posted
It frightens me that we are actively sticking our heads in the sand while our planet is in a handbasket, going places I'd rather not be.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
"Y'know, Hank, if we take control of this global warming thing, we can be growing pineapples in Alaska!"
"Dammit, Dale, we don't live in Alaska, we live in Texas, where it gets 112 degrees in the shade. And if it gets one degree hotter, I'm gonna kick your ass."
Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Grim, perhaps you'd care to offer some arguments for why this is nothing to worry about?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I think that you as king of men should maybe slow down this problem with your kingly powers.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Sea ice in the Arctic has failed to re-form for the second consecutive winter, raising fears that global warming may have tipped the polar regions into irreversible climate change far sooner than predicted... ...Climate models did predict a retreat of sea ice in the Barents Sea but not for a few decades yet, so...the changes...are...much faster than predicted."
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW: In this past season, the GreatLakes remained ice-free during winter for the first time in living memory. I couldn't find a previous ice-free winter, so "in living memory" might be an understatement used in place "in history" or an even longer period of time.
posted
Look at the bright side, this makes building a bridge to Russia from Alaska across the Barents Sea a little less of an engineering challenge.
And I'm not a fan of iceless Great Lakes. Makes for a bitch of a winter. I'm thankful that I live on the east side of the state. I heard snow reports all winter long from my best friend who lives on the west side of the state. It wasn't as bad as it could have been, but it wasn't pretty.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I'm not a fan of iceless Great Lakes. Makes for a bitch of a winter.
Let's just say I'm not used to heavy winters, so this seems contradictory to me. Would you care to elaborate?
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
I think the air blowing over a frozen lake is drier than it would be if it could pick up moisture from the lake. Which, if you are talking about one of the Great lakes, means a lot of moisture. This translates to snow when the (now wet) air goes through the temperature and pressure changes as it transitions to blowing over land.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This quote is from an Op-Ed Page article in The New York Times on Sunday, September 18th. The article was written by LISA RANDALL, a professor of physics at Harvard. She is the most widely cited theoretical physicist in the world as of last autumn.
quote: "Global warming" is another example of problematic terminology. Climatologists predict more drastic fluctuations in temperature and rainfall — not necessarily that every place will be warmer. The name sometimes subverts the debate, since it lets people argue that their winter was worse, so how could there be global warming? Clearly "global climate change" would have been a better name.
I guess what I'm trying to get at by quoting this is that "global warming" may lead to colder winters for the Great Lakes area, and for Hank Hill (in the shade in Texas). The ice in the Antarctic is definitely receding, and the North and South Poles are definitely getting warmer, but that does not mean that every season will be warmer than the same one last year.
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
I think the air blowing over a frozen lake is drier than it would be if it could pick up moisture from the lake. Which, if you are talking about one of the Great lakes, means a lot of moisture. This translates to snow when the (now wet) air goes through the temperature and pressure changes as it transitions to blowing over land.
I think there's also a significant heat transfer effect. If you have two fluids (air and iceless lake) vs. one fluid and one solid (air and iced over lake), heat transfer is more effective and the air delivers more heat to the lake, making the air colder and delivering a dramatically colder wind chill factor to the folks on land. This is assuming the lake water is colder (yet moving and so hasn't frozen over, and contains particulate which lowers the freezing point)than the air, which I have no way of knowing.
Therefore I joke about how all you fools living withing 20 ft of sea level are doomed. DOOOOMED!
Ironically, Global Warming could be the LDS breakthrough issue. "Drowning the unbelievers, in order to make way for a better tomorrow."
Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's interesting. I live about a mile from the South-western shore of Lake Michigan. During the winter, when the winds are blowing from the northeast, we get the worst of lake-effected weather considering the distance the wind travels over the surface of the lake in those conditions.
This year, however, we really didn't get a lot of snow. Lots of rain, but not a ton of snow.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Remember guys, the only way we're going to cut back on CO2 is to kill some endangered species!
If they're dead, they're not breathin'! If they're not breathin', they're not pollutin' this world with green house gasses!
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If everyone filled their yards and gardens with trees and every building had trees on the roof... people need to compensate with plant growth. It might help!
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This whole topic is just frustrating for a layperson (like me) to follow because the science has become so politicized. I've been trying to follow this for years, and it has been a rollercoaster. One example was a June 2002 issue of New Scientist that contained an article "The Icehouse Effect."
The article acknowledged new facts, such as the existance of more than 200,000 sq. km more ice in Antarctica than there was in the early 80's. This was in direct contradiction with most earlier theories suggesting massive melting by the time the article was published. However, the author concluded that the ice build up was actually proof that global warming was happening, and went on to explain why several new models predicted much more ice in Antarctica than was normal. Now, a couple years later, we see more melting, and it too is proving global warming right. I mean golly, this is crazy to try to follow, you know what I mean?
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
I think the air blowing over a frozen lake is drier than it would be if it could pick up moisture from the lake. Which, if you are talking about one of the Great lakes, means a lot of moisture. This translates to snow when the (now wet) air goes through the temperature and pressure changes as it transitions to blowing over land.
I think there's also a significant heat transfer effect. If you have two fluids (air and iceless lake) vs. one fluid and one solid (air and iced over lake), heat transfer is more effective and the air delivers more heat to the lake, making the air colder and delivering a dramatically colder wind chill factor to the folks on land. This is assuming the lake water is colder (yet moving and so hasn't frozen over, and contains particulate which lowers the freezing point)than the air, which I have no way of knowing.
Which might also make "for a bitch of a winter."
Well, what I meant is that when there is a lot of ice covering Lake Michigan, there is less open water to vaporize and be used to moisturize the air, thus, less snow. But when there is an iceless Lake Michigan, there is a ton more moisture in the air, and the precipitation can be really bad.
Primal -
I'd say that's because it was just plain too warm this year. I live on the southEAST side of the state, and we got maybe one or two major snowfalls this year, but from what I heart from my friend who lives in Grand Rapids, they got a lot more, though not a ton overall. Had it been a few degrees colder as a whole over the year, you would have gotten slammed. As a whole, the precipitation on that side of the state, I believe, was higher than usual, just not necessarily snow.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm really getting sick of this debate. The scientific evidence that this is happening has been very solid for over a decade and gets stronger with every passing month. Yet still the US right wing persists in ignoring the problem. I suppose this is because there are a select few who are profiting enormously from the status quo burning of fossil fuels. Still, even for this group, ignoring global climate change seems very short sited. Even if they care only about their own profit margin, a global catastrophe is unlikely to respect wealth and power.
They remind me of the wicked in the days of Noah who ignored the words of the prophets and continued eating, drinking, marrying and giving in marriage (i.e. business as usual) right up until the time the rain started falling.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
We got significantly less lake effect snow this year(I'm in Grand Rapids) than we have previous years. I'm not at all surprised the lake didn't freeze over, it's been a fairly warm winter.
posted
Rabbit- I don't know if you were referring specifically to my post or just a general frustration of how politicized the science has become. If it was in response to me, I assure you I am not ignoring the potential problem, and I'm not right wing. I have been trying to be aware of the scientific evidence for years now. That's part of the problem. I have seen completely contradictory responses used to support global climate change theory (I hesitate to call it global warming, it just doesn't seem like an accurate phrase).
I would to feel that scientists have an accurate model of what will happen, the knowledge of what to do, and the assurance that those actions will lead to a desired outcome. Unfortunately, I just don't feel that way. I have nothing personally to gain by sticking my head in the sand about the issue and everything to lose. I just try to do what I can with energy conservation. I bought a California emissions new car even when I lived in Utah. I plan on getting a motorcycle that gets 70 mpg for the March-Nov communte. I keep my thermostat low in the winter and use the AC sparingly during the summer. I just take it on faith that these things will help.
I guess most of my problem is that the theory doesn't seem very falsifiable. Additionally, it seems like often times the science is focused on making the observations fit the theory rather than really being critical about them. I know what your occupation is Rabbit, I know your expertise and I'm not trying to be rude. I'm just a confused engineer trying to make sense of the science of it all.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BaoQuingTian, My comment wasn't directed at you. It was a general response based on previous discussions of this issue.
If you are looking for better understanding of the issues I highly recommend the book "The Discovery of Global Warming". You can also look at the books website. http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htmlPosts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, I'm trying to do my part by encouraging the use of nuclear power, which, of course, doesn't emit greenhouse gases. Another option is for us to begin burying a great deal of CO2, which we could totally do, though of course it would not be free. I read an article in Scientific American a while back about pumping it down certain wells where it would stay in between some strata of rocks.
Barring all that, well, I've always wanted to live on the beach! Alabama was underwater during the whole Cretaceous. Hopefully this time it will just lap the foothills of the Appalachians, where I live.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
How can Carbon Dioxide levels reach a million-year-old record when the world is only six- or seven thousand years old? Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Rabbit, I'm trying to do my part by encouraging the use of nuclear power, which, of course, doesn't emit greenhouse gases.
I won't discourage anyone who is taking any individual action to address this problem but at the same time I see this a something we aren't going to be able to fix by individuals making good choices. This is something that has the potential and likelihood to be catastrophic for every living thing on earth. What we need is a major societal effort to find and implement solutions. As you mentioned Anne Kate, people have proposed many fixes like barrying CO2 but none of this fixes are ready to be implemented tomorrow. We need to invest the kind of money in this problem that we put into the Cold War arms race because Global Climate change has the potential even more devastating to our way of life than Stalin might have been.
This is our approaching astroid! If we put massive resources into finding and implementing a solution now, we have at least a chance of averting the global catastrophe. We would have had an even better chance if we had started in 1992 when Bush I signed the Kyoto treaty. Our chances would have been even better if we had started making modest changes a decade earlier than that when science indicated that these was a serious concern.
If we start now and put everything we've got into solving the problem, we might still have a chance. If we keep delaying for another decade, all we will be able to do is watch as thousands of living things suffer and die. The longer we wait, the less chance we have.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's all a test of faith, like what to do with all those bones that God hid around the planet.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I suppose this is because there are a select few who are profiting enormously from the status quo burning of fossil fuels.
A lot more people than a "select few" profit enormously from the status quo of burning fossil fuels.
It's doubtful any of us would have anywhere near the leisure time nor the material comfort we have now without widespread use of fossil fuels.
Certainly Exxon stockholders profit even more than you or I, but we all have an enormously better standard of living because of it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Generally, people don't fail to support environmental initiatives because they are profiteering, or because they are callous, but because they realize how much of our civilization rests on fossil fuel energy and see no way to do anything without causing thousands of living beings to die. They are envisioning food trucks stalled on the side of the road and empty grocery stores. They are imagining businesses standing idle because there's no longer any way to get to work. They're seeing science grind to a halt because no one has time for anything but raw survival any more. They believe that the only way to do anything effective is go back to the Middle Ages.
And so--quite naturally--they say, "Frak it. The world is doomed no matter what we do. Let's live it up while we can and go out with a bang."
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's doubtful any of us would have anywhere near the leisure time nor the material comfort we have now without widespread use of fossil fuels.
No argument there. But if some technology appeared tomorrow that allowed us to do allow those things with a renewable energy technology -- most of us who benefit from fossil fuel use would benefit even more.
In contrast there are a select few who are making big profits from fossil fuels who stand to loose big time if something replaces fossil fuels. If you look at the groups who are still arguing that we don't need to do anything to curb our greenhouse emissions, there is a big fossil fuel company behind everyone of them. These people are fighting tooth and nail to deny that we have a problem because all the potential solutions will leave them out in the cold.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:No argument there. But if some technology appeared tomorrow that allowed us to do allow those things with a renewable energy technology -- most of us who benefit from fossil fuel use would benefit even more.
Absolutely.
quote:In contrast there are a select few who are making big profits from fossil fuels who stand to loose big time if something replaces fossil fuels. If you look at the groups who are still arguing that we don't need to do anything to curb our greenhouse emissions, there is a big fossil fuel company behind everyone of them. These people are fighting tooth and nail to deny that we have a problem because all the potential solutions will leave them out in the cold.
True. The reason they are winning, though, is because the average person will face real economic pain during any transition period.
The pain probably isn't enough in and of itself to convince a lot of people to oppose renewable energy, but it is enough to encourage people to latch onto the views of those with the greater economic motive to stop the transition.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Yay analytical reasoning! ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
