth rises enough to melt all the floating ice, how might that effect weather patterns, ocean currents, etc?.

Your shallow analyis of the situation is.....shallow.

 

a much more important issue of melting float ice is the change in salinity it would create and its resulting effect on the ocean conveyor system that controls world climates.