Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Global Warming... fact, fiction, or a little of both?
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 1 of 113 (242274)
09-11-2005 2:13 PM


I have recently seen comments by EvC members discussing Global Warming Theory (GW) as if it is some well established scientific theory, or perhaps even a fact. Some have also in the past championed Kyoto, lambasting people unwilling to sign it. It appears that to question or even doubt GW is a sign of great ignorance in the face of great evidence, including that we have measures that are likely to produce positive results.
I also recently read Michael Crichton's latest novel State of Fear, which slams GW and concepts of managing the climate. In addition to pure fiction, Crichton did a pretty solid job of presenting actual data, and I do mean research data on that topic which was contradictory to GW. Furthermore it was not just from oil companies and such, but from scientists who are generally supportive of GW, or want more GW research.
This has put me in the mood to find out why people, on either side, feel confident in their position. What evidence have they used besides generalized media hype, to come to their position.
Let's say I am currently an agnostic on this subject. When I was in geology, I was specifically working with/studying under a professor of paleo/geoclimatology. He was in no way an industrial plant, and quite environmental minded. Yet he was quite skeptical of GW. He did not see anything in the data to support the very specific conclusions that GW entails. And I have to say, at the time, and have not since seen anything to support it. I admittedly may have missed some stuff, but Crichton's arguments appeared to align with what I had seen before.
Here are the issues which need to be shown...
1) That the Global Average Temperature is in fact rising.
2) Given that temps have risen and fallen over earth's history beyond what we have so far experienced, that the rise is uncharacteristic of previous fluctuations (perhaps faster).
3) That accumulation of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases has occured in the atmosphere, and coincided accurately with the rise in temp.
4) That human mechanical/industrial emissions are the source of that rise in greenhouse gases.
5) Based on all of the above, what is the modelled effects of this change on the climate and environment, and what assures these models' accuracy?
6) Sort of optional, is that the model of greenhouse heat trapping is what is responsible for the global rise in temp. After all industry will result in some increase of carbon dioxide and increased industry (which we've had) will thus create an increase in that increase. Just because there is a rise in temp during that increase in gases, does not mean the greenhouse effect is the reason.
7) Extra credit, show what scientific models indicate that Kyoto would be effective at reversing or eliminating the greenhouse "threat".
I will leave you all with something that Crichton mentioned, and I had forgotten. Before all of this GW stuff, there was a time when people were discussing how we were entering the next Ice Age and somehow contributing to that. For those not old enough to remember, not only was that a theory but freak weather occurences of extreme winters were used of evidence for this trend at the time, just as things like Katrina are used to justify GW now.
From threatened Ice Age to threatened Warming all within a period of twenty years. The Ice Age theory ended up being a fad, will GW suffer the same fate? Please provide some excellent evidence in either direction.
(AbE: My thoughts on placement are Is it Science, or Coffee House)
This message has been edited by holmes, 09-12-2005 02:59 PM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by nwr, posted 09-13-2005 9:52 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 5 by jar, posted 09-13-2005 10:21 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 7 by clpMINI, posted 09-13-2005 11:16 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 18 by Mammuthus, posted 09-14-2005 5:32 AM Silent H has replied

  
AdminBen
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 113 (242853)
09-13-2005 8:41 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Annafan
Member (Idle past 4579 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 3 of 113 (242866)
09-13-2005 9:06 AM


I don't know the answers, but I do know that (in another forum that I frequent) the Global Warming controversy is often used by creos to ridicule science, and therefore ToE. Relevant or not.
This message has been edited by Annafan, 13-09-2005 02:07 PM

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 4 of 113 (242883)
09-13-2005 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
09-11-2005 2:13 PM


My view of global warming
Note that I am expressing mainly opinion. Some of the facts are uncertain at this time.
1) That the Global Average Temperature is in fact rising.
The evidence for this seems pretty strong.
2) Given that temps have risen and fallen over earth's history beyond what we have so far experienced, that the rise is uncharacteristic of previous fluctuations (perhaps faster).
I think the evidence is strong here to, although I am a little less certain of that.
3) That accumulation of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases has occured in the atmosphere, and coincided accurately with the rise in temp.
This also seems to be true.
4) That human mechanical/industrial emissions are the source of that rise in greenhouse gases.
I don't think there is any doubt about this, although I expect that non-industrial human actions (clearing forests) have also played a small role.
5) Based on all of the above, what is the modelled effects of this change on the climate and environment, and what assures these models' accuracy?
This is where it gets a lot less certain.
We often hear that Venus is hot due to a runaway greenhouse effect, and that Mars is cold because of the lack of greenhouse gasses. No doubt I am quite naive about this, and ignorant of much of atmospheric science, but it has always seemed to me that Venus is hot because it is closer to the sun, and Mars is cold because it is farther from the sun.
I remain uncertain of arguments about greenhouse gasses. But this really doesn't matter. The impact of human activity on the ecosystem is enormous, and it would be remarkable if it did not have seriously deleterious effects. We see many impacts that we know are human caused. We need to change our behavior, and perhaps find ways to cut the growth in human population size. And we need to start now.
I will leave you all with something that Crichton mentioned, and I had forgotten. Before all of this GW stuff, there was a time when people were discussing how we were entering the next Ice Age and somehow contributing to that.
Apparently some of the climate models do predict that global warming will quickly lead to a new ice age.

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 6 by Chiroptera, posted 09-13-2005 11:16 AM nwr has replied
 Message 10 by Silent H, posted 09-13-2005 3:42 PM nwr has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 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

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 113 (242926)
09-13-2005 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by nwr
09-13-2005 9:52 AM


Re: My view of global warming
Hello, nwr. Many years ago I used to be a graduate student in the planetary sciences. Hopefully my information isn't too far out of date.
quote:
We often hear that Venus is hot due to a runaway greenhouse effect, and that Mars is cold because of the lack of greenhouse gasses. No doubt I am quite naive about this, and ignorant of much of atmospheric science, but it has always seemed to me that Venus is hot because it is closer to the sun, and Mars is cold because it is farther from the sun.
Venus has the hottest surface temperature of all the planets, despite the fact that Mercury is closest to the sun.
Venus is indeed hot because it is closer to the sun than the earth, yet the surface temperature of Venus is far, far hotter than it should be given its distance.
If there were enough CO2 in the atmosphere of Mars (I've seen that it needs enough CO2 to create an atmospheric pressure of 100 times the earth's atmospheric pressure), Mars would be a warm, livable planet, although with an atmosphere that would be too crushing and toxic for most earth life.
It is known that (from well-established models on stellar evolution) that the sun was much, much cooler in the past, yet there has always been liquid water here on the earth's surface. This is because there has always been enough CO2 in the atmosphere to keep the surface temperature in the liquid water range (with the possible exception of the so-called "snow ball earth" that existed shortly before the Cambrian). In fact, I seem to recall doing the calculation that currently at the distance the earth is from the sun, the earth temperature should be below freezing -- the minute amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere is what keeps us toasty.
It is known that in about 4 billion years the sun will enter its red giant phase, expand, and vaporize the inner planets including the earth. However, the earth will already be dead by then: the sun is gradually heating up; as it heats up, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will decrease (by a theorized geochemical negative feedback cycle); but in a little over a billion years there will be no more CO2 to be removed. Then temperatures can only increase, initiating the run-away greenhouse effect we see on Venus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by nwr, posted 09-13-2005 9:52 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Tony650, posted 09-13-2005 11:32 AM Chiroptera has not replied
 Message 9 by nwr, posted 09-13-2005 1:14 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
clpMINI
Member (Idle past 5165 days)
Posts: 116
From: Richmond, VA, USA
Joined: 03-22-2005


Message 7 of 113 (242927)
09-13-2005 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
09-11-2005 2:13 PM


Global warming from the people who study it...
I am an environmental scientist, though I do not specifically study global warming, I think that it is a real deal, and that we shoould take it seriously (precautionary priniple).
Here are answers to some of your questions from the NOAA/NCDC...
1) Are temperatures rising?
NOAA SAYS:
Yes. Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.6C (plus or minus 0.2C) since the late-19th century, and about 0.4F (0.2 to 0.3C) over the past 25 years (the period with the most credible data). The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S.) have, in fact, cooled over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70N. Warming, assisted by the record El Nio of 1997-1998, has continued right up to the present, with 2001 being the second warmest year on record after 1998.
Indirect indicators of warming such as borehole temperatures, snow cover, and glacier recession data, are in substantial agreement with the more direct indicators of recent warmth. Evidence such as changes in glacier length is useful since it not only provides qualitative support for existing meteorological data, but glaciers often exist in places too remote to support meteorological stations, the records of glacial advance and retreat often extend back further than weather station records, and glaciers are usually at much higher alititudes that weather stations allowing us more insight into temperature changes higher in the atmosphere.
2) Can changes in temperatures be explained by natural fluctuation and variability?
NOAA SAYS:
Since our entire climate system is fundamentally driven by energy from the sun, it stands to reason that if the sun's energy output were to change, then so would the climate. Since the advent of space-borne measurements in the late 1970s, solar output has indeed been shown to vary. There appears to be confirmation of earlier suggestions of an 11 (and 22) year cycle of irradiance. With only 20 years of reliable measurements however, it is difficult to deduce a trend. But, from the short record we have so far, the trend in solar irradiance is estimated at ~0.09 W/m2 compared to 0.4 W/m2 from well-mixed greenhouse gases. There are many indications that the sun also has a longer-term variation which has potentially contributed to the century-scale forcing to a greater degree. There is though, a great deal of uncertainty in estimates of solar irradiance beyond what can be measured by satellites, and still the contribution of direct solar irradiance forcing is small compared to the greenhouse gas component. However, our understanding of the indirect effects of changes in solar output and feedbacks in the climate system is minimal. There is much need to refine our understanding of key natural forcing mechanisms of the climate, including solar irradiance changes, in order to reduce uncertainty in our projections of future climate change.
3) Greenhouse gas issues?
NOAA SAYS:
Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are about 370 ppmv. The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today, has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years, and likely not in the last 20 million years. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration).
There is more at http://www.ncdc/noaa.gov.html
I have seen graphs that show amazing correllation between post industrial revolution CO2 levels and increases in temperatures. I will try to find one online.
I suppose a basic starter would be whether or not someone understands the greenhouse effect. If you understand that, then I think the rest is a pretty logical extension.
As far as the Kyoto Protocol, I am not sure if it would have worked as well as everyone wanted it too. Reducing CO2 emissions below 1990 levels would be tough, but I sort of view it as I view hybrid cars. Like a bridge until the best solution (hydrogen) is reached, though not a complete solution, it is a heck of a lot better than doing nothing and expecting everything to be fine.
As to the global cooling fad, ironically enough, a possible outcome of global warming and melting glaciers and ice-caps, is to "short-circuit" the gulf-stream, which will certainly make lots of places much colder than they are now.
later

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 13 by Silent H, posted 09-13-2005 4:36 PM clpMINI has not replied

  
Tony650
Member (Idle past 4032 days)
Posts: 450
From: Australia
Joined: 01-30-2004


Message 8 of 113 (242931)
09-13-2005 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Chiroptera
09-13-2005 11:16 AM


Re: My view of global warming
Damn, Chiroptera, you beat me to it! One of the rare occasions on EvC that I get to pretend I'm smart and you got in first.
I was about to hit the submit button when I reloaded the page and saw you'd already answered. Ah well... *delete*

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Chiroptera, posted 09-13-2005 11:16 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 9 of 113 (242964)
09-13-2005 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Chiroptera
09-13-2005 11:16 AM


Re: My view of global warming
Thanks, Chiroptera, for your clarifications. It is much appreciated.
My main point remains, and I presume you agree. Namely, even without settling all of the disputed issues, it is clear that the human population is placing a lot of stress on the ecosystem. We should be acting on that now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Chiroptera, posted 09-13-2005 11:16 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 10 of 113 (243011)
09-13-2005 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by nwr
09-13-2005 9:52 AM


Re: My view of global warming
Heheheh, I want to skip your answers to my points (especially as they did not include evidence) and deal with something else you said within your post.
I remain uncertain of arguments about greenhouse gasses. But this really doesn't matter. The impact of human activity on the ecosystem is enormous, and it would be remarkable if it did not have seriously deleterious effects. We see many impacts that we know are human caused. We need to change our behavior, and perhaps find ways to cut the growth in human population size. And we need to start now.
This is exactly the point of Crichton's book, and if you haven't read it, you probably should. People seem to have gotten into the habit of, and perhaps desire to, view everything human civilization does as bad, and nature on its own as somehow beneficial.
One should note straight off the bat that there have been mass extinctions throughout earth's history, big and small, well before man ever got here. The earth is not necessarily a safe place even when left to its own devices.
There is no question that man has an effect on the environment at large in some fashion. Any creature using up the resources we use will have an impact of some kind.
But why are all or most impacts viewed as some objective "wrong"? Change has been the history of the planet, and there is no logical imperative that change due to man is inherently "unnatural" or "incorrect".
If we do not have a clear picture as to how our earth functions, and so what effects we are having, does it make sense to say we MUST make changes and especially that we must do so NOW? How can we start to change what we are doing now, if we don't actually know what changes need to be made?
Don't get me wrong. I started with some of the basic feelings you seem to have, and indeed would prefer as little impact from humans as possible. But I have been impacted by the lack of evidence for any specific problems, or that humans are culpable for some specific problems, not to mention any good theoretical solutions, and so my initial position has been shaken.
Is it just irrational guilt and misanthropy driving the desire to view human effort as intrinsically harmful? That we must "change our ways" smacks of religious pretension.
Apparently some of the climate models do predict that global warming will quickly lead to a new ice age.
Yes. If someone came up to you and said global warming is going to create a new ice age, wouldn't that seem just a little bit problematic?
There are no ice caps on Venus. If we are suffering from global warming it is inconsistent to suggest we will be forced into a vast lowering of temperatures.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by nwr, posted 09-13-2005 9:52 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by crashfrog, posted 09-13-2005 5:41 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 17 by nwr, posted 09-13-2005 7:16 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 11 of 113 (243014)
09-13-2005 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by jar
09-13-2005 10:21 AM


You have seen the same kinds of things that I have then, outside the specific GW debate of CO2 content and local flux in rising temps.
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?
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?"
Agreed. I mean I think we should be trying to minimize our largescale outputs as much as possible, and immediate detrimental effects (like deforestation for no credible reason). 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.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 09-13-2005 10:21 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by jar, posted 09-13-2005 4:24 PM Silent H has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 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

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 13 of 113 (243042)
09-13-2005 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by clpMINI
09-13-2005 11:16 AM


Re: Global warming from the people who study it...
Thanks for your response.
I think that it is a real deal, and that we shoould take it seriously (precautionary priniple).
I am hesitant to claim it is the real deal as it is currently being sold and therefore cannot take it seriously. I do believe it should be looked at, but not treated as if it has some credible basis.
I abhore the precautionary principle. Anyone telling me that we must act on our fears before we have a sound basis to say that our fears are correct, and a sufficient plan of action on how to deal with the problem, sort of offends me. It reminds me of religious zealotry and blind panic. REPENT and DO WHAT I SAY! Yeah? right.
1) I sort of take it for granted that there is evidence for a global rise in average temperature. Some seem to hang their hat on that. But GW is not just a rise in temp, as the earth has seen that many times before, and as we see from your clip, does not necessarily mean global impact...
The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S.) have, in fact, cooled over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70N. Warming, assisted by the record El Nio of 1997-1998, has continued right up to the present, with 2001 being the second warmest year on record after 1998.
Not only does this show that sections can remain the same or cool, but some of the warming has a nonmanmade source.
Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.6C (plus or minus 0.2C) since the late-19th century, and about 0.4F (0.2 to 0.3C) over the past 25 years (the period with the most credible data).
I should also point out the obvious. As noted above while temps have been climbing (global average) there is very little credible beyond the last 25 years. Unfortunately our knowledge of global temp fluctuation over small periods of time (which is all we have on hand) is sketchy, and if anything seems to suggest many fluxes.
This leads to the next point...
2) Not only did your clip discuss external heat sources as a possible reason for the current flux, it suggests something much more profound and really what I am driving at here...
With only 20 years of reliable measurements however, it is difficult to deduce a trend... There are many indications that the sun also has a longer-term variation which has potentially contributed to the century-scale forcing to a greater degree. There is though, a great deal of uncertainty in estimates of solar irradiance beyond what can be measured by satellites, and still the contribution of direct solar irradiance forcing is small compared to the greenhouse gas component. However, our understanding of the indirect effects of changes in solar output and feedbacks in the climate system is minimal. There is much need to refine our understanding of key natural forcing mechanisms of the climate, including solar irradiance changes, in order to reduce uncertainty in our projections of future climate change.
You stated earlier that it is a "real deal", but how can it be with very straightforward commentary by nonbiased scientists that our records are poor and there are many things we must understand (mechanisms) before we can be certain about the validity of our projections?
3) I am also pretty certain that records show an increase in green house gases. That only stands to reason. The important question is if they are actually matched to the increases in temps we see, specifically according to the model GW theory suggests.
NOAA states a rise from 280 to 370ppm over the last 100 years, and postulates it could rise to 490-1260ppm by the end of another 100 years.
That may look large in and of itself. But in reality what do those figures mean for the atmosphere as a whole? What does it take to have an effect on the climate as a whole?
I did not find anything on this at NOAA but maybe I missed it. Intriguingly the Netherlands is blocked from accessing some of the data pages on global temps.
I have seen graphs that show amazing correllation between post industrial revolution CO2 levels and increases in temperatures. I will try to find one online.
Correlation does not equal causation. And in a world of fluctuating temps, what is the chance that an increase in usage of a substance (and so emission) might coincide with a flux? I should add I have seen some not so amazing graphs on the same topic.
Sorry to plug Crichton's book some more but he includes some interesting info you might want to look at. I will try and find some of the graphs he used on line.
I sort of view it as I view hybrid cars. Like a bridge until the best solution (hydrogen) is reached, though not a complete solution, it is a heck of a lot better than doing nothing and expecting everything to be fine.
I think there is much to be said for switching away from fossil fuels, that has nothing to do with GW. For anyone claiming that hydrogen is the "best" solution I am forced to ask what source you feel is best to produce all this hydrogen we'll be using?
I think it is really clean and one of the better fuels for not making cities smoggy and smelly, but there are ecological impacts from what we use to create/free the H.
Please don't feel that I am trying to punk on you. If I come off too harsh, let me know and I'll tone it down.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by clpMINI, posted 09-13-2005 11:16 AM clpMINI has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 14 of 113 (243046)
09-13-2005 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by jar
09-13-2005 4:24 PM


There are some pretty strong indications that CO2 is a primary player.
I have yet to see it. Please share.
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.
Well yes and no.
The idea of rising global temperatures allowing for ice ages is understandable. Ice Ages are the product of many different factors.
The idea that GW would lead to an ice age is contrary. The idea of temperature trapping is not regional but global in scale and so hardly allowing for vast regional cooling. That is one of the whole problems of saying GW theory is what we are experiencing.
Intriguingly prophets of GW theory point to glacial retreat as signs of GW, and dismiss glacial advances (which are occuring in some areas) which tends to suggest that they themselves do not allow for new ice ages as part of their theory.
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?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by jar, posted 09-13-2005 4:24 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 09-13-2005 5:13 PM Silent H has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024