Ask a physicist anything. (7)

[Chalnoth]

Sea level rise is the least of our worries. The greatest risk is the Gulf stream stopping and thus cause an Ice age to appear very quickly. Ice ages wreak havoc by trapping water as ice and the annual rainfall worldwide to decrease substantially and droughts will be the norm in any geographic zone!

Here is an interesting documentary that may help one to understand the process:

The Gulf Stream and The Next Ice Age | Watch Free Documentary Online

Talking with some climate scientists a little bit ago about this very issue, they seemed to think it highly unlikely that the gulf stream would shut down. Also, a gulf stream shutdown wouldn't cause an ice age. It would cause parts of northern Europe to get significantly colder (possibly even uninhabitable), but would have little impact for overall global temperatures.

 

[mzungu]

I don't think the Gulf Stream will shut down within our lifetimes let alone our childrens.

There was a paper published a few years back saying that so far the Gulf Stream hasn't weakened so far.

20 years ago it was believed that global warming will cause the north polar ice sheet to melt completely in more than a century from now. We have revised these figures to within decades. Already in the height of summer, ships have passage where before this was impossible.

The important factor here is ACCELERATION and this is so prominent that changes are noticeable on a yearly basis.

BBC News - North Pole rowing quest success due to climate change

Artic Ice Abrupt Withdrawl - Present-2040 - YouTube

 

[Chalnoth]

20 years ago it was believed that global warming will cause the north polar ice sheet to melt completely in more than a century from now. We have revised these figures to within decades. Already in the height of summer, ships have passage where before this was impossible.

The important factor here is ACCELERATION and this is so prominent that changes are noticeable on a yearly basis.

BBC News - North Pole rowing quest success due to climate change

Artic Ice Abrupt Withdrawl - Present-2040 - YouTube

Yes, but a transition to an ice age has never been expected to occur nearer than ~1000 years from now, if at all.

 

[mzungu]

Yes, but a transition to an ice age has never been expected to occur nearer than ~1000 years from now, if at all.

True but; The overall consequences of climate change will have a profound negative effect on modern societies! The only good side to global warming is that the insurance companies end up paying more for storm damages

 

[RickG]

20 years ago it was believed that global warming will cause the north polar ice sheet to melt completely in more than a century from now. We have revised these figures to within decades. Already in the height of summer, ships have passage where before this was impossible.

The important factor here is ACCELERATION and this is so prominent that changes are noticeable on a yearly basis.

BBC News - North Pole rowing quest success due to climate change

Artic Ice Abrupt Withdrawl - Present-2040 - YouTube

Climate change skeptics like to call climate scientists "alarmists", completely ignoring the fact that the actual observed data shows the arctic ice melt accelerating faster than their models predicted.

 

[cupid dave]

Climate change skeptics like to call climate scientists "alarmists", completely ignoring the fact that the actual observed data shows the arctic ice melt accelerating faster than their models predicted.

But shpuld that be used by politicians, not the scienctist, to tax us and generalize the funds for their own use unrelated to remedial measures where the climate changes will impact us?????

 

[Chalnoth]

But shpuld that be used by politicians, not the scienctist, to tax us and generalize the funds for their own use unrelated to remedial measures where the climate changes will impact us?????

What are you talking about?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

But shpuld that be used by politicians, not the scienctist, to tax us and generalize the funds for their own use unrelated to remedial measures where the climate changes will impact us?????

No.

 

[mzungu]

But shpuld that be used by politicians, not the scienctist, to tax us and generalize the funds for their own use unrelated to remedial measures where the climate changes will impact us?????

No! It is the job of the politicians to be advised by the scientific community on what measures should be taken and enacted into law!

 

[chris4243]

No! It is the job of the politicians to be advised by the scientific community on what measures should be taken and enacted into law!

It's the job of politicians to do the will of the people so they get (re)elected. It's the job of the people to be advised by the scientific community so that they don't throw out politicians who're trying to do the right thing in favor of politicians with rosy promises.

 

[Chalnoth]

It's the job of politicians to do the will of the people so they get (re)elected. It's the job of the people to be advised by the scientific community so that they don't throw out politicians who're trying to do the right thing in favor of politicians with rosy promises.

That's not reasonable. This is precisely why we have experts. People simply cannot be expected to become experts on every single subject.

Would you think it a good idea to ask a medical doctor advice on global warming? Would you think it a good idea to ask a physicists for understanding of microbiology? I should hope not. And the general public is going to be no less ignorant of subjects outside their own personal range of expertise.

What we have a right to expect, then, is to be able to elect representatives who are good decision-makers, not representatives who are carbon copies of our own viewpoints. Politicians should not simply be images of majority opinion: they should be experts in their own right as it relates to public policy, and who defer to experts in other fields when it is important to do so. Of course, they should represent the will of the people in a sense, in that the people should vote for people that believe in the same image of the nation. But the people cannot ever be expected to have the knowledge as to how that image is to come about.

Unfortunately, what we have instead are representatives who are neither. They do not blindly represent the will of their voters, nor are they particularly expert (for the most part). Instead, they overwhelmingly represent the will of the rich while disregarding the will of the people. See, for example, the recent jobs bill. Over 60% of Americans support it, and yet it is dying in congress.

 

[cupid dave]

What are you talking about?

The politicians want to tax us.
In states where they have taxed based on Global Warming they have already used those funds for other purposes due to the recession and lower tax base.

What we need is more discussion about what Global Warming will do and what we need to correct or accommodate communities which will suffer.

We need to relate Taxation to the remedial measures necessary where the climate changes will impact us.

 

[chris4243]

What we have a right to expect, then, is to be able to elect representatives who are good decision-makers, not representatives who are carbon copies of our own viewpoints.

But then we'd have to trust a politician.

Unfortunately, what we have instead are representatives who are neither. They do not blindly represent the will of their voters, nor are they particularly expert (for the most part). Instead, they overwhelmingly represent the will of the rich while disregarding the will of the people. See, for example, the recent jobs bill. Over 60% of Americans support it, and yet it is dying in congress.

It doesn't matter if 60% of people support it. We're not a direct democracy. If 51% of the people in the districts of enough representatives support it, that would be enough. So anywhere between 25% and 75% support would be necessary or insufficient.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The politicians want to tax us.
In states where they have taxed based on Global Warming they have already used those funds for other purposes due to the recession and lower tax base.

What we need is more discussion about what Global Warming will do and what we need to correct or accommodate communities which will suffer.

We need to relate Taxation to the remedial measures necessary where the climate changes will impact us.

Taxation funds more than just mitigating the effects of climate change. The taxes go to one big pot, and then other projects are thereby funded, making it rather difficult to say "This dollar used to buy X was acquired by taxing gambling/cars/etc". Are you simply saying that governments should do more to curb the effects of climate change? I should think that's a given.

 

[Chalnoth]

The politicians want to tax us.

You do realize that taxes are necessary for a functioning government, right? You do realize that taxes pay for things like roads, schools, police, etc.?

In states where they have taxed based on Global Warming they have already used those funds for other purposes due to the recession and lower tax base.

So what? There isn't any reason why the tax receipts need to be earmarked to some specific purpose or other. The purpose of the taxes isn't to raise revenue per se: it's to factor in more accurately the true costs of specific products and services.

For example, if product X costs $5 on the shelf while costing an extra $10 in environmental damage, while product Y costs $10 on the shelf while not producing any environmental damage, then people are going to overwhelmingly purchase product X, but will end up paying $15 per product once the environmental costs are factored in. So, if we just put a $10 tax on product X, so that it now costs $15, then people will start buying product Y instead and there won't be a need to pay for the environmental damage.

So, to drive the point home: the purpose of taxes on things like carbon emissions is not to raise revenue for any specific purpose. It's to change consumer behavior.

But, in the main, we are not taxing carbon emissions. We are subsidizing them. And that is really, really bad.

We need to relate Taxation to the remedial measures necessary where the climate changes will impact us.

There's just no reason for this. We should address the issues when they come up. But the purpose of taxing things like carbon emissions is unrelated to relief measures.

 

[mzungu]

That's not reasonable. This is precisely why we have experts. People simply cannot be expected to become experts on every single subject.

Would you think it a good idea to ask a medical doctor advice on global warming? Would you think it a good idea to ask a physicists for understanding of microbiology? I should hope not. And the general public is going to be no less ignorant of subjects outside their own personal range of expertise.

What we have a right to expect, then, is to be able to elect representatives who are good decision-makers, not representatives who are carbon copies of our own viewpoints. Politicians should not simply be images of majority opinion: they should be experts in their own right as it relates to public policy, and who defer to experts in other fields when it is important to do so. Of course, they should represent the will of the people in a sense, in that the people should vote for people that believe in the same image of the nation. But the people cannot ever be expected to have the knowledge as to how that image is to come about.

Unfortunately, what we have instead are representatives who are neither. They do not blindly represent the will of their voters, nor are they particularly expert (for the most part). Instead, they overwhelmingly represent the will of the rich while disregarding the will of the people. See, for example, the recent jobs bill. Over 60% of Americans support it, and yet it is dying in congress.

 

[RickG]

But shpuld that be used by politicians, not the scienctist, to tax us and generalize the funds for their own use unrelated to remedial measures where the climate changes will impact us?????

I really don't care about the political side Dave. I'm mainly interested in what science is correct and what science is being deliberately distorted. The latter I cannot and will not tolerate. That is why I post here as well in climate science forums.

 

[Tuddrussell]

Why are goats always so smug? Do they know something we don't?

 

[LOCO]

"Ask a physicist anything. (6)"[/url]

What's your opinion on Nobel Prize winning physicist Ivar Giaever resignation last month as a Fellow from the American Physical Society? He doesn't agree with their official stance that global warming is occurring.

He said he "cannot live with the statement" on global warming, and said that global temperature had been "amazingly stable."

This just confuses the general public. I think Scientists bear an obligation to devise simpler and better ways of explaining global warming to the public.

No-one I know understands anything about global warming, what is occurring, how it's occurring, how it is going to affect future generations, how will it affect my hip pocket etc. Throw in the mix dissenting views from Scientists and you have a confused, uninformed, frustrated and angry public.

We are becoming desensitised to the cry 'there will be no earth for future generations'.

Blessings

 

[Chalnoth]

What's your opinion on Nobel Prize winning physicist Ivar Giaever resignation last month as a Fellow from the American Physical Society? He doesn't agree with their official stance that global warming is occurring.

Sounds to me like he's one of a series of formerly-good scientists who lost their marbles.

The work he won his Nobel prize for, by the way, was electron tunneling, which has as much to do with global warming as baseball. Now, electron tunneling is really important stuff in its own right. Understanding its behavior, for example, is important for understanding the behavior of modern microprocessors.

He said he "cannot live with the statement" on global warming, and said that global temperature had been "amazingly stable."

And that statement (by Giaever) is amazingly delusional.

This just confuses the general public. I think Scientists bear an obligation to devise simpler and better ways of explaining global warming to the public.

There are quite a lot out there, if you're willing to look. This guy has put together a lot of great videos on the subject, for example:
greenman3610's Channel - YouTube

I also rather like this website, if you're more into reading:
Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says

No-one I know understands anything about global warming, what is occurring, how it's occurring, how it is going to affect future generations, how will it affect my hip pocket etc. Throw in the mix dissenting views from Scientists and you have a confused, uninformed, frustrated and angry public.

To me, it's really too much to blame scientists for this. The reason that there's a lot of confused information out there isn't because of scientists. It's because there are a number of large PR firms who make it their job to publish wave after wave of misinformation regarding climate science. Nearly all of the literature questioning the consensus on global warming, for example, has been put out either directly or indirectly by conservative think tanks, which derive a good fraction of their funding from fossil fuel companies. Fox News has also been quite instrumental in pushing the disinformation.