Global Warming Discussion

[spoc22]

bump

[StormJr]

Originally Posted by spoc22

Let me ask a question. Just for the purposes of discussion, let's say the earth was cooling at a dangerously rapid rate and we needed to reverse that or life, as we know it, would come to an end. How would we go about "warming" the Earth?

LMAO...no kidding. Uh...maybe really big heaters?

[hork]

monthly meetings of the RNC and the DNC held at different locations across the globe each month. that should be enough hot air to warm up even the deepest freeze

[StormJr]

[StockTrader]

If 2 inches of snow in April is GW, I could get used to it

Nick

PS - My grandpa used to bet my mom [obviously when she was younger] that it would snow in April ... she finally decided not to bet against him.

[StormJr]

Originally Posted by StockTrader

PS - My grandpa used to bet my mom [obviously when she was younger] that it would snow in April ... she finally decided not to bet against him.

good thing

Here is something interesting out of Marquette:

NWS Marquette Snowiest Aprils

    1          43.4      1996
    2          34.3      2007 (through April 5)
    3          29.4      1977
    4          29.2      1982
    5          29.1      1993
    6          24.4      1972
    7          23.2      1974
    8          22.5      2003
    9          20.2      1983
  10          18.1      1985

Notice the 34.3" of snow through the 5th this year ranks as the 2nd snowiest April on record....THROUGH THE 5TH. They've probably gotten an additional 4"-8" today, with another 6"-12" tonight through Monday morning. Not only that, but the latest long range computer models depict 3-4 more full-latitude storms to affect the U.P. in the next 15 days. LMAO!! Welcome to April!

[spoc22]

Originally Posted by StormJr

good thing

Here is something interesting out of Marquette:

NWS Marquette Snowiest Aprils

    1          43.4      1996
    2          34.3      2007 (through April 5)
    3          29.4      1977
    4          29.2      1982
    5          29.1      1993
    6          24.4      1972
    7          23.2      1974
    8          22.5      2003
    9          20.2      1983
  10          18.1      1985

Notice the 34.3" of snow through the 5th this year ranks as the 2nd snowiest April on record....THROUGH THE 5TH. They've probably gotten an additional 4"-8" today, with another 6"-12" tonight through Monday morning. Not only that, but the latest long range computer models depict 3-4 more full-latitude storms to affect the U.P. in the next 15 days. LMAO!! Welcome to April!

hmmmm, all top 10 snowiest winters are in the last 35 years. Must be all that gloal warming I'm hearing about.

[P562045]

I was watching a repeat of Al Gore on Oprah. I am sure it was from around the time when Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth came out.

No I did not watch the whole thing.

He was showing these photos that he claims shows the clear effects of global warming.

If a person watches very carefully many of the photos were along coastlines. There is beach erosion along coasts is there not? So why would coastlines that are made of ice be any different than a coastline made of sand? I would think the long term effects of water bumping up against anything would make it erode eventually over time.

Then another group of photos was a group of mountains. Al Gore claimed it was not a seasonal thing. But he did not show the same mountains over at least two different seasons. I think we could make an educated guess of why.

[P562045]

I don't remember the time of year this happens but it is mentioned at least in passing each year. They show photos and even sometimes video of one of the polar caps melting.

They always forget to mention though the simple fact that when this happens is when the sun is closest point during the year.

Some of this is common sense sometimes. I am quite surprised that ice would melt at a faster rate when the sun is at its closest point and melts at much slower rate the farther away the sun is to where the ice is. Imagine that.

[rich76]

MYTH: The science of global warming is too uncertain to act on.

FACT: There is no debate among scientists about the basic facts of global warming.

The most respected scientific bodies have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and people are causing it by burning fossil fuels (like coal, oil and natural gas) and cutting down forests. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which in 2005 the White House called "the gold standard of objective scientific assessment," issued a joint statement with 10 other National Academies of Science saying "the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions." (Joint Statement of Science Academies: Global Response to Climate Change [PDF], 2005)

The only debate in the science community about global warming is about how much and how fast warming will continue as a result of heat-trapping emissions. Scientists have given a clear warning about global warming, and we have more than enough facts — about causes and fixes — to implement solutions right now.

MYTH: Even if global warming is a problem, addressing it will hurt American industry and workers.

FACT: A well designed trading program will harness American ingenuity to decrease heat-trapping pollution cost-effectively, jumpstarting a new carbon economy.

Claims that fighting global warming will cripple the economy and cost hundreds of thousands of jobs are unfounded. In fact, companies that are already reducing their heat-trapping emissions have discovered that cutting pollution can save money. The cost of a comprehensive national greenhouse gas reduction program will depend on the precise emissions targets, the timing for the reductions and the means of implementation. An independent MIT study found that a modest cap-and-trade system would cost less than $20 per household annually and have no negative impact on employment.

Experience has shown that properly designed emissions trading programs can reduce compliance costs significantly compared with other regulatory approaches. For example, the U.S. acid rain program reduced sulfur dioxide emissions by more than 30 percent from 1990 levels and cost industry a fraction of what the government originally estimated, according to EPA. Furthermore, a mandatory cap on emissions could spur technological innovation that could create jobs and wealth. Letting global warming continue until we are forced to address it on an emergency basis could disrupt and severely damage our economy. It is far wiser and more cost-effective to act now.

MYTH: Water vapor is the most important, abundant greenhouse gas. So if we’re going to control a greenhouse gas, why don’t we control it instead of carbon dioxide (CO2)?

FACT: Although water vapor traps more heat than CO2, because of the relationships among CO2, water vapor and climate, to fight global warming nations must focus on controlling CO2.

Atmospheric levels of CO2 are determined by how much coal, natural gas and oil we burn and how many trees we cut down, as well as by natural processes like plant growth. Atmospheric levels of water vapor, on the other hand, cannot be directly controlled by people; rather, they are determined by temperatures. The warmer the atmosphere, the more water vapor it can hold. As a result, water vapor is part of an amplifying effect. Greenhouse gases like CO2 warm the air, which in turn adds to the stock of water vapor, which in turn traps more heat and accelerates warming. Scientists know this because of satellite measurements documenting a rise in water vapor concentrations as the globe has warmed.

The best way to lower temperature and thus reduce water vapor levels is to reduce CO2 emissions.

MYTH: Global warming and extra CO2 will actually be beneficial — they reduce cold-related deaths and stimulate crop growth.

FACT: Any beneficial effects will be far outweighed by damage and disruption.

Even a warming in just the middle range of scientific projections would have devastating impacts on many sectors of the economy. Rising seas would inundate coastal communities, contaminate water supplies with salt and increase the risk of flooding by storm surge, affecting tens of millions of people globally. Moreover, extreme weather events, including heat waves, droughts and floods, are predicted to increase in frequency and intensity, causing loss of lives and property and throwing agriculture into turmoil.

Even though higher levels of CO2 can act as a plant fertilizer under some conditions, scientists now think that the "CO2 fertilization" effect on crops has been overstated; in natural ecosystems, the fertilization effect can diminish after a few years as plants acclimate. Furthermore, increased CO2 may benefit undesirable, weedy species more than desirable species.

Higher levels of CO2 have already caused ocean acidification, and scientists are warning of potentially devastating effects on marine life and fisheries. Moreover, higher levels of regional ozone (smog), a result of warmer temperatures, could worsen respiratory illnesses. Less developed countries and natural ecosystems may not have the capacity to adapt.

The notion that there will be regional “winners” and “losers” in global warming is based on a world-view from the 1950’s. We live in a global community. Never mind the moral implications — when an environmental catastrophe creates millions of refugees half-way around the world, Americans are affected.

MYTH: Global warming is just part of a natural cycle. The Arctic has warmed up in the past.

FACT: The global warming we are experiencing is not natural. People are causing it.

People are causing global warming by burning fossil fuels (like oil, coal and natural gas) and cutting down forests. Scientists have shown that these activities are pumping far more CO2 into the atmosphere than was ever released in hundreds of thousands of years. This buildup of CO2 is the biggest cause of global warming. Since 1895, scientists have known that CO2 and other greenhouse gases trap heat and warm the earth. As the warming has intensified over the past three decades, scientific scrutiny has increased along with it. Scientists have considered and ruled out other, natural explanations such as sunlight, volcanic eruptions and cosmic rays. (IPCC 2001)

Though natural amounts of CO2 have varied from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm), today's CO2 levels are around 380 ppm. That's 25% more than the highest natural levels over the past 650,000 years. Increased CO2 levels have contributed to periods of higher average temperatures throughout that long record. (Boden, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center)

As for previous Arctic warming, it is true that there were stretches of warm periods over the Arctic earlier in the 20th century. The limited records available for that time period indicate that the warmth did not affect as many areas or persist from year to year as much as the current warmth. But that episode, however warm it was, is not relevant to the issue at hand. Why? For one, a brief regional trend does not discount a longer global phenomenon.

We know that the planet has been warming over the past several decades and Arctic ice has been melting persistently. And unlike the earlier periods of Arctic warmth, there is no expectation that the current upward trend in Arctic temperatures will reverse; the rising concentrations of greenhouse gases will prevent that from happening.

MYTH: We can adapt to climate change — civilization has survived droughts and temperature shifts before.

FACT: Although humans as a whole have survived the vagaries of drought, stretches of warmth and cold and more, entire societies have collapsed from dramatic climatic shifts.

The current warming of our climate will bring major hardships and economic dislocations — untold human suffering, especially for our children and grandchildren. We are already seeing significant costs from today's global warming which is caused by greenhouse gas pollution. Climate has changed in the past and human societies have survived, but today six billion people depend on interconnected ecosystems and complex technological infrastructure.

What's more, unless we limit the amount of heat-trapping gases we are putting into the atmosphere, we will face a warming trend unseen since human civilization began 10,000 years ago. (IPCC 2001)

The consequences of continued warming at current rates are likely to be dire. Many densely populated areas, such as low-lying coastal regions, are highly vulnerable to climate shifts. A middle-of-the-range projection is that the homes of 13 to 88 million people around the world would be flooded by the sea each year in the 2080s. Poorer countries and small island nations will have the hardest time adapting. (McLean et al. 2001)

In what appears to be the first forced move resulting from climate change, 100 residents of Tegua island in the Pacific Ocean were evacuated by the government because rising sea levels were flooding their island. Some 2,000 other islanders plan a similar move to escape rising waters. In the United States, the village of Shishmaref in Alaska, which has been inhabited for 400 years, is collapsing from melting permafrost. Relocation plans are in the works.

Scarcity of water and food could lead to major conflicts with broad ripple effects throughout the globe. Even if people find a way to adapt, the wildlife and plants on which we depend may be unable to adapt to rapid climate change. While the world itself will not end, the world as we know it may disappear.

MYTH: Recent cold winters and cool summers don’t feel like global warming to me.

FACT: While different pockets of the country have experienced some cold winters here and there, the overall trend is warmer winters.

Measurements show that over the last century the Earth’s climate has warmed overall, in all seasons, and in most regions. Climate skeptics mislead the public when they claim that the winter of 2003–2004 was the coldest ever in the northeastern United States. That winter was only the 33rd coldest in the region since records began in 1896. Furthermore, a single year of cold weather in one region of the globe is not an indication of a trend in the global climate, which refers to a long-term average over the entire planet.

MYTH: Global warming can’t be happening because some glaciers and ice sheets are growing, not shrinking.

FACT: In most parts of the world, the retreat of glaciers has been dramatic. The best available scientific data indicate that Greenland's massive ice sheet is shrinking.

Between 1961 and 1997, the world’s glaciers lost 890 cubic miles of ice. The consensus among scientists is that rising air temperatures are the most important factor behind the retreat of glaciers on a global scale over long time periods. Some glaciers in western Norway, Iceland and New Zealand have been expanding during the past few decades. That expansion is a result of regional increases in storm frequency and snowfall rather than colder temperatures — not at all incompatible with a global warming trend.

In Greenland, a NASA satellite that can measure the ice mass over the whole continent has found that although there is variation from month to month, over the longer term, the ice is disappearing. In fact, there are worrisome signs that melting is accelerating: glaciers are moving into the ocean twice as fast as a decade ago, and, over time, more and more glaciers have started to accelerate. What is most alarming is the prediction, based on model calculations and historical evidence, that an approximately 5.4 degree Fahrenheit increase in local Greenland temperatures will lead to irreversible meltdown and a sea-level rise of over 20 feet. Since the Arctic is warming 2-3 times faster than the global average, this tipping point is not far away.

The only study that has shown increasing ice mass in Greenland only looked at the interior of the ice sheet, not at the edges where melting occurs. This is actually in line with climate model predictions that global warming would lead to a short-term accumulation of ice in the cold interior due to heavier snowfall. (Similarly, scientists have predicted that Antarctica overall will gain ice in the near future due to heavier snowfall.) The scientists who published the study were careful to point out that their results should not be used to conclude that Greenland's ice mass as a whole is growing. In addition, their data suggested that the accumulation of snow in the middle of the continent is likely to decrease over time as global warming continues.

MYTH: Accurate weather predictions a few days in advance are hard to come by. Why on earth should we have confidence in climate projections decades from now?

FACT: Climate prediction is fundamentally different from weather prediction, just as climate is different from weather.

It is often more difficult to make an accurate weather forecast than a climate prediction. The accuracy of weather forecasting is critically dependent upon being able to exactly and comprehensively characterize the present state of the global atmosphere. Climate prediction relies on other, longer ranging factors. For instance, we might not know if it will be below freezing on a specific December day in New England, but we know from our understanding of the region's climate that the temperatures during the month will generally be low. Similarly, climate tells us that Seattle and London tend to be rainy, Florida and southern California are usually warm, and the Southwest is often dry and hot.

Today’s climate models can now reproduce the observed global average climates over the past century and beyond. Such findings have reinforced scientist’s confidence in the capacity of models to produce reliable projections of future climate. Current climate assessments typically consider the results from a range of models and scenarios for future heat-trapping emissions in order to identify the most likely range for future climatic change.

MYTH: As the ozone hole shrinks, global warming will no longer be a problem.

FACT: Global warming and the ozone hole are two different problems.

The ozone hole is a thinning of the stratosphere's ozone layer, which is roughly 9 to 31 miles above the earth's surface. The depletion of the ozone is due to man-made chemicals like chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). A thinner ozone layer lets more harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation to reach the earth's surface.

Global warming, on the other hand, is the increase in the earth's average temperature due to the buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from human activities

[P562045]

The mountains one is a good example. So I guess in the summertime ski resorts don't have to make some extra snow somehow in Colorado during the summertime? Why would the ski resorts have to do this in the first place. I guess the snow must not melt and there is the exact same amount of natural snow in Vail in August as there is in December.

Now if we could just get nature to do what we wanted. But there is just one little problem with that. If we try something how are we supposed to know that there are not unintended consequences before we start doing something whatever that is?

[-mmm-]

Snowfall is from weather, which as its put in Rich's post far better than I could put it, is different than climate.

To give a couple of different examples of climate effect on mountains, the glaciers at both the top of Mount Kilamanjaro in Africa and the glaciers at Glacier National Park in Montana are all but gone. Last I read both were at or under 10% what they were a century ago. And most people tend to agree that the climate a century ago is pretty temperate or moderate, especially when compared to historical contexts like the last time we had a comparable warming era (ca. 1000AD) or a mini ice age (ca. 1200-1400AD).

And check out this graph.

If no one sees a problem with that given where current CO2 levels are, Im not sure what to say.

[P562045]

Gargantuan sugar and other agricultural interests in Florida such as big oranges did not want their crop to be harmed by the dangerously high water levels in nearby Lake Okeechobee. So these very powerful agricultural industries got the state South Florida Water Management District to remove some of the water from Lake Okeechobee at great cost. Since this has happened there has been a drought around the area of Lake Okeechobee.

So Big sugar and oranges now wants the South Florida Water Management District to spend a bunch more money to get water back into Lake Okeechobee. You may asking the question why would they want that. Part of the water in Lake Okeechobee is used for irrigation purposes for these various agricultural industries.

Now I can't find the exact story that talks about this but you get the basic parts of the story.

But the story does not end by just putting water back into Lake Okeechobee. People are now up in arms because big agriculture wants water back in the lake no matter what.

Story about farmers wanting water back into Lake Okeechobee no matter what

One of the proposals was pumping farm runoff water back into the lake. There is only one little problem. There is no way to make sure that harmful pollutants don't get into the lake by using this method. The South Florida Water Management District rejected this proposal though.

Story Here

Would this story just end. No there are several other aspects of this story. If the water in Lake Okeechobee does not rise soon these agricultural industries are saying that they will lose their crop. And don't think for a second I don't live in Florida this may not have an economic impact on me. Well it may if a person likes sugar, oranges, or even cattle which in some cases is used to make hamburger.

Story about economic loses for farmers an maybe an increase in prices for consumers.

Another aspect of this story is how are these farmers going to recover if indeed they do lose their crop? Most of these industries are large enough that they can get subsidies from Washington. But Washington is discussing recently about should their be a limit on earnings from a farm that would receive farm subsidies. Senator Boxer of California even talks about the economic impact of farm subsidies in the state she represents.

Story Here

So a person can plainly see there may be unintended consequences when people try to screw with mother nature.

[P562045]

Originally Posted by -mmm-

Snowfall is from weather, which as its put in Rich's post far better than I could put it, is different than climate.

And check out this graph.

If no one sees a problem with that given where current CO2 levels are, Im not sure what to say.

I am just trying to understand. This is because I believe that weather can effect climate in some way.

Dumb me someone is going to have to explain what -mmm- chart is trying to show. I will try to give an explanation of what I think the chart is trying to say. Each time there is a rise or fall in co2 emissions at the same time there is also a rise and fall in temperatures.

Now I know that -mmm-'s chart does not really show this I think my chart below shows that there has been a steady rise of co2 emissions around the last 250 years. I would like to know if there has been any drastic falls in the temperature around the last 250 years?



It could very well be that my judgment is clouding the way I look at things and I see what I want to see and not the whole picture of what is going on.

[-mmm-]

Originally Posted by coolpeter72

I would like to know if there has been any drastic falls in the temperature around the last 250 years?

Actually yes there is an example of that. After the Tambora eruption in 1815 in Indonesia, it cause "the year without a summer" which caused it to snow in New England in August. That eruption dumped all kinds of sulfuric compounds into the atmosphere. While CO2 absorbs and keeps the energy from the sun, sulfur dioxide reflects it back into outer space.