- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Carl Cantrell is a Christian and a creationist from New Mexico who has an impressive alternative theory on how perhaps climate change should be addressed.
His idea may fit extremely well with the prophecies of Isaiah and be good news for the one billion hungry people on earth?!
"So how is our problem of continental drying causing global warming? It all has to do with vegetation and sunlight. When sun light hits a plant, it causes a process which we call photosynthesis where the energy from the sun light creates oxygen for us to breathe, water for us to drink, and is stored as sugar for plants and animals to use. When the same sun light hits the soil, all of its energy turns into heat and is radiated back into the atmosphere.. ."
"Therefore, the less vegetation you have on the planet, the more sunlight is being turned into heat and the warmer the planet becomes…."
"Just take a look at any satellite picture of the earth showing heat and you will see that our deserts are the warmest spots on the planet by far. More heat is being generated by just one of the top four or five deserts than by all of our cities combined…. "
"The truth is that you can do more to decrease global warming by just reducing the average temperature for the Sahara Desert by one or two degrees than if we humans completely quit using fossil fuels and returned to the cave…."
"So, how would you start working to resolve this problem? Easy, cool the deserts and get some vegetation growing on them as soon as possible. But the method is much more complex than that. You have to use the prevailing trade winds in relation to the deserts to get the best results as quickly as possible and it will be extremely expensive…."
"Then we build desalination plants along the coast near these water sheds and pipe water to the tops or ridges of the water sheds…"
"We need to start working on this as soon as possible because, if the planet reaches a point to where it is warming faster than our technology can possibly stop or reverse this warming trend, then our planet is lost and all life will cease to exist on this planet within a relatively short period of time. We will need to start with the largest and hottest deserts because cooling them will have the greatest benefit in the least time (Global Warming II by biologist Carl Cantrell)."
So far we have seen essentially no rise in ocean levels because the central, land based, super cold region of Antarcica is taking in huge amounts of atmospheric moisture and adding it to its colossal amount of ice.
//Let us consider Antarctica for a moment.
We have already seen that it is big. It has a land area of 5.5
million square miles, and is presently covered by something in excess
of seven million cubic miles of ice weighing an estimated 19
quadrillion tons (19 followed by 15 zeros). What worries the
theorists of earth-crust displacement is that this vast ice-cap is
remorselessly increasing in size and weight:'at the rate of 293 cubic
miles of ice each year–almost as much as if Lake Ontario were frozen
solidly annually and added to it.// (Graham Hancock, Fingerprints of
the Gods, page 480).A very different thing is happening up north:
//The Greenland ice sheet had been losing between 150 and 200 cubic kilometers a year in 2002, and now is losing almost 300 cubic kilometers a year.// (Dr. James Hansen)
climateprogress.org/2009/12/02/climategate-newsweek-nasa-james-hansen-deniers-climate-science/I highly recommend doing a search for the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and research what is happening to it and how its complete collapse could raise ocean levels by five meters or more to grasp how serious the situation is.
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0420_040420_earthday_2 .html
//The complete melting of Greenland would raise sea levels by 7 meters (23 feet). But even a partial melting would cause a one-meter (three-foot) rise. Such a rise would have a devastating impact on low-lying island countries, such as the Indian Ocean's Maldives, which would be entirely submerged.
Densely populated areas like the Nile Delta and parts of Bangladesh would become uninhabitable, potentially driving hundreds of millions of people from their land.
A one-meter sea level rise would wreak particular havoc on the Gulf Coast and eastern seaboard of the United States.
"No one will be free from this," said Overpeck, whose maps show that every U.S. East Coast city from Boston to Miami would be swamped. A one-meter sea rise in New Orleans, Overpeck said, would mean "no more Mardi Gras." //(National Geographic)
Just a side not. If icebergs melt, then wouldn't the space that they occupy be filled with more water than the original ice?
I know that water in general expands in a warmer climate and that part of each iceberg is above the water. But most is below, and if icebergs melt first, then there could initially be a drop in water levels.
OK, I know that this is not the consensus in the scientific community, but I have never seen anyone factor in that ice takes up more room than water. Or maybe it is just a line of code in the computer climate models. But no one talks about it if that is the case.
Yes, it is easy to observe how much cooler a forest is compared to an adjacent plain with no trees. I read somewhere that Israel effectively changed their climate and is one of a few places where desertification is reversed.
When desertification takes place, it also blows hotter air to areas outside of the desert and drys out the plants, nopt to mention their destruction through fire etc. This process can help the spread of the desert.
If it was reversed it would surely cool the planet as you say.
Not all the energy hitting desert areas is absorbed. You should find that since these areas are lighter in colour there should be more of that light reflected back into space. After all that is how the satellites are able to photograph them as whiter. The areas of vegetation are more effective in absorbing the light and converting it to heat than the deserts.
Stuart
It is true that ice takes up more volume than water, but it is not the melting of the ice so much as the thermal expansion of the water that is the mechanism which will raise water levels.
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Jan. 17 2011,15:21) Just a side not. If icebergs melt, then wouldn't the space that they occupy be filled with more water than the original ice?
Hi T8,Have you ever put water in a “Jug” and froze it? It expands,
because ice takes up more volume than water does. So no.God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Jan. 17 2011,22:20) Quote (t8 @ Jan. 17 2011,15:21) Just a side not. If icebergs melt, then wouldn't the space that they occupy be filled with more water than the original ice?
Hi T8,Have you ever put water in a “Jug” and froze it? It expands,
because ice takes up more volume than water does. So no.God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Think carefully, now Ed. Water expands when it freezes. The ice takes up more volume, so when that volume of ice melts again the volume decreases, leaving room for more water in the same ice volume.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 17 2011,20:20) It is true that ice takes up more volume than water, but it is not the melting of the ice so much as the thermal expansion of the water that is the mechanism which will raise water levels. Stuart
Yeah that was my understanding. But if you talk to the average person, they think the sea levels will rise because there is more water. It is not mentioned enough (if at all) in media for people to understand that.Quote (Stu @ Jan. 17 2011,20:20) It is true that ice takes up more volume than water, but it is not the melting of the ice so much as the thermal expansion of the water that is the mechanism which will raise water levels. Stuart
Actually from what I have read it is the sheer amount of ice on top of land in Greenland and Antarctica that if melted would raise ocean levels.The Arctice ice is melting fast over the past couple of decades but it is ice floating in water and adds virtually nothing to ocean level rise as it melts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YWqeZkcNTc&feature=related
Time is running out…
Quote (t8 @ Jan. 17 2011,15:24) Yes, it is easy to observe how much cooler a forest is compared to an adjacent plain with no trees. I read somewhere that Israel effectively changed their climate and is one of a few places where desertification is reversed. When desertification takes place, it also blows hotter air to areas outside of the desert and drys out the plants, nopt to mention their destruction through fire etc. This process can help the spread of the desert.
If it was reversed it would surely cool the planet as you say.
I would love to have a link into that article on how Israel has changed its climate?Israel has been in the number one or two spot for decades for planting trees. Also Israel is a world leader in desalinating water to make desert areas productive or turn them into forests so I am very interested in exactly how this has affected their climate.
Quote (t8 @ Jan. 18 2011,16:04) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 17 2011,20:20) It is true that ice takes up more volume than water, but it is not the melting of the ice so much as the thermal expansion of the water that is the mechanism which will raise water levels. Stuart
Yeah that was my understanding. But if you talk to the average person, they think the sea levels will rise because there is more water. It is not mentioned enough (if at all) in media for people to understand that.
Greetings T8….The majority of the global warming activists are victims of bad science and lies by opportunic authors like Al Gore …..His book is a lot of crap supported by bad science and his lies..(ref:Earth in the Balance)Quote (Stu @ Jan. 17 2011,20:18) Not all the energy hitting desert areas is absorbed. You should find that since these areas are lighter in colour there should be more of that light reflected back into space. After all that is how the satellites are able to photograph them as whiter. The areas of vegetation are more effective in absorbing the light and converting it to heat than the deserts. Stuart
Stuart, I just want to say that this is an exceptionally good comment!You are correct that desert areas due to their lighter color do reflect a significant amount of heat back out into space which is another one of those important factors in the entire equation that makes the subject of climate change astonishingly complex and difficult to fully understand, even by genuine experts on the subject, which I Dennis Tate certainly am not!
I truly appreciate being able to debate this subject at this level Stuart!
Quote (theodorej @ Jan. 25 2011,01:22) Quote (t8 @ Jan. 18 2011,16:04) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 17 2011,20:20) It is true that ice takes up more volume than water, but it is not the melting of the ice so much as the thermal expansion of the water that is the mechanism which will raise water levels. Stuart
Yeah that was my understanding. But if you talk to the average person, they think the sea levels will rise because there is more water. It is not mentioned enough (if at all) in media for people to understand that.
Greetings T8….The majority of the global warming activists are victims of bad science and lies by opportunic authors like Al Gore …..His book is a lot of crap supported by bad science and his lies..(ref:Earth in the Balance)
I wouldn't let the fact that Al Gore's film and book are exaggerations for political effect put you off the fact that there still is a solid scientific basis to what he is saying. There is little disagreement about the nature of the effects, and my reading of the objections to An Inconvenient Truth are that he presents something closer to the worst case scenario. Take the disappearance of Lake Chad, for example. He blames that on anthropogenic climate change. Climate change deniers, or anthropogenic cause deniers claim Lake Chad is dwindling because of reasons of altered patterns of use for irrigation. Both point of view are applicable, but the irrigation use accounts for only 5% of the disappearance of the lake.Similarly with other effects, a black-and-white political approach is not going to be helpful with what is, as Dennis Tate says, a complex situation.
Stuart
Quote (DennisTate @ Jan. 24 2011,23:44) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 17 2011,20:20) It is true that ice takes up more volume than water, but it is not the melting of the ice so much as the thermal expansion of the water that is the mechanism which will raise water levels. Stuart
Actually from what I have read it is the sheer amount of ice on top of land in Greenland and Antarctica that if melted would raise ocean levels.The Arctice ice is melting fast over the past couple of decades but it is ice floating in water and adds virtually nothing to ocean level rise as it melts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YWqeZkcNTc&feature=related
Time is running out…
This is true, and I think Al Gore was discussing the potential results of an instantaneous melt of both land-based ice masses raising sea levels by an extrordinary amount, but that is not going to happen instantly. What will happen is that the water will continue to rise relatively slowly by thermal expansion AND ice melt.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 26 2011,06:38) Quote (DennisTate @ Jan. 24 2011,23:44) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 17 2011,20:20) It is true that ice takes up more volume than water, but it is not the melting of the ice so much as the thermal expansion of the water that is the mechanism which will raise water levels. Stuart
Actually from what I have read it is the sheer amount of ice on top of land in Greenland and Antarctica that if melted would raise ocean levels.The Arctic ice is melting fast over the past couple of decades but it is ice floating in water and adds virtually nothing to ocean level rise as it melts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YWqeZkcNTc&feature=related
Time is running out…
This is true, and I think Al Gore was discussing the potential results of an instantaneous melt of both land-based ice masses raising sea levels by an extrordinary amount, but that is not going to happen instantly. What will happen is that the water will continue to rise relatively slowly by thermal expansion AND ice melt.Stuart
Stuart, you are right in line with the majority of experts in thinking that ocean level rise is probably going to be gradual but I believe that Dr. James Hansen is absolutely correct when he points out that in the past ocean levels rose by twenty meters over four centuries when global temperatures rose by about three degrees.This is one meter every two decades and I personally cannot think of any other way to offset such an astonishing rise in ocean levels other than to desalinate the water and dump it in a desert area such as the Sahara?!?!
The water table in India is down by eigthy feet in many areas due to the decrease in water melting off the Himalaya glaciers.
At this time we are allowing economists to profoundly limit what humanity is able to accomplish but in theory we certainly could turn significant portions of the world's deserts green.
I personally am convinced that the entire world can initiate a vastly different monetary policy any day that the political will is there to do so.
Quote Mr. Ignatieff, if my theory is thoroughly in error, I am sorry, but as of this moment on January 25, 2011 I am convinced that it is theoretically possible for you to assist Prime Minister Harper to add roughly SIXTY BILLION tax free, interest free dollars to the 2011 or 2012 Canadian federal budget by following the advice given in this video by NDP Leader Jack Layton, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May and former Liberal Prime Minister John Turner.
Oh Canada Movie 6 – Banking – 5
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1HfKIvmZGU“We never should have privatized our debt and turned it over to the
private banks, we should have kept it in the hands of the Bank of Canada,
at least a major part of it, because then we would have been paying
interest back to ourselves.” (NDP Leader Jack Layton)In this video, if I understand her properly, Green Party Leader Ms. Elizabeth May advocates that Prime Minister Harper could theoretically use the Bank of Canada to make a loan to the federal government for the entirety of our national debt that is owed to private banks AT AN INTEREST RATE OF ZERO PERCENT!
This loan could theoretically be used to pay off all Canadian federal, provincial and even perhaps municipal level debt to private banks.
From then on the interest rate being charged by the Bank of Canada, that is truly in a sense owned by all Canadians, could be zero percent but even if a token level of interest was charged, even this amount would be paid back to the Bank of Canada which we own!
This measure could theoretically reduce the burden on Canadian taxpayers by somewhere in the range of SIXTY BILLION DOLLARS annually depending on the exact interest rate that would have been charged to them by the privately owned banks!
Mr. Ignatieff, if you could convince Prime Minister Harper to adopt this measure this would initiate nothing less than a paradigm shift in Canadian monetary policy that could have an astonishingly positive effect on not only on our own economy, but also perhaps in virtually every American State.
Topic: Mr. Michael Ignatieff, Prime Minister Harper, President Obama could sure use your assistance!
http://www.facebook.com/topic.p….=134608Here is one of Dr. Hansen's statements to this effect:
http://www.crudeoilpeak.com/?p=767
Quote
//TONY JONES: Okay, well you’re talking about what you find from the examination of ice core data. Is there a comparable period in history, the history of the planet that is, where warming accelerates due to these feedback mechanisms, and do you get much more rapid sea level rises during that period?JAMES HANSEN: Yeah, well, in the relatively recent paleoclimate, coming from the last ice age to the present interglacial period that we’ve been living in for 10,000 years, when that icesheet, the big icesheet on North America began to disintegrate, sea level went up five metres per century. That’s one meter every 20 years for several centuries. So once an icesheet begins to melt and begins to disintegrate, things can move very rapidly…..//
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 26 2011,06:35) Quote (theodorej @ Jan. 25 2011,01:22) Quote (t8 @ Jan. 18 2011,16:04) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 17 2011,20:20) It is true that ice takes up more volume than water, but it is not the melting of the ice so much as the thermal expansion of the water that is the mechanism which will raise water levels. Stuart
Yeah that was my understanding. But if you talk to the average person, they think the sea levels will rise because there is more water. It is not mentioned enough (if at all) in media for people to understand that.
Greetings T8….The majority of the global warming activists are victims of bad science and lies by opportunic authors like Al Gore …..His book is a lot of crap supported by bad science and his lies..(ref:Earth in the Balance)
I wouldn't let the fact that Al Gore's film and book are exaggerations for political effect put you off the fact that there still is a solid scientific basis to what he is saying. There is little disagreement about the nature of the effects, and my reading of the objections to An Inconvenient Truth are that he presents something closer to the worst case scenario. Take the disappearance of Lake Chad, for example. He blames that on anthropogenic climate change. Climate change deniers, or anthropogenic cause deniers claim Lake Chad is dwindling because of reasons of altered patterns of use for irrigation. Both point of view are applicable, but the irrigation use accounts for only 5% of the disappearance of the lake.Similarly with other effects, a black-and-white political approach is not going to be helpful with what is, as Dennis Tate says, a complex situation.
Stuart
Exceptionally well said Stuart.I am continually amazed how so many people concentrate on a factor that accounts for 5% of a problem and conclude from that tiny factor that the biggest forces at work are irrelevant!?
Back to ocean level rise I am of the opinion that the following statement regarding the possibility of rapid melting of the WAIS is valid:
Quote
The West Antarctic Ice Sheet(WAIS) is a unique marine ice sheet, anchored to bedrock, and in places it dips thousands of metres below sea level with margins that are floating. Other marine ice sheets existed in the Northern Hemisphere during the last glacial maximum but all disintegrated and melted away during the current warm period. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is the only marine ice sheet remaining from the last glacial period. Marine ice sheets are important because their existence and future behaviour depend not only on atmospheric conditions and ice movement, but also on sea level changes.As the sea level rises, more of the ice at the edge of the sheet floats, and the forces that hold the ice sheet together are reduced, causing ice to flow more rapidly to the oceans. This positive feed-back loop (sea-level rise, leading to reduced forces holding the ice together, leading to increased ice flow into the ocean, leading to sea level rise) could lead to rapid disintegration or collapse of a marine ice sheet. The present ice sheet would not need to melt and thin by much in order for the ice to begin to float. When the glaciers begin to float, warm ocean water is able to reach the undersides of the floating glacier tongues and melt rates increase significantly. This means that the West Antarctic ice sheet may be uniquely capable of rapid deglaciation (melting), and many scientists are quite concerned about this possibility. If the WAIS was to melt and disappear it would raise sea level by an average of 6 metres (19.6 feet).
http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/west-antarctic-ice-sheet.html
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
