[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Only nuclear power can now halt global warming
With regard to the accumulation of ice at the highest
latitudes, issues such as lack of solare radiation,
ocean currents and weather patterns obviously played
important parts in the accumulation and retention of
the existing glaciers. It is interesting the the ice
ages started to appear after the Indian subcontinent
"slammed" into the Euro-Asian land mass, creating the
Himalayan Mountains.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/teachers/programs/2320_ice.html
--- "Riely, Brian P." <brian.riely@ngc.com> wrote:
> My understanding is that the world was very hot at
> one time. Water had to get to Greenland and there
> had to be some gravitational well that held the
> water in place. It is not clear to me that what
> held the water in Greenland initially would not
> still hold the water. Of course, you can argue that
> the gravitational well extends across the whole
> earth and there are no local wells (at least large
> local wells). I guess your argument that my
> analogy, does "not hold water" is based on the idea
> that if I place an ice cube on a piece of land then
> when the ice melts, there will be more water. That
> argument does not address how the ice cube got there
> in the first place. Also there is the argument
> about both the north and the south poles melting
> would cause the ocean levels to rise. I read that
> people believe that Antarctica is floating. If that
> is true, then my argument analogy "holds a
> lot of water." In anticipation of someone making
> the simplistic argument that as ice melts more water
> is added, I mention, "for example, the earth's
> surface has changed such that the gravitational
> potential that initially held the water in Greenland
> would no longer hold the water" John, you did say
> something that make a lot of sense, "If I remember
> correctly, as glaciers melt, the landmass rises."
> If the land mass rises, to me that says the depths
> of the oceans decreases, which implies, given the
> same volume of water, the level of the ocean
> increases.
>
> Too often people assume simple explanations not
> taking other factors into account.
>
> Thanks for your comment.
>
> Brian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 3:53 PM
> To: Riely, Brian P.; John_Sukosky@DOM.COM;
> radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
> Subject: RE: Only nuclear power can now halt global
> warming
>
>
> If I remember correctly, as glaciers melt, the
> landmass rises. Thus, there is a volume increase in
> the oceans as melted waters are added to it. Also,
> you analogy, does "not hold water." Water should be
> added to the glass as melting glaciers would add
> water
> to the oceans.
>
> I ran across this detailed study about glaciers
>
http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/fellows/zachfinal.pdf
>
> --- "Riely, Brian P." <brian.riely@ngc.com> wrote:
> > In the reference article, it states:
> > "...the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, which
> > will raise global sea levels significantly..."
> >
> > On a simplistic level, when a chuck of ice that
> is
> > floating in a glass of water melts, the water
> level
> > does not rise; so, why would the melting of the
> > Greenland ice sheet cause sea levels to rise
> > significantly everywhere. I can think of several
> > scenarios where the above would be true--for
> > example, the earth's surface has changed such that
> > the gravitational potential that initially held
> the
> > water in Greenland would no longer hold the
> > water--but they would be just made up stories.
> Does
> > anyone know the reason why professor Lovelock 's
> > statement is true?
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John_Sukosky@DOM.COM
> > [mailto:John_Sukosky@DOM.COM]
> > Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 11:57 AM
> > To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
> > Subject: Only nuclear power can now halt global
> > warming
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Maybe this will cause reasonable people to
> re-think
> > an unreasonable
> > position they may hold on nuclear power:
> >
> >
>
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=524313
> >
> > Leading environmentalist urges radical rethink on
> > climate change
> > By Michael McCarthy Environment Editor
> > 24 May 2004
> >
> >
> > Global warming is now advancing so swiftly that
> only
> > a massive expansion of
> > nuclear power as the world's main energy source
> can
> > prevent it overwhelming
> > civilisation, the scientist and celebrated Green
> > guru, James Lovelock,
> > says.
> >
> > His call will cause huge disquiet for the
> > environmental movement. It has
> > long considered the 84-year-old radical thinker
> > among its greatest heroes,
> > and sees climate change as the most important
> issue
> > facing the world, but
> > it has always regarded opposition to nuclear power
> > as an article of faith.
> > Last night the leaders of both Greenpeace and
> > Friends of the Earth rejected
> > his call.
> >
> > Professor Lovelock, who achieved international
> fame
> > as the author of the
> > Gaia hypothesis, the theory that the Earth keeps
> > itself fit for life by the
> > actions of living things themselves, was among the
> > first researchers to
> > sound the alarm about the threat from the
> greenhouse
> > effect.
> >
> > He was in a select group of scientists who gave an
> > initial briefing on
> > climate change to Margaret Thatcher's Conservative
> > Cabinet at 10 Downing
> > Street in April 1989.
> >
> > He now believes recent climatic events have shown
> > the warming of the
> > atmosphere is proceeding even more rapidly than
> the
> > scientists of the UN's
> > Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
> > thought it would, in their
> > last report in 2001.
> >
> > On that basis, he says, there is simply not enough
> > time for renewable
> > energy, such as wind, wave and solar power - the
> > favoured solution of the
> > Green movement - to take the place of the coal,
> gas
> > and oil-fired power
> > stations whose waste gas, carbon dioxide (CO2), is
> > causing the atmosphere
> > to warm.
> >
> > He believes only a massive expansion of nuclear
> > power, which produces
> > almost no CO2, can now check a runaway warming
> which
> > would raise sea levels
> > disastrously around the world, cause climatic
> > turbulence and make
> > agriculture unviable over large areas. He says
> fears
> > about the safety of
> > nuclear energy are irrational and exaggerated, and
> > urges the Green movement
> > to drop its opposition.
> >
> > In today's Independent, Professor Lovelock says he
> > is concerned by two
> > climatic events in particular: the melting of the
> > Greenland ice sheet,
> > which will raise global sea levels significantly,
> > and the episode of
> > extreme heat in western central Europe last
> August,
> > accepted by many
> > scientists as unprecedented and a direct result of
> > global warming.
> >
> > These are ominous warning signs, he says, that
> > climate change is speeding,
> > but many people are still in ignorance of this.
> > Important among the reasons
> > is "the denial of climate change in the US, where
> > governments have failed
>
=== message truncated ===
=====
+++++++++++++++++++
"We cannot escape danger, or the fear of danger, by crawling into bed and pulling the covers over our heads."
-- Franklin Delano Roosevelt
-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To
unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the
text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,
with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/