off topic. Nova show on glacial ice melting
I saw an interesting show on glacial and polar ice melting.
At the end of the show they were estimating a 10 foot global rise in sea levels by the year 2100 but said it could be rising faster under certain conditions.
Then they talked about a link to see what the world would look like if all the ice melted. The link doesn't work on my iPad so I'm posting it here to check back on my pc. I thought at least one other person here might enjoy the links.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/mappi…
There is a link to the show I saw on the ice melting within the link above.
Made me think someone needs to invent a white long lasting inexpensive sea foam that reflects the sun and spray it across thousands of miles of ocean to keep the planet cool. Or maybe bioengineer plankton or whatever plant that grows in abundance when you dump iron ore powder in the ocean so that it still absorbs vast quantities of co2 but doesn't remove all the oxygen from the water.
At the end of the show they were estimating a 10 foot global rise in sea levels by the year 2100 but said it could be rising faster under certain conditions.
Then they talked about a link to see what the world would look like if all the ice melted. The link doesn't work on my iPad so I'm posting it here to check back on my pc. I thought at least one other person here might enjoy the links.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/mappi…
There is a link to the show I saw on the ice melting within the link above.
Made me think someone needs to invent a white long lasting inexpensive sea foam that reflects the sun and spray it across thousands of miles of ocean to keep the planet cool. Or maybe bioengineer plankton or whatever plant that grows in abundance when you dump iron ore powder in the ocean so that it still absorbs vast quantities of co2 but doesn't remove all the oxygen from the water.
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
39 comments
sharkhunter, you unfortunately don't know what you are talking about.
Politicians don't know either.
BELIEVE the scientists.
@Alucard- Now would e a good time to tell us about how "star dust" created life on earth.
Are you trying to say that global warming hasn't occurred over the past 17 years? Even AGW deniers admit that the temperature anomaly exists. They just attribute it to natural processes. Or are you claiming global warming will reverse in the next 17 years? If so, why?
As usual, reality is very complex and the degree of temperature increase exhibits variation. Doing the actual science is hard. But you seem to be falling down even on fundamentals.
I've never seen an AGW denier actually put forward a simple answer to the fundamental issue. They always nitpick about minutia. If an AGW denier could say "yes, greenhouse gasses are accumulating snd that would be expected to raise temperatures, but here is what is compensating for their accumulation" I'd take that statement seriously.
An ice-free Antarctica in historical times is a non-starter. There is huge amounts of water in the ice sheet. Shorelines would have been fundamentally different. That ice has been there for millions of years.
Why do people without climate science degrees (lawyers, businessmen, economists, etc) think that they know more than the climate scientists themselves? It's the same with evolution. Non-scientists without any background in the appropriate field simply taking over the discussion.
Alucard once again spouts his mouth off saying I do not know what I am talking about. I merely suggested doing something that takes engineering work to reverse the amount of ever increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere other than what many others propose doing which is to tax everyone which does nothing to reverse the trend. The CO2 still stays in the atmosphere.
I believe most of the information coming out in denial among people with big credentials know very little about climate.
I myself do not want to be taxed to death. However the evidence has been melting away and the oceans are becoming acidic and may not be able to absorb a whole lot more Co2 without a little help.
I can hope the correlation between high CO2 levels and increased global temperatures is not the main reason for the increased global temperatures but it is an amazing coincidence if it isn't. However I may not know all the details. Volcanic activity, other greenhouse gases that aren't mentioned, etc. could play a bigger role other than a trace gas called CO2. I'm not a climate scientist. I just do not want the planet to get warmer.
You may not make random statements without reputable sources to prove your point. Scientists are merely interested in what is true. If the data points to the Earth warming, then that's what the data shows.
This happens with the anti-evolution crowd all the time. They find something on the Internet and then somehow believe that they have the key to overthrowing all of paleontology/biology/genetics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertil…
Alucard might discover I do know something about what I am talking about.
The main problem with the method is that it could cause dead zones without oxygen.
To deny global warming is just idiocy as is denying evolution pure idiocy.
We are all guilty and have been guilty since we evolved from apes to hominids.
You want to stop global warming? Stop driving your car and put guys like me out of business. Stop using electricity generated from coal-fired plants. Stop eating meat so we don't have all these hundreds of millions of domesticated animals farting deadly methane into the atmosphere. Stop buying cheap goods shipped around the world on ships using Bunker C, the single most polluting hydrocarbon fuel used world wide. Grow your own food. Don't fly in airplanes. Read books- don't watch TV or use computers and other electronic devices. It goes on and on.
How many people will live that lifestyle?
Suck it up. Global warming is here. It will not go away. It will get worse.
what say let’s all meet up at Al Gore’s newly purchased OCEAN FRONT mansion and discuss it.
be forewarned though that if you actually believe in the global warming scam then the only logical position to adopt is one of radical population reduction measures and aggressive subjugation of those countries that threaten the survival of the species.
i for one recognize it as just another scam to dupe the stupid so for the foreseeable future i won’t be participating in any of your genocidal wet dreams.
Actually I'm not that worried about global warming. I don't live in Florida. If I was living in Miami 100 years from now, I'd have to take more swimming lessons. Supposedly they will be underwater.
Actually about 10,000 years ago, I believe the ocean level was at least 400 feet lower than where it is now. That's why there are so many underwater ruins like one off the coast of Japan.
-34C, now that is really cold. You can keep it up there. :)
Obama is in Hawaii. The weather changes so little out there, they don't even talk about the weather on local stations. It's almost always warm. They did have record cold when I visited.
Individuals who are on the front lines of climate science all agree that the Earth is warming. The problem with the deniers is that they tend to only hear what they wish to be true.
Climate scientists who have spent their whole lives combing through data and devising rigorous experiments that show that the Earth is warming, and that the warming trend is very closely associated with carbon dioxide emission from humans. As you are not a science yourself (I assume), why do you think you know better than the experts? Presumably, you wouldn't say this about medical specialists, chemists, physicists, or biologists. What do non-scientists believe that they're somehow more knowledgeable than scientists? Who knows.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-w…
That site also explains the top 10 myths that are often used by people to claim that there is no global warming. Among these myths are:
1) The climate's changed before
2) It's the sun
3) It's not that bad
4) There is no consensus
5) Our climate models are unreliable
6) Antarctica has gained ice
All of these have been thoroughly debunked. They are called "wedge arguments," which are injected into the debate in an attempt to deliberately muddy things so that no action can be taken. Same thing happens with intelligent design.
The best cure for all of this, of course, is knowledge. Please read up on the findings, Mikey. We could use your help in combating climate change.
IronFox22 is right about these wedge arguments. That why I focus on the core. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That is rock solid you can measure the infrared spectrum stuff. Not beyond basic college chem. CO2 is accumulating. Again rock solid. Easy to measure. Even if you don't believe most scientists you've got to know at least some could be hired to show that CO2 isn't rising. They can't, which is why the anti-AGW crowd makes up BS arguments.
Once you get past the rock solid you get into the tricky game of projecting future patterns of CO2 and other greenhouse gas accumulation. You get into feedbacks (CO2 stimulates growth ameliorating CO2 emissions, but warming releases arctic carbon when permafrost melts and exacerbates). That is difficult, but it is possible to say "we run models and can see best-case, worst-case, and middle of the road scenarios". Even under the best case we're in for faster warming than during earlier warm periods.
Reality is though that there are reasons to reduce emissions other than greenhouse gasses. Why are we (mostly America) in the Middle East? Is it because we love the countries so much? At the end of the day we're there because middle eastern oil is there. We're spending huge amounts of money (money that there we're not taxing to offset the spending) and we're spending blood.
If there was high risk associated with middle eastern oil prices will rise. They'll rise worldwide because of scarcity, regardless of production elsewhere. But propping up Mideast dictatorships also costs money. It is just hidden. And much of it is on credit. If the Chinese want to keep prices low let them try to prop up the middle eastern dictators (they don't have the logistical capabilities to do it and I suspect they'll invest in green energy before they pay to build the capability of running a Mideast war -- probably cheaper).
And remember -- Al Gore isn't dictator of climate change responses. He's a politician that latched onto global warming. He currently holds no office. He is really irrelevant.
Everything goes in cycles. I'm ok with waiting to see how much warming there is when solar radiation decreases.
Try NASA's instead. I presume that you don't think NASA is a joke.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
My question for you is why do liberals (mostly) listen to a mental midget who was graduated from college with a C average, flunking the ONE science course he took, and then flunked out of law school about global warming. I am of course referring to Algore.
You should listen more to me, by your logic, than him because I was graduated from college with a major in science.
Again, NASA has excellent information on it. Al Gore doesn't control NASA. Tell me what you think.
climate.nasa.gov/evidence
NASA you say….well skipping over the falsified temperature data that they were caught posting and the mutiny by NASA ***scientists*** publically demanding that the political appointees cease ***advocating*** the global warming scam and that NASA return to honest scientific study so that NASA’s reputation would not be further impuned, there is the ***objective*** data from twenty-five years of the most accurate temperature observation available which is referenced in the article below.
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gap…
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
By James TaylorJuly 27, 2011 3:23 PM
NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.
Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.
"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."
In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.
The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.
Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is "not much"). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.
The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.
In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.
When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.
Did you look at the byline on that article you posted? It's by James Taylor, who works for the Heartland Institute. The organization's whole purpose is to combat environmental legislation. *Of course* they are going to write articles like this. They are akin to the Discovery Institute, which produces similar articles claiming that evolution did not happen.
The Heartland Institute is also the organization that tried to show in the 1990s that secondhand smoke was in no way harmful to bystanders.
As an side, you can visit the NASA site and view the organizations that have released public statements indicating that global warming is indeed happening. These include:
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Medical Association
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
The Geological Society of America
*Similar organizations from every developed country around the world.
See them here: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-conse…
Does man's activities contribute to it .. maybe
Should we turn all our money to Algore so he can jet around the world in a fuel guzzling private jet collecting awards for being a douche-bag ... no
Remember the same bureaucrats in the 70's were saying the next ice age would start in 35 years tops!
I had a college professor tell us that by 1995 we would all have to go onto a subsistence diet of gruel or rice because the world population could not possibly be fed.
What should happen is scientists and engineers need to get to work and not try to legislate the problem. Hybrid cars do more environmental damage than a full sized pick up over the course of their life. (the hybrid batteries cannot even be manufactured in a first world country because the pollute so much.
Tiredtraveler, Doctor Phil, and Mikey, I'd still by you a drink at the club if I had a chance. No hard feelings. Have a good Christmas.