Global Warming or Our Imagination?

Right wing plot? Last I remember hearing, global warming was a left wing plot by those over-educated, promiscuous, bleeding heart, meddling tax loving commie radicals in their ivory towers.

Right wing, left wing, middle wing, Who cares?

My grandfather was a socialist (my father and uncles all bear the names of socialist leaders of that era, Morris Hillquit; Carl Debbs and my dad's name Emil Seidel)

My Democrat farther spoke out against Barry Goldwater daily.

I somehow ended up a moderate Republican. Forgive my ignorance of the lingo.

I thought it was the right wing claiming it is a left wing fabrication.

"The majority of the atolls is barely more than six metres above sea level"

They built a nation on top of a coral reef. Can you imagine what would happen if they got hit by a tsunami like the one that hit Japan? Instant wipe out.

Warming may play a role in rising ocean levels, but how much junk is thrown into the oceans every year? How much water is displaced by every ship out there?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/no-smoking-hot-spot/story-e6frg73o-1111116945238

Arizona used to be under an ocean. They change. Whether it's New Orleans, a sand bar, or an atoll, I think it's pretty arrogant of humans to lay claim to a piece of land that is slightly above, or below sea level, and expect the surrounding sea to remain static forever.

Although the canyon itself is of comparatively recent origin, the rocks exposed in its walls are not. Most of the strata were originally deposited as marine sediment, indicating that for long periods of time the canyon area was the floor of a shallow sea.

http://www.t-rat.com/Pages/GeologicalHistGrandCanyon.html

I take your point.

I took some geology courses in college and have walked to Plateau Point at the Grand Canyon.

My point is that these recent changes are happening while mankind stands by and observes, as they are now, and have not happened in the classic time frame associated with geologic changes, which occur over periods of many years, not often witnesses by humans.

Maybe it is natural geologic subsidence, if it is, lets get some of those facts out.

This looks factual.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080306-sea-levels.html

Interesting but......................

A quote from the cited link: "But Miller cautioned against comparing the long-term, plate tectonic-driven changes in sea level to the short-term dangers from melting ice caps.

"The main effect for people who care about what's happening into the future is to understand how fast the ice caps are melting," he said.

And many studies have shown that the ice caps are melting rapidly, pushing sea levels higher."

I guess we'll never know for sure.

Well, if we assume that man made CO2 is warming the planet and melting the ice caps, I don't see any prayer of us stopping, much less reversing, CO2 output. So the argument of whether it's man made or not, is purely academic.

Regardless of what's going on, we're all going to have to learn to live with it. It will probably help some populations of people, and hurt others.

And many studies have shown that the ice caps are melting rapidly, pushing sea levels higher.

NASA, a part of our government, has made a study showing 1/2 inch of rise over 7 years. We know the government never lies to us.

It's still spin. I read another article not a few days ago, but they were not throwing life preservers out to everyone like this article implies.

Here is another spin on it. Despite seal level rising 4.8" in the last 60 years, only 4 of the 27 associated islands are actually loosing land mass size. The rest either remained the same or increased.

Link Here

Let's face it, the Earth changes over time. we even might have a hand in some of those changes, but I am not going to get all tied up in knots about this, even if there are a bunch of psychologically predisposed people who do like to get tied up in knots.

And because of those people there are yet other people willing to use and prey on their fears for political gain.

Which raises another question. According to Obama we can convert pond scum into fuel. Will that same process work if we use political scum?

I believe the conversion of political scum yields dark energy.

The flavor of the article is the implication that the rest of us humans are causing the loss of their beloved island.

OK, I will stop spitting in the ocean when I'm fishing offshore. That should reverse this man caused catastrophe.

I doubt if another 20 inches will make that much difference. I would be more worried about a tsunami.

Your data, gathered nearly 20 years ago, is irrelevant to the discussion.

Your post fails to point out that the 20 inch figure is predicted for 2100.

You also fail to mention the 20 FEET that the ocean will rise WHEN the Greenland ice cap melts.

That won't be much consolation to the displaced islanders, regardless of the cause.

My mistake, with the earth now getting cooler, the ice will stop melting. Anyway, I doubt if any of those people will be alive in 2100.

You're hopeless.

Well, since I couldn't 'get your goat', I guess I'll have to join you. There doesn't seem to be anything we can about the warming since the earth is committed to it.

Yes, and we are committed to the earth.

Maybe the question to ask is, "What would happen if all man made CO2 emissions were suddenly halted, today.

Not a lot, I'd say, except air quality. It's bigger than all of us.

Maybe the question to ask is, "What would happen if all man made CO2 emissions were suddenly halted, today.

That was the point of the link, had you bothered to read it: The temperature will rise even if CO2 remains constant. However, methane is a way bigger problem that CO2, and we can do something about that: stop eating cows.

Touche′.

You wrote, "You also fail to mention the 20 FEET that the ocean will rise WHEN the Greenland ice cap melts."

If!

Do YOU believe that the Greenland ice cap will last forever? That would almost imply that it has been there forever, since the beginning of time.

OK, we're splitting hairs here, but some good information has been presented, even by those who believe global warming is a myth.

I have always embraced the cyclic nature of our globe, above and below the surface. I have a problem with those who spout drivel about the short term anecdotal evidence that they say proves the globe ISN'T warming, over time. OK maybe my argument is short term, too. But, these people need to move.

Maybe that's just because we're here to witness it, as with ocean rise.

I don't know.

Let's look at this from a more engineering perspective:

1. How much energy is required to melt the total ice cap of Greenland. 334 Joules are needed to melt 1 gram of ice from 0°Ç. However, you still need to raise the temperature to that point before that number is valid. The average surface temperature of Greenland is -1°C. If the global temperature rises 2° it could happen, but even at the guestimated rate of temperature change we have for the 20th century, that is a long way away. Taking data from the global warming crowd that would be near the end of the 21st century. However, there seems to be some issues with temperatures rising in the 21st century because they have reversed downward, but they will get that fixed soon.

2. Number 1 is only valid if the temperature continues to rise, but as I said we have a small problem with actual measurement versus predicted temperature.

3. Most important, there is no proof that Greenland's ice will melt. We just don't know because we simply do not have enough information. It could melt. It has done so in the past and it very well might in the future, but we can't reliably predict when. So, the operative word is if because when is completely undetermined.

4. I can't figure out what is really happening with the climate (can you?). Everyone lies for their own purposes and every prediction made by computer models seems to have significant errors when compared to what is actually happening. It's a vicious circle (by design).

Because the actual facts are so shrouded in political rhetoric climate science has more to do with religion (whichever side you fall on) than science. The reason is because we are forced to take everything on faith (by design). I just have given up, live my life the best I can without being too obnoxious to the Earth, and enjoy every day I am alive.

While that may not work out too well for you, it's just fine for me and my family.

The only downside we have to this is that we keep reviving this topic (which has no definite conclusion), but never have any new data to add to the discussion. It is just an endless babble of opinions sprinkled with some of the same old facts.

Oh, and the reason that the debate is over is because a significant number of minds on one side are just not listening anymore.

It's inevitable that the ice melts, the question is:

1. What will cause it next time?

2. Will "we" be here to see it?

You said, "While that may not work out too well for you".

It will work out for me however it works out. I do not control my destiny here on earth, any more. Circumstances have dictated that I contribute more to the waste stream than a "normal" old man would.

You're right, it's an insoluble problem, I just wish we could filter out the political/religious BS and see the evidence as it is.

Cheers.

The only way that will happen if if people give the subject no significant value and then it becomes worthless as a political tool.

The evidence alone would be interesting to look at.

Unfortunately, to think for a second that humans are going to stop contributing CO2 to the atmosphere is ludicrous.

We have already witnessed the damage that global warming has done, and it's going to get much worse.

Laws, mandates and rules have been put in place that stifle economic growth.

Economic growth, productivity and manufacturing have moved from the US and Europe to other countries that are rightfully taking advantage of the vacuum that we have created.

Governments have grown. Perpetual debt is now considered the norm to keep them in control of everything, and ever expanding.

Cap and trade has been implemented in California and will likely sweep westward.

The ability for the US to compete in a global marketplace has been greatly compromised.

Has the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere changed?

Nope........................and it's not going to.

This was interesting. Check the last paragraph. Is seems we have a lot of time. Now what do you think?

We won't live to see the end.

It would be funny if global warming was a right wing plot.

The nightly news would be featuring stories every night, exposing the lies. Saturday Night Live would be running skit after skit about it.

I can almost see the headlines:

Guns, Religion, and Now Global Warming. When Will the Right Wake Up?

It would all be quite hilarious.

Go ahead, pile on.

You missed another man made disaster. Who would have seen this coming?

Dumping piles of sand into the ocean seemed so brilliant. Now man made global warming is destroying them.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/dubai/8271643/The-World-is-sinking-Dubai-islands-falling-into-the-sea.html

The sinking of those man-made Dubai islands is the result of the subsistence of the sea floor bed as well as the consolidation of the materials used to construct the islands themselves, by wave action, and poor engineering analysis and design.....

Ya had better read the various articles in Engineering News Record (ENR).

Nah. I don't really care about the why.

Even without knowing much about how they were doing it, I knew that that was a really bad idea from the start. Anyone that's ever built a sand castle could have told them.

I think PT Barnum would have loved it though. Pile up sand in the ocean and sell it as expensive real estate............................pure genius.

kram, I have to agree with you on that assessment that it was a bad idea from the very get-go. The first time that I read about the Sultan's plans to build those islands (with desert sand no less) along the Persian Gulf shoreline I knew they were destined for future failure.......gut feelings asides.

Even the Japanese and the Chinese (Hong Kong) are experiencing the very same problems with their fairly new "International Airport Islands" that they've built out in the bays......they're literally sinking out of sight! In the end they're going to have to "top-off" their islands with more material as well as build sea walls around the perimeters. How many $ Billions spent on those boondoggles?

Problem with the placement of more fill material at those two airports is that it adds more load to the already highly loaded seabed and substrates, and therefore as a result it exasperates the current very high settlement/subsistence problems....so, in the end it's a Catch-22 situation for them. Crappy designs IMO from the beginning!

It was such a total folly from the beginning. You can't dump sand into the sea and expect it to stay there.

I laughed to myself at the arrogance and ignorance it represented.

I didn't jump to the conclusion that they were doing a stupid thing, I usually figure they will have somebody smarter than I controlling the work, and I would have done something to contain the sand. It was, therefore, a surprise that they are failing.

I wonder if you would have laughed at the arrogance of the Dutch, when they pushed the sea back in the Zuiderzee. I toured the polders in 1957 and was amazed that someone could even conceive of a project that massive.

No, not at all.

The Dutch had a mission, purpose and dedication to the land that the oil rich royalty in this little tryst never will even understand.

The Dutch prized the land. The Kuwaitis prize the prize and shear defiance of the natural resources at their disposal.

The Dutch used construction practices that have withstood the test of time. They built a wall against the sea.

The Kuwaitis built a sand bar.

No, not at all.

I'm blaming Canada. Canada is still rebounding from the last Ice Age, and as it gets higher, somewhere else has to get lower.

I'm not saying it's Canada's fault, I'm just blaming Canada.

Okay you shagger, lets get this right. Canadians are absent because.. lets fetch the O Canadian who can endure the monotonous rhetoric of these typical threads...

Rant then. I am so sick of these arguments, where the facts and any really interesting issues are obscured by petty preoccupation with the 'environmentalist' - vs - 'economy' polarization, and after slapping it to the 'enemy', retreat to some comfy polar ground. Resulting in a net gain of Zero to our understanding of either issue - both obviously vital to our survival.. and seemingly at loggerheads..... GET OVER IT.

FACT: The last 10.000 years are a climate stability anomaly on planet earth.

FACT: This civilization and our knowledge technology only exists because of a climate stability anomaly, which could change at any time. It is not evolution that brought us here. It is the failure of planet earth to swing the climate to 'normal' extremes, in which we would either perish or cling to life as tiny relict cultures. Relatively very minor climate changes in the known history have had major impacts on human civilization and survival. The 'usual' earth extremes would be lethal to the world as we know it.

FACT: This economy is populated by ripoff artists because it lends itself to the task. The model of 'sustainable growth' is a joke for lesser primates. But without this economic history, we would not have developed the knowledge and infrastructure we now have. And without that, we would not be at all able to prepare for the inevitable catastrophe of climate change, per the record, by causes beyond our control.

QUESTION: If a 'normal' extreme change occurred at any time, consider our present economy and energy status, and whether there is a donkey's chance in the park that the present industry would be able to adapt to meet those needs.

FACT: The environmental movement is huge because it really represents universal human concerns, not because of some political party or agenda. That does not mean that it isn't shackled by ignorance and driven by emotion. But the genuine need and near universal desire for environment/health/life to inform our economy is struggling to find expression.

QUESTION: Why do the big players in today's economy resist the universal need and concern which the client 'served' is trying to express? Many posters in threads like this one repudiate the public for this universal concern, and make ludicrous - and unsubstantiated - claims that there are ulterior motives when the government tries to respond to the concerns of their constituents, instead of blowing off the electorate and kissing industry a$$. Can the economic giants 'get over themselves' and their right to wallow (with government reverence and subsidies) in the rut where presently lodged? Or never.. never... until the end of time.

/nuff rantin

Before we all go back into the great spin cycle debate/denial/discussion on Global Warming itself, I'd like to comment on the apparent good political action of the President of Kiribati. Instead of waiting for a threatened disaster to actually occur, Anote Tong is negotiating a contingency plan for his countrymen to have a place to go long before the seas rise and swallows the island country. This is a laudable action for his citizens. Well at least this brief Yahoo article portrays a laudable action. As usual the devil will be in the details.

The Earth is both heating and cooling itself...

"The Earth's internal thermal energy flows to the surface by conduction at a rate of 400k TW-hr and is replenished by radioactive decay of minerals at a rate of 260k TW-hr

" The Earth has an internal heat content of 10³¹ joules (3·10¹⁵ TW·hr).^[3]About 20% of this is residual heat from planetary accretion, and the remainder is attributed to higher radioactive decay rates that existed in the past.^[1] Natural heat flows are not in equilibrium, and the planet is slowly cooling down on geologic timescales."

And the sun is supplying in the neighborhood of 8.2 million "quads" of Btu energy per year...with a potential for use of 444k TW-hr...

Worldwide energy consumption is around 132k TW-hr...

Now as you can see we are losing ~140k TW-hr in heat from the Earth, and we are producing ~132k TW-hr in energy usage....So I think if we could all use a little more energy, everything would be fine...Oh,,,and drink a little more water....

The first liar doesn't have a chance. Second liar: "... a millennia from now there will be a sea-level rise of about 80 feet hitting coasts worldwide"

As far as I know, South Pacific Atolls are either formed by volcanic action or corals....therefore, it is doubtful that the land is subsiding Lyn.

I for one wouldn't want to be on an island that is only 6 feet above mean sea level when the next Typhoon hits!

Not even going to go there as far as discussing Global Warming issue....so why bring it up in the first place??????

Because it is shock news. It doesn't matter if it really bolsters the argument as much as it has emotional appeal.

My guess is that lyn was bored.