The Weather Channel Mess

[nebula]

Global warming has become nothing more than a part of the political machine that drives money. Blaming the Republicans for this or the Democrats for that is nothing more than political bias. We have in the US taken some serious steps since the 70's to curb pollution, but yet it's not enough for everyone else. Suggest using nuclear power instead of fossil fuels for power production and you get groups opposed because nuke power is dangerous and hard to dispose the waste. Suggest coal and you get groups that complain of the emmissions and the destruction of the land. Suggest natural gas and you get groups opposed to drilling. No matter what we do we are always caught in between a rock and a hard place.

Yes, that is a huge problem

[nebula]

What makes things difficult about the research are that for all we know, we really don't know a lot.

"The global average temperature is higher now than in recorded history." OK - how many years does "recorded history" span?

What do we know about why global averages have risen and fallen in the past?

Then I hear that while the sea levels are rising over in our part of the globe, they are falling around Africa. The only way that could happen is if the globe is changing shape (for lack of a better way to explain it). But if this is true, I have to wonder if sea levels are truly rising globally? Likewise, while we hear about ice shelves falling into the sea, what about the ice build-ups inside the continents?

It is questions like this that refrain me from saying, "It's our CO2 emmissions that are to blame!"

But actually, forrest - since you seem to know where the on-line resources are - do you have a link for something that shows atmospheric CO2 levels? And methane levels?

[nebula]

Do you not agree with that?

Just so you know, I'm not answering this because I am looking for information, not an argument.

[forrestkc]

What makes things difficult about the research are that for all we know, we really don't know a lot.

"The global average temperature is higher now than in recorded history." OK - how many years does "recorded history" span?

There are also proxies that we can reconstruct past climate with (glacial cores, tree rings, and so on).

There is a good article on this here: http://www.universetoday.com/2006/09/25/wa...in-12000-years/

There is also another good Glacial Study on this issue that should help answer your questions. An article on it is here: http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0627-glaciers.html

Here is quote from it:

"The researchers' records show that the past 50 years have been unusually warm.

"There hasn't been anything in the record like it

[Scarletprayers]

forrest, I have to agree with you, I have gotten to the point of just not listening/ talking about it all about because of so many confusing, distorted, biased views. I know your plugging the "global warming" is true side, but at least its understandable, all of the hype removed, and using words small enough for me to understand .

Thanks Not saying I'm with ya 100%, but at least I can cipher it out some now!

[forrestkc]

forrest, I have to agree with you, I have gotten to the point of just not listening/ talking about it all about because of so many confusing, distorted, biased views. I know your plugging the "global warming" is true side, but at least its understandable, all of the hype removed, and using words small enough for me to understand .

Thanks Not saying I'm with ya 100%, but at least I can cipher it out some now!

Thanks.

Believe it or not, but I used to be a skeptic. It is just the more I actually looked at the core science behind this issue, the more I came around.

[forrestkc]

Until the start of the Industrial Era, CO2 levels never went above 300 ppm. Today they are nearly 400 ppm. We are adding CO2 into the atmosphere at 150 times the natural rate.

This is great though. This is how this issue ought to be discussed. Just the science behind it, and leaving out the politics.

This data is fake.

Before the industrial era there was no way to measure these levels anyway, so the data is obviously nothing more than conjecture.

I am sorry, but you are mistaken. Measuring past atmospheric composition with Glacial Core samples is well established science.

Wikipedia has an excellent article on this here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

[forrestkc]

Correct. This is a geological issue as opposed to a meteorological one.

However, when addressing glaciation, meteorology and geology actually interfere with each other. Consider these two scenarios.

1) Slow Melt down.

Suppose most of the earth's glaciers were melting. What is the geological impact of that? Well, because there would be less ice on the continents this means they would be lighter. This would mean the continents would tend to rise up on the earth's mantle, or bulge in their centers. On the other hand, the ocean plates would tend to be forced downward because they would have more water on top of them. This would reshape the planet somewhat, and would cause ocean plates to tend to melt under their centers, eventually producing volcanic activity in the oceans. The end result is there would be some coastal flooding of the continents, but nothing catastrophic or immenent like in hollywood movies, other continents or other regions of the same continent would notice water level drops.

2) Slow Freeze

If the earth were to slowly cool for a significant period of time, then ice would tend to stack up on the continents and mountain ranges. This would increase the weight of the continents and cause them to tend to sink. As the continents sink, the ocean plates would be forced to bulge upwards because they would have less water on them, and the magma displaced by the sinking continents would tend to build up under the oceans. This would force the water on the ocean plates to spread out onto the coastal areas of the continents in a fashion that would appear to be "rising" ocean levels, when in fact there is much less liquid water on the earth than in the warm scenario, but because the continents would be sinking, they would get flooded as bad or worse than in the melt down scenario.

I am sorry, but that is pure conjecture without even a shred of scientific basis for it. Glacial melt accounts for probably a trillionth of the weight of the continents. However, even if the continents were to get sufficiently lighter, it would only speed the rate of continental drift, not raise them.

3) Antarctica meltdown fallacy

Antarctica will never melt down in the foreseeable future, and there is absolutely no threat of a catastrophic meltdown flooding the world's coastlines in a matter of decades as the nut cases want you to believe. The temperature at the south pole is around -70F. So in order for much of the continent to melt it would need a temperature rise on the order of 100F. This is simply not going to happen in the course of human history. In short, one or two degrees represents an insignificant amount of global melting

Once again, I think you hold some misconceptions. For one, while temperatures may dip to below -60 F at times durring the polar winters, that is not even remotely the average temperature at the polls. What happens in terms of ice formation and ice melting at the polls is that during the summer, glaciers melt, during the winters, they refreeze. If temperatures during the summer rise significantly enough, and winter temperatures and durations do not increase proportionately, then glacial ice melts at a faster rate during warmer months than it refreezes during colder months. If this is significant enough, then other factors referred to as positive feed backs come into play.

For example, ice reflects approximately 10 to 15 times the amount of heat from the sun back into space than open ocean and land does. As glaciers and polar ice recedes, it exposes more open ocean and more land to the sun. That additional open ocean and exposed land absorbs much more heat than what would have otherwise been absorbed by at the polls, thus the rate of melting increases substantially. Think about it this way, ice and snow melt off of the roof of homes with black shingles far faster that they do on the homes with light gray shingles. We have already reached the beginning of a tipping point. Up until just a few years ago, it was believed that additional precipitation over the polar regions resulting from higher average temperatures would offset for at least the next century melting due to higher temps. However, we now know that melting due to positive feed backs has accelerated to such an extent that the ice caps are melting far faster than we expected. In fact, climate models now forecast the Artic Ocean to be completely ice free during the summer months within 40 to 80 years if nothing is done to curb future warming.

A very in depth article on this issue and the science behind it is here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...e-21st-century/

One last point. For every 1 degree increase in Global Average Temps, the average temperatures at the polls increases by up to 12 degrees.

[Pizzaguy]

One last point. For every 1 degree increase in Global Average Temps, the average temperatures at the polls increases by up to 12 degrees.

Got a source for that? Any data? Do you realize that you just told us that the polls have warmed by 14-18 degrees (depending on who's average global temperature increase you believe.)

[forrestkc]

One last point. For every 1 degree increase in Global Average Temps, the average temperatures at the polls increases by up to 12 degrees.

Got a source for that? Any data? Do you realize that you just told us that the polls have warmed by 14-18 degrees (depending on who's average global temperature increase you believe.)

Yes of course, it is established science. In fact, it has to do with mathematics actually. The surface area at the equator is much larger than the surface area of the earth as you move closer to the polls. Thus an increase in average temps at the equator grows proportionately higher as you move closer to the polls.

Take Alaska for example:

Alaska has warmed substantially over the 20th century, particularly over the past few decades. Average warming since the 1950s has been 4