Quantcast

Global Warming in Alaska.......

Archslater

Monkey
Mar 6, 2003
154
0
Indianapolis
By Yereth Rosen
Wed Sep 28, 4:38 PM ET

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Reuters) - Sinking villages perched on thawing permafrost, an explosion of timber-chewing insect populations, record wildfires and shrinking sea ice are among the most obvious and jarring signs that Alaska is getting warmer as the global climate changes, scientists say.


link

Yet another study to back up the truth about Global Warming.....
 

Inclag

Turbo Monkey
Sep 9, 2001
2,376
98
MA
There don't need to be any more studies to provide evidence. It is a real thing that is actually happening. Saying otherwise would be like saying that the earth is shaped like a frisbee. Which brings up the point, does anyone not believe in Globabl Warming????
 

Discostu

Monkey
Nov 15, 2003
524
0
Anyone know about current theories on reversing this process?

Some say the solution is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and while that will help reduce the acceleration of climate change it won't be eliminated because it won't eliminate the greenhouse gases already trapped in the upper atmosphere.
 

Discostu

Monkey
Nov 15, 2003
524
0
splat said:
O global warming is happening , the question is it because of what mankind is doing or is it just part of natures cycle.
good point, and should we attempt to slow the process or let it do its thing?
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,007
149
The Cleft of Venus
Discostu said:
Anyone know about current theories on reversing this process?

Some say the solution is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and while that will help reduce the acceleration of climate change it won't be eliminated because it won't eliminate the greenhouse gases already trapped in the upper atmosphere.

Did SUV driving cavemen cause, then reverse the last Ice Age?

:p
 

Inclag

Turbo Monkey
Sep 9, 2001
2,376
98
MA
Discostu said:
Anyone know about current theories on reversing this process?

Some say the solution is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and while that will help reduce the acceleration of climate change it won't be eliminated because it won't eliminate the greenhouse gases already trapped in the upper atmosphere.
Well, the Yellowstone Super Volcano is in the period of its explosion cycle. Thing is it's at the beggining of the period it is expected to explode which takes as long either 10,000 or 100,000 years I can't remember which one it was. Anyway, that would send enough ash into the atmosphere that it would lower temperatures. :p
 

H8R

Cranky Pants
Nov 10, 2004
13,965
35
N8 said:
Did SUV driving cavemen cause, then reverse the last Ice Age?

:p

I'm sure SUV driving cavemen were responsible for the movie Ice Age, which sucked.
 

Damn True

Monkey Pimp
Sep 10, 2001
4,016
3
Between a rock and a hard place.
Discostu said:
Anyone know about current theories on reversing this process?

Some say the solution is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and while that will help reduce the acceleration of climate change it won't be eliminated because it won't eliminate the greenhouse gases already trapped in the upper atmosphere.
Serious questions:

a) How many of the "greenhouse gasses" are actually lighter than air?

b) How, if air is 28g per mole could CO2 which is 44g per mole get to the upper atmosphere?
 

Discostu

Monkey
Nov 15, 2003
524
0
N8 said:
Did SUV driving cavemen cause, then reverse the last Ice Age?

:p
Did cancer exist before we started smoking cigarettes? Sure it did. Does that mean we shouldn't worry about cancer because it occurred in cave men too? I don't think so.

I think in this day and age we have the technology and resources to understand why our climate is changing so fast. We should do so and find out if there is anything we can do about the fact that in 100 years many of our major cities will be underwater. I for one would prefer not to wait and take it on the chin like a caveman.

Sure, climate change is a natural cycle, but that doesn't mean the consequences are any less catastrophic to people and property. If we can minimize its effects by gaining a better understanding of it, I think we should.

PS: Since this contradicts Bush's policy, by default I love: Terrorists, Air America, John Kerry, Electric Cars, Civil Unions, France, Cindy Sheehan, and Communism.
 

Discostu

Monkey
Nov 15, 2003
524
0
Damn True said:
Serious questions:

a) How many of the "greenhouse gasses" are actually lighter than air?

b) How, if air is 28g per mole could CO2 which is 44g per mole get to the upper atmosphere?
Ok, first off I was wrong to say upper atmosphere. I believe most greenhouse gases are found in lower levels of the atmosphere . Sorry I was flat out wrong there. I am by no means an expert on this process although I do advocate further research into its effect on climate change.

My understanding of the greenhouse effect is that, like climate change it is a natural phenomenon, one that we rely on to make the earth habitable. However, we are increasing the rate that greenhouse gases are released into the air, correct? How much of an effect that is having on climate change I DO NOT KNOW. Does it deserve further consideration? I think so.

The #1 gas contributing to the greenhouse effect is Water Vapor. So should we be alot more concerned about water vapor being released into the air than C02, methane, Sulphur Dioxide, etc.? I honestly don't know.
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
9,900
5
Hypernormality
The greenhouse situation is in the words of a prominent researcher 'extremely complicated'. A few posts on RM are not going to start explaining the mechanisms of it. It's not as simple as 'more CO2 = bad' by any means.

Oh and all that volcano sh1t is largely BS apparantly. There is an effect but it has been vastly overplayed in recent years. The factoid that anti-Global Warming types keep popping out wrt 'the amount of GH gasses released in X eruption are equal to all of mankind's output to date' is utter utter crap too.
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,638
4
SF, CA
Damn True said:
b) How, if air is 28g per mole could CO2 which is 44g per mole get to the upper atmosphere?
You ever ask yourself why it is that we aren't breathing pure CO2? How about how ozone, which has a higher molar mass than oxygen forms a protective layer in our upper atmosphere? Hmmm, I guess you don't believe in the ozone layer either...

edit: in case you didn't get the hint - mass doesn't equal density. are you sure you were an engineer? there is also, suprisingly enough, more than one factor in the formation of our atmosphere.

Seriously, it's exactly this kind of half-baked pseudoscience which is KILLING our school systems, our technological advantages in the world economic markets, and our environment. You should be ashamed of yourself. Yes, I'm serious.
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
38,144
4,921
Sleazattle
Damn True said:
Serious questions:

a) How many of the "greenhouse gasses" are actually lighter than air?

b) How, if air is 28g per mole could CO2 which is 44g per mole get to the upper atmosphere?

There is a lot more going on in the atmosphere than buoyancy. By your logic the atmosphere would be layered simply by gas weights. Ozone would lie lower than O2. Of course there is turbulence, the fact that all gasses do not act as "ideal" gasses, entropy etc. I'm sure there is a lot more going on than that.
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
38,144
4,921
Sleazattle
ohio said:
Seriously, it's exactly this kind of half-baked pseudoscience which is KILLING our school systems, our technological advantages in the world economic markets, and our environment. You should be ashamed of yourself. Yes, I'm serious.
Ignoring scientific facts in favor of political agenda is nothing new, remember the whole round earth flat earth debates. Good times.
 

kidwoo

Celebrating No-Pants Day
Aug 25, 2003
23,629
3,041
In my pants
ohio said:
You ever ask yourself why it is that we aren't breathing pure CO2? How about how ozone, which has a higher molar mass than oxygen forms a protective layer in our upper atmosphere? Hmmm, I guess you don't believe in the ozone layer either...

edit: in case you didn't get the hint - mass doesn't equal density. are you sure you were an engineer? there is also, suprisingly enough, more than one factor in the formation of our atmosphere.

Seriously, it's exactly this kind of half-baked pseudoscience which is KILLING our school systems, our technological advantages in the world economic markets, and our environment. You should be ashamed of yourself. Yes, I'm serious.
I'm still trying to find the "air" molecule that weighs 28g/mole.

Sounds like nitrogen but I tried breathing that exclusively and all it did was ripen my berries.

I farted once and there was a guy standing next to me who was like 6'2" and he smelled it. True story.

He was an engineer? :eek:
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
9,900
5
Hypernormality
I have some special heavy 'air' on my desk I can sell to you for a good price. $54.86 a mol. That price reflect market demand, so I can't cut you a break either.
 

Damn True

Monkey Pimp
Sep 10, 2001
4,016
3
Between a rock and a hard place.
ohio said:
You ever ask yourself why it is that we aren't breathing pure CO2? How about how ozone, which has a higher molar mass than oxygen forms a protective layer in our upper atmosphere? Hmmm, I guess you don't believe in the ozone layer either...

edit: in case you didn't get the hint - mass doesn't equal density. are you sure you were an engineer? there is also, suprisingly enough, more than one factor in the formation of our atmosphere.

Seriously, it's exactly this kind of half-baked pseudoscience which is KILLING our school systems, our technological advantages in the world economic markets, and our environment. You should be ashamed of yourself. Yes, I'm serious.
Wow, thank you for the vitriol.

It was a serious question. I don't know the answer so I asked. Pardon me.

Do you have an answer? I mean, Ive read the thread and there are cute jokes about Chang's heavy air and Kidwoo's farts but seriously. How's it work? Seriously.

And yes, but I didn't do a great deal of earth science at Embry-Riddle. Though they do offer an Applied Meteorology program I wasn't in it.
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,638
4
SF, CA
Damn True said:
Do you have an answer?
The complete one? No. I also didn't take any earth sciences classes (though I've been reading as much non-fiction as I have time for), but I know enough to know that the greenhouse effect is very real, and unquestioned by legitimate academic communities. An increase in CO2 levels causes an increase on global tempuratures. This is proven out in sound theory, and supported scientifically by ice core samples and fossil record.

As far as I know, what is in question is whether it's reversible, whether it's entirely our fault, exactly what is the tipping point, and what the results of passing that point will be. As far as I understand most of the academic debate is on the last two points. Most of the political debate is on the first two. While academics can be petty and childish, when it comes down to fact about geo-science, I'll trust the academics. When it comes to the politics, I'll trust the politicians with the most credible scientists agreeing with them. Not the politicians that point to a statistic or a study, but the ones that have scientists standing next to them, agreeing with their political stance.

If you want to learn more, I, myself, would start with the Pew Center:
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures/
But if someone more expert in the subject has a better source, please do post it.
 

Damn True

Monkey Pimp
Sep 10, 2001
4,016
3
Between a rock and a hard place.
I have always said that we should do everything in our power to not screw up the planet, provided it is done in a thoughtful manner that dosen't just transfer the problem elsewhere or seriously harm economies.
We have no disagreement there.
I do however think that the first two points are of greater import. Because our actions going forward should be predicated on if in fact it is, or isn't our fault and if it is, or isn't reversible.

And in the treatment of either eventuality I think equal weight needs to be given to both the ecological AND economic results of our actions. It won't do us any good to have clean air if we cannot feed people in a economical fashion. I fear that both sides are so soundly attached to their particular side of the issue that consensus and by extention, results will be difficult at best to achieve and may wind up sacrificing one for the other when balance is what is needed most.
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
9,900
5
Hypernormality
Damn True said:
Wow, thank you for the vitriol.

It was a serious question. I don't know the answer so I asked. Pardon me.

Do you have an answer? I mean, Ive read the thread and there are cute jokes about Chang's heavy air and Kidwoo's farts but seriously. How's it work? Seriously.

And yes, but I didn't do a great deal of earth science at Embry-Riddle. Though they do offer an Applied Meteorology program I wasn't in it.
My wife is training to be a Meterologist. It looks like she's going into Aviation forecasting. She is at the end of a one year post-grad / masters type level course in predicting the weather. 80% of the course-ish is made up of atmospheric modelling. It's crazy complicated and I did Materials science + engineering at Brunel. Some of the major phenomena are (in rough order of influence) the Sun, Water Vapour, the coreolis effect, other crazy fluid dynamics effects, the oceans, geography, atmospheric composition and so on. You need to do some serious study to even start to properly understand this, and you need serious IT horsepower to even begin to model even one aspect of it, let alone the 20 or 30 models forecasters call upon to build a complete picture. When you start to deal with the long term effects of small concentrations of greenhouse gasses on the large scal patterns, you are droppin' mad science.
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
9,900
5
Hypernormality
Damn True said:
I have always said that we should do everything in our power to not screw up the planet, provided it is done in a thoughtful manner that dosen't just transfer the problem elsewhere or seriously harm economies.
We have no disagreement there.
I do however think that the first two points are of greater import. Because our actions going forward should be predicated on if in fact it is, or isn't our fault and if it is, or isn't reversible.

And in the treatment of either eventuality I think equal weight needs to be given to both the ecological AND economic results of our actions. It won't do us any good to have clean air if we cannot feed people in a economical fashion. I fear that both sides are so soundly attached to their particular side of the issue that consensus and by extention, results will be difficult at best to achieve and may wind up sacrificing one for the other when balance is what is needed most.
Because of historical trends in global weather patterns, I don't believe we can now stop Earth getting warmer in the next centuries. It would appear though that in the aproximatley 10,000 yearly temperature cycle, we have managed to accelerate the warming part of the cycle faster than it may have ever happpened before. What does this mean for us long term? Who knows?

I don't think we should do anything that suppresses Human growth or development to try and counter this effect, but given that Humans have seemingly influenced this acceleration through use of Fossil fuels I'm thinking that as a compromise we can at least stop blatently spunking energy away until we have a decent, readily availible non-polluting alternative.

High density clean plentiful energy supply is a massive factor in a productive human future. 6.0L petrol engines that only produce 50 or 60BHp/L need to be dumped. People need to buy a car with their brain and not their dick, and if they show they are incapable of doing that, they need to have their choices restricted to more sensible ones.
 

Topers

Chimp
Feb 4, 2014
1
0
Did cancer exist before we started smoking cigarettes? Sure it did. Does that mean we shouldn't worry about cancer because it occurred in cave men too? I don't think so.

I think in this day and age we have the technology and resources to understand why our climate is changing so fast. We should do so and find out if there is anything we can do about the fact that in 100 years many of our major cities will be underwater. I for one would prefer not to wait and take it on the chin like a caveman.

Sure, climate change is a natural cycle, but that doesn't mean the consequences are any less catastrophic to people and property. If we can minimize its effects by gaining a better understanding of it, I think we should.

PS: Since this contradicts Bush's policy, by default I love: Terrorists, Air America, John Kerry, Electric Cars, Civil Unions, France, Cindy Sheehan, and Communism.
Your idea is not very bad but i have one question to you. that is please give me a statistics of cancer attacked people who are taking cigarette. i think this statistics are bigger than non smoker. i was also a chain smoker but now i am a free man.
 

Jm_

Turbo Monkey
Jan 14, 2002
10,349
2,538
AK
Last week finally got back to normal temps in Alaska. The two weeks before were rain nod temps up to 47 or so, absolutely crazy. Only about 5" of snow is left in Anchorage, there is no snow out in the valley where the Iditarod starts, which is mind blowing. The ski resort that gets 600"/yr had to shut down. Crazy stuff.
 

JohnE

filthy rascist
May 13, 2005
12,646
664
Front Range, dude...
Which brings up the point, does anyone not believe in Globabl Warming????
One of my idiot office mates doesnt. Which is interesting, because he is pretty much an arch liberal otherwise. But he is also one of those "I know more than you and am superior in every way..."
He is about 5'6" with a full on Napolean complex...
 

JohnE

filthy rascist
May 13, 2005
12,646
664
Front Range, dude...
Your idea is not very bad but i have one question to you. that is please give me a statistics of cancer attacked people who are taking cigarette. i think this statistics are bigger than non smoker. i was also a chain smoker but now i am a free man.
...and the award for best first post goes to....
 

kidwoo

Celebrating No-Pants Day
Aug 25, 2003
23,629
3,041
In my pants
We will see an increase in high elevation glaciation as the pacific warms. Cold doesn't form glaciers, wet ass (IE warm) pacific storm fronts dumping shit tons of moisture do.


Stamp it.
 

Jm_

Turbo Monkey
Jan 14, 2002
10,349
2,538
AK
It's fucking ruining my fat biking is what it's doing. Keeps going above freezing and raining.