Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Global Warming... fact, fiction, or a little of both?
jar
Member (Idle past 424 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 5 of 113 (242896)
09-13-2005 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
09-11-2005 2:13 PM


I think much of the discussion of Global Warming totalls misses the point. One of the more telling data bits for me is the information gained from ice cores that go back hundreds of thousands of years. These seem to show that the last 10,000 years or so are an anomaly, that the relatively benign and stable climate we have experienced was not the norm, rather abrupt shifts from hot to cold, wet to dry, with rapid onset and reversal more likely.
For me, the issue is not whether it is a normal change or one brought about by mankind. For me, the question should be,"If it happened, what would be the effects and how could we prepare so that we can minimize adverse effects?"

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 09-11-2005 2:13 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Silent H, posted 09-13-2005 3:49 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 424 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 12 of 113 (243031)
09-13-2005 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Silent H
09-13-2005 3:49 PM


As a side question, if mankind managed to stabilize world temps that would be a major blow to the "naturalness" of our world. Would that be good or bad?
That might be a nice question for some chilly winter night, but certainly not one of any import IMHO.
But given the nature of our earth, thinking that we should be planning on having a stable temp system, and that reducing CO2 emissions will achieve that, seems a bit silly.
Well, I have two responses to that. First, I don't see any basis for thinking that. There are some pretty strong indications that CO2 is a primary player.
But regardless, the changes needed to minimize the adverse imapcts of Global Warming look to be far greater than the trivial things mentioned in Kyoto. And the problems should we return to what appears to be the more normal climate seem far larger than anyone has articulated yet. In fact, IMHO there is a real question whether civilized man could continue under the conditions that seem to have been the norm up until about 10K years ago.
One other thing. The idea of Global Warming leading to an ice age is not strange or hard to understand at all. In fact, anyone who cannot see at least one, perhaps more, mechanisms that would cause just that must be living in some vaccuum.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Silent H, posted 09-13-2005 3:49 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Silent H, posted 09-13-2005 4:45 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 424 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 15 of 113 (243054)
09-13-2005 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Silent H
09-13-2005 4:45 PM


The idea that GW would lead to an ice age is contrary.
It might seem that at first.
It's likely that the term Global Warming is as bad a moniker as Big Bang. The condition that is more likely is a return to what appears to be normal which a violent shifts between climate stages with short periods and great variability.
But please, pretend I am living in a vacuum. Explain how a layer of CO2, trapping heat within the entire earth atmosphere will allow for ice ages. What should I be looking for as a sign of such an ice age?
Okay.
One of the major things that seems to maintaining our current stable environment are the great currents, in the Atlantic the warm, noth running Gulf Stream and the cold, slow, bottom current running south from the Arctic. The Arctic current is fresher, colder, heavier and streams along the bottom to upwell near the equator. The Gulf Stream is warm, salty, runs up the east coast of the US and sweeps across to moderate the temperatures in Eastern Canada and Northern Europe.
Global warming melts the Arctic Ice. It's possible the extra fresh water melt could turn off the Gulf Stream, block warming, moderating effect. The result could well be Ice Ages, sheets of Ice covering much of Northern Europe that would be frozen today were it not for the Gulf Stream.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Silent H, posted 09-13-2005 4:45 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Silent H, posted 09-14-2005 6:02 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 424 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 28 of 113 (243281)
09-14-2005 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Silent H
09-14-2005 6:02 AM


Holmes, I get the feeling you've moved into one of your strident phases. If so, fine but just tell us so we can ignore you.
Well this is where we are being realistic, right? Take a look at actual statements by proponents of GW, and the original models (some still clung to) espoused.
What does that have to do with anything I said?
Remember Venus is one of prime examples used. It was practically the genesis of modern GW theory and often our explorations there are now extolled as being the way we first understood the possibilities of GW.
Please point to where I brought Venus up.
Crichton also addressed the shift now taking place in environmental circles. It started with "ICE AGE! DO SOMETHING! PEOPLE BAD!" to "GLOBAL WARMING! DO SOMETHING! PEOPLE BAD!" to more recently "DRAMATIC (or ABRUPT) CLIMATE CHANGE! DO SOMETHING! PEOPLE BAD!"
Please point to where I said PEOPLE BAD!
If it GW isn't really the issue any more then let's be honest and chuck it and say it is the possibility of more shifting and variability. Is that good or bad? Let's work on the science.
Let's work to minimize the harmful effects.
Furthermore, if Ice is growing (that would be an ice age) that suggests a shift in where the ice is, but not necessarily a difference in total ice like a typical ice age.
Again, I have the feeling that you just plain missed the point. If ice covers where you are it's an Ice Age.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Silent H, posted 09-14-2005 6:02 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Silent H, posted 09-14-2005 10:04 AM jar has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024