Many people in these forums believe that global warming is occurring as a result of the activities of humankind. In light of this view, let us suppose that scientists created a global cooling machine. Possibly a large flat sheet of material that would be in permanent orbit blocking out 0.1% of the sun's rays from ever hitting the earth, or maybe it's a way to create artificial clouds that will reflect some sunlight back out into space; the actual science is not important for this question. Anyhow, it's finally built and you were just elected President of the World.

Would you turn it on?

I would hesitate to do so, myself, being uncertain that global warming is occurring because of our impact, and I would worry about possible unintended consequences due to the unpredictability and complexity of the system. I think we'd probably be better off leaving things as they were.

What would you do?

Peace.

Although I would certainly not hesitate to turn on the
"Reduce Human Impact On The Environment" machine.

Originally posted by goofyfish
Would you turn it on?

Depends upon how the global cooling machine works and the tests that back it up. I see two ways of doing global cooling:

[list=1]
reduce causes of global warming and allow nature to work.
ignore global warming and cool the planet manually.
[/list=1]

The first case would appear to work more naturally and, thus, be less likely to have detrimental side-effects. The second case, on the other hand, could cause the earth to go into shock if done incorrectly and, thus, have potentially severe side-effects.

Basically, I don't think there is a quick-fix to global warming and, the longer we wait, the more difficult the solution will be. Eventually, the earth will solve the problem itself. The issue is whether we (the human race) will like the solution.

I would be hesitant to turn it on. I don't think we have enough data to start some process that later we really have a problem with.

For instance, if we start this global cooling device and then find that it is over compensating, what do we do? Turn it off? Then we are faced with weather changes unlike anything we have seen. As the global temperature races upward to reach its natural equilibrium, suddenly you have much more intense storms. It is likely to have affected growing patterns, hugely dependant on weather and on and on.

Does human kind contribute to the materials that make global warming possible? Surely. Are we at a crux where everything is starting to snowball? Folks the jury is still out on that one. We, as a species make very little in compared to what a volcano is capable of during an eruption. Methane production? Once again very little compared to the world population of termites and the herd of cows existing already. Not to mention the amount of biomass that is decaying worldwide.

I believe the global warming is the result of global cooling from the mini iceage and for earth to reach equilibrium it has to overshoot a little before settling back down - see my graph projection in the other thread (included here too).

So, if my projection are correct and the earth is trying to correct itself - the temperation will keep going up , hit a peak until it goes down again. That could cause serious problem for people during summer. A lot of people will die.

So, I would go for a cooling machine that is like a photocell mylar system, that will generate power and reduce the earth temperature ever so slightly so as to reduce the peak. But as soon as the peak is reached, it must be removed, otherwise Earth can go into an ice age. The idea is to fluctuate between 0 and -0.2

http://www.kmci.net/images/temp.gif

1. reduce causes of global warming and allow nature to work.

2. ignore global warming and cool the planet manually.

Point One: nature is doing just that. Earth has its own <b>thermostat: <font color=red>clouds.</font></b> As warming increases, evaporation from oceans and forests also increases, with a huge input of water vapor into the atmosphere. Clouds are formed, blocking the sun rays. Net effect: cooling.

Point Two: man-made cooling --if possible at all-- <b>would prove worse than the problem</B>. As I have repeatedly posted in Sciforums, temperatures during the Climatic Optimum (850-1250 AD) were <b>TWO</B> degree centigrades higher than today. And climatologists called those temperatures the OPTIMUM possible for life on Earth.

On the other hand, when temperatures were <b>2°C lower</b> than today, (the Little Ice Age, 1300-1716 AD) conditions on Earth were terrible, and human suffering was unbearable. So why. in the name of God, should we cool the planet and go back to terrible ages?

Politicians wouldn't do it in the name of God, of course, but in the name of "globalization", corporations, and geopolitics. Money talks...

As your graph is expressed in deviations from the mean temperatures between 1961-90, your data during the years 850-1250 should be on the <b>+2°C above the mean 1961-90 years</B>. Remember that during those years the Vikings were colonizing Greenland, that was mostly deprived from an ice cover, due to the 2°C higher than today temperatures.

And the deviations from the 1961-90 mean during the <b>Little Ice Age</b> should be about <b>1,5°C - 2°C lower</b>. Then your graph would look less dramatic regarding "warming", because it would yield a more "flat" curve for the next 100 years. My impression is that, if we lived enough, we would see an increasing cooling trend.

By the way, we have experiencing here in the Southern Hemisphere the coldest weather we have seen in many years. This morning temperature in Ushuaia was <b>minus 20°C</B> and snowfall in the Andes are providng for one of the best ski seasons ever... My wife couldn't stand the cold, so she went to Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia (latitude 15° South, full Tropical area) where there is now about 23°C. Good for her!

Originally posted by Edufer
Point One: nature is doing just that. Earth has its own <b>thermostat: <font color=red>clouds.</font></b> As warming increases, evaporation from oceans and forests also increases, with a huge input of water vapor into the atmosphere. Clouds are formed, blocking the sun rays. Net effect: cooling.

Didn't you say that water in the atmosphere is a "greenhouse gas"? So, while clouds might block sun rays, wouldn't they also block reflected heat from the earth? Also, wouldn't the water itself absorb and hold the heat to some degree?

Net effect: questionable? :bugeye:

Global Warming causes the earth to freeze. Haven't you heard?What it does is block the deep currents which cool & heat the oceans. Leaving the planet in a ice age.

Compared to prehistoric times, the Earth is pretty damn cold. Over the last couple of million of years, the Earth has cooled dramatically. Why cool it down, when its already freezing???

I think the big question is not whether there is a true global warming (or global cooling) going on, but rather how radically things will change in the next century due to weather related issues and whether we will be able to handle those changes.

from a greenland ice cover probe scientists have found out that the last ice age came into being in a period of just a 10 years time! It's very rapid
(source- discovery channel)

besides we have constant cycles of shorter warmyh periods and longer ice ages for the last 20m years or so.

my theory is that it is because of the continental drift which changed the global water current (world ocean main stream).

The point is if global climate follows a pattern in the last 100,000 years - it will continue whether humans did anything or not. So, blaming humans for natural processes is as stupid as Jerry Fallwell blaming Iran's earthquake for their religion.

nroweatherman: "You got it all wrong. Global Warming causes the earth to freeze. Haven't you heard? What it does is block the deep currents which cool & heat the oceans. Leaving the planet in an ice age."
You must be kidding, of course... don't you? The almost infinite thermal inertia of the oceans would make the effects on deep currents show in more than 500.000 years. Global Warming freezing Earth? Wow! Then Ice Ages must have warmed the Earth...

That would explain then the abnormally cold tmperatures we have now in Sout America. In Bolivia (a tropical country) the cold weather has provoked a "national tragedy", with tens of people frozen to death and tens disappeared buried under tons of snow.

BatM: "Didn't you say that water in the atmosphere is a "greenhouse gas"? So, while clouds might block sun rays, wouldn't they also block reflected heat from the earth? Also, wouldn't the water itself absorb and hold the heat to some degree?"
<B>Yes</B> to all your questions. But when go deeper into figures involved in wheather and climate modelling, you find many surprises. The <I>quid</I> of the question lies in the different wavelenght of the infrared radiation involved in the matter.

Incoming infrared radiation is shorter than the reflected one. Clouds have different degrees of heat retention and reflection for different wavelenghts, so the problem here is: how the computerized climate models interpret the fact. Do clouds absorb more heat from the surface than the one they block from the sun? Or viceversa?

As scientists have not yet reached to an agreement on this matter, the variable included in the models related to clouds, could be <b>either negative or positive</b>. If negative (clouds cools the earth) the models will give a net cooling effect in the world. If positive, the models will predict "warming". Warming is chosen because it fits a political agenda. It means good money.

And this one of the absolute nonsenses showed by the models. They have not yet determined the right variables --not to speak about the constants (there are about 5 millions of them in any "decent" climate model-- so how can we trust the results of math programs that are totally unreliable? Worse yet: how can we sign treaties and protocols that will sink the world into a economical crisis that would make the Black Plague look as a baby toy? An do it based on fairy tales? <b>This is insane!!!</b>

You must be kidding, of course... don't you? The almost infinite thermal inertia of the oceans would make the effects on deep currents show in more than 500.000 years. Global Warming freezing Earth? Wow! Then Ice Ages must have warmed the Earth... he is very right...There was a program on Discovery about this. it is true...
and Ice Ages have....it's all in the water currents and the level of world's ocean.

he is very right...There was a program on Discovery about this. it is true... and Ice Ages have....it's all in the water currents and the level of world's ocean.Avatar, I thought you should know better. You seem to put too much confidence on Discovery channel. Physics are physics, and there is nothing a TV channel can do about it. I have stopped watching Discovery when I found it was being increasingly filled with misinformation. Too bad because it used to be an excellent channel. I stick now to "The History Channel".

Yes Avatar you are right. According to disc. ch. The tests on ice samples were begun in 1955 to chart the spread of nuke material.
But so much more was learned. So how can dummies in our gov't claim there is no global warming since it is proven by scientific testing for 45 years! They are even dumber than they think we think they are. :D

nroweatherman: So how can dummies in our gov't claim there is no global warming since it is proven by scientific testing for 45 years! They are even dumber than they think we think they are.And don't forget to tell your friends you saw it in Discovery Channel! The Electronic Gosspel of the Millenium. Geeez!

A week ago I saw a bunch of people running down the street yelling <b>"The sky is falling!, the sky is falling!"</B>. I got really worried and stopped a guy and asked:

<b>Me:</b> "How do you know?"
<b>Scared guy:</b> "Someone just told me"
<B>Me: </B> "How does he know the sky is falling?"
<B>Scared guy: </B> "The grocerer told him".
<B>Me: </B> "And how does the grocerer know the sky is falling?"
<B>Scared guy: </B> "A cousin of his brother in law told him."

It wasn't getting me nowhere nearer the truth, so I went for it:

<B>Me: </B> "And you believe him?"
<B>Scared guy:</B> "Sure. He is one of the cashiers at our bank".

He could as well have told me: <b>"I saw it in Discovery Channel".</B>

<B>Me:</B> "What's is name?"
<B>Scared guy; </B> "Mr. Hammelin."
<B>Me: </B>"Good. Tell him that the cliff is over there. Make sure he keeps blowing the flute for all of you. suckers".

So I went back home and kept working as usual. There is a lot of work to be done trying to appease Chicken Littles. An endless task.

You dismissed very easily the thermal inertia of oceans. Good. Granted. Now tell me, please, how do you explain the paleoclimatic fact that Ice Ages <b>have been much milder in the Southern Hemisphere than in the Northern one</B>? Does Discovery Channel have another Chicken Little explanation for the <b>unversally accepted thermal inertia effect</b>? I hope you know what I am talking about.

Before signing out, I must remind you that the "warming" experienced by earth has been limited to the last 150 years (at most) and has been of a mere 1,5°C since 1850. Do you seriously think that the triffle warming ocurred in the last 45 years -the blink of an eye- can have the slightest effect on <B>deep sea currents</b>, thousands of meters deep, with trillions of cubic meters of COLD water that must be warmed? If there is a change in current patterns at all (why not?) put the blame on other suspects, as tectonic plates movements, under sea volcanic activity, Mickey Mouse, etc.

Perhaps the dummies we have in governments all over the world (I agree on that), in their free time (most of the time) are watching porno channels instead of Discovery. At least, they are not as dumb as they look to you: <b>they are at Office</b>, you are sweating for your meals... If you really want to defeat your enemy, never, <B>NEVER UNDERESTIMATE HIM.</B>

Originally posted by Edufer
Now tell me, please, how do you explain the paleoclimatic fact that Ice Ages <b>have been much milder in the Southern Hemisphere than in the Northern one</B>? Does Discovery Channel have another Chicken Little explanation for the <b>unversally accepted thermal inertia effect</b>? I hope you know what I am talking about.

Before signing out, I must remind you that the "warming" experienced by earth has been limited to the last 150 years (at most) and has been of a mere 1,5°C since 1850. Do you seriously think that the triffle warming ocurred in the last 45 years -the blink of an eye- can have the slightest effect on <B>deep sea currents</b>, thousands of meters deep, with trillions of cubic meters of COLD water that must be warmed? If there is a change in current patterns at all (why not?) put the blame on other suspects, as tectonic plates movements, under sea volcanic activity, Mickey Mouse, etc.


(Side question: how do you create the "degree" mark above?)

I'm not going to pretend to be a climatologist and attempt to answer your points -- let me just ask some questions:

[list=1]
For each degree C rise in temperature, how much of the (ant-)artic ice sheets melt?
As temperatures rise, would the speed of the melting of the ice sheets increase linearly or exponentially?
How much influx of water would be needed to cause a significant rise in ocean levels? (I'm leaving you to define "significant".)
Is there data on whether the oceans have been rising or falling over the past century and, if so, by how much?
Would artic ice melt be salty or fresh water?
Between fresh water and salt water, which is heavier?
What effect would a large influx of fresh water have on ocean currents -- particularly if it was coming from the artic regions?
Would there be effects that begin with a (relatively) small influx of fresh water and then become progressively greater as the influx increases?
Does fresh water have different heat absorbtion properties than salt water and, if so, how significantly?
How significantly and quickly would a change in ocean currents effect weather patterns worldwide?
Would the cycle of evaporation and rain be changed significantly (perhaps changing where rain occurs)?
Can you point to studies that addressed these questions?
[/list=1]

This ought to be interesting... :)

Is that you BatMan?

I would trust Discovery Channel on this subject since they had the actual person who conducted the Ice core experiments. I would not trust our USARMY Gov't permanent fakewar propaganda handouts.

Originally posted by nroweatherman
Is that you BatMan?


Wrong Bat... :mad:


I would trust Discovery Channel on this subject since they had the actual person who conducted the Ice core experiments.


Why do you trust them? What did they say to make you believe that they did anything more than look at the ice core and say "yeah, that's an ice core"?


I would not trust our USARMY Gov't permanent fakewar propaganda handouts.


How did the US Army get into this discussion? :confused:

Who are you going to believe? It is better to believe scientists who work on a project than what? Nothing. If I want to believe something it is OK- allowed but our USARMY Gov't issues information that people believe about all kinds of subjects. So I choose to believe other sources than the USARMY Gov't.:cool:

(Side question: how do you create the "degree" mark above?)Depends on your keyboard configuration and the keyboard language you are using. My keyboard has a key just below the ESC key that gives me the "centigrade degree" sign when shifted (°) and gives (|) when normal. another way is to use the ASCII value for the sign. I don't remember it, but you can find it easily. Perhaps someone in the board can help.

As I am not a climatologist myself either, I have sent some of you hairy questions to a friend of mine, Dr. Willie Soon at <b>Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics</B>, in Canmbridge, Mass. That might have the answers (and hopefully the time to send me the answers). In the meanwhile, while we wait for the light from science illuminate this topic, I can risk some answers, based on my present knowldege and common sense. Here we go:

<B>quote: <font color=blue>1. For each degree C rise in temperature, how much of the (ant-)artic ice sheets melt?</font></B>

I don't know, and I doubt there have been measuments made. I might be wrong, though. I am making some research on it, asking scientists that ought to know. (Dr. Willie Soon)

<B>Quote: <font color=blue>2. As temperatures rise, would the speed of the melting of the ice sheets increase linearly or exponentially?</font></B>

I don't know. It could be in another scale other than straight linear (1,2,3,4... x) or exponentially (2,4,8,16,32....x). It could go: 1, 1.5, 1.7, 2, 2.4 ... x or whatever. I asked Dr. Soon's opinion.

<B>Quote: <font color=blue>3. How much influx of water would be needed to cause a significant rise in ocean levels? (I'm leaving you to define "significant".)</font ></B>

You can make your own calculations. All you need to know is some geometry, remember the formula for the sphere, know the diameter of Earth, substract aproximately 25% of the surface corresponding to firm land, average the ocean depth, and you'll get the amount of water presently in the oceans. Suppose 80 centimeters <b>globally</B> could be called "significantly", and then repeat the math operations adding 80 cm to the avergaed depth of the oceans and you'll get the answer. My opinion is that would be a useless task. But a gross estimate would say: "You need a LOT OF WATER.". On the oher hand, if Arctic ice melted completely it wouldn't add a millimeter to the sea levels --only if the Antarctic ice melted would make a terrible mess. But don't worry. Antarctic ice is growing, not melting.

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/AntarcticaCooling.html

and an article by Dr. Willie Soon and Dr. Sallie Baliunas: http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Freezing.html

another one: http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/WrongCore.html

and this:http://www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm

<B>Quote: <font color=blue>4. Is there data on whether the oceans have been rising or falling over the past century and, if so, by how much?</font></B>

Lots of. See: http://www.john-daly.com/topex-ps/topex.htm

and: http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/Articles/2000/sea.htm

and: http://www.marine.csiro.au/LeafletsFolder/45slevel/45.html

<B>Quote: <font color=blue>5. Would arctic ice melt be salty or fresh water?</font></B>

Fresh water.

<B>Quote: <font color=blue>6. Between fresh water and salt water, which is heavier?</font></B>

Salt water is heavier. density about 1.3, against 1 of distilled water. Fresh water from rivers are slighty denser than distilled water because it carries mineral salts diluted.

<B>Quote: <font color=blue>7. What effect would a large influx of fresh water have on ocean currents -- particularly if it was coming from the artic regions?</font></B>

A lot, if huge amounts of fresh water comes from the Arctic. But actual measurements show there is no melting of Arctic (or Antarctic) ices, other than seasonal and normal melting. Also referred to Dr. Soon, so we'll have to wait...

<B>Quote: <font color=blue>8. Would there be effects that begin with a (relatively) small influx of fresh water and then become progressively greater as the influx increases?</font></B>

Of course, but depends on the amount of influx. This question has been referenced to Dr. Soon.

<b>Quote: <font color=blue>9. Does fresh water have different heat absorbtion properties than salt water and, if so, how significantly?</font></B>

"Yes", as salt in the water makes it denser, and denser bodies can abosorb heat readily than lighter ones. I wouldn't know how much, because I would have to go through actually making experimental measurements that wouldn´t come out accurate enough, as I lack the precise instrumentation needed. But for starters, I repeat what I said above: sea water has a density about 1,3 (30% denser than distilled water). Fresh water from rivers carry mineral salts diluted, so its density is higher than 1. It depends on the specific river. But I don't think it would vary much from one to another.

<B>Quote: <font color=blue>10. How significantly and quickly would a change in ocean currents effect weather patterns worldwide?</font></B>

Who knows for sure? Depends on the amount of change. A great change, would cause big effects on weather patterns, of course, this has been proved by paleoclimatologists, when they studied the tectonic plate movements from Pangea, Gonwanaland, to present days.

<B>Quote: <font color=blue>1. Would the cycle of evaporation and rain be changed significantly (perhaps changing where rain occurs)?</font></B>

Evaporation would remain the same, as the evaporation surface remains the same, but rain patterns could change a lot. Who can tell for sure, how much, and where?

<B>Quote: <font color=blue>12. Can you point to studies that addressed these questions?</font></B>

I hope, with a "Little Help from my Friends", as Lennon used to say. In the mean time, just take a look at this website, where you'll be overwhelmed with information (good one):

http://www.john-daly.com/ "Waiting for the Greenhouse". Temperatures from about 1500 weather stations all over the world, sea levels, scientific studies at the tip of your fingers, discussions, essays, you name it.

I hope the info was useful.

How much influx of water would be needed to cause a significant rise in ocean levels? (I'm leaving you to define "significant".)

Don't forget that water is less dense than ice. If the arctic cap melted, the water level would probably decrease, as the ice is not land-bound.

<B>I just got Dr. Soon's reply. That goes like this:</b>

Date sent: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 09:02:34 -0400
From: Willie Soon <wsoon@cfa.harvard.edu>
Organization: MWO HK Project/Star Team
To: shuara@fullzero.com.ar
Copies to: wsoon@cfa.harvard.edu
Subject: two papers for your search

Hello Eduardo:

Thanks for writing ... I understand your list of important questions: they are all to the point and no playing around there for sure ...

Unfortunately, I am too tied up now on so so many projects and am totally unfocused (I once put some of those knowledge into climate models etc---but cannot quite get to your more precise questions) ...

But here are two papers that I can quickly pull out that may contain some hints to your questions (especially those specific functional relations listed in a glaciologist paper like Van der Veen):

(1) Van der Veen (Global and Planetary change review)

(2) Greg Holloway and T. Sou ...

Once again ... hope you are well and all the best of luck to your search ...

sincerely,

Willie

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Willie Soon, Astrophysicist
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
60 Garden Street, MS 16
Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
email (Internet): wsoon@cfa.harvard.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am reading the studies (they came in .pdf format) and, if you think they could be useful for your concern on melting ice, sea levels, etc, I will be glad to send you the Greg Holloway & T. Sou file for you to read (it has about 500 Kbytes), and the Van Der Veen study is about 1,7 Megabytes, because the sciforums server only allows uploading files 102 Kbytes maximum. So, if some of you are interested, just drop me an email to shuara@fullzero.com.ar asking for them, and I will be glad to send it via email, as an attachment.

send me those files please. I will also place them on a server and make downloadable for all users.
my e-mail is negaiss(at)dezigner.ru
(yes dezigner with z)

Originally posted by Edufer
I am reading the studies (they came in .pdf format) and, if you think they could be useful for your concern on melting ice, sea levels, etc, I will be glad to send you the Greg Holloway & T. Sou file for you to read (it has about 500 Kbytes), and the Van Der Veen study is about 1,7 Megabytes, because the sciforums server only allows uploading files 102 Kbytes maximum. So, if some of you are interested, just drop me an email to shuara@fullzero.com.ar asking for them, and I will be glad to send it via email, as an attachment.

I'm still considering your previous reply (as well as this). The point I was going toward with my questions was (I believe) similar to the one that the Discovery Channel was presenting. That is, IF there was a catastrophic warming of the atmosphere, that could lead to:

[list=1]
significant melting of the ice caps
major influx of fresh water into the oceans
decrease in ability of ocean to absorb heat
decrease in resulting global temperatures
catastrophic global cooling if balance not achieved
[/list=1]

If I recall the Discovery Channel's show correctly, I don't think they were saying that this was a foregone conclusion, just that this scenario could happen if several variables came into play at the right time and that that may not be very far outside the realm of possibility.

By the way, what's Dr. Soon's view on the Hadley Center models?

In either way BatM, our planets temperature is rising. And from ice layer and dead plankton layers at the oceans floor (they have remained intact for hundreds of million of years) we get a timeline of a periodical temperature shift on earth. Longer ice ages shoter warmth periods.
Of course this time it may happe differently than the other times (human interferation). There's always another chance, but noting that previously it became colder after a warmth period I have a more reason to believe that the same will happen also this time. Let's say some 70 or 80%.........

oh and not so on topic question->
what would you (and everyone else prefer): another ice age or a graduate increase in the planets temperature?

Originally posted by Gifted
Don't forget that water is less dense than ice. If the arctic cap melted, the water level would probably decrease, as the ice is not land-bound.

I don't know about this...

Not all of the ice is land-bound, but a significant portion is. I know much of the ice in the Artic is floating (thus the ability of ice breakers to get through it), but is all the ice in Antartica floating? What about the ice in the northern areas of Canada, Russia, and Scandinavia?

By the way, if you were to take (say) a liter of water, freeze it, and then thaw it, wouldn't you still have a liter of water? Therefore, assuming all artic ice was floating on the ocean (which I don't believe it is), wouldn't melting it all result in no change to ocean height?

Originally posted by Avatar
what would you (and everyone else prefer): another ice age or a graduate increase in the planets temperature?


Depending on your definition of "gradual", an increase OR decrease could be more easily handled than a sudden shift.

For ice-age it will be a sudden shift. The last ice-age came into being in a period of 10 years! The increase of temperature-> it will not be a sudden shift, but a more longer process which if continues long enough may become more hazardous than an ice-age.

By the way, if you were to take (say) a liter of water, freeze it, and then thaw it, wouldn't you still have a liter of water? Therefore, assuming all artic ice was floating on the ocean (which I don't believe it is), wouldn't melting it all result in no change to ocean height? no- the density would change, resulting in a increase of the overall area of the water.

True -all ice isn't floating. Some lays on Antartic continetal plate and as you said some is in Canada, Greenland, Russia. But because of the increase , large portions of land will be under water. When the ice age comes, those territories will be under an ice-layer which would rest on solid ground.

If the temperature will rise, the ice which is now in Russia, Canada, Greenland, Antartica will melt and flow into the world ocean thus largely increasing the area of water coverage of our planet.

Your answer said:

<font color=blue>1. significant melting of the ice caps </font>

Studies conducted on the matter show there is no melting of either ice cap.

<font color=blue>2. major influx of fresh water into the oceans </font>

As there is no melting of Polar ice, there is no increase in fresh water in the oceans. Perhaps if the rain patterns change and show an increase globally, people would say "the oceans will fill up". Not so. The water forming rain was first evaporated from the oceans, so there is no additional water added. The problem lies in the <b>water stored in solid form</b> (ice) in the Poles and glaciers, and the melting is not happening, contrary to many unsupported claims.

<font color=blue>3. Decrease in ability of oceans to absorb heat </font>

If the oceans warms significantly then they will absorb less heat. But in order to warm the oceans significantly, the warming must be quite high, and the present warming recorded from 1850 (1.5°C) is not enough to overcome the almost infinite thermal inertia of the oceans. Besides, temperatures during the Climatic Optimum of 850-1250 AD, <b>were 2°C centigrades HIGHER than today's</b>, and the oceans didn't lose then their ability to absorb heat. So, relax.

<font color=blue>4. Decrease in resulting global temperatures </font>

There is a contradiction here. If the oceans cannot absorb heat, why would the world warm? It seems it would warm, instead of cool. :bugeye:

<font color=blue>5. Catastrophic global cooling if balance not achieved.</font>

Global cooling... why? I don't get it. According to Milantkovitch theory of paleoclimatic cycles, we have reached the point where a new ice age should start, so welcome any warming that Nature could give us. But that cooling is triggered by other factors as the change in tilt of the Earth's axis, presesion of the equinoxes, etc. After all, we still have 2°C to go before reaching what climatologists used to label <b>The Climatic Optimum.</B> So, why worry?

Avatar: check your inbox. The files should be waiting for you there.

I received only one file-> July16-HollowaySou1.pdf (702Kb)...
It is available @
http://sanctuary.yo.lv/July16-HollowaySou1.pdf
<enjoy>



Global cooling... why? I don't get it. According to Milantkovitch theory of paleoclimatic cycles, we have reached the point where a new ice age should start, so welcome any warming that Nature could give us. But that cooling is triggered by other factors as the change in tilt of the Earth's axis, presesion of the equinoxes, etc. After all, we still have 2°C to go before reaching what climatologists used to label The Climatic Optimum. So, why worry? We HAVE to worry, because last age came into being in a period of just !10! years. You are wrong if you think that if it happens then it will happen slowly. 10 years is an awfully short period of time. If the oceans cannot absorb heat, why would the world warm? It seems it would warm, instead of cool. The heat which isn't absoebed by the oceans reflects to the earths atmosphere by heating it up.
Studies conducted on the matter show there is no melting of either ice cap Why has then the Antartic ice coverage so dramatically decreased? Large icebergs in the size of 200sq miles and larger deatach and melt into the ocean. The ice caps on Alp mountins are melting fast. Maybe the heat is not yet so high to start to melt the fundamental ice layers, but noone knows if it won't happen.

Originally posted by Edufer
Studies conducted on the matter show there is no melting of either ice cap.


I said "could lead to" -- I didn't say it was happening.


If the oceans warms significantly then they will absorb less heat.


OR if their ability to absorb heat is changed (as I was suggesting by the introduction of a large amount of fresh water).


There is a contradiction here. If the oceans cannot absorb heat, why would the world warm? It seems it would warm, instead of cool. :bugeye:


The point was a cascade effect. IF there was an initial global warming that resulted in massive amounts of artic ice melting, then that would change the heat absorbtion properties of the oceans and possibly cause catastrophic global cooling. Some models suggest (according to Discovery Channel) that that global cooling could become a runaway and result in a frozen planet.


According to Milantkovitch theory of paleoclimatic cycles, we have reached the point where a new ice age should start, so welcome any warming that Nature could give us. But that cooling is triggered by other factors as the change in tilt of the Earth's axis, presesion of the equinoxes, etc. After all, we still have 2°C to go before reaching what climatologists used to label <b>The Climatic Optimum.</B> So, why worry?


The Hadley Center model seems to be suggesting as much as 10 degrees in the next century. :eek:

Interesting question:

We all know that, unless there is some ultimate catastrophe in the climate (such as a runaway global warming), the Earth will eventually balance itself out and return to some "mean" level. Therefore, the issue isn't so much whether global warmings (or coolings) are normal in geologic history, but rather:


how big and steep will the near-term changes be?
is the human race ready for the next shift?

is the human race ready for the next shift?
last time it wasn't (Atlantis or whatever you call it civilization)
don't say that pre-iceage civilization theory belongs in pseudoscience. Underwater ruins by the coasts of India are believed to be not less than 15 000 years old. Also there have been recent underwater findings near Cuba.

But I think that we are now more advanced than then
and at least in some places our civilization will remain.

Originally posted by BatM


the Discovery Channel:

[list=1]
significant melting of the ice caps
major influx of fresh water into the oceans
decrease in ability of ocean to absorb heat
decrease in resulting global temperatures
catastrophic global cooling if balance not achieved
[/list=1]

I recall the Discovery Channel's show correctly, I think they were saying that this was a foregone conclusion.


If the G8 continue destroying rainforests which they are doing, We have 80 years to live.

Originally posted by Avatar

The last ice-age came into being in a period of 10 years!


What's your reference for this statement?


no- the density would change, resulting in a increase of the overall area of the water.


Um, I believe water has a higher density than ice. Therefore, ignoring other issues, if the artic ice melted, it would occupy less area.

However...


If the temperature will rise, the ice which is now in Russia, Canada, Greenland, Antartica will melt and flow into the world ocean thus largely increasing the area of water coverage of our planet.


That was my point. I think I saw an estimate somewhere that a complete meltdown of the polar ice caps would raise the oceans by 70 meters.

Originally posted by nroweatherman

If the G8 continue destroying rainforests which they are doing, We have 80 years to live.


Hey! Not nice rewriting my statement! :mad:

If you're going to participate in a proper discussion, you've got to listen to and attempt to understand what everyone is saying.

just deleted some words. all words were in your post. I added no words to it. anyway just kiddin wit choo a little. lighten up:p

BatM.....my reference is my memory of Greenlands ice-cover probed ice studies. It shows a decrease in temperature in a time period of 10 years. It's quite undoubtful.

Originally posted by nroweatherman
just deleted some words. all words were in your post. I added no words to it. anyway just kiddin wit choo a little. lighten up:p

(Hmmm. That font size change came out bigger than I expected.)

You sure you're not some sort of politician or maybe some newsman who regularly takes quotes out of context to make the opposite point of what was originally intended?? :bugeye:

There has to be rules in a discussion or the point of the discussion is lost.

Originally posted by Avatar
BatM.....my reference is my memory of Greenlands ice-cover probed ice studies. It shows a decrease in temperature in a time period of 10 years. It's quite undoubtful.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

Maybe your memory is faulty -- it's the second thing to go as you get older. ;)

my memory is not faulty and it functions properly and I'm not old

Maybe your memory is faulty -- it's the second thing to go as you get older.

Should I ask? Naw, I don't think so...

Originally posted by wet1
Should I ask? Naw, I don't think so...

What? Did you forget already..? ;)

It's a red letter day, I was supposed to remember something...

Now what was it...

Oh, where was that switch for that machine...

Originally posted by wet1
It's a red letter day, I was supposed to remember something...

Now what was it...

Oh, where was that switch for that machine...

Well, it's obvious that the second thing has gone for you. Ashame that it went for me a long time ago or I'd remind you of the first thing to go... ;)

Originally posted by BatM


You sure you're not some sort of politician or maybe some newsman who regularly takes quotes out of context to make the opposite point of what was originally intended?? :bugeye: (No I'm just a clown from the bay area tryin to bring a laff around here.)

There has to be rules in a discussion or the point of the discussion is lost.

New Rulz:

1) u lissen ta my tunes
2) ya pays fer ya own beer
3) ignore all previous rulz & do whatever the hell you want.:cool:

(hey u gotta admit I did a good job editing your post fer ya.)

Originally posted by nroweatherman

(No I'm just a clown from the bay area tryin to bring a laff around here.)


You mean a techie?!?

In the words of the immortal Admiral McCoy:

"Almost as bad..."