Would You Switch On A Global Cooling Machine?

[BatM]

Re: Holy Sardine!!

Originally posted by nroweatherman
Is that you BatMan?

Wrong Bat...

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?

 

[nroweatherman]

Holy Sardine!!

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.

 

[Edufer]

(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.

 

[Gifted]

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.

 

[Edufer]

Some interesting reading

<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.

 

[Avatar]

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)

 

[BatM]

Re: Some interesting reading

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:

1. significant melting of the ice caps
2. major influx of fresh water into the oceans
3. decrease in ability of ocean to absorb heat
4. decrease in resulting global temperatures
5. 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?

 

[Avatar]

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?

 

[BatM]

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?

 

[BatM]

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.

 

[Avatar]

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.

 

[Edufer]

Why worry?

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.

 

[Avatar]

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.

 

[BatM]

Re: Why worry?

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.

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?

 

[Avatar]

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.

 

[nroweatherman]

Good glad you helped prove me right

Originally posted by BatM


the Discovery Channel:

1. significant melting of the ice caps
2. major influx of fresh water into the oceans
3. decrease in ability of ocean to absorb heat
4. decrease in resulting global temperatures
5. 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.
   

1. 
   If the G8 continue destroying rainforests which they are doing, We have 80 years to live.

 

[BatM]

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.

 

[BatM]

Re: Good glad you helped prove me right

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!

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

 

[nroweatherman]

didn't rewrite it.

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

 

[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.