Global Warming, anyone?

[jeffbeish]

It amazes me how easily some of you are duped. I classify the “global warming” discussions, per say, in the same vain as those people thinking that astronauts changed the climate of this planet by waking on the Moon! Yes, this sentiment is more common that you may think. It is quite disturbing for we astronomers and/or scientists to reply to such charges, because one should consider also their humility. The debate concerning “global warming” started off some decades ago and at that time it was thought we were in for an ice age again, by some of the very same people who now yell about the opposite. One now has to consider that after politicians found out they could profit off this so-called debate they could use propaganda to scare the hell out of their voters so to be reelected again by selling tem on a sure fire cure.

If there is anything to define the essence of science is that there is no sure fire answer to anything we study, especially if it concerns anything as complex as the behavior of our atmosphere. Consider that NOAA/NASA launched satellites in 1979 to measure the temperature of our atmosphere. The satellites measure the entire globe, not just the 60 plus ground-based stations that are located near populated areas, but the entire atmospheric canopy that surrounds the surface of our planet. These measurements correlate nearly 99% with those measurements from weather balloons and this new method is gaining acceptance more and more. The general result from the 25 years of surveillance is that the atmosphere from 1/3-km out to 60-km -- the temperature has actually decreased over the Northern Hemisphere!

Now, as I will lecture students on now jumping to conclusions after NASA announces some startling discovery we will have to wait to see if the new technology is valid. The same holds true of this satellite measuring; however, it replicated that of several other studies of our atmosphere and we may now conclude that it has merit. If one compares this all encompassing method to that of NOAA’s older method of locating temperature probes near heat traps (cities) and almost no stations over 7/10ths of this planet – then we must begin to accept the new method, huh?

So, if we were to insert the current ground-based data into the model from the environmental politicians, then the results would be that the temperature of Earth would have already exceeded the actual temperature by at least 10 times that predicted. Take those ice cubes in a full glass of water then wait for the sky to fall -- I am quit happy to know that our worst fears are those who murder people in the name of Lunar religion.

 

[michaeledward]

Now do you see my point?

Yes <chuckling> Cobra, I see your point.

It is to ignore evidence and if you just 'believe' strongly enough, you can stop gravity from working.

Thanks for participating.

 

[michaeledward]

Well, let's see -- just how much of our north polar cap is on the sea and how much is on land?

According to one report ... enough water is on land so that if it were to melt, it would result in a net gain in sea level of 73 meters. But you didn't really want an answer to the question, did you?

we knew that water existed on Mars now since before I was born many Moons ago.

Ah, yes ... Giovanni Schiaparalli ... 1877 ..... canali ... Those lovely little boats, with oarsmen singing in Italian ....

Got it. Thanks for the input.

 

[Makalakumu]

Well, let's see -- just how much of our north polar cap is on the sea and how much is on land? Now, it is quite obvious that the educational system that teaches people that the displacement of water is not effected by melting of ice within the body of water -- well, it is a failed system.

First off, its not the ocean ice that is the problem. It's the density difference between salt and freshwater. This is what will interupt the gulf stream.

You really don't have a sense of the magnitude or the scope of the amount of water locked up in the continental glaciers until you go there. When you are standing on the Greenland ice sheet, you are standing on a plate of ice over a mile thick.

P.S. The sky is not falling and the atmosphere is really doing just fine, and we knew that water existed on Mars now since before I was born many Moons ago. So, do not put full faith in what NASA publishes without first reading of it's past.

Witness the success of conservative talk radio. Clever sounding rhetoric and baseless charges are easy to rattle off in the allotted amount of time for a show. It takes too long to explain the details of a problem. Please read some of the links posted and take a look at the data.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Well, let's see -- just how much of our north polar cap is on the sea and how much is on land? Now, it is quite obvious that the educational system that teaches people that the displacement of water is not effected by melting of ice within the body of water -- well, it is a failed system.

I agree. It is indeed a deficient system that fails to teach a man to carefully read a post and note that the person drafting it mentioned that only the North Pole lacks land mass, and that much of the ice cap is on land.

Michael wrote:

"Much of the polar ice cap is on land (although the north pole does not have land) ... Canada, Greenland, Russia, and in the south, Antarctica. As that Ice melts, the liquid form of water will be added to the oceans. This could lead to changes in ocean level and alterations of the ocean currents."

You seemed to have missed this, Jeff. I don't know how you missed it, as it was there for all to see...I suspect you missed it because you're a product of our failed educational system. Your PhD is indeed a tad dusty.

I must say that for a guy your age you show an incredible level of flexibility. Not many 64 year olds can put their feet into their mouths like you just did. Bravo! Keep up the stretching...if not of your mind, then of your hamstrings.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Rich Parsons]

Rich, I am going decline to address your comments on automobile locomotion. Certainly, your knowledge of the internal combustion engine is superior to mine. I have often wondered about the costs, financially and environmentally, about electric automobiles (including the replacement and disposal of batteries - remember, the hybrid vehicles are do not draw from powerplant electricity, but rather through capturing energy while braking).

However, talking about hot water and cold water and glasses and jars filled just doesn't seem to make sense. I've read your thoughts twice now, and am still confused. Very simply, most of the solid H2O on our planet is located on land masses. Yes, there is quite a bit floating around on the top of the oceans; at the north pole, harbors in the arctic and antarctic. But ... most of it is sitting on hilltops, mountians and in glaciers. Once this solid is transformed to liquid, it is going to run downhill until it reaches the lowest level ... which will be in the ocean.

I found this nifty little collection of information on a web site ... I am not speaking to the credibility of these facts:

H2O in the oceans ___________ 97.3% _____ 1.35x10(17) cubic meters
H2O in Polar caps & glaciers_____ 2.1% _____ 29x10(15) cubic meters
H2O (fresh water) underground___0.6% _____ 8.4x10(15) cubic meters
H2O in lakes and rivers__________0.01% _____0.2x10(15) cubic meters
H20 in the atmosphere__________0.001%_____0.013x10(15) cubic meters

If the water in the polar ice caps melted completely, the oceans would rise 73 meters above its present level (200+ feet).

http://www.farmweb.au.com/h2o/h2solar.html

Oh .. and I better post this other thought on a separate message.

Thanks - Mike

Mike,

The Hybrids are intended to obtain regen, or engery on coast owns. They are also intended to capture the same energy from the engine to the generator/alternator device as well as the brakes. Yet, the Brakes are a non-OBD component. So the brakes cannot be used at this time. OBD = On Board Diagnostic. These are items that require by federal law that the Service Engien Soon light or MIL is turned on. oherwise just the ABS light and the (SVS) Service Vehicle Soon light. So, you cannot capure enough as desired. Yet it is a step in teh right direction. As to battery disposial the E1 by GM was a lease vehicle only. GM offered every customer one free Battery replacement, so that they would bring them back to dealership for proper disposal. This was done to avoid all those law suits of lead entering the enviroment. When the lease was up GM would take the vehicle and dispose of it properly. Jay Lano's only major complaints about the vehicle.

Back to that horrible DiHydrogen MonoOxide.

Take a full glass of ice. Set it in the sun let is melt. Does it fill the glass with water? No, it is less. I am confused by the display of how the last four is all 15 meters. Now back to the water. What I am trying to state is that the ice in the water today is already in the water level, as it is displacing volume both in the water in above the water level. I would contend that the water level would not rise directly, if the ice melted. Hence the experiement. No the water on land as I pointed out, in the Anartica portion, does rate point out to be 2.1 % of the total water not already into the ocean water system. I contend that the water in the air and the ground and lakes are already in the system as an equalibrium that does flutucate locally. So, a rise of 15 meters is what I was saying would happen not the 73 you mention. (* even though the 73 is not (4 x 15) + 17, hence my confusion. *) A rise of 15 meteres is about a rise of 48.75 feet. This would be horrible along the coatal areas, including the great lakes. Yet, not quite so bad as the 73 meters.

Just my obtuse thoughts.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

You may also be concerned with the motives of politicians who lie and yell similar phrases as that of Chicken Little, before understanding the basic concepts of science. For yawl's edification and for anyone interested then you might find out a little science before making statements about the sea rising when the polar caps melt.

Well, that was awfully kind and brilliant of you to not address any of the links or statements posted, but to get on a high horse and talk about "Science" like a pro.

I'm a scientist. I "understand the basic concepts of science". Don't pull an academic snob line just to miss addressing the points. It's in bad taste and pointless.

For example,

The general result from the 25 years of surveillance is that the atmosphere from 1/3-km out to 60-km -- the temperature has actually decreased over the Northern Hemisphere!

Has it not already been said that "global warming" really should be stated as "global climate change"? 25 years will show very little, as this is all sampled within the period human activity has already changed the nature of the atmosphere. You need historical studies - kind of like ones that have already been posted here, which you fail to address in any way.

Now, as I will lecture students on now jumping to conclusions after NASA announces some startling discovery we will have to wait to see if the new technology is valid. The same holds true of this satellite measuring; however, it replicated that of several other studies of our atmosphere and we may now conclude that it has merit. If one compares this all encompassing method to that of NOAA’s older method of locating temperature probes near heat traps (cities) and almost no stations over 7/10ths of this planet – then we must begin to accept the new method, huh?

I sure this is a neat-o method. Again, we are talking about different data. When we talk about global climate change, we are talking about data over a far longer period of time, to capture longer trends in climate, rather than the smaller-scale abberations.

An academic snob who won't address the data at hand will, of course, try to sound like they are gaining the high ground. Fortunately, there are people here in the forum who aren't going to be hoodwinked with someone waving a PhD around like it makes them a prophet.

And

Yes I already know how long dinos and humans have been in exsistence (atleast to an athiest's point of view).

Oh, good grief. If this is a dig at evolutionary theory and religion, get over yourself, kid. The two are not mutally exclusive. And that belongs in another thread.

 

[Makalakumu]

Take a full glass of ice. Set it in the sun let is melt. Does it fill the glass with water? No, it is less. I am confused by the display of how the last four is all 15 meters. Now back to the water. What I am trying to state is that the ice in the water today is already in the water level, as it is displacing volume both in the water in above the water level. I would contend that the water level would not rise directly, if the ice melted. Hence the experiement. No the water on land as I pointed out, in the Anartica portion, does rate point out to be 2.1 % of the total water not already into the ocean water system. I contend that the water in the air and the ground and lakes are already in the system as an equalibrium that does flutucate locally. So, a rise of 15 meters is what I was saying would happen not the 73 you mention. (* even though the 73 is not (4 x 15) + 17, hence my confusion. *) A rise of 15 meteres is about a rise of 48.75 feet. This would be horrible along the coatal areas, including the great lakes. Yet, not quite so bad as the 73 meters.

50 million years ago, during the Eocene, the global temperature was 26 degrees warmer. There were global forests in those days - even at the poles. In fact, the earth probably looked a lot like the moon of Endor. My point is that there were no ice caps in those days and vast epicratonic seas covered parts of continents that are now dry. There is the same amount of water on the planet now.

 

[michaeledward]

I am confused by the display of how the last four is all 15 meters.

I believe, Rich, that those are scientific representations of how much H2O there is on the planet.

H2O in Polar caps & glaciers_____ 2.1% _____ 29x10(15) cubic meters

That is 2.1% of the H20 on the planet is in the polar ice caps and glaciers. This totals 29 x 10 to the 15th power cubic meters.

• 290,000,000,000,000,000 cubic meters of water.
• 1 cubic meter of water is approximately 264 gallons.
• 76,560,000,000,000,000,000 gallons of water currently captured in Polar Caps and Glaciers.

Approximately 90% of this ice is on the continent of Antarctica and the island of Greenland.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/HannaBerenblit.shtml

Thanks - Mike

P.S. I am just reporting these items as facts ... but I really am just quickly surveying the web to pull the information out there. While I do have pretty strong feelings that most of the Ice on the planet is on Land Masses, I don't know that the volumes mentioned would raise sea levels x amount. But ... it is not the same as ice cubes melting in a glass of water. That is the experiment I did with my 3rd grade daughter 5 years ago. Geesh!.

 

[Taimishu]

While looking for information concerning Global Warming ... I found this page ... be warned ... it is quite scary ...



http://www.circus.com/~no_dhmo/

For those of you who get it ... enjoy - Mike

Who's kidding Who?
Dihydrogen monoxide = H2O =water.
Nice try but no prize.

David

 

[Feisty Mouse]

I think it was intended as a joke.

 

[michaeledward]

Who's kidding Who?
Dihydrogen monoxide = H2O =water.
Nice try but no prize.

David

David, I heard somewhere that 'Beauty fades, but dumb is forever'.

What you don't know can hurt you and others throughout the world.

Again, "For those of you that get it ... Enjoy!" - Mike

 

[someguy]

Either human will survive or they die out. If humans die out completely then it won't matter much. It's just speeding up the inevitable.
So at what temperature did the figures you used go with michaeledward. Water at 80 degrees takes less space for its volume than water at 32 degrees as I recall. So do the figures take into account the differences in temperature or not.
Gah I'm scared of water now. Oh no. I won't drink any more ever that will keep me safe...

 

[Cobra]

Yes <chuckling> Cobra, I see your point.

It is to ignore evidence and if you just 'believe' strongly enough, you can stop gravity from working.

Thanks for participating.

Gravity wasn't what killed the dinosaurs. Food shortages and a combination of other things ended them. We can already blow up astroids with nuclear power, preventing a big disaster. I'm sure we can do something to help us if we were to ever enter an ice age.

Also remeber that not all life died when the astroid hit, you really think all 6 billion people would all of a sudden disappear out of one event.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

(in gentle, "inside" voice)

Cobra, you seem to place a lot of faith in technology. Granted, we have some amazing technological capabilities.
We rely, however, on natural systems to take care of us. How many people can you feed with your plants that don't need light, for example? We benefit from natural ecosystems to support our lives and our technologies.

 

[Tgace]

Its amazing how people can throw insults at each other over almost every topic.

 

[michaeledward]

We can already blow up astroids with nuclear power, preventing a big disaster.

1. You need to see a space body approaching earth in order to be able to do anything about it. In all probability, we will not see it coming. If we do, it will be with very short notice.

2. Detonating a nuclear weapon on an object in space will have the result of changing one large object into many small objects. The net result would be even worse... because we would not be changing the contiguous mass of the object from, let's say 10 miles in diameter into billions of little grains of sand (which might burn up in the atmosphere). But rather into 42 objects 1 mile in diameter.

Cobra, if you are going to watch science fiction, at least watch Star Trek, where they attempt to get the science part of it correct. As a hint ... don't trust Bruce Willis as your science advisor.

Mike

 

[Feisty Mouse]

As a hint ... don't trust Bruce Willis as your science advisor.

:roflmao:

 

[michaeledward]

So at what temperature did the figures you used go with michaeledward. Water at 80 degrees takes less space for its volume than water at 32 degrees as I recall. So do the figures take into account the differences in temperature or not.

First 'space' and 'volume', as you use them in this statement are synonyms. They mean the same thing. --- from m-w.com Volume 3 : the amount of space occupied by a three-dimensional object as measured in cubic units

Actually, liquid H2O at 80 degrees would have slightly more volume than liquid H2O at 32 degrees. When matter warms, it expands.
H20 in a solid form (ICE) is unusual in that it does have a greater volume than liquid H20 (I think most other compounds behave opposite). Remember that the solid form of H2O may be at 32 degrees or it may be colder.

Regardless of the temperature, the problem is going to be when the H2O changes from solid to liquid (the definition of this phase transition is 'Melt'). Today 90% of the solid H2O on the planet is located on the land masses of Antartica and Greenland. When the solid H2O melts to liquid H2O, gravity will draw the liquid (which can move relatively freely) down to the lowest available level: sea-level. When you add liquid water to the ocean, the level of the ocean must rise.

I hope this helps explain why the temperature of the H2O is not relevant to the discussion.

Thanks for contributing. - Mike

 

[hardheadjarhead]

We can already blow up astroids with nuclear power, preventing a big disaster.

I absolutely agree, Cobra. WE CAN.

The tough part is getting Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck to go do it a second time.

While they're up there, though, I am seriously MOVING in on Liv during her lonely time of need.

Cobra, don't confuse science fiction for science fact. It has never been documented that we can blow up an asteroid with a nuke...whether its placed aboard a souped up Space Shuttle or attached to a Saturn 5 rocket. I always wondered how they got that blast effect in space.

If I'm wrong here, please post a link...because if I'm wrong I'll admit it and appreciate the update in my cranial database.

Regards,

Steve