Global warming
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,261
Likes: 1
From: The Blue Ridge
Originally Posted by dean,Nov 9 2005, 08:56 PM
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.
If the difference is air, then there must be some good air being released from that ice. I see that as a good thing. If the land becomes warm, it may absorb some of that water. The underground water table is a strange beast where I live.
I don't know how many folks have ever seen George Carlin's routine on saving the earth. The bottom line is, the earth will survive. She will grind up and destroy all plastics, styrofoam and other nasty things we have come up with and polluted her with. Unfortunately, man will not survive.
I think there is a balance somewhere. I am totally against our government spending a half million dollars and denying citizens access to the beaches of Cape Hatteras National Seashore to save 2 Piping Plovers, when millions are naturally surviving and breeding elsewhere. I am against farmers losing access to their land because a varmint considered protected, not even endangered, is found on their property.
I repeat that I believe we have a lot less control over the big picture. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to take better care of the environment. It just means it needs to be a balanced approach.
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,897
Likes: 1
From: Cherry Hill, NJ
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 34,130
Likes: 126
From: Canton, MA
Originally Posted by dean,Nov 9 2005, 08:56 PM
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.
That said, the ice cap data also appears to be subject to bias reporting. Those who support the global warming theory point to the number of icebergs that are breaking off the antarctic peninsula (forget the name of it). Those who challenge the theory point to an increase in the thickness of ice on the mainland of the antarctic.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 22,888
Likes: 3
From: Covington WA, USA
[QUOTE=Legal Bill,Nov 9 2005, 05:16 AM] The discussion of studies over in Dave's "Get out of Poverty in Europe" thread and the discussion of hydrogen fuel cars over in Rick's "Hydro-Honda" thread got me wondering about another study-heavy subject, global warming.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 22,888
Likes: 3
From: Covington WA, USA
Originally Posted by Budman05,Nov 9 2005, 04:34 PM
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.
But there is lots of non-floating ice in the world, and most of it is in Antarctica. Every bit of that non-floating ice could raise sea levels.
IIRC (I haven't looked up the exact numbers recently), if all the ice in Greenland melted, the seas would go up by a couple of meters. If all the ice in Antarctica melted, the seas would go up by something like 20 meters.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 10,478
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Legal Bill,Nov 9 2005, 10:11 PM
The second part of your statement makes sense. I'm not sure I agree with the first. Floating ice displaces liquid water to the same height in a given container as if the ice was in its liquid state. This is demonstrated with the old ice in a glass of water experiment. If there is some difference, how great is it?
That said, the ice cap data also appears to be subject to bias reporting. Those who support the global warming theory point to the number of icebergs that are breaking off the antarctic peninsula (forget the name of it). Those who challenge the theory point to an increase in the thickness of ice on the mainland of the antarctic.
That said, the ice cap data also appears to be subject to bias reporting. Those who support the global warming theory point to the number of icebergs that are breaking off the antarctic peninsula (forget the name of it). Those who challenge the theory point to an increase in the thickness of ice on the mainland of the antarctic.
Judging from what I've read everything surrounding this issue is subject to biased reporting.
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 34,130
Likes: 126
From: Canton, MA
Originally Posted by DrCloud,Nov 9 2005, 06:56 PM
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
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
The title, together with the "skewed" explanation was intentionally chosen to center our discussion on global warming attributable to the activities of humans. While the natural warming and cooling cycles of the planet are certainly valid topics for discussion here, I'm trying to focus our discussion on the theory that man is responsible for global warming (to some degree or another) and, as some have commented, the condition in injurious to the planet.
Perhaps the active researcher would find the question nonsensical, or perhaps she would understand that the question is asking about a "global warming" theory that suggests an ever upward and injurious warming trend caused by man's activities as opposed to the current state of a cycle. In other words, I believe most "active researchers" would admit that while the data shows the globe is warming currently, it may well begin to cool tomorrow. In that sense, yes, the globe is warming. Hence my skewed definition to parse the natural from the man-made.
As for being worried about the change, I guess I'm wondering if that means we should be prepared for the resulting conditions that can't be avoided, or if there is something to be done to change the trend.
Dean for example is raising the spectre of mass killing or perhaps extinction of certain sea life. But if the warming is part of a normal cycle, the the loss, while sad and perhaps disturbing, may well be natural, like all the other mass killings and extinctions of the past.
With that clarification (clear as mud); carry on.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 22,888
Likes: 3
From: Covington WA, USA
Originally Posted by Legal Bill,Nov 9 2005, 06:50 PM
I believe most "active researchers" would admit that while the data shows the globe is warming currently, it may well begin to cool tomorrow.
I should clarify: if you are talking about the average trendline, your belief is inaccurate. If you are talking about the instantaneous temperature at any given monitoring station, no sane person and certainly no "active researcher" would disagree with you.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 22,888
Likes: 3
From: Covington WA, USA
Originally Posted by Legal Bill,Nov 9 2005, 06:50 PM
As for being worried about the change, I guess I'm wondering if that means we should be prepared for the resulting conditions that can't be avoided, or if there is something to be done to change the trend.