It's all over but for the sweating?

[P-hack]

And yet another heavily skewed video, if the actual remaining ice was as small as the ice there the sea levels would already be at maximum. For F#@ks sake already.

[cbaber]

Neeley: Lack of hurricanes helps climate change skeptics - Houston Chronicle

The problem with man made global warming is that even if it is true, nothing we do can reverse course in time. We are completely reliant on fossil fuels and will be for at least 25 years. Even if the US drastically reduced emissions, countries like China will pick up the CO2 emissions as they expand industrially. As more and more of the world gains access to electricity, cars, and other modern sources of CO2 emissions, the global output will continue on.

[Alteredstory]

Originally Posted by P-hack

And yet another heavily skewed video, if the actual remaining ice was as small as the ice there the sea levels would already be at maximum. For F#@ks sake already.

You seem to be lacking information about sea level rise and arctic sea ice. If this isn't something you've looked into much, that's perfectly understandable, but let me see if I can explain it to you.

The ice in question, for that video, and for sea the sea ice discussion that Niel quoted, is floating on the ocean - that means that the melting of that ice will not, by itself, raise sea level - it's already IN the sea.

There are two major factors that contribute to sea level rise. The first, and the one that's been responsible for most of the sea level rise we've seen so far, is the fact that as water warms, it expands. Most of the energy that has been trapped on Earth due to the rise in greenhouse gasses has been absorbed by the ocean. The water has warmed, in a number of areas, and so it has expanded, causing a rise in sea levels.

The second major factor is the melting of LAND ice. There are three categories here. One is Greenland - the ice "cap" on top of the island of Greenland; one is a similar cap on the continent of Antarctica; the last is the numerous glaciers in high mountain ranges around the world.

When land-bound ice melts, that's water that is being added to the ocean, and so it causes sea level to rise.

The reason the melting of arctic ice can, in the long term, cause sea level rise is that white ice reflects more energy than dark water. Less sea ice means more sunlight is absorbed, and the arctic sea warms a bit, which melts more ice, and makes it warm more, and so on. That will increase sea levels a little, but the bigger issue there is the effect it will have on Greenland.

Greenland, to reiterate, is land-bound ice, so if it melts, it's added to the sea level. As arctic SEA ice melts, it warms the whole region, and means that Greenland melts faster.

So while the increased melting shown in the video will, over time, add to sea level, the ice melt itself won't directly raise sea level any more than melting ice cubes floating in a glass of water cause it to overflow.

[Alteredstory]

Originally Posted by cbaber

The problem with man made global warming is that even if it is true, nothing we do can reverse course in time. We are completely reliant on fossil fuels and will be for at least 25 years. Even if the US drastically reduced emissions, countries like China will pick up the CO2 emissions as they expand industrially. As more and more of the world gains access to electricity, cars, and other modern sources of CO2 emissions, the global output will continue on.

While you are correct that the warming will continue for the foreseeable future, you've missed a couple things. The first is that while China's emissions ARE increasing, China is also investing far more than any other country in renewable energy, and in next-generation nuclear power, which means that they are not likely to ever reach the per-person emissions of America.

That said, the longer we DELAY a conversion based on the notion that we "can't do it in time", the more that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. In the meantime, we're left with the question of what to do about the warming that is happening regardless.

In that area, it turns out, the answer is much the same. Conventional power plants are vulnerable to droughts, floods, heat waves, and storms in a way that most forms of renewable energy generation are not, to at the very least, we need a larger proportion of renewable energy sources to avoid blackouts during heat waves or floods, when people need the energy the most.

There's also the fact that combustion-based power plants currently increase air pollution, which becomes more dangerous in higher temperatures.

There's more to be done than just changing power sources, but that WILL make it easier to cope with the challenges of a warming world.

If you prefer to focus on other ways to adapt, for whatever reason, there are things like the Federal Flood Insurance program that encourages people to build on the beachfront (Sandy showed us how THAT will end up), or the fact that we're currently subsidizing agriculture in regions that are going to need more irrigation as droughts get worse, and as available drinking water becomes more precious. There's a lot of work to be done, no matter what you think is CAUSING the warming.

[P-hack]

Originally Posted by Alteredstory

You seem to be lacking information about sea level rise and arctic sea ice.

I am not lacking, what is lacking is a global example of ice, not one that zooms in on one area and season to make a dramatic (emotional) point with the ice melting down to near nothing (complete with dramatic music).

[Alteredstory]

Originally Posted by P-hack

I am not lacking, what is lacking is a global example of ice, not one that zooms in on one area to make a dramatic (emotional) point with the ice melting down to near nothing.

I apologize for misunderstanding, I guess...

I covered WHY that area is important to focus on, but since you seem to have missed it, I'll try again.

The melting of the arctic sea ice, in addition to being an indicator, will increase temperatures in the arctic. As THAT happens, it means that GREENLAND will melt faster, because of the warmer temperatures that result from that "one area".

Clearer?

[Alteredstory]

I also want to add that while you may object to the dramatic music, what's going on IS dramatic. It's unprecedented in human history.

That "one area of ice" has been there for hundreds of thousands of years. The fact that it will STOP being there in our lifetimes (depending on your age) is pretty dramatic.

[cbaber]

Originally Posted by Alteredstory

While you are correct that the warming will continue for the foreseeable future, you've missed a couple things. The first is that while China's emissions ARE increasing, China is also investing far more than any other country in renewable energy, and in next-generation nuclear power, which means that they are not likely to ever reach the per-person emissions of America.

That said, the longer we DELAY a conversion based on the notion that we "can't do it in time", the more that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. In the meantime, we're left with the question of what to do about the warming that is happening regardless.

In that area, it turns out, the answer is much the same. Conventional power plants are vulnerable to droughts, floods, heat waves, and storms in a way that most forms of renewable energy generation are not, to at the very least, we need a larger proportion of renewable energy sources to avoid blackouts during heat waves or floods, when people need the energy the most.

There's also the fact that combustion-based power plants currently increase air pollution, which becomes more dangerous in higher temperatures.

There's more to be done than just changing power sources, but that WILL make it easier to cope with the challenges of a warming world.

If you prefer to focus on other ways to adapt, for whatever reason, there are things like the Federal Flood Insurance program that encourages people to build on the beachfront (Sandy showed us how THAT will end up), or the fact that we're currently subsidizing agriculture in regions that are going to need more irrigation as droughts get worse, and as available drinking water becomes more precious. There's a lot of work to be done, no matter what you think is CAUSING the warming.

We are not delaying a conversion based on ideology or politics, it's about money and practicality. It's impossible to move America's goods and foods without fossil fuels. Fossil fuels provide cheap energy and transportation that is accessible to all Americans. We've set up our country to run on fossil fuels and nothing has come along that is a viable alternative.

Ask Japan about nuclear energy and flooding, I am sure they will tell you that energy sources other than fossil fuels are vulnerable to natural disasters as well. Furthermore, renewable energy sources like wind and water are not without their environmental consequences. Wind farms need many more times the land space to produce an equal amount of power to traditional power plants. They also kill birds, are unsightly, produce noise, and are completely reliant on wind levels.

Solar is promising, but the costs associated are hard for mainstream America to adapt. My grandparents recently converted their house to solar, and no longer have an electric bill. The power company actually pays them for the extra energy they produce. If we can all power our homes from solar panels, I think we can go a long way to reducing the load on our power grid. But even with all the government funding to help people convert, it is still expensive and hard for people to justify because global warming is on the bottom of their priority list.

[Alteredstory]

I disagree. I think it IS due to ideology using "pragmatism" as a disguise. We KNOW that it's going to get worse, which means that if we wait, we're going to be spending to cope with climate change at the same time as we're spending to change our infrastructure.

We have money to spend, we're just spending it badly right now. One example is the colossal amount we spend on our military.

As to Japan, the problems with nuclear are the SAME as the problems with fossil fuels, because coal plants AND nuke plants need to be cooled. The LFTR reactors that China is working on don't require the same kind of cooling system, and so don't need to be built near water.

As to wind power, the number of birds killed is a tiny fraction of the number wiped out every year by building windows alone, and the pollution emitted by fossil fuels tends to kill more birds than the few thousand killed by wind turbines. Basically, it's an overblown problem.

On the same level, the "noise" thing is a non-issue. The ONLY areas where wind turbine "noise" is a problem, are areas where there have been PR campaigns telling people how bad the noise is. It's a placebo effect.

There are problems with ALL power sources, but the ones associated with renewable energy sources are smaller, and easier to manage, and we're making VERY rapid advances. Combining technologies can get us much farther along than we are now.

Take Germany - they get LESS sun almost all of the U.S., and they've got one of the strongest economies in the world, while also having one of the highest renewable energy portfolios in the world.

Even if we can't make a 100% conversion there is ZERO practical barrier to doing more than we are doing now. The only barriers are ideology (the GOP's official party platform is that everything's fine), and established business interests trying to block changes that would cut into their profit margin.

[P-hack]

Originally Posted by Alteredstory

I apologize for misunderstanding, I guess...
...

S'ok, I was making a different point than the one you went on about.

Back to the subject of emotional manipulation, well more like terrorism, I liken the "thermal runaway" argument to threatening people with eternal damnation if they don't agree with you or the importance of what you are saying. It needs to stop. Economic arguments are best for implementing change, and renewable make the most sense long term, so that is our common ground I guess. People have heard the warnings about sea rise in plenty of time (no I don't have much sympathy for you if you still live in new Orleans).

If you prefer wildlife, then you have to understand that humans compete with wildlife. Look at a satellite picture of the states sometime, almost completely covered in unsustainable farms for an ever unsustainable population, creating lots of heat in the process.