Climate Change

[Steph]

Water has a very high specific heat; it takes a lot of energy to warm it a small amount, and it holds onto that energy. During the day, the oceans are cooler than the shore is, until late afternoon when the water has lots of heat in it, and the oceans are then warmer at night. The oceans are wonderful moderators.

Where did I say something else?

You're the one drawing false conclusions; you MUST believe global warming is a threat at any cost, and any evidence to the contrary must be crushed. Stay tuned, I'm gonna start up a new thread to demonstrate how common this is. (Hell, I used to do it myself)

No no no... I'm considering more parameters than you are. Not only the presencd of water, but also the existence of warm / cold current, or the latitude, or the presence of moutain.
Climate is a complex issue, you cannot just use the proximity of water to explain it.
Therefore, by seeing only a small percentage of your parameters, it's normal you draw false conclusion.

 

[MattII]

Read about the Younger Dryas, a mini ice age that lasted for about 1000 years, following which temperatures climber by about 4 degrees celsius in 20 years. Also, Antarctica was in its more or less current position for about 20 million years before getting covered in ice. Another problem could also be CFCs since they are much better at holding in heat than carbon dioxide, and last for 100 years, apart from the ozone hole and the fact they are still being used all over the third world. I suspect yet another recent problem is the rise in global population, which is surely not good for the environment. ps. we didn't kill off the neandertals, they just couldn't compete for food.

 

[Kozmos]

Bah I say we build self-sufficient underwater cities.

 

[VoodooAce]

I posted this in the 'Kyoto' thread, but its more apporpriate here:

I'll just say that:

A) Man is having a direct, negative effect on the planet's environment. Of this, there is no longer any doubt....period. One may argue the degree to which we are having an effect, but we are having an effect.

B) These negative effects could range from causing mass starvation, flooding all of the planet's coastlines inland for miles, to making the planet simply unlivable for man. Who could possibly know what all of the effects might be.

C) These effects could happen slowly, over a period of time as some argue is already happening, or suddenly....or likely a combination of both.

D) The damage done can't be reversed as easily as they are caused. Its like a human that smokes. The damage done is largely permanent, but quiting asap can only help.

It just seems to me that the wise thing to do is to, as a species, take whatever steps we can to reduce the damage we are causing. The old 'better safe than sorry' thing. Chances are good that when we begin to experience truly devastating effects, it will be too late to do anything....and this is scary.

I understand there are a lot of economic issues to consider (conservatives like to constantly remind us of how much money we could lose), but all of these economic issues won't amount to a hill of beans when there are billions being starved, flooded and burned.

If this happens in my lifetime, I may just go conservative hunting to reduce the competition for what resources there will be left (better hurry up and scratch those Bush/Cheney stickers off of your SUV's). If all would listen to the 'crazy left' we would at the very least prolong any disasterous effects and, maybe, prevent them all together (maybe there is a 'critical mass' that we can prevent us from reaching).

They (conservatives) insist there is nothing to worry about, so when the sky falls, I think its only fair they be the first to go. Don't you?

 

[Rambuchan]

I'm glad to see some discussion on the other factors, such as altering tidal flows. Don't have time to contribute but here are some more maps of how the world will look when the sea rise (whatever causes that).

EU and North Africa at present day sea levels:

 

[Rambuchan]

And this is with a 6-metre rise in sea levels. Again, please note that sea levels are rising at different rates around the world and in some places they are actually falling. This map simply takes into account a uniform 6 metre rise. You need to factor in your local areas rate of rise to work out how applicable it is for you. I've posted some graphs on this earlier in the thread.

 

[Rambuchan]

America's East with a 3 metre rise in sea level:

 

[Rambuchan]

And with a 30 metre rise

 

[Rambuchan]

And finally with a 100 metre rise.

If you think that this map is a fictional prediction of the future, then please check the earlier posts I made. If the three major ice caps in the world begin to melt, this will be irreversible. There is some signal that this has begun already. Note that climatologists predict at least an 84 metre rise in sea levels over the next 100-200 years if this takes place.

• A seven-metre rise in sea levels if the Greenland or West Antarctic Ice Sheet melted.

• A 13-metre rise if both the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheet melted.

• An 84-metre rise if the East Antarctic Ice Sheet also melted.

 

[Jack the Ripper]

hey! scotland survived

edit: i was referring to the map at the beginning of the thread, not the above map

 

[GenMarshall]

By the looks of things, Coastal Conneticut would be flooded, Not to mention the Conneticut River Valley . Time to realy go Dutch and build some dykes and dams .

 

[BasketCase]

Where did I say something else?

Back when you said this:

The oceans have a moderation effect of climate, true. However, you can have a warm current, as the Gulf Stream, which give warm climate to France, while the east cost of the Canada, which is at the same latitude and also close to ocean, are not so warm and cozy, aren't they?

You made the argument that it's not the oceans, but the Gulf Stream specifically, that makes France warm.

I disagree. As I write this, I'm a thousand miles from the ocean and the Gulf Stream, and also 6,000 feet above sea level. My climate is NOT a frozen wasteland.

You have an example showing the Gulf Stream is a primary moderator of environment. I have an example showing that it is not. That means the theory that the Gulf Stream is the single factor preventing the planet from freezing over has a possible problem that must be addressed.

No no no... I'm considering more parameters than you are. Not only the presencd of water, but also the existence of warm / cold current, or the latitude, or the presence of moutain.
Climate is a complex issue, you cannot just use the proximity of water to explain it.

Yes. Actually I can. I presented a counterexample. My current location is far away from the Gulf Stream, which means that other factors BESIDES the Gulf Stream are the primary contributors to my current climate.

Therefore it is me who's willing to consider "those other factors", not you.

 

[10Seven]

Yes. Actually I can. I presented a counterexample. My current location is far away from the Gulf Stream, which means that other factors BESIDES the Gulf Stream are the primary contributors to my current climate.

Therefore it is me who's willing to consider "those other factors", not you.

are you trying to invalidate one 'factor' or considering others?

Major research seems to suggest - I say suggest because I haven't read enough to know whether it is, rather, a 'scientific certainty' - that the Gulf Stream, while relatively localised, is a major factor in global temperature/current systems.

Thus, whether a person is East Coast USA or in the middle of Mongolia, it's affect remains considerable.

 

[Steph]

Back when you said this:

The oceans have a moderation effect of climate, true. However, you can have a warm current, as the Gulf Stream, which give warm climate to France, while the east cost of the Canada, which is at the same latitude and also close to ocean, are not so warm and cozy, aren't they?

You made the argument that it's not the oceans, but the Gulf Stream specifically, that makes France warm.

I'll try to explain slowly... My first sentence is "the oceans have a moderation effect of climate". This does NOT mean I say the oceans are not a climate moderator, does it?
I say that the Gulf Stream has an added effect.
Ocean + hot current like Gulf Stream = warmer moderate climate
Ocean + cold current = cooler moderate climate.
Do you get it now?

You made the argument that it's not the oceans, but the Gulf Stream specifically, that makes France warm.

I disagree. As I write this, I'm a thousand miles from the ocean and the Gulf Stream, and also 6,000 feet above sea level. My climate is NOT a frozen wasteland.

What a nice logic. I don't have volcano lava in my office. But my office is not cold. Therefore volcano lava does not produce heat.

You have an example showing the Gulf Stream is a primary moderator of environment. I have an example showing that it is not. That means the theory that the Gulf Stream is the single factor preventing the planet from freezing over has a possible problem that must be addressed.

Yes. Actually I can. I presented a counterexample. My current location is far away from the Gulf Stream, which means that other factors BESIDES the Gulf Stream are the primary contributors to my current climate.

Sigh... as your said YOUR current climate. I have no pb accepting your current climate is not moderated primarily by the Gulf Stream. Why can't you accept the Gulf Stream has an important effect on the climate of other parts of the planet?

 

[BasketCase]

What a nice logic. I don't have volcano lava in my office. But my office is not cold. Therefore volcano lava does not produce heat.

Wrong. Last line should be "therefore a volcano is not what's keeping your office warm".

Why can't you accept the Gulf Stream has an important effect on the climate of other parts of the planet?

Because I've seen counterexamples which suggest that the Gulf Stream might not have such effects.

Edit: That last bit doesn't really get my point across very well. I distrust this crackpot Gulf-Stream-shutdown-will-freeze-the-Earth theory for the same reason I distrust Creationism.

 

[Steph]

Wrong. Last line should be "therefore a volcano is not what's keeping your office warm".

Read again what you wrote, and you'll see what I mean.

I say: "Gulf stream helps keeping Europe warmer"
You say "I live far from the Gulf Stream, I'm not cold, so Gulf Stream doesn't help keeping Europe Warmer"

Because I've seen counterexamples which suggest that the Gulf Stream might not have such effects.

I'm still waiting for a convincing example that the Gulf Stream doesn't have an effect to keep Europe warmer. Please provide one.

 

[BasketCase]

I say: "Gulf stream helps keeping Europe warmer"

Exactly.

You say "I live far from the Gulf Stream, I'm not cold, so Gulf Stream doesn't help keeping Europe Warmer"

Wrong again. I say "I live far from the Gulf Stream, I'm not cold, so absence of Gulf Stream will not cause me to freeze my ass off". Therefore it's possible that a Gulf Stream shutdown will not cause Europe to freeze their asses off.

I'm still waiting for a convincing example that the Gulf Stream doesn't have an effect to keep Europe warmer. Please provide one.

Why should I?

The theory I'm punching holes in is not the theory that the Gulf Stream helps keep Europe warm. I'm punching holes in the theory that a Gulf Stream shutdown will cause an Ice Age.

 

[Steph]

Exactly.
The theory I'm punching holes in is not the theory that the Gulf Stream helps keep Europe warm. I'm punching holes in the theory that a Gulf Stream shutdown will cause an Ice Age.

Change "will" cause by "may" cause.
I never said it was a fact, I said it was one of the theory.

"On topic, their could be a kind of "swinging" effect.
If the ice melt, the salinity of the sea changes in surface because of the amount of fresh water in the sea.
This could stop the Gulf Stream. The result could be a new ice age; the sea will freeze again, create huge glaciers and ice pack, and reducing the level of the sea... And Eurotunnel shares will really be worth nothing"

Notice the "could"? I didn't say "will".

This was an answer to people who said "global warming = ice melt = netherlands disappear". I added "it's not the only possible solution, there COULD be another effect".

My point is:
1) Global warming is a fact. We see it every year in Europe. We can disagree on it's origine (greenhouse effect, natural evolution of climate?), but it exists.
2) Global warming could melt the ice cap. This could have an effect on the Gulf Stream.
3) The Gulf Stream HAS a warming effect on Europe, but we are not sure of what will be the effect if it stop. One of them could a new ice age in Europe.

Climate is something complex and fragile, we should be careful with it. We are not sure if limiting CO2 production will have a real effect on climate.
But we know a change of climate could have drastic effects.

So, better safe than sorry, and we should at least try.

 

[Steph]

Exactly.
You made the argument that it's not the oceans, but the Gulf Stream specifically, that makes France warm.

I disagree. As I write this, I'm a thousand miles from the ocean and the Gulf Stream, and also 6,000 feet above sea level. My climate is NOT a frozen wasteland.

When you write I disagree, you will admit it should be with the sentence before. That is "the Gulf Stream specifically makes France warm".

So your example was indeed there to illustrate "Gulf Stream doesn't help keeping Europe Warmer".

Perhaps it wasn't what you had in mind, but it's what you wrote.

 

[MeteorPunch]

The summers where I live have been cooler over the past few years.