Global Warming

[Ron61]

Steve,

The map is impressive but how could anyone take into consideration underground caverns that we don't even know about yet? Also what happens when the cold water and magma meet and it causes huge eruptions that blow out even more open holes? I am just having a problem with believing any person can figure out exactly what is or would happen in this event as there are just to many unknowns and everything they have is based on what is known.

Ron

[VRM]

Ron,
I agree. This is all just a lot of speculation. And while there might be caves, eruptions, and so on, I don't think it would change the total level of water by enough to make any kind of real difference.

And really - if it is 200 feet, or even 180 - it is a LOT of change that will not happen any time soon, and might never happen at all.

Steve

[VRM]

Originally Posted by DocDirk

I've been reading this post with interest, and I'm ignorant of most of the math and science involved. I did, however, hear an interview on the radio a few weeks ago with a scientist who claimed that with all parameters taken into account (which I don't understand) the net rise in sea level would be something under 3 feet. He had a credentials list of course, but then don't a ton of would-be experts? I'll try to find that information source and post it in the next couple of days.

DD,
There are some facts that we do know, such as the (ballpark) volume of ice in Antarctica, and the (ballpark) surface area of the oceans.
Using the numbers I have for those two things I came up with each square kilometer of ocean gets an additional 89 meters (about 290 feet) of depth.

A water level raise of only 3 feet just does not fit with those numbers. The Arctic is a different story. I have not done the math, but I suspect that we would get only a few inches out of it. The ice shelf on Greenland has a lot more volume on it, and might add up to 10 meters.

I'd be interested to see what sort of math the guy on the radio did to come up with 3 feet. I actually like the math and science part of it.

Steve

[bomelia]

That map looks like an awsome solution to the "blue state" problem.

Seriously, lets bound the problem at first. Assume all land is at "sea level. Any rise in sea level would imediately flood all land. What would the total rise be if the Antartic melted?


Mike

[ralph puglisi]

This is off the subject but why are the Great Lakes no longer connected on that map?

[VRM]

Originally Posted by bomelia

That map looks like an awsome solution to the "blue state" problem.

Seriously, lets bound the problem at first. Assume all land is at "sea level. Any rise in sea level would imediately flood all land. What would the total rise be if the Antartic melted?


Mike

Mike,
According to my numbers and those I have read:

290 feet of total rise only on existing surface area of the water.

200 feet when the flooding of low lying land is considered.


BTW, you might be able to make a nice living preaching to all the folks that Jesusland will be saved from the floods...

Steve

[Scott S]

I am still arguing Steve and Bo

http://van.physics.uiuc.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1650

http://www.physlink.com/education/AskExperts/ae389.cfm

Question

Assume there is an ice cube in a glass of water. When the ice cube melts, will the water level have risen, fallen, or remained the same? Why?

Asked by: Hugo Polichemi

Answer

Lets see now. Some intuitive center in my brain is screaming 'it will remain the same', but we will try to think it over.

In the first state, we have an ice cube of mass m floating in the water. If it is floating (in equilibrium), it will have to displace enough water to support its weight. How much is that? It is just Volume = m/d , where m is the mass of the ice cube, and d is the density of water.

In the second state, where the ice has melted, it turns into water of volume.... Volume = m/d! exactly the same volume as it displaced before. So the added volume is the same, so the level of the water will not change.

As a matter of fact, as long as objects are floating (i.e. they don't rest on the bottom) they displace enough water to support their mass. Since by turning from solid to liquid, the mass of water does not change (well, maybe it does, due to mass-energy equivalence, but that's _really_ negligible) it will keep displacing the same amount of water.

However, note that this may not apply to everything. If you had solid alcohol floating in water, when it melts, the level would drop, because water and alcohol mix at the molecular level; i.e. water filling spaces among alcohol molecules.

Answered by: Yasar Safkan, Ph.D., Sofware Engineer, Noktalar A.S., Istanbul, Turkey

Am I still wrong?

I love this stuff too.

Scott S

[VRM]

Ok, Scott - I went back and figured out what the problem is.

You are correct regarding a freshwater ice cube in a glass of fresh water with equal densities for both.

I am correct regarding a floating ice cube (or iceberg) with any degree of fresh water in the ocean raising the sea level more than it displaces.

My mistake was in applying what I know of ice bouyancy/density of icebergs to a freshwater ice cube in a fresh water glass (not many of us drink glasses of saltwater). Roughly 11% remains above water whereas an ice cube of equal density to the water in a glass has a little less than 9% above water.

Sorry about that...Does it make more sense now?

I suppose that is what I get for doing my own homework rather than just copying and pasting someone elses...

Steve

[392cobra]

Originally Posted by 392cobra

Can't say as how I've ever seen extra full glasses of Iced Tea overflow at a picnic.

Originally Posted by VRM

You are correct regarding a freshwater ice cube in a glass of fresh water with equal densities for both

Does this apply to tea the same it does for freshwater ?

[Scott S]

Originally Posted by VRM

I suppose that is what I get for doing my own homework rather than just copying and pasting someone elses...

Steve

I tried in my own words to prove it, I then had to resort to someone else's.

I think I mentioned in an earlier post about averaging the ice. The experiment would be the same if you used both sea water and sea ice. The problem would be to determine how much freshwater ice/snow is on top of the sea ice.

I am wondering if the average salinity of the oceans is decreasing, that would mean that the fresh water ice on land is melting at an increased rate wouldn't it?

Scott S

[Scott S]

At least they believe in the Bible, but another example of the lack of critical thinking skills.


Greenpeace Builds Replica of Noah's Ark
May 16 07:43 AM US/Eastern


ISTANBUL, Turkey (AP) - Environmental activists are building a replica of Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat—where the biblical vessel is said to have landed after the great flood—in an appeal for action on global warming, Greenpeace said Wednesday.

Turkish and German volunteer carpenters are making the wooden ship on the mountain in eastern Turkey, bordering Iran. The ark will be revealed in a ceremony on May 31, a day after Greenpeace activists climb the mountain and call on world leaders to take action to tackle climate change, Greenpeace said.

"Climate change is real, it's happening now and unless world leaders take urgent, decisive and far-reaching action, the next decades will see human misery on a scale not experienced in modern times," said Greenpeace activist Hilal Atici. "Those leaders have a mandate from the people ... to massively cut greenhouse gas emissions and to do it now."

Many countries are struggling to address global and national standards for carbon emissions. U.N. delegates are meeting this week in Germany to prepare for December negotiations on a new set of international rules for controlling emissions. The new accord would succeed the Kyoto Protocol, which ends in 2012.

Climate change will also be on the agenda when the Group of Eight major industrialized countries—the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Canada and Russia—meet in Germany in June.

Scott S

[J. T. Toad]

AAAAAAHHH! RUN FOR HIGHER GROUND!!!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,272812,00.html

I went to the beach this weekend.(in actuality I didn't, but what does that matter) I measured the ocean, it has receded by an amazing 2 cm, then it ROSE 12 FEET, then it receded back 20 FEET, then it came back 15 feet

Unbelievably, this all happened in the matter of minutes... RUN RUN!

http://www.junkscience.com/

"Is any loss of Antarctic ice mass suspected? No. Was there any increase in Antarctic temperature detected? No. The article says this hasn't been observed before in three decades of satellite monitoring -- has this particular technique been employed for three decades? No, it actually said we hadn't seen it before and threw in the fact that there have been polar orbiting satellites for about 30 years but the two statements aren't really related. Do we know that this represents any form of change or novel event? No. Is this a breathless blurt about a mildly interesting but largely irrelevant observation? Yes."


be afraid of the information age.

[bomelia]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_(geology)

Click around on terms like "crust" and "core" to get an idea of how much of the Earth's volume is occupied by high temperature materials. The crust is 1% of the entire material. The amount of energy under our feet is incomprehensible. There is also gases escaping due to the core.

Wonder if climate change is affected by this?

Mike

[J. T. Toad]

Mike, it is not a closed (simple experiment) system is it?

This reminds me when environmentalists. (sierra club etc.) were up in arms (chicken little) over the trees around Mammoth Mountain which were obviously and provenly dieing from exposure to excessive CO2. Then the picketing and stomping for emission change (global warming) started. After an extensive (because to contrary hopeful beliefs) study proved that the CO2 was coming from the ground... underneath a dormant volcano, the masses quieted without accountability.

http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/...framework.html

how does someone offset the earth as a polluter?

[bomelia]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_(geology)

Click around on terms like "crust" and "core" to get an idea of how much of the Earth's volume is occupied by high temperature materials. The crust is 1% of the entire material. The amount of energy under our feet is incomprehensible. There is also gases escaping due to the core.

Wonder if climate change is affected by this?

Mike

[bomelia]

Oops, pulled a Fredie (double post).

My point exactly.

Mike (trying a less confrontational approach...like it?)

[Art Burtt]

Maybe I'd have ocean front property

[Cobrabill]

Another Global warming issue popped.


http://www.usatoday.com/weather/rese...s_N.htm?csp=34

[bomelia]

Hmmm. The question is, if you were to add up the "biomass" of all lving humans plus their "carbon footprint" plus the support crew (methane produceing bovines and chickens, etc)...could these exceed the effects of say, one continously belching volcano? Or the effects of a planetary molten iron core, or the rythms of our own sun? Why is it that Mars is experiencing an almost identical climate shift as here on Earth? Rover??? Really? Coincidence? Not sure I can follow this. Seems I read that over the last hundred million years or so, there have been 100's of "major climate shifts". Who/what caused those? Or maybe, thats just the way ol' Mother Nature works.

A pox on those politicians and wags that attempt to take advantage of the fact that most people are simply not armed with enough information to contest these silly arguments. What do they get out of it? Oh yeah, power. The right to say who gets to be at the party.

Sounds like high school all over again, 'cept the stakes are much larger.

Mike

[392cobra]

Our Cobras could next !

SENATOR INHOFE OPENING STATEMENT

In the Hearing on:

"The Issue of the Potential Impacts of Global Warming on Recreation and the Recreation Industry"

Thursday May 24, 2007


Thank you for having this hearing today, Madam Chairman. I have to say, however, that we seem to have hearing after hearing after hearing on climate change – indeed, this is the Committee's second one this week alone – but we don’t seem to actually discuss legislation. While other Committees without jurisdiction on this issue attempt to write our nation’s global warming policies, this Committee sits idly by talking about tangential issues. I believe that if we do wrestle with actual legislation, then the folly of cap-and-trade carbon legislation will become apparent.

The recreation industry’s true threats come not from climate change – which has always changed and will always change – but from the so-called global warming ‘solutions’ being proposed by government policymakers. Misguided efforts to ‘solve’ global warming threaten to damage the travel and recreation industry. In short, it is a direct threat America’s way of life. If we cannot fly to remote locations, and if few automobiles are capable of pulling boats, jet skies, and campers, and if RVs become a thing of the past as environmentalists would like, then minor climate fluctuations will have little impact on recreation because Americans will not have the means to recreate.

I will not belabor my views about the scientific underpinnings of global warming alarmism, other than to make a few observations. The fact that climate fluctuates – changes – is nothing new, and should not be feared. It has always changed, and unless the processes of the planet suddenly stopped, it always will. There is little disagreement that it warmed in the Northern Hemisphere from about 1970’s until 1998, and that since that time, temperatures flattened. And there is general agreement that some human activities such as the building of cities and expanding agriculture, have contributed to this. But there remains much debate in the peer-reviewed scientific literature as to the many factors which may influence climate that is of importance to the question of whether climate fluctuations are natural or caused by humans. But regardless of that debate, a healthy functioning planet means constant changes in our climate.

There are winners and losers as climate fluctuates. A warming period could be a boon for warm weather destinations like beaches and lakes and a cooling period like we experienced from 1940-1970s could be beneficial for cold weather recreation like skiing and snowboarding. This past winter saw record snows in the Rocky Mountain region as well as an unusually cold spring in Alaska. Currently, we are seeing a Memorial Day snow advisory for the Colorado Mountains. Wyoming being buried in a May snowstorm and parts of Canada are still enduring winter. In addition, South Africa just set 54 new cold weather records with some parts seeing snow for the first time in 33 years as snow and ice continue to fall. And I am not finished. A massive snowstorm in China has closed highways and stranded motorists. And finally, winter has arrived early in Australia as the snow season is off to a promising start for the winter recreation industry.

But the most verifiable threat to the recreation and travel industry is the unintended consequences of misguided government policy and environmental activists. The chilling effect of guilt that the climate alarmists are attempting to instill in Americans for owning four wheel drive vehicles, flying in an airplane and enjoying travel is enough to harm the industry. For examples of this promotion of misguided policies and guilt, you need look no further than a proposal in April by the UK-based Institute for Public Policy Research, which called for tobacco-style health warnings on airplanes to warn passengers that the plane flight may be contributing to a global warming crisis. The group proposed posting signs on airplanes which read “flying causes climate change.”

Another example of unintended consequences by climate crusaders was the recent proclamation by a UK grocery store announcing it would usher in ‘carbon friendly’ policies and stop importing food from faraway nations. This proposal may have been popular with wealthy Western environmentalists, but the idea did not sit so well with poor African farmers. As a February 21, 2007 BBC article details:

“Kenyan farmers, whose lifelong carbon emissions are negligible compared with their counterparts in the West, are fast becoming the victims of a green campaign that could threaten their livelihoods. A recent bold statement by UK supermarket Tesco ushering in ‘carbon friendly’ measures - such as restricting the imports of air freighted goods by half and the introduction of "carbon counting" labeling - has had environmentalists dancing in the fresh produce aisles, but has left African horticulturists confused and concerned.”

The BBC article continues:

“Half of this produce goes to the UK's supermarkets, generating at least £100m per year for this developing country. The dependence on the UK market cannot be underestimated, says Stephen Mbithi Mwikya, chief executive of FPEAK. For Kenya, horticulture is the country's second biggest foreign exchange earner after tourism. ‘This announcement from Tesco is devastating’, says Mr Mbithi.”

The recent announcement by travel guru Mark Ellingham, the author of the Rough Guide travel book series, that he was now recanting his promotion of worldwide travel is another blow to the travel and recreation industry. Ellingham now says that our addiction to ‘binge flying’ is killing the planet.

This kind of alarmism should concern the travel and recreation industry, not natural climate fluctuations which mankind has no control over.

There is even more proof showing that the dangers facing travel and recreation are coming from climate hysteria. The Associated Press on May 16, 2007 reported that ecotourism --the type of travel you would expect environmentalists to endorse--is no more Earth friendly than regular travel due to the long plane flights necessary to bring vacationers to exotic locales. The Norwegian Environment Minister Helen Bjoernoey is now warning about long distance travel.

"Long distance travel — especially air travel — is a challenge to all of us. We know that it has serious impacts on the climate," Bjoernoey said.

I cannot think of a more devastating sentiment to the industry than that. Reduce air travel because of unfounded fears of climate doom. That is the authentic threat not only to the travel industry, but the developing world which depends so much on tourism to improve the life its residents. Clearly, the unfounded fears of a man-made climate catastrophe and the proposed solutions represent the gravest threats to the industry.

Thank you.

And then there is this:

Recreation Industry’s Gravest Threats Come from Global Warming “Solutions,” Senate Hearing Reveals

Today’s full committee hearing on "The Issue of the Potential Impacts of Global Warming on Recreation and the Recreation Industry" revealed that misguided government regulations may help steal part of the American way of life away from recreation seekers. Today’s hearing uncovered the dangers of so called global warming "solutions" as they may potentially impact the recreation industry.

Derrick Crandall, president of the American Recreation Coalition testified, the biggest threat to recreation may very well come from legislative "solutions" to climate change. "We ask the Congress to be wary of the danger of actions that would discourage healthy active lives and travel to see special places like national parks," Crandall said.
"The reality is that a reasonably fuel-efficient SUV – or even a large motorhome – gets more passenger miles per gallon when occupied by a family than does even the most fuel efficient car available today when occupied solely by a driver. And the benefits to the nation are large," Crandall explained.

"We ask your help in protecting the ability of Americans to purchase vehicles that meet these needs," he added.

Barry McCahill, the president of the SUV Owners of America, noted that the cars of yesteryear were able to tow large recreational trailer or boats, but current cars do not have the ability.

"Today, just one percent of cars have the capacity to tow a small trailer or fishing boat. Why? Because of Federal fuel economy mandates," McCahill testified.

McCahill also spoke about how the use of four wheel drive vehicles for towing recreational vehicles and trailers was a key component of the American dream by bringing "families together outdoors, having fun and creating memories."

"This lifestyle, along with boating, horse shows and many other forms of outdoor recreation, could disappear if fuel economy mandates are pushed to the extreme -- or at minimum a luxury that only the wealthy could continue to enjoy," McCahill testified.

The safety of four wheel drives vehicles over passenger cars was also an important consideration, according to McCahill.

"Based on 10 years of data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) found that SUVs are 5-7 times safer than passenger cars," McCahill said.

"Declines in death rates (since 1978) have been largest for SUV occupants, showing that larger vehicles are safer than smaller ones," he continued.

"Thousands of lives have been lost because of unintended safety consequences from CAFE-induced vehicle downsizing. Whole forests have been decimated to print enough paper to explain its complexities," he added.

"We are not a one-size-fits-all society and light trucks fill an important economic and social niche," he concluded.

# # #