|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gatsby
Joined: 09 Feb 2007
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 3:14 pm Post subject: Kayaker's journey shows why the Earth's days are numbered. |
 |
|
This summer, British environmentalist and explorer, Lewis Gordon Pugh, set out from the Norwegian island of Spitsbergen to kayak across the Arctic Ocean towards the North Pole to show the drastic loss of sea ice.
Here is a current CNN report on his journey:
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2008/09/05/smith.artic.kayak.itn
The CNN report is a little short on scientific details.
There are plenty of other news stories and academic postings that go into more detail. Here's one I grabbed with a quick search:
| Quote: |
"We could very well be in that quick slide downward in terms of passing a tipping point," said senior scientist Mark Serreze at the data center. "It's tipping now. We're seeing it happen now."
No summer ice within five to 10 years
Within "five to less than 10 years," the Arctic could be free of sea ice in the summer, said NASA ice scientist Jay Zwally.
"It also means that climate warming is also coming larger and faster than the models are predicting and nobody's really taken into account that change yet," he said.
Five climate scientists, four of them specialists on the Arctic, told The Associated Press that it is fair to call what is happening in the Arctic a "tipping point." NASA scientist James Hansen, who sounded the alarm about global warming 20 years ago before Congress, said the sea ice melt "is the best current example" of that. |
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26426382/
The point of the kayak journey was to make the effects of global warming real in people's minds. It sure did that for me. It made me want to cry.
Global warming is not just about rising sea levels or the death of species like polar bears, it is about the death of human beings. If James Lovelock, one of the pioneers and foremost experts on the subject in the world, is right, nine out of 10 of your students, and nine out of 10 of the people reading this, will die prematurely from the effects, direct or indirect, of global warming. Billions of people are going to die. The media, and scientists, have downplayed this because they don't want to create panic, and have admitted this.
All of the predictions about global warming have turned out to be conservative. One after another indicator of global warming is showing the pace is faster than predicted. It is possible that at some point we will get into a short term cooling trend, perhaps due to the grace of God or Nature, but what counts is the long term mechanism. And it appears that we do not have very long, perhaps decades or less.
If you don't know why, google 'frozen methane + global warming.'
If the methane frozen at the bottom of the coastal shelves melts due to a rise in ocean temperatures, much if not most of the life in the oceans will die and temperatures on land will rise so much that most of the earth will be turned into desert.
I post this not to get into an argument with naysayers, who opine without bothering to look at the facts, but to warn the rest of you. Nothing anyone can say will ever change the minds of these climate bigots, even when the evidence is right in front of their faces, as with this video.
Do some research and judge for yourself.
And as James Lovelock said, "Enjoy the Earth while you can." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gatsby
Joined: 09 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Huge ice shelf breaks into the Arctic Ocean
19 SQUARE MILES: Ellesmere Island loss is called irreversible.
By CHARMAINE NORONHA
The Associated Press
(09/08/08 00:06:52)
TORONTO -- A chunk of ice shelf nearly the size of Manhattan has broken away from Ellesmere Island in Canada's northern Arctic, another dramatic indication of how warmer temperatures are changing the polar frontier, scientists said last week.
Derek Mueller, an Arctic ice shelf specialist at Trent University in Ontario, said the 4,500-year-old Markham Ice Shelf separated in early August and the 19-square-mile shelf is now adrift in the Arctic Ocean.
"The Markham Ice Shelf was a big surprise because it suddenly disappeared. We went under cloud for a bit during our research and when the weather cleared up, all of a sudden there was no more ice shelf. It was a shocking event that underscores the rapidity of changes taking place in the Arctic," said Mueller.
Mueller also said that two large sections of ice detached from the Serson Ice Shelf, shrinking that ice feature by 47 square miles -- or 60 percent -- and that the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf has also continued to break up, losing an additional eight square miles.
Mueller reported last month that seven square miles of the 170-square-mile and 130-feet-thick Ward Hunt shelf had broken off.
This comes on the heels of unusual cracks in a northern Greenland glacier, rapid melting of a southern Greenland glacier, and a near record loss for Arctic sea ice this summer. And earlier this year a 160-square mile chunk of an Antarctic ice shelf disintegrated.
"Reduced sea ice conditions and unusually high air temperatures have facilitated the ice shelf losses this summer," said Luke Copland, director of the Laboratory for Cryospheric Research at the University of Ottawa. "And extensive new cracks across remaining parts of the largest remaining ice shelf, the Ward Hunt, mean that it will continue to disintegrate in the coming years."
Formed by accumulating snow and freezing meltwater, ice shelves are large platforms of thick, ancient sea ice that float on the ocean's surface but are connected to land.
Ellesmere Island was once entirely ringed by a single enormous ice shelf that broke up in the early 1900s. All that is left today are the four much smaller shelves that together cover little more than 299 square miles.
Martin Jeffries of the U.S. National Science Foundation and University of Alaska Fairbanks said in a statement that the summer's ice shelf loss is equivalent to over three times the area of Manhattan, totaling 82 square miles -- losses that have reduced Arctic Ocean ice cover to its second-biggest retreat since satellite measurements began 30 years ago.
"These changes are irreversible under the present climate and indicate that the environmental conditions that have kept these ice shelves in balance for thousands of years are no longer present," said Mueller.
During the last century, when ice shelves would break off, thick sea ice would eventually reform in their place.
"But today, warmer temperatures and a changing climate mean there's no hope for regrowth. A scary scenario," said Mueller. |
more:
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/519353.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
GW is the direct effect of atmospheric gases trapping the sun's heat, keeping our temperatures warmer than they would otherwise be. Without it the earth would be uninhabitable. Enhanced Global warming(Anthropogenic GW) is the result of man's interference in these natural processes resulting in what has been so far a net increase in Global average temperatures.
Without trying to get bogged down in debates over natural and artifical causes and whether we can or should do anything about it, some facts are very clear and noncontroversial:
1) We are conducting a very large and uncontrolled experiment on the only biosphere that we have. Whatever the results, it is difficult to argue that they will be positive.
2) We are reliant on the status quo for our economy, our infrastructure and our political landscape. Changes to the status quo will cause disruptions to these.
3) We can't alter the sun. We can however affect how this energy is trapped and retained by the earth.
4) The earth in the past has been both far warmer and far colder than it is now. However current concentrations of GHG's have not been reached in times exceeding many thousands of years.
5) Our population is increasing, our reliance on farming, irrigation, energy and technology is also increasing. If there are substantial disruptions to these, the capacity of earth to sustain the current population will be impacted and severly so.
More optimistically:
6) Our technology and scientific understanding are also increasing. We are no longer willy nilly hunting species to extinction for the sheer hell of it, forestation has actually increased in many countries, and there is substantial rising global awareness. The rate of population growth is declining worldwide and is zero or negative in many developed countries.
7) We may soon have cracked the problems of energy. Nuclear fusion is undergoing a lot of research, as is better fission and renewables. A cheap source of clean energy could help us a lot on this planet.
I wouldn't like to make predictions, but I do think that the next 100 years will be interesting times, in the old Chinese curse sense. If we pull through I believe that we'll be able to essentially go on forever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gatsby
Joined: 09 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 3:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well put. But I was a bit puzzled by one part:
| Quote: |
4) The earth in the past has been both far warmer and far colder than it is now. However current concentrations of GHG's have not been reached in times exceeding many thousands of years. |
Yes, there was a time when the world was significantly warmer, about 5 degrees C, I believe is what scientists say, about 55 million years ago. And this was after the frozen methane was released. Most of the life in the sea, and much of the life on earth was killed. The conditions continued for 100,000 years.
This is what the scientists are afraid of. If the methane is released, it would again kill life in the sea, and raise temperatures on earth so much that life on most of the area now inhabited by man would be uninhabitable. Drought and famine would leave a planet able to support perhaps 500 million in "cooler" regions, but that might be an optimistic estimate. It really depends on what exactly happens.
The experts are saying the melting of the polar ice cap probably is the tipping point, beyond which we will not be able to turn back the mechanisms that will cause further warming.
If we can find ways to remove stuff from the atmosphere, who knows?
But with world population continuing to explode, and formerly third world countries adopting "a car in every garage" approach, I don't think there is any technology that can save us.
It is possible that with the continuing acceleration of warming through a positive feedback loop that triggers mechanisms that cause further warming -- such as the melting of polar ice, glaciers, release of methane from thawed tundra and permafrost -- we could see global warming causing such devastation within 10 to 20 years that perhaps a billion people might die in the first stages of the collapse of agriculture.
We already are seeing panic over spot food shortages, combined with serious political unrest, in some countries. And several countries passed laws banning food exports. This gives me little hope that people can work together cooperatively to share the burden and their resources, at least in the most affected, poorer countries. In the more developed countries, there is much greater potential for cooperation.
But it is amusing to consider that right now the Arabs and other oil producers have much of the world over a barrel, literally. But if the day comes that food is in short supply the tables would be turned real fast. The Arabs could produce on their own arid land enough food to feed perhaps 5 percent of their population. In a time of famine, America and Canada would be among the richest nations in the world. That's something Korea might want to keep in mind.
And of course, it is perfectly reasonable in the minds of evangelicals to reject all this nonsense about global warming because they believe the Earth is only about 5,000 years old. How can you argue with someone like that? Especially if they become president. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gangpae
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 3:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The sky is falling, the sky is falling. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gatsby wrote: |
Well put. But I was a bit puzzled by one part:
| Quote: |
4) The earth in the past has been both far warmer and far colder than it is now. However current concentrations of GHG's have not been reached in times exceeding many thousands of years. |
Yes, there was a time when the world was significantly warmer, about 5 degrees C, I believe is what scientists say, about 55 million years ago. And this was after the frozen methane was released. Most of the life in the sea, and much of the life on earth was killed. The conditions continued for 100,000 years.
This is what the scientists are afraid of. If the methane is released, it would again kill life in the sea, and raise temperatures on earth so much that life on most of the area now inhabited by man would be uninhabitable. Drought and famine would leave a planet able to support perhaps 500 million in "cooler" regions, but that might be an optimistic estimate. It really depends on what exactly happens.
The experts are saying the melting of the polar ice cap probably is the tipping point, beyond which we will not be able to turn back the mechanisms that will cause further warming.
If we can find ways to remove stuff from the atmosphere, who knows?
But with world population continuing to explode, and formerly third world countries adopting "a car in every garage" approach, I don't think there is any technology that can save us.
It is possible that with the continuing acceleration of warming through a positive feedback loop that triggers mechanisms that cause further warming -- such as the melting of polar ice, glaciers, release of methane from thawed tundra and permafrost -- we could see global warming causing such devastation within 10 to 20 years that perhaps a billion people might die in the first stages of the collapse of agriculture.
We already are seeing panic over spot food shortages, combined with serious political unrest, in some countries. And several countries passed laws banning food exports. This gives me little hope that people can work together cooperatively to share the burden and their resources, at least in the most affected, poorer countries. In the more developed countries, there is much greater potential for cooperation.
But it is amusing to consider that right now the Arabs and other oil producers have much of the world over a barrel, literally. But if the day comes that food is in short supply the tables would be turned real fast. The Arabs could produce on their own arid land enough food to feed perhaps 5 percent of their population. In a time of famine, America and Canada would be among the richest nations in the world. That's something Korea might want to keep in mind.
And of course, it is perfectly reasonable in the minds of evangelicals to reject all this nonsense about global warming because they believe the Earth is only about 5,000 years old. How can you argue with someone like that? Especially if they become president. |
Actually it was 250MYA. Boundary between the Permian and the Triassic(early dinosaurs.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event
I'm not sure if the cause is as nailed down as the most recent mass extinction (Yucatan+vulcanism 65MYA) or as the one that is happening now (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) but methane release is certainly a leading hypothesis.
One thing that I've learnt is that the future does not lend itself to predictions easily. Yes the positive feedback in the Artic is bad news. It could be very bad news. But the possible warming from methane release simply isn't known. It's not included in models for that reason. It is very worrying. One issue is that we simply don't have a good handle on how much methane is out there, but it is a lot. Also methane has a half-life of about 8 years in atmosphere, so the rate of release is also important. If it's hundreds of years it's less of an worry. It's possible that the methane will trigger fires and a lot of smoke and cooling as well, which wouldn't be good at all.
There are also certain Geo engineering feats that may be possible to moderate a overheated greenhouse effect. Some of these will be more feasible in 50-200 years than they are now. So the timing of effects is an issue in another way. For example Gregory Benford proposed a giant plastic frensel lens in a Geostationary orbit. This would difuse about 1-2% of incident light (enough to totally obliviate GW). The lens would be huge of course and expensive to put up there. The total costs would be somewhat close to that of George Bush's adventure in Iraq IIRC. Expensive, but doable.
I think our species will pull through. On a personal level though, I'd buy land in a sparsely populated area, should the opportunity arise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gangpae: Anything of substance to add? Do you deny that the Artic is melting? Do you think that this will have no effects on global climate? Have you any evidence that these effects will be wholy positive? Do you deny that this planet has gone through several mass extinctions in the past, and that we may not be immune?
If you have some real inputs lets hear them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gatsby
Joined: 09 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 6:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, really?
Why don't you write a letter to James Lovelock, and tell him?
There have been many near extinctions. My favorite was the Toba Catastrophe, but that wasn't methane connected, as far as I know. And there may have been more than one connected to release of the frozen methane.
Try googling frozen methane and global warming. It's one hell of an eye opener.
Also take a look at what Lovelock has to say about Gaia, and Gaia's revenge.
I'm going to bed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gangpae
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 6:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
I am 100% certain there is no such thing as global warming. What I am 100% certain sure of is there is no limit to human hysteria. The whole 'global warming' scare scam is exactly like the Jehovah's Witness scam. You'll just keep coming up with signs of impending doom, except now in the post religion 'scientific age' it'll be dressed up with scientific proof. If you really want to understand my thinking on 'global warming' I suggest you take a look at a book by Simon Winchester called 'Krakatoa'.
Doomsday hysteria is as old as human history. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 6:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Doomsday hysteria is as old as human history. |
That is as good a reason to ignore mountains of scientific data as I can think of. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 7:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| ... it is amusing to consider that right now the Arabs and other oil producers have much of the world over a barrel, literally. |
In addition to oil, the Arabs seem to have some surprisingly advanced physicists and engineering practitioners. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gangpae wrote: |
I am 100% certain there is no such thing as global warming. What I am 100% certain sure of is there is no limit to human hysteria. The whole 'global warming' scare scam is exactly like the Jehovah's Witness scam. You'll just keep coming up with signs of impending doom, except now in the post religion 'scientific age' it'll be dressed up with scientific proof. If you really want to understand my thinking on 'global warming' I suggest you take a look at a book by Simon Winchester called 'Krakatoa'.
Doomsday hysteria is as old as human history. |
So the Artic isn't melting? We're not producing greenhouse gases? These gases don't absorb IR radiation?
Nothing in science is 100% of course. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gangpae
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| OneWayTraffic wrote: |
| gangpae wrote: |
I am 100% certain there is no such thing as global warming. What I am 100% certain sure of is there is no limit to human hysteria. The whole 'global warming' scare scam is exactly like the Jehovah's Witness scam. You'll just keep coming up with signs of impending doom, except now in the post religion 'scientific age' it'll be dressed up with scientific proof. If you really want to understand my thinking on 'global warming' I suggest you take a look at a book by Simon Winchester called 'Krakatoa'.
Doomsday hysteria is as old as human history. |
So the Artic isn't melting? We're not producing greenhouse gases? These gases don't absorb IR radiation?
Nothing in science is 100% of course. |
Of course the polar ice caps may or may not be contracting. It is perfectly normal for an environmental system to fluctuate. Global warming is a pseudo science and its ambiguities make it easy for anyone to be an expert. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
