Question for EricMM

[Guest Cerebus]

I saw this and it kinda made my head spin so I wanted to ask our resident enviorment expert. "Tornados level downtown Los Angeles, tidal waves drown Manhattan, and then everything freezes." I was under the impression this would be the cause of Bush's tax cuts not global warming.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Once again..Indiana becomes prime property.

[EricMM 0]

Er, having not read up on this movie at all (it's on Fox) I'm going to hazard a basic "No" at least not all of that, not that quickly.

 

Global warming is a gradual change over time. It's not an on/off switch, it's a process. It's a process that's already been put in motion, and it's a process that will be in motion regardless of what we do today. In fact the only reason anyone is looking to stop the process of global warming is to lessen the impact it will have on us.

 

That being said, global warming will do just that. It will raise the average temperature of the globe a few scant degrees. Surely not more than 10 or 20 (over a period of a century) what this will do is cause the ice stored in the polar caps to melt. This will raise the sealevels to levels unseen in a millenia. It won't take much to melt the caps, there are plenty of areas which rest at *just* freezing, so even raising the temperature of those areas one or two degrees would cause those areas to eventually melt. let alone five, nine, or twelve. Its just a matter of how much of the caps will melt. This will effect the levels of the seas, and areas near the coast that are practically at sealevel will be covered.

 

But that's not the main concern. What global warming will do is cause the earth's climates to shift. We are in a very set pattern, us societies. We do not need our weather to change drastically. Areas that are of one climate will change to a warmer one, and the hottest ones will become even moreso. Suffice to say, the tropics will expand. Areas like the mid atlantic (where I live) will become more tropical, with more storms and precipitation. The main effect would be on areas we traditionally deem as agricultural. Certain crops like certain climates, if the climates shift, we'll have to move where we grow crops. This probably won't effect the U.S., but for other parts of the world where people don't have the options we do, and their rice stops growing so well, or their rainfall changes, it will lead to famine. The U.S. will thankfully never have to deal with actual famine.

 

SO to answer your question, I don't know if L.A. would become prime tornado country if it got warmer. It might, but it might not, again I don't know. I certainly wouldn't expect Tsunamis in New York, but the surf would increase. I don't think everything would freeze unless there was so much water in the air that the sun was permenantly blocked off, which I certainly don't see happening due to global warming, anytime soon.

[Guest MikeSC]

Thing is, we still have NO idea if global warming is even occurring. -=Mike

[Guest Vitamin X]

Really?

 

Well, guess I'm going to have to move further inland

[EricMM 0]

I would presume that Mike would forward the theory that pollution is not (and CANNOT) cause global warming.

 

But he's W-R-O-N-G.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

The melting of the icecaps won't change sealevel at all. It is already in the ocean. Melting the continental glaciers in Greenland & Antarctica would make a difference, but it still isn't the real problem. By far the biggest concern is the expansion of water molecules due to the warming of the oceans. You can try this yourself at home. Water expands when heated.

 

 

Global warming is a gradual change over time. It's not an on/off switch, it's a process. It's a process that's already been put in motion, and it's a process that will be in motion regardless of what we do today. In fact the only reason anyone is looking to stop the process of global warming is to lessen the impact it will have on us.

 

Using a large scale, the earth is getting cooler, not warmer. Global warming, even if you are right about us being the cause of it, is only something that will affect the current interglacial. Nothing we can do can compare to the factors (plate positions, axial tilt, extraterrestrial impacts) that are the cause of every ice age we have ever been in, and are still in fact in. Anything we can do at this point will be very minor in the geologic timescale. You are right about the last part, even though the reason is still faulty. Climate always changes. It either gets colder or warmer, and life adapts to it. If you are trying to stop it, you're fighting a battle you can't win.

 

Surely not more than 10 or 20 (over a period of a century) what this will do is cause the ice stored in the polar caps to melt.

 

Latest estimates are at about 1.5 degrees Celcius over the next century. Down from the 8 degrees predicted in the 1988 due to better climate models, computers, etc.

 

But that's not the main concern. What global warming will do is cause the earth's climates to shift. We are in a very set pattern, us societies. We do not need our weather to change drastically. Areas that are of one climate will change to a warmer one, and the hottest ones will become even moreso. Suffice to say, the tropics will expand. Areas like the mid atlantic (where I live) will become more tropical, with more storms and precipitation. The main effect would be on areas we traditionally deem as agricultural. Certain crops like certain climates, if the climates shift, we'll have to move where we grow crops. This probably won't effect the U.S., but for other parts of the world where people don't have the options we do, and their rice stops growing so well, or their rainfall changes, it will lead to famine. The U.S. will thankfully never have to deal with actual famine.

 

You are almost right here. Yes, latitude is important, but due to the rotation of the earth the west coast will get it pretty bad whereas the climate on the east coast (especially in the interior, places like Ohio, Indiana & Ontario) of North America would actually improve. The equatorial regions of the world won't experience much change at all. They were roughly the same during the Cretaceous as it is now. The north and west of continents would experience the most change.

 

SO to answer your question, I don't know if L.A. would become prime tornado country if it got warmer. It might, but it might not, again I don't know.

 

Maybe. I don't know the local weather patterns in Southern California. However, the heat island effect has produced tornados in other cities (most famously Atlanta). Cities are hotter than the surrounding country-side due to lower albedo, and as a result new airmasses are formed above cities and produce cyclones with the cooler air above the surrounding country. As for tornados, it would probably be rare that cyclones are created that are that strong, but it certainly could happen. California seems pretty warm regardless, so I would guess that it wouldn't happen there, but I don't know. It is certainly a possibility in other places.

 

 

I don't think everything would freeze unless there was so much water in the air that the sun was permenantly blocked off, which I certainly don't see happening due to global warming, anytime soon.

 

Yeah, you're right here.

[Guest MikeSC]

I would presume that Mike would forward the theory that pollution is not (and CANNOT) cause global warming.

 

But he's W-R-O-N-G.

Just to give the opposing views:

Political leaders are gathered in Kyoto, Japan, working away on an international treaty to stop "global warming" by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The debate over how much to cut emissions has at times been heated--but the entire enterprise is futile or worse. For there is not a shred of persuasive evidence that humans have been responsible for increasing global temperatures. What's more, carbon dioxide emissions have actually been a boon for the environment.

 

The myth of "global warming" starts with an accurate observation: The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising. It is now about 360 parts per million, vs. 290 at the beginning of the 20th century, Reasonable estimates indicate that it may eventually rise as high as 600 parts per million. This rise probably results from human burning of coal, oil and natural gas, although this is not certain. Earth's oceans and land hold some 50 times as much carbon dioxide as is in the atmosphere, and movement between these reservoirs of carbon dioxide is poorly understood. The observed rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide does correspond with the time of human release and equals about half of the amount released.

 

Carbon dioxide, water, and a few other substances are "greenhouse gases." For reasons predictable from their physics and chemistry, they tend to admit more solar energy into the atmosphere than they allow to escape. Actually, things are not so simple as this, since these substances interact among themselves and with other aspects of the atmosphere in complex ways that are not well understood. Still, it was reasonable to hypothesize that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels might cause atmospheric temperatures to rise. Some people predicted "global warming," which has come to mean extreme greenhouse warming of the atmosphere leading to catastrophic environmental consequences.

 

Careful Tests

 

The global-warming hypothesis, however, is no longer tenable. Scientists have been able to test it carefully, and it does not hold up. During the past 50 years, as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen, scientists have made precise measurements of atmospheric temperature. These measurements have definitively shown that major atmospheric greenhouse warming of the atmosphere is not occurring and is unlikely ever to occur.

 

The temperature of the atmosphere fluctuates over a wide range, the result of solar activity and other influences. During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average.

 

 

 

 

Why are temperatures rising? The first chart nearby shows temperatures during the past 250 years, relative to the mean temperature for 1951-70. The same chart shows the length of the solar magnetic cycle during the same period. Close correlation between these two parameters--the shorter the solar cycle (and hence the more active the sun), the higher the temperature--demonstrates, as do other studies, that the gradual warming since the Little Ice Age and the large fluctuations during that warming have been caused by changes in solar activity.

 

The highest temperatures during this period occurred in about 1940. During the past 20 years, atmospheric temperatures have actually tended to go down, as shown in the second chart, based on very reliable satellite data, which have been confirmed by measurements from weather balloons.

 

Consider what this means for the global-warming hypothesis. This hypothesis predicts that global temperatures will rise significantly, indeed catastrophically, if atmospheric carbon dioxide rises. Most of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has occurred during the past 50 years, and the increase has continued during the past 20 years. Yet there has been no significant increase in atmospheric temperature during those 50 years, and during the 20 years with the highest carbon dioxide levels, temperatures have decreased.

 

In science, the ultimate test is the process of experiment. If a hypothesis fails the experimental test, it must be discarded. Therefore, the scientific method requires that the global warming hypothesis be rejected.

 

Why, then, is there continuing scientific interest in "global warming"? There is a field of inquiry in which scientists are using computers to try to predict the weather--even global weather over very long periods. But global weather is so complicated that current data and computer methods are insufficient to make such predictions. Although it is reasonable to hope that these methods will eventually become useful, for now computer climate models are very unreliable. The second chart shows predicted temperatures for the past 20 years, based on the computer models. It's not surprising that they should have turned out wrong--after all the weatherman still has difficulty predicting local weather even for a few days. Long-term global predictions are beyond current capabilities.

 

So we needn't worry about human use of hydrocarbons warming the Earth. We also needn't worry about environmental calamities, even if the current, natural warming trend continues: After all the Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without ill effects.

 

But we should worry about the effects of the hydrocarbon rationing being proposed at Kyoto. Hydrocarbon use has major environmental benefits. A great deal of research has shown that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permit plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also increases.

 

Standing timber in the United States has already increased by 30% since 1950. There are now 60 tons of timber for every American. Tree-ring studies further confirm this spectacular increase in tree growth rates. It has also been found that mature Amazonian rain forests are increasing in biomass at about two tons per acre per year. A composite of 279 research studies predicts that overall plant growth rates will ultimately double as carbon dioxide increases.

 

Lush Environment

 

What mankind is doing is moving hydrocarbons from below ground and turning them into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with twice as much plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the industrial revolution.

 

Hydrocarbons are needed to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe. This can eventually allow all human beings to live long, prosperous, healthy, productive lives. No other single technological factor is more important to the increase in the quality, length and quantity of human life than the continued, expanded and unrationed use of the Earth's hydrocarbons, of which we have proven reserves to last more than 1,000 years. Global warming is a myth. The reality is that global poverty and death would be the result of Kyoto's rationing of hydrocarbons.

 

Arthur Robinson and Zachary Robinson are chemists at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm

 

And

What popular assertions abut global warming have no credible basis?

 

* Is it likely there will be more frequent storms, hurricanes, typhoons? This may seem physically plausible, but there is no model evidence to support it.

 

* Will mid-latitude cyclones become stronger leading to stronger winds? There is no research evidence to support this.

 

* Will higher surface temperatures lead to melting of the South Polar ice cap and contribute to sea-level rise? Higher temperatures in the polar region lead to higher saturation vapor pressures and therefore higher absolute humidity. Because temperatures over the South Polar land mass is so far below the melting point, a few degrees of warming will not increase melting but will increase snowfall. Even if the projections of little temperature rise over Antarctica are wrong, warming likely will increase, not decrease, ice accumulation over the South Polar region.

 

What scientific studies call into question the concept of global warming?

 

While the overwhelming body of evidence (from instrumental surface temperature records, retreat of mountain glaciers, borehole temperature trends, bleaching of coral reefs) suggest a warming, there are two studies that raise some doubts. The first is the satellite temperature measurements since 1979 reported by Spencer and Christy (see Christy et al, 1995), which show a warming but only half the value of surface measurements over this time. A statistical study (Friis-Christensen, E. and K. Lassen, 1991) suggests changes in the cycle of seasons are responsible for the global temperature changes over the last 100 years, although no link to radiative forcing is presented to identify the physical processes. These studies require further investigation, but they do not at present offer substantial challenge to the evidence that global warming is a reality (Houghton et al, 1996).

 

Some who doubt that recent warming is of anthropogenic origin contend that much of the warming over the last 130 years was early in the present century before the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide began its rapid rise, and therefore must be due to natural variability. Modelers counter that when the effects of sulfates (which are formed from sulfur dioxide emitted in coal combustion and lead to cloud brightening and hence cooling effects) are included, the observed warming is very likely anthropogenic.

http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse/mod...o2/seedsci.html

 

I could do more, but I don't think it'd accomplish much.

-=Mike

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

For an interesting and well-researched perspective on these issues, I recommend "The Sceptical Environmentalist" by the Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg.