Forum Index > Stewardship > Disappearing Glaciers
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
Allison
Feckless Swooner



Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 12304 | TRs
Location: putting on my Nikes before the comet comes
Allison
  Top

Feckless Swooner
PostFri Oct 13, 2006 12:30 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tvashtar wrote:

Yes, correlation.  Its a great big word that means one causes the other.   Causality...another great big word.  You've learned two in one day!

lol.gif I'm utterly apoplectic.*

*yesterday's word.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
whistlingmarmot
Sustainable Resource



Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 1657 | TRs
Location: Tacoma, WA
whistlingmarmot
  Top

Sustainable Resource
PostFri Oct 13, 2006 12:37 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Quote:

Doing nothing has a cost also. A recent study conducted by Tufts University places the cost of Global Warming at $20 trillion for a rise of 4 degrees C by 2100 if no action is taken.

There's no doubt that our warming climate will have an economic impact.  In some parts of the world it will hurt matters, in others it will help.

There's also no doubt that we can reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that we as humans put into it.  What isn't certain is if that will have an impact on global temps, and further world climate.  It is certain though that curbing energy use from fossil fuels will have a negative impact on the world economy, and billions of people.  That’s because human production of CO2 might modify world climate, but absolutely benefits the human condition.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
whistlingmarmot
Sustainable Resource



Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 1657 | TRs
Location: Tacoma, WA
whistlingmarmot
  Top

Sustainable Resource
PostFri Oct 13, 2006 12:39 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tvashtar wrote:

Yes, correlation.  Its a great big word that means one causes the other.   Causality...another great big word.  You've learned two in one day!

You must be joking, so I won't bother.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tvashtar
Tvashtalker



Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 1226 | TRs
Location: The 11th Dimension
Tvashtar
  Top

Tvashtalker
PostFri Oct 13, 2006 1:00 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
whistlingmarmot wrote:
There's no doubt that our warming climate will have an economic impact.  In some parts of the world it will hurt matters, in others it will help.

Name one where it will help.

whistlingmarmot wrote:
There's also no doubt that we can reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that we as humans put into it.  What isn't certain is if that will have an impact on global temps, and further world climate.

Over 700 scientific papers over the past 10 years on the subject, pretty much all of them, unanimously disagree with your last sentence, but, of course, you know better.
whistlingmarmot wrote:

It is certain though that curbing energy use from fossil fuels will have a negative impact on the world economy, and billions of people.

How do you come to this conclusion?  Reducing waste, inventing and building out new technologies, and building out mass transportation have all helped economies grow in the past, whereas environmental disasters cost the economy a lot of money.  I here this popular wisdom often...but I never here any credible supporting evidence to back it up.   Why would a world that runs more efficient systems on a greater percentage of bio fuels, wind, solar,and other renewable energy sources have a worse economy than one that runs on oil and coal?  Seems like the economy, quality of life, and public health would actually be better.

Case in point:  Puget Power just erected about a hundred 350 foot high  windmills near Vantage that will power 70,000 homes.  It took them only a couple of months to erect these monsters, which require very little mainanence, are completely scalable, and burn no fuel.  All in all a pretty simple, trouble free system compared to other types of power generation plants.  How does a project like this hurt the economy, exactly?

CO2 production does not help the human condition.  Energy availability does.

--------------
"We are, all of us, in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." - Oscar Wilde
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
whistlingmarmot
Sustainable Resource



Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 1657 | TRs
Location: Tacoma, WA
whistlingmarmot
  Top

Sustainable Resource
PostFri Oct 13, 2006 1:45 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tvashtar wrote:

Over 700 scientific papers over the past 10 years on the subject, pretty much all of them, unanimously disagree with your last sentence, but, of course, you know better.

Which one of these papers states a correlation between things means one causes the other?

Quote:

How do you come to this conclusion?

Because for billions of people using FF is the cheapest way for them to enhance their lives.

Quote:

Reducing waste, inventing and building out new technologies, and building out mass transportation have all helped economies grow in the past, whereas environmental disasters cost the economy a lot of money. 

Doing all of those things required the release of CO2.

Quote:

Why would a world that runs more efficient systems on a greater percentage of bio fuels, wind, solar,and other renewable energy sources have a worse economy than one that runs on oil and coal?  Seems like the economy, quality of life, and public health would actually be better.

There's no reason to say that a FF-free economy would be worse than FF.   But we don't have that.  What we have is a FF econ.  The reason is because it's the cheapest way to enhance our lot in life at this time.  Future knowledge and technology might further improve our lot without FF.   What you want, however, is an abrupt change away from FF globally.  To do that we would have to stop using FF (which means less of things we have from it), or have an alternative, which all cost more at this time.

Quote:

How does a project like this hurt the economy, exactly?

It might not hurt a bit.  I never claimed it did.

Quote:

CO2 production does not help the human condition.  Energy availability does.

Not quite a complete picture.  We currently have, and have always had all of the energy that will ever exist available to us.  What's missing is the knowledge to turn the energy into something that helps us.   We currently have tons of knowledge about FF, and so it's the cheapest thing to use.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tvashtar
Tvashtalker



Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 1226 | TRs
Location: The 11th Dimension
Tvashtar
  Top

Tvashtalker
PostFri Oct 13, 2006 2:09 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
whistlingmarmot wrote:

What you want, however, is an abrupt change away from FF globally.  To do that we would have to stop using FF (which means less of things we have from it), or have an alternative, which all cost more at this time.

Sounds like you're in violent agreement, so I'll just address this one statement I never made.

Previous links I've provided on this thread show a number of ways to bring carbon emissions down the the point where climate change is haulted.  They are gradual, and take into account the time and effort required to reduce our use of fossil fuels.  None of these scenarios calls for a complete stop to the burning of fossil fuels.  Gotta read the thread, my man.

What worries me and others is a lack of American leadership in this effort.  We produce 1/4 of humanity's greenhouse gases, so we should be stepping up to the plate at the federal level.  Fleet mileage standards would be a great place to start.  Deeper tax incentives for alternative energy (particularly passive solar for homes and low emission vehicles) would be another.  Public policy could do a lot more to provide the economic incentives that move us in the right direction.

--------------
"We are, all of us, in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." - Oscar Wilde
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
whistlingmarmot
Sustainable Resource



Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 1657 | TRs
Location: Tacoma, WA
whistlingmarmot
  Top

Sustainable Resource
PostFri Oct 13, 2006 2:40 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Forgive me, you said we needed "serious global cooperation and commitment" soon to tackle this problem.   Leadership by the US with gradual reductions by the US doesn't sound global....what about the rest of the world?  How will you enforce the reductions?  At what cost?  Your Wedge paper doesn't address those important factors going into the decision.  In fact, it sets aside cost entirely.

We agree only on that the planet is warmer.  A move away from FF will not be economical at this time, otherwise "public policy" and "economic incentives" wouldn't be required.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Mtn Dog
Technohiker



Joined: 01 Aug 2004
Posts: 3332 | TRs
Location: Bellevue, WA
Mtn Dog
  Top

Technohiker
PostFri Oct 13, 2006 8:41 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tvashtar:
Fox News has an entire section devoted to junk science and Steve Milloy is their primary writer on the subject.  The article came up as a counterpoint to some preconcieved notions regarding global warming, at least some of which is junk science and deserves to be debunked.  I think you misunderstand what the research hypothesizes.  The sun's magnetic field has doubled in strength through the 20th century thereby allowing less cosmic radiation to reach earth (from the sun itself, just as you said).  Experiments were conducted to validate the effect of cosmic radiation on the formation of clouds:

The article's author wrote:
The data collected indicate that the electrons released by the cosmic rays acted as catalysts to accelerate the formation of stable clusters of sulfuric acid and water molecules – the building blocks for clouds.

“Many climate scientists have considered the linkages from cosmic rays to clouds as unproven,” said Friis-Christensen who is the director of the Danish National Space Centre. “Some said there was no conceivable way in which cosmic rays could influence cloud cover. [This] experiment now shows they do so, and should help to put the cosmic ray connection firmly onto the agenda of international climate research,” he added.

Less cosmic radiation => fewer clouds => greater exposure of earth to the sun's heat energy => warming trend of earth's surface temps.

The other thing is with more CO2 in the atmosphere plant life is bound to flourish, provided other nutrients like nitrogen and water are readily available.  This helps earth's ecosystems rather than harming them.

--------------
Footprints on the sands of time will never be made sitting down.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Starjumper7
Human



Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1434 | TRs
Location: Southern Ecuador wilderness
Starjumper7
  Top

Human
PostSun Oct 15, 2006 10:55 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
The latest Scientific American has 'Catastrophysics' plastered in big letters across the cover.  There's a good article on the details of supernova explosions, and there's a very thorough article on global warming and how it has caused mass extinctions in the past.  These extinctions were not partial as some were, but more than 99% of all oxygen breathing life forms die out, only a few bacteria survive.

Evidently at the ocean bottom there are many creatures (bacteria mostly) which do not use oxygen and carbon for life support because there is little or no oxygen in some areas of the ocean floor.  Instead they consume hydrogen sulfide.  It turns out that when the ocean warms slightly that more hydrogen sulfide bubbles up from the ocean floor.  When enough hydrogen sulfide comes out it eventually reaches the surface where it then gets into the atmosphere.  Warm water holds less oxygen than cold.  The end result of this process is that the ocean runs out of oxygen and essentially all the oxygen/carbon life forms die out in the ocean.  Later as more hydrogen sulfide goes into the atmoshpere the trees die and all the oxygen in the atmosphere 'goes away' which causes all the land animals to suffocate. It also erases the ozone shield so intense UV finishes off the job.  This all happens very quicky in geological terms, in a matter of a few years once it really gets started as is self sustaining and accelerates quickly due to it's own greenhouse effect.  In addition, it gets very very hot.  This situation has occurred in the past at least twice and tends to last for about a million years before reverting back.  Hydrogen sulfide blooms are already reaching the surface of the ocean off the coast of Namibia.  They calculate that by the year 2200 that global warming will have advanced enough to trigger this sudden change.

Hydrogen sulfide bloom reaching the ocean surface near Namibia
When the hydrogen sulfide bacteria take over the ocean it will turn green with red blotches. up.gif

As the ocean warms more methane also bubbles out of the ocean floor, and methane is a strong greenhouse gas as well.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Gil
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Posts: 3762 | TRs

Gil
  Top

Member
PostTue Oct 17, 2006 12:31 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Hmmm. This is the caption at nasa.gov for that picture:

Brilliant green colors in the waters of the South Atlantic off the coast of Namibia mark out a large bloom of ocean plants and a hydrogen sulfide eruption.

Like neon signs against a black night sky, phytoplankton and hydrogen sulfide form brilliant green streaks in the ocean water off the coast of Namibia in southern Africa. Though the two splashes of color are caused by different things, they are connected.

On the left, the cloud of green is formed by millions of microscopic plants growing on the surface of the ocean. In this part of the South Atlantic, deep, cold ocean water hits the coast of Africa and pushes to the surface. The cold water brings nutrients up from the ocean’s depths, and this feeds a thriving marine ecosystem. Among the life nourished here is phytoplankton, the microscopic ocean plants that color the water on the left side of this image. Nutrients are so rich that dense blooms of phytoplankton often form off the southwest coast of Africa.

As the plants die, they sink to the ocean floor. There, bacteria consume the plants, using up all of the oxygen in the water. Anaerobic bacteria that don’t require oxygen take over the decay process, releasing hydrogen sulfide gas as they work on the phytoplankton. The gas accumulates until it erupts to the surface. On its way up, it interacts with oxygen in the upper layers of the ocean and releases pure sulfur, a powdery yellow solid. The yellow sulfur gives the water near the shore its distinctive green tint. The eruptions are accompanied by a strong smell—sulfur smells like rotting eggs—and fish kills.

Other photos of the sulfur plumes bear captions like this:

Hydrogen sulfide eruptions happen frequently off the shore of Namibia because of patterns in the ocean currents called upwelling. In this region, cold water pushes nutrients from the ocean floor to the surface, where ocean life thrives. In particular, large colonies of microscopic ocean plants, phytoplankton, grow in the nutrient rich water, forming the dark green swirls seen along the left edge of this image. As the plants use all of the nutrients, they die and sink to the sea floor where bacteria consume them. The bacteria release toxic hydrogen sulfide gas into the soil. Eventually, the toxic gas erupts from the soil. In addition to the bright waters seen by satellites, the event is marked by massive fish die-offs and a strong smell that resembles rotten eggs. To date, hydrogen sulfide eruptions have only been observed off the shore of Namibia.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Andrew
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 1178 | TRs
Location: Arlington
Andrew
  Top

Member
PostWed Nov 01, 2006 12:15 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
An article in the Seattle Times about our glaciers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
hyak.net
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Dec 2003
Posts: 142 | TRs
Location: Hyak, WA
hyak.net
  Top

Member
PostWed Nov 01, 2006 3:45 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
AndrewD wrote:
An article in the Seattle Times about our glaciers


Why is it that these GW people think the earth should 'stand still' just because they want it to.   The entire state was once covered in ice, which since melted away and that was long before the evils of man and his SUV.

Its a bummer that the glaciers are melting but the earth is going to do what the earth is going to do.   Mars is getting warmer too, what do we do?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11058 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Nov 01, 2006 4:43 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
thanks for the link, the article was pretty decent.. neat pics of the S Casc glacier.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Andrew
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 1178 | TRs
Location: Arlington
Andrew
  Top

Member
PostWed Nov 01, 2006 6:25 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
thanks for the link, the article was pretty decent.. neat pics of the S Casc glacier.

The South Cascade seems to be the most glaring example in the region.  It has been mentioned several times in reports elsewhere

What really tipped my boat was the information on the Blue Glacier.  Since 1987, it has lost an estimated average depth of 65 ft./year.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Gil
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Posts: 3762 | TRs

Gil
  Top

Member
PostThu Nov 02, 2006 2:20 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
hyak.net wrote:
Why is it that these GW people think the earth should 'stand still' just because they want it to.   The entire state was once covered in ice, which since melted away and that was long before the evils of man and his SUV.

The problem is that for parts of our state, no glaciers means no water in the summer and fall.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Disappearing Glaciers
  Happy Birthday Nancyann!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy