That means more freshwater to be contaminated. Maybe we ought to ship the stuff to the Gulf Coast.
I think this was the scientific theory used in that movie “Day After Tomorrow” where most of the world froze with disruption of the ocean currents due to fresh water being released from the ice caps.
[quote]campdirector wrote:
Global warming melting the Glaciers from Greenland will freshen the world’s oceans. This in turn, will disrupt the flow of the Gulf stream. The Gulf Stream helps keep the Globe warm. With the disruption of the Gulf Stream, the Globe will cool, and a mini-ice age could follow. [/quote]
Are you kidding? Do you have any idea how much energy is delivered to the earth by the sun every year? Have you heard of this thing called the greenhouse effect? You must be kidding…
[quote]andy bumphren wrote:
My physics teachers point of view is that you’re an idiot if you think we can produce enough energy to radically alter the temperature of the oceans.[/quote]
This statement is correct (or at least I’ll bet it is, I’m not going to check the math and you can’t make me!). It’s also irrelevant. The temperature of the Earth’s surface has far more to do with thermodynamics (heat transfer).
The Earth has several sources of heat (energy):
-
Heat trapped in the core when it formed. This amount is huge, and very steady.
-
Heat from the sun. Very small when compared to the heat of the core, but constant and of great impact on the surface of the Earth.
-
Humanity’s burning of fossil fuels. Not constant but so small who cares? As your physics teacher says, we’ll ignore this.
-
More esoteric stuff (friction caused by the Earth being “flexed” by the moon’s gravity, interaction of the Earth’s magnetosphere with the Solar Wind, gravitational potential energy from a constant barrage of micro meteors). I have no idea how much this is and I’m not looking it up tonight. I’m going to arbitrarily say it’s small, constant, and out of our control.
So how can the temperature of the surface change?
-
By changing how the Earth reflects sunlight (it’s albedo). If you increase the reflection of sunlight (more white clouds, cover the Earth in ice) then you decrease the amount of heat the Earth absorbs from the sun. So you decrease the temperature of the surface of the Earth. And if you decrease its reflectiveness (darker clouds) you increase heating from the sun.
-
By changing how the Earth radiates heat into space. The Earth constantly radiates heat into space as infrared radiation. Let’s say you changed the atmosphere so that it was more absorbent to infrared. Then it would start to absorb this energy that was leaving the Earth and heat up, until the atmosphere came back into equilibrium at a higher temperature. Or you could make the atmosphere less absorbent, causing the reverse to happen.
-
Other things we can’t control: Earth’s distance to the sun, the sun’s energy output, and so on.
So the relevant questions are: are we altering the Earth in such a way that it reflects more/less sunlight, or the atmosphere such that it absorbs more/less of the radiated heat? And if so, what will be the result of this when combined with everything else we can’t control?
Sorry for the lecture, science is like a drug for me, and Astronomy pure crack.
-Daniele
[quote]dgaetano wrote:
andy bumphren wrote:
My physics teachers point of view is that you’re an idiot if you think we can produce enough energy to radically alter the temperature of the oceans.
This statement is correct (or at least I’ll bet it is, I’m not going to check the math and you can’t make me!). It’s also irrelevant. The temperature of the Earth’s surface has far more to do with thermodynamics (heat transfer).
The Earth has several sources of heat (energy):
-
Heat trapped in the core when it formed. This amount is huge, and very steady.
-
Heat from the sun. Very small when compared to the heat of the core, but constant and of great impact on the surface of the Earth.
-
Humanity’s burning of fossil fuels. Not constant but so small who cares? As your physics teacher says, we’ll ignore this.
-
More esoteric stuff (friction caused by the Earth being “flexed” by the moon’s gravity, interaction of the Earth’s magnetosphere with the Solar Wind, gravitational potential energy from a constant barrage of micro meteors). I have no idea how much this is and I’m not looking it up tonight. I’m going to arbitrarily say it’s small, constant, and out of our control.
So how can the temperature of the surface change?
-
By changing how the Earth reflects sunlight (it’s albedo). If you increase the reflection of sunlight (more white clouds, cover the Earth in ice) then you decrease the amount of heat the Earth absorbs from the sun. So you decrease the temperature of the surface of the Earth. And if you decrease its reflectiveness (darker clouds) you increase heating from the sun.
-
By changing how the Earth radiates heat into space. The Earth constantly radiates heat into space as infrared radiation. Let’s say you changed the atmosphere so that it was more absorbent to infrared. Then it would start to absorb this energy that was leaving the Earth and heat up, until the atmosphere came back into equilibrium at a higher temperature. Or you could make the atmosphere less absorbent, causing the reverse to happen.
-
Other things we can’t control: Earth’s distance to the sun, the sun’s energy output, and so on.
So the relevant questions are: are we altering the Earth in such a way that it reflects more/less sunlight, or the atmosphere such that it absorbs more/less of the radiated heat? And if so, what will be the result of this when combined with everything else we can’t control?
Sorry for the lecture, science is like a drug for me, and Astronomy pure crack.
-Daniele[/quote]
OK. So Daniele is right. However, most of the things she mentions we can have no effect on.
Now, she mentions albedo. Albedo is a direct result of a measurable parameter called leaf area index. Leaf area indices were measured directly using LIDAR on STS-63 and STS-65 - I know, I was there on the ground in White Sands and Muroc measuring solar thickness when the shuttle flew over.
Leaf area indices on most continents have remained relatively stable over the years. However, clear cutting of the Amazon rain forests have resulted in a significant change in leaf area index with a significant rise in albedo for that region. That region is also significant because it lies on the equator and is thus subject to the suns rays most directly.
Additionally, so-called greenhouse gases, contribute to an increase in the solar thickness. I didn’t explain that one up there, so I’ll do it here. Solar thickness is a measurement of everything that has an effect on light between the Earth at ground level and the Sun. Since, 99.9999999% of all the stuff between those two points is in the atmosphere of the Earth, it is a direct measurement of pollution, moisture vapor and anything else that’s floating around in the atmosphere.
Solar thickness is worst over the equator and thinnest over arid regions like the Mojave, the Gobi, the Sahara and White Sands, NM. It’s also thin at the poles, but the poles are not subject to direct (normal) incident rays from the Sun, hence not much of a contributor to Albedo.
Did I have a point? Yes. We CAN and HAVE significantly altered the heating of our atmosphere by clear cutting rain forests. Increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are a contributor but the bulk of these are formed through geologic processes - see my earlier post on Pinatubo. Manufacturing has not had a measurable effect, in my opinion.
That’s my two cents. I hope I got all the facts right. I worked in the Atmospheric Research Lab over 10 years ago and since then, I hadn’t thought much about it.
Good thread, by the way.
Bubba
[quote]StevenF wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
StevenF wrote:
… Also, howcome they never explored the area before anyone brought attention to the melting ice?
Discuss.
Not sure what you mean by this. I am reading True North Peary, Cook and the Race to the Pole. Cool book.
We have been exploring and learning about these areas as quickly as technology has allowed.
I just saw a special on the news where they were just discovering all these creatures that live below the ice for the first time. I figured since it was the first time they had seen these no one has been exploring it, no? [/quote]
I think we are now technogically able to find these things. It is not that we were not exploring before, it is just that we are building on past exploration and we are using better equipment and techniques.
We will continue to find things we have never seen before.
Okay, I was reading through the scientific discussion, but I didn’t see anyone mention that greenhouse gases don’t absorb infrared, they reflect it.
I also noticed it was summarily dismissed as to whether or not it was significant. Probably not a good idea…
Heat, whether originally from the sun as various forms of radiant energy or from the core, once reaching the surface of the Earth will be radiated in all directions as heat.
Greenhouse gases will reflect more of this radiated heat back to the surface, keeping the surface of the land (and water) at a higher temperature.
The heating of the surface and hance the air in contact with it, will have a large effect on weather (or what is known as climate on a large scale).
We can argue until the cows come home about many aspects of this, such as the size of various contributions, BUT YOU CANNOT ARGUE WITH THE RAW PHYSICS INVOLVED IN HEAT RADIATION, REFLECTION AND ABSORPTION.
So, instead, the arguments really center around whether or not humans and their industrial processes are able to have an impact on the concentration of thermally significant gases in the atmosphere.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Okay, I was reading through the scientific discussion, but I didn’t see anyone mention that greenhouse gases don’t absorb infrared, they reflect it.
I also noticed it was summarily dismissed as to whether or not it was significant. Probably not a good idea…
Heat, whether originally from the sun as various forms of radiant energy or from the core, once reaching the surface of the Earth will be radiated in all directions as heat.
Greenhouse gases will reflect more of this radiated heat back to the surface, keeping the surface of the land (and water) at a higher temperature.
The heating of the surface and hance the air in contact with it, will have a large effect on weather (or what is known as climate on a large scale).
We can argue until the cows come home about many aspects of this, such as the size of various contributions, BUT YOU CANNOT ARGUE WITH THE RAW PHYSICS INVOLVED IN HEAT RADIATION, REFLECTION AND ABSORPTION.
So, instead, the arguments really center around whether or not humans and their industrial processes are able to have an impact on the concentration of thermally significant gases in the atmosphere.[/quote]
Exactly. My opinion is everything we have done doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.
1.) Mount Pinatubo - a volcano in the Phillipines that erupted in 1992 spouted more HCFC’s into the atmosphere every 10 minutes than mankind has in their entire existence. It erupted for two weeks.
Which means that Mt. Pinatubo put 20,000x more HCFC’s into the atmosphere than all have mankind ever has. And people still believe Kyoto was a good idea?
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
…Exactly. My opinion is everything we have done doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.
…[/quote]
In the immortal words of Frank Drebin:
“This is our hill and these are our beans.”
As to greenhous gasses not allowing radiation to penetrate the earth’s atmosphere that is only partially correct. What should be more bothersome is that they cannot escape. It is not really known exactly what direction the warming of the planet will take, however, current models idicate rising ocean temps. This is not good. We are a planet of water (aprrox 70% of total earth mass). Much of this water is locked as ice under the polar caps. As it melts rising waters are the least of the worries. For exapmple, as an experiment take a glass of ice and fill it to the brim with water and allow it to melt. You should notice that the level of the water does not change much in fact it should decrease a little. This is due to the fact that the density of ice is lower than water. Don’t beleive me fill a sealable bottle with water, seal it, freeze it, come back the next day and clean out your freezer–it will explode becasue it expands as it freezes. Volumes of water will shrink as the ice melts as long as it does not stray too far from freezing temps (roughly 4C).
Now on the other hand water temps rise and thus water will also expand (H2O is unique in these properties)–so we could see the oceans rise some what. However, the ammount of water will never change. Also, this is fresh water which has an even lower density. Overall, the salinity will become lower and also lower the oceans a little as the salt mixes with the fresh water. Aquatic life will be the most affected.
The biggest worries should be from the atmospheric changes contributed to rising water temps. As you may or may not know our entire climate is contributed to by the oceans–wind, rain, temperatures (somewhat), ocean currents, etc.
Hurricanes are a direct result of ocean temp. Which is why they manefest in equatorial regions. We could be looking at stronger and more severe reaching impact that historical precedent has given us.
food for thought, anyway.
gruss,
LIFT
[quote]vroom wrote:
We can argue until the cows come home [/quote]
Don’t even get started on cows. No one has mentioned cow flatulence as one of the main sources of greenhouse gases. Let’s cast blame where it belongs.
As for the effect humans will ultimately have on the earth, it is probably all moot. We are most likely going to perish due to a cataclysmic natural disaster, such as the Yellowstone caldera erupting (which it is more or less due, give or take 1,000 years)or an asteroid impact. Because of this, I take the “What About Bob” view on fear - the only thing that scares me is Tourette’s.
Everyone is so concerned about preventing human suffering (a not unnoble cause, mind you) that we are jeopardizing mining the shit out of this planet for our own satisfaction. I’m all for strip-mining if it provides me with cheaper cars. Let’s drill away the earth’s surface so I can at least have cheap gas for my car trip around the U.S. before I die. Screw global warming and the atmosphere if it means I have a nice big styrofoam cooler full of cold beer for my long weekend. Skin the damn minks so my slippers are nice and soft. It’s creature comforts that make the world go round.
BTW, last winter in NJ was cold as a witch’s tit and I shoveled more than my share of snow, so if the temperature goes up a little, that much the better.
(Lest anyone gets pissed at me, a good bit of this was tongue-in-cheek, albeit with some points in there somewhere)
Good thread, fun debating…
DB
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
And people still believe Kyoto was a good idea?[/quote]
(Shhh. There’s Canadians on this board.)
DB
Correct me if I am wrong, but the HCFC’s aren’t the issue with respect to global warming.
Also, before accepting your raw numbers with respect to HCFC’s, I’d like to see the differences between the chemical compositions, their reactivity and the rate of their breakdown in the upper atmosphere.
From what you’ve said, we have no way to know whether or not what we have done is insignificant or not. While it sounds great as a claim, there is hard science required underneath to back it up.
I don’t know myself, but I do know what I’d need to see to be convinced – and that wasn’t it.
A quick search yields this…
HCFC (hydrochlorofluorocarbon) - a fluorocarbon that is replacing chlorofluorocarbon as a refrigerant and propellant in aerosol cans; considered to be somewhat less destructive to the atmosphere.
CFC (chlorofluorocarbon) - a fluorocarbon with chlorine; formerly used as a refrigerant and as a propellant in aerosol cans; “the chlorine in CFCs causes depletion of atmospheric ozone”.
[quote]andy bumphren wrote:
My physics teachers point of view is that you’re an idiot if you think we can produce enough energy to radically alter the temperature of the oceans.
so the water will rise, and
4.8*10^15 gal. 3778.5 g/gal. 4.18 joules/g**C 1C = 7.610^19 j
the most powerful device we have ever used created 2.110^17 j, so theoretically we could have a huge effect on global warming if we kept dropping a ton of bombs. the energy consumption in the U.S. is in the ?*10^15 j range.
So in theory we could be raising the temperature of the oceans but how much of that energy is directed into oceans i dont know. I would guess that more of it is dissipated in the atmosphere. Maybe that energy is disipated into space? who knows. I know its not going directly into the ocean because for the last 10 years the beaches at cape cod have been in the low sixties and i’d assume they’ve been like that for a while.
[/quote]
But what does he consider radical? All it takes is a few % change which is possible–and he is thinking on a general level–as it is the temp varies as one goes away from the equator–this will always be true. Now think on a local scale. The carribbean sea for example. You can imagine the weather systems created by warm ocean temps there–just think 9 month hurricane season instead of 6. No, someone living on the coast of Finland may not see drastic results (depending on your perspective). But it will more drastically affect some than others.
The theory is that the particulate matter volcanos spew into the atmosphere actually cools the earth by preventing sunshine from penetrating the atmosphere.
I don’t think anyone has mentioned sunspots yet. These have a big effect on how much of the suns radiation we receive.
Many scientists make their living researching this stuff. Many scientists used to make a living researching this stuff and quit doing it because they think CO2 induced global warming is BS.
I have no idea what the truth is. Keep researching but don’t make rash decisions (Kyoto).