billvon 2,990 #201 December 12, 2006 > So you're saying that warm water promotes increased snowfall? And this is bad? Warm water promotes evaporation. Increased evaporation leads to increased precipitation - more rain (or snow, in cold areas.) You see this with hurricane formation and El Nino events. Good vs bad - well, that would depend, wouldn't it? Rain that causes flooding - bad. Rain that ends a drought - good. Snow that causes deadly blizzards - bad. Snow that stores some water in eastern antarctica - good (if you want to offset sea level rises from melting Greenland ice.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #202 December 12, 2006 QuoteSo you're saying that warm water promotes increased snowfall? And this is bad? If you put more water vapor from warm tropical oceans into the atmosphere... by the time it gets to the antarctic regions is comes out as... snow. Its this weird phenomenon that happens to water when it freezes in the atmosphere. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #203 December 12, 2006 Quote> So you're saying that warm water promotes increased snowfall? And this is bad? Warm water promotes evaporation. Increased evaporation leads to increased precipitation - more rain (or snow, in cold areas.) You see this with hurricane formation and El Nino events. Good vs bad - well, that would depend, wouldn't it? Rain that causes flooding - bad. Rain that ends a drought - good. Snow that causes deadly blizzards - bad. Snow that stores some water in eastern antarctica - good (if you want to offset sea level rises from melting Greenland ice.) I was speaking in the context of our conversation about melting icecaps of Antarctica. Sorry you missed that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #204 December 12, 2006 >Sorry you missed that. Nope, I didn't. Wow, we had an exchange of 3-4 posts where you didn't feel the need to slam anyone. Let's hope that in the future such runs can be extended. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
speedy 0 #205 December 12, 2006 QuoteGood vs bad - well, that would depend, wouldn't it? Rain that causes flooding - bad. Rain that ends a drought - good. Snow that causes deadly blizzards - bad. Snow that stores some water in eastern antarctica - good (if you want to offset sea level rises from melting Greenland ice.) There you have it in a nutshell, there are good and bad things about a warmer planet. To take it further, there are many things that may cause the planet to warm. We are targeting one thing, CO2. It is not the solution. The real solution is to find ways of coping with climate change and not to spend billions on coping with CO2 emissions. Changing our CO2 emissions will have little effect on the global temperature. If we really understand what changes the climate we may be in a position to anticipate how the changes affect us and how to prepare for them. Also, although not now but in the future we may be able to control the causes of climate change. Dave Fallschirmsport Marl Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #206 December 12, 2006 QuoteQuote> So you're saying that warm water promotes increased snowfall? And this is bad? Warm water promotes evaporation. Increased evaporation leads to increased precipitation - more rain (or snow, in cold areas.) You see this with hurricane formation and El Nino events. Good vs bad - well, that would depend, wouldn't it? Rain that causes flooding - bad. Rain that ends a drought - good. Snow that causes deadly blizzards - bad. Snow that stores some water in eastern antarctica - good (if you want to offset sea level rises from melting Greenland ice.) I was speaking in the context of our conversation about melting icecaps of Antarctica. Sorry you missed that. How come YOU couldn't stick to MY topic of ARCTIC sea ice instread of going off on a tangent about Antarctica? www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2568721#2568721 ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #207 December 12, 2006 >There you have it in a nutshell, there are good and bad things about >a warmer planet. Yep. Some things (increase in cropland in Canada) are indeed good. Others (loss of cropland in the US) are bad. There will be some pain involved as we adapt to the new world. How much pain will depend on how fast things change - so it would seem to make sense to not make them change as rapidly as possible. >To take it further, there are many things that may cause the planet >to warm. We are targeting one thing, CO2. It is not the solution. Also true. Deforestation, methane releases, and changes in land use (i.e. cattle grazing replacing forests) all have their effect. CO2 is one of the strongest climate forcings, but isn't the only one. >The real solution is to find ways of coping with climate change and > not to spend billions on coping with CO2 emissions. Changing our > CO2 emissions will have little effect on the global temperature. Right. But "coping with climate change" will cost trillions. How much will it cost to lose a third of our farmlands to changing rain patterns? How much will it cost to relocate tens of millions of people? Now compare that to what it will cost to replace coal power with wind power, which will slow down the rate the climate changes. The issue is spending the money you do have wisely, rather than waiting until you have no choice but to spend trillions. Billions now may well be a better deal than trillions in 20 years. >If we really understand what changes the climate we may be in a > position to anticipate how the changes affect us and how to prepare > for them. We have finally gotten to the point where we can predict _some_ changes and be correct. The first IPCC assesment on climate change in 1990 predicted a temperature increase of .2C to .5C per decade doing nothing, .1C to .2C if we take action - and we've seen a surface temperature increase of about .2C since then. We still have a lot of work to do, because our models still predict primarily first-order behavior. Water is a strong greenhouse gas, and the increased temperatures brought about by our activities have warmed the oceans and caused more evaporation. Will this increase warming further, accelerating the trend? Or will the higher concentration of water vapor cause more clouds (reflect light; cool the planet) and strong storms (which mix the atmosphere and cool it overall?) Similarly, will higher temperatures cause the melting of permafrost and methane clathrates, releasing more methane, which is also a strong greenhouse gas? We don't know yet. (Well, we know the permafrost is melting, but we don't yet know what this will do to CH4 concentrations.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MuffDiver 0 #208 December 12, 2006 Global warming is a direct result of the shrinking number of pirates since the 1800's. __________________________________________________ Don't take life too seriously. You'll never get out alive. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #209 December 13, 2006 QuoteQuote So what do you think about the melting rate of arctic sea ice? nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html Growing in one area shrinking in another. The researchers I read say a net wash and normal. WRONG! news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6171053.stm... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #210 December 13, 2006 Quote>Growing in one area shrinking in another. The researchers I read say a net wash and normal. Nope. No sane researcher thinks the arctic ice cap is growing (or even staying the same on average.) Continue to label those that do not agee with you. It is very becoming"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #211 December 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote So what do you think about the melting rate of arctic sea ice? nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html Growing in one area shrinking in another. The researchers I read say a net wash and normal. WRONG! news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6171053.stm No, I believe your sources are wrong. thanks for theks for the show howevers"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #212 December 13, 2006 >Continue to label those that do not agee with you. Like I said, no one (at least no researcher who looks at any data) thinks the arctic ice cap is growing from year to year at all, or that it's even maintaining its size. You've likely mistaken the arctic for the antarctic, which is an understandable mistake. (And the antarctic IS gaining ice in some areas.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
speedy 0 #213 December 13, 2006 >Will this increase warming further, accelerating the trend? >Or will the higher concentration of water vapor cause more clouds (reflect light; cool the planet) and strong storms (which mix the atmosphere and cool it overall?) There seems to be a lot of uncertainty about what will actually happen. Good, bad, warmer or cooler. Models are predicting what? depends on the model. It appears that your opinion is that we know CO2 should cause some warming. It doesn't matter if it's the sole cause because we can stop people emitting CO2 and every little bit helps. If the planet warms, say by 5°c over the next century will it matter if we can reduce that warming by 0.2 °c? Why should we spend trillions on reducing CO2 emissions if the warming is coming from somewhere else? The sun, cosmic rays, cows farts.... Wind, solar and hydro power all have their place, but once the fossil fuels start to run out we are going to have a problem. Carbon taxes will not solve that problem. By preparing for climate change I did not mean just for a warmer planet, maybe we should also be prepared for a cooler one as well. The latter being more of a disaster . Dave Fallschirmsport Marl Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #214 December 13, 2006 Quote>Continue to label those that do not agee with you. Like I said, no one (at least no researcher who looks at any data) thinks the arctic ice cap is growing from year to year at all, or that it's even maintaining its size. You've likely mistaken the arctic for the antarctic, which is an understandable mistake. (And the antarctic IS gaining ice in some areas.) The edges of the artic are pulling back while the center is getting thicker. Some research sugests that this is a normal cycle for the area"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #215 December 13, 2006 QuoteHow come YOU couldn't stick to MY topic of ARCTIC sea ice instread of going off on a tangent about Antarctica? www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2568721#2568721 You mean your "Topic" that consisted of your post (which was itself off-tangent) and two whole replies??? My "off tangent" reply was a direct response to one of those replies. Are you working on your thread nazi merit badge? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #216 December 13, 2006 Quote By preparing for climate change I did not mean just for a warmer planet, maybe we should also be prepared for a cooler one as well. The latter being more of a disaster . Considering your location, I'd say this is more likely the problem you and your neighbors will be dealing with. Shutting down the gulf stream will likely just piss off the fishermen over here on this side of the pond Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #217 December 13, 2006 Quote Why should we spend trillions on reducing CO2 emissions if the warming is coming from somewhere else? The sun, cosmic rays, cows farts.... Because by using clean renewable resources for power we will cut back on CO2 emissions AND all those things that are emitted with it, mercury being one of them. As for the cow farts, we could always eat less beef. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely LOVE a good tenderloin, but I do know that I could and should eat less of it. I need to eat more veggies, they're better for you and they take up much less energy to produce than a steak. I think it takes about 16 lbs of veggies to produce 1 lb of steak and that doesn't take into account the amount of water or fossile fuels involved in producing/delivering the meat. Small collective changes in lifestyle can make a big difference. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
speedy 0 #218 December 13, 2006 QuoteShutting down the gulf stream Unless the planet stops turning or we no longer have wind the gulf stream is not going to shut down anytime soon. It is not responsible for Europes mild climate anyway. The notion that the Gulf Stream is responsible for keeping Europe anomalously warm turns out to be a myth Dave Fallschirmsport Marl Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
speedy 0 #219 December 13, 2006 QuoteBecause by using clean renewable resources for power we will cut back on CO2 emissions AND all those things that are emitted with it, mercury being one of them. I say why should we spend millions cutting back on CO2 ... You answer, because we can cut back on CO2 Lets spend millions on cutting back on reality TV shows. Why? Because we can Dave Fallschirmsport Marl Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,439 #220 December 13, 2006 QuoteLets spend millions on cutting back on reality TV shows. Why? Because we can You say this like it's a bad thing Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #221 December 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteHow come YOU couldn't stick to MY topic of ARCTIC sea ice instread of going off on a tangent about Antarctica? www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2568721#2568721 You mean your "Topic" that consisted of your post (which was itself off-tangent) and two whole replies??? My "off tangent" reply was a direct response to one of those replies. Are you working on your thread nazi merit badge? Ha ha - I see you had to clip YOUR post to which this was my response in order to avoid an irony score of 10. That isn't a clever tactic in a forum where the entire thread is open for all to read. Keep trying, you'll get the hang of it eventually.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #222 December 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote So what do you think about the melting rate of arctic sea ice? nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html Growing in one area shrinking in another. The researchers I read say a net wash and normal. WRONG! news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6171053.stm No, I believe your sources are wrong. thanks for theks for the show howevers Why don't you write to The American Geophysical Union, The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), the University of Washington, and McGill University, and tell them they're all mistaken, then.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #223 December 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteShutting down the gulf stream Unless the planet stops turning or we no longer have wind the gulf stream is not going to shut down anytime soon. It is not responsible for Europes mild climate anyway. The notion that the Gulf Stream is responsible for keeping Europe anomalously warm turns out to be a myth That paper didn't really say that at all. It said that attributing the climate solely to the gulf stream was a myth, you have to have winds in the right direction too. Kind of like the "Bernoulli is a myth" arguments that are based on "debunking" a gossly oversimplified version of the origin of wing lift.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
speedy 0 #224 December 13, 2006 QuoteThat paper didn't really say that at all. So did it say that the gulf stream is entirely responsible for Europes mild climate and without it we europeans are going to freeze to death? Cos thats what the popular press says. Dave Fallschirmsport Marl Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #225 December 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteBecause by using clean renewable resources for power we will cut back on CO2 emissions AND all those things that are emitted with it, mercury being one of them. I say why should we spend millions cutting back on CO2 ... You answer, because we can cut back on CO2 Lets spend millions on cutting back on reality TV shows. Why? Because we can I thought that the benefits of cutting back on baby stupifying heavy metal pollution (no, not Twisted Sister....which is really not metal but I digress) and increasing energy efficiency were obvious. Apparently not. But I'm with you on the reality show idea. They're worse for your brain that mercury and we get no real benefit in return. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
