Global Warming, A Good Thing?

brokensickle · 11-12-2006, 05:22 AM

When you here the scary stories about the impending doom to come upon the world by GLOBAL WARMING, take heart,the result may have positive effects in the world that might far out weigh the dooms day scenarios reported. This is an upbeat perspective worthy of consideration.
Before we get into the positive points there are facts about past episodes of global warming to ponder. In the days the Vikings were sailing the ocean blue, seeking out new lands, the world was in a period of global warming, Arctic and Antarctic ice was rapidly melting, glaciers were steadily retreating and the Vikings were enjoying life gardening and ranching the island of Greenland.
Another thing to take into account is the physics of ice and its liquid form, water. Ice because it is less dense than water it floats on water but when it melts, it once again becomes dense. Elementary, you say? Yes Elementary. You can put a chunk of ice into a bowl of water that floats above the water and when the ice melts and sinks into the water the level of the water will be unchanged. This is an important fact to remember because the one of the scare tactics of 'the global warming is bad', crowd is that the ocean level will increase so much that vast expanses of low elevation land will be under water due to the melting of the ice. While It could be agreed that the level of the water in the oceans will in fact change because of ice melting, it will not be because of any ice that melts that is floating in the water. Any ice that is on the surface of the land however will upon melting increase ocean levels. This brings up another phenomena that happens when global warming occurs with respect to water, more of it will be evaporated up into the atmosphere.
As the earth warms the water will of its nature become airborne to form clouds and humidity thus further subtracting it from the ocean level. Upon hearing this, the response I would expect from the 'global warming is bad', crowd is that that evaporation into the atmosphere would not amount to much in the way of substantially lowering the sea levels to a point that would keep low lands from flooding. Where upon one could debate that if the temperatures are warming to an unprecedented degree upon the face of the earth that now hence fourth the model has changed, and that change might accommodate a vastly greater amount of evaporation, humidity and cloud cover, and yes a chance of more rain.
Now lets consider if the rain begins to fall over more of the land mass of earth due to global warming and those areas of the world that were in past deserts or more generally arid start receiving a higher percentage of rain fall, well the ground will become more saturated, the water tables would rise, lakes and ponds would fill, inland seas would rise, new lakes would be created, aquifers would fill, trees and shrubs would drink the liquid up etc. thus further dropping the ocean levels that might flood low lying coastal lands.
I want to reiterate that global warming has occurred in the past to the advantage of humanity and nature and to remember that it is possible that some of those who underscore the fears of global warming do so for political and ideological reasons, some even treating the subject with religious piety. And a cogent question I have asked myself, even when I used to be one of the 'Global Warming Bad', compatriots is, what if we humans do all that we think we can to change the situation? Yet the globe continues to warm beyond our control because it is a natural cycle. Another nagging question is, What happens if we encounter GLOBAL COOLING? This could be disastrous and historically global cooling is followed by famine an intense suffering and finally death on a large scale. The current death culture would like this scenario. When we say global warming I think many times people are thinking on a apocalyptic scale as when the magnetic field breaks down and the solar flares and radiation of the sun rain down unimpeded upon the earth. This is not that scenario that is being expressed here. Now the up beat of a warming earth.
Economically if global warming caused more rain throughout the world and warmed northern and southern climates the growing of vegetables, cotton, fruit and nut trees, grazing crops and grazing lands, would cause more commerce for areas not previously enjoying these necessities on such a large scale. The increased grazing areas would support sheep, cows, deer, and any other grazing animals wild or domestic thus being a windfall for man and nature. Hydroelectric could become more common if dams were built, creating more energy potential and recreational spots to take retreat to. The acquisition of water itself could be less expensive because it would be easier to obtain.
Ecologically global warming could be a benefit as many energy demands could be met by hydroelectric and solar electric devices rather than fossil fuels and nuclear fuels. Growing conditions would be optimized for many types of plants while increasing the animal population that thrive in these areas. Heres one for the environmentalist; More rain forest. Side note: if temperatures decreased would not the rain forest decrease? Think of it almost everybody likes the tropical climates, it's possible that many people might not have to fly thousands of miles to enjoy the tropics. Winter energy usage would drop. More trees would grow while less would be burned in fireplaces. Vanishing rivers might reappear. The positive points on the environment are so numerous I couldn't possibly predict them all. And for the nay sayers, I am sure you can think of many negative points of such a scenario, but short of heaven it's not likely you could find a climate model that is not rife with less than perfect situations that we could opine on. But I choose to anticipate with much thoughtful consideration of the windfall of this situation as the earths cycle of moods have always been far out of control of mortal mans ability to change them. I will enjoy my God given ability to adjust to the circumstances and submit to Gods nature when the situation dictates.
Health could be a benefit in many ways, some obvious, and some not, on a warming earth. One not so obvious benefit would be caused by thick cloud cover. It would act as a barrier from the intense and destructive rays of the sun, possibly slowing the effects of aging and lessening the effects caused by solar radiation that cause cancers. When plants convert minerals and nutrients to soluble forms, then when the plants decay and build the soil up and the cycle repeats the health of the plants will increase and so it follows that the health of the animals and humans that eat the plants would benefit from the mineral and nutrient content as well. The quantity of water running down rivers, streams, over the land, into the aquifers and the water table might act to detoxify the land and lakes of salt and poisons which have been concentrated there. When the water becomes more pure so do the animals that drink it and live in it.
I hope this article can help the reader see a different side to the possibility of global warming rather than the doomsday version we here almost unceasingly in most media outlets. One of my goals in writing this article is to help the reader understand that the earth has seen this type of climate change in the past before the influences of man. We can not ignore that fact because if we do we might well be caught off guard when it continues despite our efforts to stop it. Perhaps we can adjust our lives by learning to live with what we can not change in the case of global fluctuations
We might have to travel farther to ski.

~~~~Ivan~~~><//>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

="Dark Orange"][/color]

glyn · 11-12-2006, 07:11 AM

Sure, the doom-mongers vastly outnumber the rest of us, and it is good to see your argument posted for debate. It is many years since I studied chemistry but I understand the oceans ability to withstand the higher levels of acidity is giving some scientists cause for concern. Will the warmer ocean temperatures help or hinder the acidity problem?

an4815 · 11-12-2006, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Another thing to take into account is the physics of ice and its liquid form, water. Ice because it is less dense than water it floats on water but when it melts, it once again becomes dense. Elementary, you say? Yes Elementary. You can put a chunk of ice into a bowl of water that floats above the water and when the ice melts and sinks into the water the level of the water will be unchanged. This is an important fact to remember because the one of the scare tactics of 'the global warming is bad', crowd is that the ocean level will increase so much that vast expanses of low elevation land will be under water due to the melting of the ice. While It could be agreed that the level of the water in the oceans will in fact change because of ice melting, it will not be because of any ice that melts that is floating in the water. Any ice that is on the surface of the land however will upon melting increase ocean levels.

Seeing as projections for sea level rise takes this into account (ie the rise is from land based ice melting) I don't really see how you can claim this is an argument against those projections.

Quote:

This brings up another phenomena that happens when global warming occurs with respect to water, more of it will be evaporated up into the atmosphere. As the earth warms the water will of its nature become airborne to form clouds and humidity thus further subtracting it from the ocean level. Upon hearing this, the response I would expect from the 'global warming is bad', crowd is that that evaporation into the atmosphere would not amount to much in the way of substantially lowering the sea levels to a point that would keep low lands from flooding. Now lets consider if the rain begins to fall over more of the land mass of earth due to global warming and those areas of the world that were in past deserts or more generally arid start receiving a higher percentage of rain fall, well the ground will become more saturated, the water tables would rise, lakes and ponds would fill, inland seas would rise, new lakes would be created, aquifers would fill, trees and shrubs would drink the liquid up etc. thus further dropping the ocean levels that might flood low lying coastal lands.

There's two counterpoints here. First is that water expands as it warms, which means sea level will rise due to expansion in a warming world even without ice melt. Second the extra water vapor due to evaporation will enhance the greenhouse effect and result in even more warming, more ice melt and further expansion.

Then there is past sea level rises which show beyond doubt that sea level does rise due to warming. Breaking out of the last glacial period - between about 18,000 and 8,000 years ago sea levels rose 120 meters due to about 9C of warming.

Quote:

Economically if global warming caused more rain throughout the world and warmed northern and southern climates the growing of vegetables, cotton, fruit and nut trees, grazing crops and grazing lands, would cause more commerce for areas not previously enjoying these necessities on such a large scale.

This wouldn't happen. As today, some areas would recieve lots of rain and others wouldn't. It isn't a case of every region of the earth receiving a bit more rain spread out evenly. You would still have deserts without rain, and areas with too much rain prone to flooding.

What climate change will do generally though is to shift rainfall patterns. So a drought ridden region today might start getting much more rain, wheras a water rich region today might suddenly suffering droughts. The problem is that humans are generally centered around hospitable regions with good water supply, and also humans have adapted to regional climate. A random change in climate therefore is going to have overall negative consequences to humanity.

**Julie** · 11-14-2006, 15:09 PM

I am all for off-shore thermal energy converters. They are expensive to build, but cost very little to operate. This mechanism extracts the heat from the water and can provide electricity/heat for a small city, and at the same time reduce the water temperatures.

brokensickle · 11-15-2006, 02:23 AM

Glyn,

It's hard to predict whether it will be more acidic or not. With global warming there will be so many factors that will contribute and it would be difficult to understand how they might balance out or if they will. Such as, if
the water temperature rises we probably will see an increase in the flora and fauna in the water which would likely raise the nitrate levels, which might in turn raise acidity levels. Also the run off of the land and ice sheets will probably increase nitrate levels as some soil, animal debris and bacteria flow down with the waters into the seas. There is also human pollutants that might ad to that condition. But other factors might weigh in to balance those out, such as alkaline contents, natural and man made that flow into the sea and thus by neutralizing the lower Ph levels. And if those like an4815 are right we should expect a general diluting effect caused by rising sea levels of fresh, previously landlocked water. I do not necessarily agree with this "scientific opinion" but it is a possibility. And unlike an4815 I am not sure we can stop the advent of Global Warming by changing anything man is doing. And to be fair I am only assuming an4815 believes that global warming is a man generated problem.

~~~~Ivan~~~><//>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

brokensickle · 11-15-2006, 02:51 AM

JULIE,

Your attitude is, I believe, the attitude to take when changes like this might take place on this earth. "When someone throws lemons at you; make lemonade" I don't remember who said that. I just wish that these people who believe all the gloom and doom would take a breath and look at other models and quit trying to scare the begeebers out of everybody for there political gain. 20 years ago we were heading for an ice age.

But I have a gut feeling we are headed into a warmer time in history. But who can be sure, beyond any doubt or for that matter beyond any skepticism.

~~~~Ivan~~~><//>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

**Julie** · 11-15-2006, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brokensickle

JULIE,

Your attitude is, I believe, the attitude to take when changes like this might take place on this earth. "When someone throws lemons at you; make lemonade" I don't remember who said that. I just wish that these people who believe all the gloom and doom would take a breath and look at other models and quit trying to scare the begeebers out of everybody for there political gain. 20 years ago we were heading for an ice age.

But I have a gut feeling we are headed into a warmer time in history. But who can be sure, beyond any doubt or for that matter beyond any skepticism.

~~~~Ivan~~~><//>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I am not completely sold on the global warming issue. I'm open-minded abuot it, but not completely sold.

Be that as it may, I live on the coast, and battle hurricanes every season, and it is a known fact that warmer waters fuel these monsters. My supported suggestion not only would hinder these hurricanes, but would be a good energy resource. Either way, you can't go wrong with implementing it. Kinda like killing two birds with one stone.

Sombra · 11-15-2006, 11:43 AM

The problem with the global warming is that it seems to happen very fast.

Species (Animals, plants etc) wont have the time to adept to rapidly changing environment. Many will die out and gravely harmed. Same goes for cities and human population. Right now mayor cities and population concentrations are located at the coastal areas. They cannot be moved within 40 years. In the long shot yes the earth very probably will find a new balance but not right now without mayor economic disruptions, lives lost and mayor conflicts looming due to a changing climate. You don’t have to be sold regarding the causes of climate changes but right now it seems that chances of the climate is not changing are quite small.

In economic terms:

Quote:

Weather disasters could cost 1 trillion dollars in a year by Richard Ingham
Tue Nov 14, 10:14 AM ET

NAIROBI (AFP) - Driven by climate change, weather disasters could cost as much as a trillion dollars in a single year by 2040, financial experts warned at the UN's conference on global warming.

"Most insurance and re-insurance companies have no doubt that the rising tide of losses from weather-related disasters is linked with climate change," said Thomas Loster of German reinsurance giant Munich Re on Tuesday.

"The possibility of a one-trillion-dollar-loss year is one scenario out of many, but whatever the precise figures the losses are already large and set to increase."

The trillion-dollar projection comprises total losses -- as compared with only insured losses -- from droughts, storm surges, hurricanes and floods.

It is sketched as a peak year in a scenario stretching until 2040 and is based on the calculation that the long-term costs from extreme natural disaster events are doubling every 12 years.

The figure was compiled by a financial firm, Andlug Consulting, for the United Nations Environment Programme's (UNEP's) Financial Initiative, which gathers UN experts and leading actors in the insurance sector.

In 2002, insurance firms considered 150 billion dollars to be the likely maximum annual cost of big weather damage, said Loster, of Munich Re Foundation, a not-for-profit body that works in developing countries.

But this estimate has had to be massively revised, he said.

In 2005, the cost was 210 billion dollars, 120 billion of which was inflicted by Hurricane Katrina, he said.

"Katrina was the first (weather event) to create climate refugees," said Loster. He noted that the cost of this storm could have been even higher, as the wealthiest parts of New Orleans had been largely spared from the flood.

The report was issued on the eve of a three-day conference of the world's environment ministers, charged with establishing the next steps in tackling climate change. They are meeting to set the seal on the November 6-17 talks under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Global warming is the term used to describe the rise in atmospheric temperatures driven by greenhouse gases, the invisible byproduct of burning oil, gas and coal.

Scientists have predicted for years that this temperature rise would begin to affect the climate system, and many -- probably a majority -- are convinced this is already the case.

Few, though, are willing to link a single big storm, such as Katrina, with the long-term phenomenon of climate change, and point out that the economic and human cost of these big disasters has been magnified by development in coastal areas.

In Florida, which bears the brunt of tropical storms which make landfall in the US, the population has risen from three million in 1950 to 15 million today.

So far in 2006, the economic losses from bad weather events have been around 30 billion dollars, led by Typhoon Kaemi, which struck China in July with a nine-billion-dollar whack, said Loster.

Andlug Consulting's scenario noted that so-called great disasters appear in clusters every three years.

"Making allowance for such clusters, and for the inclusion of all costs, it seems likely that there will be a 'peak year' that will record losses of one trillion before 2040. In fact, since so much development is taking place in coastal zones, the figure may arrive considerably before 2040," the report warned.

Regarding this insurance company is one of the bigger (or the biggest?) insurance companies of the world (they insure the other insurance companies

)

brokensickle · 11-15-2006, 13:36 PM

Sombra and Julie,

We cannot necessarily change this course we are on. We have to keep that fact in mind or we will not be thinking in terms of adapting to that change. Thus looking at the possibility soberly and positively, rather than with a "Oh my were doomed!!!" attitude. Much research is being invested on doom and gloom.

~~~~Ivan~~~><//>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sombra · 11-15-2006, 13:49 PM

Well, the argument is that you can influence it. Most scientists believe that the warming is man made and could be reduced or at least slowed down.

The argument is that it would be even the best from the economic

brokensickle · 11-16-2006, 02:14 AM

Which SUV driving Americans caused the global warming 8,000 and 18,000 years ago? What cause the deadly ice ages? What wiped out the dinosaurs? What built the mountains? What causes tsunamis that wiped out scores of people in a moment? Earthquakes? Asteroids? Solar flares? Volcano's? Oh my! Shouldn't we be attempting to stop global shaking? Global freezing? Global volcanism? Global Terrorism?

Well you can lead a fool to common sense, but you can't make him think. You can quote scientist all day, but scientist are on both sides of every issue. Based on the ignoring of other ideas and tough questions of thinking individuals main stream science and media tends to stay one sided for political reasons. And many a dupe follows the main stream with out any hard questions or non main stream critisism.

I for one am not buying in to all this just because a main stream scientist says it is so. But I will listen to them, as I do. The question is, can anyone say beyond a shadow of doubt that these guys are absolutely right? I can't even say that about my theories.
Their ideas are just that, Theories. And if they say thier theories are fact, they make themselves fools.

We need to get a little perspective here.

~~~~Ivan~~~><//>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

gunnut · 11-16-2006, 02:33 AM

Didn't people believe that the next ice age was impending during the 1970s?

Whatever happened to that?

ArmchairGeneral · 11-16-2006, 15:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnut

Didn't people believe that the next ice age was impending during the 1970s?

Whatever happened to that?

Very primitive atmospheric models, plus it was really completely overblown by media hype. We have (supposedly) a much better understanding of atmospheric dynamics now. Plus, there has been a measurable warming trend for quite some time now, so scientists have been trying to explain it.

brokensickle · 12-16-2006, 05:38 AM

Julie,

What do you think of all the solar flares and warm winter weather in Russia, Europe and around the Northern Hemisphere?

Ivan

dalem · 12-17-2006, 22:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

Very primitive atmospheric models, plus it was really completely overblown by media hype. We have (supposedly) a much better understanding of atmospheric dynamics now. Plus, there has been a measurable warming trend for quite some time now, so scientists have been trying to explain it.

The warming trend we're in now started around 1975 or so. The prediction of a new Ice Age back in the 1970s wasn't based on flawed data as much as it was based on panicky predictions (just like today) - temperatures WERE trending downward and glacial ice WAS expanding all over the planet. These events were very real.

-dale

11-12-2006, 05:22 AM	#1 (permalink)
brokensickle *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 10-28-06 Posts: 780	Global Warming, A Good Thing? When you here the scary stories about the impending doom to come upon the world by GLOBAL WARMING, take heart,the result may have positive effects in the world that might far out weigh the dooms day scenarios reported. This is an upbeat perspective worthy of consideration. Before we get into the positive points there are facts about past episodes of global warming to ponder. In the days the Vikings were sailing the ocean blue, seeking out new lands, the world was in a period of global warming, Arctic and Antarctic ice was rapidly melting, glaciers were steadily retreating and the Vikings were enjoying life gardening and ranching the island of Greenland. Another thing to take into account is the physics of ice and its liquid form, water. Ice because it is less dense than water it floats on water but when it melts, it once again becomes dense. Elementary, you say? Yes Elementary. You can put a chunk of ice into a bowl of water that floats above the water and when the ice melts and sinks into the water the level of the water will be unchanged. This is an important fact to remember because the one of the scare tactics of 'the global warming is bad', crowd is that the ocean level will increase so much that vast expanses of low elevation land will be under water due to the melting of the ice. While It could be agreed that the level of the water in the oceans will in fact change because of ice melting, it will not be because of any ice that melts that is floating in the water. Any ice that is on the surface of the land however will upon melting increase ocean levels. This brings up another phenomena that happens when global warming occurs with respect to water, more of it will be evaporated up into the atmosphere. As the earth warms the water will of its nature become airborne to form clouds and humidity thus further subtracting it from the ocean level. Upon hearing this, the response I would expect from the 'global warming is bad', crowd is that that evaporation into the atmosphere would not amount to much in the way of substantially lowering the sea levels to a point that would keep low lands from flooding. Where upon one could debate that if the temperatures are warming to an unprecedented degree upon the face of the earth that now hence fourth the model has changed, and that change might accommodate a vastly greater amount of evaporation, humidity and cloud cover, and yes a chance of more rain. Now lets consider if the rain begins to fall over more of the land mass of earth due to global warming and those areas of the world that were in past deserts or more generally arid start receiving a higher percentage of rain fall, well the ground will become more saturated, the water tables would rise, lakes and ponds would fill, inland seas would rise, new lakes would be created, aquifers would fill, trees and shrubs would drink the liquid up etc. thus further dropping the ocean levels that might flood low lying coastal lands. I want to reiterate that global warming has occurred in the past to the advantage of humanity and nature and to remember that it is possible that some of those who underscore the fears of global warming do so for political and ideological reasons, some even treating the subject with religious piety. And a cogent question I have asked myself, even when I used to be one of the 'Global Warming Bad', compatriots is, what if we humans do all that we think we can to change the situation? Yet the globe continues to warm beyond our control because it is a natural cycle. Another nagging question is, What happens if we encounter GLOBAL COOLING? This could be disastrous and historically global cooling is followed by famine an intense suffering and finally death on a large scale. The current death culture would like this scenario. When we say global warming I think many times people are thinking on a apocalyptic scale as when the magnetic field breaks down and the solar flares and radiation of the sun rain down unimpeded upon the earth. This is not that scenario that is being expressed here. Now the up beat of a warming earth. Economically if global warming caused more rain throughout the world and warmed northern and southern climates the growing of vegetables, cotton, fruit and nut trees, grazing crops and grazing lands, would cause more commerce for areas not previously enjoying these necessities on such a large scale. The increased grazing areas would support sheep, cows, deer, and any other grazing animals wild or domestic thus being a windfall for man and nature. Hydroelectric could become more common if dams were built, creating more energy potential and recreational spots to take retreat to. The acquisition of water itself could be less expensive because it would be easier to obtain. Ecologically global warming could be a benefit as many energy demands could be met by hydroelectric and solar electric devices rather than fossil fuels and nuclear fuels. Growing conditions would be optimized for many types of plants while increasing the animal population that thrive in these areas. Heres one for the environmentalist; More rain forest. Side note: if temperatures decreased would not the rain forest decrease? Think of it almost everybody likes the tropical climates, it's possible that many people might not have to fly thousands of miles to enjoy the tropics. Winter energy usage would drop. More trees would grow while less would be burned in fireplaces. Vanishing rivers might reappear. The positive points on the environment are so numerous I couldn't possibly predict them all. And for the nay sayers, I am sure you can think of many negative points of such a scenario, but short of heaven it's not likely you could find a climate model that is not rife with less than perfect situations that we could opine on. But I choose to anticipate with much thoughtful consideration of the windfall of this situation as the earths cycle of moods have always been far out of control of mortal mans ability to change them. I will enjoy my God given ability to adjust to the circumstances and submit to Gods nature when the situation dictates. Health could be a benefit in many ways, some obvious, and some not, on a warming earth. One not so obvious benefit would be caused by thick cloud cover. It would act as a barrier from the intense and destructive rays of the sun, possibly slowing the effects of aging and lessening the effects caused by solar radiation that cause cancers. When plants convert minerals and nutrients to soluble forms, then when the plants decay and build the soil up and the cycle repeats the health of the plants will increase and so it follows that the health of the animals and humans that eat the plants would benefit from the mineral and nutrient content as well. The quantity of water running down rivers, streams, over the land, into the aquifers and the water table might act to detoxify the land and lakes of salt and poisons which have been concentrated there. When the water becomes more pure so do the animals that drink it and live in it. I hope this article can help the reader see a different side to the possibility of global warming rather than the doomsday version we here almost unceasingly in most media outlets. One of my goals in writing this article is to help the reader understand that the earth has seen this type of climate change in the past before the influences of man. We can not ignore that fact because if we do we might well be caught off guard when it continues despite our efforts to stop it. Perhaps we can adjust our lives by learning to live with what we can not change in the case of global fluctuations We might have to travel farther to ski. ~~~~Ivan~~~><//>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ="Dark Orange"][/color] __________________ "Evil opposes freedom and uses those who pervert it as pawns to destroy it."

11-15-2006, 02:23 AM	#5 (permalink)
brokensickle *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 10-28-06 Posts: 780	Will the ocean levels acid level rise? Glyn, It's hard to predict whether it will be more acidic or not. With global warming there will be so many factors that will contribute and it would be difficult to understand how they might balance out or if they will. Such as, if the water temperature rises we probably will see an increase in the flora and fauna in the water which would likely raise the nitrate levels, which might in turn raise acidity levels. Also the run off of the land and ice sheets will probably increase nitrate levels as some soil, animal debris and bacteria flow down with the waters into the seas. There is also human pollutants that might ad to that condition. But other factors might weigh in to balance those out, such as alkaline contents, natural and man made that flow into the sea and thus by neutralizing the lower Ph levels. And if those like an4815 are right we should expect a general diluting effect caused by rising sea levels of fresh, previously landlocked water. I do not necessarily agree with this "scientific opinion" but it is a possibility. And unlike an4815 I am not sure we can stop the advent of Global Warming by changing anything man is doing. And to be fair I am only assuming an4815 believes that global warming is a man generated problem. ~~~~Ivan~~~><//>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

11-15-2006, 02:51 AM	#6 (permalink)
brokensickle *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 10-28-06 Posts: 780	Learn to live with what you may not be able to change. JULIE, Your attitude is, I believe, the attitude to take when changes like this might take place on this earth. "When someone throws lemons at you; make lemonade" I don't remember who said that. I just wish that these people who believe all the gloom and doom would take a breath and look at other models and quit trying to scare the begeebers out of everybody for there political gain. 20 years ago we were heading for an ice age. But I have a gut feeling we are headed into a warmer time in history. But who can be sure, beyond any doubt or for that matter beyond any skepticism. ~~~~Ivan~~~><//>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

11-15-2006, 13:36 PM	#9 (permalink)
brokensickle *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 10-28-06 Posts: 780	Keep In Mind Our Views Can't Change The Workings Of The Cosmos. Sombra and Julie, We cannot necessarily change this course we are on. We have to keep that fact in mind or we will not be thinking in terms of adapting to that change. Thus looking at the possibility soberly and positively, rather than with a "Oh my were doomed!!!" attitude. Much research is being invested on doom and gloom. ~~~~Ivan~~~><//>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

11-16-2006, 02:14 AM	#11 (permalink)
brokensickle *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 10-28-06 Posts: 780	Why did global warming happen in the past? Which SUV driving Americans caused the global warming 8,000 and 18,000 years ago? What cause the deadly ice ages? What wiped out the dinosaurs? What built the mountains? What causes tsunamis that wiped out scores of people in a moment? Earthquakes? Asteroids? Solar flares? Volcano's? Oh my! Shouldn't we be attempting to stop global shaking? Global freezing? Global volcanism? Global Terrorism? Well you can lead a fool to common sense, but you can't make him think. You can quote scientist all day, but scientist are on both sides of every issue. Based on the ignoring of other ideas and tough questions of thinking individuals main stream science and media tends to stay one sided for political reasons. And many a dupe follows the main stream with out any hard questions or non main stream critisism. I for one am not buying in to all this just because a main stream scientist says it is so. But I will listen to them, as I do. The question is, can anyone say beyond a shadow of doubt that these guys are absolutely right? I can't even say that about my theories. Their ideas are just that, Theories. And if they say thier theories are fact, they make themselves fools. We need to get a little perspective here. ~~~~Ivan~~~><//>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

11-12-2006, 07:11 AM	#2 (permalink)
glyn *Military Professional* Join Date: 09-15-06 Location: Penzance, Cornwall UK Posts: 6,401	Sure, the doom-mongers vastly outnumber the rest of us, and it is good to see your argument posted for debate. It is many years since I studied chemistry but I understand the oceans ability to withstand the higher levels of acidity is giving some scientists cause for concern. Will the warmer ocean temperatures help or hinder the acidity problem?

11-14-2006, 15:09 PM	#4 (permalink)
Julie Moderator Join Date: 08-04-03 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 6,321 Country:	I am all for off-shore thermal energy converters. They are expensive to build, but cost very little to operate. This mechanism extracts the heat from the water and can provide electricity/heat for a small city, and at the same time reduce the water temperatures.

11-15-2006, 13:49 PM	#10 (permalink)
Sombra Patron Join Date: 11-27-04 Posts: 274	Well, the argument is that you can influence it. Most scientists believe that the warming is man made and could be reduced or at least slowed down. The argument is that it would be even the best from the economic

11-16-2006, 02:33 AM	#12 (permalink)
gunnut *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 01-27-06 Location: DPRK, Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia Posts: 9,143 Country:	Didn't people believe that the next ice age was impending during the 1970s? Whatever happened to that? __________________ "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

12-16-2006, 05:38 AM	#14 (permalink)
brokensickle *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 10-28-06 Posts: 780	Solar Flares...... Julie, What do you think of all the solar flares and warm winter weather in Russia, Europe and around the Northern Hemisphere? Ivan

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Iraq fuels Global Jihad	Ray	Political Discussions	4	12-23-2006 12:43 PM
One time filtering out sharpshooter is a good thing	Lunatock	Pics & Videos	0	01-03-2006 17:28 PM
new modeling for global warming	Parihaka	Science & Tech	8	10-20-2005 21:43 PM
Global warming ,colder weather , ICE AGE!!!	Commando	The Western Alliance	66	03-07-2005 02:39 AM
The Kyoto Protocol is Dead	Gio	Current Affairs	48	01-07-2005 03:53 AM