Arctic Ice shelf is going..going... gone!? - Page 3

Timber Loftis · 10-08-2003, 07:31 PM

Seraph, it's accurate. What a 1 deg. change in ocean temp will do to overall ocean volume is phenomenal. This is a simple scientific property of water. I'd cite you a source, but they're all buried with my 4-year-old global warming research. Try www.pew.org or www.nrdc.org for some good info. I think they have search functions.

Nerull, the methane is preposterous. Not because methane isn't a GHG -- it is. But, rather because cows farting don't amount to much. Besides, any herbivores (and some omnivore) farts will contain methane -- so blame all animals. But, even all that doesn't compare to the methane released by deforestation -- rotting trees release the most methane. As the minister from Brazil, who chaired the 4th Conference of Parties in Argentina, told me: If you're going to cut down a tree, for goodness sake, burn it rather than let it rot.

Now, add the true sources of methane -- despite 7th grade fart logic -- to the fact that methane is BY FAR inferior to CO2 amounts in the air, toss in the fact that methane releases over the last 100-200 years have changed some (but not too much) while CO2 releases have doubled, trebled, quadrupled, and then doubled and trebled some more -- you get the picture.

nokturnal_1 · 10-08-2003, 08:12 PM

Take a glass and fill it with ice, draw a line or use tape to indicate th exact level. Let the ice melt. mark the level and record the difference. Those on the coast need to move back about a foot. As far as the vehicle emmissions, any restrictions on vehicles are pointless. Ever notice that boats planes and trains worldwide have NO restrictions, 1 jetliner in 1 flight accross the U.S. pumps out the same amount of exaust as all the cars ALL the cars in the U.S. idling for 5 min.s. There are thousands of flights every day worldwide. Supposedly, 1 volcano eruption such as Mt. St. Helens puts 500 million tons of chemicals into the air, not including ash and rock and dust. Yeah I can understand an ice shelf dissapearing. Now back to emmissions. The millions of barrels of oil that are emmitting from the pumps in the middle east. What do you think will take place when you remove an "ice shelf" amount of material from underground, and have no plans for the huge cavities being left? Why doesn't Russia have as large of a nuclear waste problem as the U.S. when they operate just as many if not more reactors? (and china too) There used to be jungle (rainforests) over 70% of So. America. Now it is less than 45% Talk about shooting ones foot as one shoots into a crowd...
This is but a smattering of the situations humans are making. Enjoy the world it won't be here for us much longer. (rather we will cease to be the dominant spiecies)

Yorick · 10-08-2003, 10:55 PM

If we were not here, there would be mass fires to eat up the oxygen plants emit. We are as much a part of the natural ecosystem as any other species or thing.

I reject out of hand that human actions alone cause warming. Global seasons exist. The world has been much warmer before now, and much colder before now. What we are talking about is an increase of 1 degree over the last hundred years. But that will be enough to start melting some ice.

But let's think for a minute...

How did that ice get there? Was it water first?

Is anyone aware of the vast inland areas of Australia that used to be underwater?

Are we forgetting that the sea levels were once so low that Aboriginals walked from Asia to Australia, and Amerindians from Asia to North America?

A feature of humanity, one which has ensured survival in every climate on earth, is ADAPTABILITY. So the oceans rise? It will merely shake up the status quo. Create new coastal areas. Areas that were barren will become fertile, and areas we live on now, we may not.

Change is not to be feared but to be embraced. We will survive.

The reaction that inclusively "humans suck - we suck - I suck" because of global warming is unhelpful, fatalistic and unproductive. Someone mentioned the Matrix "virus" analogy. It should be noted that the character that mentioned it was playing a Satan-like role in seeking to BREAK THE SPIRIT of the character he said it to. Certainly we can look at ourselves in that way and be full of revulsion and other negative energies which paralyse action and lead to impotent solutionless responses.

A far more powerful impetus is POSITIVE energy. We can and are making huge inroads into managing the environment better. We are more aware of our actions on the environment. We are, one by one, nation by nation, choosing lifestyle choices that are environmentally friendly.

It should be remembered that not all cultures destroyed the environment. Subsistence cultures, and nomadic cultures lived in cyclic environmental harmony quite sucessfully, but were overrun by the agrarian city dwelling cultures. It is the dominance and prevalence of a MINDSET that has been the problem, not humanity per se.

CHOICES.

We have control over the choices we make.

Start by not turning on your airconditioner in your car. Before you criticise humanity globally look at that simple action. Does your comfort level mean more to you that the environment? Until you are prepared to sacrifice a little well-being for a "greater cause" there is no moral high ground.

Car airconditioners directly contribute to the Ozone hole.

There are many ways in which we can positively impact our world. Let's be doing these instead of proclaiming disempowering worlds of self-derision upon we humans.

Cheers

Yorick

[ 10-08-2003, 11:18 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Yorick · 10-08-2003, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nerull:
I heard a report somewhere (damn if I can remember where now) that stated that the #1 source of global warming was methane. They also stated that the #1 source of methane was farts, and they stated that the biggest source was cow gas (I am NOT making this up!). [img]graemlins/fart.gif[/img] Has anyone heard this report?

I've hear that. Add to that, the grain it takes to feed one cow bred for beef, will feed an entire African village. (Or so it is said)

Eat less beef. You don't need to become a vegetarian to effect change. Simply eat beef far less.

Deejax · 10-09-2003, 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by nokturnal_1:
Take a glass and fill it with ice, draw a line or use tape to indicate th exact level. Let the ice melt. mark the level and record the difference. Those on the coast need to move back about a foot.*snip*

What do you mean? A glass filled with water and ice? Or a glass filled with pure ice?
In the first case the level will stay the same. In the second case the level will drop. What are you trying to say?

Quote:

Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
Seraph, it's accurate. What a 1 deg. change in ocean temp will do to overall ocean volume is phenomenal. This is a simple scientific property of water.

Just a simple calculation:
a 1 degree (celsius) increase of water temperature results in an increase of the volume of approx 0.008% Doesn't sound like very much.
But with the enormous amount of water in the oceans, it means a higher water level by about 1 foot (0.32 cm)!

Some notes:
I took the average ocean depth as 4000 meter, please correct me if i'm wrong.
This calculation assumes an average increase of one degree over the entire water mass of the oceans.

Yorick · 10-09-2003, 05:33 PM

Deejax.... it wouldn't be the entire ocean that got universally warmer though would it? Ocean further away from the surface is extremely cold right? Wouldn't the water closer to the surface get warmer than water further away?

Secondly, wouldn't the water expand into areas where it already goes, such as tidal rivers and lakes? One huge shelf of ice is not going to raise the ocean levels that considerably I'd imagine. Doesn't ice annually freeze and melt each year on the two poles? Do we see higher ocean levels during global Spring and Autumn?

What is of worse concern to me is that when the Ice shelf in question started melting, it cracked and lost a unique life ecosystem that had formed in the fresh water trapped on it's surface. The salt water replaced the fresh through the crack, and the ecosystem was destoryed.

But, to my mind, this was always going to happen. Fresh water accumulating on a frozen shelf of saltwater?? Always going to be temporary.

I'd love to join music producer Brian Eno's "Society for the long now" if I could. They planned to build a huge clock in Arizona that had a second hand that ticked over each year, a minute hand that ticked over every ten years, and an hour hand every century.

To give us a longer term perspective on things. The same clock was going to have a radio signal in every known human language warning of radioactive waste in the area. Allowing for the reality that our society will one day be gone. (Rome for example, lasted centuries. Those alive during it's zenith hardly figured it would fall)

Deejax · 10-10-2003, 03:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Yorick:
Deejax.... it wouldn't be the entire ocean that got universally warmer though would it? Ocean further away from the surface is extremely cold right? Wouldn't the water closer to the surface get warmer than water further away?

Secondly, wouldn't the water expand into areas where it already goes, such as tidal rivers and lakes? One huge shelf of ice is not going to raise the ocean levels that considerably I'd imagine. Doesn't ice annually freeze and melt each year on the two poles? Do we see higher ocean levels during global Spring and Autumn?

It was just a calculation to show the effect of the enormous amount of water the oceans contain. And it doesn't really matter that the temperature at greater dephts is lower. It is just a matter of an increase in temperature. If the average temperature of the water rises 1 degree, it results in an (approximate) increase of the water level by 1/3 meter.

I don't think that the melting of the south pole ice shelf will result in a significant increase of the water level, there just isn't enough. The effect of the existing water increasing in temperature is much larger. The same reasoning for the effect of melting (but reverse) goes for the tidal rivers and lakes. The capacity of these areas is not comparable with the amounts of extra water needed to raise the ocean levels by 30 cm.

As for changes ocean levels in the seasons. Firstly when it is spring on the northern hemisphere it is autumn on the southern. That should level things out. Secondly I think these changes are too swift to cause a structural change in the average water temperature.

Djinn Raffo · 10-10-2003, 03:40 AM

Timber Loftis, you said up there that Brazil told you 'if you're going to cut down a tree, burn it rather than let it rot.' because of reasons cited in your post..

Would this count for the wood in your house, in your coffee table?

I guess it obviously would as it going to rot sooner or later..

[ 10-10-2003, 03:43 AM: Message edited by: Djinn Raffo ]

10-08-2003, 07:31 PM	#21
Timber Loftis 40th Level Warrior Join Date: July 11, 2002 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 11,916	Seraph, it's accurate. What a 1 deg. change in ocean temp will do to overall ocean volume is phenomenal. This is a simple scientific property of water. I'd cite you a source, but they're all buried with my 4-year-old global warming research. Try www.pew.org or www.nrdc.org for some good info. I think they have search functions. Nerull, the methane is preposterous. Not because methane isn't a GHG -- it is. But, rather because cows farting don't amount to much. Besides, any herbivores (and some omnivore) farts will contain methane -- so blame all animals. But, even all that doesn't compare to the methane released by deforestation -- rotting trees release the most methane. As the minister from Brazil, who chaired the 4th Conference of Parties in Argentina, told me: If you're going to cut down a tree, for goodness sake, burn it rather than let it rot. Now, add the true sources of methane -- despite 7th grade fart logic -- to the fact that methane is BY FAR inferior to CO2 amounts in the air, toss in the fact that methane releases over the last 100-200 years have changed some (but not too much) while CO2 releases have doubled, trebled, quadrupled, and then doubled and trebled some more -- you get the picture. __________________

10-08-2003, 08:12 PM	#22
nokturnal_1 Elite Waterdeep Guard Join Date: May 8, 2003 Location: Home Age: 61 Posts: 9	Take a glass and fill it with ice, draw a line or use tape to indicate th exact level. Let the ice melt. mark the level and record the difference. Those on the coast need to move back about a foot. As far as the vehicle emmissions, any restrictions on vehicles are pointless. Ever notice that boats planes and trains worldwide have NO restrictions, 1 jetliner in 1 flight accross the U.S. pumps out the same amount of exaust as all the cars ALL the cars in the U.S. idling for 5 min.s. There are thousands of flights every day worldwide. Supposedly, 1 volcano eruption such as Mt. St. Helens puts 500 million tons of chemicals into the air, not including ash and rock and dust. Yeah I can understand an ice shelf dissapearing. Now back to emmissions. The millions of barrels of oil that are emmitting from the pumps in the middle east. What do you think will take place when you remove an "ice shelf" amount of material from underground, and have no plans for the huge cavities being left? Why doesn't Russia have as large of a nuclear waste problem as the U.S. when they operate just as many if not more reactors? (and china too) There used to be jungle (rainforests) over 70% of So. America. Now it is less than 45% Talk about shooting ones foot as one shoots into a crowd... This is but a smattering of the situations humans are making. Enjoy the world it won't be here for us much longer. (rather we will cease to be the dominant spiecies) __________________ When you come out of your daze, you will find me, the nokturnal one...

10-08-2003, 10:55 PM	#23
Yorick Very Mad Bird Join Date: January 7, 2001 Location: Breukelen (over the river from New Amsterdam) Age: 52 Posts: 9,246	If we were not here, there would be mass fires to eat up the oxygen plants emit. We are as much a part of the natural ecosystem as any other species or thing. I reject out of hand that human actions alone cause warming. Global seasons exist. The world has been much warmer before now, and much colder before now. What we are talking about is an increase of 1 degree over the last hundred years. But that will be enough to start melting some ice. But let's think for a minute... How did that ice get there? Was it water first? Is anyone aware of the vast inland areas of Australia that used to be underwater? Are we forgetting that the sea levels were once so low that Aboriginals walked from Asia to Australia, and Amerindians from Asia to North America? A feature of humanity, one which has ensured survival in every climate on earth, is ADAPTABILITY. So the oceans rise? It will merely shake up the status quo. Create new coastal areas. Areas that were barren will become fertile, and areas we live on now, we may not. Change is not to be feared but to be embraced. We will survive. The reaction that inclusively "humans suck - we suck - I suck" because of global warming is unhelpful, fatalistic and unproductive. Someone mentioned the Matrix "virus" analogy. It should be noted that the character that mentioned it was playing a Satan-like role in seeking to BREAK THE SPIRIT of the character he said it to. Certainly we can look at ourselves in that way and be full of revulsion and other negative energies which paralyse action and lead to impotent solutionless responses. A far more powerful impetus is POSITIVE energy. We can and are making huge inroads into managing the environment better. We are more aware of our actions on the environment. We are, one by one, nation by nation, choosing lifestyle choices that are environmentally friendly. It should be remembered that not all cultures destroyed the environment. Subsistence cultures, and nomadic cultures lived in cyclic environmental harmony quite sucessfully, but were overrun by the agrarian city dwelling cultures. It is the dominance and prevalence of a MINDSET that has been the problem, not humanity per se. CHOICES. We have control over the choices we make. Start by not turning on your airconditioner in your car. Before you criticise humanity globally look at that simple action. Does your comfort level mean more to you that the environment? Until you are prepared to sacrifice a little well-being for a "greater cause" there is no moral high ground. Car airconditioners directly contribute to the Ozone hole. There are many ways in which we can positively impact our world. Let's be doing these instead of proclaiming disempowering worlds of self-derision upon we humans. Cheers Yorick [ 10-08-2003, 11:18 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ] __________________ http://www.hughwilson.com

10-09-2003, 05:33 PM	#26
Yorick Very Mad Bird Join Date: January 7, 2001 Location: Breukelen (over the river from New Amsterdam) Age: 52 Posts: 9,246	Deejax.... it wouldn't be the entire ocean that got universally warmer though would it? Ocean further away from the surface is extremely cold right? Wouldn't the water closer to the surface get warmer than water further away? Secondly, wouldn't the water expand into areas where it already goes, such as tidal rivers and lakes? One huge shelf of ice is not going to raise the ocean levels that considerably I'd imagine. Doesn't ice annually freeze and melt each year on the two poles? Do we see higher ocean levels during global Spring and Autumn? What is of worse concern to me is that when the Ice shelf in question started melting, it cracked and lost a unique life ecosystem that had formed in the fresh water trapped on it's surface. The salt water replaced the fresh through the crack, and the ecosystem was destoryed. But, to my mind, this was always going to happen. Fresh water accumulating on a frozen shelf of saltwater?? Always going to be temporary. I'd love to join music producer Brian Eno's "Society for the long now" if I could. They planned to build a huge clock in Arizona that had a second hand that ticked over each year, a minute hand that ticked over every ten years, and an hour hand every century. To give us a longer term perspective on things. The same clock was going to have a radio signal in every known human language warning of radioactive waste in the area. Allowing for the reality that our society will one day be gone. (Rome for example, lasted centuries. Those alive during it's zenith hardly figured it would fall) __________________ http://www.hughwilson.com

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Cooling my PC ( an 8-day test of Arctic Silver 5)	Larry_OHF	General Discussion	61	01-27-2007 06:23 PM
Sign of things to come? Arctic ice shelf breakup reported	Chewbacca	General Discussion	11	09-24-2003 07:08 PM
Is this game still on the shelf?	Gangrell	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	5	06-28-2003 03:26 PM
Antarctic Ice Shelf Collapses	Ziroc	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	29	04-20-2002 12:40 AM
Something weird happening on the Antartic Ice Shelf Collapse thread....	Silver Cheetah	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	5	04-19-2002 03:49 PM

10-10-2003, 03:40 AM	#28
Djinn Raffo Ra Join Date: March 11, 2001 Location: Ant Hill Age: 49 Posts: 2,397	Timber Loftis, you said up there that Brazil told you 'if you're going to cut down a tree, burn it rather than let it rot.' because of reasons cited in your post.. Would this count for the wood in your house, in your coffee table? I guess it obviously would as it going to rot sooner or later.. [ 10-10-2003, 03:43 AM: Message edited by: Djinn Raffo ]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)