Kyoto Dies

[Drake Tungsten]

Damn, I was really looking forward to visiting Kyoto.

Europe will freeze!

So? Maybe less French people will die next summer.

[Sikander]

Re: Re: TV

Originally posted by Odin


The Discover article was written by a guy with a Ph.D., the TV show sprung from the article. Most geologists say we are still in an ice age.

But most TV critics think that geologists are boring.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Odin
Oerdin, I can't believe a geologist like you didn't learn that we are still in the Pleistocene Ice Age. We are just in a warm period between glaciations, the earth has been in an "ice house" climate for the past 30 million years, with the current ice age starting 1.8 million years ago. Global Warming may actually trigger the glaciers to advance, global warming may shut off the Gulf Stream by the input of glacial melt from Greenland, disturbing the delicate salt balance that controls the deep-ocean currents that ultimately influence the Gulf Stream. Europe will freeze! I read this in Discover Magazine and saw it on a show on the current ice age on the Discovery channel.

I think the theory is that fresh water from Antartica is what shuts off the Gulf Stream.

The problem with this theory is that it is getting colder in Antartica.

Another problem is that the glaciers in both Greenland and Antartica are so large that it would take 50,000 years to melt if the temperatures warm.

[Ned]

Just to clarify, we are around 12,000 years into the current interglacial warm period. This is the longest such period since the ice ages began. These periods normally last just a few thousand years. Ice and cold reign for the rest in an cycle that repeats approximately every 100,000 years.

The transition between cold and warm periods is abrupt. They seem to take place over decades, not millenia. Thus, if we actually begin to slide into another ice age cold period, things cold get colder very very fast.

Actually, there is a lot of evidence that the slide has already begun.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Japher
Proteus.

That is correct, but you ever hear the saying "too little too late"

We are currently working on many types of alternative fuels, conservation techniques, high temperature catalysts, etc. that can help reduce not only CO2 emissions but all kinds of waste.

What do you think the effect an emission reduction program would put on such projects? Seeing how most of these projects are funded by corprate poluters...

Now,
as Emmision Reduction Programs like Kyoto put a Pressure on polluting Industries to lower their Pollution within a set Timeframe, I would suspect that those Corporation would put more even money into Pollution Reduction - Resarch Projects.
At least they should do so, if they have enough Foresight, as not researching Pollution Reduction Technologies could harm their own Profits at the time when they must have lowered Polution-Levels acording to the Tmeframe.

In Texas you can perfectly see, what may happen if no political Pressure is put upon Corporations which cause a high degree of Pollution.
By using the Grandfather Loophole many of the Polluting Indusris there could circumvent existing Environmental Regulations for moe than 30 years and therefore also did nothing to lower their Pollution (the Grandfather Lopole as also backed by Bush in his time as governor of Texas).
As a Result Texas is the by far biggest Polluter in the USA and has the worst Air Quality.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Japher
Yup, Cali, did you read the link in my last post? Says something to the effect of Solar Cycles playing a part in the warming phenomena... Now, I don't think we can control the sun

It's Bush's fault. He made the sun too hot.

[optimus2861]

Originally posted by Ned
The transition between cold and warm periods is abrupt. They seem to take place over decades, not millenia. Thus, if we actually begin to slide into another ice age cold period, things cold get colder very very fast.

Actually, there is a lot of evidence that the slide has already begun.

I read a news article on this phenomenon lately, but from what I gathered we'd see global temperatures decrease about 5 deg.C over a 10-20 year period to signal the start of the next 'deep freeze' (which would be very, very bad for civilization as we know it). What I took from that is if global temperatures are going up, not down, then we can't have hit that starting point yet.

What evidence are you referring to?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Odin
Oerdin, I can't believe a geologist like you didn't learn that we are still in the Pleistocene Ice Age.

The pleistocene ended 10k-11k years ago! We are now in the holocene!

Currently we are in a transitional period which is the very, very end of the last ice age. If you go to places like Canada the ground is still rising at a rate of 1-3mm per year due to a process known as isostatic rebound. Basically, there was so much glacial ice on Canada that the ground was pressed down and now that the ice is gone it is slowly rising back up. It's similar to if you had an iceburg which you put a bunch of weight on. The ice burg would sink deeper into the water and if you removed the weight the iceburg would rise again.

[Az]

only it would do so much faster.



Btw, could someone tell me the level of certainty we can discuss those 'deep ocean currents' thing as fact?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Odin
Global Warming may actually trigger the glaciers to advance, global warming may shut off the Gulf Stream by the input of glacial melt from Greenland, disturbing the delicate salt balance that controls the deep-ocean currents that ultimately influence the Gulf Stream

Yes, everyone in the scientific community has heard of the salinity driven thermal inversion. The theory is very sound. The open question is how much temperature change is required to set this clock ticking and create a self reinforcing system. Remember the Earth has several natural buffering systems which keep us from getting to cold or to hot if we didn't then all life would have been frozen or boiled billions of years ago.

The best scientific discusions I've seen or read have said a component of global warming is due to the natural temperature increase from the ending ice age, another component is from natural solar cycles, and a third component is from man made problems such as deforestation and an increase in green house gas emmisions. The big debate is how big is each of these components compared to the other ones?

In my mind it isn't prudent to do nothing about the component we can control (man made emmissions) but neither is it prudent to sign on to a treaty like Kyoto which will greatly harm the industrialized countries but not lower total emmisions (because the polluters will just move from capped countries to uncapped counties). The best option is to use the tax credits to incourage less green house gas emmisions without chasing off business to countries with no enviromental laws.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Anyone who claims there is no serious dispute whether humans are the cause of global warming is kidding themselves. Instead of trying to impliment a treaty that would be economically destroy the west, shouldn't we make sure the science is sound first?

You are wrong. There is no serious dispute as to whether humans are responsible for global warming ( but there is a lot of junk science disputing it). What is in serious dispute, is the amount that is caused by us.

As for your second point, the wisest thing to do, were your previous statement even close to the truth, would be to be cautious with the enviornment. Economies can be restarted, but only if there's an ecosystem still around. With one scenario shwoing that global warming could lead to a snawball Earth scenario, I really don't want to be in a position to say, "I told you so!"

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
I think the theory is that fresh water from Antartica is what shuts off the Gulf Stream.

It's the Arctic.

The problem with this theory is that it is getting colder in Antartica.

If that is the case, that would have no effect on the global conveyor.

Another problem is that the glaciers in both Greenland and Antartica are so large that it would take 50,000 years to melt if the temperatures warm.

Well, the problem isn't really with them melting where they are, but with the sheet over water breaking away (which would not raise sea levels), allowing the ice behind to move down into the seas much faster (which would raise sea levels).

[Dinner]

Che there is natural temperature variations. The mideval warm period had people growing grapes and making wine in England and southern Sweden! While a couple of centuries later during the mini ice age people had a hard time to even get grains to grow before the winter freeze hit.

The question is how much of this temp increase is due to causes out of our control and how much of it is due to man made problems?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The question is how much of this temp increase is due to causes out of our control and how much of it is due to man made problems?

Thas what I'm sayin'!

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If that is the case, that would have no effect on the global conveyor.

Theoretically if you increase the temperature to some degree (the exact amount is still not sure) you will increase the evaporation rate so that ocean water becomes more salty. Since the temperature is rising we will also see increased melting of ice packs & glaciers so we will have an increased flow of very cold fresh water into the oceans. Theoretically you can get a situation where warm but heavy (due to high salinity) water is actually forced under cold but less dense fresher water. This is called salinity induced temperature inversion.

The big question is can this process be sustained for the long hall (some scientists say yes & some no) and how much of a temperature increase is needed to trigger it (most think the temperature increase would have to be great and happen very quickly). I am of the opinion that natural mixing in the oceans will cause salinity differences to equalize but I have been told that differences as small as a few parts per billion can trigger a temperature inversion. The jury is still out.