Sea levels may drop with global warming - press clips

[lawrocket 3]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20050629/sc_space/globalwarmingmightcreatelopsidedplanet

Apparently, new reasearch suggests that global warming may thicken the ice in the Antarctic while melting ice in the Arctic. Considering that the Antarctic ice is sitting on land, while the Arctic ice is floating, does that mean that more of the seawater will be deposited in Antarctica, thus lowering the sea level? Does this mean that populations will nto be displaced because they are low lying?

Does this mean that people will have more space to live in, and that global cooling may be fought in the coming decades or centuries due to the deadly effect that the rising sea level will cause?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[feuergnom 29]

Quote

A new study illustrates the difficulty in predicting how the planet might react to overall warming,

guess that says it all - something is happening and scientists have no clue what the outcome will be. guess we'll have live up to it to see for ourselves (if we live long enough)

The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle

dudeist skydiver # 666

[kelpdiver 2]

Bear in mind that this guy's results are based on modeling, not on actual observation. Given the real evidence of ice flats breaking up down there, it's a bit early to put all that much stock in this guy's dissertation.

[bodypilot90 0]

what global warming?

[billvon 3,132]

>what global warming?

I see you haven't been to Alaska lately.

[bodypilot90 0]

just a weather cycle

[narcimund 0]

Quote

just a weather cycle

It's so cute to when they put their heads in the sand. It reminds me of:

Quote

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.". . . Susan B. Anthony

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[billvon 3,132]

>just a weather cycle

For 30 years?

There are five stages of denial:

1. There's no such thing as climate change!
2. OK, so maybe there is, but it's minor, and has nothing to do with us.
3. So the climate is changing significantly. It is certainly not caused by humans; it's probably a natural cycle.
4. OK, maybe we had _something_ to do with it, but it might be good in the long run. Warm is good, right?
5. So it's bad news. No one could have possibly predicted it would be, though, so it's not our fault.

I take it you're still at stage 2.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>just a weather cycle

For 30 years?

geological cycles do run much longer than that. 30 years is but an hour.

[billvon 3,132]

>geological cycles do run much longer than that.

Geological cycles, yes. Geological cycles are driven by changes in insolation, greenhouse gas changes and cloud cover, which in turn are driven by vulcanism, meteor impacts, solar variability and (now) greenhouse gas emissions.

Normally such cycles take tens of thousands of years. We're pushing this one through in a few decades. Sure, in 30,000 years, we might have this sort of climate change anyway. Making it happen in 100 is not smart.

[bodypilot90 0]

30 years is just a nats fart in earth time.

[billvon 3,132]

>30 years is just a nats fart in earth time.

So is the whole history of the US. So is all of recorded history. Does that mean that it doesn't matter?

The issue here is - do we _want_ to change the climate like this within the next 100 years, even though it would have changed in the next 50,000 anyway?

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

The issue here is - do we _want_ to change the climate like this within the next 100 years, even though it would have changed in the next 50,000 anyway?

no the issue is have_we_changed. I think not

[billvon 3,132]

>no the issue is have_we_changed. I think not

Tons of CO2 we put in the atmosphere every year from fossil fuels alone: 6.4 billion tons (that's 6,400,000,000 tons)

CO2 PPM in the atmosphere in 1900:295ppm
CO2 PPM in 1958:315ppm
CO2 PPM in 2004: 376ppm

Increase in CO2 in 100 years: 28%

[SkydivingNurse 0]

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7607
Best part is the first line: Global warming looks set to be much worse than previously forecast, according to new research. Ironically, the crucial evidence is how little warming there has been so far.

Oh and BTW, the number I saw on the USGS site says that we put close to 22 billion tons of CO2 into the environment every year from combined sources.
Venus is chock full of CO2, doesn't seem like a nice place to live, so I'm all for alternative energy sources. Too bad I can't afford cool stuff like solar panels for my home.

[billvon 3,132]

>the number I saw on the USGS site says that we put close to 22
> billion tons of CO2 into the environment every year from combined
> sources.

Yep, that includes landfills, livestock, deforestation (burning forests) and loss of CO2 sinks (i.e. cutting down forests.)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Venus is chock full of CO2, doesn't seem like a nice place to live,

I fully agree, let's stay at this distance from the Sun for now. The hell with all those - "Move the Earth" extremists and their cushy sponsors and lobbying. They need to be stopped.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[StreetScooby 5]

Check this website out:

http://www.iceagenow.com/Ocean_Warming.htm

To make a long story short (...if I can):

Our solar system rotates around a black hole. It's not a circular orbit, and "flexes" over time. As the orbit becomes elliptical, the centrifugal force exerted at the apex becomes significant, causing magma to break through the earth's crust. Thus, more volcanic activity, especially under the sea.

More volcanic activity in the sea means more water vapor in the atmosphere, which should lead to an overall _cooling_ of the atmosphere.

Just something else to consider. If it is indeed volcanic activity, mankind can't come close to producing that level of change.

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

From the aforementioned website:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon dioxide

On a related subject, let me ask you. If today's rising carbon dioxide are caused by humans, then what caused the dramatic rise in CO2 levels at the dinosaur extinction?

Research shows that there was "a sudden and dramatic rise" in carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere at the dinosaur extinction of 65 million years ago. A recent report attributes the rise in CO2 levels to an asteroid impact. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2038599.stm

I disagree. I think today's rise in CO2 levels can be attributed to our warming oceans. After all, the oceans are known as a carbon dioxide "sink," especially when the water is cold.

But as the water warms up, it releases CO2 into the atmosphere. This happens in much the same way that a warm bottle of home-brewed root beer will release CO2. And if you give that CO2 no way to escape, the bottle will explode.

We've got it backwards. We've got cause and effect in reverse.

The CO2 is not causing global warming. Instead, our warming oceans are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.

It's not global warming, it's ocean warming, and it's leading us into an ice age.

We are all engines of karma

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

More volcanic activity in the sea means more water vapor in the atmosphere, which should lead to an overall _cooling_ of the atmosphere.

Like Venus?!

[StreetScooby 5]

Never been to Venus... BTW, this isn't my opinion. Just another view "out there".

We are all engines of karma

[billbooth 10]

CO2 is only a very minor greenhouse gas. So adding to it has only a very minor efect. The most important greenhouse gas (95%) is water vapor, which is conveniently left out of the socialist (environmentalist) calculations. Water vapor, by the way, is over 99% "nature made" and therefore beyond the control of man. I can remember in the 50's when they were ranting about "Global Cooling" and the impending ice age. I guess that didn't generate enough revenue, so the "man made global warming" myth was tried. Apparently, it has been much more successful at bringing in the dollars.

[billvon 3,132]

>CO2 is only a very minor greenhouse gas. So adding to it has
>only a very minor efect.

Not true. A pound of CO2 captures much more heat as a greenhouse gas than a pound of water vapor. Water vapor is certainly more prevalent than CO2, and thus plays a larger role in climate overall. However:

1. There is a natural and very rapid cycling of water vapor in the atmosphere. Once you put CO2 in the atmosphere it's there for decades; the sequestration mechanisms (i.e. things that suck it out of the air) are a lot smaller and slower to adapt than with water vapor.

2. Water vapor is self-regulating in terms of temperature; CO2 isn't. If it gets hot over an ocean, that water vapor forms clouds, and those clouds _reflect_, rather than trap, heat. If it gets hot over a desert, the CO2 stays right there, increasing the heat load.

CO2 forcing due purely to anthropogenic (i.e. human) emissions comes to about 1 watt per square meter. That's about .3% of the overall heat the earth gets, and it's growing. It doesn't seem like much, but that number is growing rapidly, and is already having an effect on overall global temperatures.

[billbooth 10]

Bill,

Read this website and see what you think. It made a lot of sense to me.

Bill

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

[blueskyserenity 0]

clicky

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

I like coconuts. You can break them open and they smell like ladies lying in the sun!