It's enough to make you cry...

[Storm]

I do realize that this is sarcasm, but within this statement lays the big issue with many who jump onto the GW bandwagon.

I remember when they first hit the stage big time with their "polar ice melt is proof of GW and will cause catastrophic flooding as the oceans rise” theory. They first used the North Pole as their model and they got a lot of the uneducated people in a panic. Problem with their theory it is was based on fear mongering and not science. The vast majority of the North Polar cap is a floating ice. IF it al melted tomorrow it would not raise the water level. Archimedes’s theory of displacement comes into play.

So the fear mongers went after the Antarctica next as that pole is most land based and not floating. Well the average temperature in the southern pole is between -20 to - 30 degrees Celsius. In order for that region to melt it would require a sustained 25 degree temperature shift upward, which would mean that the basically the tropics would be averaging around 80 to 100 degrees Celsius. So at that point rising water isn’t the issue to worry about...' the fact that the planet would be on fire would be.

So finally they looked to Greenland to promote the flood theory. Well the ice on Greenland IS land based, but only represents 5 percent of the overall ice ion the planet. That MIGHT raise the water level in the ocean about .5 millimeter.

Now for those of you who are not familiar with the metric system, I have included the conversions

-30 Celsius = -22 Fahrenheit
-20 Celsius = - 4 Fahrenheit
25 Celsius = 77 Fahrenheit
80 Celsius = 176 Fahrenheit (76 degrees above water boiling point)
100 Celsius = 212 Fahrenheit

.5 millimeter = 0.019 685 039 of an inch.

I also question when I hear scientists saying that “during the last ice age…” . Just exactly who did they interview that was alive then? What documentation did they find? Oh yes, that’s right, we rely on other theories (carbon dating, etc) to support current theory. IN short we use theory to justify theory, in order to support speculation, so we can support guesses, in an attempt to prove a hypothesis.

At what point did we elevate a “scientist” from mere human to omniscient being? I’m too much of a skeptic to blindly follow any particular scientist’s dogma. Especiually when they get a large portion of their funding from the groups out there with their own political agenda.

 

[dlndavid]

You left out arrogant from omniscient being.
Good points Storm.

 

[LavaSurfer]

I hate to jump into this thread again as I did the last and it wasn’t pretty. We all have our opinions on this topic and mine is well known. Here are some interesting reads for those interested.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/06/010615071248.htm
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2004/02/07/global_warming_or_ice_age_coming.htm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1130_051130_ice_age.html

 

[WyDive]

Mybe one thing we are forgetting is the fact that GW has happened about 100 times before now. The only difference is we are alive today and not then. Every 10,000 years or so, the earth goes thru a cleansing. Today we call it GW. Things die off, things are reborn, and life on this planet will continue long after we have left.
Last person to leave, please turn off the lights.
Lets get real, who are we going to blame for the sunspot cycle every 10 years. Can we blame it on jet planes? And what about the Lemming cycle? I know, lets blame that on Greenpeace, they have been pretty quiet lately, or even better PETA. A little research avoids alot of BS. If your Dr. told you that you had cancer, you would get a second opinion, right? So why would you immediately believe some politcal hack espousing GW? By the way, the weather will get a bit worse before it gets better, but IT WILL get better. Life will find a way. and Life will go on.
Now lets go dive and see tghe beauty of life.

 

[Guba]

Storm...Let me first say that I understand that melting all the ice caps on earth will NOT inundate the entire planet (regardless of what some movies say...no one should get their science from the theaters). However, that doesn't mean that the effects wouldn't be significant. Here are some additional points that need to be considered from what you presented.
IF (and that's a big'un) the north polar ice were to melt, it would, indeed raise the level of the ocean. Archimedes principle is that displaced water exerts buoyant force. Sure, as ice melts the water produced takes up less space, so it's true that the volume would be less, not more. The problem with that line of logic is that there is ice above the water line on a floating ice pack. Therefore, as the ice melts, the level of the container (the ocean) will indeed rise (by the volume of the ice above sea level as it floats).
There is ample evidence that the edges of the Anarctic ice pack are already eroding. Large blocks (the size of Rhode Island) have already broken off and drifted. The problem is that they tend to drift NORTH where temperatures are, indeed, considerably warmer.
Another dilemma is not that the polar regions are eroding around the edges. They're getting thinner in the middle. Glaciers aren't ice...they are snow (which compresses into a unique form of ice). Almost worldwide, snowfall has been reducing over the last couple of decades, resulting in deflation of the polar ice packs and glacial regions.
The biggest problem is not simply at the poles. If the poles do, indeed, show signs of some melt off, then consider all the glaciers that are at lower latitudes. Virtually every glacial zone in the world is shrinking, and mountainous areas globally are experiencing much lower than average snowfall. Some US ski resorts were barren for a strikingly long period of time this past season, and they lost their snow much earlier than usual.
The concern is that GW is affecting much larger areas than once thought. The accumulated impact is that shorelines will be affected. Certainly, not to the extent that movies would have us believe (consider Waterworld?), but significantly. Remember that many of the largest metropolitan areas in the world are at sea level, and some (New Orleans, for example) are actually below it.
Something to think about.

 

[LavaSurfer]

Mybe one thing we are forgetting is the fact that GW has happened about 100 times before now. The only difference is we are alive today and not then. Every 10,000 years or so, the earth goes thru a cleansing. Today we call it GW. Things die off, things are reborn, and life on this planet will continue long after we have left.
Last person to leave, please turn off the lights.
Lets get real, who are we going to blame for the sunspot cycle every 10 years. Can we blame it on jet planes? And what about the Lemming cycle? I know, lets blame that on Greenpeace, they have been pretty quiet lately, or even better PETA. A little research avoids alot of BS. If your Dr. told you that you had cancer, you would get a second opinion, right? So why would you immediately believe some politcal hack espousing GW? By the way, the weather will get a bit worse before it gets better, but IT WILL get better. Life will find a way. and Life will go on.
Now lets go dive and see tghe beauty of life.

It has a lot to do with cycles. We are just here to witness one of those cycles and maybe we accelerated the cycle a bit. That’s a question we may never know the answer too.

When Yellowstone explodes or the eastern shelf of Hawaii sloughs off again and causes a massive tsunami that takes out the west coast can we can blame that on something as well. Maybe we can blame it on radio waves. Heck, if we could see radio waves we would look brighter than the sun from space.


10-15 years or so ago a large number of the reefs around Grand Cayman bleached due to abnormally high temperatures. There was wide spread panic and the fear that the dive industry would suffer but only a few years later all the coral returned and is back to normal. For some reason, when coral bleaches due to natural causes it recovers well. Maybe the word “Natural” is the key.

Unlike when coral are damages due to anchors, touching or chemical spills where the reefs take hundreds of years to recover.

Heck if it didn't recover from natural causes the parrot fish would have wiped out the reefs eons ago.

 

[dlndavid]

Almost worldwide, snowfall has been reducing over the last couple of decades, resulting in deflation of the polar ice packs and glacial regions.
The biggest problem is not simply at the poles. If the poles do, indeed, show signs of some melt off, then consider all the glaciers that are at lower latitudes. Virtually every glacial zone in the world is shrinking, and mountainous areas globally are experiencing much lower than average snowfall. Some US ski resorts were barren for a strikingly long period of time this past season, and they lost their snow much earlier than usual.

http://www.snowjapan.com/e/gallery/index-snowy-japan.html
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/1999/wsnorcrd.htm
http://www.micmacmedia.com/Weather/Sierra_Snowfall/sierra_snowfall.html
http://www.uspressnews.com/articles/1081

 

[Storm]

Storm...Let me first say that I understand that melting all the ice caps on earth will NOT inundate the entire planet (regardless of what some movies say...no one should get their science from the theaters).

Unfortunately this was not from Hollywood; it was from GW scientist during the Kyoto debates.

IF (and that's a big'un) the north polar ice were to melt, it would, indeed raise the level of the ocean. Archimedes principle is that displaced water exerts buoyant force. Sure, as ice melts the water produced takes up less space, so it's true that the volume would be less, not more. The problem with that line of logic is that there is ice above the water line on a floating ice pack. Therefore, as the ice melts, the level of the container (the ocean) will indeed rise (by the volume of the ice above sea level as it floats).

Please stop using bad science.

Take a few hours and test it yourself. I have on many occasions to quell this mass misinterpretation of Archimedes principle. Take a glass of water, fill it to the rim until the meniscus layer is above the glass’s edge, add ice, make sure you have floating peaks (ice above water line) dry the table surface around the glass and wait. At the end of the experiment you will have a very full glass of water and a very dry table.

There is ample evidence that the edges of the Anarctic ice pack are already eroding. Large blocks (the size of Rhode Island) have already broken off and drifted. The problem is that they tend to drift NORTH where temperatures are, indeed, considerably warmer.

Again you are referring to part of the Antarctic that is floating…more Archimedes principle at play.

. Almost worldwide, snowfall has been reducing over the last couple of decades, resulting in deflation of the polar ice packs and glacial regions.

Buddy I live in Canada…please don’t tell me about snowfall. I had eight foot banks this winter that are just now leaving. How high were yours?

Some US ski resorts were barren for a strikingly long period of time this past season, and they lost their snow much earlier than usual.

Localized climate phenomena, not global.

Something to think about.

Only if you write for Hollywood.

 

[LavaSurfer]

http://www.micmacmedia.com/Weather/Sierra_Snowfall/sierra_snowfall.html
http://www.uspressnews.com/articles/1081

[SIZE=+1]The Weather Channel Blames Al Qaeda for Crippling Snowfall
[/SIZE] "What we are deducing from our work with the CIA is that Al Qaeda has perfected cloud seeding," stated Jim Cantalopae, of The Weather Channel. "It's a very sophisticated procedure that involves flying crop dusters at high altitudes and releasing the perfect mix of hydrogen and dust-like particles into the atmosphere. What we don't know yet, is whether there was any Anthrax mixed in the dispersal. We should know in another day or so. If you exhibit any symptoms, please contact The Weather Channel at once. Then perhaps call your mom or doctor or something."
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld confirmed the attack.

[SIZE=+1]HA HA HA, HAAAAA HAAAAAA HAAAAAA [/SIZE][SIZE=+1]HA HA HA[/SIZE]
Thats just about enough to make me go wee wee in my pants![SIZE=+1]
[/SIZE]

Isn't his name Jim Cantore ?
Hmmmmmmmmmm

 

[dlndavid]

Had to throw that one in.