Climate Change
- Thread starter Humpy
- Start date
Mark Steyn quoted at gatewaypundit.com
"In the past third of a century, the American economy has swollen by 150 per cent, automobile traffic has increased by 143 per cent, and energy consumption has grown 45 per cent. During this same period, air pollutants have declined by 29 per cent, toxic emissions by 48.5 per cent, sulphur dioxide levels by 65.3 per cent, and airborne lead by 97.3 per cent. Despite signing on to Kyoto, European greenhouse gas emissions have increased since 2001, whereas America's emissions have fallen by nearly one per cent, despite the Toxic Texan's best efforts to destroy the planet.
"In the past third of a century, the American economy has swollen by 150 per cent, automobile traffic has increased by 143 per cent, and energy consumption has grown 45 per cent. During this same period, air pollutants have declined by 29 per cent, toxic emissions by 48.5 per cent, sulphur dioxide levels by 65.3 per cent, and airborne lead by 97.3 per cent. Despite signing on to Kyoto, European greenhouse gas emissions have increased since 2001, whereas America's emissions have fallen by nearly one per cent, despite the Toxic Texan's best efforts to destroy the planet.
Which Ice caps are you talking about?
If the north pole completely melts there will be almost no increase in sea level, because it is comprised of floating ice. The fact that it is fresh water will cause a very small rise in sea level.
OTOH, land based glacial melting will cause a rise in sea level. If Greenland completely melted we would likely see ~7 meters rise, and if Antarctica melted completely we would see ~ 60 meters. As indicated by you post, this is a scary idea until certain points are made. According to data supported by the IPCC, the fastest likely estimates on time frame for a full glacial melt in Greenland is somewhere around 1,500 years. A full glacial melt in Antarctica would take much longer than that.
This is due to two factors. the first of course being the latitudes of the two continents. The other major factor being the altitude. Most of the area in both Greenland and Antarctica is quite invulnerable to rising global temperatures. The projected 4*C increase projected will not even come close to melting the majority of the ice. The IPCC notes a likely worst case scenario of slightly less than 1 meter rise in sea level by the year 2100.
This, and much other information has led me to the opinion that it is very likely that we will see sea levels as high as they were some 120,000 years ago at some point. This puts a range in my mind of about 5 meters higher to 120 meters lower than presently measured. This is because the last iceage resulted in levels that were about 120 meters lower than present. The last interglacial period resulted in levels about 6 meters higher than present. This warming and melting was due to a mere 1* tilt in the earths axis.
Anyway, what it comes down to in my mind is that a sudden 20 foot jump in sea level would suck for a lot of people. I would be largely unaffected by it because my house is 4500 feet above sea level, but the effect on the economy would be noticeable. A sudden rise of that magnitude is incredibly improbable though. The more likely scenario is that the ocean level will rise at a rate of about 2.5mm/year.
In other words, a major catastrophe is completely avoidable. I'm getting sort of tired of the end of the world nonsense. We should move away from burning biofuels for the simple fact that we like clean air, and technological innovation and advancement. Scaring people into believing that the earth is going to flood is complete nonsense.
I've got one more question for everyone.
Which is worse? The worst estimates of global warming, or another glacial maximum like the one 20,000 years ago?
My thoughts:
Worst case global warming:
We will lose many major cities along the coasts over a lengthy period of time. Conversely, vast amounts of currently unusable land will become more suitable for life. Growing regions will become much larger. This is a nice side-effect of most continents being north of the equator. People will be able to relatively easily relocate to more suitable conditions, and overpopulation will not be a concern as agricultural output will likely increase.
Another glacial maximum:
All of Canada, Alaska, and the Soviet become pretty much unlivable. Additionally, a huge portion of Europe is glaciated along with about 20% of the US, and most of Chili. Global agricultural capacity is greatly reduced, not only from the frozen ground, but also significantly reduced rainfall to unfrozen regions. Water held in icecaps is no longer available for rain, and reduces global rainfall dramatically. The earth at that point is completely unable to support a growing population.
Which is worse? The worst estimates of global warming, or another glacial maximum like the one 20,000 years ago?
My thoughts:
Worst case global warming:
We will lose many major cities along the coasts over a lengthy period of time. Conversely, vast amounts of currently unusable land will become more suitable for life. Growing regions will become much larger. This is a nice side-effect of most continents being north of the equator. People will be able to relatively easily relocate to more suitable conditions, and overpopulation will not be a concern as agricultural output will likely increase.
Another glacial maximum:
All of Canada, Alaska, and the Soviet become pretty much unlivable. Additionally, a huge portion of Europe is glaciated along with about 20% of the US, and most of Chili. Global agricultural capacity is greatly reduced, not only from the frozen ground, but also significantly reduced rainfall to unfrozen regions. Water held in icecaps is no longer available for rain, and reduces global rainfall dramatically. The earth at that point is completely unable to support a growing population.
Not so fast, the panels out in the desert actually are interfering with the desert's purpose. Deserts actually reflect the sun's energy while these panels absorb it. The result is more heat! The deserts are another natural climate control.
There is no free lunch here. Everything in moderation, mother nature will take care of the rest.
>In other words, a major catastrophe is completely avoidable.
>I'm getting sort of tired of the end of the world nonsense.
>We should move away from burning biofuels for the simple
>fact that we like clean air, and technological innovation and
>advancement. Scaring people into believing that the earth
>is going to flood is complete nonsense.
Extremely well reasoned.
JB
>I'm getting sort of tired of the end of the world nonsense.
>We should move away from burning biofuels for the simple
>fact that we like clean air, and technological innovation and
>advancement. Scaring people into believing that the earth
>is going to flood is complete nonsense.
Extremely well reasoned.
JB
It was my understanding that at glacial maximums, tropical zones actually got hotter and had more rainfall, something to do with convection or something?
Water held in icecaps-well the temperate zones, provided there not actually covered in glaciers, would have to be getting MORE precipitaion, would they not-even if it was as snow.
Colder areas do tend to get more rain, dont they?
Climate change always causes certain areas to get wetter while others get drier, but during a glacial maximum, the general effect is that the vast majority of the earth gets much drier. The colder areas at higher elevations become glaciated and hold a huge amount of atmospheric water. Places like China don't glaciate due to an extreme lack of moister. Instead they turn into a cold barren wasteland.
To cite one geological source;
In warmer regions of the world, climates at the Last Glacial Maximum were cooler and almost everywhere drier. In extreme cases, such as South Australia and the Sahel, rainfall could be diminished by up to ninety percent from present, with floras diminished to almost the same degree as in glaciated areas of Europe and North America. Even in less affected regions, rainforest cover was greatly diminished, especially in West Africa where a few refugia were surrounded by tropical grassland. The Amazon rainforest was split into two large blocks by extensive savanna, and it is probable that the tropical rainforests of Southeast Asia were similarly affected
There were a few areas that saw amazing amounts of rainfall, such as Central America, but these are the exceptions. Global agricultural production would be demolished as even places that were not glaciated would still be unsuitable for farming.