Global Warming

[Sombeech]

Rush Limbaugh is a good example. He always spews about global warming, and yet he also, on the air said things like the following:

Now, I have another question -- and look, I'm not a scientist, so I'm not afraid to ask what some of you scientists might think are dumb questions, but if an iceberg at the North Pole is freshwater, I want to know where it was made and how it got there. How can an iceberg in ocean water be freshwater? I understand how it can rain freshwater over the ocean because the whole evaporation process and condensation process actually distills it, but I don't understand how an iceberg can be freshwater.

If someone is so incredibly stupid to pretend that they know alot about global warming and constantly spew information on it, yet does not even know a simple question such as where an iceberg even comes from, then that is pure foolishness. Yet, people actually believe him and others because they sound like they know what they are talking about.

I'm not a Rush fan, but I think he's just asking where freshwater icebergs are coming from.

[rockgremlin]

Huh? That's not what I meant at all. What I meant is that you can set up experiments in a high school lab that would prove having more CO2 in the atmosphere will cause heating.

What I do not like is people making decisions based on personal beliefs or politics. This should not be the scientific way. I believe those whom do wish to express their opinions on whether or not (and especially not) it
would at least be willing to at least do their own research, experiements, writting and verification of equasions, and comparing several data sources before thinking they can make a decision on the matter. What is wrong with that?

PS, I would be more than happy (seriously, no sarcasm) to compare yours and mine knowlege of thermodynamics. It would be fun to discuss, because I seldom find anyone whom is interested in discussing the subject.

Ahhh. Misunderstanding. Sorry.

No I totally agree with you about the whole "making decisions on personal research and not from political platforms" idea. One of my BIGGEST pet peeves are people who take what they hear on the news as law. Like the media has some obligation to report the truth, whole truth, and nothing but. Ya right!!

I did several research papers on GW in college. Its a touchy subject, because there are so many shades of gray.

Well, I'm afraid you're gonna have to find another person to discuss thermo with. That sound you hear is a shudder going down my spine at the very thought of discussing thermo. Once I passed that class I never looked back.

[Sombeech]

Anyone voting "no", could you please show me some of your data (not Googled data-yours), experiments, and equasions that you used to come up with your conclusions that it does not exist. I won't disagree. I would even be interested in the data.

June 15th 2006
Mt Ogden






I'm actually wondering if I will have to prepare for snow next month in the Wind Rivers.

[rockgremlin]

I'm not a Rush fan, but I think he's just asking where freshwater icebergs are coming from.

Ok, a little chemistry lesson.

When a solution composed of water and a solute (salt in this case) is chilled to the freezing point, the pure water will start to freeze out first. Once water leaves the solution as ice, the rest of the solution becomes more concentrated because the salt stays in the liquid water. This is how icebergs of "pure water" are formed.

This is just a normal chemical process, and is also used by companies to make solutions more concentrated. (This is how they make "Ice Draft" beer).

Don't you ever notice when you freeze your Mtn. Dew that the ice floating around in your Dew came from the Dew itself, but is just pure bland water?

[Sombeech]

Don't you ever notice when you freeze your Mtn. Dew that the ice floating around in your Dew came from the Dew itself, but is just pure bland water?

Aha! But I just call that "diet" dew. Now I remember the lesson of salt and ice. The Salt water doesn't freeze. Thanks.

[Scott P]

I'm not a Rush fan, but I think he's just asking where freshwater icebergs are coming from.

Yep, that was my point. He is constantly spewing info about global warming and has to ask where an iceberg comes from. Some source to get info from, eh? Yet many listen to him on the matter.

I did several research papers on GW in college.

Me too. Wanna trade? Just for fun? We could critique each other's equations/data and experiments in a friendly manner.

Ok, a little chemistry lesson.

When a solution composed of water and a solute (salt in this case) is chilled to the freezing point, the pure water will start to freeze out first. Once water leaves the solution as ice, the rest of the solution becomes more concentrated because the salt stays in the liquid water. This is how icebergs of "pure water" are formed.

This is just a normal chemical process, and is also used by companies to make solutions more concentrated. (This is how they make "Ice Draft" beer).

Don't you ever notice when you freeze your Mtn. Dew that the ice floating around in your Dew came from the Dew itself, but is just pure bland water?

I assume you are joking? Icebergs are freshwater because (with the excetion of an ice shelf) come from freshwater glaciers. They are not frozen ocean water.

Well, I'm afraid you're gonna have to find another person to discuss thermo with. That sound you hear is a shudder going down my spine at the very thought of discussing thermo. Once I passed that class I never looked back.

Oh come on, why not? Even my fellow highway design engineers don't like to discuss it with me for fun.

[rockgremlin]

In addition to the chemistry lesson, here's a geology lesson :

What is an iceberg?

An iceberg is just a chunk that has broken away from a glacier. A chip off the old block, so to speak. And, since glaciers are just continental sized snow drifts hundreds of feet thick, it makes sense that they are pure water. (When was the last time you bit into a snowball, and it was salty?)

Ahhhh, Mr. Limbaugh....why are icebergs made of fresh water....

[Scott P]

Obviously, the earth's climate can warm or chill based on any number of factors.

Very true, but humancaused could be one factor, no.

Rather, I don't believe in this whole "the sky is falling" crap that I keep hearing about global warming. Sure, the globe can warm, big deal.

I agree that it wouldn't be a big deal in Utah. I usually wouldn't think about it in Colorado either.

But....I spent most of November in the South Pacific. Some of the islands are only 2-5 feet above sea level, and people have been living on them for 100's of years. Now, is the possibility of global warming a big deal to them. You bet. If you lived there, would you think it could be a big deal. I think so. Would you agree? It could affect many people.

[rockgremlin]

Beat me by 5 minutes...

[rockgremlin]

Ya your design engineers don't like to discuss it because its a four-letter word!

What did you have in mind to discuss? Enthalpy? Entropy? Fire away if you must...

What notes about GW did you have in mind? What conclusions did you come to?

[Scott P]

What did you have in mind to discuss? Enthalpy? Entropy? Fire away if you must...

Ah, just anything intelligent, except for English and spelling. No one seems to want to talk about math and science for fun. The boring Broncos, maybe, but when I start talking mathematics or equations, people start rolling their eyes, no matter how interesting. Geography, meteorology, physics, thermodynamics, whatever.

What notes about GW did you have in mind?

Any of those research papers you did, or experiments, equasions, and conclusions, and I will exchange and share mine too.

What conclusions did you come to?

That it does exist qualitatively, but also that it is quantitatively too difficult to calculate with my meager data/experience due to too many factors and unknown variables involved.

[rockgremlin]

Ah, just anything intelligent, except for English and spelling. No one seems to want to talk about math and science for fun. The boring Broncos, maybe, but when I start talking mathematics or equations, people start rolling their eyes, no matter how interesting. Geography, meteorology, physics, thermodynamics, whatever.

How about geology? Geology is a passion of mine. Specifically ore genesis, structural geology, and hydrothermal systems. One of the geologists sharing our office brought me back a few samples of Carnotite from a few miles down the road from here. I think its cool as hell, but I am unsure what to do with it? The gamma particles coming off of it were detectable with a Geiger counter at ten feet!!

That it does exist qualitatively, but also that it is quantitatively too difficult to calculate with my meager data/experience due to too many factors and unknown variables involved.

Yup. That's the conclusion I came to as well. I also felt that ratifying the Kyoto Protocol is a mistake because not only is it unreasonable, but it doesn't promote research into alternate energy sources, which I fully support. Burning fossil fuels as an energy source is incredibly cheap and easy, but its dirty (requires a lot of handling to clean up), inefficient, and finite. I feel we should be more diligently researching alternate (renewable) energy sources not really for the sake of curbing global warming, but because its smarter and more efficient.

What were some of your sources?

[stefan]

Okay this is getting out of control, the equations/theories/understanding to address this problem is FAR beyond any one single person. This is a problem addressed by many scientists across many different areas of research. so let's forget about trying to prove or best anyone else's understanding of the fundamental arguments and move onto a more practical question.

is the proper approach to wait until a situation actually becomes a crisis before acting upon it. and if so, what will we do if we should realize that the situation is substantially more difficult to reverse once we push it sufficiently far. furthermore what if the situation is complicated by hysteresis? the potentially dramatic effects of GW could be felt long after the critical point and/or subsequently reducing the carbon level at that point may not restore the previous state of the biosphere.

yes, we potentially are *risking* something of global proportions. why isn't prevention a more reasonable approach, especially if it has MANY alternatively postiive effects? is it appropriate for us to allow future generations to live with the consequences of our actions? i agree these points are dramatic, but first of all, this theory is not a whim. second of all, while it might be true that the specific predictions of scientists who model global warming are inaccurate, it may also be true that a dramatic shift in the state of the biosphere will occur regardless, with different and possibly greater effects. these systems are complicated and nonlinear, and our abilities to predict get worse as the scales of time and space grow. but what if at least the initial instability is accurate and what if they are right, that, at the LEAST, a dramatic change is imminent if we continue our progress.

what is the proper course of action? inaction? one must be convinced of a crisis before one decides to act...is this the most intelligent course of action in this case? i think one thing that EVERYONE agrees on is that we really have no realistic ideas what exactly are the consequences of pumping an undeniably extraordinary amount of carbon into the atmosphere. why do those of you who don't believe that it *could* be problem feel so comfortable and confident? AND that nothing dramatic is currently happening is not a sufficient answer. this is clearly a potentially short-sighted statement for the reasons above.

[Wasatch Rebel]

Just a question. I don't know anything about equations, inequations, or downright blasphemies of science, but what about the aftermath of World War II. During World War II, incredible volumes of so-called "greenhouse gasses" were released into the atmosphere because of the tremendous amount of artillery and other equipment that was needed by the millions of soldiers, pilots, and sailors who were defending that world. It is my understanding that despite those billions upon billions of cubic yards of CO2 etc., that went into the atmosphere at that time, that for the next two decades, the average temperature world wide actually was cooler. So how does that jibe with global warming theories?

[Scott P]

It is my understanding that despite those billions upon billions of cubic yards of CO2 etc., that went into the atmosphere at that time, that for the next two decades, the average temperature world wide actually was cooler. So how does that jibe with global warming theories?

Don't forget that airborn particles and other pollutants actually cause cooling, and not warming. Such is the case with volcanic eruptions, even though they release greenhouse gasses as well. I would bet the "dust" and particle matter generated by explosions would be far greater from WWII than any CO2 released.

Of course, I doubt the cooling was caused by WWII.

[Scott P]

PS, just for fun (since this is a Utah board):

http://www.summitpost.org/article/18...s-glacier.html

[stefan]

tonight, i just saw An Inconvenient Truth (Al Gore's movie on global warming). i thought it was very well done. i definitely don't think that it preaches to the choir, but it does make the assumption that you can handle the fact that all different sides will not be expressed, that all the details won't be discussed, and that you will be faced with a large and coherent barrage of evidence in support of the premise.

i am curious what others' views are. i definitely don't believe this film is propaganda, in fact very far from it. i think anyone who has any thoughts about the issue of GW should see the movie with an open mind, but of course be very critical of it.

i'd like to mention that you should think twice about walking in and thinking that you can simply dispell many statements as twisting of the facts or manipulation. this is not michael moore we're talking about here, this is far more bona fide in all regards...you will be very challenged not to think that it is something that you should, at the least, be concerned about.

[M&TheBunnies]

tonight, i just saw An Inconvenient Truth (Al Gore's movie on global warming).

Sorry, I would have a hard time believing anything said, written, produced, or endorsed by the man that 'invented the internet'.

[M&TheBunnies]

Sheeesh, I know this discussion is way over but.... I'll throw in my couple cents worth so I can get berated by Patterson I can tell he knows his stuff very well though, so I won't be offended, just corrected.

I learned that pollution in the air from volcanos causes the ground temperature to cool a few degrees by reflecting the sun. (Yeah, I know this has already been said in this thread). This happened after Mt St Helens erupted and caused the surrounding states to have a climate significantly cooler for several months/years. The same has also been documented near other volcano eruptions. Even though the volcano releases a large amount of hot air, smoke and possibly magma, the sediment in the air then reflects the sun, providing a cooling period on the ground. The point is that the earth will compensate for changes in the environment just like the human body will compensate for changes in its environment. (up to a point)
So if the history of climate change goes: Ice age > Warming > Ice age > Warming... then my take is that we are on the upswing of a warming trend.
Do humans have an effect on the earths atmosphere? Yeah, probably, but not drastic. I think the earth will compensate for now, but when the population soars out of control in the future, the earth may get a bit pissed off at the abuse and either freeze or heat up and kill a bunch of us off. I don't think the earth will be destroyed because of the abuse, just kill us off so it can repair itself. I think there will still be inhabitable places even in an ice age. It'll be back to the old "survival-of-the-fittest" prehistoric times. Lucky for us, we're all pretty fit and familiar with how to survive in the great outdoor extremes, right?

[stefan]

tonight, i just saw An Inconvenient Truth (Al Gore's movie on global warming).

Sorry, I would have a hard time believing anything said, written, produced, or endorsed by the man that 'invented the internet'.

nice cheap shot.

so then simultaneously you are saying you don't believe all of the bona fide science which he is essentially quoting, packaging and (admittedly) additionally spinning. perhaps the spinning is fine to agree or disagree with, but it's hard to say so simply that you disagree with all of the science, which is a good chunk of the film.

I learned that pollution in the air from volcanos causes the ground temperature to cool a few degrees by reflecting the sun. (Yeah, I know this has already been said in this thread). This happened after Mt St Helens erupted and caused the surrounding states to have a climate significantly cooler for several months/years. The same has also been documented near other volcano eruptions. Even though the volcano releases a large amount of hot air, smoke and possibly magma, the sediment in the air then reflects the sun, providing a cooling period on the ground.

well ... global warming due to carbon emission and cooling due to volcano eruption are different. volcanos emit sulphur dioxide which converts to sulphuric acid, that condenses in the atmosphere to form fine sulphate aerosols. this film of aerosols increases the amount of the sun's radiation reflected back into space ... hence cooling. while volcanos also release greanhouse gasses, this aspect of volcanos can be very strong as it prevents the radiation from entering the lower atmosphere to begin with.

The point is that the earth will compensate for changes in the environment just like the human body will compensate for changes in its environment. (up to a point)
So if the history of climate change goes: Ice age > Warming > Ice age > Warming... then my take is that we are on the upswing of a warming trend.
Do humans have an effect on the earths atmosphere? Yeah, probably, but not drastic.

i suppose the big question is ... why is it so easy to dismiss it, when scientists have provided much evidence for it, and only a VERY small faction of atmospheric scientists have vocally/officially demonstrated their skepticism?