Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Global Warming
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 8 of 115 (376259)
01-11-2007 4:04 PM


Biblical Prophesy vs. Global Warming

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Vacate, posted 01-11-2007 4:27 PM Fosdick has not replied

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 14 of 115 (376327)
01-11-2007 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by subbie
01-11-2007 6:48 PM


Re: Another viewpoint
subble wrote:
How can CO2 be responsible for the "temperature anomaly" if the temperature rise began before the CO2 rise did?
At least one person thinks the causation may go in the other direction.
Yes, I think what Robert Essenhigh is saying in the link”GLOBAL WARMING NATURAL, MAY END WITHIN 20 YEARS”should be carefully considered. For one thing, there are plenty of geologists who are suspicious that such a warming cycle might be the vanguard of another glaciation.
But local air pollution from carbon combustion is enough of a reason, for me at least, to try to clean up the atmosphere. Look at the progress made in LA”if catatlytic converters were not required LA air would not be fit to breathe. So of course there are immediate health benefits to cutting carbon dioxide emissions.
”Hoot Mon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by subbie, posted 01-11-2007 6:48 PM subbie has not replied

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 30 of 115 (376622)
01-12-2007 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by fallacycop
01-11-2007 9:00 PM


falacycop writes:
...Besides, The temperature change of the air could take a very long time indeed to be reflected as a temperature change of the ocean due to water`s high specific heat. 3000 meters of water is a lot of water to heat.
To top it off, the ocean is heated from above, which means that we would have to wait the natural cycling of the ocean`s water in order to have it all heated up. This cycle takes several thousand years.
Your entire post makes sense to me, except for this last point (above). I was unaware that there are oceanic cycles that substantially disturb the global water column and occur with periods of several thousand years. Probably the effects of such dynamics are quite variable on a global scale. I was under the impression that deep-trench water, for example, is so firmly locked inplace as to be regarded as "fossilized water." Once I took part in a study for USDOE to determine if high-level nuclear wastes could be disposed of in these trenches. Dixie Lee Ray, the energy secretary back then, was promoting deep-sea burial of HLW. The study concluded, affirmatively for her, that once those HLW settled into a trench they would be there for a very long time, even while decay-heating the ambient water. (This is NOT my preferred method of HLW disposal.) So I am curious about these verticle natural cycles. Do you have a reference to recommend?
”Hoot Mon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by fallacycop, posted 01-11-2007 9:00 PM fallacycop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by fallacycop, posted 02-08-2007 1:51 PM Fosdick has not replied

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 46 of 115 (383484)
02-08-2007 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by crashfrog
02-08-2007 11:44 AM


Re: Mans not the cause of global cooling or global warming!
crashfrog wrote:
In fact, there's such a considerable basis that the IPCC's newest report concludes at least a 90% certainty that humans are primarily responsible for elevated atmospheric carbon levels that force global warming. In fact, studies since the IPCC's TAR have shown that the total contribution to warming from solar radiation was overestimated in that document by a factor of 3 to 4. The sun is definitely not to blame for global warming.
Yup, I pretty much agree. But I fear global-climate instability even more than global warming, which itself may be a measure of our climate entering a relatively unstable period. We may even get warming on the sort term and glaciation on the long term. Add to that the chance that Earth's magnetic poles may reverse themselves sometime soon, which, as I understand it, will temporarily weaken or disrupt the Van Allen belts that protect Earth's atmosphere from the solar winds. We might even lose our atmosphere altogether if the timing of solar winds are coincidental with Earth's polar reversal. Some say Mars lost its atmosphere that way.
I'm sure to get my ankles bitten over this, but I can't stop wondering so foolishly about such possibilities.
”Hoot Mon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by crashfrog, posted 02-08-2007 11:44 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 02-08-2007 12:56 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 48 by Richbee, posted 02-08-2007 1:06 PM Fosdick has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024