WTFDetroit.com

View Full Version : The Big Thaw?



Black Dynamite
03-25-2006, 08:48 PM
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.

DennyMcLain
03-25-2006, 10:20 PM
An article from the Christian Science Monitor, eh?

I believe I witnessed a similar story in God's Wrath Weekly.

Black Dynamite
03-25-2006, 10:53 PM
An article from the Christian Science Monitor, eh?

I believe I witnessed a similar story in God's Wrath Weekly.
interesting. so are you disputing the big thaw theory's legitmacy? Do you consider the ice caps not to be melting?

I guess the timeline is debatable. But the results arent IMO. but JMHO.

Darth Thanatos
03-25-2006, 11:14 PM
Why do people say "IMO"(or anything similar)? Whatever that comes out of your mouth is your opinion.

back on topic........

Stuff like this scares the crap out of me. Why must these threats occur during my generation? Now my future dynasty and I will have to suffer because of the errors of mankind.

Or am I just overreacting and panicking way too much?

Black Dynamite
03-25-2006, 11:26 PM
Or am I just overreacting and panicking way too much?
I hate it when people ask for your opinion on themselves as if they need one to help with the obvious. [smilie=applause.gi:

Darth Thanatos
03-25-2006, 11:27 PM
Owned?

b-diddy
03-25-2006, 11:35 PM
Why do people say "IMO"(or anything similar)? Whatever that comes out of your mouth is your opinion.

even though i do it all the time, you just went up a few points in my book.




back on topic........

Stuff like this scares the crap out of me. Why must these threats occur during my generation? Now my future dynasty and I will have to suffer because of the errors of mankind.

Or am I just overreacting and panicking way too much?

did you ever wonder how they got ice before electricity? what a crappy job that must have been, going up to mountains and to the north pole to bring back a slab of ice thats probably half melted before you get to anyone who would have use for ice.

you, and your dynasty, should just sit back and enjoy the technological paradise that we have created. and dont worry about the flooding, someone else will take care of it.

b-diddy
03-25-2006, 11:40 PM
and, i clicked on this thread assuming that rorschach had a typo, and intended:

http://www.goldblum.com/Magazine/vanity.jpg

the big chill starring jeff goldbloom.

SKelly
03-26-2006, 12:01 AM
I call bullshit.

MOLA1
03-26-2006, 03:53 AM
Owned?THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS YOU!

Taymelo
03-26-2006, 07:45 AM
Owned?THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS YOU!

No, it doesn't.

Stop fibbing.

Pharaoh
03-26-2006, 08:50 AM
I call bullshit.

I'm not saying I agree with the theory but ...

Could you explain why you call "bullshit", Stu?

MoTown
03-26-2006, 11:58 AM
I recommend anyone who is worried to read one of Michael Crichton's newer novels called "State of Fear." Then you won't keep hearing the one-sidedness of this argument.

SKelly
03-26-2006, 12:46 PM
I call bullshit.

I'm not saying I agree with the theory but ...

Could you explain why you call "bullshit", Stu?
No reason

the wrath of diddy
03-26-2006, 08:12 PM
LMFAO! Of course you don't believe in global warming. You're a neocon bushbot ditto head. You have no choice but to believe the commander and chimp over science on this issue.

Pharaoh
03-27-2006, 10:42 AM
I call bullshit.

I'm not saying I agree with the theory but ...

Could you explain why you call "bullshit", Stu?
No reason

So there is NO reason for you to call bullshit, yet you called it?

WTF? Are you on crack?

Do you often call bullshit on subjects for no reason at all?

And if you do why should I value your opinion on anything at all?

You MUST have a reason.

Maybe you disagree with th article? That's a reason. Fuck, I didn't even read the article - you could have fucking lied to me and I wouldn't have known.

But "No Reason"? WTF?

I was actually hoping you would have something rather intelligent to post on the subject, which is why I called you on it.

What a waste of my time.

Fuck! [smilie=angryfire.g:

the wrath of diddy
03-27-2006, 10:46 AM
Republicans don't believe in science.

the wrath of diddy
03-27-2006, 10:49 AM
The polar ice caps are melting because God is farting in the general direction of the northern liberal intellectual elitist freedom haters. Homosexter havens like New England and New York will be below sea level because God is angry. He will no longer tolerate your blatant secular paganist faggery.

geerussell
03-27-2006, 10:49 AM
An article from the Christian Science Monitor, eh?

I believe I witnessed a similar story in God's Wrath Weekly.

Don't be fooled by the name, the CSM is a first-rate newspaper. To the extent that they have a religious agenda--and they do--they are very above board about it and pretty much confine it to editorials that are clearly labeled as such.

When it comes to their reporting, it stacks up with the best of them in quality and objectivity.

On the original topic, I think the consensus is clearly developing among reasonable scientists that global warming is occurring. Unfortunately none of the important details are known. Is it really due to human activity? Is it reversible at all? Is it part of a short cycle? A long cycle? How severe will it be? Is it triggering another ice age? Is it delaying another ice age?

There's nothing even remotely resembling a consensus on any of those questions.

Pharaoh
03-27-2006, 11:24 AM
An article from the Christian Science Monitor, eh?

I believe I witnessed a similar story in God's Wrath Weekly.

Don't be fooled by the name, the CSM is a first-rate newspaper. To the extent that they have a religious agenda--and they do--they are very above board about it and pretty much confine it to editorials that are clearly labeled as such.

When it comes to their reporting, it stacks up with the best of them in quality and objectivity.

On the original topic, I think the consensus is clearly developing among reasonable scientists that global warming is occurring. Unfortunately none of the important details are known. Is it really due to human activity? Is it reversible at all? Is it part of a short cycle? A long cycle? How severe will it be? Is it triggering another ice age? Is it delaying another ice age?

There's nothing even remotely resembling a consensus on any of those questions.

Stu - are you taking notes?

Thanks G

SKelly
03-27-2006, 03:38 PM
You guys take me too seriously, really.

TK
03-27-2006, 03:48 PM
You guys take me too seriously, really.

Unpossible.

Black Dynamite
03-27-2006, 05:53 PM
You guys take me too seriously, really.

Unpossible.
[smilie=alpacacall.: [smilie=applause.gi:

Gecko
03-27-2006, 08:14 PM
It's reasonable to conclude that emissions and greenhouse gasses have a negative effect on the earth I just thought the thinking that the earth is going to explode in 5 years was political rhetoric.

This topic is timely as I just had a chance to read TIME magazines cover story about Global Warming.

After reading the article I am much more open to the idea that Global warming may be underway. It's a good read. The tipping point theory is very interesting.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1176980,00.html

ABCNews has a special report all this week.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/

Black Dynamite
03-27-2006, 08:54 PM
It's reasonable to conclude that emissions and greenhouse gasses have a negative effect on the earth I just thought the thinking that the earth is going to explode in 5 years was political rhetoric.

This topic is timely as I just had a chance to read TIME magazines cover story about Global Warming.

After reading the article I am much more open to the idea that Global warming may be underway. It's a good read. The tipping point theory is very interesting.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1176980,00.html

ABCNews has a special report all this week.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/
interesting indeed. i saw the abc stuff. but i'll have to check the time material. thanks for the find Gecko.


I just thought the thinking that the earth is going to explode in 5 years was political rhetoric.

and what political agenda group told you this? because all i ever heard was that it would have an effect on future generations. explode in 5 years? Even the most nutty environmental hippies i've come across have never taken it that far.

Either way thanks for the Time article link.

Gecko
03-27-2006, 10:18 PM
It's reasonable to conclude that emissions and greenhouse gasses have a negative effect on the earth I just thought the thinking that the earth is going to explode in 5 years was political rhetoric.

This topic is timely as I just had a chance to read TIME magazines cover story about Global Warming.

After reading the article I am much more open to the idea that Global warming may be underway. It's a good read. The tipping point theory is very interesting.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1176980,00.html

ABCNews has a special report all this week.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/
interesting indeed. i saw the abc stuff. but i'll have to check the time material. thanks for the find Gecko.


I just thought the thinking that the earth is going to explode in 5 years was political rhetoric.

and what political agenda group told you this? because all i ever heard was that it would have an effect on future generations. explode in 5 years? Even the most nutty environmental hippies i've come across have never taken it that far.

Either way thanks for the Time article link.

It was language used for effect to magnify a point, not to be taken literal.

Pharaoh
03-28-2006, 10:05 AM
You guys take me too seriously, really.

No, not really.

SKelly
03-28-2006, 11:37 PM
You guys take me too seriously, really.

No, not really.

LOL. To tell you the truth, I was actually trying to be funny with the "I call bullshit" line. They give an entirely scientific explanation of what might be going on, and I just yell out bullshit. Obviously it wasn't funny... But I'd never get into a global warming discussion because I don't know shit about global warming.