What do you think about Global Warming?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Feb 16 2007, 12:21 PM) [snapback]391468[/snapback]</div>

You mean this? :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

It plots CO2 levels along with temperature. As you can see, the earth does have a tendency for cyclic phases of warming and cooling, but most importantly, it also tracks closely with CO2 levels.

Present CO2 levels are much higher than in the past 650,000 years.

Edit : Here you go, for more reading... if you want more primary sources, check the links at the bottom :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warmin..._the_atmosphere

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Feb 16 2007, 12:39 PM) [snapback]391480[/snapback]</div>

You mean present CO2 levels? 365 ppm?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_ga...reenhouse_gases

Sorry for linking to Wikipedia so much... I'm getting ready to go to work, and I don't have the time to find any less pedestrian sources.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Feb 16 2007, 08:09 AM) [snapback]391452[/snapback]</div>

CO2 levels are higher than they have been in 650,000 years. If the relationship between CO2 and temperature are as scientists believe then yes, temperautes now are higher than they have been in 650,000yrs. If you judge them on climate and not weather.




650,000 years of greenhouse gas concentrations

Some can and will argue about Vostok and Dome-C low resolution but that is not the only evidence they have to determine GHG levels and temperature in "pre-history". Geochemists have been using data like oxygen isotopes in coccolithophores, cap carbonates, dendrochronology and various other methods of comparing data.


Similar to a report summary I did on ocean acidification and its effect on calcifying organisms.

Kinda messed with my professor's head a bit because on the 2nd day of class he stated that he fully believed that global warming was happening but he wasn't too worried because CO2 uptake by calcifying organisms in the ocean would help mediate the problem. Lets just say he was VERY interested in this journal. lol

The journal I reviewed for my oceanography class

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Feb 16 2007, 12:44 PM) [snapback]391488[/snapback]</div>

2005 and 2006 were the warmest years on record for two years in a row... but if you're talking about why the orange line on that graph isn't keeping up with the blue one, bear in mind that 9 years doesn't really show up on a graph that is 650,000 on the X axis as much more of a statistical error .

Here's a more detailed plot of the last century and some change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrum...ture_Record.png

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Feb 16 2007, 12:47 PM) [snapback]391489[/snapback]</div>

Ah... it looks like we have a real scientist in the house! I'll let you explain it better than I can.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Feb 16 2007, 08:44 AM) [snapback]391488[/snapback]</div>

CO2 levels are currently at 379ppm according to every data set I have read and was included in the IPCC report from 2 weeks ago.


There is always a lag time between CO2 and temperature change. I'm sure you noticed that in the Gore movie.

You also have to take into account the effects of aerosols and their effect on temperature. They use the term Global Dimming. In a nutshell, aerosols in the atmosphere can absorb some of the incoming shortwave raditation and also reflect it back into space, like an increased albedo effect. Global Dimming is estimate to be cooling our planet at the same time Global Warming is heating it up.This has two scary functions.

#1 It cools the planet thus masking the effects of Global Warming and confusing the actual sensitivity of CO2 which can mean we have underestimated the effects of CO2.

#2 If the aerosol pollution is reduced but nothing is done about CO2 then we could face a nasty feedback loop and climate heating.

#3 H2O evaporation rates were shown to be lowered due to reduction of shortwave radiation hitting bodies of water (photon packets). Evaporation helps to cool those bodies of water and transfer heat around the planet. So this attempts to explain the apparent paradox of higher temperatures and low evaporation rates.

I posted the movie the other day but here it is again. Obviously the movie can be misleading but the data was correct. Read the comments on the RealClimate.org link I posted above to hear from the director and a couple of the scientists in the movie. Global Dimming - BBC presentation

No matter what you read, see or hear, it is always a good idea to do research on the subject and not expect that everything stated is 100% true. Sometimes its straight up lies, tainted by worldview, or faulty data.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(LaughingMan @ Feb 16 2007, 08:56 AM) [snapback]391499[/snapback]</div>

Ohh no, not me. I'm not a scientist. I am in college studying ecology and biodiversity but that in no way makes me a climatologist, paleoclimatologist or geochemist. I do read about climatology more than the average person and while that doesn't make me an expert I do have a decent grasp on what information is out there and where to find it.

I'm not not a hardcore global warming extremist as I can see some complex situations we know very little about yet these variabilities do not change the total picture and when combined with all the other problems that are at the root of the global warming problems (extreme consumerism, lack of ecoliteracy, corporate rule, antiquated economic models, apathetic society etc) I see every reason to make big changes. I do not confuse that with the actual data though. I state my concerns as "seperate" issues and explain how they are all connected in hopes that whatever solutions we come up with will solve multiple problems at once and not focus on curing a single problem because, as history has shown, that never works.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Feb 16 2007, 09:18 AM) [snapback]391516[/snapback]</div>

Ain't that the truth!

Climate and even moreso weather is diffucult to summarize simply. Snow does not = glaciers unless temperatures stay cold enough to maintain that glacier over the summer months. Same goes for ice sheets on land or water. Higher temps without the effects of Global Dimming generally leads to higher precipitation rates which translates into more snow or rain in various regions. Yet without the colder temps to maintain a snow pack the snow or ice just melts and returns to the ocean much faster than normal and mitigating the cooling effect in that particular region. This also translates to less feshwater in the late summer months for regions like California who rely on the Sierra Nevada for a large portion of it's water supplies.

One particularly scary scenario for me is how this warming trend will effect global wind and ocean circulation parterns. In all of life and non-life there are patterns of organization. There have been studies on "self-organization", complexity theory, and chaos theory, and many of those studies show that in systems "far from equalbrium" those systems will spontaneously change their organization. One could look at our climate systems and see that similar results are completely possible. Can you imagine what would happen if all of wind currents and oceanic circulation models sudden switched their directions into something new? Our infrastructure could not keep up with such a change and it would be a catastrophe indeed.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Feb 16 2007, 01:18 PM) [snapback]391516[/snapback]</div>

So... this US base in Antarctica is located within the vicinity of the ice shelf Gore was speaking of then? Remember, Antarctica is a pretty big continent.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Feb 16 2007, 01:18 PM) [snapback]391516[/snapback]</div>

Having to rebuild Antarctic bases due to snowfall and Antarctic glaciers melting are not mutually exclusive activity. Antarctica has some of the most extreme weather on the planet. Temperatures on the Polar Plateau range from -115°F to +6°F; the mean temperature is -56°F. Winter wind-chills can plummet to -148°F. So that you're gonna have to deal with rebuilding bases even while global warming is occurring should be expected when that's the temperature range of your environment.
http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarct...her/index.shtml

The ice shelf break-up cited in the film was significant (pictures and animations also visible at the link below):
For reference, the area lost in this most recent event dwarfs Rhode Island (2717 km2) in size. In terms of volume, the amount of ice released in this short time is 720 billion tons, enough ice for about 12 trillion 10 kg bags....This is the largest single event in a series of retreats by ice shelves in the Peninsula over the last 30 years.
http://nsidc.org/iceshelves/larsenb2002/index.html

And some of the "melt" that's happening in Antarctica may not even be visible on the surface. But even today there's new information on the system of lakes and rivers underneath the ice sheet.
Scientists Find Lakes Under Antarctica
Beneath the snow, ice and bitter cold of Antarctica, scientists have discovered a network of lakes that fill and empty with rapidly flowing water.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Antarctic-Lakes.html

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Feb 16 2007, 01:12 PM) [snapback]391511[/snapback]</div>

Great link. Bookmarked!