My questions:

a) If YES (global warming), then how much? Give answer in degrees over time.

b) Can this figure be distinguished from natural Earth heat/cool cycles? Sunspots? Other?

c) If YES, does the Earth have a "natural" system that balances the change in temperatures, and is it quantifiable? In other words, does the earth counteract (or speed up) man-made temperature changes?

Scientifically, it seems plausible but extremely hard to quantify. Politically it's a mess, and I see HUGE political pressures on all sides, skewing results for their own gain.


Anyone?

 

There are graphs and charts in the link I just posted prior to your post.

 

Doh!

 

Since your question is virtually identical to one that I asked during one of the meetings I mentioned, I'd have to say, "Great Question!"

From the response I got, I have concluded that real time increases in ocean temperature is a widely accepted fact. There is always the possibility that what we are seeing today is a snapshot of an up and down variation that, over many years might equal out, but the quality and reliability of the measurement instruments and modeling tools in use today go far beyond what we hear about in the popular media and have come to understand as "state of the art".

I have to admit to a certain skepticism about some of the extrapolations that lead us to calculating Moses's heartrate just before he died (he did eventually die, didn't he?) or any of the other apparently detailed and accurate descriptions of phenomena that took place a million years ago or in a galaxy far, far away. But, I am much more comfortable with the modeling that suggests strongly that the ocean is warming.

As you allowed in the "notwithstanding" part of your question, most of the argument seems to come in the form of "so what" from folks who might not be prepared to dispute temperature readings, but who have not made the connection with likely or probable adverse effects.

 

That site was interesting Darlene. A link to this page was also interesting.

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessi...20heat%20island

I read recently that city temps are used in the overall collection of data and that these temps are responsible for the upward trend in overall global temps. Does anyone know more about the urban heat island effect?

 

Thanks. That's what I suspected. I know there's plenty of dissention to go around outside of the scientific sphere, but I have yet to hear any serious scientist(s) claim that it just ain't so.

 

This is an interesting thread if only because it provides a snapshot of the communications links between the scientific community and the public: it would appear that those links aren't very strong.

From the perspective of active researchers, at least those with no particular axe to grind, the thread's title ("Global warming, true or false") makes about as much sense as something along the lines of "Gravity: Is it real?", even in the context of the rather skewed definition of the phenomenon posed. Of more relevance is the subtext about whether we should worry about it.

Indeed, the comment that recent temperature increases are still of the order of 1F ( a valid number if applied to temperatures globally & annually averaged) is relevant in this context. What's important to understand is that such averaging smears out larger, localized (in space and time) increases that could present challenges to either society's infrastructure or the Earth's ecosystems (or both). Also, there are counter-intuitive climate shifts possible: increases in snowfall over Greenland and Northern Europe, for example, may be possible under certain scenarios (because a warmer climate there would still be below freezing, yet not so cold as to prevent snow as it does much of the time now).

Although it's easy to argue that Earth's carrying capacity for humans isn't yet being approached, it's true that our society is vulnerable to disruptions associated with weather and climate -- both "quick" ones such as the hurricanes we've had this year as well as slower ones that would affect such things as agricultural patterns via growing seasons and so on.

Yet we're an adaptable species, and whatever adaptation will be necessary for us to cope with climate change will present all sorts of new opportunities for entrepeneurs. The Bush administration's approach to the whole issue is certainly oriented toward optimizing those opportunities, it seems. HPH

 

That's all well and good for entrepeneurs, but what happens to biodiversity and its related ecological issues? Many species and ecosystems are not as quick or as able to adapt as humans.
One of the first questions/worries that come to my mind is the effect of temperature increases within the ocean on phytoplankton. All life on Earth is dependent upon them either directly or indirectly. They produce a substantial portion of atmospheric oxygen, account for over forty percent of the "food" produced through photosynthesis for various food webs, and (at last estimate) fix over thirty five billion metric tons of carbon per year. While they may or may not become affected directly by temperature increases, the resulting changes in ocean currents, upwelling, etc. may have deleterious effects on population densities and distribution, which in turn will have far-reaching effects on other marine and terrestrial organisms. Not to mention that a decline in their population could also exacerbate global warming.

I hope you're proud of yourself, Bill. You've certainly opened a big ol' can o' worms.

 

I do not believe humans contribute to global warming as much as our egotistical brains think we do.

Our cars, factories and the destruction of the rain forests certainly do contribute. However, volcanoes, wild fires and other natural forces provide their own donations. Is the earth getting warmer? Compared to what? Weather (accurate) records go back only a little over 100 years, so that means nothing to the earth's life cycle. I have read articles about earth cores showing this is yet another normal cycle in the big picture.

I also an not understand how the melting of the ice cap can raise the level of the ocean, when ice takes up more space. Let your toilet tank freeze and you will see the proof that ice takes up more space than water.

The only fact I know for sure is that I will be burning fossil fuel in my S2K as long as possible.

 

Water is less dense (pure water is most dense at ~4 deg. C, IIRC) as a solid because of its crystalline structure and the air it traps within it during the process of freezing, so it floats and displaces less volume than it does as a liquid. Also, some of that polar ice is situated on land, not floating in water. If it melts, it runs off and ends up increasing the volume of ocean water.