Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hmm 30 years ago we would all be under water according to some. The ice caps are melting... mmm if you take a glass and fill it with water and ice to the brim and then wait for the ice to melt what happens?
Guess what the glass doesnt over flow... how come?
The action or inaction of human beings who believe or disbelieve in something does not make anything more true or more false. Maybe it makes them hypocrites. Maybe it makes them dumber than those who deny the basic fundamentals of science. Who cares? That has no bearing on the science itself.
Start with simple logic. Leaving out all the politics and boiling it down to basic laws of physics and thermodynamics, this truly boils down to an argument of heating something and how that happens. You do realize the banal stupidity and poor standing of the human race when we're arguing about how to heat something?
1. We've known, as a human race, for some 150 years that carbon dioxide traps heat. This is good, to an extent, because with zero carbon dioxide the majority of heat energy we receive from the sun would be reflected back into outer space leaving our planet a frigid place.
2. We have been able to accurately measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere for a very long time. We have also been able to accurately measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere over approximately the last 800,000 years. We have seen a rise in the amounts of CO2 in our atmosphere - especially around the start of the Industrial Revolution until present day.
It's a lot like trying to keep a charcoal grill at a constant temperature. Close a louvre too much (this would be analogous to adding more CO2) and the grill temperature rises. Open a louvre too much or take the lid completely off (analogous to losing most of the CO2) and things get too cold. But, with the right balance of louvre action and lid placement, you can do a fairly effective job at keeping the grill a pretty constant temperature.
Larger amounts of heat on the earth's surface means more energy. Think about how much energy it takes to boil a gallon of water. Use BTU's, Joules, whatever you like... Then think about how much energy it would take to heat an entire ocean's worth of water by a single degree. That energy, by the way, it has to go somewhere.
That's it. It's as simple as that. You can try to convolute it all you'd like, point out this politician, or that guy you sit next to on the subway who doesn't believe in it. You can quote other forum posters. Quite frankly, none of that matters because most people don't have enough intelligence to think of the very basic process of heating something.
We are heating the Earth. No amount of hippies driving gas guzzlers, FOX News personalities, or Rush Limbaugh broadcasts changes that. The entrapment of that heat is also an entrapment of a great amount of energy. That energy has the power to change things... Things like melting stuff, making wet stuff come from the sky in torrents, and so on and so forth. The melting of stuff makes seas rise and climate stabilizing ocean current destabilized. I don't see why this is such a hard concept for people.
A little background - I am a degreed mechanical engineer, so I am familiar - not so much with climate - but with water properties. So I am not speaking as some political hack who just parrots what they hear.
There is NO WAY the United States will have any effects from massive polar ice melting without Canada (for the Arctic) suffering before us. And vice versa for Antarctic ice melting - All of South America, Central America, and Mexico would suffer higher water levels before we would. The water has to travel from the polar regions to here before we see higher water levels.
Ice that melts up there, creates new water UP THERE - which will disperse southward towards Canada, Greenland, Russia, etc. Those places would feel the effects of rising sea levels much earlier than anything we would feel here. That's how water works. There is no case where ice would melt up there, and Norfolk, VA would alone suffer the effects - as the OP suggests.
Also - any ice existing below sea level that melts will not have an effect on the sea level since it is already below water. This is basically the ice cube in a glass water theory - the volume remains the same. However, ice above water that melts would add to the amount of existing sea water.
I appreciate this thread OP. Finally something about solutions. Nice job!
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAllenDoudna
1) Why not build levees around our costal cities? Us folks inland will donate the dirt and broken concrete from our construction projects. The Government only has to pay to have railroads (the cheapest form of land transport) haul it to costal cities. And then you guys dump it out wherever you think best until your cities are protected by levees 300 feet high and a thousand feet wide. You can cover them with grass and trees and on the ocean side have a nice sandy beach and you can line the top with a bunch of windmills.
This is a good idea. Scientist suggested that coastal windmills could reduce hurricane wind by up to two category classifications. These are all great ideas, but it relies on a committment to doing so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAllenDoudna
2) Why not plant a tree that will take in carbon dioxide in the corner of every other parking stall? Nobody parks within a foot of the corner of the parking stall anyway. In the winter when the parking lot is covered with snow you’ll still be able to see where the parking stalls are at. In the summer you’ll be able to park your car in the shade and instead of a blazing hot trek across an oven-hot parking lot you can enjoy a nice stroll in the shade watching squirrels scamper and listening to the birds singing in the trees and you wash your car every week anyway.
Unfortunately, this idea isn't practical. The better practice is permeable pavement and encouraging people to use alternative transportation such as buses / carpooling, light rail, electric vehicles, and bicycles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAllenDoudna
3) Why not plant vines in planters outside the window of every skyscraper? These will restore the green environment lost to the city and the vines will take in CO2 from all the cars on the street and so stop air pollution at it’s source.
The new thing in most areas is putting vegetation on the roofs of building. This basically accomplishes the same thing. Heat is dissipated off the roofs by the vegetation (along with CO2 collection).
For windows, re-orientating office space to use natural sunlight reduces electricity and heating costs. Most new buildings are using more window surface area to accomodate this.
We are fortunate here in BC, as 90% of our electricity is hydro power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by weltschmerz
Virtually all our power comes from Hydro as well.
In Western New York, we have the capacity to do so, but greedy power companies charge people here more for electricity so they can sell it elsewhere. Ain't capitalism a b---?
I imagine the issue is cost. The cost of a levee around a city. . that could withstand a hurricane. . .would be pretty expensive.
My personal issue with the problem has always been the following:
Cost. People need to stop looking at the present day cost and project the long term damage. If we don't tackle the problem, it will cost more in the future.
The conservative way (not directing this at you, just speaking in general) is always to whine about the cost. This new piece of infrastructure will cost $X billion. That new piece of infrastructure can also preserve $2X billion in the future.
Lets assume everything the Greenies say about Global Warming is true and soon all our cities will be flooded as the Ice Caps melt due to rising CO2 levels. In that case, shouldn’t Environmentalists be backing these three proposals:
1) Why not build levees around our costal cities? Us folks inland will donate the dirt and broken concrete from our construction projects. The Government only has to pay to have railroads (the cheapest form of land transport) haul it to costal cities. And then you guys dump it out wherever you think best until your cities are protected by levees 300 feet high and a thousand feet wide. You can cover them with grass and trees and on the ocean side have a nice sandy beach and you can line the top with a bunch of windmills.
2) Why not plant a tree that will take in carbon dioxide in the corner of every other parking stall? Nobody parks within a foot of the corner of the parking stall anyway. In the winter when the parking lot is covered with snow you’ll still be able to see where the parking stalls are at. In the summer you’ll be able to park your car in the shade and instead of a blazing hot trek across an oven-hot parking lot you can enjoy a nice stroll in the shade watching squirrels scamper and listening to the birds singing in the trees and you wash your car every week anyway.
3) Why not plant vines in planters outside the window of every skyscraper? These will restore the green environment lost to the city and the vines will take in CO2 from all the cars on the street and so stop air pollution at it’s source.
No need for all that, the sceince is settled, just pay the man to intercede with the gods on your behalf for a favorable response to save the earth. Oops! perhaps the earth doesn't need man's intervention to survive. It could use some respect but man's concerns are not even listed on the earth's agenda.
Adaptation has been missing in the clamor to save the earth. We live in an eddy on the river of change and if the earth evolves faster than we can adapt, we go away. No amount of cash given to any government will make a difference. May as well avoid stepping on cracks in the sidewalk as the old ditty goes.
The one thing human caused global warming crowd forgot is that the earth is dynamic and is constantly changing and shifting. Nj was underwater, then it wasn't. Continents drifted together and then apart. Why do these thes bright bulbs think that the earth is static and how do they account for changes not due to their theory of human caused global warming?
Meanwhile federal regs a have been imposed on every state and we already are making political supporters richer than anyone could imagine.
Beach re-nourishment is quite common in Florida coastal communities. Anyone who lives in a Florida coastal community and does not notice the increase in beach erosion and the rising sea levels by the quay is either too blind to notice or does not care.
Of course, the biggest screamers of government beach re-nourishment programs are the rich who live on the ocean and are seeing the ocean waters lapping at the sides of their homes. "Why aren't the Corps of Engineers or the State doing anything about this!", they scream. These people for the most part are all Republicans and want the taxpayers to fund the costs of re-sanding their lost beaches. Typical hypocrisy, the government is the solution when it comes to saving their multi-million dollar home from rising sea levels for these "conservatives", but when it comes to anyone else, such as a slight rise in their taxes to pay for these programs or to fight global climate change, they are all indignant.
A little background - I am a degreed mechanical engineer, so I am familiar - not so much with climate - but with water properties. So I am not speaking as some political hack who just parrots what they hear.
Notice that in my response to you I was not addressing or responding to anything you may have mentioned about water distribution. I was responding strictly to the fact that you were pointing out that people can be hypocrites about global warming which has no bearing on the actual truth of the matter. As well, I was also responding to the fact that you said there is not enough evidence to suggest global warming/climate change is inevitable.
The fact is that the climate has ALREADY changed. We can measure the amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere directly caused by us as opposed to natural forces (volcanic CO2 is a slightly heavier molecule) and we know the following:
1. The more ice that melts the less sunlight will be reflected back to outer space. The darker seawater will store more of that sunlight.
2. As more glacial melt occurs, long dead CO2 storing trees, leaves, plants, and soil will thaw and release more CO2 in the atmosphere. We already discussed putting the lid on the grill...
3. We know the sun is not directly causing it because the Earth is actually heating up at night, the opposite effect if the sun was nuking us. Plus, the sun's energy output hasn't changed in a very, very long time.
It is because of those things, primarily triggered by our increased carbon output as a human race (identified by the molecularly lighter CO2 we output), that the climate, more specifically, the average temperature worldwide has increased in the past 130 years. We've known how to keep accurate weather records for about that long. Here's what it looks like. (It's a QuickTime video, I think).
As I previously mentioned, you don't get an increase in heat without an increase in energy. An increase in energy will translate itself to stronger and more violent storms. I don't think that's really an argument, is it?
But, weather and climate are different things. A volcano in Iceland may cause a rainstorm in California or some butterfly effect thing like that. Weather is fickle. Weather is all over the place. That's fine. Climate is a long term aggregate description of the weather. It describes places like Sub-Saharan Africa as "Arid," parts of the U.S. as "Temperate", and so on and so forth.
In case you weren't able to watch the video above, here's a generalized map of the deviations from the mean (using approx. the 1880's to 1950's as a baseline and what the temperature anomalies in 2006 appeared like).
Notice that the greatest amount of heat concentration is present at the poles. So, does that have the potential to change the climate? I can't see how it wouldn't. Looking at this map of ocean currents, there are some pretty big warm and cold current interchanges. A heat exchanger, if you will. It is those ocean currents that ultimately drive a large portion of our weather - and our long-term weather (climate) as well. Without a heat exchanger, or with a diminished heat exchanger, we should expect differences to the long-term weather patterns and that IS what we're finding.
Finally, to stay on topic, with the amount of heat concentrated at the poles, and the plainly obvious and observable melting of ice (there are really people who argue that the ice isn't melting) in the Arctic and other glacial parts of the Earth, we should expect sea level rise. And, as you said, we should expect it closer to where it comes from first and not necessarily to show up first in Roanoke, VA.
That would hurt the environment, don't you know? I find a lot of amusement in the fact that every "green" idea has just as much or more of a detrimental effect than the technology that it is supposed to replace. For example, burning coal and oil are bad, but nuclear power is a no-no and solar fields and windmills wreak havoc on the wildlife. The only way to stop or even greatly slow the effect of mankind on the environment would be to return to pre-fire caveman technology.
Unfortunately , even this would not stop the environment from changing . 15,000 years ago the world was a diffent place and ice reached as far South as Chicago, Boston NYC and Seattle. You could walk from the coast of France to Delaware along the permanent sea ice of the Atlantic , Siberia to Alaska or from Singapore to Australia. Trees and game where found on the Sahara a fertile temperate land as large as the United States of today. A few thousand years later the ice melted and the seas rose now you whould need a boat to go from Europe or Asia to America. The Sahara became a desert. Climate change is real and like a good boxer who wants to go the distance , humanity has to learn to roll with the punches nature lands from time to time because the alternative is to be knocked out cold.
A little background - I am a degreed mechanical engineer, so I am familiar - not so much with climate - but with water properties. So I am not speaking as some political hack who just parrots what they hear.
There is NO WAY the United States will have any effects from massive polar ice melting without Canada (for the Arctic) suffering before us. And vice versa for Antarctic ice melting - All of South America, Central America, and Mexico would suffer higher water levels before we would. The water has to travel from the polar regions to here before we see higher water levels.
Ice that melts up there, creates new water UP THERE - which will disperse southward towards Canada, Greenland, Russia, etc. Those places would feel the effects of rising sea levels much earlier than anything we would feel here. That's how water works. There is no case where ice would melt up there, and Norfolk, VA would alone suffer the effects - as the OP suggests.
Also - any ice existing below sea level that melts will not have an effect on the sea level since it is already below water. This is basically the ice cube in a glass water theory - the volume remains the same. However, ice above water that melts would add to the amount of existing sea water.
If the polar ice masses in Greenland and Antarctica melt and the world returns to the warmer climate it had in the Eocene one wouldn't be worrying about Norfolk-Hampton Roads- Chesapaeke, Virginias shoreline would be near Richmond and Petersburg and Fredericksburg. North Carolina would lose the eastern third of the state , The South Carolina beaches would be near Columbia. Maryland would be minus The Eastern Shore , Ananpolis, Baltimore and the Potomac would enter the Atlantic at the Great Falls about 10 miles West of Washington DC. Delaware would shrink to a 100 sq miles around Newark and so it would go. All you need is a shovel and a little geology smarts to dig down and find those ancient beaches of 45 million years ago sea shells and all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
