PDA

View Full Version : Glad we aren't responsible


IBC
03-23-2007, 05:06 PM
Published on Friday, March 23, 2007 by Reuters
Antarctic Melting May be Speeding Up
by Michael Byrnes

HOBART (Australia) - Rising sea levels and melting polar ice-sheets are at upper limits of projections, leaving some human population centers already unable to cope, top world scientists say as they analyze latest satellite data.

A United Nations report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in February projected sea level gains of 18-59 centimeters (7-23 inches) this century from temperature rises of 1.8-4.0 Celsius (3.2-7.8 Farenheit).0323 01

“Observations are in the very upper edge of the projections,” leading Australian marine scientist John Church told Reuters.

“I feel that we’re getting uncomfortably close to threshold,” said Church, of Australia’s CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research said.

Past this level, parts of the Antarctic and Greenland would approach a virtually irreversible melting that would produce sea level rises of meters, he said.

There has been no repeat in the Antarctic of the 2002 break-up of part of the Larsen ice shelf that created a 500 billion ton iceberg as big as Luxembourg.

But the Antarctic Peninsula is warming faster than anywhere else on Earth, and glaciers are in massive retreat.

“There have been doomsday scenarios that west Antarctica could collapse quite quickly. And there’s six meters of sea level in west Antarctica,” says Tas van Ommen, a glaciologist at the Hobart-based Australian Antarctic Division.

Doomsday has not yet arrived.

But even in east Antarctica, which is insulated from global warming by extreme cold temperatures and high-altitudes, new information shows the height of the Tottenham Glacier near Australia’s Casey Base has fallen by 10 meters over 15-16 years.

MELTING POLES

Scientists say massive glacier retreat at Heard Island, 1,000 km (620 miles) north of Antarctica, is an example of how fringe areas of the polar region are melting.

The break-up of ice in Antarctica to create icebergs is also opening pathways for accelerated flows to the sea by glaciers.

Church pointed out that sea levels were 4-6 meters higher more than 100,000 years ago when temperatures were at levels expected to be reached at the end of this century.

Dynamic ice-flows could add 25 percent to IPCC forecasts of sea level rise, van Ommen said.

Australian scientist John Hunter, who has focused on historical sea level information, said that to keep the sea water out, communities would need to begin raising sea walls.

“There’s lots of places where you can’t do that and where you’ll have to put up with actual flooding,” he said.

This was already happening in the south of England, where local councils and governments could not afford to protect all areas from sea water erosion as land continued to sink.

About 100 million people around the world live within a meter of the present-day sea level, CSIRO Marine Research senior principal research scientist Steve Rintoul said. “Those 100 million people will need to go somewhere,” he said.

Worse, every meter of sea level rise causes an inland recession of around 100 meters (300 feet) and more erosion occurs with every storm.

“You can’t just say we’ll just put sea walls,” Hunter said.

Vegas
03-23-2007, 05:18 PM
Warming and cooling happens in cycles. It's been hotter in the past more than once. We couldn't stop the warming or cooling even if we wanted to.

IBC
03-23-2007, 05:19 PM
Warming and cooling happens in cycles. It's been hotter in the past more than once. We couldn't stop the warming or cooling even if we wanted to.
When was it hotter?

Vegas
03-23-2007, 05:26 PM
When was it hotter?

There are historical records of crop productions in the 1300s in areas that have too short of a growing season due to cold weather today. Nobody was driving SUVs at that time. It was also hotter in the 1930s.

IBC
03-23-2007, 05:32 PM
There are historical records of crop productions in the 1300s in areas that have too short of a growing season due to cold weather today. Nobody was driving SUVs at that time. It was also hotter in the 1930s.
The 1930's?
http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/images/globaltempdiff.GIF
http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/ftp_docs/Global_Warming.pdf


The second one is from NASA, who we all know has a bias.

JCD
03-23-2007, 06:11 PM
It's difficult to control solar activity.

But, I'm certain Teddy Kennedy and Henry Waxman can figure it out.

LSU
03-23-2007, 06:13 PM
It's difficult to control solar activity.

But, I'm certain Teddy Kennedy and Henry Waxman can figure it out.



Isn't that what ozone does/did?

JCD
03-23-2007, 06:18 PM
Two different things, but often conflated to obfuscate the issues.

Destruction of ozone is the reason all the libbies are certain we'll die of skin cancer.

Doesn't have much to do with temperature - which is the new hobby horse.

LSU
03-23-2007, 06:25 PM
Two different things, but often conflated to obfuscate the issues.

Destruction of ozone is the reason all the libbies are certain we'll die of skin cancer.

Doesn't have much to do with temperature - which is the new hobby horse.


In context of what was said, though, it does control solar activity by limiting the amount of UV getting to the Earth. Whether or not that has an effect on temperature was not my point.

JCD
03-23-2007, 09:10 PM
In context of what was said, though, it does control solar activity by limiting the amount of UV getting to the Earth. Whether or not that has an effect on temperature was not my point.

Glad we understand each other.

LSU
03-24-2007, 01:14 AM
Glad we understand each other.



Cool. I hope to connect in ways like this throughout our shared experiences at this fine site.

IBC
03-25-2007, 12:19 PM
The 1930's?
http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/images/globaltempdiff.GIF
http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/ftp_docs/Global_Warming.pdf


The second one is from NASA, who we all know has a bias.
C'mon, no answer to NASA data? Are they too liberal? At least defend your statements in the face of facts?

Vegas
03-25-2007, 12:34 PM
C'mon, no answer to NASA data? Are they too liberal? At least defend your statements in the face of facts?

You have two links, one of the famous "hockey stick" chart that has been debunked and one NASA story. NASA is one of the many organizations that is competing for the over $5 billion dollars of research money to look into global warming (and why do we need to spend that kind of money on something where the science is completely settled???). Does that make them liberal?

But that story didn't dispute the fact that it was warmer in the 1930s.

LSU
03-25-2007, 12:47 PM
You have two links, one of the famous "hockey stick" chart that has been debunked and one NASA story. NASA is one of the many organizations that is competing for the over $5 billion dollars of research money to look into global warming (and why do we need to spend that kind of money on something where the science is completely settled???). Does that make them liberal?

But that story didn't dispute the fact that it was warmer in the 1930s.


Vegas Vegas Vegas.

We know HIV causes AIDS, why should we fund any more research?

See where I'm going with this?

IBC
03-25-2007, 12:50 PM
Vegas Vegas Vegas.

We know HIV causes AIDS, why should we fund any more research?

See where I'm going with this?
Yes, and call me crazy, but I trust scientists funded by grants rather than energy corporations.

LSU
03-25-2007, 12:55 PM
Oh, and Vegas, I just remembered this info. From a discussion we had way back when on old board regarding funding...I think it was the great stem cell debate...

You were saying that embryonics can be funded by private sources if it was that much of a beacon of hope, and that funding should be enough. I countered saying private funding isn't enough, federal is needed.

We had a meeting the other day with some bigwig research guys (within the university). 6% of research funds come from the private sector and foundation type of stuff. 94% comes from state and federal (I don't remember the breakdown between the 2, sorry).

I know this doesn't fit with the global warming stuff, but thought it relevant based on the funding stuff recently brought up.

We can make it another thread if we need to to keep this one clean.

Vegas
03-25-2007, 01:00 PM
Vegas Vegas Vegas.

We know HIV causes AIDS, why should we fund any more research?

See where I'm going with this?

Finding a cure for HIV/AIDS isn't the same thing as researching whether CO2 emissions cause global warming if indeed CO2 emissions causing global warming is "settled science" now is it??

Vegas
03-25-2007, 01:04 PM
So who was responsible for the warming period in the 1300s?

LSU
03-25-2007, 01:36 PM
Finding a cure for HIV/AIDS isn't the same thing as researching whether CO2 emissions cause global warming if indeed CO2 emissions causing global warming is "settled science" now is it??


that wasn't the point of my comment.


In science, finding one answer or conclusion usually leads to numerous other questions to be asked, thus more research needed.


The science could be "settled" but not precise (knowing or thinking you know the answer, but not the specifics of every situation). Or, studying other areas to find other effects. Or doing studies to figure out how to alleviate the problems.

Vegas
03-25-2007, 01:38 PM
that wasn't the point of my comment.


In science, finding one answer or conclusion usually leads to numerous other questions to be asked, thus more research needed.


The science could be "settled" but not precise (knowing or thinking you know the answer, but not the specifics of every situation). Or, studying other areas to find other effects. Or doing studies to figure out how to alleviate the problems.

But your point was that we know HIV causes AIDS yet we still fund research. I agree that point is settled and I would be surprised to hear that there was still research money being spent on that link.

LSU
03-25-2007, 01:40 PM
But your point was that we know HIV causes AIDS yet we still fund research. I agree that point is settled and I would be surprised to hear that there was still research money being spent on that link.



No, that wasn't the point. That was an example saying that even though we know HIV causes AIDS, that doesn't mean the research is done. Where did AIDS come from? What's the biology? What's the cure? How does it spread? Are there other forms?


Obviously with climatology, the questions aren't the same, but the point is that once the supposed "cause" is ironed out, that doesn't necessarily mean the research stops.

Vegas
03-25-2007, 10:51 PM
So who was responsible for the warming period in the 1300s?

I notice that this was completely unanswered. Whose SUV made it so warm so long ago?

LSU
03-26-2007, 12:55 AM
I notice that this was completely unanswered. Whose SUV made it so warm so long ago?



I don't know if you're looking for me, but I've never denied natural warming periods. But I think the scientists are saying this warming period is more drastic that what is considered "normal" in the cycles.

But I'm not real learned on that particular subject.