More Global Warming & more Oil Drilling

11/12/2004 11:26:57 PM · #102

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

Here try this this old take from the time I use to stay up and discuss and defeat Liberals: fill a glass of water to the very top and place it in the freezer. Use good glass that won't crack. After frozen, remove it from freezer and look at it.

Watch it melt and see just how much overspills. The earth has water with frozen zones at both ends but nothing you or I do will have no effect whatsoever.

Graphicfunk, you must defeat liberals who don't know much science. :D

The polar ice caps do not float on the oceans. They sit on top of land masses, hence they do not displace water with their mass, unlike the ice in your theoretical frozen glass.

When the polar ice caps melt, the seas will indeed rise.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

11/12/2004 11:45:52 PM · #103

Originally posted by RonB:

But no scientist has yet PROVEN that greenhouse gasses and global warming are directly proportional

RonB

It is on this point, I am quite certain, that you are mistaken.

It is a physical CERTAINTY that when greenhouse gases rise to certain levels, the greenhouse effect takes place, trapping solar heat. This is why the term "greenhouse" is used.

The more CO2, the more insulating takes place, and the hotter the planet becomes. It is a law of physics.

There is now escape from this. None. Zero.

This is the smoking gun.

This is why Venus is a bubbling red-hot mass of molten rock - its atmosphere is something like pure greenhouse gases.

Scientists have calculated that Mankind *has* released enough CO2 from industrial sources to account for the rise in atmospheric CO2.

The fact that there are other natural sources of greenhouse gases, like volcanos (actually minor compared to human activity, BTW) only make the situation WORSE, and is not an argument against global warming at all, they are the opposite.

Unfortunately, the best way to stop the process, is to redeposit the atmospheric CO2 back into terrestrial carbon, via the carbon cycle. This is usually done by incorporation into coral beds and green plants, like trees.

But our planets coral reefs are all dying now, not growing, because oceans have already gotten too warm, and humans are deforesting the planet very rapidly. OOpsie. ;(

The ONY question is not *whether* global warming is occuring - even George Bush has said it is! - but how quickly and exactly in what manifestations it will be evidenced.

99% of the world's scientists agree on this. Physics and the laws of the Universe as we know them can not be denied either.

You raise CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and the planet gets hotter. No ifs, ands, or buts.

graphicfunk

Canon EOS-20D

11/12/2004 11:56:21 PM · #104

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

Here try this this old take from the time I use to stay up and discuss and defeat Liberals: fill a glass of water to the very top and place it in the freezer. Use good glass that won't crack. After frozen, remove it from freezer and look at it.

Watch it melt and see just how much overspills. The earth has water with frozen zones at both ends but nothing you or I do will have no effect whatsoever.

Graphicfunk, you must defeat liberals who don't know much science. :D

The polar ice caps do not float on the oceans. They sit on top of land masses, hence they do not displace water with their mass, unlike the ice in your theoretical frozen glass.

When the polar ice caps melt, the seas will indeed rise.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What you say is considered academic and known to all involved, the point the glass makes is a simple one of containment. In short, there is a constant transition of complex displacement. You have evaporation and condensation and it is all contained in this vessel(glass) called earth with its atmosphere. The coldest regions bear the brunt of this collection and there are going to be shifts and the re-deliniation which this old earth is already familiar with. It may be possible for some areas to go under and depending on core activity something may also arise. It is understood that our universe is not very old and more cataclysm may be in order. Look at Siberia. When these blankets melt or move away they clear up another domain to maintain a balance. Relax, the globe will not be inundated in water. These dislocation and allocation have been going on for eons. No one really knows the final answers as to how old life really is. All we get to examine are sheets upon sheets and we do not know how many times the lower stratas have changed and shifted leaving us to deduce on partial evidence. The mammals found in Siberia were more advanced then the elephants. The point being that everytime an upheavel takes place it makes research very difficult and virtually impossible in many cases.

However, to suppose that earth warming is affected by us is a pretty weak argument to sustain. You have to answer what caused the previous ice ages.

frychikn

Olympus C-5050Z

11/13/2004 12:12:02 AM · #105

<<< The polar ice caps do not float on the oceans. They sit on top of land masses >>>

The SOUTH polar ice cap sits on a land mass (Antarctica) with a little bit of it over water (the Ross and Weddell ice shelves). The vast majority of the NORTH polar ice cap, including the north pole itself, floats on the Arctic Ocean. The only significant portion of this ice cap which sits on land is Greenland. Look at a globe.

frychikn

Olympus C-5050Z

11/13/2004 12:29:34 AM · #106

<<< This is why Venus is a bubbling red-hot mass of molten rock - its atmosphere is something like pure greenhouse gases. >>>

The surface of Venus is very hot, but it is NOT molten, it is solid. The interior of Venus contains bubbling red-hot molten rock just like the interior of Earth. Venus is so much hotter than the Earth because it is about 30 million miles closer to the Sun. Both the Earth and Venus pumped a lot of carbon dioxide into their respective atmospheres from their rocky crusts as they shrunk and cooled after being formed. On the Earth, plant life evolved and removed the 'excess' carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and replaced it with free oxygen, not only making animal life possible, but also stabilizing the atmospheric temperatures and keeping them within life-supporting range. Because Venus is so much closer to the Sun, its atmosphere never cooled off enough to be able to support life; hence no plant life evolved on Venus to remove the 'excess' carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and stop the runaway greenhouse effect.

graphicfunk

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

11/13/2004 12:37:56 AM · #107

A vital point of displacent that is being overlook is that the same heat that melt these masses of ice is the same heat which cause evaporation in more temperate areas. But the glass analogy still holds because these volumes are merely shifted. We know the earth's tilt has some play, specially with wobles, but no one can assure you exactly what is taking place within the core of the earth. Another mystery, can you answer why the bronze age preceeded the iron age? Copper requires much more adu to handle than iron? Darwin's theory is also in question and so have all the models which explain the phenomena of this planet.
One thing is certain and that is that pulsations play a role but to understand this game one needs periods of cycles which need to date back millions and millions of years.

I would say to the Liberal's abandon this cause because no one can tell you whether we are in a pulse that is culmination or one that is decreasing and if so, the other pulse or cycle which encapsulates the smaller one is not known because of the time spread. We are here today and gone tomorrow and our recorded history is so puny. Looking at information now is like looking at the first five votes favored on your image in one challange and taking this tiny sample to declare you the winner.

postoakinversion

Canon EOS-6D

Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art for Canon

11/13/2004 01:29:27 AM · #108

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

The more CO2, the more insulating takes place, and the hotter the planet becomes. It is a law of physics.

There is now escape from this. None. Zero.

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

You raise CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and the planet gets hotter. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Problem is, there are quite a few ifs, ands, and buts. Increases in atmospheric CO2 content would likely lead to increased vegetation, as CO2 is an important requirement for photosynthesis. Increased vegetation/photosynthesis means increased transpiration, which means higher latent heat flux and lower sensible heat flux at the surface. In other words, less of the sun's energy would be used to heat the earth as more of the sun's energy is used up by evaporating the water released through stomata (tiny holes) in plants.

Nobody really knows how the interaction between increased CO2 and increased vegetation would impact the global climate. Global climate models are notoriously bad at handling vegetation. Again, that's why there is currently so much research in this area, because we just don't know yet.

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

The ONLY question is not *whether* global warming is occuring - even George Bush has said it is! - but how quickly and exactly in what manifestations it will be evidenced.

99% of the world's scientists agree on this. Physics and the laws of the Universe as we know them can not be denied either.

The truth is, whether or not humans cause global warming is one of the biggest debates among meteorologists today. I'd say they're fairly evenly divided on it. I know several well-known and well-respected research meteorologists who do not believe that anthropogenic sources of CO2 cause global warming, or at least not the primary cause.

There are also many problems in observing such a thing. For example, many of the climate monitoring stations used to observe this "global warming" are in areas that are much more urbanized now than they used to be. While that is a reason for real warming at those points, it does not indicate warming on a global scale. That's not to mention the fact that these observations are 1.5-2 meters above the ground. There is no conclusive evidence of "global warming" up higher in the atmosphere, simply because the only long-term observations we have are from near the ground.

My main point here is just to be careful when throwing out wild statements about 'global warming'. It's a very complicated issue, one about which there are many factors to consider and much disagreement among the scientists who study it. Be careful before jumping to conclusions. It wasn't long ago (as recently as the 1970's) when people were worried about global cooling.

Another thing to consider is whether increased CO2 and global warming are good. Increases in CO2 and global temperature would help plants grow better, not only because of the CO2 but because precipitation would almost certainly increase as well. This would help a lot of people around the world, particularly in poor countries. And the melting of ice caps, believe it or not, would likely be a tremendous benefit to the world's economy. But I'll leave that debate to the economists, as I'm only a meteorologist.

jimmythefish

Canon EOS-10D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

11/13/2004 03:47:32 AM · #109

Change of temperature is one thing, but the rate of change is another. Plants and non-migratory animals can't catch up if the climate changes faster than they can move with it. Saying that more atmospheric CO2 causes more precipitation and helps plants grow is a gross oversimplification.

Given that greenhouse gases are being created by us, and greenhouse gases are proven to cause atmospheric warming, even if we are conflicted in what may be causing observed temperature changes we need to tread very carefully. In a system as complex as a global climate, we can only do things to decrease our potential impact in case we are indeed having an effect. Treading carefully to ensure we can sustain that which we value (economies, environments, ecologies, etc) is vital.

Originally posted by postoakinversion:

Another thing to consider is whether increased CO2 and global warming are good. Increases in CO2 and global temperature would help plants grow better, not only because of the CO2 but because precipitation would almost certainly increase as well. This would help a lot of people around the world, particularly in poor countries. And the melting of ice caps, believe it or not, would likely be a tremendous benefit to the world's economy. But I'll leave that debate to the economists, as I'm only a meteorologist.

Message edited by author 2004-11-13 03:51:46.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

11/13/2004 01:28:43 PM · #110

In an article published by the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change ( ref: here ) their conclusions were that
1) the earth is currently about 3Â°C cooler than it was during the peak warmth of the prior four hundred thousand years, when the air's methane concentration was only 40% of what it is today.
2)the earth is currently 3Â°C cooler than it was during the peak warmth of the prior four interglacials, when the air's CO2 content was only about 75% of what it is today.
-------------------------------
Hence, the relationships between CO2 and/or Methane are not direct.

11/13/2004 05:57:22 PM · #111

Originally posted by RonB:

RonB, once again you make reference from the front group from the petroleum industry, whose main goal in life is to debunk the global warming issue, so that the petrocarbon industry can happily help us dump more tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. These are the "warm is good" folks again. :(