Global Warming

[Thalassamania]

And we are such good polluters that we are also causing warming on Mars, Venus, and various other bodies throughout the solar system, wow we are good!

Current computer models show that if we reduced mans contribution to the various gases immediately to zero it would have little or no effect on the projected temperature changes. However, if we do something to reduce the solar insolation immediate affects are seen. So you tell me, is it ego warming or global warming?

Mike

If that is true, what that means is that we've shot past our old steady state and are moving catastrophically (that's a mathematical term in this case) to an alternate steady state which, I expect, will be markedly different from the previous one.

 

[1_T_Submariner]

This is pretty rare all of the "global warming" discussions I have been involved in have turned into ugly battles. This one is very civilized and informative. Thanks!

I am still reading and looking at info. Conserving etc.. can't hurt (saves a few $ too).

 

[Thalassamania]

Fighting while the house burns down around us is not a good survival tactic. But neither is calling a spade and entrenching tool so that you can deny that it's really a shovel.

 

[deeper thoughts]

I think the truth is up the middle which does not make it any less dangerous.

Anybody hear NASA's latest statement about wind patterns being responsible for much of the ice caps melting? I heard that Antartica ice caps are actually getting correspondently larger, as the N pole ice caps diminish?

Biofuels are taking some heat this week as a new report released says that all the water, pesticides, fertilizers, etc used to grow the corn or sugar will be just as bad for the environment.--particulary the oceans. I thought the PH chages were the biggest threat at the moment for reefs and fish.

hey, a Republican just designated the biggest marine santuary so cut us some slack. Ya'll could put all those baby bond bucks towards a better cause and guys like Edwards could downsize and your girl Nancy P could pass on the new private jet, what makes her so *special* anyway? Check out UU's ecological wonder-ranch in Crawford, it's quite something. Thall, you were in SF a little too long, I worry. (otherwise you are completely brilliant, of course.)

This house?
[A rather inconvenient truth] Al Gore’s house is a 20 room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms ) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house, all heated by gas. In one month this residence consumes more energy than the average American household does in a year. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400. In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern 'snow belt' area. It's i n the South.
President George Bush’s house was designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university. This house incorporates every 'green' feature current home construction can provide. The house is 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on a high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground.

The water (usually 67 degrees F) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas and it consumes one-quarter electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape

 

[Thalassamania]

Window dressing, sign the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and act on it.

 

[almitywife]

*** moved to SI ***​

:blinking:

 

[Jon C]

Anybody hear NASA's latest statement about wind patterns being responsible for much of the ice caps melting? I heard that Antartica ice caps are actually getting correspondently larger, as the N pole ice caps diminish?

Oh, now its global COOLING? Time to build closer to the beach!!!!

 

[Skull]

I'm sorry Thal but please enlighten us to your set point for a steady state? 1850-1950? how about say 1350-1950 ? or lets say 2150bce -1950ce ? just want to get your interpretation of the steady state of climate on earth?

 

[Thalassamania]

Here's what NASA actually said, sans the Fox News spin:

"A new NASA-led study found a 23-percent loss in the extent of the Arctic's thick, year-round sea ice cover during the past two winters. This drastic reduction of perennial winter sea ice is the primary cause of this summer's fastest-ever sea ice retreat on record and subsequent smallest-ever extent of total Arctic coverage."

"... the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters."

I suppose we are free to speculate about the origin of , "The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century." Last time I checked winds were the ultimately the result of heat.

What NASA says about the Antarctic however is:

... major stretches of ice shelves along Antarctic peninsulas literally collapsed into floating splinters as several recent warmer than normal summers took their toll. The research adds strong evidence to the case that climate change can have a significant impact on the condition of the Earth’s polar caps, which in turn can play a major role in changes to wider planetary climate and environmental conditions.

 

[Teamcasa]

Name two who are not on the payroll of industry or the Republican National Committee (same thing I think).

This is a bit of a conundrum. Someone always pays or funds a study. Does the funding source always discount the results? Certainly sometime it does. (Big Tobacco funding nicotine addiction and lung cancer connection in the 60’s) But I tend to believe that most scientists and researchers publish their results as they discovered them, regardless of the funding interest. However, when their results meet the press, many have been redacted, modified or simply politically spun to fit the current social atmosphere.

My brother-in-law is a PhD in physics and microbiology. He works solely for those who will fund his research. He will finish and publish his results and discoveries no matter the result.