How Climate Change is Causing Antarctic Sea-ice to Expand

[digibucc]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

NASA has never failed in a mission. Just setback. Government investing in Green Industry has......MANY TIMES. NASA win. Government investing fail.

but that's not what i'm arguing. you can keep arguing that if you want, but i don't disagree. where i disagree is the idea that it has to be either or. cut out the war and we have funding for both.

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by digibucc

but that's not what i'm arguing. you can keep arguing that if you want, but i don't disagree. where i disagree is the idea that it has to be either or. cut out the war and we have funding for both.

Take NASA. Give them the money and a 10 year mission and they will make it happen. Not give it to special interest groups in the name of "Green Industry".

[trickson]

Sweet! I hope it all melts and we turn into Water world!
Nothing we do NOW will change this. And if you tree hugging fart sniffers think by stopping all the cars plains and power plants will solve this problem you are living a dream. Maybe now you tree monkeys will rethink nuclear power? I doubt it though. The cleanest energy that doesn't add to global warming yet tree hugging freaks have to ban it in America! What a joke! I hope that all the ice caps melt away by 2020! Fuck it I am cold NOW! Turn up the oil stove!

[Easy Rhino]

Again, climate scientists have lost all credibility with the public because for the past 45 years they have been predicting doom and gloom but the world has only become a safer place to live.

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by trickson

Sweet! I hope it all melts and we turn into Water world!
Nothing we do NOW will change this. And if you tree hugging fart sniffers think by stopping all the cars plains and power plants will solve this problem you are living a dream. Maybe now you tree monkeys will rethink nuclear power? I doubt it though. The cleanest energy that doesn't add to global warming yet tree hugging freaks have to ban it in America! What a joke! I hope that all the ice caps melt away by 2020! Fuck it I am cold NOW! Turn up the oil stove!

The caps melting will at least give you an excuse for not having a job.

[trickson]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

The caps melting will at least give you an excuse for not having a job.

Yeah see some one is looking at the glass half full!

Better to blame the ice melting rather than your savior Obama right?

[digibucc]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

Take NASA. Give them the money and a 10 year mission and they will make it happen. Not give it to special interest groups in the name of "Green Industry".

fair enough, however - two points:

1) green energy is worth trying for. independence from fossil fuels is a good thing.
b) it's not an either or situation. we can have space and energy. just drop the war.

granted it hasn't worked well so far - but that's our government, not the "green industry". it's going to cost money to find a cleaner, better way to give us energy. the idea that it would be a massive profit or even a break even is kind of ridiculous. we are attempting to find new ways to harness energy, different from anything we have ever done before. that's gonna cost money, and it's going to be worth it.

Originally Posted by Easy Rhino

Again, climate scientists have lost all credibility with the public because for the past 45 years they have been predicting doom and gloom but the world has only become a safer place to live.

but that's not entirely true. a lot of the doom and gloom is from the reporting and not the actual findings. the majority of climate scientists are quality scientists - who give a percentage chance based on present information. it only takes a few idiots and reporters willing to listen to them to tarnish the entirety of the science, and i think that's a bit unfair.

[Easy Rhino]

Originally Posted by digibucc

but that's not entirely true. a lot of the doom and gloom is from the reporting and not the actual findings. the majority of climate scientists are quality scientists - who give a percentage chance based on present information. it only takes a few idiots and reporters willing to listen to them to tarnish the entirety of the science, and i think that's a bit unfair.

i know, but public perception is what it is. i would argue that most people in the US don't buy into the hype. any global warming caused by man is minuscule. Any occurring warming is completely natural. There are scientists whose findings support that opinion.

i would also argue that most people in the US, despite being characterized as oil burning rednecks, believe we should take care of the planet. recycling, planting trees, using safer pesticides, prosecuting corps that dump waste, etc are all low cost/high reward solutions to promoting a healthy earth. most people see a carbon tax as another power grab by the people in DC who simply want more money and greater ability to infringe on our day to day lives.

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by digibucc

fair enough, however - two points:

1) green energy is worth trying for. independence from fossil fuels is a good thing.
b) it's not an either or situation. we can have space and energy. just drop the war.

granted it hasn't worked well so far - but that's our government, not the "green industry". it's going to cost money to find a cleaner, better way to give us energy. the idea that it would be a massive profit or even a break even is kind of ridiculous. we are attempting to find new ways to harness energy, different from anything we have ever done before. that's gonna cost money, and it's going to be worth it.



but that's not entirely true. a lot of the doom and gloom is from the reporting and not the actual findings. the majority of climate scientists are quality scientists - who give a percentage chance based on present information. it only takes a few idiots and reporters willing to listen to them to tarnish the entirety of the science, and i think that's a bit unfair.

If there is to be profit the private industry will do it a LOT better then government grants. Grants and subsidizing create waste and corruption. Keep those jackals out of it! Keep the corruption in house via NASA.

Originally Posted by Easy Rhino

i know, but public perception is what it is. i would argue that most people in the US don't buy into the hype. any global warming caused by man is minuscule. Any occurring warming is completely natural. There are scientists whose findings support that opinion.

i would also argue that most people in the US, despite being characterized as oil burning rednecks, believe we should take care of the planet. recycling, planting trees, using safer pesticides, prosecuting corps that dump waste, etc are all low cost/high reward solutions to promoting a healthy earth. most people see a carbon tax as another power grab by the people in DC who simply want more money and greater ability to infringe on our day to day lives.

This. The National Park Service was founded by a redneck hunter before saving the planet was cool. Teddy Roosevelt. The original hipster. Most hunters care FAR MORE about the planet then any limo liberal does.

[digibucc]

yeah no disagreements here on either point

[trickson]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

If there is to be profit the private industry will do it a LOT better then government grants. Grants and subsidizing create waste and corruption. Keep those jackals out of it! Keep the corruption in house via NASA.

Stop voting democratically then. Republicans want smaller government Obama wants to expand it to limits we have never seen before!
Talk about corruption!!!

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by trickson

Stop voting democratically then. Republicans want smaller government Obama wants to expand it to limits we have never seen before!

Oh yeah Bush was a small government guy. Patriot act was all about personal liberty........oh wait.

[trickson]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

Oh yeah Bush was a small government guy. Patriot act was all about personal liberty........oh wait.

LOL. Yeah well we needed some thing! How else can you protect the people when terrorists are HERE?! They come here to get the best education we can give them then just take us out after they leave! Yeah keep that stinkin thinkin!
Still blaming Bush? Man you need to put the Kool-Aid down!

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by trickson

LOL. Yeah well we needed some thing! How else can you protect the people when terrorists are HERE?! They come here to get the best education we can give them then just take us out after they leave! Yeah keep that stinkin thinkin!
Still blaming Bush? Man you need to put the Kool-Aid down!

I blame Lincoln.

[Easy Rhino]

Originally Posted by trickson

LOL. Yeah well we needed some thing! How else can you protect the people when terrorists are HERE?! They come here to get the best education we can give them then just take us out after they leave! Yeah keep that stinkin thinkin!
Still blaming Bush? Man you need to put the Kool-Aid down!

i really think we should stay on topic rather than succumb to flame throwing.

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by Easy Rhino

i really think we should stay on topic rather than succumb to flame throwing.

I agree, I'm done.

[trickson]

Originally Posted by Easy Rhino

i really think we should stay on topic rather than succumb to flame throwing.

I am not flame throwing Just making a point is all.
I still think climate change is just BS. This planet goes through cycles and we are in one now. That is all.

[AphexDreamer]

The Earth does go through cycles, but none of the natural sources of warming are enough to explain the significant amount of warming data shows us. Hence, the amount of warming the Earth is experiencing can only be explained via anthropogenic sources.


Even if we stopped putting out Co2, the Earth would still continue to warm, there is a lag in the system. If we don't do anything now the Earth's temp could go up 2-4 degrees Celsius of which climate experts believe is dangerously high. No doubt all ice would then melt due to the ice albedo feedback. Sea levels would certainly rise not so much from the extra water due to ice melting but from the thermal expansion of water due to heat. We can then expect co2 to increase further more as it seeps out of the oceans again due to the warming oceans.

Hopefully the economy improves so that people can afford the costs of adapting to fiercer future climates, that or technological advances, preferably both.

[Easy Rhino]

Originally Posted by AphexDreamer

The Earth does go through cycles, but none of the natural sources of warming are enough to explain the significant amount of warming data shows us. Hence, the amount of warming the Earth is experiencing can only be explained via anthropogenic sources.

says who? the earth has been around for how long? it has gone through much much worse warming periods before humans existed.

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by AphexDreamer

The Earth does go through cycles, but none of the natural sources of warming are enough to explain the significant amount of warming data shows us. Hence, the amount of warming the Earth is experiencing can only be explained via anthropogenic sources.


Even if we stopped putting out Co2, the Earth would still continue to warm, there is a lag in the system. If we don't do anything now the Earth's temp could go up 2-4 degrees Celsius of which climate experts believe is dangerously high. No doubt all ice would then melt due to the ice albedo feedback. Sea levels would certainly rise not so much from the extra water due to ice melting but from the thermal expansion of water due to heat. We can then expect co2 to increase further more as it seeps out of the oceans again due to the warming oceans.

Hopefully the economy improves so that people can afford the costs of adapting to fiercer future climates, that or technological advances, preferably both.

Some things need to be taken into account. Like the mini-ice age that was ending when the industrial revolution was starting. We are in a fully natural warming period right now even if man never existed. Again I'm not saying we are not causing an issue, I'm just saying the problem isn't going down how a lot of people would have you believe IMO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

[AphexDreamer]

Originally Posted by Easy Rhino

says who? the earth has been around for how long? it has gone through much much worse warming periods before humans existed.

The sun has remained more or less constant throughout the course of history. Nasa has good data on the sun, we know this. So it can't be the sun. In order for the Sun to be responsible for the recent warming, there would need to be a long-term increase in the solar constant over the past few decades. The measurements show no evidence of this. Thus, we can conclude with high confidence that the rapid warming of the past few decades is not caused by a brightening of the Sun.

Continent's moving could also have an effect on the climate, but this occurs to slowly to explain the sudden rise of temps we are experiencing. This is good to explain the slow change of temps over extended periods of time, but not quick ones. It takes millions of years for continental movement to cause significant climate change.

The Earth's orbit also has an effect on climate. These orbital variations are so slow that it takes at least thousands of years to make any significant change in the amount of or distribution of incoming sunlight. The warming of the past century has been much too fast to be caused by these slow orbital variations. The warming must be due to other causes.


Internal variablities in our climate such as the El Nino and La Nina effect our climate by warming and cooling it but they occur every few years and last a year or so. No mechanism of internal variability can explain the warming. Ultimately, we cannot exclude internal variability. However, there is no evidence supporting it, either.

Then there are Green House gases.

The geologic record over the past 500 million years shows a strong correlation between temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide. Widespread ice existed when carbon dioxide was low, and no ice was found when carbon dioxide was high. The correlation between greenhouse gases and temperature is particularly clear during an event roughly 55 million years ago known as the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum or PETM. This event began with a massive release of either carbon dioxide or methane. Which in turn led to an increase in the Earth’s global average temperature of 5–9°C over the next few thousand years. The amount of carbon was so immense that when the CO2 dissolved into the oceans, the oceans became significantly more acidic. This in turn dissolved calcium carbonate in the sediments at the bottom of the ocean.

The temperatures remained elevated for 100,000 years or so, which is about the length of time it takes the carbon cycle to fully remove the carbon from the atmosphere. The amount of carbon released, a few thousand gigatonnes of carbon, is comparable with the amount contained in all of the Earth’s fossil fuels.

Thus, the PETM is sometimes viewed as a good analog to what will happen if humans burn all of the fossil fuels over the next few centuries. One important difference, however, is that humans are on a pace to release the carbon over several hundred years, whereas it was released during the PETM over several thousand years.Thus, we can expect even more rapid warming than that experienced during the PETM, a period of very rapid warming.

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by AphexDreamer

The sun has remained more or less constant throughout the course of history. Nasa has good data on the sun, we know this. So it can't be the sun. In order for the Sun to be responsible for the recent warming, there would need to be a long-term increase in the solar constant over the past few decades. The measurements show no evidence of this. Thus, we can conclude with high confidence that the rapid warming of the past few decades is not caused by a brightening of the Sun.

Continent's moving could also have an effect on the climate, but this occurs to slowly to explain the sudden rise of temps we are experiencing. This is good to explain the slow change of temps over extended periods of time, but not quick ones. It takes millions of years for continental movement to cause significant climate change.

The Earth's orbit also has an effect of climate. These orbital variations are so slow that it takes at least thousands of years to make any significant change in the amount of or distribution of incoming sunlight. The warming of them past century has been much too fast to be caused by these slow orbital variations. The warming must be due to other causes.


Internal variablities in our climate such as the El Nino and La Nina effect our climate by warming and cooling it but they occur every few years and last a year or so. No mechanism of internal variability can explain the warming. Ultimately, we cannot exclude internal variability. However, there is no evidence supporting it, either.

Then there are Green House gases.

The geologic record over the past 500 million years shows a strong correlation between temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide. Widespread ice existed when carbon dioxide was low, and no ice was found when carbon dioxide was high. The correlation between greenhouse gases and temperature is particularly clear during an event roughly 55 million years ago known as the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum or PETM. This event began with a massive release of either carbon dioxide or methane. Which in turn led to an increase in the Earth’s global average temperature of 5–9°C over the next few thousand years. The amount of carbon was so immense that when the CO2 dissolved into the oceans, the oceans became significantly more acidic. This in turn dissolved calcium carbonate in the sediments at the bottom of the ocean.

The temperatures remained elevated for 100,000 years or so, which is about the length of time it takes the carbon cycle to fully remove the carbon from the atmosphere. The amount of carbon released, a few thousand gigatonnes of carbon, is comparable with the amount contained in all of the Earth’s fossil fuels.

Thus, the PETM is sometimes viewed as a good analog to what will happen if humans burn all of the fossil fuels over the next few centuries. One important difference, however, is that humans are on a pace to release the carbon over several hundred years, whereas it was released during the PETM over several thousand years.Thus, we can expect even more rapid warming than that experienced during the PETM, a period of very rapid warming.

And how does taxes fix this? Oh and the Pacific is in warming trend while the Atlantic is in a cooling trend! Riddle me that Batman!

ALSO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

[AphexDreamer]

I never said taxing was a fix.

A carbon tax could be created to work in the same sense as the gas tax. The gas tax was used to create roads. They could place a carbon tax to tax everybody who releases co2 and then use that money to make better technology. Its just an idea.

Then there is cap and trade on the amount of Co2 companies release. It worked for So2 so it might work with Co2 but that wouldn't slow down other athropogneic co2 releases like people driving cars.

Adapting and mitigation our are only two real solutions. Geo-engineering is far to risky but would provide us with immediate results.

We either have the economy to deal with natural disasters as they occur, build walls, etc... to protect ourselves or we develop more efficient/green energy sources to reduce the amount of Co2 we release.

Thorium Reactors would be an excellent source of green energy, no risk of a catastrophic meltdown, runs cool, has far less waste, relies on the abundant element known as thorium (versus the scarce element of uranium), has been shown to work flawlessly when Oak Ridge National Laboratory ran a test plant. Funding should go into this as a future energy source. Its been known since the 50's but due to the cold war and need for nuclear weapons, uranium was being mined and thorium was treated as waste.

Also Thorium reactors breeds with its own waste to create new fuel to use again.

[Easy Rhino]

how about we exterminate half the population. caveat, only i get to decide who lives and who dies.

[AphexDreamer]

Originally Posted by Easy Rhino

how about we exterminate half the population. caveat, only i get to decide who lives and who dies.

There is an equation to determine the impact we have.

I = P x A x T

P= Poulation
A= Affluence
T= Technology.

Our impact on the climate is determinate on those three variables.

Since no one seriously considers telling the Population to limit their family size (Nice try China) or killing humans (as you so boldly recommend, but I think nature will do its part on that), we have to look at the other two variables.