The science is so obvious,why does GOP want you to believe Global Warming isn't real? - Page 3 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #21 of 83 (permalink) Old 07-11-2006, 11:59 AM
Surely A Large Human
 
Qubes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2006
Vehicle: '08 C219
Location: Between Earth and Mars
Posts: 34,252
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Greg - Very well stated. Now prepare to be flogged anyway.

If I remember correctly, the lifespan of greenhouse gasses (CO and CO2 specifically) in the atmosphere is roughly 18 years - the Titanic in your metaphor.

I guess my curiosity has been this: assume global warming does in fact result in measurable increases in sea levels - let's pick up from where these levels have risen by 1" or so - would not the presence of so much additional water have at least some impact on meteorological conditions throughout the world? What I mean to say is this - doesn't having more surface water result in more evaporation (or does the sun disappear with global warming, too?) Wouldn't this newly evaporated water (again, a fraction of that which is suspected to be melting away) mean that the atmosphere as a whole becomes at least somewhat more humid? Doesn't evaporation serve to cool temperatures? Wouldn't cooler temperatures reduce the amount of glacial ice melting, thereby reducing global temperatures? Is it irrational to suspect that this cycle may take decades - if not centuries - to play out?

Sounds neat and tidy, but even if it turns out to be right, it's not based on anything but hypotheses and observations. So are the projections that forecast we're all going to drown in melted glacial water. Hollywood films do not equal truth, either.
Qubes is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 83 (permalink) Old 07-11-2006, 12:04 PM
BenzWorld Junior Member
 
Date registered: Apr 2006
Vehicle: 2006 C-55
Location: Valencia, CA
Posts: 27
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via Yahoo to mannyaplus11
Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR
If I remember correctly, the lifespan of greenhouse gasses (CO and CO2 specifically) in the atmosphere is roughly 18 years - the Titanic in your metaphor.

Wouldn't cooler temperatures reduce the amount of glacial ice melting, thereby reducing global temperatures? Is it irrational to suspect that this cycle may take decades - if not centuries - to play out?

Sounds neat and tidy, but even if it turns out to be right, it's not based on anything but hypotheses and observations. So are the projections that forecast we're all going to drown in melted glacial water. Hollywood films do not equal truth, either.
Don't forget, 15 years ago, we were in dire straights because of another ice age coming at us. What happened there? OOPS!!!
mannyaplus11 is offline  
post #23 of 83 (permalink) Old 07-11-2006, 12:23 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
I think the opposing sides of this argument, as is typical for any politically motivated examinationn of any phenomena these days, are not addressing the basic issue.

Whether or not burning fossil fuels is speeding up a natural cycle that holds the potential to eliminate human life from the planet, or not, it is apparent we are entering a phase of climate change. It appears we are contributing to the problem, and in all likelihood that is actually "natural" just as humans populating earth is natural. Given our ability to recognize we are contributing to the warming of the planet, and awareness to project this could be a threat to our survival, it seems we should start thinking about what to do.

A Waterworld type of existence is not going to support the human species in the present numbers. And building huge barriers like the ones that "protected" New Orleans during Katrina doesn't seem real secure, especially in light of predictions of more frequent, and more powerful storms that will come along with global warming.

My point in this is we should be studying whether or not we are directly influencing the climate, and, if we are, learn as much about this phenomena as we can as quickly as we can with the goal to learn how to manipulate the mechanism. Sitting around wasting all our energy on the political aspect of the question is doing nothing while the waters are rising. We probably have decades or centuries before we start killing each other to fit on a shrinking land mass. While we have the time it would be much more productive to spend the effort to understand what we face, and learn to manipulate it - any ability to slow down the process is going to pay big dividends. If we wait until Chicago is under water, we will be fighting each other for dry ground to stand on, and the problem will be left entirely up to Mother Nature to resolve, on a time scale that will ensure we are wiped out. Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #24 of 83 (permalink) Old 07-11-2006, 12:25 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mannyaplus11
Don't forget, 15 years ago, we were in dire straights because of another ice age coming at us. What happened there? OOPS!!!
Really? I don't recall that at all. In fact all the data we look at to validate the claims of global warming include the last 15 years. I think you might have been reading that in some old issue of X-Men or the like. Those are comics, not science journals. Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #25 of 83 (permalink) Old 07-11-2006, 12:42 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mzsmbs's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 1972 Mercedes 250 (/8) W114/M130
Location: on a high bank of a creek
Posts: 7,296
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR
Greg - Very well stated. Now prepare to be flogged anyway.

If I remember correctly, the lifespan of greenhouse gasses (CO and CO2 specifically) in the atmosphere is roughly 18 years - the Titanic in your metaphor.

I guess my curiosity has been this: assume global warming does in fact result in measurable increases in sea levels - let's pick up from where these levels have risen by 1" or so - would not the presence of so much additional water have at least some impact on meteorological conditions throughout the world? What I mean to say is this - doesn't having more surface water result in more evaporation (or does the sun disappear with global warming, too?) Wouldn't this newly evaporated water (again, a fraction of that which is suspected to be melting away) mean that the atmosphere as a whole becomes at least somewhat more humid? Doesn't evaporation serve to cool temperatures? Wouldn't cooler temperatures reduce the amount of glacial ice melting, thereby reducing global temperatures? Is it irrational to suspect that this cycle may take decades - if not centuries - to play out?
bring one pan of water to boil. now bring another pan to boil.. is you kitchen cooler? lol

condensation is what cools. evap is result of heat and changing of water from a fluid to a gasious state..

more surface area (the water) exposed to sunlight is only going to increase the heat trapped by the greenhouse gasses not decrease it. in turn more melting of the polar caps will happen. that's what's been going on for 20-30 years at an accelerated rate.. we may not be the total casue of the warming but we shouldn't carelessly just add to the problem. we have brains and we should use them to decrease our impact on the planet instead of wreaking havoc on it.



in political asylum
mzsmbs is offline  
post #26 of 83 (permalink) Old 07-11-2006, 01:20 PM
Surely A Large Human
 
Qubes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2006
Vehicle: '08 C219
Location: Between Earth and Mars
Posts: 34,252
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by mzsmbs
bring one pan of water to boil. now bring another pan to boil.. is you kitchen cooler? lol

condensation is what cools. evap is result of heat and changing of water from a fluid to a gasious state..

more surface area (the water) exposed to sunlight is only going to increase the heat trapped by the greenhouse gasses not decrease it. in turn more melting of the polar caps will happen. that's what's been going on for 20-30 years at an accelerated rate.. we may not be the total casue of the warming but we shouldn't carelessly just add to the problem. we have brains and we should use them to decrease our impact on the planet instead of wreaking havoc on it.
Perhaps the input of a physicist is in order, but as I understood it, evaporation is what cools. (Heard of a swamp cooler?) Play with the "trap height" slider at the left of that page - the smaller the number, the flatter the "trap" of hot liquid...I have no idea what to make the "trap height" so that it resembles the Earth and it's atmosphere. By the way, I think condensation is what happens after a gas has already been sufficiently cooled.

Granted, the principle of evaporative cooling works only when there's a low relative humidity - if the world is warming AND simultaneously becoming more humid, this all falls down. If however the world is becoming more humid as a result of warming, you can thank evaporation, in which case I still think it's fair to assume that air temperatures would be kept in check.

I'd further like to submit for review, the following chart from the Wikipedia:



This chart is supposed to go back 10,000 years, and details the average temperature deviation from the "climactic optimum?" from then to present day. Now most of this is bunk, because neither the ancestors of the vikings, mongols, moors, romans, scots, brits, etc. exactly used finely calibrated thermometers or accurate record keeping systems. That said, this is the data produced by and from which the community of scientific experts is working. You'll notice that we're cooler as of 2004 than at any point in the past 10,000 years.

There's a nice little inset that shows a sudden and dramatic spike, upwards nearly 0.5° celsius, presumably over the past 100 years. I'd venture to guess that most household ambient thermometers aren't accurate amongst themselves to 0.5° celsius, but I could be wrong.

It took great restraint but I did refrain from referring to the 1970's "global cooling" scare as having any basis in fact. Again, the Wikipedia does a much better job of this than I could. Of interest was that the downward temperature trend that seemed to be roughly 30 years in the making, reversed itself before anyone could really change anything of significance. There was a lot of science behind those beliefs, and they seemed valid...in the end, it turns out the recommendations made based on such a microscopic view of the world were alarmist in nature, and that the conclusions about what caused it were wrong - even with the best minds of the day lending their view.

I know the flogging is in order, but if there would still be GHG's in the air 18 years from the day we shut everything off, can't we spend at least another decade oir so evaluating how real the problem is, and do that which is economically feasible as a simple matter of being a "good neighbor", without self-flaggelation and dismantling our entire global economic apparatus?

Last edited by Qubes; 07-11-2006 at 01:30 PM.
Qubes is online now  
post #27 of 83 (permalink) Old 07-11-2006, 01:29 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mzsmbs
bring one pan of water to boil. now bring another pan to boil.. is you kitchen cooler? lol

condensation is what cools. evap is result of heat and changing of water from a fluid to a gasious state..

more surface area (the water) exposed to sunlight is only going to increase the heat trapped by the greenhouse gasses not decrease it. in turn more melting of the polar caps will happen. that's what's been going on for 20-30 years at an accelerated rate.. we may not be the total casue of the warming but we shouldn't carelessly just add to the problem. we have brains and we should use them to decrease our impact on the planet instead of wreaking havoc on it.
Actually, evaporating cools the body of water mass on its surface, or, in a more readily verifiable example, your body surface when you sweat. Condensation gives off heat to the gas or vessel the condensate came from or was in when it changed phase. Check out your A/C system. The compressor squeezes a gas, which gets hot, and then once the heat is removed in the condensor, it changes phase, and becomes a liquid. The liquid is allowed to expand back into a gas in the evaporator, which is the heat exchanger that cools your incoming air in the car's cabin.

So evaporation cools the seas while rain leaves the heat in the atmosphere. The warm air rises, which cools adiabatically (the main mechanism for causing the rain or snow in the first place, which then draws more of the lower, denser air upward by making a low pressure area) and then is free to radiate heat to outer space, unless there are greenhouse gases above it that absorb the heat.....This is a heat transfer mechanism that most effectively uses the atmosphere as the cooling agent for the seas, with "outer space" being the heat sink.

The climate is a much more complex math model than either of you guys are describing, and much more complicated than I can fathom. In the simplest terms the problem lies in how much energy coming from the sun is absorbed or reflected/reradiated back into space, and how this ratio, called the albedo, is affected globally by various natural atmospheric conditions and mechanisms, and some that are being attributed to mankind (which I would still argue are "natural" since we are part of nature).

When "greenhouse gasses" are created, and water vapor is not considered one of them, the problem is more impinging energy is absorbed into the gasses, and more reflected or radiated energy is absorbed into the gasses, trapping more energy in the atmosphere for longer periods of time, which raises its temperature. The atmosphere is the coolant for the surface of the earth, and when the coolant gets hotter, you get a higher temperature on the surface of the earth.

In reality there are many, interdependent effects, like the Carbond Dioxide cycle, that contribute to the unbalancing issue being difficult to contain and the fear that we have started something that is speeding up too rapidly to ignore. Even biodiesel is a source of greenhouse gas and a concern, which is the basis of the interest in the hydrogen energy cycles (as a typical fuel to be burned or in fuel cells). But the precise interactions of this enormously complex system are poorly understood. Acknowledging that is one of the major hurdles to establishing a credible point from which to gather the data needed to chart a high probabliity course of success to address the issue. Proof of the rudimentary grasp of the global weather system is the relative accuracy of the global weather forcasting system. Hurricaines, for example are first detected visually as tropical storms, even when we know the conditions for creating hurricaines are good. We do not predict where, exactly they will form and how big they will be or their actual course over the water and land. We report those items based on observing the actual storm from satellites.

We really only worry about whether it is going to rain or snow, or not, and generally what the temperature is going to be in near future. Local phenomena and longer term forcasting is just accepted as uncertain. My $0.02. Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #28 of 83 (permalink) Old 07-11-2006, 01:39 PM
BenzWorld Junior Member
 
Date registered: Apr 2006
Vehicle: 2006 C-55
Location: Valencia, CA
Posts: 27
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via Yahoo to mannyaplus11
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith
Really? I don't recall that at all. In fact all the data we look at to validate the claims of global warming include the last 15 years. I think you might have been reading that in some old issue of X-Men or the like. Those are comics, not science journals. Jim
I see, YOU don't recall it, so, OBVIOUSLY, I made the whole thing up.
Ridiculous!!!!
Okay, maybe it was 20 years ago, I don't recall, I'm middle age and losing it.
mannyaplus11 is offline  
post #29 of 83 (permalink) Old 07-11-2006, 01:52 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mannyaplus11
I see, YOU don't recall it, so, OBVIOUSLY, I made the whole thing up.
Ridiculous!!!!
Okay, maybe it was 20 years ago, I don't recall, I'm middle age and losing it.
Me too. Getting old sucks. But I never recall a furor like the one we are now seeing concerning global warming before, especially not one about global cooling. Yeah a few cold winters with storms might have had people worked up in local areas, like the Northeast, but I don't recall a global cooling discussion of any magnitude. And in the global warming model, local heavier storms, bringing locally colder conditions is entirely feasible. Even with an aging weak mind I would like to think I could remember a big brouhaha about global anything, but it could be wishful thinking. Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #30 of 83 (permalink) Old 07-11-2006, 02:03 PM
BenzWorld Junior Member
 
Date registered: Apr 2006
Vehicle: 2006 C-55
Location: Valencia, CA
Posts: 27
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via Yahoo to mannyaplus11
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith
Me too. Getting old sucks. But I never recall a furor like the one we are now seeing concerning global warming before, especially not one about global cooling. Yeah a few cold winters with storms might have had people worked up in local areas, like the Northeast, but I don't recall a global cooling discussion of any magnitude. And in the global warming model, local heavier storms, bringing locally colder conditions is entirely feasible. Even with an aging weak mind I would like to think I could remember a big brouhaha about global anything, but it could be wishful thinking. Jim
Jim,
I"m not disagreeing with you. I too would like to look back on this as just another phase we are in, a cycle. However, I will go back to my original post a couple of pages back when I asked, "if we indeed are in a Global Warming predicament, what are WE as a society prepared to give up?"
This is a very difficult situation, and not one that will be solved with lip service or political finger pointing.

Have a great day and thanks for keeping this professional. Too many boards and talk shows just resort to insults when there is a difference of opinion.
mannyaplus11 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome