I got a lot of answers to my questions about global warming last night while watching TV. There was a show discussing the issue on the History Channel. It was not sensationalist; there was no suggestion that we were in for a world of hurt until around the end of the century. But there was an explanation of what happened in the past millenniums when there was an increase in greenhouse gases and global average temperatures increased over 15F. In at least 2 cases there was mass extinction. The same was true when greenhouse gases decreased abnormally, except that it led to ice ages, including one where the entire globe was encased in ice. In all cases so far, the changes in carbon dioxide or methane concentrations in the atmosphere were natural. Cold spells are typically due to a change in the ellipticity of the Earth's orbit around the sun. When the orbit is elliptical, ice ages are more apt to occur. We are in an elliptical period right now, but global temperatures are rising. The most reasonable explanation is that greenhouse gases, most notably carbon dioxide, are increasing at a high rate. How do scientists know the concentration of carbon dioxide over the millenniums? They collect ice core samples from Greenland and Antarctica and determine the carbon dioxide concentrations in the ice strata. Maybe we really do need to make an effort to control greenhouse gases.
Oh, yeah. The hook to cars is that we need to drive smaller vehicles more efficiently and find alternate forms of energy for the cars, like electric motors. There is a pilot coal burning plant in Illinois that exhausts it's vapors underground. Maybe that concept will supply clean energy from a traditional source of electricity.
That bit about the Earth being in an elliptical orbit at times is incorrect. Earth is always in an elliptical orbit. In Nothern Hemisphere winter, we are closer to the sun by a few million kilometers, in summer we are farther away. Of course, the Earth also tilts somewhat during it's orbit, too. But these changes occur predictably every year. Also, as for temperature rises, a similar rise in temperature has been found on Mars currently. So unless Martians are driving Ford Excursions over there, something else is at work.
As for the cold periods, astronomers have found a strong correlation with periods of solar inactivity. And what happens on the sun, seems to effect Earth about 2 years later - when there's a rash of sunspots, about 2 years later there's very active Northern Lights. Likewise, when the temperatures were at their recent peak in the 90's, the sun was about 2 years past it's peak of activity, which cycles through every 11 years. Right now, the sun is in a very inactive period, so based on past evidence, I'd suggest there's going to be a slight cooling of the Earth over the next couple years.
Sunspot activity was also mentioned as a contributor to temperature variations. The was a mini-ice age about 180 years ago attributed to extremely low sunspot activity. Not at the time, of course, but solar activity was recorded for many decades before the correlation was seen.
Maybe another way to discuss ellipticity is to say the sometimes the orbit is more elliptical than others. Under current conditions, the scientists who participated in this project said that we should experience a little Earth cooling under current conditions. But there is a sharp increase in temperature instead. This happens to coincide with the proliferation of man in the last 100 years.
NASA says Mars is also heating up at the same rate. Do the Martians also drive fossil fuel burning vehicles? Back in the 70s, the exprts told us Earth was heading into a new ice age and within 50 years we were all going to freeze to death. Is man powerful enough to change climates? Besides, wouldn't it be nice if climate everywhere was like Southern CA?
The basic truths are gradually sinking in and becoming mainstream. Global warming as predicted will not wipe out the human race, it will affect a lot of people in marginal areas, benefit Northern countries, and flood very low lying areas, including New Orleans.
The Dutch are cutting greenhouse gasses and also raising the levels and integrity of their dikes. Louisiana, and US Army Corps of Engineers, please note the reality check.
Rich people who built expensive condos close to the water in Miami will suffer the consequences; insurance companies are already puting clause in their policies.
The catastophic things that happened in the past were random events; lagre number of volcanic eruptions, meteorites hitting the earth, etc. These things are still equally likeky, but we can't influence their occurrence one way or the other.
About 90% of the BENEFITS of global warming will accrue to Russia and Canada. Arctic exploration and oil & gas producton will increase and Northern regions will open up to farming.
Rich people who built expensive condos close to the water in Miami will suffer the consequences; insurance companies are already puting clause in their policies.
No, they have the power, so (middle income) taxpayers and premium payers will continue to foot the bill when the rich people's expensive condos are destroyed -- and are rebuilt in the same place. Once you're rich in America, you'll never suffer any consequences for your stupidity.
"Once you're rich in America, you'll never suffer any consequences for your stupidity."
I don't agree. Donald Trump, for instance, has lost his fortune at least once - all of it. But he know how to earn it back and did so. And remember that there are a lot of poor and middle income people in Miami who will be just as wet as the rich folds in the highrise. Maybe wetter, since they actually live at ground level. If south Florida is inundated by the ocean about 100 years from now, all south Floridians will need help. I hope it doesn't come to that, but it would be even more expensive than New Orleans.
While there is no way in the world I would ever be intelligent enough to speak on this issue in scientific terms I can add a few comments about this issue. My son, who is a degreed meteorologist and a degreed climatologist, translates a lot of this into plain English for me so I feel I probably know more about the issue than the average person on the street.
The majority of people get their "information" on the subject from television and that's the last place to look for the truth about this issue.
Even the way the temperatures are taken is a joke now. Way back when, a thermometer was nailed to a tree in the shade a certain height off the ground and so many meters away from any structure. A man on horseback would make his rounds and note the temp by eyeball from horseback. Now it's become digital and more precise.
Many of the thermometers being used have been "conveniently placed" to produce the desired results. In all seriousness here, one thermometer is placed under the eave of a building directly above a central air unit, another is placed on top of a building next to a roof mounted A/C unit, another is placed next to a couple of junk cars where the thermometer receives reflected light from the windshields, etc. Kind of skews things a bit, huh?
As to CO2, I don't remember the exact stats but several times in the past (millions of years ago) CO2 levels were literally dozens of times higher than they are now. This gets into a discussion of methane, the ocean floor, volcanic action, etc.
Have the temps climbed a bit? Yes, BUT, the swing is completely within the normal temp swings that have always occurred. Temps spike upwards about every 100k years and we're in the top of that spike now. This was occurring long before a single man and his Ford Explorer ever existed.
Even the bit about the Antarctic melting is pure bunk. One part of it is breaking off (isn't that what glaciers are supposed to do?) BUT ice is building elsewhere at the South Pole. Net result, the same or more ice. The ocean is not going to rise and flood anything.
And for what it's worth, one of latest "scientific" articles now state that fat people are contributing to global warming.
It is stated that extra weight is making the car engine work harder, which burns more fuel, which increases global warming.
So if you're not height/weight proportionate then you're part of the alleged problem. This means that every time you drive through the MacDonalds Drive-Thru you're contributing to GW. Don't get mad at me; I did not write the article or agree with it). :-)
(For a real eye opener, I suggest reading Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" about this issue. The story line and characters are fictitious but the scientific references, charts, etc. are all real. It will certainly give you an idea of the game playing behind this issue.)
Mostly people are going to believe what they want to believe, then go out and find anecdotes (or novels) to support it. If anyone is interested in "climate by climate scientists", then I suggest looking at
http://realclimate.org/
Realclimate.org is very pro-man made global warming, one the founders Michael Mann created what has become known as the hockey stick graph. A graph that has been discredited by just about everyone except realclimte.org. When Mann was pressed for his data, he first couldn’t find his data, then he hid data, he refused to show how he came about his data, until the pressure from outside sources became so great that to not release the data was worst then releasing it. After his data was released it was shown he used faulty data. Also Realclimate.org has no problem editing posts on it bbs to suite its needs or make its point or to make the poster look foolish. Not a site I would depend on.
Right now the science is starting to say that CO2 may have, notice I said MAY, have already done all the warming it is capable of.
The reports that the IPCC used weren’t finished when they issued their final report, now that some of them are, some of the studies are showing CO2 has little if no effect on global warming.
Don’t forget the IPCC report wasn’t written by scientists but by politicians who edited the report line by line. The IPCC stated that “"Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter." So let me see, we write the summary first, let a government panel edit it line by line, then make sure the report matches the summary, isn’t that backwards? Shouldn’t you write a report first then make sure the summary matches the report? Oh I forget this is the NEW science, you know where I draw my conclusions first, then make sure the science support my conclusions and disregarded any science that doesn’t match my conclusions.
Have you noticed that most of the IPCC “solutions” to problem don’t address the problem but instead send money from one country to another? How does moving money from one country to another solve global warming? The other solution to global warming would cost billions of dollars per year and lessen global warming so little that we couldn’t measure it.
Then there’s the data that was used a survey of the temperature stations have found many, 50% or more are not set up correctly giving faulty readings.
Also the warming increase in temperature is within the error range +/- of the equipment.
So we have an increase in temperature that’s within the error range of the equipment, a panel that making sure the report matches the summary, no matter what the science says, a plan to lessen global warming by moving money around. Why would I have any doubt that global warming is happening?
For the record, I believe that global warming is happening, and I think I can prove it.
The people interviewed for this show were climatologists for the most part. They did not say that the end was near in human terms, but that we had several decades (up to 100 years or so) to deal with the issue. Maybe you and your son could watch it and see if it makes any sense to you. As to ice melting, there are a number of ways to determine if ice is actually receding. Satellite photos show that the total ice mass in Greenland and the Antarctic is receding, not just in one area. Also, tropical mountains with snow mass are also melting at unprecedented rates. BTW, I agree with you that the fat people article sounds silly. Not all information available is scientifically sound that tries to be.
I have attempted to watch some of these shows and so has my son. About 15 minutes is as much as he can stand.
As to the comment about believing what I want to believe and finding a "novel" to back it up, then melott should re-read my post. I said the storyline is fictional but the scientific references and charts are all fact.
Read the book closely and note how "selective" global warming occurs. It happens in one town but not in another 50 miles away. Go back 50 years in a certain area and you have GW; go back 100 and you don't; go back 150 and you do. Play it any way you want but the unaltered scientific info in that book is from NCAR, NOAA, AMS, etc.
There is no "anecdote" to it.
Of course things are changing; they always have and they always will and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Just a week ago my son was telling me about some recent fossil discoveries in frozen northern Canada. On some obscure island rain forest plant life and reptile fossils were discovered. This is on top of the alligator fossil discovered in the Arctic circle.
If one thinks flooding is something to worry about then do the math. The oceans cover about 140 million square miles. If the entire Arctic and Antarctic ice packs were to melt (totalling about 28 million square miles during their peaks) any ocean rise would be microscopic at best. Remember that the Arctic is mostly sea ice so the volume will shrink. Remember the 10 inches of ice to 1 inch of water ratio?
Throw an ice cube into a 5 gallon bucket of water and see what happens when it melts.
Of course some climatologists are going to go along with this. Funding is very, very sparse in this area and "being normal" is not going to get a guy a grant to study this.
One of my son's professors was one of the lead authors on the U.N. IPCC report and when my son first started in this field he was told "forget everything you've seen or read about GW. It's a poltical issue, NOT an environmental one".
Now this guy's position is that GW is real. What brought on the change of heart? Finally saw the light? Read more data? No, it was probably that 4 + million dollar opportunity he gained by going the other way on the issue.
Someone gives me 4 + million and I'll argue the point that pigs can really fly.
Remember this. Everything that is being said about GW is based on one thing - a computer model. There are a number of computer models so one can pick the one that best fits your beliefs.
I am curious about something I mentioned previously. What are your feeling about the temperature being taken from a thermometer mounted above a central air unit? Do you think that thermometer might read a tad higher than one hanging under a tree branch?
As Hitler's right hand man Joseph Goebbles stated; Make the lie big enough, repeat it often enough, and eventually they will believe it.
Of course some climatologists are going to go along with this. Funding is very, very sparse in this area and "being normal" is not going to get a guy a grant to study this.
One of my son's professors was one of the lead authors on the U.N. IPCC report and when my son first started in this field he was told "forget everything you've seen or read about GW. It's a poltical issue, NOT an environmental one".
Now this guy's position is that GW is real. What brought on the change of heart? Finally saw the light? Read more data? No, it was probably that 4 + million dollar opportunity he gained by going the other way on the issue.
Someone gives me 4 + million and I'll argue the point that pigs can really fly.
You're only looking at this from a US prospective. There are many many studies done on this by other countries. You make the assumption that ALL of these studies have a agenda. Some do you're right...Every single study I ever read that debunked global warming were all funded by the Gas companies. Exxon/Mobil has paid MILLIONS for these studies. But many of these studies are just trying to solve or understand a problem. The people funding the study don't have a vested interest in this at all. I know one study of global warming was financed by the Agriculture industry. They had 0 interest in the cause. They just wanted to know what could be done to help with some of the problems they've been seeing in crop productions.
If one thinks flooding is something to worry about then do the math. The oceans cover about 140 million square miles. If the entire Arctic and Antarctic ice packs were to melt (totalling about 28 million square miles during their peaks) any ocean rise would be microscopic at best. Remember that the Arctic is mostly sea ice so the volume will shrink. Remember the 10 inches of ice to 1 inch of water ratio?
Eh? 10 inches of SNOW melts to 1 inch or so of water. 10 inches of ICE will melt to just under 10 inches of water.
The figures I've seen are that the Antartic and Greenland ice sheets have between them enough water (currently perched above sea level) to raise the oceans by close to 300 feet. That's something to worry about.
The figures you've seen are obviously wrong. That would take a volume of ice over 300 feet tall and equal in surface area to all the oceans in the world. Even assuming their ice sheets are that deep (300+ feet), last time I checked Greenland and Antartica weren't QUITE that big. Remember, too, that it's called "Green"land for a reason. There was a time withing the last 1000 - 1500 years when it wasn't covered with ice, and you could grow grapes there. It's just not a big deal.
Actually, it is a big deal. It's not just Greenland and Antarctica, but all ice everywhere. If all ice and snow melted, then the ocean surface would cover much of south Florida, the Florida Keys, and a lot of the rest of the east and west coasts of North America. As well as the rest of the world. Since most people live near the oceans, the results would be catastrophic.
The Greenland and Antarctic icepacks are several kilometers thick!!! If those melt, together with many glaciers, the oceanlevels will rise significantly!
Greenland and Antarctica have a combined area of 6.01 million square miles (National Geographic Atlas), compared to the oceans with 144 million according to your figures. We won't count the arctic icecap, since its ice floats and will not raise sea levels when it melts!! When the ice cubes in your drink melt, they do not make the booze level go up in your glass.
If we assume an average Ice Pack thickness of about only one MILE (5280 feet), the complete melting of just the Antarctic and Greenland ice packs will raise ocean levels by: 6.01/144 X 5280=220.37 feet. I trust you follow the math.
This will not likley happen, but your "infinitessimal" sound like a wishful gasp that nothing bad will happen.
In reality, that scenario will not likely happen, just 50% or so of the ice packs will melt and raise the ocean levels by ONLY 110 feet. That would still wipe out New Orleans, Miami one half of Vancouver, Canada and a good part of Seattle and its suburbs.
The good thing about all this is that we have time to prepare for it all. There are countries, however, such as Bangladesh, which don't have the money to do anything about it.
OK, I think your son is also selectively feeding you information for whatever reason. I, like you, do not get my information from TV or Al Gore.
My son is an environmental scientist and also doing a Master's Degree in "Sustainable Energy Economics". a course George Bush should take but is probably over his head.
Suggests a good primer on climate change, although it is not easy reading , is "The Weathermaker"s" by Australian Climatologist Tim Flannery. He gives a good explanation of all the various cycles the earth is and was going through. The giste of his book is that at this stage the earth should be going through a natural COOLING CYCLE, rather than warming up.
Agree with other posters that the Antartic and Greenland Icecaps would have to melt to cause real flooding disasters for the human race. A good book on how to cope with Global Warming is "Cool It!" by Bjorn Lomberg.
Russians and Canadians will benefit from Global Warming, so not everyone will suffer.
