I guess Coca-Cola should start mass producing the stuff from the oceans then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Printable View
I guess Coca-Cola should start mass producing the stuff from the oceans then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Politicized. Yes, everyone of those GW enviro wacko bastards hate electricity and the modern automobile. Modern conveniences suck! Always trying to ruin everything with their manmade global warming hysteria.Quote:
Originally Posted by DogtorEvil
Interesting program on Nova tonight. Apparently it has been well-established scientific fact that the Clovis people were the first Americans, and arrived in North America by walking over the land bridge about 13,000 years ago.
A few years ago archaeologists and anthropologists began uncovering settlements that date before the Clovis sites, some possibly as old as 40,000 years ago. Problem was, these folks couldn't get their findings published, and when they did get them published they were attacked, called hacks and charlatans, and their methodology--including carbon dating--questioned. The scientists interviewed said that some of their colleagues simply sat on similar findings to avoid having their reputations tarnished.
Funny thing about science. Almost nothing is hard and fast.
No. If it were, the obvious answer would be that global warming in the summer would cause an INCREASE in energy consumption (air conditioners).Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
Frankly, we are not sure about several things - a glacial melting on the scale being talked about is certainly one. But this is not where I consider myself smart enough to contribute, so I'll otherwise keep quiet here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
Is that sarcasm I detect?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
No. Every one of the people who support the theory that man-made CO2 is causing the recent upward trend in GW is not a wacko bastard. It's their opinion based on their interpretation of the information. You're not wacko. The bastard part on the other hand...:icon_wink: :D :icon_razz: :)
Surprisingly enough there is a fraction of the enviro group that does hate anything modern (electricity, autos, etc.). There's also a group that believes that the solution to the problem lies in mass reduction of the root cause of the problem (i.e., population reduction). Theyy are "out there".
Are you saying that GW is not being politicized?
I got a BS degree in business but I'm not claiming to be a climate scientist. Never have. I just cut and paste articles that I like about the subject at hand and hope that folks can put the pieces together. It should be noted that the largest corporations (including energy) are, in most part, in agreement that AGW is taking place and action should be taken to limt CO2 emissions. And those corporations have hundreds of chemical engineers on their staffs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Juice752
Frankly, chemical engineers are not climate scientists. Besides, I'm sure that there are plenty of chemical engineers that agree that QGW is taking place. Randrizer doesn't because of economic or political reasons.
When a company makes a statement in such a public way, they are making that statement to improve their market position. Does not mean the people in the company, even up to the CEO, believe in what they said. Just means they think their clients will respond favorably.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Chemical engineers are not all climate scientists, but I'm glad your ready to discredit some of your own (maybe I'll get back to that later). FWIW, Chemical Engineers are perhaps uniquely suited to understanding the causes of climate change. Or do you have another specific field that you think would be better at doing it?
Your first paragraph is merely a rationalization as to your belief why the corporations have agreed that AGW is taking place. A more plausible rationale would be that they have done so because AGW is bad for business.Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
As for paragraph #2, a chemical engineer could be a climate scientist if he or she spent full-time on the subject. probably somebody with a Ph.D. in Environmental Science would be a good choice for an "expert."
Most of Arctic's Near-Surface Permafrost May Thaw by 2100Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
December 19, 2005
BOULDER—Global warming may decimate the top 10 feet (3 meters) or more of perennially frozen soil across the Northern Hemisphere, altering ecosystems as well as damaging buildings and roads across Canada, Alaska, and Russia. New simulations from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) show that over half of the area covered by this topmost layer of permafrost could thaw by 2050 and as much as 90 percent by 2100. Scientists expect the thawing to increase runoff to the Arctic Ocean and release vast amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.
The study, using the NCAR-based Community Climate System Model (CCSM), is the first to examine the state of permafrost in a global model that includes interactions among the atmosphere, ocean, land, and sea ice as well as a soil model that depicts freezing and thawing. Results appear online in the December 17 issue of Geophysical Research Letters.
"People have used models to study permafrost before, but not within a fully interactive climate system model," says NCAR's David Lawrence, the lead author. The coauthor is Andrew Slater of the University of Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Center.
About a quarter of the Northern Hemisphere's land contains permafrost, defined as soil that remains below 32 degrees F (0 degrees C) for at least two years. Permafrost is typically characterized by an active surface layer, extending anywhere from a few centimeters to several meters deep, which thaws during the summer and refreezes during the winter. The deeper permafrost layer remains frozen. The active layer responds to changes in climate, expanding downward as surface air temperatures rise. Deeper permafrost has not thawed since the last ice age, over 10,000 years ago, and will be largely unaffected by global warming in the coming century, says Lawrence.
Recent warming has degraded large sections of permafrost across central Alaska, with pockets of soil collapsing as the ice within it melts. The results include buckled highways, destabilized houses, and "drunken forests"--trees that lean at wild angles. In Siberia, some industrial facilities have reported significant damage. Further loss of permafrost could threaten migration patterns of animals such as reindeer and caribou.
The CCSM simulations are based on high and low projections of greenhouse-gas emissions for the 21st century, as constructed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In both cases, the CCSM determined which land areas would retain permafrost at each of 10 soil depths extending down to 11.2 feet (3.43 meters).
For the high-emission scenario, the area with permafrost in any of these layers shrinks from 4 million to just over 1 million square miles by the year 2050 and decreases further to about 400,000 square miles (1 million square kilometers) by 2100. In the low-emission scenario, which assumes major advances in conservation and alternative energy, the permafrost area shrinks to about 1.5 million square miles by 2100.
"Thawing permafrost could send considerable amounts of water to the oceans," says Slater, who notes that runoff to the Arctic has increased about 7 percent since the 1930s. In the high-emission simulation, runoff grows by another 28 percent by the year 2100. That increase includes contributions from enhanced rainfall and snowfall as well as the water from ice melting within soil.
The new study highlights concern about emissions of greenhouse gases from thawing soils. Permafrost may hold 30% or more of all the carbon stored in soils worldwide. As the permafrost thaws, it could lead to large-scale emissions of methane or carbon dioxide beyond those produced by fossil fuels.
Interesting, but regional evidence that is then translated into models does not convince me. Do you know that there is a net INCREASE in ice accumulation on Antarctica?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Greenland Ice Sheet Is Melting Faster, Study SaysQuote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
John Roach
for National Geographic News
August 10, 2006
The Greenland ice sheet is melting three times faster today than it was five years ago, according to a new study.
The finding adds to evidence of increased global warming in recent years and indicates that melting polar ice sheets are pushing sea levels higher, the authors report.
RELATED
Greenland Glacier Losing Ice Much Faster, Study Says
Geo Signs: Glacial Melt Photos
Global Warming Is Rapidly Raising Sea Levels, Studies Warn
According to the study, Greenland ice loss now amounts to more than 48 cubic miles (200 cubic kilometers) each year.
"Significant melting has a significant impact on sea level rise," said Jianli Chen, a research scientist at the University of Texas at Austin who led the study.
The finding, reported today by the online edition of the journal Science, closely agrees with another study on the rapid wasting of Greenland's glaciers published in the journal in February.
Both studies suggest the shrinking ice sheet now contributes about 0.02 inch (0.5 millimeter) a year to global sea level rise.
"That's a very big number," Chen said.
Losses and Gains
Global sea levels have risen by about 0.1 inch (2.8 millimeters) a year over the past decade.
If all the ice on Greenland were to melt into the North Atlantic Ocean, global sea levels would rise by about 21.3 feet (6.5 meters).
Thus scientists are keen to understand if the Danish-owned Arctic island (Greenland map) is losing more ice mass through melting and discharge of glaciers than it is gaining from fresh snowfall.
Richard Alley is a glaciologist at Pennsylvania State University in University Park who was not involved with the study.
Greenland Ice Sheet Is Melting Faster, Study Says
<< Back to Page 1 Page 2 of 2
He says the new study fits well with other recent studies showing a Greenland meltdown.
"It really does appear that the ice sheet is losing mass," he said in an email.
"Looking at the history of these measurements, the ice sheet was probably near balance a couple of decades ago and has begun shrinking recently," he continued.
"This parallels recent warming."
Full of GRACE
The new study is based on an analysis of gravity measurements collected by a pair of twin wedge-shaped satellites that orbit the Earth in tandem.
The satellites are part of the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE), which was launched in March 2002 and is run by a team of experts in the U.S. and Germany.
GRACE measures landmass based on its gravitational pull. The denser a region is, the stronger its pull and the faster the satellites will move above it.
The satellites are separated by a distance of 137 miles (220 kilometers) when they are in stable orbit. As the front satellite crosses over an area of strong gravity, it speeds up, increasing the distance between the two satellites.
"Any tiny change in the distance can be used to infer the surface mass change," Chen said.
Liquid water is generally denser than ice and so has a stronger gravitational pull.
Chen and his University of Texas colleagues analyzed the gravity measurements over Greenland between April 2002 and November 2005, separating the mass change from other signals.
The team found that Greenland is now losing between 52 and 63 cubic miles (216 and 262 cubic kilometers) of ice mass each year.
The current wasting is about three times the rate gleaned from an earlier study of the first two years of GRACE data.
Jay Zwally is a glaciologist with the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.
He agrees that Greenland ice loss has accelerated in recent years.
But based on he and his colleagues' unpublished analysis of the latest GRACE data, he believes the current ice loss rate is less than half what Chen's team reports.
Nevertheless, he says, Greenland does appear to be losing more ice mass than it gains.
"I would say Greenland now is beginning to contribute significantly to sea level rise," Zwally said. "There's been a significant change in a relatively short period of time."
As methods for analyzing GRACE data are refined and combined with other techniques, scientists will reach agreement over just how quickly the continent is wasting away, Zwally adds.
Historical Perspective
GRACE has only been orbiting Earth for three and a half years, not long enough to determine if the increase in melting is due to global warming or natural variability, the University of Texas's Chen says.
Longer term trends, and confidence in data interpretation, must wait until several more years of data are collected, he says.
According to Alley, the Pennsylvania State glaciologist, increasing snowfall, increasing melting, and increasing flow of glaciers into the ocean are all expected to result from global warming.
Historical analyses indicate that Greenland shrank when changes in Earth's orbit gave more summer sunshine to the island a few thousand years ago and about 130,000 years ago, he says.
"History and physics and recent observations tie warming to ice shrinkage," he said.
And projections of future climate change indicate continued warming over Greenland if greenhouse gas emissions remain unchecked.
"So shrinkage seems likely," Alley said.
Interestingly, chemical engineering programs are commonly (over 50% of the time) combined with either (bioengineering, environmental engineering, or petroleum engineering) into a single department. There is good reason for this.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Really? According to the NSF the snowfall over Antartica has been steady over the past 50 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.js...107920&org=NSF
Which is a valid scientific statement, but on a global scale, is balanced by accumulation in Antarctica.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg