Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Saintaw on August 07, 2002, 01:14:35 PM
-
Saw this stuff they did at greanpeace, took pictures at the same spot some pictures were taken some 50 years ago in the Arctic region. Check it out.
Even if it is from greenpeace, it's food for thought, I think. :)
http://www.greenpeace.org/multimedia/slideshow-view?search_string=Search&paused_p=0&slide_no=1&actiontype=top&revision_id=21611
-
I don't argue a warming trend, but....glaciers move. What was farmland a mere 400 years ago is still covered by ice in many places.
-
Last I heard there have been several ice ages and warming trends for the earth. I thought that was the natural progression of things. I guess an environmentalist would conider change a bad thing and we'd all be running from dinosaurs if they had their way.
Perhaps we should also stop trying to cure disease as that is one of the major tools that nature uses to "thin" the population. We don't want to make a virus extict now do we? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :p
-
Check out this guys site as a counter point to the Greenpeace stuff.
http://greenspirit.com
-
Best thing about global warming.
-
Or you can see what our Government is saying: EPA on Global Warming (http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/climate/index.html)
According to the National Academy of Sciences, the Earth's surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century, with accelerated warming during the past two decades. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Human activities have altered the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of greenhouse gases – primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The heat-trapping property of these gases is undisputed although uncertainties exist about exactly how earth’s climate responds to them. Go to the Emissions section for much more on greenhouse gases.
Don't be so quick to stick your head in the sand.
-
LOL, I swear I made the sand comment before reading gofasters post.:D
-
The glaciers ARE melting at an unprecidented rate.
Alaskan glaciers melting rapidly
Last Updated Fri Jul 19 13:07:58 2002
FAIRBANKS, ALASKA - Melting has reduced former mountains of ice in Alaska to relative molehills more quickly than was expected, scientists say.
The researchers used an airborne laser device to survey 67 major glaciers. They found the rate of volume loss has doubled since the early 1990s.
http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?category=Sci-Tech&story=/news/2002/07/19/glaciers020719
You'll need to stick you head a bit further into the sand.
-
MT, is this the only 100 year period in which the surface temperature of the Earth has changed by 1 degree? Is this the hottest the surface temperature has been since life existed on the planet? Since humans existed?
-
Thrawn, how fast did the glaciers from the last ice age melt?
What have been the perceived effects of the Alaskan glaciers melting now?
-
every scientist, and most people, know the Earth has gone through climactic changes including ice ages and hot periods.
Nothing new there
what IS new is the RATE at which this is happening.
I think most people would rather not face it. It's easier to just cruise through life without worrying about it. But at what point does it 'catch' up with us?
Ready for the realities of this in our lifetime ?
---
gofaster,, she's not gonna' be very cute when she's got skin cancer
-
Are you a climatologist? What makes you think your questions are relevant, or have not already been addressed? Are you suggesting that the EPA, NASA and other reputable groups have concluded that there is a human effect on the climate due to greenhouse gases, without asking those same questions?
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Nifty
Thrawn, how fast did the glaciers from the last ice age melt?
What have been the perceived effects of the Alaskan glaciers melting now?
"The findings suggest Alaska's glaciers contribute more to global sea-level rise than estimated – at least 9 per cent during the past century. "
I'm at work right now. I'll try and find an answer to your first question on my next break. If you have the time, feel free to try and find it yourself.
Remember, the surface temperature over the past century has been increasing at a geometric rate.
-
Wlfgng that's why you don't marry her. There will always be more.
-
Where did I ever argue humans right now are not affecting the rate of change?
I'm actually hoping they have asked those questions and you have seen the answers so you could relay the answers, or point out your source. It'd be interesting to see how the 1 degree increase of the past 100 years compares with other 100 years throughout the earth's history. By finding comparable time periods, and examining the changes that happened within those time periods, perhaps someone could extrapolate the effects that the current trend might produce.
wlfgng, you're exactly right. That's why I asked, how does the rate now compare with other rates in the past? MT just told me how much it went up in the past year, not how it compared to the past. I don't know. I asked. What's wrong with asking? Same with Thrawn. Glaciers are melting fast. What's the effect? Rising water levels? Not here in the Gulf of Mexico. Not noticeable at any rate.
-
I would suggest that if data was inconclusive but indicated more study was needed then it would behoove research groups to emphasize the data that pointed to disaster if they wished to recieve a lot of funding. Many people are not only gulible but will search out proof that thier gullability is valid.
lazs
-
wait, 9% over the past century, yet they're talking about melting since the 1990s?
-
"What's wrong with asking? "
Nothing at all, and you are correct. My apologies for jumping to conclusions. I will see what I can find out from here.
-
Originally posted by Wlfgng
gofaster,, she's not gonna' be very cute when she's got skin cancer
That's why she waited until twilight to come out from under that beach cabana. :)
To be honest, you bring up a good point - solar radiation. I'm not as concerned about global warming as I am about the depletion of the ozone layer and the impact of the radiation burns on all living things.
-
Are greenhouse gases increasing?
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).
-
np, MT. It's pretty obvious that humans are affecting the climate in this day and age. What isn't obvious is how that affect relates to previous natural changes. Regardless of the relationship between the current ROC and previous ROCs, humans should be more responsible with the way they interact with the environment. However, we'll forgive Lazs if he wants to have a gas guzzling car. :)
-
Originally posted by Nifty
wait, 9% over the past century, yet they're talking about melting since the 1990s?
Look Nifty, if you really want to find out more about this, and discuss the article I link to , it might help if you actually read it. I'm not going to copy and paste the whole thing piece by piece, when the answers to most of your questions are already there.
Edit: PS, tree rings one way that climatologist find out what the temperature was like in the past.
-
What bothers me is that none of the articles mentions the period of rapid glacial advance ending in the late 19th century, that was also unprecedented. Greenland was not named so to hide the fact it's covered in ice, despite the pop-culture versions.
The glaciers should be receding, how much so is what should be in question.
-
Originally posted by Fatty
What bothers me is that none of the articles mentions the period of rapid glacial advance ending in the late 19th century, that was also unprecedented.
I would really appreciate it if you could post some sources for this information.
-
Life as we know it is over....play AH as much as possible in the interim.
-
Anybody ever think that without global warming, we would still be stuck in the last ice age?
-Abunabi
-
Originally posted by jdm3
Anybody ever think that without global warming, we would still be stuck in the last ice age?
-Abunabi
When was the last iceage? What was the average surface temp then. How many millenia did it take for it to get to this surface temp now?
-
Thrawn, search "little ice age", that's the most popular name for it. Starting period seems to be debated from 14th to 17th centuries, but people seem to agree steam picked up in the 17th and ended in the 19th (could the industrial pollution have saved us from a major ice age? I would find that indeed amusing).
The university of glasgow has an interesting article on the Breidamerkurjökull glacier at present levels still being 20km past what used to be farmland.
http://www.gla.ac.uk/publications/leadingedge/7/2.html
-
Originally posted by Fatty
What bothers me is that none of the articles mentions the period of rapid glacial advance ending in the late 19th century, that was also unprecedented. Greenland was not named so to hide the fact it's covered in ice, despite the pop-culture versions.
The glaciers should be receding, how much so is what should be in question.
"Miller's study has revealed, for example, that the Lemon Creek Glacier has receded substantially since 1759. It has also revealed that the Lemon Creek Glacier's surface has dropped overall by about 82 feet from 1953 to 1999. In 1996 and 1997, no new snow was retained on its surface."
http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/052701/Ins_globalwarming.html
-
That's a perfect example, Thrawn. Did you wonder why he starts in 1759? Could this perhaps have something to do with it?
The Little Ice age reached its maximum extent here about 1750, when general melting began.
That's just the background info on glacier bay Alaska, from the national parks service.
http://www.aqd.nps.gov/grd/parks/glba/
-
"In climate science, snow and ice record a continuous history of climate, with annual 'rings', in Greenland, Antarctica and even the Andes. Ice cores drilled through the 3 km of ice in Greenland give 120,000 years of information: temperature, volcanic dust, pollen, blown topsoil and...what is most miraculous...air bubbles. The air bubbles encapsualate ancient atmospheres... a whiff of the ancient world."
http://www.ocean.washington.edu/courses/envir202/air-essays.html
-
"This advance in no way approached the extent of continental glaciation during Pleistocene time. The Little Ice age reached its maximum extent here about 1750, when general melting began. Today's advance or retreat of a glacier snout reflects many factors:"
I guess a good question to ask would be, "Is the current rate of glacial recession and thinning, at a rate we would expect coming out of the 'Little Ice Age'?"
Thanks for the link Fatty. Some good leads there.
-
No, no, no, NO!
We're all gonna die. WE'RE all gonna DIE! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!
..... Oh, wait... of course we are. We all knew that, right?
;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
No, no, no, NO!
We're all gonna die. WE'RE all gonna DIE! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!
..... Oh, wait... of course we are. We all knew that, right?
;)
I'm just trying to get the best information, so me and my family aren't stuck with our pants down if worse comes to worse.
Do you wear a seat belt when you drive?
-
Like I said I tend to agree they probably are receding too rapidly, but articles that refuse to acknowledge the recent advancement leading into the decline I have no choice but to treat as suspect. The same as I do those that try to write it all off as a natural cycle ignoring man-made contributions.
-
Yes, I do. But car accidents happen in mere moments, not centuries.
You may be a young whippersnapper but the sand in my glass is relatively low. Odds of anything changing disasterously in the next 20-30 years are about the same as me winning the lotto I think.
If you shut off all the "Bad" things man is doing that may be changing our climate it might make a difference...... in a hundred years or so. What else will technology bring to counter the problem by then?
OTOH, as has been pointed out, there have been many periods of cooling and heating of our environment, long before the arrival of man and during his spread across the planet; odds are that will continue. Man may not be the key player; a factor, yes but the ultimate force? I'm thinking not.
Is it possible that we'll have another Ice Age even with all the "global warming" effects that are exclusively caused by man? Who can say? But who can totally rule it out?
I'm all for "green" but there is also reality to face. We're not going to go back and live like Cro-Magnons. Heck, the smoke from that many campfires would probably be worse than what we have now.. not to mention the total denuding of Earth's forests to feed the fires.
;)
-
Fatty.. damn good point. it's why I'm still single :)
as for global warming.
who was around during the last ice-age or warming to tell us what it was really like ?
Keith Richards that's who !
and how do you know he's still alive and not some animatron ?
-
Toad and Fatty. I agree with most of what you guys are saying. I wouldn't expect humanity to change, even if all the climatologist could agree on global warming and it's effects.
I'm keeping my eye on it, so I know when to by a shot gun, to keep the killer ozone mutants of me land.
Seriously though, I think that the possibility of global warming turning into a really really bad situation in my life time, is high enough that I try to get more info about it, and keep my eye on it. If I find anything, I consider significant, I share it with this board
Speaking of fishing..:D
Landlocked char suggest climate change
Last Updated Tue Aug 6 12:09:48 2002
IQALUIT - Shrinking populations of landlocked Arctic char in the Far North may show how the climate is warming, an Austrian scientist says.
http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?category=Sci-Tech&story=/news/2002/08/06/char_020806
-
How long ago was the last ice age? How long before that was the warming period? Exactly how were the thermometers of those periods calibrated and who took the day to day, or even year to year measurements as well as monitor the weather patterns? I think you will find the answer is no one did. I find the claim of an accelerated rate of temperature increase to be highly suspect and rather subjective at best.
Just my opinion on this subject.
-
In the sixties when the scientists were pushing for the "ice age in the year 2000" I am sure that their data was pretty inconclusive but I am also sure that by all the hand wringing and empahsizing of the worst data they all got big fat grants to research the certain ice age that was coming.
I agree that we should be responsible if for nothing else but to improve quality of life in areas that have poor circulation... The problem comes when we give government any money for anything. I can't think of one single thing that they do well or even... not horribly.
lazs
-
How about getting the answer to the following questions before we start drawing any conclusions:
1. Would a global rise of only one degree fahrenheit cause glaciers to start melting exponentially?
2. Would the exponential rate of melt be caused by the decreasing size of the glaciers? In other words, would the rate at which they melt accelerate as they lost mass?
3. Since ozone is produced by natural processes, such as lightning and plant life, could ways be found to produce it?
4. Are you willing to live in a home of no more than 2000 square feet of floor space in order to conserve our forests?
5. Has the hole in the ozone layer in the southern hemisphere begun to decrease? I heard a report on Paul Harvey's broadcast that satellite imagery has shown that it shrank by about 1,000,000 square miles. Is this true?
6. Since the hole in the ozone is commonly blamed on chloro-fluorocarbons, which are produced by natural processes (volcanic eruptions), as well as by industrial activity, how big a percentage of the CFC's in the atmosphere can be attributed to humans?
7. Mount St. Helens' eruption was the largest volcanic event in the 20th century. Since it happened in the recent past, could it have had an effect on the exponential raising of the temperature we have seen in the last 10 years? How many CFC's did that event produce, if any?
8. Given that many of the greenhouse gases are produced by internal-combustion engines, and that so much of our economy depends on the automobile, what practical alternatives are there to replace them? Despite 30 years or more of research, electric cars remain impractical, and the electricity to recharge them must be produced in generating plants that raise other environmental concerns. Wind generators are not practical for large-scale production of power. And apparently the rotating blades kill large-numbers of birds. What answers can you offer?
Regards, Shuckins
-
1. yes (research done)
2. guessing yes
3. we can already do that (I do it all the time in my home even)
4. no
dunno about the middle stuff. ask a climatologist
8. electric cars are not 'feasible' or 'practical' because the oil companies don't want them to be. In fact, I'm sure they are but until we bury the oil execs forget it.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
How about getting the answer to the following questions before we start drawing any conclusions:
7. Mount St. Helens' eruption was the largest volcanic event in the 20th century. Since it happened in the recent past, could it have had an effect on the exponential raising of the temperature we have seen in the last 10 years? How many CFC's did that event produce, if any?
Regards, Shuckins
This didn't sound right to me so I looked it up... I know, I'm kinda anal that way.
What was the largest volcanic eruption in the 20th century?"
The largest eruption in the world this century occurred in 1912 at Novarupta on the Alaska Peninsula. An estimated 15 cubic kilometers of magma was explosively erupted during 60 hours beginning on June 6 -- (which is equivalent to 230 years of eruption at Kilauea (Hawaii) or, about 30 times the volume erupted by Mount St. Helens (Washington) in 1980.) -- From: Wright and Pierson, 1992, USGS Circular 1073, and Brantley, 1994, Volcanoes of the United States: USGS General Interest Publication. )
-
Originally posted by Maverick
How long ago was the last ice age? How long before that was the warming period? Exactly how were the thermometers of those periods calibrated and who took the day to day, or even year to year measurements as well as monitor the weather patterns? I think you will find the answer is no one did. I find the claim of an accelerated rate of temperature increase to be highly suspect and rather subjective at best.
Just my opinion on this subject.
Sure, but do you honestly think it is an informed opinion? Or just a guess?
-
Or we could just go here (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=59717) and read the same debate from last month with no new information. :D
hope this works.
-
Midnight,
So I stand corrected. Mount St. Helens was the second largest volcanic event of the 20th century.
The main question remains; What effect has this event had on the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and global warming? Most of the exponential temperature increase being discussed so breathlessly in some of these posts has taken place in the last two decades.
Let's not start pulling our hair out until we can accurately quantify all of the factors involved. All that most scientists can agree on is that human activity is having some impact on global warming. What they cannot agree on is how large that impact is.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Ohh I'm sure all the tree huggers are right. I'm sure that all those academic weenies who would do anything to get another research grant and avoid actually having to go out into industry to get a job wouldn't over exagerate a problem. I'm sure public scare tactics have never been used to attain political goals.
But I'm old enough to remember a lot of the same "scientists" telling us we might be entering a new ice age. Remember? Mid-70's? I remember that scaring the crap out of me as a kid. I even saw a rerun the other day of that old show "in Search Of" where they were talking about that theory and showing paintings of glaciers plowing down Manhatten in the year 2000. I was laughing my bellybutton off.
Who's right? I dunno. I do know its prolly easier to milk off some juicy goverment research dollars when you can get a nice froth of fear and dread whipped up in the voting public.
Regards,
Wab
-
good point.
I have to add that if we always wait until scientists 'know' what's going on it'll be too late. Good or bad.
But the thing is that we'll probably never know in our lifetimes.
-
It's not a good point at all.
Cripes, if you want to go with such a falacious agruement. Why not go with this one. Who has more to lose and is more concerned about their financial situation. Scientists or energy companies.
Wabbit, that is one sad assed conspiracy theory.
-
Really, research aside, why the fight against this notion? It is pretty clear that things are warming up, and that humans have had "some" effect.
Whether you have trust in the research that has been done to this point or not the above is pretty indesputable fact. We have groups like the EPA, NASA and NOAA saying that this issue is real. These aren't environmental wackos!
Scientists who fudge the numbers and establish theories that don't stand up to scrutiny following publication have much less chance of keeping their job. These NASA, EPA and NOAA guys probably want to keep working. Publishing bugus theories won't help.
So lets assume that the threat is real and it will affect future generations. Now what?
I think we should care even if its just our Grandchildren we will be assisting.