Opens can of worms....Global Warming

[Quakindude]

Originally Posted by Tech Geek Deluxe

It becoming a political and economic issue is also what Irks me ... The "stupid" money that has gone out could have supported 1000's of real scientific minds for a Decade of research and development into various fields inclusive of new energy solutions.

That is exactly my thoughts on it.

The money spent on Global Warming research could have developed an engine that runs on water by now. Although, God help us if that happens. Then we will have water shortages like nothing we've ever seen. The government will have to regulate it. Some country will stake claim to the whole of the polar ice caps. Before you know it, we will drop the ocean's water level by 2" in about 100 years. This will cause huge expenditures of money and research time on how to build an engine using other natural resources.

Hmmmm. Maybe we are better off where we are.

[fstroupe]

What I don't understand is why it became a political issue.

It is the perfect political issue. It can be made to sound like a crisis that has to be taken care of NOW. The details are extremely complicated and impossible for most to understand, but the crisis can easily be explained in a sentence or two. Anyone that tries to denounce the crisis is uncaring or in denial, and any proof requires facts, figures, and statistics...something that the public doesn't like. It is pretty much impossible to prove or disprove, but let's err on the side of caution. A scientific moron can make a movie about it full of BS and get the f***ing Nobel Prize.

And the people hear all of this...and like Henny Penny, Turkey Lurky, and Cocky Locky, they start running around believing that the sky is falling.

I know, I know....WHY? Why is this crisis needed. A constant flow of crises are needed to produce the nanny-state, where the people are totally dependent on the government.

For me to go any farther is very partisan and very hard to swallow for most people. Though I have been aware for over 30 years, it still is occasionally hard for me to buy it. But, you either believe it or not.

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by MantaBase

But yeah....I'm just a scientist with a background in physical sciences. I couldn't possibly know as much as you guys.

I'm just a scientist with an extensive catalog of studies ranging from many branches of biology, earth and nature sciences, to nuclear physics and astronomy. So don't think you're only dealing with average Fox News Joes here

Originally Posted by MantaBase

The sinks have been destroyed and there is no remaking them easily (that I know of). Without them, even if we stopped producing CO2
completely - the natural levels are already higher than our current sinks can take (that's debatable - but I stand by it and I think those that don't are kidding themselves). At best, we can hope to soften the blow and prolong the onset so we can have more time to adapt.

What sinks are you referring too, the equatorial rainforests? The main carbon sink on the planet covers 70% of it, and I don't think we've destroyed the oceans just yet. And if the natural levels produced by the planet are too much for the oceans to absorb, we'd have been in dire straits looong before the industrial revolution.

It's surprising that more people don't bring up the oceans more, which are the engines that drive the weather and climate locally (the variations of the Earth's orbit in relation to the sun effect us remotely). A colder ocean is a happy ocean, when compared to the amount of carbon it can absorb. The warmer the ocean, the less carbon it can contain and thus more lingers in the atmosphere. However, only certain areas are warming while others are cooling according to a compilation of measurements done by the School of Oceanography. Since you have to actually buy the .pdf article from the Journal of Physical Oceanography, heres a link that has a condensed version of the finds and the graphs they created: World Climate Report » Questioning Ocean Warming?

So if spots are warming AND cooling, that means that warming on a global scale isn't happening or happening more slowly in various regions. As Manta already pointed out, spots will warm and cool. If you want to go into the human factor, we're readily dumping not just C02 into the atmosphere, but S02 which would actually deflect solar radiation instead of amplifying like C02, resulting in a cooling instead of warming. Are humans having an effect? Of course, theres 6 Billion of us and for the last 150 years could care less where our waste ended up (ultimately back on us, things don't just magically disappear). But it is vastly significant? Hell no, it's overblown and extorted just like everything else that may spell disaster. Like back when people thought an atomic test could light the atmosphere on fire.

One thing that should be noted is that glaciers are both melting AND growing in different regions, at varying rates. Even in the Arctic, the area most overhyped by this, some of these glaciers continue to expand and some shrink. Either way this is bad for us in the northern hemisphere, as the excess fresh water like whats being dumped by the overflow of rivers in Siberia really screws with the salt cycle of the Gulf Stream. No Gulf Stream, and it's going to get real chilly really fast. This article from NASA in 2001 explains it in detail: Top Story - Ocean Circulation Shut Down by Melting Glaciers After Last Ice Age - November 19, 2001

So far there is three main theories as to why this is happening. One, the Arctic is an immense volcanic region that spans from Iceland to Alaska to Russia. Those of you may remember that from reading Jules Verne's Journey to the Center of the Earth. The Gakkel Ridge was usually thought to be more dormant and sluggish compared to the other ridges found in the Atlantic and Pacific, but an expedition back in sometime in 03 if I remember right showed quite the opposite, with some of the hottest and most active thermal vents found yet. Linkage: Max Planck Society - Press Release

Two, some of you probably know that the magnetic field of the Earth occasionally weakens once every 250,000 years or so and switches polarities; North becoming South, etc. This hasn't happened in I believe a million years and the magnetic field is weakening, especially around the poles. This field is what protects us from the sun's solar wind, flares, and particle bombardment. Without it, the temperature would skyrocket as all the radiation emitted from the sun could freely strike the surface of the planet. And if it's weakening dramatically around the poles, that of course means more radiation is reaching them and temperatures are rising. This explains it more in detail. Sun's rays to roast Earth as poles flip | International | The Observer

You guys are lucky I like referencing what I know in science discussions through citations, these links were a bitch to find as most of them are old.

The third accepted cause of disruption in the north pole is due simply to humans pouring emission gases from the last 100 years of industry into the atmosphere (which gets mostly absorbed by the ocean, remember), and is causing a runaway green house effect similar on a lesser scale to what Venus has. Compared to the two above, this one is almost laughable in a sense.

Manta also pointed out that the climate will make adjustments to correct and balance itself once disrupted. This is true, and true with anything in the universe. Everything seeks a balance, and will attempt to find that balance regardless of the circumstances. See -> thermal convection and -> osmosis for two good examples. However, everything in the universe also runs in cycles, as Steven Hawking so brilliantly stated (duh, anyone who's studied something knows this Stevie boy). Volcanic activity can be cited to the natural cycle of plate tectonics, and the magnetic shift can be cited to the natural cycle of the flow of molten iron in the core that generates it. Human involvement cannot, and would fall under the pattern of seeking to correct and balance the best way possible. Since the planet is always shifting, reforming, and generally in a state of unrest, not to mention influenced by stellar bodies like our sun and even distant supernovae, I would think the climate would always be in a constant state of flux and change instead of following a designated path of cycles. But thats just me.

Either way, this isn't going to be a steady rise of the thermometer from now until the sun goes all red giant on our ass, it's going to be a period of getting hot, followed by a period of getting cold. And it seems not just humans are causing this, but everything even down to the layout of the continental plates is responsible. But it's not like we're helping it any by gagging the ozone on carbon, sulfur, and fluorocarbons either. So what's causing global warming then? Is it increased underwater volcanic activity (which is happening in a lot more areas, google up Japan's volcanic activity for another example), increased stellar particle storms from a weakening magnetic field, or humans and their love of dirtying their own home? Or could it be a little of all of them, with some other reactions caused by this adding to something that really could effect the planet as a whole?

tl;dr I'll be buying coats while you buy air conditioners

Also, personally I'm glad for this Global Warming scare. Big Oil and it's deep pockets have had a stranglehold on the energy market for far too long, and a public awareness, albeit sensationalized and overdone, could finally awaken people to an energy revolution for the stuff thats cheap, renewable and clean. I'm hoping for advances in hydrogen generation for fuel cells, nuclear reactors that follow the principles of the Thorium-Uranium cycle that drives plate tectonics, and deuterium extraction from the deep ocean and the Moon to power us to the stars. Take that, oil.

[Tech Geek Deluxe]

Stormcrow ... I love it!

And you barely scratched the surface.

I tell you this ... if there isn't more consumerism and need generated to start new emerging markets ... the world economy is in serious trouble.

So while I hate that people are sheeple and politicians are corrupt ... and that big money drives much of what people call their free choice ... I also know that fear motivates and a good crisis is a valuable tool to generate the sheeple going along whatever direction best suits those in power.

New emerging markets along with the new innovations just on the horizon ... well could make things very interesting in the stock market and potentially ... the world markets.

Heck ... it along with other agendas ... may well stimulate enough strong growth economy to make the end justify the means ... if one believes in a Machiavellian way of thinking.

[MantaBase]

[quote=Stormcrow;92045]

I'm just a scientist with an extensive catalog of studies ranging from many branches of biology, earth and nature sciences, to nuclear physics and astronomy. So don't think you're only dealing with average Fox News Joes here

I almost feel like saying "worthy opponent" - but you are not an opponent I suspect. I will put my speculations in italics. Forgive the lack of citation - but i'm old tired and lazy.

What sinks are you referring too, the equatorial rainforests? The main carbon sink on the planet covers 70% of it, and I don't think we've destroyed the oceans just yet. And if the natural levels produced by the planet are too much for the oceans to absorb, we'd have been in dire straits looong before the industrial revolution.

In the Ocean:

Last I heard (less than a year ago - I suspect you can find a public citation) that overall the ocean's temp is up - but yes - there are cooler regions - some is the effect of increasing ocean current intensity (through higher energy input) and bringing up cooler deeper waters - so eventually, it will cease. Other is the global effect - some places cool - others heat up. All of this as the planet tries to figure out how to deal with higher energy input (I'll get to the SO/SO2). EDIT - I did see that citation about no actual warming - just more activity. SOunds reasonable. END EDIT

Ya know all that limestone in marine environs? It's a carbon bank. It actually likes to dissolve in cooler water (check a geochem text) and release it's carbon. Cooler waters suck up CO2 - but if they are coming in contact with limestone for the first time in ages, the ability to act as a sink is diminished (as they dissolve the limestone and saturate themselves locally). Change in temp can cause a release - but thats for others reading really- its academic and has little bearing on this

What got me more was when I heard the cooler waters were already carbonate rich. See, bringing up cold water from below via stronger currents won't work as a sink. That water is already saturated - some of the deeper waters in our ocean have been very cold for thousands of years - They have been sitting deep in our oceans being rained down with micrite (carbonate fish crap and skeletons) for thousands of years. Limestone can't form at those depths and the water absorbs all the carbon. So, just bringing up all the cold deep water actually doesn't help. In fact, it makes it worse because as that water warms at the surface it releases CO2 (hopefully as a precipitate - but I bet its a gas).

Here's a shiity article that touches on it - although I disagree its just wind doing it: BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Polar ocean 'soaking up less CO2'.

I think all the added energy is driving currents

Limestone is biologic in origin (in fact, when we first had the ability to look at Mars with chem bearing spectroscopy, many looked for limestone - it requires life - to be made in any quantity - it was not found) and it is a huge carbon sink. Usually in an area where the water is warm, you get biology picking up the slack for the warm water's lack of carbon sinking ability through reef formation via algae (and yes, it starts with algae first and then moves along). But our reefs are basically crapped out now.

I have a piece of coral harvested in the 70's. It cost 2.50 (I know because I had to pay my grand mother for it). The piece is worth about $300 now (if you can find the right sucker) - and that's due to supply - not demand (unless some of you are into the Magnum PI living room motif)

Our reefs are in trouble for a number of reasons. Mostly man made. I suppose we could do something about that.

The oceans get ignored though

On LAND:

On land, we have depleted much of our old growth. While some will point out that we still have a great deal of greenery around, old growth acts as a large carbon bank and is a better sink than say....a crop of corn - or a new forest. In the US, we actually have more forest than we did in the 1970's. However, not much more and we are down to 5% of old growth as compared to 200 years ago. Our bounce back is due to logging restrictions put in place in the 1970's - and we are a long way from being back to the 1960's even. But, the US is not the only country on this planet.

Conifer forests have suffered world wide the most to deforestation (I don't know if that is in actual acres or just percent). These are the forests that act as our biggest land based carbon sinks. In "leafy" forests, much of the carbon sunk is actually released as leaf decay (unless is get buried). This includes rain forests. So, while a rain forest is important as a carbon sink, a conifer forest is more important. But we love to cut down conifers. They make great wood for burning and building.

SWAMPS:

Nearly all of the coal we burn is from great carbon sinks created by swamps. They sink decayed leaves and turn them to carbon. However, now we burn that carbon and release that sink to the atmosphere. Further, we have eliminated much of our swamp land for urbanization. I should know...I own some (if anyone has 50K - I have 2 lots in Florida next to a canal).

It's surprising that more people don't bring up the oceans more,

I agree

If you want to go into the human factor, we're readily dumping not just C02 into the atmosphere, but S02 which would actually deflect solar radiation instead of amplifying like C02, resulting in a cooling instead of warming.

In an irony, because of our dislike of acid rain, sulfer emissions have been greatly reduced world wide (especially in the US) in the last 30 years.

Are humans having an effect? Of course, theres 6 Billion of us and for the last 150 years could care less where our waste ended up (ultimately back on us, things don't just magically disappear). But it is vastly significant? Hell no, it's overblown and extorted just like everything else that may spell disaster. Like back when people thought an atomic test could light the atmosphere on fire.

Sure...overblown maybe. Say that after the first EM pulse - lol. It comes back down to how much is too much. If our sinks work properly, we should be able to release some extra gases and be fine.

One thing that should be noted is that glaciers are both melting AND growing in different regions, at varying rates. Even in the Arctic, the area most overhyped by this, some of these glaciers continue to expand and some shrink.

Now, that I need a citation for. That would surprise me.

You guys are lucky I like referencing what I know in science discussions through citations, these links were a bitch to find as most of them are old.

Reliable and trust worthy references are getting very hard to find. On the Web.

Manta also pointed out that the climate will make adjustments to correct and balance itself once disrupted. This is true, and true with anything in the universe. Everything seeks a balance, and will attempt to find that balance regardless of the circumstances.

Of course. The question has never been if the planet or nature will survive. The question is - will people.

Of course, we are like roaches, so I have no doubt we will survive.

Too....tired ...to go on Spock.....must stop typing

[fstroupe]

Quote:
It's surprising that more people don't bring up the oceans more,
I agree

If you are talking about the scientific community, you guys know better than I. If you are talking about the media and politicians, and the scientists that are actually allowed to communicate thru them, it doesn't fit the "its our fault" criteria and just doesn't apply.

[MantaBase]

BTW Stormcrow - those are interesting links.

You reminded me I have Geobase/Georef access for free. I'll check them, out closer. The Magnetic pole shift stuff I didn't think about. Wonder if the Climate guys are considering it.

PS: WHy you been sandbagging on us?

[MantaBase]

Originally Posted by fstroupe

If you are talking about the scientific community, you guys know better than I. If you are talking about the media and politicians, and the scientists that are actually allowed to communicate thru them, it doesn't fit the "its our fault" criteria and just doesn't apply.

I think he's talking about both. Global Warming is a hot topic so it's getting large amount of attention in the sciences. The Ocean stuff is pretty important, but it has been a whipped horse for a long time. Actual oceanographers a pretty rare IME. I've met 2 compared to countless numbers of folks in different fields. In fact, I've met more exobiologists (alien life scientists) than oceanographers.

[screwballl]

another study saying global warming is a hoax:

DailyTech - Study finds Natural Cause for Rapid Arctic Warming
Vertical structure of recent Arctic warming : Article : Nature
NASA - NASA Examines Arctic Sea Ice Changes Leading to Record Low in 2007
EO News: NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face - November 13, 2007

Someone combined real oceanography and wind and atmosphere data to show that the southern hemisphere was cooling at a very fast pace while the northern hemisphere was warming at the same amazing page....

I wonder if the earth is getting ready to "flip" poles like it has in the past

earth poles shift - Google Search
EARTH CHANGES: Magnetic Field Reversal

I read through some of this and saw that most of the information pretty much all come to the same conclusion... that one of these years in the near future, when the earth has tilted during a normal solstice will keep on tilting until it is partially moved so the new north pole is over Hawaii (an example) or completely move the planet upside down so the poles have reversed placement. this has nothing to do with man, it is something that has happened before.

[oldman_gamer]

.....I distinctly remember when all this turned political,that the cause of all of this was bovine farts. Kill the cows I say!
Someone had to make lite of this,let it be the new guy.
The way I see it,it's one big circle of life.It's happened before,so shall it happen again.Just my 2pennies.