Antarctica is Expanding

[captain.crazy]

CO2 is not the only grenhouse gas that's being emitted.

Tell me what the other ones are? Pretty please? The one that they want to tax us on the most is Co2.

Here's a wikkipeadia link. You can google several hundred other links if you choose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

That's pretty interesting. But its largely slanted towards CO2 emissions. plants eat that stuff... Go plant a tree and pipe it!

[PLAYER57832]

That's pretty interesting. But its largely slanted towards CO2 emissions. plants eat that stuff... Go plant a tree and pipe it!

Nice try, but it takes a lot more than one tree to compensate for the world forest losses, never mind the CO2 from burning coal, oil, etc. just to meet American's and European's daily needs.

And, pray tell, where are we going to plant them with all those houses and freeways in the way?

[demonfork]

One thing I want to point out...

It takes 144 btu's to melt 1lb of ice (actually more because when ice melts some of it vaporizes and it takes 1000 btu's per pound to vaporize)

When the tons of ice in Antarctica melts a tremendous amount of heat energy is required to facilitate this phase change. What's interesting about about phase changes is the fact that when ice melts the 144 btu's /pound is removed from the system (temperature drop) but the ice itself maintains temperature (32F) during the process, so in essence the heat disappears.

When ice melts the temperature drops, therefore It's no surprise that wile one side of Antarctica is melting the other is freezing, natures way of maintaining equilibrium.

[john9blue]

One thing I want to point out...

It takes 144 btu's to melt 1lb of ice (actually more because when ice melts some of it vaporizes and it takes 1000 btu's per pound to vaporize)

When the tons of ice in Antarctica melts a tremendous amount of heat energy is required to facilitate this phase change. What's interesting about about phase changes is the fact that when ice melts the 144 btu's /pound is removed from the system (temperature drop) but the ice itself maintains temperature (32F) during the process, so in essence the heat disappears.

When ice melts the temperature drops, therefore It's no surprise that wile one side of Antarctica is melting the other is freezing, natures way of maintaining equilibrium.

The amount of energy needed to freeze water is the same, except energy is expelled instead of absorbed. If we treat Antarctica as a system, the heat change can be roughly determined by the change in ice mass, disregarding any other small factors.

So if Antarctica's ice mass is increasing, then it does seem to provide evidence against global warming, because it implies that there is less heat energy in general to go around.

However, I don't know if it really is increasing or not...

[InkL0sed]

One thing I want to point out...

It takes 144 btu's to melt 1lb of ice (actually more because when ice melts some of it vaporizes and it takes 1000 btu's per pound to vaporize)

When the tons of ice in Antarctica melts a tremendous amount of heat energy is required to facilitate this phase change. What's interesting about about phase changes is the fact that when ice melts the 144 btu's /pound is removed from the system (temperature drop) but the ice itself maintains temperature (32F) during the process, so in essence the heat disappears.

When ice melts the temperature drops, therefore It's no surprise that wile one side of Antarctica is melting the other is freezing, natures way of maintaining equilibrium.

The amount of energy needed to freeze water is the same, except energy is expelled instead of absorbed. If we treat Antarctica as a system, the heat change can be roughly determined by the change in ice mass, disregarding any other small factors.

So if Antarctica's ice mass is increasing, then it does seem to provide evidence against global warming, because it implies that there is less heat energy in general to go around.

However, I don't know if it really is increasing or not...

Except you can't just view Antarctica as a closed system, because it isn't.

[Juan_Bottom]

There are no polar bears in Antartica.

[Minister Masket]

There are no polar bears in Antartica.

But there are penguins.

[Juan_Bottom]

There are no polar bears in Antartica.

But there are penguins.

For now...

[PLAYER57832]

There are no polar bears in Antartica.

Polar Bears are in the North pole, where ice loss is documented.

[PLAYER57832]

By-the-way, regarding this "its warming on other planets, etc." The fact is that the earth itself has warmed and cooled many times. It has done so even within human memory. Although the mass media talks a lot about "global warming" as if the earth would simply become a big florida or Sahara desert, the truth is that several areas may experience ice ages due to changes in the ocean current. This has happened in the past.

Anyway, the bottom line is that these changes are harmful to humans and if we can do anything to slow or alleviate them, then we need to do so for our own sake.

[Juan_Bottom]

There are no polar bears in Antartica.

Polar Bears are in the North pole, where ice loss is documented.

You're documented!

[Shanba]

Yeah, and the rise in temperatures is just... umm... a fluke.

One of the main arguments we hear is that the Antarctic is melting and will raise the levels of the oceans. What this article, and the upcoming report, points out is that while the Western area is melting, the Eastern area is gaining ice, even at a faster rate than ice is melting.

Truth is nobody can really say for sure what will happen. What we know is that the climate is changing (and that we're burning away the ozone layer); we're fairly certain that's because of greenhouse gas emissions.

Even if the sea level doesn't rise significantly, it's in our best interest to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

This is more or less wrong. he disappearance of the Ozone Layer is completely unrelated to global warming, caused by different chemicals, and with different consequences.

The ozone layer is what it sounds like: a layer of ozone, a gas with the chemical formula O3. The ozone layer absorbs ultraviolet light, like you said, but the effect of this is nothing to do with global warming - it is simply that ultraviolet light is unhealthy (amongst other things, it raises the risk of skin cancer) The depletion of the ozone layer was caused by chemicals called CFCs, amongst others, which were used in aerosols or fridges. There has been a ban on CFCs for some time and alternative chemicals have been developed, and evidence is beginning to filter in that the depletion of the ozone layer is reversing.

Global Warming, on the other hand, depends on greenhouse gases like methane and carbon dioxide. These act by reflecting light and heat rather than absorbing it. At first this seems contradictory, but what it means is that although less heat from the sun is absorbed by the earth, more of that heat is then trapped: the greenhouse gases reflect it back towards earth. This is a well established process scientifically, and without it the earth would be too cold for life to survive.

The idea that the increase in concentration of greenhouse gases is causing climate change and global warming is the controversial bit. No one contests that there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than there were 200 years ago, they just contest that it can't have such a large effect. And in truth, I'm sorry to say, we can't say for certain that it does - climate modeling is a horrendously difficult and imprecise science. However, trends do indicate a rise in global temperatures which might be linked to greenhouse gas emissions. Personally, I don't want to test this hypothesis experimentally. After all, Belgium is notoriously flat.

no... well, actually, yes... because that, becomes this:



Usually... but I was referring to the billions of other acres around the globe that actually do have vegetation. Not to say that I don't think that slash and burn isn't wrong... but the earth is not hurting for vegetation, not yet.

This idea is also wrong. A single tree will take in a certain amount of carbon dioxide in its lifetime and, essentially, lock it away. However, when the tree dies, it rots: when it rots, it gives of gases. You guessed it, carbon dioxide and methane. So a tree or a plant only stores the carbon for as long as it is alive.

A forest, however, has a more or less constant amount of carbon locked away, with the amount of plant material remaining roughly constant. When it is cut down to make way for farmland, there is a massive decrease in plant material. All that material then rots. Plants are carbon based lifeforms, just like us humans. It becomes greenhouse gases. Europe in particular was, in the past, vast swathes of forest. Land clearance happened, people thrived, the forest mostly died off, protected pretty much only by various nobles as hunting grounds. The rainforests are not only a unique and fascinating habitat that is being burned, they are also a huge carbon store.

[InkL0sed]

This is more or less wrong.

Well, I stand corrected...

[PLAYER57832]

Thanks Shanba, for explaining it better than I did.

I do want to add 2 points, because they are the type of things critics will use to poke holes and say "look this really isn't such a problem". This is obviously extremely simplified. Forests are much more than trees. Also harvest of tropical rainforests leads to an overall loss because they arise from very, very poor soils. Tropical rainforests are great big recyclers of not just CO2, but everything they use.

Temperate forests are a bit different. Harvest some forests and you will see a surge in young growth (particularly out east). In the west, huge tracts of land were once cut, so that nature just plain could not keep up. Large tracts out there had to be, have to be replanted (again, this, too is a GROSS simplification).

Anyway, the thing is that even with the complete loss of a forest, there is not a complete loss of the CO2 cycle, in a few cases, there may not be more than a temporary reduction. HOwever, those cases are rare. Usually, the new growth or, whatever replaces the forest (shopping malls, for example) does not produce or recycle anywhere near the CO2 as a living forest.

ALSO, you have swamps, etc where the decomposition process differs greatly.

So... for those of you who want to say "wait... wait"... we KNOW. But the overall theme.. that greenhouse gases are increasing and that this is very likely to cause some seriously bad stuff to happen to humans is true.

[captain.crazy]

Yeah, and the rise in temperatures is just... umm... a fluke.

One of the main arguments we hear is that the Antarctic is melting and will raise the levels of the oceans. What this article, and the upcoming report, points out is that while the Western area is melting, the Eastern area is gaining ice, even at a faster rate than ice is melting.

Truth is nobody can really say for sure what will happen. What we know is that the climate is changing (and that we're burning away the ozone layer); we're fairly certain that's because of greenhouse gas emissions.

Even if the sea level doesn't rise significantly, it's in our best interest to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

This is more or less wrong. he disappearance of the Ozone Layer is completely unrelated to global warming, caused by different chemicals, and with different consequences.

The ozone layer is what it sounds like: a layer of ozone, a gas with the chemical formula O3. The ozone layer absorbs ultraviolet light, like you said, but the effect of this is nothing to do with global warming - it is simply that ultraviolet light is unhealthy (amongst other things, it raises the risk of skin cancer) The depletion of the ozone layer was caused by chemicals called CFCs, amongst others, which were used in aerosols or fridges. There has been a ban on CFCs for some time and alternative chemicals have been developed, and evidence is beginning to filter in that the depletion of the ozone layer is reversing.

Global Warming, on the other hand, depends on greenhouse gases like methane and carbon dioxide. These act by reflecting light and heat rather than absorbing it. At first this seems contradictory, but what it means is that although less heat from the sun is absorbed by the earth, more of that heat is then trapped: the greenhouse gases reflect it back towards earth. This is a well established process scientifically, and without it the earth would be too cold for life to survive.

The idea that the increase in concentration of greenhouse gases is causing climate change and global warming is the controversial bit. No one contests that there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than there were 200 years ago, they just contest that it can't have such a large effect. And in truth, I'm sorry to say, we can't say for certain that it does - climate modeling is a horrendously difficult and imprecise science. However, trends do indicate a rise in global temperatures which might be linked to greenhouse gas emissions. Personally, I don't want to test this hypothesis experimentally. After all, Belgium is notoriously flat.

no... well, actually, yes... because that, becomes this:



Usually... but I was referring to the billions of other acres around the globe that actually do have vegetation. Not to say that I don't think that slash and burn isn't wrong... but the earth is not hurting for vegetation, not yet.

This idea is also wrong. A single tree will take in a certain amount of carbon dioxide in its lifetime and, essentially, lock it away. However, when the tree dies, it rots: when it rots, it gives of gases. You guessed it, carbon dioxide and methane. So a tree or a plant only stores the carbon for as long as it is alive.

A forest, however, has a more or less constant amount of carbon locked away, with the amount of plant material remaining roughly constant. When it is cut down to make way for farmland, there is a massive decrease in plant material. All that material then rots. Plants are carbon based lifeforms, just like us humans. It becomes greenhouse gases. Europe in particular was, in the past, vast swathes of forest. Land clearance happened, people thrived, the forest mostly died off, protected pretty much only by various nobles as hunting grounds. The rainforests are not only a unique and fascinating habitat that is being burned, they are also a huge carbon store.

Which forests are being burned on Mars?

[InkL0sed]

There are no polar bears in Antartica.

Antartica doesn't exist.

[karel]

You guys really think global warming is causing all of this...lmao yea right
I'm sure it has a very small part in this,but the earth goes through a cycle like it has every 20-50,000 years.

I i can't believe that this is all due to global warming.
People want you to believe it is global warming.

But then again i'm sure most of you guys believe that nut bag al gore

[Neoteny]

He's a much better alternative than believing you, apparently.

[Minister Masket]

There are no polar bears in Antartica.

But there are penguins.

For now...

I see you have penguins on your mind. Now you will never escape.

[Snorri1234]

I might just lay down the law in this thread if it continues with the bullshit.

[keiths31]

If the earth is warming...why the hell did I wake up to snow this morning?

[Neoteny]

Because "the earth is warming" and "the seasons are going to stop for some retarded reason" aren't the same thing?

[Snorri1234]

I R TEH STUPIDZ

[keiths31]

Well just like many debates it is all in the facts you want to believe in. I tend to lean towards the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change where they state that the variations in earth‘s temperature corresponded exactly to fluctuations in solar radiation. Basically the Earth is warming at the same rate that Mercury, Venus and other planets are. As far as I know humans aren't causing those celestial bodies to warm due to pollution and what not.
I am sure there will be some who will challenge the findings and shoot down my thoughts. But whatever. Everyone is entitled to their opinion...and most of oyu did not have to clear snow off your car in April today.

[keiths31]

I R TEH STUPIDZ

You are one class act. Sure put me in my place.