Serious climate change

[SwampDonkey]

No they wouldn't.  You have not calculated in the land masses shifting and raising due to the billions of tons of ice that are no longer weighing them down.

Which would make the situation worse.

Only way that it would be worse is if the volume of land changed, which it wouldn't.  I submerge a block of wood with my hand in a tub the water level rises. Then take my hand off the block, doesn't the water level drop? Decreased displacement. ;) The surface of the earth shifts since it's riding on molten material. While there are areas of subduction along fault lines the result is something gets uplifted elsewhere. Volume decreases as ice melts to water, liquid water is denser. Salts in the water increase density to. And what is the average temperature of the water globally after this melting? This could only be predicted. Density is 62.4 lbs/ft³ (avg) in the range of 40-70 degrees F, but increases from below freezing and decreases after 40 F again. I bet it's a lot colder in the bay of Fundy than it is at Daytona Beach. It also gets colder with depth. Then obviously the temperature is increasing to melt this ice, so a whole bunch of this extra water is going to saturate air. Did this get factored in to? Nope!  Get your rain coats on. :D

[northwoods1]

Then obviously the temperature is increasing to melt this ice, so a whole bunch of this extra water is going to saturate air. Did this get factored in to? Nope!  Get your rain coats on. :D

This is a good thread , everyone is really thinking 8) and I think swampdonkey may be right. If you read in the bible the book of Genesis it talks about how from whence the river came it shall return, and how important the water is on this planet. If the ice begins to melt it will be releasing all this HO2 back in to the system to be falling as precipitation or be evaporating in the natural cycle. It could cause it to rain more or precipitate more severely. We could be even seeing that happening now. The problem with judging weather patterns is we do not have enough accurate information over a  long enough period on this planet for our observations to mean anything. Record highs and lows, record snowfall, record rains, droughts... we are only talking a couple hundred years of detailed observations on the north American continent,  what is that supposed to amount too? we can only look at records of the past to know for certain that a lot of major changes have occurred in the climate.
I am also puzzled when some people are of the opinion that humankind is not able to affect the climate ??? I think I can give a number of examples how this can happen :

[Warbird]

I am also puzzled when some people are of the opinion that humankind is not able to affect the climate ??? I think I can give a number of examples how this can happen :

Me, too.  Like when I belch.  It definitely effects the micro-climate in my general vicinity.  Farts are much worse.  Catastrophic, in fact. 

[northwoods1]

I am also puzzled when some people are of the opinion that humankind is not able to affect the climate ??? I think I can give a number of examples how this can happen :

Me, too.  Like when I belch.  It definitely effects the micro-climate in my general vicinity.  Farts are much worse.  Catastrophic, in fact.  

If I lived up in AK I would walk outside everyday and feel privileged, more than anything probably, that I would for the most part be able to see the land as not had been touched and changed by the hand of man. You should see where I live :D :D and how much it has changed! In what... since about 1840 actually! :D :D 1st they came and cut down all the trees. And I don;t mean some.... I mean all. Then it was the period of forest fires that came. Where I live you could stand and not see a tree above waist high for miles. That affected the climate here. Can you see how? Now it is all wooded here again. Those kinds of changes are changes. To think they are small and insginificant, well how do you know for sure?

[Warbird]

I have similar feelings, northwoods.  There is a very good chance my feet have walked on earth that no other human feet ever have.  This means something to me.  It bothers me that Alaska has become a 'fad' and people keep moving up here.  The harsh winters keep many away, yet the population still grows.  You should see how "touristy" they've made Denali National Park.  A part of me thinks it is a travesty.

However, none of that has anything to do with whether or not what mankind is doing to this planet is wrong or unnatural.  We are to be good stewards and we should use what we have responsibly.  Does this mean that if our normal activities change the climate, we are all bad and should stop breathing?  Down with the pesky humans?  I think not.  ;)

[SwampDonkey]

The ermmmm  : uninformed used to say a certain area here in central NB was untouched by man. These same folks didn't realize that they were walking and taking pictures and driving to lakes and forest now accessible by roads that were used extensively by guide outfitters before their grandfathers were even born.  They canoed and hoofed their way in and all the oldest camps have since burnt from forest fires. :D :D I've got tons of photos here in these books that show a whole whack of camps that have been gone a long time ago. It might surprise a good many where man has been. ;D

[Warbird]

The odds are pretty high I've set food on at least a tiny patch of land where no other human has walked.  Unless we all walked exactly the same path through Arctic tundra where there are no paths.    It isn't that important.  The point was that I've been to extremely remote and lonely places.

[crtreedude]

Mankind's impact on the world is a numbers game. One person can't do much, heck, one person has a problem keeping his lawn from going back to nature if I am any indication...  :D But, to give an example, here in Costa Rica, 40 years or so ago it was nearly all forest, now it is down to 23 %. It has effected the climate without a doubt because all those trees in a jungle used to make the rain fall so regular you could just about set your watch by it. Now, not so much. People in the tropics all over have observed this, heavily forested areas stabilize the weather patterns, especially rain.

Anyone who doesn't think mankind impacts nature in a big way, just go out and start drinking straight from streams and rivers and let me know how it works for you. (please don't, I am just making a point). It used to be you could, don't go trying it now. You still can in some places here in Costa Rica, but not around urban environments, in fact, don't eat the fish either.

There are 6+ billion people on the planet. There is a tipping point that is eventually reached where an organism has overpopulated the environment. We know it happens with rabbits, and then you get a die off. Some of us have seen it with deer. Why would we think that people are any different?

Just like it took Lake Erie catching on fire before we decided perhaps we were destroying our water supply (I am old enough to remember the attitudes back then) it is probably going to take something as dramatic before we realize that the air we breathe, and the weather is also impacted by us.

But really, we are most likely going to start cutting back on oil due to it getting harder and harder to extract (which means costs more) before people start willingly changing. After all, the military is predicting that by 2015 significant shortages of oil will become a problem for them.

[SPIKER]

In the last few years OIL consumption in the USA has actually gone down as have the mileage driven.   Many think it is due only to the great rescission but it has actually been going down for farm more years than many think.  the curve had decreased in the way it was increasing not yet peaked and leveled out stayed steady then since 2006 it has decreased.   This has as much to do with the better produced cars EPA regulations on power plants and the like as well as an overall better use of pollution controls in factories ect.   

While Carbon emissions are increasing in China & India there are little WE in USA can do other than try & get them to agree to not do what we did in the early 20th century.    It is already late for China as the amount of waste created is easily overwhelming the ability to deal with it.  Open pit dumping is creating all sorts of nasty problems that we rarely if ever hear about.   One thing is they have sort of sen the problems we created here and seeing it happen there at a much higher rate and are starting to push for cleaner & greener tech such as wind, solar energy generation & higher use of water dams ect.   They are still building a lot of coal fired plants though many are looking to be converted later to gas from what I have heard on rumor mills.     What we need here is more push for cleaner tech such as the wind & solar tech to force the change here from Coal at least.   EPA has already pushed for better mileage from our cars and people are one of the biggest changers as we are doing more with less and conserving more than ever.   I drive as little as possible and try & keep everything tuned up and tires inflated ect as I cant afford the 3buck gas as it is let alone waste it.  20 years ago the attitude was totally opposite as it is now in 1/2 a generation we are making the needed changes.  Just think what happens in 20 more years?@?

help out if ya can recycle dont waste dont want more than is needed ...

Mark M

[Bandmill Bandit]

Hey CR
You pretty bang on the money. But take a look at most of what you wrote. I can reduce it to one word. WATER.

Yes the air we breath is important but it is the water that makes all the infrastructure work to clean the air and every eco system on this planet needs water to perpetrate it system and/or species.

Water is to this planet what blood is to every living thing on this planet and water is the main ingredient of that blood regardless of colour, type, plant or animal.

With out it we are just another mars or one of the other planets.

If we look after the water the rest will look after it self because what must be implemented to restore and maintain our water supply is much more drastic than any thing that we can even try to do to clean the air. Every thing that we do to clean the water will have an immediate impact on the air. not so much the other way around.

On the forests and jungles; if we want to clean up the water we need to restore the forests and jungles so that the in earth systems to process and hold water to allow the above earth systems to process/produce water vapour and atmospheric gases.

Yes there are near 7 Billion people on this planet but less than 1 billion of them are producing in excess of 90% of the water system pollution that is affecting the whole planet. That doesn't include the ONE company that is playing with our genetic foundation of food production that will not only assist in the destruction of our water system but will render much of that food supply toxic to life on this planet.

I will point out just one condition that is called Celiac disease. Preliminary data from research coming out of Europe and Canada is indicating that the condition is a response to a build up of Glycosates primarily in the liver and possibly other organs in the body.  The project has 4 years left to completion but Monsanto is trying hard to get the project stopped. Glycosates are the main ingredient in round up and the preliminary data is showing that a small amount ends up in the gluten part of the grain kernel.

You might ask how that is possible since RoundUp is a "systemic non-selective herbicide" that kills every thing it touches?

Glycosates have an interesting chemical and bilogical make up that I do not completely under stand as I am neither a chemist or a biologist.

What i do know is this. Monsanto was the first to market with the RoundUp version of a glycosate base herbicide over 30 years ago. Monsanto will never publish the fact that round up for weed control was not the ultimate goal. Indeed; It was but the first step in a process of genetic modification of the "herbs" that were being genetically redesigned to LIVE through the application of a NON-SELECTIVE herbicide to be used in our food supply.

Enter the "RoundUp Ready" group of cereal and oil seed that our governments have ALLOWED patents registrations for and then LICENSED them for use in the Agriculture Industry and ultimately our food supply. Monsanto is driving for patents on all of the most common grains and crops on this planet. This is the real threat to life on this planet.  

Just think what that means and how the water  system of this planet will spread that garbage throughout the entire planet. Super "WEEDS" are already identified in Canada.

May be we should classify them among the first of the new Dinosaur species that will one day ravage and destroy this planet.

Perhaps the first Dinosaurs were not the product of an evolutionary process but rather the mis-adventure of a genetic engineering project run a muck.        

             

[Cedarman]

 On Fox News, Piers Corbyn an astrophysicist from the UK, predicted we would be in a mini ice age in 25 years.  Supposedly he predicted this cold winter.  He says our weather is mostly influenced by the sun and we should expect colder weather in the future.
Anyone in the east disagree today?
Short term, (a few years weather) can vary widely from the long term trend.  Average temps have been going up for quite a few years, but supposedly leveled off the last few with the poles being colder the last few.
Proof is in the future.  You can pick whichever "scientific" group you want to agree with for now.

[SwampDonkey]

As long as those fellas are getting a pay cheque they'll be happy to write about anything someone will take notice to. ;D

[Bandmill Bandit]

On Fox News, Piers Corbyn an astrophysicist from the UK, predicted we would be in a mini ice age in 25 years.  Supposedly he predicted this cold winter.  He says our weather is mostly influenced by the sun and we should expect colder weather in the future.
Anyone in the east disagree today?
Short term, (a few years weather) can vary widely from the long term trend.  Average temps have been going up for quite a few years, but supposedly leveled off the last few with the poles being colder the last few.
Proof is in the future.  You can pick whichever "scientific" group you want to agree with for now.

I don't think I will follow any "scientific group" at this point. that is tatamount to "following Jimmy Jones or David Koresh"!

As far as rising temps that trended ended in 98 and we have reversed to just a bit lower than where it said to have started to rise in the late 70s;

HOWEVER

If you look at the real Data and NOT the LOST data that the HOCKEY stick graph was based on, the actual numbers appear to be pretty much in line with what the glacial core sampling project is revealing for a trend over the last 16 or so thousand years. roughly a 60 to 70 year cycle wit ha variance of roughly 2.5 to 3 degrees with the odd nasty 1 to 7 year jump or decline. What is really interesting is that the increase in human population doesnt even begin to show and affect any where near what the major volcanic and earth quake events show for in the ice samples. some how I think i will put a lot more fauth in the ice samples then the Al Gores and David Suzukis of the world.

When the Ice core project started a few years ago those guys were both expecting big news worthy results and contributed major money to the project. they have stopped funding it and Al Gore has tried to stop the project with no luck on. His funding has been replaced and more than doubled by several governments and private organizations.

Why?

Because it seems to be the one way we can really get at some sort of factual truth on this topic and it is showing a lot of a correlation to the legends and mythology of oral tradition through out the world.

What is really interesting is that once again the legends and mythology of oral traditions left behind by historical and pre historical societies is once again proving to be more accurate than the current "scientific THEORY".       

[Brucer]

He says our weather is mostly influenced by the sun and we should expect colder weather in the future.
Anyone in the east disagree today?

Well, having seen the news and talked to my in-laws, I can see where you'd be thinking it's getting colder.

Here in the west, however, it's pretty DanG mild for this time of year. We already lost half our snowpack to a rainstorm a couple of weeks back, and now that the snow's just starting to head back to normal, they're forecasting rain tomorrow >:(.

Short term, (a few years weather) can vary widely from the long term trend.  Average temps have been going up for quite a few years, but supposedly leveled off the last few with the poles being colder the last few.

Nope, the poles sure haven't been colder the last few years. Greenland has been experiencing record ice loss and it's accelerating since 2002.

Someone from England can get away with predicting a colder climate in the future. When the planet cools down, England gets colder. If the planet gets too warm, the Gulf Stream starts to short circuit, and England gets colder. Kind of a lose-lose situation ;).

[Warbird]

And once things have cooled enough, ice forms again, the Gulf Stream corrects itself, and England warms back up...  seems almost cyclic.  Or something.

[SwampDonkey]

Just last week they complained no ice on the Arctic to seal hunt yet this year. I don't know exactly what it means. Could very well have been many years like that, they only report on the now and memory gets a little foggy looking back 25-30. I've had to go to climate records from NOAA to prove how foggy some memories about the past weather was around here. :D In 1981, we had to mildest winter ever, locust trees leaved out in February. Later they died from frost in March, but it wasn't real cold, just below freezing.



Snow at Serpentine Lake (c. 1960's). Grandfather clearing the roof.

[Bandmill Bandit]

Hey Brucer
On the Greenland thing, if you do a little research you will find that one of the primary reasons for that ice loss is most likely caused by ever increasing volcanic activity UNDER the glacial ice than from global warming of any kind. Studies under way in Greenland are pointing that direction as more and more data is gathered.

As far as the poles being cooler that last few years all you have to do is talk to a couple of the ice road truckers that work up there and you will get about the most honest and objective answer you will find. Their livelihood depends on the cold as well as their very life.

At south pole the last few years has had wider ice pack to the point that it has affected the mortality level of the penguins during the nesting and brooding season. Some of this is thought to be the marginally  cooler temps lasting from 2 to 6 weeks longer and the ocean current having deviated some what the last few years. That same deviation is affecting the great barrier reef and kelp forests along the south coast of Austrailia. for the most part he affect in the open water areas has been positive and the kelp forests are show significant signs of recovery. AND yet again it appears to be a cyclical thing that may well be occurring through out the entire global ocean.

You may well be having a "warmer" winter out there but i can tell you that this has been one of the coldest winters with and early start on this side of the rockies out here on the prairies for many years. Average snow so far is less, at least on the prairies but the mountains are slightly above average so far. Before you say it has been a warmer winter you better wait till you see when it warms into the spring time.

The number of frost free or near frost days has a much greater affect on annual average temp than the how cold the average daily temp is. We have had one very short Chinook so far this winter that didn't even get us warm enough to get barely slushy for more than 2 or 3 hours. Winter started here a week before Halloween and it been *DanG cold ever since.   

 
   

[Brucer]

On the Greenland thing, if you do a little research you will find that one of the primary reasons for that ice loss is most likely caused by ever increasing volcanic activity UNDER the glacial ice than from global warming of any kind.

I frankly dislike the term "global warming". It's completely misleading. What concerns me is the practical effects of climate change. The melting of the Greenland ice sheet, whatever the cause, is the canary in the coal mine. And so I do a lot of research on Greenland.

There's a 2007 reference to a thinning crust in northern Greenland causing accelerated ice loss, and there are several recent references to increased earthquake activity (probably due to  ice loss). However, I've not come across any references to volcanic activity. If you can point me at any studies on volcanic activity, I would very much appreciate it.

There have been quite a few new discoveries this year regarding Greenland. Two independent studies in February found that there is a steady flow of warm water (i.e., 4 C / 39 F) into the glacial fjords, and that subsurface melting is about 100 times greater than surface melting. No one suspected this.

A report out this month shows that sudden surges of water (large rainstorms, sudden drainage of surface lakes) have a major effect on glacier travel. Again, completely unexpected.

And not so much a new discovery, the latest ice balance numbers show that the melting of the Greenland ice sheet continues to accelerate.

As far as the poles being cooler that last few years all you have to do is talk to a couple of the ice road truckers that work up there and you will get about the most honest and objective answer you will find. Their livelihood depends on the cold as well as their very life.

I would very much like to talk to some ice road truckers. If you have any contacts, I'd be interested.

At south pole the last few years has had wider ice pack to the point that it has affected the mortality level of the penguins during the nesting and brooding season.

Floating Antarctic ice has been increasing for a few years now. Grounded ice is decreasing. The East Antarctic ice shelf appears to be in balance, but the West Antarctic ice shelf is showing a net loss of ice. Overall, the Antarctic ice shelf is losing ice (at least for now). Floating ice doesn't affect sea levels -- grounded ice does, when it melts.

Before you say it has been a warmer winter you better wait till you see when it warms into the spring time.

I was just trying to illustrate that while the East has been experiencing colder weather to date, the opposite is happening in the West. Neither condition is a valid indicator of planetary temperature change.

We have had one very short Chinook so far this winter that didn't even get us warm enough to get barely slushy for more than 2 or 3 hours.

I read a report last year that described the Chinook as a north-south band of warm air that shifts slightly east or west. That's why it can cause such sudden temperature changes. Apparently this band has move further west (to our side of the rockies) and that's why we're seeing these sudden melting events.

[D Hagens]

Yeah so like after reading all of this I'm under the impression that it's going to keep raining for the next two weeks?  :D And how will all this global warming affect the swamp loggers. : :

[SwampDonkey]

The volcano activity is in Iceland, not Greenland. And has been a threat to settlement there for a very long time. Baffin Island in Canada is a huge store of glacial ice to and there are huge mountains there that people go and climb for recreation.

[SwampDonkey]

According to the 30 year data used to update the frost hardiness zones we haven't change any here in NB since the last updates in 1967.  ;D Our biggest threat has been higher incidence, than the national average, of cancer due to pollutants coming east in the wind from the more industrial areas. Can't see it, can't smell it, can't be.  :

[Bandmill Bandit]

Hey brucer

That 2007 study you are talking about is the same one i am talking about. I watched a discovery channel bit on green land.  I think it was 2 show event if i remember right.

One theory on the thinning crust is that there is an increasing heat build up from deep volcanic activity and that is causing the crust to turn molten because of the extra heat. So i guess it would be a combination thinning/crust deep volcanic activity.

On the chinook thing; Give that sucker a good hard push so it gets over on this side of the Rocks for a week or two.

On the ice road. My Brother has a couple of friends that drive it every winter. I will check with him and see where they are at. I don't think they would have a problem talking to you. The one that I talk to about once a year when i drive up north to visit my brother says the last 10 years or so have been colder winter temps with less snow and more wind. I guess this year the colder temps are about the same as last year so far and getting to be some pretty heavy snow as well.

One other thing i heard from a research assistant on the glacial project that is helping compile that data is that the total ice on the planet does not appear to be to be changing so much as relocating. She didn't give me the details as we were at a formal function and couldn't chat a lot but she says the data on global ice totals from ALL known ice reserves is changing but it is more shifting location than disappearing. Actual total Ice is about the same as it was in the 1950s and yes there is more floating ice the last few years but there was a lot more floating ice for a few years in the early 1900s as well 1915 still holds a significant position as one of the worst ice flow years in naval transport history. more later

I am going to Europe in March and I will be staying with her parents for a week so will get a chance to go to the university with her and talk to a couple of the profs involved in the project. Her mom is my Cousin.       

[jim king]

I just did a Google on - volcanic warming - and as always with this topic there is something there for everyone.  I think in another thousand years humans may be smart enough to know what is happening and why.

Some,  like this link are interesting:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39632361/ns/technology_and_science-science/

Greenland:
http://www.medindia.net/news/Volcano-Deep-Down-Could-Be-Melting-Greenlands-Ice-30702-1.htm
http://www.physorg.com/news96823193.html

We have a long way to go.  Just ask old Al, he seems pretty quiet these days.  The very profitable global warming scare is no longer an easy sell .

[Brucer]

On the chinook thing; Give that sucker a good hard push so it gets over on this side of the Rocks for a week or two.

Looks like it's going to be heading your way around the end of the week. Don't know if it will make it over the Rockies or not.

... the total ice on the planet does not appear to be to be changing so much as relocating.

Ice shelves -- floating ice -- don't make any difference to ocean levels when they melt. Ice sheets -- grounded ice -- do make a difference. Greenland ice alone can raise the ocean levels 7 metres, which would shut down every seaport in the world.

There's good evidence in the ice record that when Greenland ice was melting, Antarctic ice was rising (and vice versa). But right now we're seeing Greenland ice melting and West Antarctic ice melting, well East Antarctic ice is in balance. So the big question is, will one of them turn around in the next few years?

Regarding the links Jim posted ...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39632361/ns/technology_and_science-science/

Basically says that Volcanic activity in Alaska in 2008 fertilized the ocean, causing an enormous growth in phytoplankton. This stuff is the bottom of the ocean food chain and it also generates about half the planet's oxygen (and consumes a great deal more CO2). The authors' say that  the extra phytoplankton in 2008 hardly made a dent in atmospheric CO2.

Well, this years record Pacific salmon run on the west coast (totally unexpected) has been traced back to the 2008 eruption and the resulting growth of phytoplankton.

However, any notion that these tiny plants could have a short term effect on atmospheric CO2 is silly. Phytoplankton get their CO2 from gasses dissolved in the ocean, and there has been a great deal more CO2 added to the ocean than the atmosphere.

http://www.medindia.net/news/Volcano-Deep-Down-Could-Be-Melting-Greenlands-Ice-30702-1.htm

This is another report on the same event reported in 2007, about the earth's crust thinning in northern Greenland. The crust is already thinner there than in the centre of the island, so this could indeed explain the faster melting of the northern part of the ice sheet.

http://www.physorg.com/news96823193.html

Here's the summary for that 2007 report:

"A team of scientists announced today confirmation of a link between massive volcanic eruptions along the east coast of Greenland and in the western British Isles about 55 million years ago and a period of global warming that raised sea surface temperatures by five degrees (Celsius) in the tropics and more than six degrees in the Arctic."

The report is incomplete. What it doesn't say mention is that the amount of CO2 generated by that volcanic activity could not possibly have produced all the CO2 in the atmosphere at that time.

There has long been a link between the high temperatures and a massive release of Methane trapped in frozen Methane Hydrates found deep in the ocean. It's believed that high C02 levels raised ocean temperatures to the point where more and more methane was released, causing more warming, leading to more methane release, etc. -- a positive feedback loop.

The only flaw in this theory was that there was no satisfactory explanation for what started the runaway release of methane in the first place. The Greenland volcanic activity supplies the missing link.

The message on that web page seems to hint that runaway heating was generated only by volcanic activity (which isn't possible). When you add in the runaway Methane release to the picture, the story is different: any major heating of the ocean, by whatever means, can trigger another runaway release of Methane.

[Bandmill Bandit]

Watched a discovery show last night on the Iceland volcanic eruptions of this past summer and what is currently under observation.

I guess the thing that should concern us the most is the way the information that is apparent is used and how the SPIN DRs try to articulate what based on incomplete data and is in reality nothing more then a theoretical opinion. With the volume of "theory" from this so called "scientific community" that is daily being debunked with much of the data proving to be out right fraud how can we really know what is truth?

do we really need this much "snake oil" in the world? Sure a lot of self appointed sales men peddling the stuff.


bottom line probably hasn't changed much over the last 10,000 (add as many zeros as you like) or so years.