7 meter rise in water levels is certainly a sobering thought...With all the cold air comin outta the north latley and the scorching heat in australia ..Climate change is an issue that will affect the world , Equally, for years to come
Melting ice cap could cause sea to rise by seven metres
- Thread starter Praxius
- Start date
They aren't making predictions about when it will happen.
They analyzed where the water would go if the entire Antarctic Ice Sheet melts. They determined that the melt water would not be eustatic. Hence, the timeframe doesn't change, just the specifics.
Blah.... Mother Earth is somewhere around 4 billion years old. Hot and cold flashes? Global warming my butt. It's menopause....
It will affect the world for eons to come... all that is currently happening is what has been happening since the creation of the earth and its atmosphere. The only difference is that the more advanced we humans become, the more we pay attention to the world around us, the more we notice things we never noticed in the past, thus many of these things everybody's freaking out about now, might have occured many times before.... We just never noticed or had the technology to detect it before.
They say ignorance is bliss. Knowlege can be bliss too.... so long as it's the correct and accurate knowlege.
Hey I don't know about that.... I know of at least three in the last 5-10 years....
A little ditty from Elementary Science K (as taught in 2nd yr Old Dominion) to help you begin your Science education. Once you get that one down pat, I'll try to send one at least once a week
Head,Shoulders, Knees, and Toes (to the tune of Here We Go Round the Mulberry Bush).
Head, shoulders, knees, and toes.
Head, shoulders, knees, and toes.
Head, shoulders, knees, and toes,
As fast as I can.
Ears, tummy, hips, and shins.
Ears, tummy, hips, and shins.
Ears, tummy, hips, and shins,
As fast as I can.
Doom and gloom sells newspapers.
I think it's important to keep these arguments in context and to remember the source; that is to say, there is no profit, no research grants, or exciting narrative in anything less devastating than the world could end at any moment.
I think the hyperbole is such exactly because people are becoming desensitized. It is a slippery slope where everything must become increasingly perilous if it is to get our attention and unscrupulous scientists and newspapers are ready to deliver if that's what it takes.
The reality is that mass extinctions happen. If one does happen we will probably have only a few hours notice (if we're really lucky).
Humanity is mortal. As species go we are middle aged. Live life and enjoy it.
I think it's important to keep these arguments in context and to remember the source; that is to say, there is no profit, no research grants, or exciting narrative in anything less devastating than the world could end at any moment.
I think the hyperbole is such exactly because people are becoming desensitized. It is a slippery slope where everything must become increasingly perilous if it is to get our attention and unscrupulous scientists and newspapers are ready to deliver if that's what it takes.
The reality is that mass extinctions happen. If one does happen we will probably have only a few hours notice (if we're really lucky).
Humanity is mortal. As species go we are middle aged. Live life and enjoy it.
db....you sure about that? I thought interglacial periods (like we're in now)
where the exception to the rule, and not the rule?
Interesting. I think that will the advances in science, we have a better understanding of the extent of the damage we have caused. The media's role in this is exacting the most hyperbole - as you have pointed out.. it seels papers
Global Warming/Climate Change is not something that has "JUST HAPPENED". It's been excelerating exponentially for the last 200 yrs. We just have a better way of measuring it today.
I do agree with your one statement
"The reality is that mass extinctions happen. If one does happen we will probably have only a few hours notice (if we're really lucky)."
Disease will kill us long before Global warming/Climate change. It would only take a matter of months considering our current "global" interaction
During the Quaternary Period, the total volume of land ice, sea level, and global temperature has fluctuated initially on 41,000- and more recently on 100,000-year time scales, as evidenced most clearly by ice cores for the past 800,000 years and marine sediment cores for the earlier period. There have been approximately 80 glacial cycles over this time. All of this time is referred to as an ice age because at least one permanent large ice sheet—Antarctica—has existed continuously. There is uncertainty over how much of Greenland was present during the previous and earlier interglacials. During the colder episodes—referred to as glacial periods—large ice sheets also existed in Europe, North America, and Siberia. The shorter and warmer intervals between glacials are referred to as interglacials.
I'm not sure what reason people have for thinking that humans are causing GW. This is a point of reasoning that escapes me. The best explanation for this fallacy I have heard so far is that because if we didn't cause it i.e. it's just happening, that that is too scary a concept and so people deny the possibility, however, there are inescapable facts that do indicate that as just the case. Furthermore there have been no demonstrations that correlation is anything more than coincidence.
It seems we think too highly of ourselves. That we see ourselves outside of nature not as part of nature. We also see ourselves as part of a closed system not as a part of a much larger one. We therefore think on global scales in terms of ourselves. We see the earth as our property not us as hers.
We are fleas on the back of a giant and we think we steer its coarse.
What foolishness!
Source (again): Global Warming:A Chilling Perspective
[SIZE=+3]P[/SIZE]utting things in perspective, geologists tell us our present warm climate is a mere blip in the history of an otherwise cold Earth. Frigid Ice Age temperatures have been the rule, not the exception, for the last couple of million years. This kind of world is not totally inhospitable, but not a very fun place to live, unless you are a polar bear.
Some say we are "nearing the end of our minor interglacial period" , and may in fact be on the brink of another Ice Age. If this is true, the last thing we should be doing is limiting carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, just in case they may have a positive effect in sustaining present temperatures. The smart money, however, is betting that there is some momentum left in our present warming cycle. Environmental advocates agree: resulting in a shift of tactics from the "global cooling" scare of the 1970s to the "global warming" threat of the 1980s and 1990s.
Now, as we begin the 21st century the terminology is morphing toward"climate change," whereby no matter the direction of temperature trends-- up or down-- the headlines can universally blame humans while avoiding the necessity of switching buzz-words with the periodicity of solar cycles. Such tactics may, however, backfire as peoples' common sensibilities are at last pushed over the brink.
Global climate cycles of warming and cooling have been a natural phenomena for hundreds of thousands of years, and it is unlikely that these cycles of dramatic climate change will stop anytime soon. We currently enjoy a warm Earth. Can we count on a warm Earth forever? The answer is most likely... no.
[SIZE=+3]P[/SIZE]utting things in perspective, geologists tell us our present warm climate is a mere blip in the history of an otherwise cold Earth. Frigid Ice Age temperatures have been the rule, not the exception, for the last couple of million years. This kind of world is not totally inhospitable, but not a very fun place to live, unless you are a polar bear.
Some say we are "nearing the end of our minor interglacial period" , and may in fact be on the brink of another Ice Age. If this is true, the last thing we should be doing is limiting carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, just in case they may have a positive effect in sustaining present temperatures. The smart money, however, is betting that there is some momentum left in our present warming cycle. Environmental advocates agree: resulting in a shift of tactics from the "global cooling" scare of the 1970s to the "global warming" threat of the 1980s and 1990s.
Now, as we begin the 21st century the terminology is morphing toward"climate change," whereby no matter the direction of temperature trends-- up or down-- the headlines can universally blame humans while avoiding the necessity of switching buzz-words with the periodicity of solar cycles. Such tactics may, however, backfire as peoples' common sensibilities are at last pushed over the brink.
Global climate cycles of warming and cooling have been a natural phenomena for hundreds of thousands of years, and it is unlikely that these cycles of dramatic climate change will stop anytime soon. We currently enjoy a warm Earth. Can we count on a warm Earth forever? The answer is most likely... no.
And you think that's insignificant Ron? Consider that satellite measured irradience from the sun is 1366 watts per square meter or so. Mulitply that by man's effect from this figure, and that gives you 3.8 watts per square meter, which is a little bit higher than the figure the IPCC gives us for human contribution, at about 1.5 watts. Keep in mind my calculation doesn't account for feedbacks, which all told get's you from that 3.8 watts down to the range from the IPCC.
:idea:
Is that your scientific response?
If you can't challenge him Eagle why bother saying anything at all?