Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
mrplunkey
New member
I don't think I'm following your use of the word "walk" here. I'm not sure what you mean.
Let's say the ice at time "zero" (somewhat arbitrary) is x meters thick. Some years it will grow thicker, some it will wear thinner. But at any given time, it's thickness would be described by a random walk process. So wouldn't that mean if we drilled deep enough into the ice we'd expect to find a certain point that contained environmental pollutants and eventually reach a thickness where we don't find any?
Random walk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
rsnoble-im-back
Banned
Biggest thing to remember is that things on Earth always change. Idiots don't realize this. We may speed it up or slow it down, but it's gonna happen.
1 of my fav sayings ever "this Earth is just gonna shake us off like a bunch of fleas......" George Carlin.
1 of my fav sayings ever "this Earth is just gonna shake us off like a bunch of fleas......" George Carlin.
Interesting. I don't think I've heard of that before by that name.
I wouldn't think this would apply here. It's rather linear, not random: the further down they drill, the less CO2 they find. This is how they determine what CO2 levels are hundreds, thousands, or millions of years ago.
The freezing process isn't just a matter of maintaining a thickness of x +/- some variation sigma. The process is cumulative -- snow falls, melts a bit, and becomes compressed into ice on a yearly basis, which freezes the air bubbles containing CO2 and other information. They can track how long ago the levels are at y depth of ice, not entirely unlike counting rings on a tree to determine age.
and by that time, i'll already be dead so I couldnt care less about global warming. I might even buy a Dodge Challenger just to speed up the process !
I think this is they underlying issue. People don't care about the future or what doesn't specifically impact them right now.
... but I suppose that's an underlying issue for much, much more than just global warming...
gjohnson5
New member
It all has to do with hydrodynamic variations and the thermohaline circulation -- the meridional overturning circulation -- primarily in the north atlantic.
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Book_chapters/Rahmstorf_EQS_2006.pdf
Global warming is not about global "warming" -- it's about climatary extremes, i.e. extreme hot, extreme cold, extreme precipitation, etc., all of which are influenced by the oceans' great heat capacities.
Yes
I was under the impression el nino and la nina had variable warming and cooling trends.
Creepusmaximus
New member
I think this is they underlying issue. People don't care about the future or what doesn't specifically impact them right now.
... but I suppose that's an underlying issue for much, much more than just global warming...
First off, lead in the layers of ice is a true sign of humans. Ever since humans started using and smelting metals on a wide scale there has been an increase in lead in the air so it ends up in the ice.
As far as impact you think the Russians care about gobal warming? How about Canada? Both those countries would benefit from a warmer cilmate. Crops would be just grown more north of where they are now. In fact the rain forests would just move more North or South depending on your hemisphere. Same with deserts.
People living on the ocean will have a problem but buildings have a useful life and cities will simply keep moving back from the ocean.
Nothing last forever and there has been mass movement of animals and people since the beginning of time.
Whoa there. Absolutely false. One of the biggest factors in GW is extreme precipitation, which does not lead to happy crops -- it leads to erosion and destruction of good farmland.
Global warming is not just about everywhere turning into sunny California.
Jeez. This isn't exactly rocket science, but how simple do you think thermodynamics and climatology are? The reason there's debate is because it's incredibly complex and, at many levels, beyond modeling capabilities.
Creepusmaximus
New member
Whoa there. Absolutely false. One of the biggest factors in GW is extreme precipitation, which does not lead to happy crops -- it leads to erosion and destruction of good farmland.
Global warming is not just about everywhere turning into sunny California.
Jeez. This isn't exactly rocket science, but how simple do you think thermodynamics and climatology are? The reason there's debate is because it's incredibly complex and, at many levels, beyond modeling capabilities.
Your problem is you said "useful farmland". The rain patterns will not be the same everywhere and where the land is not useful for farming right now it will be if temps go up. Also some places that don't get enough rain for crops will get enough and those that get the right amount might not get enough.
You also don't understand agriculture. The amount of rain and the type of soil is important. Sandy soil can take a lot of rain no problem where as clay is useless with heavy rain fall. It also depends on what crops you are growing.
You also get into ocean currents and tropical effects. Good luck figuring those out.
It can't be predicted what will happen but your
mind is closed to the fact that land that isn't farmed now, can be farmed with better conditions.
BTW the riches areas of plant life are where it rains every heavily. The land doesn't simply wash away.
Similar threads
