 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2)
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: DougR Date: 05 Jul 01 - 08:54 PM There ain't no shade under a gasoline pump, RobDale. :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: katlaughing Date: 12 Jul 01 - 05:33 PM There is a new report out, which seems substantial judging from the participants. Anyone who has been following these threads might like to read it by clicking here. kat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: thosp Date: 12 Jul 01 - 09:30 PM thanks Kat! -- i hope it wakes some people up! Doug -- i knew what you were doing - i was (hopefully)gently joshing you. ---- i was also hoping that the Greens/Nader would show well --- so i wasn't about to discourage you from encouraging people to vote for Nader (even if you weren't serious) --- and with Bush as resident - i think alot more people are becoming enviormentally aware (at least i hope so) sorry Malcome ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: thosp Date: 18 Jul 01 - 11:26 PM for some students perspectives' try this blueclicketything anyway i hope it works peace (Y) thosp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: JedMarum Date: 29 Jan 02 - 11:31 AM more food for thought: Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Getting Thicker By Steve Connor, Science Editor, Independent News 19 January 2002 Parts of the west Antarctic ice sheet are getting thicker rather than thinner according to a study that casts doubt on one of the greatest fears surrounding global warming. Previous studies have suggested that the western ice sheet is unstable and could melt disastrously in a warmer world, causing sea levels to rise by as much as five metres. However, an investigation by scientists who studied the shrinkage and expansion of ice using satellite radars has found that rather than losing about 21 billion tons of ice a year, west Antarctica is accumulating nearly 27 billion tons. Ian Joughin, from Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and Slawek Tulaczyk, of the University of California Santa Cruz, believe their study is more accurate and extensive than previous work and could indicate a reversal of a 10,000-year trend in glacier shrinkage which began after the last Ice Age. "The ice sheet has been retreating for the last few thousand years, but we think the end of this retreat has come," said Dr Joughin. "But I hesitate to say that we can stop worrying about it." This latest study covers a limited area of land and the scientists point out that ice sheets in other regions, such as the Pine Island Glacier and the Thwaites Glacier, are thinning. Most scientists agree that the west Antarctic ice sheet is potentially unstable and even a small amount of melting caused by global warming could release vast amounts of ice into the sea. But it has proved difficult to monitor what is happening within the Antarctic ice system and a warmer world might cause more snowfall, resulting in more ice on glaciers. Dr Duncan Whingam, a glaciologist at University College London, said: "It's harder than ever to predict how this area of Antarctica is going to evolve." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: DougR Date: 29 Jan 02 - 11:43 AM You're a brave man, Jed Marum. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: CarolC Date: 29 Jan 02 - 02:21 PM I'm sure he is, DougR, but I don't see how that applies here. Did you read that article very carefully? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: DougR Date: 29 Jan 02 - 06:45 PM Yes, Carol, I read the article when it was printed in the newspaper over the weekend. I was referring to Jed's bringing the subject back up again, and it was meant in jest. I just failed to include a :>) or a **BG** or even a *G* (sigh) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: Wolfgang Date: 30 Jan 02 - 02:17 PM I had seen that article as well and would have posted it here if I had found an English version, just for the sake of debate. But now Jed has done that already I hasten to post another article from this month with a completely different conclusion, namely from Jan 4 2002 in Science. Lesson 1: It is easy to find each month a new finding for each side of this debate Lesson 2: The future of complex systems is less clear than we'd like it to be Lesson 3: Never trust a single scientific finding for any political decision Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: Wolfgang Date: 30 Jan 02 - 02:36 PM and just for the fun of it (now that I am in my SEARCH-mode): The original article to Jed's short version Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: Bobert Date: 30 Jan 02 - 02:39 PM Whether or not "global warming" is occuring or not is open to debate and given the relatively short time that mankind has recorded weather, probably cannot be absolutely proven. It is my belief, however, that at the rate we are burning up non-renewable resources, that we probably are warming the planet, creating some real nasty air to breath and not showing too much respect for future generations. We have the technology right now to produce all the electricity needed to run the earth with renewable resources and without burning one gallon of oil, lump of coal or uranium. But this current generation of earthlings does not have the courage or wisdom. Too bad, because future generations will most certainly look back at us as caring more for immediate gratification than for the planet we will be leaving to be cleaned up... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: MMario Date: 30 Jan 02 - 02:56 PM wolfgang - that's a paid subscription site! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: JedMarum Date: 30 Jan 02 - 03:04 PM ... just more food for thought. The point is the debate continues, we don't always understand the data we see, and opinions change. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: Mark Clark Date: 30 Jan 02 - 03:22 PM Okay, help me out here. I also read that parts of Antarctic ice sheet are getting thicker, not thinner. But what does that say about global temprature trends? It would appear that making ice requires water and in order to get airborne water vapor to Antarctica it has to be evaporated into the air. The rate of evaporation increases as temperatures rise, not when they fall. Cooler air can carry less water vapor than warmer air. One might expect increased thickness in the ice sheet—below the melting point of course—to be an indication that the atmosphere is carrying more water vapor; ergo, is becoming warmer on average. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: DougR Date: 30 Jan 02 - 03:28 PM Wolfgang: I like those three lessons. So true. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: Maryrrf Date: 30 Jan 02 - 03:43 PM I don't know if there's global warming going on or not, but here in Richmond Virginia it sure feels like it. I went out to lunch with my co-worker today in his convertible with the top down. People were walking around in shorts and tee-shirts. The thermometer registered 83 degrees F. I've never seen anything like this, and we've had very little cold weather this winter. This whole week it's been in the seventies. It feels surreal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: Mark Clark Date: 30 Jan 02 - 03:51 PM Right on, DougR. I meant to comment on those as well. Of course I'd really like to know who is paying the salary of anyone adding evidence to either side of the debate. My sense is that unaligned scientists agree that global warming is really happening and the ones who offer opposing views are mostly being subsidized to create fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD). They often sound like President Clinton, needing an academic definition for “it.” I could believe that some scientists around the world might weigh in on the side of global warming just poke a stick in the eye of the U.S. Still, I'd be interested in compelling evidence against global warming that has no tie to the energy industry nor the military-industrial complex. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: DougR Date: 30 Jan 02 - 04:42 PM Fair enough, Mark. I agree. Evidence presented by a subsidized source is certainly suspect. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: GUEST,Boab Date: 31 Jan 02 - 01:52 AM ONE--I'm a septagenarian, and probably fairly close to the curtain. A main aim of my life has always been to help in leaving this Earth as healthy as possible; it doesn't belong to me --or you---it belongs to the innocent kids [and animals--]and the yet unborn. TWO---As far as I can gauge, global warming is a fact.We may be entering a natural warming cycle---but there is NO doubt that human activity is exacerbating it. THREE--- NOBODY can state with any certainty that fossil fuel burning, deforestation, etc. is NOT causing accelerated warming. So it follows that those who persist in advocating the continued "march of progress" in the present manner are purely and simply gambling that they MIGHT be right---and using for chips the lives of children and the future of the Earth as a viable life-sustaining planet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: Wolfgang Date: 31 Jan 02 - 07:25 AM MMario, paid subscription? You mean you can't see it? Well, I can and I don't pay, but perhaps access is paid by my university and I didn't know. Here's the summary of the first link: New Take on Climate Modeling The world is getting hotter, and humans are at least partly to blame--but that's about all that climate researchers can confidently say about global warming. Their bottom-up approach--trying to understand the role of every part in the dizzyingly complex climate machine--has left the crucial question of how bad things could get unanswered. In the 4 January issue of Science, a group of researchers describe a new top-down approach: They plugged different combinations of values for fundamental properties of the climate system into a computer model and looked to see how well the model's output matched long-term observations. The results suggest that global warming is probably a serious threat and that it could get even hotter than most scientists believe. As Mark has pointed out, both seemingly conflicting articles could even be true (or one or none) if global warming would lead to more precipitation in Antarctica. That could mean, for instance that global warming could come with many of the foretold bad consequences like more deserts and storms and all that, but without the predicted amount of sea level rise.
Some early models you have read of just simply (which doesn't mean that they are simple to work out; simple models are difficult enough) assume that temperature rises, eveything else is constant, and then calculate sea level rise. But then you can start thinking The main reason for disagreement is that tiny variations in the assumptions or starting values of those models still lead to grossly different conclusions. From a local point of view, global warming even could make the climate colder. Some of the models predict the gulf stream to stop transporting warm water from the Carribbean to Europe. That would lead to half of Scandinavia being covered with ice and to a breakdown of European economy due to local cooling. Wolfgang
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: Mark Clark Date: 31 Jan 02 - 03:09 PM Good points, Wolfgang. I'm certainly no physicist but I believe the earth's atmosphere and oceans still obey the laws of fluid mechanics. If you've ever watched a pan of water placed on the stove to heat, you've seen how it behaves. At first there is very little change in the water but as the temprature rises, currents are set up in the pan that you can see as distortions of your view of the pan's bottom. These currents become more violent as the water is warmed. It's reasonable to expect that our atmosphere behaves something like that. As long as it remains cool, air masses tend to stay put. The warm regions stay warm and the cold regions stay cold. But increase the temprature and the system becomes more fluid; things start to move more rapidly. More movement in the atmosphere means air masses don't necessarily stay put any more. As Wolfgang pointed out, global warming doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be warmer where you are. It may mean that cold air that used to be more or less stationary somewhere else now moves through your region. As air masses begin to move more rapidly, the frequency and energy of violent storms is likely to increase. As we all have now learned, the motion of the atmosphere (weather) is not a liner system. It is subject to the whims of chaos theory. The butterfly effect predicts that local weather can suddenly jump from acceptable to catastrophically violent with only a negligible increase in energy input. In theory, the point at which the system becomes discontinuous could be predicted by a computer but in practice the calculation is impossible because the initial state of the system can never be known in enough detail to be useful.
I don't believe we can rely on Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis to stabilize the earth's climate for us—even if it comes to be regarded as science—because, as I recall, it makes no allowance for the excesses of mankind's industrial excesses.
To do nothing, in my opinion, is like doing nothing about a tumor because it hasn't yet been shown to be malignant.
- Mark |
|
Subject: HELP: Joe Clone From: Mark Clark Date: 31 Jan 02 - 03:12 PM I'm really sorry but I've done it again. Can someone please properly close the active link in my post above? Thanks, - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: Wolfgang Date: 12 Nov 02 - 07:55 AM 'The end of communism has contributed to global warming.' This may sound like a joke but it isn't. It's called the Gorbachev effect by German scientist Graßl (in a recent issue of Geophysical Research Letters). The end of communism has done a lot for cleaner air in middle Europe (closing down of dirty industries in GDR, Poland and Chechoslovakia). As a consequence, less small dirt particles and aerosols are in the clouds and therefore more sun energy comes through. It has been debated controversely whether more aerosols is a cooling or a warming factor but the end of communism with a quite abrupt closing down of dirty industries has provided the researchers with a real life experiment of enormous proportions. The different and differing models can be checked against the data and it seems to be clear now, more than 10 years later, that the clouds now let more sunlight through (2.8%) and that, on the balance of all factors, cleaner air contributes to global warming. Graßl's recommendation, by the way, is not to reintroduce communism or to provide tax deduction benefits to dirty production plants, but to acknowledge that it is a very complicated field and that sensible action "has to tackle all reasons for climate change at the same time". Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: mooman Date: 12 Nov 02 - 08:36 AM Oh dear...going to get drawn in again! As a scientist, part of whose responsibilities involve monitoring environmental affairs for an industry sector (medical technology - admittedly not a big polluter), I see plenty of scientific evidence on an almost daily basis that at least convinces me that there is a serious problem and that human activities are a major contributor (sorry Wolfgang - although I have the highest respect for you as an academic and scientist we'll have to agree to differ on this one!). Going back to Mark Clark's post, clickit here to see whether it will be warmer where you are. Increasingly warmly! mooman |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: CarolC Date: 12 Nov 02 - 09:17 AM For some reason, I had the impression that it isn't so much the amount of light that gets into our atmosphere that causes warming as much as it is the amount that is trapped in our atmosphere that is the cause. I thought that particulate matter in the atmosphere was trapping certain kinds of light and that this was called the "greenhouse effect". Anybody got any information on this? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: mooman Date: 12 Nov 02 - 10:03 AM Dear CarolC, There are a number of interesting issues here. You are right in that it is not so much the light that gets in that is a problem (the sun will continue to shine for a while yet one hopes) but the trapping of long wave radiation being emitted. Here there are many factors at play including greenhouse gases (especially CO2, methane, water vapour plus some others), the amount of particulate matter in the atmosphere (which influences cloud formation) and reflection of radiation by clouds. Other key factors include temperature and its effect on the various carbon "sinks" and, naturally, the level of production of CO2 via processes such as the respiration of living organisms and the burning of bound carbon or fossil fuels, the rate of photosynthesis of CO2 by plants (the highest leaf area indices which provide a measure for this are in tropical rainforests which are disappearing at an alarming rate) and the rate of storage of carbon in carbon sinks. In this sense, the paper by Grassl that Wolfgang quotes is spot on....the causal effects are complicated and highly interrelated and hence all have to be addressed at the same time. mooman |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: CarolC Date: 12 Nov 02 - 10:39 AM Thanks mooman! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: GUEST,Forum Lurker Date: 12 Nov 02 - 02:29 PM It is probably the case that the Earth is getting warmer, and also probably the case that human industry has something to do with it. However, we cannot say that we must take any particular action until we understand all of the consequences. While the planet may be warming now, it has been at lower than average temperatures for a long time. Global warming may be leading it back to the normal levels. If we manage to cut all greenhouse gas emissions and end global warming, we may fall into the ice age for which we are thousands of years overdue. Causing the oceans to recede and the icecaps to come barreling down will prove just as dangerous as driving the sea level up until it floods India and Holland. We must not try to take massive policy decisions when our knowledge of the consequences is so imperfect. This does not mean, however, that we should not cut down on our pollution and fossil fuel use. While the significance of CO2 in the atmosphere is not clear, no one can argue that filling our oceans with toxic wastes and draining our finite resources is a good goal. Reducing the amount of resources consumed and wastes produced will have a much greater effect than slowing the rate of warming. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: GUEST,Taliesn Date: 13 Nov 02 - 10:05 AM I'm watching 3 factors 1) The watch on the increase in frequency and/or intensity of hurricanes/tornadoes_ The 70+ tornadoes that cut a 5 state swath in the U.S. earleir this week would've been unusually high activity during a normal the Spring season, but in "Autumn"? 2) The watch on the spread of more exotic diseases that occur "naturally" as they are no longer confined to the extreme heat zones that spawned them ( forget the "unnatrual" Biological weapon bugs ) 3) The rate at whicdh China adopts "western-style" energy consumption and emissions from *industrial* & *vehicular* Just imagine another population of the U.S. with private cars and flying more along with the manufacturing plants running at capacity to produce them along with what they are producing now. I know there's more ,but I don't have time so I've chosen these 3 factors as the best "flashpoint" warnings of cause/effect enviornment distortion measures. In my opinion Saddam should have been hunted down as a Global War Criminal *just* for ordering the setting of the Kuwaiti Oil fields which burned for almost a full year at full blast. I guess Bush Sr. is just accustomed to thinking of burning oil as profitable regardless of how it's done: it's all about market scarcity , stupid. Yeah it's a cheap shot , but that's how I still feel . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: Wolfgang Date: 13 Nov 02 - 10:14 AM Mooman, I fail completely to see in which point you disagree. Puzzled Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: mooman Date: 13 Nov 02 - 10:32 AM Dear Wolfgang, I thought that you were arguing that there is no conclusive scientific evidence to support the hypothesis that human activity is contributing significantly to global warming (or perhaps to express it in a better way ...that there is an equivalent level of scientific data to support both sides of the debate and that drawing a conclusion is therefore premature). If I am mistaken, then my humble apologies! I tend to react instinctively on this topic because, as the scientist in my organization responsible for environmental matters, I have read so many papers on the subject and at least am personally convinced by the evidence. Very best regards, mooman |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming: Yes/No? (Part 2) From: Wolfgang Date: 13 Nov 02 - 11:16 AM Mooman, if you refer to all my posts on that topic you have a point. I see too that we differ (sometimes). I had thought that you were only relating to my last post (which came after a very long break) and in that there was hardly a reason for disagreemant (so I thought and if there was I'd have wished to know) looking forward to see you next May. Wolfgang |