A Note: Global Warming Threads

T

Tristan

Leave your World Behind
Valued Senior Member
Just a NOTE to the people of Earth Science

You are still free to post other threads on global warming, but I would HIGHLY suggest reading back a bit to the other zillion threads on the same topic. Doing this will give you a feeling for the type of discussion and the few nuts around here who know too much about the subject :D

#1. Ill start off with this: Can we please make a list of ONLY FACTS which are 100% guaranteed to be true. From this list, we can do a type of Fermi problem or logic problem to see if, given the facts that we know for sure, global warming truly is an issue. It'll be fun :cool:

#2. I think many will agree (and many will disagree for that matter), that it is not a question of IF global warming is occuring, but rather WHY.
From my understanding, we have proof that the earth has gone from being really warm, to really cold, to inbetween and back through the list again several times.

#3. There are some people who will disagree with you completely and think you are a lunatic (that goes for both sides of the argument). There are compeling arguments on both sides and really, its an discussion that wont have a clear victor for many years. Be mindful of this please! In other words, when persuading or discussing, despite being exasperated, do not resort to petty insults. They only make you A.) look like a fool and B.) invalidate everything you have said in the minds of other people (generally).

Most of all, have fun! This is Science and the only way science goes anywhere, is by discussion. We can all agree that despite the fact that there might not be a right answer, the discussion will enrich our lives and broaden our horizons. The only thing that can happen is that you will become more effective and intellecutal in discussion as a result of being exposed to the opposite side of the tracks.


Enjoy.
T :cool:
 
I dont recon that is far from the truth actually...

the global warming trends scientist have been recording have been before the record amounts of toxins and green house effects have actually taken effect.
 
Actually, in the movie Day After Tomorrow, it was so un-scientific it's surprising. It had some good points, but it wouldn't happen all at once. It would be slower. They wouldn't all just suddenly melt unless there was a huge, fast, suddenly appearing source of heat. If it continues as it is it'll be more steady, until/unless we do something EXTREMELY and suddenly devastating.
 
our teacher once told us that if global warming gets worse the tropical countries will be temperate and the temperate ones will be tropical countries....
 
I was looking online in regards to that theory...where climates would shift. The web-sites I encountered talked about global warming eventually being the catalyst to a magnetic pole shift. Now, I am no nut about this topic, because some people are absolutely insane...however I think it would be quite enjoyable to have a tropical atmosphere. I live in the mohave desert, and if any of these websites are even partly correct in their assumptions....the new north pole would slightly move into lower canada, creating a more tropical envirnment for my situation. (IF I were to survive something like that, which is highly unlikely)
I think it is highly possible that global warming is inevitable, and it is a cycle that the earth goes through. I think it is just the start of whatever changes the earth normally goes through. We have had ice iges, floods, and a pangea land mass for christ's sake....all of those things pass and change and develope. I think we have only seen the start, and it will be quite an observation for humans...and possibly a test for us to endure.
 
Tristan said:
#1. Ill start off with this: Can we please make a list of ONLY FACTS which are 100% guaranteed to be true. From this list, we can do a type of Fermi problem or logic problem to see if, given the facts that we know for sure, global warming truly is an issue. It'll be fun :cool
Click to expand...
You haven't read the other posts on global warming!

A large vast of Northern Alaskan and Canadian forests are now dying because the permafrost has lowered (melted) to the point where that the moistur is no longer ther.

The Inuit Indians in Labrador can no longer fish for their substinence food off the coast because the ice is now to thin to walk on.

The glaciers in Greenland were five years ago receding at about 5-10 miles per year, now they are receding at a 100 miles per year.

It is estimated that in fifty years the Arctic ocean during the summers will be totally ice-free: great news for global transport: devastating news for migrating whales and permanent seal populations and bears.
 
Tristan said:
#1. Ill start off with this: Can we please make a list of ONLY FACTS which are 100% guaranteed to be true. From this list, we can do a type of Fermi problem or logic problem to see if, given the facts that we know for sure, global warming truly is an issue. It'll be fun :cool:

#3. There are some people who will disagree with you completely and think you are a lunatic (that goes for both sides of the argument). There are compeling arguments on both sides and really, its an discussion that wont have a clear victor for many years. Be mindful of this please! In other words, when persuading or discussing, despite being exasperated, do not resort to petty insults. They only make you A.) look like a fool and B.) invalidate everything you have said in the minds of other people (generally).

We can all agree that despite the fact that there might not be a right answer, the discussion will enrich our lives and broaden our horizons. The only thing that can happen is that you will become more effective and intellecutal in discussion as a result of being exposed to the opposite side of the tracks.
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree, but there are some people on these threads of "sciforum: the intellectual community" that take offense when you post substantiated facts through citated journals and condemn you for it through vulgarity, condemnation, and condescending belittlement. How can one deal with this and still be objective and "enjoy." Post the facts: not emotional condescending ignorance.

I have been continuously condemned in the utmost most vulgar of ways for starting a discussion by quoting a researched fact from a journal article and then being accused of not adding to the discussion! I'm state a scientifically researched fact that may be a hypothesis, theory, or even a law, yet forum contributors take offense at this for not stating it in my own words. How can one scientifically deal with this objection between subjective argumentation - and possible dillusion - and stated published per-reviewed scientific research that is much more reliable and factually oriented?
 
You pinned this thread but I am not familiar with the reason's why you do this? Did you do this to tell others what I said in the last posts??? If so, thanks.

But do you still want sources from my 2nd to last post??? I thought you might, then spent over an hour looking them all up and accidently deleted the whole thing. Yeah, I know, some people will say "yeah right!" Therefore, if you still do, please tell me what you want specifics on as I had reresearched them all before they were accidently deleted.

"A large vast area of Northern Alaskan and Canadian forests are now dying because the permafrost has lowered (melted) to the point where that the moisture is no longer there."

This was on a Scientific American special hosted by Alan Alda about six months ago. You can easily find the transcripts or video from this info. Researchers from the University of Alaska, Fairbanks took Alan out into the forests of Northern Alaska to show him the devastation. I have also found many other articles about this fact.

"The Inuit Indians in Labrador can no longer fish for their substinence food off the coast because the ice is now to thin to walk on."
This was on NPR radio a few months ago but I found three citations that state the same thing.

"The glaciers in Greenland were five years ago receding at about 5-10 miles per year, now they are receding at a 100 miles per year. It is estimated that in fifty years the Arctic ocean during the summers will be totally ice-free"

I found three citations that state that they predict the Arctic will be ice-free is fifty years. Anyways:

The Jakobshavn Isbrae glacier's speed increased from one foot a day to 113 feet per day by 2002 - this is about 10 miles per year or 100 square miles - then it suddenly increased in its receeding during 2004 and 2005. I may have heard a mistake while hearing this in that they may have said 100 square miles instead of 100 miles but this is the ONLY source out of my previous post that I couldn't find recent data on. Many Antarctic glaciers are receeding at a rate of near 100 miles per year and there's a lot published on this.

I'm really burned up that after all those cited quotations that I wrote were suddenly deleted, but anyone who posted often on the web must know how that feels.

If there is anything in my above post that you would like me to reresearch to give you a source, other than the two I have provided, please ask and I will do so. Just give me a little time as I am rather busy these days.
 
Tonight on Fox News channel at 8, Rick Fulbaum is doing a special on Global Warming which may be interesting to watch for anyone who cares to see it!
 
valich said:
"A large vast area of Northern Alaskan and Canadian forests are now dying because the permafrost has lowered (melted) to the point where that the moisture is no longer there."

This was on a Scientific American special hosted by Alan Alda about six months ago.
Click to expand...

http://www.pbs.org/saf/1404/resources/transcript.htm

valich said:
"The Inuit Indians in Labrador can no longer fish for their substinence food off the coast because the ice is now to thin to walk on."
This was on NPR radio a few months ago but I found three citations that state the same thing.
Click to expand...

I couldn't find this, and I'm an avid NPR listener, though thinning ice and a correlation to "global warming" was a difficult link to make according to Köberle et al (2003) and was supported by Shoutilin et al (2005). Both indicated that predictive models could not be made because of a lack of data and both agreed that interannual to decadal variability interfered with defining any trends. Shoutilin et al noted that 1990 had a decrease in ice volume in the Arctic region, but by the end of the 90s there was an increase in volume. Köberle et al reminds us that wind and ice accumulation affect ice export events in which ice leaves the Arctic -so some, perhaps much, of the volume decreases in Arctic ice are dependent upon factors other than direct temperature increases in the local climate.

Doomsayers appear to cherry-pick the data, which amounts to nothing more than bad science. Indeed, it becomes an issue of politics rather than science. For instance, The Futurist (Cristol 2003) ran an article titled, As Arctic Ice Melts, Polar Bears May Starve. In it, the author states that in the last 35 years, Arctic ice has "thinned from an average of 3.1 meters to 1.8 meters. Since 1978, it's shrunk by 6%. But the author ignores data such as that above which notes that trends in abblation and accumulation have yet to be established with a periodicity that can be useful. The author also did not mention the increase in ice volume at the end of the 1990s. Being so one-sided on such an issue is bad science.

One thing that I can tell you is that the Inuit of Labrador have traditional subsistence strategies that include caribou and harp seals and only a small fraction of fishing (Woollett 1999). Modern Inuit have had to move from harp seal subsistence because they aren't allowed to sell products from their hunts to Americans due to American law (they can eat/use all they can hunt). Their use of caribou has gone from personal use to "harvesting" on a near commercial scale. Modern fishing for the Inuit is primarily industrial. They aren't dependent upon walking out on the ice to do their fishing, since the amount they could bring back would be insufficient for sale. Modern Inuits can no longer forage for subsistence because of modern Western society's influence that demands a cash-based ecconomic strategy rather than the traditional reciprical strategy.

valich said:
I found three citations that state that they predict the Arctic will be ice-free is fifty years.
Click to expand...

An hypothesis that is easily tested. We simply wait 50 years. But its also an hypothesis not based in available data.

valich said:
The Jakobshavn Isbrae glacier's speed increased
Click to expand...

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/jakobshavn.html


The paleoclimate of Greenland and the Arctic was far warmer than it is currently (Ashworth 1999):

During the Plio-Pleistocene transition ∼2 million years ago, a diverse beetle fauna inhabited Kap København, northernmost Greenland. The beetle fauna inhabited a forested landscape in contrast to the polar desert of today. A significantly warmer climate also may have existed in the interior of Antarctica until Pliocene time, based on a fossil assemblage that includes fossils of beetles. During the last 2 million years of the Quaternary Period, both the northern and southern hemispheres have undergone repeated glaciations in both polar and temperate latitudes.
Click to expand...

It seems reasonable to suggest that current trends in global warming are part of the natural cycle of the planet itself. The question is, is there an anthropogenic cause and, if so, to what extent? Are we speeding up the inevitable, having no appreciable affect, or causing it altogether? If the latter, then why does the faunal assemblages of the paleoenvironment reflect both trends in cold and warm climates.

The planet has survived these things in the past, it will in the future. Species will go extinct (probably the polar bear) as the environmental niches they adapted to take advantage of change. But other species will flourish in competitive release and adaptive radiation. Its been going on for millions of years.

References:

Ashworth, Allan C. (1999). Response of beetles to global change: the past is a clue to the future. Environmental Geosciences, 6(3), 150-151

Cristol, Hope (2003) As Arctic Ice Melts, Polar Bears May Starve. Futurist, 37(4), 6-7

Köberle, Cornelia; Gerdes, Rüdiger. (2003). Mechanisms Determining the Variability of Arctic Sea Ice Conditions and Export. Journal of Climate 16(17), 2843

Shoutilin, Sergey V.; Makshtas, Alexander P.; Ikeda, Motoyoshi; Marchenko, Alexey V.; Bekryaev, Roman V. (2005). Dynamic–Thermodynamic Sea Ice Model: Ridging and Its Application to Climate Study and Navigation. Journal of Climate 18(18), 3840-3855

Woollett, James M. (1999) Living in the narrows: subsistence economy and culture change in Labrador Inuit society during the contact period World Archaeology, 30(3), 370-388
 
SkinWalker said:
You do realize you're advertising a local news program on a global forum, right?
Click to expand...
Not really. He's not advocating any position - or advertising it's merits (pros or cons). He's informing those of us who wish to be more educated on the subject about a show that could perhaps give us the most up-to-date scientific knowledge. He's doing nothing illegal by informing us about this, as it is extremely pertinent to the topic.

Because I live outside of an urban area I do not have cable and cannot get this channel, but I hope that someone posts a review or any new info that they find or propose in this news program as I am very interested in it. Wish that I could watch it! Thanks a lot!
 
Don't be daft. You're misreading my post. He is, indeed, advertising a local news program that is probably only viewable to him. We don't even know what his locality is. Do you realize how many Fox affiliate stations there are in the United State?
 
A Note On Arctic Ice and Permafrost Thinning:

"Here [in Sach's Harbor, Banks Island, Canada] 400 miles (640 kilometers) north of the Arctic Circle, global warming is not a theory that is debated among scientists, but a reality of everyday life. Sea ice is thinning, and disappearing. Indigenous animals are moving farther north. And melting permafrost has loosened the ground enough to weaken foundations and cause homes to lean. This, plus rising sea levels, threatens to displace an entire community."
"Global Warming Melts Inuit’s Arctic Lifestyle," by Lisa Krause, National Geographic News, July 12, 2000.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2000/12/122900inuits.html

"In the past we could walk on the ice in the fjord between the icebergs for a six-month period during the winter, drill holes and fish," said Joern Kristensen, a fisherman and one of the indigenous Inuit who are most of Greenland's population of 56,000. "We can only do that for a month or two now. It has become more difficult to drive dog sleds because the ice between the icebergs isn't solid anymore." In 2002-2003, a six-mile-long stretch of the Sermeq Kujalleq glacier broke off and drifted silently out of the fjord near Ilulissat, Greenland's third largest town, 155 miles north of the Arctic Circle....[These] climate change are noticeable throughout the Arctic region, from the northward spread of spruce beetles in Canada to melting permafrost in Alaska and northern Russia....Melting permafrost has damaged hundreds of buildings, railway lines, airport runways and gas pipelines....the Inuit need to be out there on the ice catching seals and are less and less able to do that because the ice is more unstable, thinner."
"Retreating glaciers worrisome to Greenlanders," Associated Press, Sep. 11 2005.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...911/greenland_glaciers_050911?s_name=&no_ads=

"The melting of glaciers, thinning sea ice and changes in permafrost not only have acute impacts on Arctic residents who depend on hunting and fishing for survival, but also have global consequences...."
"Study Reveals Global Warming Effects in Arctic," by Elizabeth Arnold, National Public Radio (NPR), Nov 8, 2004.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4159482

"Inuit communities in the Canadian Arctic will be among the populations most directly impacted by long-term declining and/or thinning sea ice trends because much of their livelihood and culture are still highly intertwined with the presence, and cycles, of sea ice formation/decay."
http://www.acuns.ca/En/Recipients.htm

"Change in sea ice was identified as a top priority....several critical concerns related to changes in sea ice: diminishing amounts of multiyear ice, the increasing distance from shore of the multiyear ice, possible changes to pressure ridge abundance, sea ice thinning, and marked changes in the seasonal timing of sea ice breakup and freeze-up....Rothrock et al. (1999) found that average Arctic ice thickness had declined from over 3 m to less than 2 m."
"Climate Change and Sea Ice: Local Observations from the Canadian Western Arctic
Arctic," by Nichols, Theresa, Berkes, Fikret, Jolly, Dyanna, Snow, Norman B., Arctic, Mar 2004. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3712/is_200403/ai_n9346073
(this is a very indepth descriptive article regardind sea-ice level changes and the impact on Inuit survival hunting activities.)

"If the melting continues, as many Arctic experts expect, the mass of floating ice that has crowned the planet for millions of years may largely disappear for entire summers this century.... The Northwest Passage route to succumb to the thaw. Some Canadian officials, eyeing what will happen in 20 years.
"As Polar Ice Turns to Water, Dreams of Treasure Abound," by Clifford Krauss, Steven Lee Myers, Andrew C. Revkin, and Simon Romero, New York Times, Oct. 10, 2005.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1010-07.htm

"Sea ice in the Arctic covers about 10-15% less area in the spring and summer than it did in the 1950s. The ice is now also estimated to be about 40% thinner in the late summer and early fall than it was in recent decades....scientists predict that there might not be any Arctic sea ice in the Northwest Passage and other areas in the late summer months by the year 2050....Over the last 100 years, the sea levels in the world have risen by about 10-25 centimetres. These levels are projected to rise by up to 88 centimetres by 2100."
http://www.climatechangenorth.ca/section-BG/BG_HS_07_O_E.html

"In Greenland, Inuit hunters are falling through the ice in places where it has always been solid while prey is harder to track. Migrating caribou in Canada are wearing themselves out slogging over slush that used to be easily crossed permafrost. And some polar bears are having to wait weeks longer than normal, until December, for the ice to reach land around parts of the Arctic rim. The ice lets them venture out to gorge on seals to build up their fat reserves for winter. The late arrival of the icecap weakens females who give birth in winter. "Temperatures in the continental Arctic are rising more sharply than anywhere else we know about on the earth," said Olav Orheim, head of the Norwegian Polar Institute."
"Shrinking Arctic ice threatens Inuit, polar bears," by Alister Doyle, Reuters, June 20, 2001.

"Climate warming will occur first and most intensely in Arctic and sub-Arctic regions (e.g. IPCC, 1996). Observational evidence indicates that the Arctic has been warming and that this warming is unprecedented over the past 400 years (Serreze et al., 2000). The extent of Arctic sea ice (i.e. the area of ocean covered by ice), as observed mainly by satellite, has decreased at a rate of about 3% per decade since the 1970's (Parkinson et al., 1999). Within Canadian Arctic waters, a similar rate of decrease has been observed over the period 1969-2000. Of potentially greater significance, estimates based on submarine measurements indicate that summertime Arctic ice thickness has diminished by 40% over the past 40 years. If the recent rate of thinning were to be sustained, the Arctic Ocean could be essentially ice-free in summer as early as 2050."
"Sea Ice in the Canadian Arctic in the 21st Century," by John C. Falkingham
Chief of Ice Forecast Operations, Canadian Ice Service, Environ. Canada Sept. 2000.
http://yukon.taiga.net/knowledge/resources/seaice.html

also: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3221795.stm
 
What is beginning to be recognised in the EU and the UK, and should perhaps be a mjaor subject of discussion at the forthcoming Montreal UN Conference on Climate Change, is there they may be a link between the mechanism reportedly causing Global Warming [more Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere] and the increased spread of Viral Infections. That there is an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere seems clear from scientific measurement data, that it is "acidifying" the Oceans was reported at the Exeter [UK] Climate Change Conference, THEREFORE presumably everything else in contact with atmosphere is being "acidified" including all Virus [especially the Avian 'Flu Virus], and it is well known to medical science that most virus, especially the 'Flu virus, flourish under more acid conditions, and are inhibited under more alkaline [less acid] ones
 
They're talking about this (temperature increases in chicken coops and increases in Avian Flu) on the " H5n1 !!!!!" Biology and Genetics thread, but it's inconclusive.

I know of no studies linking increases in Earth's atmospheric acidity to increases in virus multiplication, amplification of mutation rates, or rates of spreading. You need to cite a source.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top