Hate me all you like

prophet

Active member
the evidence is piling up. continue being the selfish, juvenile fuck ups most of you love to be... good day.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0324/p01s03-sten.html

Little time to avoid big thaw, scientists warn

Arctic temperatures near a prehistoric level when seas were 16 to 20 feet higher, studies say.

By Peter N. Spotts | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Global warming appears to be pushing vast reservoirs of ice on Greenland and Antarctica toward a significant, long-term meltdown. The world may have as little as a decade to take the steps to avoid this scenario.

Those are the implications of new studies that looked to climate history for clues about how the planet's major ice sheets might respond to human-triggered climate change.

Already, temperatures in the Arctic are close to those that thawed much of Greenland's ice cap some 130,000 years ago, when the planet last enjoyed a balmy respite from continent-covering glaciers, say the studies' authors.

By 2100, spring and summer temperatures in the Arctic could reach levels that trigger an unstoppable repeat performance, they say. Over several centuries, the melt could raise sea levels by as much as 20 feet, submerging major cities worldwide as well as chains of islands, such as the present-day Bahamas.

The US would lose the lower quarter of Florida, southern Louisiana up to Baton Rouge, and North Carolina's Outer Banks. The ocean would even flood a significant patch of California's Central Valley, lapping at the front porches of Sacramento.

These estimates may understate the potential rise. The teams say their studies provide the first hints that during the last interglacial period, ice sheets in both hemispheres worked together to raise sea levels, rather than the Northern Hemisphere's ice alone. This raises concerns that Antarctic melting might be more severe this time, because additional melt mechanisms may be at work.

"It sounds bad," acknowledges Jonathan Overpeck, a University of Arizona researcher who led one of the two studies. He notes that rising temperatures are approaching a threshold. But "we know about it far enough in advance to avoid crossing it." The challenge, he and others say, is to take advantage of the remaining window by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases substantially.

The two studies were published in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

Ice on Greenland and Antarctica is already thinning faster than it's being replaced - and faster than scientists thought it would, notes Richard Alley, a paleoclimatologist at Penn State University and member of one of the research teams. Only five years ago, he notes, climate scientists expected the ice sheets to gain mass through 2100, then begin to melt. "We're now 100 years ahead of schedule," he says.

The new results aren't the end of the story. The researchers will refine the models, improve the measurements, and find other sources of data to verify the modeling. Coral data pointing to sea-level changes in the last warm period remain controversial, the team acknowledges. And the team's assumption that the amount of carbon dioxide would triple by 2100, although moderate among climate forecasts, is not a done deal. It depends on how quickly industrial and developing countries adopt low-emission technologies and take long-term steps to reduce greenhouse gases.

But the window for action is relatively short, Dr. Overpeck says. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for more than a century after it's first emitted. And it takes time to implement policies and adopt technologies. Thus for all practical purposes, the tipping point may come sooner than atmospheric chemistry would suggest.

The studies required some in-depth sleuthing. Researchers realized that changes in Earth's tilt and orbit intensified the sunlight reaching the Arctic during interglacial periods, notes Bette Otto- Bliesner, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. But when it came to the effect on the Arctic's ice, "no one knew how big the response would be."

So she and her colleagues first tested the center's newest climate model against temperature information gleaned from pollen, insects, ocean plankton, and other remnants of the period. The results matched closely.

Confident that they could reproduce the period's climate by computer, they linked the results to a second model with a reputation for accurately simulating ice sheets. Using ice-core samples and other evidence as a reality check, they concluded that within 1,000 to 2,000 years of the warming's onset, Greenland's ice sheet dwindled to a steep lump covering the island's central and northern parts. The melt water raised sea levels by seven to 11 feet.

But coral records from geologically stable parts of the ocean suggested that sea levels during that time rose 16 to 20 feet - a level that held for roughly 11,000 years. Overpeck, who had been working with Dr. Otto-Bliesner on the initial modeling exercise, says several lines of evidence led him to suspect that the balance came from Antarctica.

From there, the team used the climate model to estimate the warming that could occur by 2130 if CO2 emissions rose by 1 percent per year. In the pantheon of emissions scenarios, this represents a moderate one, he holds. But it's enough to triple CO2 concentrations by 2100, leading to summers that are 5 to 8 degrees F. warmer than today - levels that appear to have melted the ice 129,000 years ago.

p2a.gif


A NEW US COAST? In a few centuries, the US could lose major portions of its coastline (shown in red) because melting polar ice caps could slowly raise sea levels 20 feet, according to new research.

OK everyone, carry on.
 
hmm i dont deny that global warming is true, but i think that this whole article is taking it a bit far. i do not believe that in 94 years our sea levels will go up a whole 20 feet. thats extremely high. i would like to see actual studies rather than articles to make me fully believe that the water level will rise that much
 
OUr technology is to blame,but our technology will not solve the problem, we have to solve it,we created the technology that caused it.

Then again, the environment costs alot so lets not care about it, its not like we are going to die because of it, our kids will.(the conservative view)
 
Think of it:

We created technology (I cant come out of nowere). While creating our technology, he created a environmental problem (CO2).

Our technology doesn't have a mind of its own, the reaction is planned, but the consequences aren't.Our creation is governmed by one thing;us, the creator.

So to change the reaction and the negative effects, we must change the technology.Therefore, we created the solution!

Get it?
 
It didn't say the sea level will go up 20ft by 2100, but over several centuries.

And that article is a report of the studies and if you saw the actual studies, I doubt you'd get a whole lot out of it. The articles are there to make ordinary people who aren't scientists aware of the results.
 
not with Bush in the handle... maybe if you hadn't re-elected him, some kind of actions would have already been taken to decelerate the global warming, but Bush isn't even acknowledging the whole problem! Every other civilised country is taking part except for the biggest pollutor in the world, whose leader is an illiterate idiot. It makes me so fucking angry! "What's that Dick? Global warming? Well duh, it's spring!"
 
though this may be true, we can slow it down.

and as for skiing, wait a couple thousand years for an ice age, gonna be fuckin sick.
 
Some people really piss me off. If you have the opertunity to stop global warming why not take it. We have the technology right now to significantly decrease the greenhouse gas emitions, why not use it? Why to people still drive gas cars? There is no reason to anymore. There are hybrid SUVs, hybrid that are cheap, hybrids that are powerful. There is no reason no to drive the, and no South Park is not a valid reason not to. Even if global warming doesnt exist (which it does, there is very little debate anymore about that) why not take steps to stop pollution if you can. I'm not saying that everyone needs to go get a hybrid but why not get one next time you are on the market for a car?
 
Wow prophet, you're a tard. I understand your concern about this issue but to label everyone else on this site as fuck-ups for no apparent reason makes u a complete douche. Who's to say no one else cares about this issue as much or even more than u. And if they dont, that doesnt make them a fuck up, it means they have a different opinion on the situation. Not yours, but not wrong.
 
So, if I buy a condo in Burnaby now, you're saying that in a while, I'll have waterfront real estate in the "new Vancouver"? SWEET!
 
Notice they use the words, "may" and "might"... once again this could all be economic tree hugging bullshit. The earth naturally goes through these trends.
 
gwtippingpoint0326.jpg


The photograph taken in 1928, above, shows how the Upsala Glacier, part of the South American Andes in Argentina, used to look. The ice on the Upsala Glacier today, shown in 2004 below, is retreating at least 180 ft. per year
 
Well, actually, the west coast of N.A is sitting on a huge fault line where the atlantic plate is folding under the canadian shield. every 200 years, the fold snaps off, submerging the coast and sending a tidal wave across the ocean to japan. It wiped out all the natives on the coast, and many japanese towns. japan has built a breakwater in preparation for the next one, but when it happens, most of vancouver and seattle will be underwater. burnaby will be safe i think. its nice and high up.
 
seriously. i mean what are we all gonna do? stop driving to the muntains and using heaters? so we cant ski and we freeze solid during winter?
 
noooooooooooooo

if that does happen, then my house in north carolina will be gone. it is on an island in sunset beach. also, myrtle beach would be gone, along with the best place to golf that ive ever been
 
its impossible to judge an NS reaction on any particular day so why not start the generalizations with hate, it was more fun for me anyway.
 
^ of course we are.

This kid needs to shut up, and stop trying to prove himself/global warming. Who cares if its there or not, your going to pass anyways, pal, and G.W will prolly never affect you.

with a thread dubbed "hate me all you like" you need to leave n/s. You just told everyone to hate you all they like. Think about that ass.
 
.... and yet, we can't predict the weather a day ahead exactly yet...

it was supposed to be snowing, and im about to skate in a t-shirt with beautful skies and bright sunlight...

cyclical weather anyone? int he 70s we thought we were all gonna be screwed by global cooling.
 
WHAT ABOUT RAINFALL? Someone was like "oh its gonne rise about 20 feet" what about annnual rainfall, or temperature. Someone is showing water levels decreasing, why the other is showing them rise and yet they both agree global warming is responsible for water to rise.... yes fall??? hmm interesting global warming controls all of that.
 
WHAT ABOUT RAINFALL? Someone was like "oh its gonne rise about 20 feet" what about annnual rainfall, or temperature. Someone is showing water levels decreasing, why the other is showing them rise and yet they both agree global warming is responsible for water to rise.... yes fall??? hmm interesting global warming controls all of that.

*There is such thing as evaporation, water tends to do that.

People should let the earth do its thing, its going to do what it needs whether we like it or not. Time keeps moving no matter what and when your on your death bed global warming isnt going to mean shit.
 
Back
Top