Global Warming... is THIS how we'll perish?

[Sandman]

ALBEDO

[Debonair]

From a guy with a lunar 'tard, thats stunningly strong hypocracy

[Angus]

Moondust might be it as well.
Now what's it called? H3? Anyway, not available in any quantity on earth.

And nuclear power? Quite clean.

And the Egyptians? Advancing into the desert, planting and planting. Good thing.

[Angus]

Anyway, here's a nice thing for you:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4315968.stm

[Holden McGroin]

An interesting publication from Kenneth F. Drinkwater,  

Institute of Marine Research and Bjerknes Center for Climate Research, P.O. Box 1870 Nordnes, N-5817 Bergen, Norway

Abstract
During the 1920s and 1930s, there was a dramatic warming of the northern North Atlantic Ocean. Warmer-than-normal sea temperatures, reduced sea ice conditions and enhanced Atlantic inflow in northern regions continued through to the 1950s and 1960s, with the timing of the decline to colder temperatures varying with location. Ecosystem changes associated with the warm period included a general northward movement of fish. Boreal species of fish such as cod, haddock and herring expanded farther north while colder-water species such as capelin and polar cod retreated northward. The maximum recorded movement involved cod, which spread approximately 1200 km northward along West Greenland. Migration patterns of “warmer water” species also changed with earlier arrivals and later departures. New spawning sites were observed farther north for several species or stocks while for others the relative contribution from northern spawning sites increased. Some southern species of fish that were unknown in northern areas prior to the warming event became occasional, and in some cases, frequent visitors. Higher recruitment and growth led to increased biomass of important commercial species such as cod and herring in many regions of the northern North Atlantic. Benthos associated with Atlantic waters spread northward off Western Svalbard and eastward into the eastern Barents Sea. Based on increased phytoplankton and zooplankton production in several areas, it is argued that bottom-up processes were the primary cause of these changes. The warming in the 1920s and 1930s is considered to constitute the most significant regime shift experienced in the North Atlantic in the 20th century.

Link

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Angus

And nuclear power? Quite clean.

Nuclear waste, not so clean.........for a long, long, long time.

And the Egyptians? Advancing into the desert, planting and planting. Good thing. [/B]

[/QUOTE]

Hehe. Yep, we got to get them Egyptians hopping.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Jackal1
Nuclear waste, not so clean.........for a long, long, long time.

Oh bugger. I have to agree with Charlotte. Yes there are problems. I don't know whether it is within man's capability to develop technology to accelerate the decomposition of nuclear waste into harmless non radioactive isotopes. After Chernobyl & TMI, it would be a shame to lose the nuclear opportunity, but clearly it's going to be difficult to sell.

But perhaps less difficult if people living 50 miles inland had seawater lapping at their front doors...

[GtoRA2]

We should all use as much gas as we can.  Well at least until England sinks under the sea.

Then we would at least be rid of the biggest troll on the board and the world that he likes to inflict himself on would be happy.

[Hangtime]

Anybody investing in oceanfront property in Port Salt Lake, Utah, yet?

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by beet1e
But perhaps less difficult if people living 50 miles inland had seawater lapping at their front doors...

I think it would be technically (and perhaps semantically) impossible to be 50 miles inland and yet have the sea lapping at your front door.

[Angus]

Raise the sea level some 100 feet and behold: vast areas of land will disappear. Including most or much of:
Holland, Denmark, Israel (?), ooops... Florida....now going to cities, the best parts of most of the world's harbour cities. NY!, Singapore,Rotterdam, maybe even Hambrg, Hong-Kong......and wheere is London???

100 feet....just that.

[Holden McGroin]

So if the sea level rises 1 mile...  the sea would be lapping at the door of the Colorado state capital... thus 50 miles inland would no longer be in Louisiana or Texas, it would be 50 miles inland from Denver.

Hence 50 miles inland can never be inundated by the sea. (Barring an occasional super tsunami.)

[Rolex]

I've intentionally not responded to your tantrum for solutions, lazs.

The reasons are simple:

1. You don't accept what the scientists are saying unanimously (statistically). The results are in from the call for another decade of data and improved modeling ten years ago. Our course for the next 20 years can't be stopped due to the momemtum of cumulative heating from captured CO2 that was less understood then, and from wind trends that are changing monsoon and tropical storm patterns due to particulate matter in the temperate zone blocking the normal cyclical north-south transitions. The natural cleansing patterns of the atmosphere has been disrupted.

2. Science does advance in knowledge. Saying that our industrial emissions have no effect on climate or nature at this point in time is akin to denying Earth revolves around the sun. Parroting George Will and his layman logic that a single magazine article written 30 years ago (that improperly drew a conclusion) about an ice age is evidence that all the scientists are wrong today is silly.

---------------

Nothing we do now is going to change what we'll see 20 years from now. The question is what broad changes society will have to make to affect what happens after that.

I think you just enjoy being contrary to anything beet1e says. It isn't me writing the peer-reviewed papers. And you haven't read any, have you? And that is the rub.

Did you know that many scientists are downplaying their comments because they don't think the public can handle what the modeling is now showing? They don't want to say it, but the next 20-30 years will be the biggest challenge we have faced as a species.

The most succinct statement is that you only have to be concerned about it if you want to eat. The impact of these changes is less about rising sea levels and more about droughts.

Water changes state at definite pressures and temperatures, and the effect you see happens very quickly. The events of an avalanche happens very quickly. Engines run fine while losing oil, but things go to hell in a handbasket very quickly when the oil is gone.

That is what happens with tipping points. You're driving down the road whistling that everything is fine, but the oil is leaking. Are you going to just take your chances and drive it until it seizes, or stop before you destroy the engine?

[GRUNHERZ]

LAzs I think what Rolex is saying is taht we should stock up on ammo, and soon.

Rolex, can you post a few links to these doom and gloom scenarious. I'm 25yrs old so if true I'm quite curious.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Rolex
That is what happens with tipping points. You're driving down the road whistling that everything is fine, but the oil is leaking. Are you going to just take your chances and drive it until it seizes, or stop before you destroy the engine?

The problem is that no one knows where the tipping point is.  Is is close to 350 ppm? No one one earth can honestly tell you.

We measure CO2 levels against a baseline of 280 ppm, about that which is thought to have existed before we began burning coal.

But before the industrial revolution our ability to directly measure CO2 levels was primative at best.  According to Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski in testimony before the US Senate, measurements taken during the 19th century ranged from 225 to 550 ppm.

The most accepted modern method of meauring ancient levels is in ice cores but Dr ZJ says ice core measurements have varied from 160 to 700 ppm.  CO2 is not completely sequestered in the bubbles frozen in the ice... chemical reactions, although slowed by temperature, continue and measurements become more unreliable the older the bubble.

If the 550 or 700 measurements are correct then we are not close to the tipping point and we could burn all the rest of the oil without problem.

The whole global warming thing is of science being unsure, and saying we shoul err on the side of caution, because we do not know.