"Global Warming Quiz"

[virginiadiver69]

.

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by virginiadiver69
Just how much has it warmed in the past 200 years?
Is that the most the climate has ever changed?
What is the perfect temp. that the climate should be?

Why don't you answer those questions?

Originally posted by virginiadiver69
There are to many people that have a non Altruistic vested interest in this. When the people who are pushing this the hardest are lawyers in the form of politicians, the united nations (which is nothing but a bunch of dictators, human rights abusers and down right thugs), the media in all of its forms who love nothing but sensationalism,
anti-globalists, anti-capitalist etc. etc. I get a little leery of the fatalistic predictions of fire and brimstone.

Please. Unfounded generalizations.

Originally posted by virginiadiver69
On the flip side you have the evil oil companies. Their only responsibility is to give consumers what they ask for at a price we will pay. If people demanded en-mas for electric cars or solar powered this or hydrogen powered that we would have had it a long time ago. But they haven't so they don't.

A price we will pay? More like a price they can gouge. When they shut down oil refineries because there was excess production, it becomes price gouging. Not to mention the mass transit available in my area a hundred years ago that were bought by oil companies and removed so that we would have to buy cars. But, I don't care. They're shooting themselves in the foot by making alternative sources of energy affordable.

Originally posted by virginiadiver69
I think you make a mistake when you underestimate peoples willingness to understand an issue when they do not feel they are being lied to for an ulterior motive.
More and more people are starting to notice the inconsistencies in this debate. You add to that the utter hypocrisy of the people who warn of our eventual demise and this whole issue is a loser.

That's a problem isn't it? If you don't trust scientists, you'll never trust the science.

Originally posted by virginiadiver69

This is were it gets touchy. Do to the fact that the united nations and politicians are the major players in this it is nearly impossible for it to not to become a discussion of politics. It is political at it's very core. It is a real shame that the u.n. is involved in this because any real efforts in this matter are doomed to fail from the beginning. I challenge anybody to name two positive outcomes on something that the united nations has been heavily involved in.

Google man.
link
But this has nothing to do with GW, as many areas are combating the problem with no UN involvement. Also, the UN is weak. It's only as strong as the nations that choose to participate in any given issue.

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by virginiadiver69
I'm sorry but this simply is not true. It's in the name. The IPCC had a summary of facts that they wanted to put forth then found scientists that could be swayed by grant money to further the dogma. These scientists should be looked at as critically as you would a skeptic of global warming that is employed by Exxon-Mobile.

You can't prove that, and the scientists that show their research in the IPCC had that data before being asked to have it included in the report, as greenbean said. Also, there is a difference between having your research included in the IPCC and having your research FUNDED by Exxon/Mobil.

[billsreef]

Originally posted by virginiadiver69
This is the elitist attitude that "the average joe" is starting to pick up on. Let's face it, Roseau was right when he said that the inconvenient truths are left out intentionally for the fear that they will only hamper the argument. That's how you get statments like "The scary thing is that even using the conservative models, I'll live to see dramatic changes in sea level. If that recent estimate proves true, I'll living on my boat anchored in my yard "

Actually you should consider that statement came from someone with a scientific background that has read peer reviewed scientific literature on the subject

My opinions on GW started forming back in the 80's, soley based on info from scientific research papers and attending lectures by researchers at places such as the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. I haven't seen any data to sway my opinion to think we don't have an impact. There also a lot of water bound up in those artic ice sheets, if that does indeed melt, folks like me on the coast who call 20' above sea level high ground could easily end up with waterfront property

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by HippieSmell
You can't prove that, and the scientists that show their research in the IPCC had that data before being asked to have it included in the report, as greenbean said. Also, there is a difference between having your research included in the IPCC and having your research FUNDED by Exxon/Mobil.

I would like to amend this statement by saying that AFAIK oil companies don't fund research, only think tanks and policy groups.

[virginiadiver69]

Bill, I seriously assumed you meant that as a little good natured rhetorical hyperbole. Are you really predicting a 20' rise in the coastal water line within your life time?
How old are you? (I just want to know how long we have)
Lets you and I start buying up some real estate together in-land and build some water front condos on it. I would hold off on the boat docks for now though
Since there are so many amateur scientist in the house, maybe someone can figure this out for me. I live in Richmond Va. It's elevation ranges from about 10' to about 300' above sea level. I want to make the most of my real estate investment dollars so I would like to know what that eventual 20' rise translates into. Is it a simple matter of finding a good piece of land say 50' above sea level(I would want some room for a beach, tikki bar and boat slip) or are there other variable I will need to consider?

P.S. I know that a persons tone can sometimes be lost in a post so I just want to make it clear that this is meant tongue in cheek and light hearted, not meant to belittle anyone's beliefs. I am real curious to see if we can keep this discussion friendly.

[virginiadiver69]

Bill, are those Arctic ice sheets over land or water or a mixture?

[billsreef]

Originally posted by virginiadiver69
Bill, I seriously assumed you meant that as a little good natured rhetorical hyperbole. Are you really predicting a 20' rise in the coastal water line within your life time?

Only partially tongue in cheek Aside from the ice in places like Canada, Russia, etc. that lie within the Arctic Circle, the North Pole ice sheets are oceanic. That one report (the worst case scenario) calls for those sheets being gone or mostly gone by 2020, that's only 13 years from now. Where that gets interesting, it is only calling for that occurrence to happen 30 years ahead of the more consertive estimates. Being only 42 and with a family history that suggests I'll live well into my 80's, I could indeed live to see major changes if those ice sheets melt. All that water has to go somewhere. Having seen coastal storm flooding well in excess of 10 feet, it's not a stretch to imagine the problems from even a few feet rise in sea level. There are some pretty good theories that call for a tipping point, basically an accumulation of small changes that will build up and suddenly become large/rapid changes. So maybe we should go in some inland low laying condos for future waterfront sales

[virginiadiver69]

Originally posted by billsreef
the North Pole ice sheets are oceanic.

Originally posted by billsreef
All that water has to go somewhere.

If that water in the form of ice is ocean bound isn't it already accounted for?

...and doesn't it melt to a great degree every season anyway?

[Rosseau]

The polar ice cap is already displaced in the ocean. Its melting does not change sea level directly.

Partially it melts and refreezes every year with the seasons - though there is a permament polar pack which esentially rotates at about the north pole.

Though, in the north there are large amounts of water stored in and on the land in the form of permafrost, snow pack and glaciers. This is a significant amount of water which can and will affect sea level, yet most significantly could affect the circulation of the earth's ocean currents.

Conversely Antarctica has a LARGE amount of freshwater stored on the land. This water is not accounted for in the current ocean level. If this melts into the ocean the rise will be immediate and direct.

For me, the most significant function of the melting polar sea-ice is on oceanic circulation.

Consider this...

When the Laurentide Ice Sheet (covering all of Canada and a large portion of the U.S.) began to melt about 20,000 years ago ice-dammed freshwater lakes formed. These ice dams failed rapidly (small hole allows water through, increased flow essentially erodes and widens the hole, exponentially grows..).



This rapid failure resulted in a rapid input of freshwater into the Atlantic. This stopped the transport of warm water to the north and the glaciers began to advance once again.... To see what I'm talking about search for "Younger Dryas".. better yet.... wikipedia (meh) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

These are the sorts of things which can happen.

[virginiadiver69]

Good explanation.

[Rosseau]

Much of northern Canada, Russia and Scandinavia is either seasonally or annually covered with snow and ice.

-Freshly fallen snow typically reflects 95% of the incoming solar radiation (the rest is either absorbed or transmitted through the snow). This happens to be close to the highest reflactance for a naturally found surface.
-Old snow reflects ~40%
-Sea Ice reflects ~30-45%
-Glacier Ice reflects 20-40%

Conversely water reflects 3-10% at high solar angles and 10-100% at low solar angles.

Soils reflect 5-45% (range due to colour and moisture content)
---

So what's the point?
Well, Russia and Canada are the first and second largest countries in the world by land area and a major portion of each represents surfaces with high reflectivity to incoming energy.

As this cover changes and more soil and water is exposed there is an exponential increase in the amount of energy absorbed by the system.

Hence the talk of thresholds and positive feedbacks.



--I'm not trying to sound like a smart ***... I just think that might help to explain why warming in the northern latitudes is currently occuring more and more quickly than more southernly latitudes.

BTW I pulled those numbers out of a text. T.R. Oke 1987 Boundary Layer Climates.

This works too... http://marine.rutgers.edu/mrs/educat...uri/albedo.gif

[Rosseau]

Surface Area: Presently there is 14,898,000 km^2 (1 891 128.37 mi^2) of glaciers and ice caps in the world (on land).


12.535 million sq km of this is in Antarctica.


Though their depths vary, that is a lot of water and a large surface area reflecting more radiation than it is absorbing.

[Rosseau]

Virginia, do you like South Park?

I think there are a few episodes which you would love.

One especially - It is about the pollution created over urban cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco where "smug clouds" from drivers of hybrid cars chokes out the city air.

[scottras]

Originally posted by Rosseau
Virginia, do you like South Park?

I think there are a few episodes which you would love.

One especially - It is about the pollution created over urban cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco where "smug clouds" from drivers of hybrid cars chokes out the city air.

Loved that episode.

[Hunterx]

Personaly I like the 2 days before the day after tommrow lol,
IT's COMMING FROM OVER THERE!!!, NO THERE!!!

South Park exageration at it's best...

[MiddletonMark]

Originally posted by Rosseau
The polar ice cap is already displaced in the ocean. Its melting does not change sea level directly.

Greenland's glaciers, however, are not.

The Younger Dryas are an interesting period, indeed

[snommisbor]

Im glad it is warming up some. I prefer the warm weather to cold anyday.

[Rosseau]

Originally posted by snommisbor
Im glad it is warming up some. I prefer the warm weather to cold anyday.

Yeah, lets sit back and enjoy the warm breeze!

[snommisbor]

Originally posted by Rosseau
Yeah, lets sit back and enjoy the warm breeze!

Get me a Corona a Ashton Cabinet and catch some rays and listen to all doomsday propaganda and just laugh.

I love how they can accurately predict what the weather is going to be like in 50 to 100 years yet we can't accurately predict the weather tomorrow.

Remember last year we were supposed to have a worse hurricane season then the year before and not one hit the U.S.

Just kick back enjoy life, enjoy your family, and enjoy your fish. This is supposed to be fun

[scottras]

Lol I had to google Aston Cabinet to know what you were talking about.

But seriously if thats what you want to do then there is nothing I can do about it. Maybe you might like to move to Tuvalu, I here real estate is getting real cheap there at the moment. You could live like a king and have your own reef.

[Rosseau]

Originally posted by snommisbor
Get me a Corona a Ashton Cabinet and catch some rays and listen to all doomsday propaganda and just laugh.

I love how they can accurately predict what the weather is going to be like in 50 to 100 years yet we can't accurately predict the weather tomorrow.

Remember last year we were supposed to have a worse hurricane season then the year before and not one hit the U.S.

Just kick back enjoy life, enjoy your family, and enjoy your fish. This is supposed to be fun

Haha... that was pretty ignorant.

Firstly check this out.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=...Aclimate&meta=

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&sa...Aweather&meta=

I'm just glad that scientists keep working regardless of people who think like you do.

"Remember last year we were supposed to have a worse hurricane season then the year before and not one hit the U.S."

Did CNN tell you this?

[Rosseau]

We don't predict climate. We model scenarios.

These models do reasonably well. We are able to test the predictive ability of models by using historical data.

For example... a certain computer model will be run to simulate climate from 1970-1980. We then can look at the actual observed data from that time period and see how our model deviates from it. Then we can sort of gauge how well it can "predict" future climates.

[Rosseau]

As far as "doomsday propaganda", sure it exists to an extent. However it is not propaganda to profile how we think the climate system will change.

Once we have an idea how it will change it is pretty obvious to see that the net impact on humans will be negative.

Will humans cease to exist? No.

Will all other life be destroyed? No.

Will our economies be damaged for a significant amount of time? Yes.

Will some economies benefit? For sure.


We have built our local and global infrastructure based primarily on the prevailing climate in any specific region. Should the climate change enough, it is fairly obvious to see how our systems would be thrown for a loop. Is that propaganda?


I wonder if the Dominican will still be prime tobacco growing climate?

Maybe we can start smoking only the finest Texan cigars!

[snommisbor]

Originally posted by Rosseau
Haha... that was pretty ignorant.

Firstly check this out.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=...Aclimate&meta=

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&sa...Aweather&meta=

I'm just glad that scientists keep working regardless of people who think like you do.

"Remember last year we were supposed to have a worse hurricane season then the year before and not one hit the U.S."

Did CNN tell you this?

Im a Fox News guy myself.

but I believe history told me this

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/tracks/2006atl.gif

Cant argue with that. I will be glad to kick back and smoke a cigar with though