RE: "Scientists: Antarctic ice sheet thinning" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


SirDiscipliner69 -> RE: "Scientists: Antarctic ice sheet thinning" (4/7/2007 4:53:09 AM)

Anyone else have SNOW for EASTER?
 
she knew today was the start of her physical training. All sorts of
http://www.collarchat.com/m_924028/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm
The breakdown of communication resulted in the breakdown of the relationship.
http://www.collarchat.com/m_923442/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm

Ross
©º°¨¨°º©




OrionTheWolf -> RE: "Scientists: Antarctic ice sheet thinning" (4/7/2007 6:38:36 AM)

At one time the scientific majority said the Earth was flat. Just because the scienific majority says it is so, does not make it so.

We are having record lows where I live, could someone send some of that global warming my way.

As to co2 gases: How much of it being produced is a natural effect? How much is caused by volcanic activity, forest fires, etc?

Researchers often start with a theory and then start out to prove that theory. Does this ever cause things to be less than accurate?

How much of the ice is above water level? Ice just melting will not automatically increase sea level, kind of like when the ice in your soda melts it does not cause it to overflow.

Does the Earth ever go through heating and cooling stages due to the warmth and position of the Sun?

Has the position of the polar caps, and equator ever changed before? Even if just slightly?

So much to think about and so much sky falling.


Orion


quote:

ORIGINAL: Vendaval

Exactly.  We have one planet to live on and it is in our own
best interests to follow the recommendations of the scientific
majority.  The long term consequences of our actions and
inactions will effect our children and their children and their
children's children.
 
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

Now I for one do not think that playing games with our atmosphere is good idea.
I think that we should err on the side of caution and those who want to continue pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere without trying to find alternatives should have to prove global warming will not harm planet earth.. we should not have to prove it will. The cost is just too damn high to humanity to continue on this course if those who believe we have almost reached or surpassed the point of no return are right.





FangsNfeet -> RE: "Scientists: Antarctic ice sheet thinning" (4/7/2007 6:48:14 AM)

If it melts it melts. There's nothing we can do or could have done to prevent it. Besides, it's not like we're going to be living in Water World. So let's just allow the damn thing to melt and get on with our lives. 




BrutalDemon -> RE: "Scientists: Antarctic ice sheet thinning" (4/7/2007 7:35:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

At one time the scientific majority said the Earth was flat. Just because the scienific majority says it is so, does not make it so.

We are having record lows where I live, could someone send some of that global warming my way.

As to co2 gases: How much of it being produced is a natural effect? How much is caused by volcanic activity, forest fires, etc?


How about methane? Natural product of both animals, and cultivation, and apparently a much more dangerous Greenhouse Gas than CO2 (which is easier to remove from the atmosphere through natural processes). I made a rather glib comment about raising sealevels reducing the amount of rice paddies, earlier.... this is why a 3-5 meter increase in sealevel is fine by me, because it'd destroy roughly 95% of those nasty, methane producing, rice paddies.

quote:


Researchers often start with a theory and then start out to prove that theory. Does this ever cause things to be less than accurate?


That's the very basis of science... come up with a theory, then do your best to prove it wrong. Even better to successfully prove the theories of other, well respected, Scientists wrong.

quote:


How much of the ice is above water level? Ice just melting will not automatically increase sea level, kind of like when the ice in your soda melts it does not cause it to overflow.

Does the Earth ever go through heating and cooling stages due to the warmth and position of the Sun?


Yes. There's a few astronomic factors that affect Earths temperature, some of which I've listed earlier in this thread. Orbital Eccentricity, Axial Tilt, Surface and Atmospheric Albedo (how much sunlight is reflected), and the Sun itself contibutes others. From variations in size... because it's basically a big fricken bomb that's constantly exploding, shrinking and expanding like a beating heart... to more localised phenomena like solar flares.

quote:


Has the position of the polar caps, and equator ever changed before? Even if just slightly?


Yes and no. On a geological scale, measured in millions of years, the magnetic poles themselves are believed to 'flip' backwards and forwards. North and South poles switch. Don't know how quickly this happens, or when the next one's due, or what the effects might be.

The imaginary line we think of as the Equator doesn't change, much. Even though the Earth changes shape all the time, it's always going to be roughly a ball, slightly fatter around the axis of spin than from pole to pole.

The Icecaps will always be at the 'top and bottom' of the world... and as you point out, free standing ice won't have any bearing on sealevel. The biggest change to happen there is when Antarctica drifted over the southern pole, lifting a whole bunch of ice up out of the water. If that stuff melts relatively quickly, we could all be in real trouble. Problem is, the evidence of that happening is still, despite money being thrown at researching it, fairly inconclusive still. Some studies indicate it's thinning out, but in other areas it's actually getting thicker. There's evidence to support whatever theories you want to believe.

quote:


So much to think about and so much sky falling.


Orion



The question should be... which lump of sky is going to cause you most immeadiate harm, and is there anything you can do to mitigate its effects.




dcnovice -> RE: "Scientists: Antarctic ice sheet thinning" (4/7/2007 11:14:28 AM)

quote:

At one time the scientific majority said the Earth was flat.


Is that really true? I think as far back as Ptolemy, actual scientists seemed to grasp that it was round, but I could be wrong.




Sinergy -> RE: "Scientists: Antarctic ice sheet thinning" (4/7/2007 11:51:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrutalDemon
The bottle will break, which is why it's in a bag, so you're not picking bits of broken bottle out the bottom of your freezer... because ice is less dense than water is, it's volume will increase. As it freezes it expands, as it melts, it shrinks... that 10% above the surface is the stuff that has been displaced because the water froze... if it melts, there's plenty of volume for it to melt into.



Weird.

I thought it was out of water because the ice caps on Antarctica and Greenland sit on land masses.

Wait.  The ice caps on Antarctica and Greenland DO sit on land masses.  So the 90% you are suggesting is underwater is not underwater. 

Try this illustrative experiment.  Fill a shot glass with water.  Put a couple of toothpicks on top of it.  Set an ice cube on top of the toothpicks.  Let me know if the shot glass overflows.

Now if you were talking about the Arctic, I would agree with you about the water density and 90% of the ice cube is submerged.

Sinergy




Real0ne -> RE: "Scientists: Antarctic ice sheet thinning" (4/7/2007 11:59:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrutalDemon
The bottle will break, which is why it's in a bag, so you're not picking bits of broken bottle out the bottom of your freezer... because ice is less dense than water is, it's volume will increase. As it freezes it expands, as it melts, it shrinks... that 10% above the surface is the stuff that has been displaced because the water froze... if it melts, there's plenty of volume for it to melt into.



Weird.

I thought it was out of water because the ice caps on Antarctica and Greenland sit on land masses.

Wait.  The ice caps on Antarctica and Greenland DO sit on land masses.  So the 90% you are suggesting is underwater is not underwater. 

Try this illustrative experiment.  Fill a shot glass with water.  Put a couple of toothpicks on top of it.  Set an ice cube on top of the toothpicks.  Let me know if the shot glass overflows.

Now if you were talking about the Arctic, I would agree with you about the water density and 90% of the ice cube is submerged.

Sinergy


So how much ice is there on land?




Sinergy -> RE: "Scientists: Antarctic ice sheet thinning" (4/7/2007 12:03:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrutalDemon
The bottle will break, which is why it's in a bag, so you're not picking bits of broken bottle out the bottom of your freezer... because ice is less dense than water is, it's volume will increase. As it freezes it expands, as it melts, it shrinks... that 10% above the surface is the stuff that has been displaced because the water froze... if it melts, there's plenty of volume for it to melt into.



Weird.

I thought it was out of water because the ice caps on Antarctica and Greenland sit on land masses.

Wait.  The ice caps on Antarctica and Greenland DO sit on land masses.  So the 90% you are suggesting is underwater is not underwater. 

Try this illustrative experiment.  Fill a shot glass with water.  Put a couple of toothpicks on top of it.  Set an ice cube on top of the toothpicks.  Let me know if the shot glass overflows.

Now if you were talking about the Arctic, I would agree with you about the water density and 90% of the ice cube is submerged.

Sinergy


So how much ice is there on land?



You can probably google this information.

But the most recent issue of Popular Science (might have been Scientific American, I will get it from my dock bag and provide the bibliographical link) guaged the volume of frozen water sitting on land to be enough to raise the ocean levels by about 40 feet (20 feet or so from Antarctica, 20 feet or so from Greenland) if it were to melt.

Since the vast majority of the earth's population lives near the ocean, we would lose much of Indonesia, China, Holland, Florida, etc.

Sinergy





Real0ne -> RE: "Scientists: Antarctic ice sheet thinning" (4/7/2007 12:37:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrutalDemon
The bottle will break, which is why it's in a bag, so you're not picking bits of broken bottle out the bottom of your freezer... because ice is less dense than water is, it's volume will increase. As it freezes it expands, as it melts, it shrinks... that 10% above the surface is the stuff that has been displaced because the water froze... if it melts, there's plenty of volume for it to melt into.



Weird.

I thought it was out of water because the ice caps on Antarctica and Greenland sit on land masses.

Wait.  The ice caps on Antarctica and Greenland DO sit on land masses.  So the 90% you are suggesting is underwater is not underwater. 

Try this illustrative experiment.  Fill a shot glass with water.  Put a couple of toothpicks on top of it.  Set an ice cube on top of the toothpicks.  Let me know if the shot glass overflows.

Now if you were talking about the Arctic, I would agree with you about the water density and 90% of the ice cube is submerged.

Sinergy


So how much ice is there on land?



You can probably google this information.

But the most recent issue of Popular Science (might have been Scientific American, I will get it from my dock bag and provide the bibliographical link) guaged the volume of frozen water sitting on land to be enough to raise the ocean levels by about 40 feet (20 feet or so from Antarctica, 20 feet or so from Greenland) if it were to melt.

Since the vast majority of the earth's population lives near the ocean, we would lose much of Indonesia, China, Holland, Florida, etc.

Sinergy




curious i have never dug into t hat point specificvally.  i wonder if anyone has checked these guys math, i know anartica is big but to raise the water level of the whole globe even an inch takes literally a continent of ice to melt and 20 feet frankly is nearly unimaginable.  yeh if its handy that would kool otherwise i can look into it after i get done reviewing this kick azz ed barneys stuff...




ExSteelAgain -> RE: "Scientists: Antarctic ice sheet thinning" (4/7/2007 3:15:13 PM)

Both sides made some good points. Let me ask this since global warming is possible. Why not get our asses in gear fast, as France, the rest of europe and Japan have done and build some nuclear power plants fast? That really is the only solution if we are to remain industrialized without gaseous emissions.




Sinergy -> RE: "Scientists: Antarctic ice sheet thinning" (4/7/2007 4:17:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

curious i have never dug into t hat point specificvally.  i wonder if anyone has checked these guys math, i know anartica is big but to raise the water level of the whole globe even an inch takes literally a continent of ice to melt and 20 feet frankly is nearly unimaginable.  yeh if its handy that would kool otherwise i can look into it after i get done reviewing this kick azz ed barneys stuff...



The continent of Antarctica is rather large, and covered by ice that is one (or more) miles thick.  What I am discussing here is water volume that is currently sitting on rocks out of the water.  The same thing goes for the island of Greenland, which, while not as large as Antarctica, is a rather sizeable chunk of ice.

Sinergy




ExSteelAgain -> RE: "Scientists: Antarctic ice sheet thinning" (4/7/2007 4:27:41 PM)

I always wondered why they named it Greenland to begin with?




Sinergy -> RE: "Scientists: Antarctic ice sheet thinning" (4/7/2007 4:34:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ExSteelAgain

I always wondered why they named it Greenland to begin with?


Because it was covered with ice, and the name Iceland had already been used for a green island.

Duh.

Sinergy




Real0ne -> RE: "Scientists: Antarctic ice sheet thinning" (4/7/2007 4:47:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

curious i have never dug into t hat point specificvally.  i wonder if anyone has checked these guys math, i know anartica is big but to raise the water level of the whole globe even an inch takes literally a continent of ice to melt and 20 feet frankly is nearly unimaginable.  yeh if its handy that would kool otherwise i can look into it after i get done reviewing this kick azz ed barneys stuff...



The continent of Antarctica is rather large, and covered by ice that is one (or more) miles thick.  What I am discussing here is water volume that is currently sitting on rocks out of the water.  The same thing goes for the island of Greenland, which, while not as large as Antarctica, is a rather sizeable chunk of ice.

Sinergy


yah i know what you were talking about i just thought if you had that info handy, no big dealo i will google it one of these days....




ExSteelAgain -> RE: "Scientists: Antarctic ice sheet thinning" (4/7/2007 10:01:07 PM)

You know the funny thing about Greenland is that it used to be lush and warm when it was first inhabited. This was during the medieval warm period around 800-1300 AD. Icelandic settlers arrived in 982 to a warm island. The little ice age came after this and Greenland lost its green.

The ice sheets of Greenland are melting fast. Why can be debated, but it is happening and it will lead to a big rise in the sea level. Even if it is the result of natural cycles as I showed above that have happened in the past, it is still going to be devastating. If we are going into a medieval like warm period again where Greenland will turn green again, we be in deep water.

Let's think outside the box. We know carbon emissions speed up the process, but apparently slowing them down won't help if it just one of these natural cycles again. I'm not a scientist, but do we need to put more oxgen in the atmosphere? Are there ways this can be done besides planting more vegetation? Can we basically pump chemically made oxygen back into the atmosphere and prevent global warming? Are there certain types of vegetation that we could plant that would increase the oxygen concentration of the atmosphere?




Sinergy -> RE: "Scientists: Antarctic ice sheet thinning" (4/7/2007 11:57:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ExSteelAgain

You know the funny thing about Greenland is that it used to be lush and warm when it was first inhabited. This was during the medieval warm period around 800-1300 AD. Icelandic settlers arrived in 982 to a warm island. The little ice age came after this and Greenland lost its green.

The ice sheets of Greenland are melting fast. Why can be debated, but it is happening and it will lead to a big rise in the sea level. Even if it is the result of natural cycles as I showed above that have happened in the past, it is still going to be devastating. If we are going into a medieval like warm period again where Greenland will turn green again, we be in deep water.

Let's think outside the box. We know carbon emissions speed up the process, but apparently slowing them down won't help if it just one of these natural cycles again. I'm not a scientist, but do we need to put more oxgen in the atmosphere? Are there ways this can be done besides planting more vegetation? Can we basically pump chemically made oxygen back into the atmosphere and prevent global warming? Are there certain types of vegetation that we could plant that would increase the oxygen concentration of the atmosphere?


juliaoceania made the point about "carbon feedback cycles"  This would be a worthwhile google point to start looking into it.  The problem is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere warms things up releasing methane and CO2 which warm things up and releases...

Sequestering CO2 is probably a good idea, but it might be too late.

Sinergy




luckydog1 -> RE: "Scientists: Antarctic ice sheet thinning" (4/8/2007 12:10:35 AM)

Or with the end of the little ice age refered to in the former post, the earth began slowly heating on its own, releasing  methane, and starting a feed back loop. 




juliaoceania -> RE: "Scientists: Antarctic ice sheet thinning" (4/8/2007 12:11:06 AM)

quote:

Sequestering CO2 is probably a good idea, but it might be too late.

Sinergy


The best thing we can do is to preserve what are called carbon sinks.. the Amazon rainforest is an example... once the carbon is liberated into the air, then it is not trapped in things like permafrost soil or trees or fossil carbons.




ExSteelAgain -> RE: "Scientists: Antarctic ice sheet thinning" (4/8/2007 7:05:21 AM)

I think it is fine to conserve the rain forests and to produce as little carbon dioxide as possible. It just makes sense to keep our atmosphere the same UNLESS we are beginning a natural warming (or cooling) cycle as has always happened. In that case, I would most certainly manipulate the gases.

Our civilization with so many people living on the coasts and a precarious agricultural-industrial system necessary to keep us alive, possibly can’t withstand natural cycles as those of the past. I’m not sure what happened during the medieval warm up, but I assume it was easy enough for the people to take their little tent houses back up the hills a bit. That won’t work these days.

Thus, it may be necessary to regulate the atmosphere to prevent natural climate changes. If we now know carbon dioxide causes global warming that is certainly occurring now, we need to decrease it. I’m talking far beyond limiting emissions because humans certainly didn’t cause the last warm-up.

I’m talking about monitoring and changing the atmosphere to whatever concentration is best. We need to look at various types of vegetation that can be grown in arid deserts and frozen areas. Sure this may change the character of the world’s geography, but that can be dealt with if problems occur. We need to look at ways to utilize carbon dioxide in industrial processes. If plants can work off carbon dioxide, why can’t we make machines that can?  A daunting task, but it seems to be the only logical move.




Rule -> RE: "Scientists: Antarctic ice sheet thinning" (4/8/2007 7:23:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ExSteelAgain
If plants can work off carbon dioxide, why can’t we make machines that can?

Because one cannot win the fight against entropy. Such machines would produce more carbon dioxide or heat or whatever.
 
As for the rising of the sea levels: actually any land ice that melted would dampen this rising. The sea levels rise because the temperature of the sea water rises. Water that is heated expands. Thus when the oceans are warmed, they will expand and sea level will rise. The influx of cold melt water from land ice will actually cool the warming up oceans and thus cause their expansion to slow down.




Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875