NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060529/full/060529-5.html

It seems that millions of years ago, the North Pole was as warm as the equatorial regions.

Obviously, at some point in the past, the planet was warm enough to have no ice cap (at least at the North Pole), and the world did not come to an end. It also seems that the Earth subsequently cooled, at least in the northern polar regions.

So, tell me again how global warming is an unmitigated, irreversible, apocalyptic disaster of untold proportions that has never happened before. Polar ice caps melting, yadda yadda yadda...

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060529/full/060529-5.html

It seems that millions of years ago, the North Pole was as warm as the equatorial regions.

Obviously, at some point in the past, the planet was warm enough to have no ice cap (at least at the North Pole), and the world did not come to an end. It also seems that the Earth subsequently cooled, at least in the northern polar regions.

So, tell me again how global warming is an unmitigated, irreversible, apocalyptic disaster of untold proportions that has never happened before. Polar ice caps melting, yadda yadda yadda...
I'm still trying to figure out how melting all the ice in the North Pole is going to raise the ocean. Isn't that all free-floating now?

It's inconvenient. It'll displace costal populations, and since the majority of Earth's cities are situated on the coast, the majority of Earth's infrastructure will be under water if the ice caps melt.

I'm still trying to figure out how melting all the ice in the North Pole is going to raise the ocean. Isn't that all free-floating now?
It's the south pole we need to worry about melting, because it's sitting on top of land.

well the polar ice caps never did melt before because they never existed. But since then a lot has happened, the breaking of Pangaea, tectonic movement, the creation of island chains. If the ice caps melt you can wave bye bye to the maldives. If the sea rise by one metre then their gone. Also an imbalance in fresh and salt water levels in the sea could destroy the ecosystem and distort all the water flows like the Labrador which could result in a new ice age.

It's the south pole we need to worry about melting, because it's sitting on top of land.
Okay.

Don't worry life will go on!!....

...just not as we know it....

We'll all live

"Under the sea. Under the sea.."

We'll all live

"Under the sea. Under the sea.."
Ba ba ba baba ba ba ba baba
Ba ba ba baba ba ba ba baa.

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060529/full/060529-5.html

It seems that millions of years ago, the North Pole was as warm as the equatorial regions.

Obviously, at some point in the past, the planet was warm enough to have no ice cap (at least at the North Pole), and the world did not come to an end. It also seems that the Earth subsequently cooled, at least in the northern polar regions.

So, tell me again how global warming is an unmitigated, irreversible, apocalyptic disaster of untold proportions that has never happened before. Polar ice caps melting, yadda yadda yadda...
Disaster for mankind, perhaps? Not that many humans around 55 million years ago.

Disaster for mankind, perhaps? Not that many humans around 55 million years ago.
Not many of any species around today were around at that time.

Basically says we are all f***ed

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2078944470709189270&q=an+inconvenient+truth

Basically says we are all f***ed

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2078944470709189270&q=an+inconvenient+truth

Great now we're pretty much at war with our own planet. Well we've lost....

Pack your bags children

Not many of any species around today were around at that time.
Exactly - so it would be more troublesome to have such a temperature today.

Exactly - so it would be more troublesome to have such a temperature today.
The sharks and crocodiles would be alright though.

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060529/full/060529-5.html

It seems that millions of years ago, the North Pole was as warm as the equatorial regions.

Obviously, at some point in the past, the planet was warm enough to have no ice cap (at least at the North Pole), and the world did not come to an end. It also seems that the Earth subsequently cooled, at least in the northern polar regions.

So, tell me again how global warming is an unmitigated, irreversible, apocalyptic disaster of untold proportions that has never happened before. Polar ice caps melting, yadda yadda yadda...


It took 800,000 years to cool back down? The equitorial regions if the poles were in the 70s would of been uninhabitable. No the world won't end, it'll just be horrifically fucked.

Do you read the articles you link or just skim and hope no one else will?

The sharks and crocodiles would be alright though.
Except that they might starve...

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060529/full/060529-5.html

So, tell me again how global warming is an unmitigated, irreversible, apocalyptic disaster of untold proportions that has never happened before. Polar ice caps melting, yadda yadda yadda...

1) No-one says global warming is unmitigated.
2) No-one says global warming is irreversible.
3) No-one says it has never happened before.

Apart from showing that you have no understanding of the topic, or science, or basic logic, can you explain how you leap from the facts to your ridiculous conclusion?

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060529/full/060529-5.html

It seems that millions of years ago, the North Pole was as warm as the equatorial regions.

Obviously, at some point in the past, the planet was warm enough to have no ice cap (at least at the North Pole), and the world did not come to an end. It also seems that the Earth subsequently cooled, at least in the northern polar regions.

So, tell me again how global warming is an unmitigated, irreversible, apocalyptic disaster of untold proportions that has never happened before. Polar ice caps melting, yadda yadda yadda...

You'll note humans weren't around then, either.
Especially not in the numbers there are today.
Hmm... what species possibly died from total temperature shift...
Oh yeah... dinosaurs.
No, climate change isn't anything to worry yourself over.
When the temperature gets so hot that no human can live in those zones, I'll remember the dinosaurs, and hope for their swift return in our absence.

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060529/full/060529-5.html

It seems that millions of years ago, the North Pole was as warm as the equatorial regions.

Obviously, at some point in the past, the planet was warm enough to have no ice cap (at least at the North Pole), and the world did not come to an end. It also seems that the Earth subsequently cooled, at least in the northern polar regions.

So, tell me again how global warming is an unmitigated, irreversible, apocalyptic disaster of untold proportions that has never happened before. Polar ice caps melting, yadda yadda yadda...
No one has ever said it has never happened. The only problems with global warming is that it's happening too fast (the changes you mention took thousands and even millions of years to happen, not a couple of centuries), and millions of years ago there weren't millions of people living in coastal areas.

Other than that it's difficult to tell how life will adapt and how weather patterns can change (which could affect agricultural areas).

The sharks and crocodiles would be alright though.
And Gila monsters. I like Gila monsters.

can you explain how you leap from the facts to your ridiculous conclusion?

it's easy - just give up on the entire concept of using valid arguments and you can get any conclusion you want from any premises you happen to write down.

It took 800,000 years to cool back down? The equitorial regions if the poles were in the 70s would of been uninhabitable. No the world won't end, it'll just be horrifically fucked.

Do you read the articles you link or just skim and hope no one else will?
Yes I read them.

Horribly f-ed?

I note that the world looks just fine today.

It said in the article that the temperature at the poles and equator were THE SAME, not different.

I note that the world looks just fine today.

Perhaps you should get out more.

Perhaps you should get out more.

hahahaha!!!
Or watch the news of how Holland and Venice and such low places are battling with higher sea levels.

How this "Global Warming isn't real, or a threat" movement continues to plow on is beyond me...
Is it willful ignorance? Do people just fear the idea that humanity is totally screwing itself so much that they make stuff up to deny what's going on?
I don't get it...

Perhaps you should get out more.
Been all around the world, my friend, and there are plenty of nice places.

If any are f-ed, it's because people live there, not because of nature (or even pollution).

Lead poisoning seems to be a leading cause of death in places where things are going bad (or kinetic energy overdose).

Been all around the world, my friend, and there are plenty of nice places.

If any are f-ed, it's because people live there, not because of nature (or even pollution).

Lead poisoning seems to be a leading cause of death in places where things are going bad (or kinetic energy overdose).

I envy you for being able to travel that much, hope i could do the same :)

And thats exacly what i meant, people are fucking this place up, not just ecologically, but.. erm.. everything really. And global warming, even thought there has been many debate around it, its a consequence of the exagerated pollution, plus, natural occurances.

On a last note, global warming and poles melting, would be catastrophic. As it was told before, most city's are in coastal regions, many important city's too. They would all go bamlawlwtf. City's, places, people and other living beings, totally "invaded" by water. There is no way to say that wouldnt affect negativelly our planet. Chaos would breed, people would move out of the affected regions in any ways they could, economy would mess up, people would die and things would be destroyed. I don't even know how to put this. Its just how it is. The thing is, global warming IS happening. It depends on us (hopefully) to stop it. If its a natural process, well, i dont believe this is natures fault, only in some aspects. Humanity is at fault, thats what.

More ice melting, more water in ocean, more devastation and bad air. Yay....!!!!

Yes I read them.

Horribly f-ed?

I note that the world looks just fine today.

It said in the article that the temperature at the poles and equator were THE SAME, not different.


That's not even remotely possible.

Been all around the world, my friend, and there are plenty of nice places.

If any are f-ed, it's because people live there, not because of nature (or even pollution).

Lead poisoning seems to be a leading cause of death in places where things are going bad (or kinetic energy overdose).
The article describes it as a mediterranian climate, not equitorial.

That's not even remotely possible.
Well, it is, if the temperature at the equator was lower as well...

Yes I read them.

Horribly f-ed?

I note that the world looks just fine today.
Yes, but how will the world look if the climate reverts to the way it was back then, when the average summertime temperatures in the Arctic Ocean were almost 24°C?

That would make the world of Man look slightly less fine, I think...

Well, it is, if the temperature at the equator was lower as well...


Yes, but how will the world look if the climate reverts to the way it was back then, when the average summertime temperatures in the Arctic Ocean were almost 24°C?

That would make the world of Man look slightly less fine, I think...


I'll stand by my not remotely possible reponce. Though there actually is a way, if the planet were suddenly hurled out of orbit then the sun would no longer heat us and the entire planet would cool. Thus the temperature would be similar at the equater and the poles.

As long as we're in orbit of a live star it's not possible.

I'll stand by my not remotely possible reponce. Though there actually is a way, if the planet were suddenly hurled out of orbit then the sun would no longer heat us and the entire planet would cool. Thus the temperature would be similar at the equater and the poles.

As long as we're in orbit of a live star it's not possible.Since it only concerns the average summer temperature. I'd say it's also possible if for example the tilt of the earth axis was greater (and the tilt does vary over time). Leading to warmer summers and colder winters.
And I wouldn't be surprised if there were other mechanism that might work towards similar results.

I'll stand by my not remotely possible reponce. Though there actually is a way, if the planet were suddenly hurled out of orbit then the sun would no longer heat us and the entire planet would cool. Thus the temperature would be similar at the equater and the poles.

As long as we're in orbit of a live star it's not possible.
You present a reasonable argument against my wild speculation. Damn it!

So, tell me again how global warming is an unmitigated, irreversible, apocalyptic disaster of untold proportions that has never happened before. Polar ice caps melting, yadda yadda yadda...

Heating up the north pole doesn't mean that the world will end, no one says that. It only means that the live's of anyone that lives in a coastal area (i.e. 80% of the world population) is going for a big change. Like in drowning.

After all, where do you think the water that covers the north pole in the form of ice will go after it melts?

Equator is not a fixed line, it's simply 0 latitude based upon the axial tilt. No matter how you realign the planet there'll by a hot strip down the middle called the equator.

Now if the planet spun so that what is currently the poles were on the equator that's the only method by which the temperature at the current north pole could be the same as the temperature at what used to be the equator.

Actually it'd probably be hotter, since the pole would face the sun constantly, the other side of the planet would get colder and colder since it never receives light.

Heating up the north pole doesn't mean that the world will end, no one says that. It only means that the live's of anyone that lives in a coastal area (i.e. 80% of the world population) is going for a big change. Like in drowning.

After all, where do you think the water that covers the north pole in the form of ice will go after it melts?


The northern polar cap is ice on water. If it all melted, the sea level would drop slightly. (Ice takes up more volume than water). The south pole however is ice over land, if it melts sea level will rise.

I think it's about time we had a large depopulation of humankind, we haven't had one of those for a while.


Also, what ever happened to that polar exchange thing, where the magnetic poles of the world switch suddenly? We were talking about it in science class a few years ago, said we were just about a hundred or so years overdue for one, and scientists couldn't figure out why it hadn't happened, seeing as it had happened regularly since before then.

It's the south pole we need to worry about melting, because it's sitting on top of land.Okay.

Ice melting in water does not increase the volume of water, because ice's specific density is below 1. Most of the worlds glaciers, however, rest on mountains/land so it would be an issue if they were to melt.

I'll stand by my not remotely possible reponce. Though there actually is a way, if the planet were suddenly hurled out of orbit then the sun would no longer heat us and the entire planet would cool. Thus the temperature would be similar at the equater and the poles.

As long as we're in orbit of a live star it's not possible.
The temperature on Venus is uniform. Saturn's poles are warmer than its equator.

If there's a mechanism to drive heat from the equator to the poles efficiently it is possible that they have the same temperature.

Venus is under the effect of a runaway greenhouse effect, solar heating may not be the primary source of it's heat anymore.

Saturn is far enough from the sun that it's certainly not getting a majority of it's heat from the sun. Volcanic activity probably provides more.

It is because of an effect, can't remember the name, that happened on Venus, a cape of polution is on the atmosphere, causing heat/energy from the sun to come in...But almost none to leave, it all heated up...

The northern polar cap is ice on water. If it all melted, the sea level would drop slightly. (Ice takes up more volume than water).

What? No it wouldn't. Here now, take a glass and fill it with water, but not up to the brim, and mark the level (that's "sea-level"). Add some ice (this new level is NOT the new "sea-level"). Let it melt, and note the new level (that's your new "sea-level").

The south pole however is ice over land, if it melts sea level will rise.

Don't forget Greenland and Canada's arctic archipelago. There's quite a bit of land there, too, that for now is covered by ice.

It is because of an effect, can't remember the name, that happened on Venus, a cape of polution is on the atmosphere, causing heat/energy from the sun to come in...But almost none to leave, it all heated up...

Yeah, keep in mind when we speak of the poles and the equator being the same, we mean it in the context of Earth, meaning life would have to survive on it. There's probably no life on Venus.

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060529/full/060529-5.html

It seems that millions of years ago, the North Pole was as warm as the equatorial regions.

Obviously, at some point in the past, the planet was warm enough to have no ice cap (at least at the North Pole), and the world did not come to an end. It also seems that the Earth subsequently cooled, at least in the northern polar regions.

So, tell me again how global warming is an unmitigated, irreversible, apocalyptic disaster of untold proportions that has never happened before. Polar ice caps melting, yadda yadda yadda...
What's your point. At some time during earth's history Antartica was a rainforest.
The problem is that http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/ENVIRONMENT/EXTCMM/0,,menuPK:407932~pagePK:149018~piPK:149093~theSitePK:407926,00.html gives you the information that "Fifty percent of the world's population currently live within sixty kilometers of the coast – at present, more than 3 billion people. By the year 2008, the world population will exceed 6.7 billion people, with 3.4 billion of us living in coastal areas."

If you take a quick look at how the coastal lines are developed and which countries would suffer a lot from rising sea levels (which will occur when the Antarctic ice melts), I would say that this can cause serious problems.

What? No it wouldn't. Here now, take a glass and fill it with water, but not up to the brim, and mark the level (that's "sea-level"). Add some ice (this new level is NOT the new "sea-level"). Let it melt, and note the new level (that's your new "sea-level")..

Not exactly; unlike adding ice, the polar icecaps are part of the already existant world supply of water. It would be more like filling a glass with water, freezing part of it, and then measuring the changes in sea level accordingly.

Ice melting in water does not increase the volume of water, because ice's specific density is below 1. Most of the worlds glaciers, however, rest on mountains/land so it would be an issue if they were to melt.

But "below 1" does not equal "zero". There will still be a rise in the total volume of water, and this will be noticed particularly in parts of the world that don't currently freeze over.

What? No it wouldn't. Here now, take a glass and fill it with water, but not up to the brim, and mark the level (that's "sea-level"). Add some ice (this new level is NOT the new "sea-level"). Let it melt, and note the new level (that's your new "sea-level").



Don't forget Greenland and Canada's arctic archipelago. There's quite a bit of land there, too, that for now is covered by ice.


Wow, so adding additional water onto of water makes the water level rise?!

BRILLIANT!

Yes I read them.

Horribly f-ed?

I note that the world looks just fine today.

It said in the article that the temperature at the poles and equator were THE SAME, not different.
Please don't vote. You are unqualified to have an opinion.


The period you are talking about is called the Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum. Not only was it characterized by temperatures at the poles that were equivalent to temperatures at the equator, it was also characterized by one of the the largest extinction epochs in the history of life on our planet. It was caused, oddly enough, by a sudden, large concentration of carbon in the atmosphere. What happened was that greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere rose over a period of time and finally warmed the planet to the point that the methane hydrates in the oceans and permafrost began to melt and gas off into the atmosphere. Methane contains more carbon than carbon dioxide does so the planet started warming even faster creating a feedback loop. An episode like this is called a "methane burp." More methane equals higher temperatures and more hydrates melt putting more methane into the atmosphere creating higher temperatures. The worst of these episodes was called the Permian-Triassic extinction event or the "Great Dying" where 90% of all terrestial life and 70% of all oceanic life went extinct. Could it happen to us?

THE world's largest frozen peat bog is melting. An area stretching for a million square kilometres across the permafrost of western Siberia is turning into a mass of shallow lakes as the ground melts, according to Russian researchers just back from the region.

The sudden melting of a bog the size of France and Germany combined could unleash billions of tonnes of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere.

The news of the dramatic transformation of one of the world's least visited landscapes comes from Sergei Kirpotin, a botanist at Tomsk State University, Russia, and Judith Marquand at the University of Oxford.

Kirpotin describes an "ecological landslide that is probably irreversible and is undoubtedly connected to climatic warming". He says that the entire western Siberian sub-Arctic region has begun to melt, and this "has all happened in the last three or four years".
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18725124.500.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Triassic_extinction_event
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

The point isn't that the planet has never warmed or cooled before. Humans have only been around for about 70 to 100 thousand years and civilization has only been around for about 12 thousand and modern, technological civilization has been around for about 100 years. A sudden planetary warming that changes the weather pattern we rely on for agriculture, changes the shape and positions of our coasts, submerges whole cities, etc... may not kill us all but it may kill many of us and impoverish the rest.

Or it may kill us all. Who knows? Probably best not to find out, but it may be too late now not to.

The Earth's climate has never been static. It has constantly been changing, long before humans, mamals, or even multi-celled organisms graced the planet.

My problem with global warming is that, so far, it has been impossible to parse out any human affect on slight changes in climate. Anyone who knows anything about statistics knows that dynamic variables vary around their means. Just becase a decade is 'above normal' or 'below normal' does not, in itself, mean anything. We've been measuring this for so short a time-span, we don't even truly appreciate what 'normal' is!

Global warming is a very interesting hypothesis, that has yet to be fully tested in an objective and repeatable fashion. That is why it is not yet a theory (according to the scientific method), much less a fact.

Those who support the notion of global warming often assert the dangers of ignoring it and being wrong. True. But they often don't recognize the dangers of implementing proposed 'solutions' and being wrong. Decreased standards of living, economic development, energy production. Western nations will suffer marked declines in living standards, especially for the poor, while third world nations will retreat even further. The mechanisms that support the worlds population would be cut down. The results of that should be obvious.

The Earth's climate has never been static. It has constantly been changing, long before humans, mamals, or even multi-celled organisms graced the planet.

My problem with global warming is that, so far, it has been impossible to parse out any human affect on slight changes in climate. Anyone who knows anything about statistics knows that dynamic variables vary around their means. Just becase a decade is 'above normal' or 'below normal' does not, in itself, mean anything. We've been measuring this for so short a time-span, we don't even truly appreciate what 'normal' is!

Global warming is a very interesting hypothesis, that has yet to be fully tested in an objective and repeatable fashion. That is why it is not yet a theory (according to the scientific method), much less a fact.

Those who support the notion of global warming often assert the dangers of ignoring it and being wrong. True. But they often don't recognize the dangers of implementing proposed 'solutions' and being wrong. Decreased standards of living, economic development, energy production. Western nations will suffer marked declines in living standards, especially for the poor, while third world nations will retreat even further. The mechanisms that support the worlds population would be cut down. The results of that should be obvious.
What do you mean, "untested?" The only way we can actually test it is to let it happen. What we do know is that carbon as an element absorbs infrared radiation and heats up the same way hydrogen absorbs microwave radiation and heats up. We can then hypothisize that increased levels of carbon in the atmosphere should absorb more of the infrared radiation the ground releases after interacting with visible light from the sun. While we can't check this directly, it has been shown that in the past increased levels of carbon in the atmosphere have been associated with sometimes large increases in temperature, as the OP's article shows. While this is not a direct test, it does suggest that increased levels of CO2 do indeed cause increases in global temperatures. The fact that the planet has cooled and warmed in the past has nothing to do with it. It hasn't significantly cooled or heated while we've been around and certainly not while we've had the kind of technological civilization we have now.

I'm still trying to figure out how melting all the ice in the North Pole is going to raise the ocean. Isn't that all free-floating now?

Its the ice ABOVE THE WATER we should worry about.

Its the ice ABOVE THE WATER we should worry about.
Ice displaces more than an equivalent volume of water. You can see this when you make ice cubes. Ever notice how it bubbles up in the middle? The reason is that the water molecules in ice are not as close together as they are in water. That's alos the reason it floats. One of the reasons sea levels are risng is because when melting ice sheets break off of the arctic and antarctic ice caps they displace ocean water in the same way as when you drop an ice cube into a glass of water.

Ice displaces more than an equivalent volume of water. You can see this when you make ice cubes. Ever notice how it bubbles up in the middle? The reason is that the water molecules in ice are not as close together as they are in water. That's alos the reason it floats. One of the reasons sea levels are risng is because when melting ice sheets break off of the arctic and antarctic ice caps they displace ocean water in the same way as when you drop an ice cube into a glass of water.

Listen to me. If there is ice above the water, it is not displacing the water. When that ice melts and that water is added to the ocean, the ocean will rise. It wont be an apocalyptic rise, but Manhattan might have something to worry about.

Venus is under the effect of a runaway greenhouse effect, solar heating may not be the primary source of it's heat anymore.
The sun is the main source of heat in Venus. The atmosphere is just very good at trapping it, as it gets hotter the temperature gets distributed all through the atmospher, until the whole planet has the same temperature. The atmospher on Earth does the same job, although not as efficiently. The ocean currents work much better at distributing heat, but still are not as good as Venus. Still, you have to ask yourself, why is Spain so balmy while central Canada is so cold, even though Spain is at the same latitud?

Saturn is far enough from the sun that it's certainly not getting a majority of it's heat from the sun. Volcanic activity probably provides more.
It's also getting most of its heat from the sun. There may be some radiation, but likely not that much. Why most of the heat is being concentrated at the poles is still unknown, but it may have to do with deep atmospheric currents.

But they often don't recognize the dangers of implementing proposed 'solutions' and being wrong. Decreased standards of living, economic development, energy production. Western nations will suffer marked declines in living standards, especially for the poor, while third world nations will retreat even further. The mechanisms that support the worlds population would be cut down. The results of that should be obvious.
Dangers that are often exaggerated and will be coming upon us soon in any event.

Oil supplies are limited. This will (and already is) causing decreased standards of living, economic development, and, of course, energy production. Had we the foresight to have gone green earlier, this wouldn't be as much of a problem as it is today, to say nothing of what it will be several years down the road.

Western nations may suffer marked declines in living standards, but by making a conscious choice to go green we have the option of mitigating those declines or at least redirecting them to areas which are not so vital to other parts of the economy. Our current direction means that there will be no opportunity to properly plan and manage our descent.

Global Warming happens anyway? Maybe. So will economic decline. The only real choice is, do we want to consciously manage this, or do we want to keep our heads in the sand and wait for it to kick us in the ass?

Listen to me.I can't hear you.

If there is ice above the water, it is not displacing the water. When that ice melts and that water is added to the ocean, the ocean will rise. It wont be an apocalyptic rise, but Manhattan might have something to worry about.
I agree. I was just adding that it doesn't even need to melt completely. If an ice sheet falls into the ocean it's displacement can raise sea levels before it even melts.

It's also getting most of its heat from the sun. There may be some radiation, but likely not that much. Why most of the heat is being concentrated at the poles is still unknown, but it may have to do with deep atmospheric currents.

A dense atmosphere usually helps too. Venus is further from the sun than Mercury but its avg. temp. is warmer.

A dense atmosphere usually helps too. Venus is further from the sun than Mercury but its avg. temp. is warmer.
Not "dense atmosphere". An atmosphere conatining tens of thousands more carbon dioxide than ours.

Global warming is a very interesting hypothesis, that has yet to be fully tested in an objective and repeatable fashion. That is why it is not yet a theory (according to the scientific method), much less a fact.
Actually, it's effects have been tested. By getting information on global temperatures over the past millenia and comparing it to the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere you can find if there are any correlations. These correlations have been found and the effect of rising levels of CO2 can be projected to a certain degree.

Another way of testing it is by making year to year predictions of global temperatures, based on the expected levels of CO2. These have been made and have resulted relatively accurate, which shows at least that the hypothesis has merit.

Those who support the notion of global warming often assert the dangers of ignoring it and being wrong. True. But they often don't recognize the dangers of implementing proposed 'solutions' and being wrong. Decreased standards of living, economic development, energy production. Western nations will suffer marked declines in living standards, especially for the poor, while third world nations will retreat even further. The mechanisms that support the worlds population would be cut down. The results of that should be obvious.
Most, if not all, of the economic effects can be minimized if implementations is gradual and controlled. It's just as alarmist to say "OMG!!! Making companies upgrade their equipment and investing in clean technology will make us all poor!!!!!!"

So, tell me again how global warming is an unmitigated, irreversible, apocalyptic disaster of untold proportions that has never happened before. Polar ice caps melting, yadda yadda yadda...
Global warming is not in my interests or those of anyone else for that matter. Humans are the #1 priority. It would be an apocalyptic disaster for us, not necessarily the planet itself.

Listen to me. If there is ice above the water, it is not displacing the water. When that ice melts and that water is added to the ocean, the ocean will rise. It wont be an apocalyptic rise, but Manhattan might have something to worry about.
Wait a minute. If the ice is supported by land, a la South Pole, it will displace water when it melts and runs off into the ocean. If it is supported by water, a la North Pole, it is already displacing all the water it will ever displace. There was a fellow named Archimedes that settled all that last year.

What do you mean, "untested?" The only way we can actually test it is to let it happen.

*snip*




This only makes my point; this is an hypothesis, precicely because we haven't repeatably tested or observed this. There has not been any replicable research examining how much carbon in the atmosphere leads to what change in temperature and control for other variables, even in a laboratory setting. What research is out there is often funded by groups with a stake in the results, making the shaky methods that much more questionable. Therefore, the 'science' behind this is still lacking. Those who claim absolute certainty either for or against this hypothesis are either ignorant of what science is or are selling you a bill of goods.

It hasn't significantly cooled or heated while we've been around and certainly not while we've had the kind of technological civilization we have now.

Exactly.

Listen to me. If there is ice above the water, it is not displacing the water. When that ice melts and that water is added to the ocean, the ocean will rise. It wont be an apocalyptic rise, but Manhattan might have something to worry about.

Take a science class. You can't just say, "Listen to me!" and have us believe you're right.
No, as was previously mentioned, it's not the free floating ice you have to be worried about, it's all the damn glaciers that are on land, currently. The run off would add to the ocean levels.

Most, if not all, of the economic effects can be minimized if implementations is gradual and controlled. It's just as alarmist to say "OMG!!! Making companies upgrade their equipment and investing in clean technology will make us all poor!!!!!!"

The notion that pollution laws hurt the economy doesn't even make sense; investing in those technologies means there is much higher demand for green products/equipment and pollution control devices, with the result being that those sectors increase their employment and investment.

That in turn drives economic growth; pollution regulations, like technology or trade, change the composition of employment in the long run but not the overall level of it. If anything, employment growth would be to the upside; it would definitely be higher paying and more education-oriented due to the higher-tech nature of alternative energy and pollution controls industries and those related to them.

Now, if those laws are applied immediately and without a gradual timeline, they will hurt the economy due to the shock caused by a sudden requirement to spend money on these devices in lieu of other investments. That's why pollution laws have to be designed to give companies time to adjust, because otherwise the economic losses will outweigh the longer term benefits.

Take a science class. You can't just say, "Listen to me!" and have us believe you're right.
No, as was previously mentioned, it's not the free floating ice you have to be worried about, it's all the damn glaciers that are on land, currently. The run off would add to the ocean levels.

Stick an ice cube halfway into a glass of water. The water is displaced. Push it further in, to the point where all ice showing is now submerged, and guess what? Its displaced even more.

Stick an ice cube halfway into a glass of water. The water is displaced. Push it further in, to the point where all ice showing is now submerged, and guess what? Its displaced even more.
Because you are adding additional force(weight) to the ice by pushing it in. Try this. Let the ice cube sit in the glass. Mark the water level. Melt the ice without evaporating any water. Check the level against your mark. It will not have changed.

Wait a minute. If the ice is supported by land, a la South Pole, it will displace water when it melts and runs off into the ocean. If it is supported by water, a la North Pole, it is already displacing all the water it will ever displace. There was a fellow named Archimedes that settled all that last year.
Let's take an iceberg. If it is nine tenths submerged, those nine tenths displace water. The remeining tenth doesn't displace water, simply because it's not submerged! Stick your finger into a glass of water. Not stick it in further. What will happen?

Stick an ice cube halfway into a glass of water. The water is displaced. Push it further in, to the point where all ice showing is now submerged, and guess what? Its displaced even more.

That is the stupidest, most fallacious test I've ever heard of.
Put an ice cube in water. Measure the level.
Wait for the cube to melt. Measure the level.
THAT is what we're talking about. Molecular cohesion, not the size of an icecube half in or all the way in the water.
Unless as someone mentioned, you're talking ice sheets which are presently above the level of the sea, which fall in. But that's a completely different can of worms.

Wait a minute. If the ice is supported by land, a la South Pole, it will displace water when it melts and runs off into the ocean. If it is supported by water, a la North Pole, it is already displacing all the water it will ever displace. There was a fellow named Archimedes that settled all that last year.
Not all of the northern ice cap is supported by water.

The Greenalnd ice sheet is melting as well.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3922579.stm

Because you are adding additional force(weight) to the ice by pushing it in. Try this. Let the ice cube sit in the glass. Mark the water level. Melt the ice without evaporating any water. Check the level against your mark. It will not have changed.
Sorry. It will have changed. It's simple physics, really.

Edit: I'm stupid.

Let's take an iceberg. If it is nine tenths submerged, those nine tenths displace water. The remeining tenth doesn't displace water, simply because it's not submerged! Stick your finger into a glass of water. Not stick it in further. What will happen?

Holy crap I think I am talking to a bunch of idiots.

WHEN THAT REMAINING TENTH MELTS, IT DISPLACES THE WATER.

*snip*

Had we the foresight to have gone green earlier, this wouldn't be as much of a problem as it is today, to say nothing of what it will be several years down the road.

*snip*




First of all, define 'going green'. I'll bet you that, however you define it, the main reason we have not 'gone green' is becuse the benefits do not outweigh the costs. Even if you say it is because some existing companies won't let 'it', I guarantee you that if there was money to be made in providing 'it' (which would reflect people actually wanting 'it'), someone would find a way to do so. Assuming there is a free economy, that is.

Holy crap I think I am talking to a bunch of idiots.

WHEN THAT REMAINING TENTH MELTS, IT DISPLACES THE WATER.

I have the same feeling.

TRY MELTING AN ICE CUBE! IT WILL NOT BE COMPLETELY IN THE WATER BECAUSE IT FLOATS! YOUR LEVEL WILL NOT CHANGE FROM PRE-MELT TO POST-MELT! DO IT NOW AND QUIT WASTING OUR TIME!
*deep breath*

Holy crap I think I am talking to a bunch of idiots.

WHEN THAT REMAINING TENTH MELTS, IT DISPLACES THE WATER.
Yes, but the nine tenths will also melt and occupy less volume. That's what we were ignoring. Let's hope we won't be made fun of too much. :p

Let's take an iceberg. If it is nine tenths submerged, those nine tenths displace water. The remeining tenth doesn't displace water, simply because it's not submerged! Stick your finger into a glass of water. Not stick it in further. What will happen?
Talk about stupid. The most simple physics student understands the Archimedes Principle. Look it up and then tell me again why your explanation holds any water at all.

What makes you think you can stop the ice caps from melting or the coming of an ice age, Maybe you need to realize the Earth regulates itself. In the Middle ages it was a warm period for civilization, Around the middle of the last milenia the earth began to go through a period of great cooling, Called the little ice age. Now its warming up again. Its a natural cycle of the earth. We have had MULTIPLE ICE AGES on this planet, periods of extreme cold and extreame heat. Man had nothing to do with these periods of extreme cold and heat. Its natural and whatever happens we have to live with it.

The melting of the icecaps is most likly a temporary thing. IN the 1960's and 1970's the main concern was GLOBAL COOLING. The earth Supposedly was freezing up and then in the 1990's a concerned began globaql warming cause the earth was then warming up. The fact is... The earth goes through periods of climate change. This is how the world works.

We cant stop it is my point, its natural.

Talk about stupid. The most simple physics student understands the Archimedes Principle. Look it up and then tell me again why your explanation holds any water at all.
I discovered on my own. :p I even admited I'm stupid. Can't accuse me of dishonesty. :p

Holy crap I think I am talking to a bunch of idiots.

WHEN THAT REMAINING TENTH MELTS, IT DISPLACES THE WATER.
If you say it louder, more of us will believe you.

I discovered on my own. :p I even admited I'm stupid. Can't accuse me of dishonesty. :p
No but you can accuse me of replying too quickly. I think I beat you to the edit.

With the help of Captain Morgan (Man, I could use some...), and my digital camera, I am proving this ice melting theory.
Just have to wait for the ice cube to melt for my second set of pictures. :p

Holy crap I think I am talking to a bunch of idiots.

WHEN THAT REMAINING TENTH MELTS, IT DISPLACES THE WATER.
You obviously don't understand displacement.

When an object is completely submerged, it displaces water equivalent to it's volume. That much you seem to grasp.

However, when an object floats, it displaces water equivalent to it's weight. That difference means that icebergs, floating on water, displace according to their weight, not their volume. Since the weight of the iceberg remains unchanged before and after melting, water level does not change.

No but you can accuse me of replying too quickly. I think I beat you to the edit.
Well, it took me thirty seconds to edit my post. I mean, I don't think it has an edit time. But you were even faster. Damn! :D

The first pictures I took only used one ice cube... so I figured, considering the amount of water in the glass, it might not be enough to prove this... so this time I've put in half a tray of ice, so there's more floating above the water. :p
I'll put the pics on my website in a few minutes when this batch melts, and I'll link them here.

What makes you think you can stop the ice caps from melting or the coming of an ice age, Maybe you need to realize the Earth regulates itself. In the Middle ages it was a warm period for civilization, Around the middle of the last milenia the earth began to go through a period of great cooling, Called the little ice age. Now its warming up again. Its a natural cycle of the earth. We have had MULTIPLE ICE AGES on this planet, periods of extreme cold and extreame heat. Man had nothing to do with these periods of extreme cold and heat. Its natural and whatever happens we have to live with it.

The melting of the icecaps is most likly a temporary thing. IN the 1960's and 1970's the main concern was GLOBAL COOLING. The earth Supposedly was freezing up and then in the 1990's a concerned began globaql warming cause the earth was then warming up. The fact is... The earth goes through periods of climate change. This is how the world works.

We cant stop it is my point, its natural.

Yes, that is true. But its also true that human might be speeding that up. So dont put all the "blames" on nature. We have yet to determine if this is just a cycle or it is indeed human doing, many scientists already agree its kind of a mixture of the two. Many things play into the warming, we cant just say "its the Earth, nature does things like this" or "CO2 is rising and that is gonna drown us all! oh noes!". Its just not that simple, sorry.

We cant stop it is my point, its natural.
Sure, the atmosphere can regulate itself and it would, if there were no external factors intervening. However, there is us, pumping millions of tons of CO2 into it that wouldn't be there otherwise. Can the atmosphere keep up with the added load?

Think about the liver. Alcohol is a perfectly natural by-product of fermentation and a bit here and there won't mean much to it, but pints and pints of beer every day over many years will certainly affect it.

You obviously don't understand displacement.

When an object is completely submerged, it displaces water equivalent to it's volume. That much you seem to grasp.

However, when an object floats, it displaces water equivalent to it's weight. That difference means that icebergs, floating on water, displace according to their weight, not their volume. Since the weight of the iceberg remains unchanged before and after melting, water level does not change.
But what if there is helium or hydrogen trapped in pockets in the iceberg?

Sorry.

This only makes my point; this is an hypothesis, precicely because we haven't repeatably tested or observed this. There has not been any replicable research examining how much carbon in the atmosphere leads to what change in temperature and control for other variables, even in a laboratory setting.We have certainly proven beyond any doubt in a laboratory that carbon heats when it is exposed to infrared radiation.
The number of vibrational modes (different types of vibrations) in a molecule is 3N-5 for linear molecules and 3N-6 for nonlinear molecules, where N is the number of atoms. So the diatomic molecule we just discussed has 3 x 2 - 5 = 1 vibration: the stretching of the bond between the atoms. Carbon dioxide, a linear molecule, has 3 x 3 - 5 = 4 vibrations. These vibrational modes, shown in Figure 4, are responsible for the "greenhouse" effect in which heat radiated from the earth is absorbed (trapped) by CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. The arrows indicate the directions of motion. Vibrations labeled A and B represent the stretching of the chemical bonds, one in a symmetric (A) fashion, in which both C=O bonds lengthen and contract together (in-phase), and the other in an asymmetric (B) fashion, in which one bond shortens while the other lengthens. The asymmetric stretch (B) is infrared active because there is a change in the molecular dipole moment during this vibration. To be "active" means that absorption of a photon to excite the vibration is allowed by the rules of quantum mechanics. [Aside: the infrared "selection rule" states that for a particular vibrational mode to be observed (active) in the infrared spectrum, the mode must involve a change in the dipole moment of the molecule.] Infrared radiation at 2349 (4.26 um) excites this particular vibration. The symmetric stretch is not infrared active, and so this vibration is not observed in the infrared spectrum of CO2. The two equal-energy bending vibrations in CO2 (C and D in Figure 4) are identical except that one bending mode is in the plane of the paper, and one is out of the plane. Infrared radiation at 667 (15.00 um) excites these vibrations. Aside: another way of illustrating the out-of-plane mode is to place circled + or - signs on the atoms, signifying motion above of below the plane of the paper, respectively. Thought question: Why do you think it takes more energy (shorter wavelengths, higher frequencies) to excite the stretching vibration than the bending vibration?
http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/ir_img5.gif
http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/infrared.htm


We have not tested what happens to the planet when CO2 levels in the atmosphere are raised because all efforts to put our planet into the laboratory have failed due to physical space limitations.


What research is out there is often funded by groups with a stake in the results, making the shaky methods that much more questionable. Therefore, the 'science' behind this is still lacking. Those who claim absolute certainty either for or against this hypothesis are either ignorant of what science is or are selling you a bill of goods.
Researchers that tout the global warming theory are usually university meteorologists, geologists, biologists etc... that do not have a personal stake in the results of their research. They'd get the same research grants if they were out there disproving the theory. "Researchers" who disagree are usually lawyers, statisticians and economists that work for oil companies or the Bush administration. Who has a stake in their results?


The fact is that the consensus is there. The overwhelming majority of the scientific community who's fields of expertise are actually in the fields in question agree that human activity is, indeed, causing the planter to heat up.


Exactly.[/QUOTE]

The first pictures I took only used one ice cube... so I figured, considering the amount of water in the glass, it might not be enough to prove this... so this time I've put in half a tray of ice, so there's more floating above the water. :p
I'll put the pics on my website in a few minutes when this batch melts, and I'll link them here.
If I were running the experiment, it would have been a mint julip, but then I would have kept drinking it. Is that what happened to the Captain?

Sure, the atmosphere can regulate itself and it would, if there were no external factors intervening. However, there is us, pumping millions of tons of CO2 into it that wouldn't be there otherwise. Can the atmosphere keep up with the added load?

Think about the liver. Alcohol is a perfectly natural by-product of fermentation and a bit here and there won't mean much to it, but pints and pints of beer every day over many years will certainly affect it.

I really like that analogy! ;)
Can't wait for this ice to melt so I can fix myself a drink, now. :p

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060529/full/060529-5.html

It seems that millions of years ago, the North Pole was as warm as the equatorial regions.

Obviously, at some point in the past, the planet was warm enough to have no ice cap (at least at the North Pole), and the world did not come to an end. It also seems that the Earth subsequently cooled, at least in the northern polar regions.

So, tell me again how global warming is an unmitigated, irreversible, apocalyptic disaster of untold proportions that has never happened before. Polar ice caps melting, yadda yadda yadda...
I take it you've not came across the Crustal Displacement Theory. You can find out about it here.
http://www.crystalinks.com/crustal.html

If I were running the experiment, it would have been a mint julip, but then I would have kept drinking it. Is that what happened to the Captain?

Haha, I'm using water right now. Just using a glass with Captain Morgan on it, as a loose icon to measure the water levels at. :)
But it shall be used for some o' the Captain's finest in a few short seconds! :p

You obviously don't understand displacement.

When an object is completely submerged, it displaces water equivalent to it's volume. That much you seem to grasp.

However, when an object floats, it displaces water equivalent to it's weight. That difference means that icebergs, floating on water, displace according to their weight, not their volume. Since the weight of the iceberg remains unchanged before and after melting, water level does not change.

Um, displacement is based on mass, not weight.

Um, displacement is based on mass, not weight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_%28fluid%29

Wikipedia is your friend.

Um, displacement is based on mass, not weight.Actually, it is based on weight. Without gravity you still have mass, but only displacement from volume.

Please read the first paragraph:

http://www.carolina.com/calendar_activities/2003/0303.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_%28fluid%29

Wikipedia is your friend.

Archimedes' Principle states that when this happens, the weight of the object is reduced by its volume times the density of the fluid. If the weight of the object is less than this quantity, it will float; the amount of fluid displaced is directly related (via Archimedes' Principle) to its weight.

Thats all it says about weight. Displacement has nothing to do with weight. A rock will displace the same amount of water regardless of gravity.

What are they teaching kids in science classes these days, anyway? :p
I mean, you always hear about the failings of the educational systems (most notably in America), but to see someone argue basic physics is... strange to me.

Archimedes' Principle states that when this happens, the weight of the object is reduced by its volume times the density of the fluid. If the weight of the object is less than this quantity, it will float; the amount of fluid displaced is directly related (via Archimedes' Principle) to its weight.

Thats all it says about weight. Displacement has nothing to do with weight. A rock will displace the same amount of water regardless of gravity.

We're not talking about rocks, though. We're talking about ice melting.
The weight is important in this case, because ice floats in water.
I've noticed you try to use strange, unrelated ideas to try to make a point about the issue at hand, and I think that may be confusing you.

Archimedes' Principle states that when this happens, the weight of the object is reduced by its volume times the density of the fluid. If the weight of the object is less than this quantity, it will float; the amount of fluid displaced is directly related (via Archimedes' Principle) to its weight.

Thats all it says about weight. Displacement has nothing to do with weight. A rock will displace the same amount of water regardless of gravity.

Capiche?

Capiche?

Do you even know what Archimedes principle is?

Thats all it says about weight. Displacement has nothing to do with weight. A rock will displace the same amount of water regardless of gravity.If I tie a large pieve of styrofoam to the bottom of a bathtub and fill it with water, it will displace considerably more water than it's mass.
It's the force, weight, that displaces the water, not mass. In a gravity free environment an object would not press on the surface of the water, and thus not displace any more of it than the 'submerged' volume.

Do you even know what Archimedes principle is?

Certainlly, your the one who apparently doesnt. Look around you, you find it weird that everyone is arguing against your point? Re-read the wiki article, it says it all there.

Maybe Kazus is a troll, trying to get us to argue over basic physics for fun. :p

Man, I should have used warmer water... the ice cubes are taking forever to melt. :p

Certainlly, your the one who apparently doesnt. Look around you, you find it weird that everyone is arguing against your point? Re-read the wiki article, it says it all there.

Archimedes' principle is the law of buoyancy. It states that "any body partially or completely submerged in a fluid is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the body." The weight of an object acts downward, and the buoyant force provided by the displaced fluid acts upward. If these two forces are equal, the object floats. Density is defined as weight per volume. If the density of an object exceeds the density of water, the object will sink.

What does that have to do with how much the object displaces?

First of all, define 'going green'. I'll bet you that, however you define it, the main reason we have not 'gone green' is becuse the benefits do not outweigh the costs. Even if you say it is because some existing companies won't let 'it', I guarantee you that if there was money to be made in providing 'it' (which would reflect people actually wanting 'it'), someone would find a way to do so. Assuming there is a free economy, that is.
Going green means stopping companies from externalizing the costs of their environmental impact on society.

As such, your assumption of a free economy (which includes the freedom to pollute) doesn't hold, so even if you weren't confusing profits with benefits, your bet is still nonsense.

Right now, for a large number of companies, society is picking up the tab for their wasteful practices. For example, when a company uses non-recyclable packaging, it's society as a whole that pays for the landfill to store that in.

The other reason it hasn't happened is because it's not easy. Going green means more thinking, more technology, more work. But work is what drives the economy in the long run.

Maybe Kazus is a troll, trying to get us to argue over basic physics for fun. :p

Man, I should have used warmer water... the ice cubes are taking forever to melt. :p

Im honestly starting to think that.

Maybe Kazus is a troll, trying to get us to argue over basic physics for fun. :p

Man, I should have used warmer water... the ice cubes are taking forever to melt. :p
Stick it in a larger bowl of hot water.

What does that have to do with how much the object displaces?

That text in particullar? Not much.

Why dont you just read what i bolded in that previous post and we call it a day?

Um, displacement is based on mass, not weight.
Really? So you're telling me that if you submerge a milk-jug filled with lead-shot, it'll displace more water than submerging the same jug filled with air?

What are they teaching kids in science classes these days, anyway? :p
I mean, you always hear about the failings of the educational systems (most notably in America), but to see someone argue basic physics is... strange to me.

Its how we got the global warming will be an apocalypse theory.Kids from the last generation are no better.

Ok how about this.

A huge ship floats. Lets say this huge ship is 10,000 tons. According to the principle, it displaces 10,000 tons of water, correct?

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060529/full/060529-5.html

It seems that millions of years ago, the North Pole was as warm as the equatorial regions.

Obviously, at some point in the past, the planet was warm enough to have no ice cap (at least at the North Pole), and the world did not come to an end. It also seems that the Earth subsequently cooled, at least in the northern polar regions.

So, tell me again how global warming is an unmitigated, irreversible, apocalyptic disaster of untold proportions that has never happened before. Polar ice caps melting, yadda yadda yadda...

Hurricaine Katrina wasn't an unmitigated, irreversible apocalyptic disaster. Does that mean that you're okay with it happening in your hometown?

For those of you doing the north pole ice cap experiment with water and ice, dont forget to add salt to the water before adding the ice cubes.

Global Warming is just a global plot by so called "environmentalists", aka communists, to attack big companies.

Its how we got the global warming will be an apocalypse theory.Kids from the last generation are no better.

I'm not so certain about that one.
Even if global heating and cooling is a natural phenomenon (as it is), I'm sitting in the camp that thinks humanity is speeding up the pendulum swing.

Ok how about this.

A huge ship floats. Lets say this huge ship is 10,000 tons. According to the principle, it displaces 10,000 tons of water, correct?

No, i dont think it displaces the exact ammount of water, it plays with water density and etc. Im not sure of it, thought.

I'm not so certain about that one.
Even if global heating and cooling is a natural phenomenon (as it is), I'm sitting in the camp that thinks humanity is speeding up the pendulum swing.

Lets slow it down by painting and building everything that is man made white to reflect more energy into space. Silver mylar on all rooves.

No, i dont think it displaces the exact ammount of water, it plays with water density and etc. Im not sure of it, thought.

Well what I am trying to get at is, if this boat sinks, would it displace more water, an amount equal to its volume?

Well what I am trying to get at is, if this boat sinks, would it displace more water, an amount equal to its volume?

I dont know if it would be more water, but it would displace an equal ammount to is volume. If it sinks.

Lets slow it down by painting and building everything that is man made white to reflect more energy into space. Silver mylar on all rooves.

Or, we could just install solar panels...then you get energy from it rather than just reflecting it in to space. Plus, that energy means less natural gas, oil, and coal burned to provide power for homes and heating...which means less CO2 being emitted.

Combine that with wind, and you've got a ton of energy as well as less CO2...not only that, but they have a better EROEI and are cheaper than oil, natural gas, or coal.

I read somewhere that rising temperatures themselves could increase sea level more than ice melting, as the higher temperatures make the water in the oceans expand. This could also cause C02 dissolved in the water to escape into the atmosphere, increasing the greenhouse effect.

Well what I am trying to get at is, if this boat sinks, would it displace more water, an amount equal to its volume?If the boat somehow managed to sink without letting any water into it (which would lessen the volume it takes up), then yes.

But don't believe me. Test it yourself.
Get any water-tight container that can fit in your sink. Fill the sink with enough water to generously cover the container. Mark the level of the water using tape.

Fill the container with sand, or steelies, or something fairly heavy and place in the water. Mark the displacement with a second piece of tape.

Remove the container, dump out about half of the contents, keeping enough so the container will still sink. Reseal and replace.

Observe the displacement level and compare to previously.

This will give you proof that items that sink displace volume, not mass.


For the second proof, you need two items that are water tight, that float, and that have very different shapes so as to provide different volumes. Various tupperware dishes should work fine.

Weigh both, and add enough material to equalize the weights while ensuring they both still float. Ideally they should both be at least partially submerged so that you can verify that a different volume of each container is in the water.

Then simply measure the amount of water displaced by each using the water-level and tape method given above.

You'll notice that even though one of the containers has a much larger volume within the water, the displacement is the same.

Well what I am trying to get at is, if this boat sinks, would it displace more water, an amount equal to its volume?
Think about forces. A body in a fluid is buoyed up by the force equal to the weight of the displaced fluid. This applies to all bodies, submerged or floating, and all fluids, gas and liquid.

Whether or not a body floats is determined by it's density relative to the fluid. Since we've started with water, let's continue. If a steel tub is placed in the water on its side, it's going to sink because steel is more dense than water. If it's placed on the flat bottom, it will probably float because the air is also included in the effective volume of the object. That makes it less dense than water.

Your 10,000 ton boat is going to displace as much water when it floats or when it's resting in the Titanic position.

Well what I am trying to get at is, if this boat sinks, would it displace more water, an amount equal to its volume?
Ok, guys. Displacement is the amount of water a submerged body, erm..., displaces. The volume of this water will be equal to the volume of the submerged body, ie. the more of the body you submerged the more water will be displaced. If at any moment the weight of the displaced water equals the weight of the body, it will float; if not, it will sink. Ok? Is it clear to everybody now?

Corollary: As the object sinks deeper and deeper, the water rises in density and therefore the displaced volume is heavier. If that weight equals the weight of the body it can stay at that level under water. This is what subs do.

Or, we could just install solar panels...then you get energy from it rather than just reflecting it in to space. Plus, that energy means less natural gas, oil, and coal burned to provide power for homes and heating...which means less CO2 being emitted.

Combine that with wind, and you've got a ton of energy as well as less CO2...not only that, but they have a better EROEI and are cheaper than oil, natural gas, or coal.
But the energy that you get from it will remain here which means it will eventually be released as heat. For example, if it is used to spin an electric motor, well, go touch an electric motor.

Ok, guys. Displacement is the amount of water a submerged body, erm..., displaces. The volume of this water will be equal to the volume of the submerged body, ie. the more of the body you submerged the more water will be displaced. If at any moment the weight of the displaced water equals the weight of the body, it will float; if not, it will sink. Ok? Is it clear to everybody now?

Corollary: As the object sinks deeper and deeper, the water rises in density and therefore the displaced volume is heavier. If that weight equals the weight of the body it can stay at that level under water. This is what subs do.

So then, if an iceberg were to sink, it would displace more water than it currently does, accounting for the amount of ice above sea level, correct?

But the energy that you get from it will remain here which means it will eventually be released as heat. For example, if it is used to spin an electric motor, well, go touch an electric motor.

Ideally, the goal would be the ultimate creation of a large-scale cogeneration-type renewable plant, where the heat produced is also used for other purposes. That would eliminate the need for heating with other systems, mitigating any increases in heat from the uses of the renewables. A solar water-heater/solar power system is the closest thing to such a system, but it's only on a small scale for households and buildings.

But then again, releasing heat doesn't cause global warming...it's the CO2 that traps it that does. If we reduce CO2 emissions by 30% due to phaseouts of natural gas and oil power, then it will be a good tradeoff. But then again, there is still the load limitations of alternative energy...20% power from wind is the maximum right now, so there would still have to be significant use of coal, nuclear or similar stabilizers that produce CO2 and other pollutants.

I'm guessing solar panels, if used extensively, would also increase the albedo marginally and reduce overall heat.

So then, if an iceberg were to sink, it would displace more water than it currently does, accounting for the amount of ice above sea level, correct?
Imagine the iceberg is inside a plastic bag, an elastic bag that stretches or shrinks to keep the iceberg inside. If you were to push the bag with your finger, it would displace more water, yes, but icebergs don't sink, they melt. And as it melts, it would become more dense and the bag would shrink because the iceberg occupies less volume. The net result is that when it melts it doesn't displace any more water.

So then, if an iceberg were to sink, it would displace more water than it currently does, accounting for the amount of ice above sea level, correct?
An iceberg is not submerged.

Imagine the iceberg is inside a plastic bag, an elastic bag that stretches or shrinks to keep the iceberg inside. If you were to push the bag with your finger, it would displace more water, yes, but icebergs don't sink, they melt. And as it melts, it would become more dense and the bag would shrink because the iceberg occupies less volume. The net result is that when it melts it doesn't displace any more water.

Okay, thank you.

An iceberg is not submerged.
Neither is the ice on Greenland and northern Canada.

Ideally, the goal would be the ultimate creation of a large-scale cogeneration-type renewable plant, where the heat produced is also used for other purposes. That would eliminate the need for heating with other systems, mitigating any increases in heat from the uses of the renewables. A solar water-heater/solar power system is the closest thing to such a system, but it's only on a small scale for households and buildings.

But then again, releasing heat doesn't cause global warming...it's the CO2 that traps it that does. If we reduce CO2 emissions by 30% due to phaseouts of natural gas and oil power, then it will be a good tradeoff. But then again, there is still the load limitations of alternative energy...20% power from wind is the maximum right now, so there would still have to be significant use of coal, nuclear or similar stabilizers that produce CO2 and other pollutants.

I'm guessing solar panels, if used extensively, would also increase the albedo marginally and reduce overall heat.Even if you use the heat to heat the heat and use that heat to heat the heat of the heat, eventually the heat will escape and heat the atmosphere. If you trap solar radiation on Earth it will eventually show up as heat on Earth.

Even if you use the heat to heat the heat and use that heat to heat the heat of the heat, eventually the heat will escape and heat the atmosphere. If you trap solar radiation on Earth it will eventually show up as heat on Earth.

Wouldn't a portion of that heat have been absorbed by the Earth anyway or trapped by the greenhouse gases produced by burning fuels for energy?

It seems like the additional heat from solar energy would be mitigated by a decrease in the amount of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere and a marginal increase in albedo, but I don't have the expertise in that field to really know.

Or, we could just install solar panels...then you get energy from it rather than just reflecting it in to space. Plus, that energy means less natural gas, oil, and coal burned to provide power for homes and heating...which means less CO2 being emitted.

Combine that with wind, and you've got a ton of energy as well as less CO2...not only that, but they have a better EROEI and are cheaper than oil, natural gas, or coal.

The idea is to get rid of excess solar energy not to collect more.

Wouldn't a portion of that heat have been absorbed by the Earth anyway or trapped by the greenhouse gases produced by burning fuels for energy?

It seems like the additional heat from solar energy would be mitigated by a decrease in the amount of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere and a marginal increase in albedo, but I don't have the expertise in that field to really know.
If you're saying that the energy you get from the use of solar panels will replace fossil fuel energy, sure. If you are saying that the use of solar panels will trap solar energy that would have hit the ground and been radiated into the atmosphere as heat, no, you gain no difference in the amount of heat said solar energy would have produced. You simply delay it.

As an aside, so far every gain in efficiency we have accomplished has not resulted in the use of less energy overall, it has simply meant that we now have more energy. In other words, the solar panels would probably just mean that someone somewhere else will burn the fossil fuels that you would have burned.

Personally, I'm somewhat interested in exactly what the world would look like if the sea levels rose. Granted, I'm not very enthusastic about the hundreds or thousands of cities and towns that would run into very serious trouble, but what would the new boundaries be like? Would America have another inland sea, like it used to? Would some countries just cease to exist? How far apart would the continents all be? Would Australia have a major case of flooding into the interior of it's flat outback? Would bunny rabbits evolve flippers?

They are all very pressing and very intriguing questions...

If you're saying that the energy you get from the use of solar panels will replace fossil fuel energy, sure. If you are saying that the use of solar panels will trap solar energy that would have hit the ground and been radiated into the atmosphere as heat, no, you gain no difference in the amount of heat said solar energy would have produced. You simply delay it.

So, it doesn't really affect the amount of heat but just delays it...that could be a good thing, in addition to reducing CO2 and fossil fuel consumption. Plus, it's a lot cheaper to produce solar or other alternatives than fossil fuels as a power source, so that's also a bonus. The main downside is that cheaper energy reduces incentives to conserve, but if it is truly renewable like windor solar that will not matter until energy demand is much, much higher than it currently is.

As an aside, so far every gain in efficiency we have accomplished has not resulted in the use of less energy overall, it has simply meant that we now have more energy. In other words, the solar panels would probably just mean that someone somewhere else will burn the fossil fuels that you would have burned.

That's true of a lot of things. For example, the rise in CAFE standards initially reduced oil consumption considerably, but once prices fell their effects were minimized because people simply started driving more miles than they did in the 1970's which brought up gasoline demand despite more efficient consumption. Simply put, efficiency only reduces consumption if prices are high and has no effect if prices are low (which is, of course, why little investment is made in it when prices are low).

-snip-
They are all very pressing and very intriguing questions...

It would be, especially considering that the last time the planet warmed up to the levels mentioned in the OP's article the continents were not in their current configuration. It could be an outcome totally different than what we expect depending on how things develop.

So, it doesn't really affect the amount of heat but just delays it...that could be a good thing, in addition to reducing CO2 and fossil fuel consumption. Plus, it's a lot cheaper to produce solar or other alternatives than fossil fuels as a power source, so that's also a bonus. The main downside is that cheaper energy reduces incentives to conserve, but if it is truly renewable like windor solar that will not matter until energy demand is much, much higher than it currently is.
I got this MarketWatch alert right before reading this post.

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?dist=newsfinder&siteid=google&guid=%7BCE908791-105B-400C-B94B-BD01BC3AA20F%7D&keyword=

I got this MarketWatch alert right before reading this post.http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?dist=newsfinder&siteid=google&guid=%7BCE908791-105B-400C-B94B-BD01BC3AA20F%7D&keyword=

I've been hearing things about the polysilicon shortage, but I didn't think spot prices are as high as that...$150/kg for a spot price is incredibly expensive given the collapse following the dot-com bust; you could almost give it away then and most companies were facing huge losses. That will limit solar growth until 2008, but after that growth might have several years of faster growth due to bottlenecked demand. Also, a similar situation is emerging with wind turbine supply albeit not as bad as the situation with polysilicon; it's getting harder and harder for utilities outside of the US and Europe to get the turbines they need for projects with the result being that development is slowing in developing nations, forcing them to use coal or natural gas for power.

However, this could be a temporarily desirable situation. Wind and solar are economically viable, so they won't decline due to high prices; however, a slowdown might help the market more than it hurts it in the long run. The last thing we need is a speculative bubble in wind and solar like the one in biofuels; a temporary slowdown might help the market clear out some of the frenzy surrounding alternative energy in favor of a more sustainable growth approach rather than a huge buildout and then a collapse.

Plus, the technology has been improving fairly rapidly in the past few years; one of the problems facing people who installed wind or solar projects in the 1970's or 1980's is that these facilities have much higher cost than contemporary ones, driving up their power cost and maintenace demands. A moderation of growth will help take advantage of some of the technology improvements and encourage cost cutting that will pay off in the post-2008 period, and will avert a too-large buildout with current technology which might impace long term costs.

In solar, carbon nanotubes, thin films, and holographic PV all have potential as next-generation technologies; the carbon nanotube model is particularly interesting because it eliminates the need for silicon in the process, but it is still limited due to the cost of nanotube production. Regardless of the technological path pursued, nanotech will be a big part of solar power once it becomes fully cost competitive with traditional PV-panels at low polysilicon prices.

Wait has Kazus figured out where he was completely wrong or not?

Wonder if he's figured out that by the end he was arguing against his initial argument.

Personally, I'm somewhat interested in exactly what the world would look like if the sea levels rose. Granted, I'm not very enthusastic about the hundreds or thousands of cities and towns that would run into very serious trouble, but what would the new boundaries be like? Would America have another inland sea, like it used to? Would some countries just cease to exist? How far apart would the continents all be? Would Australia have a major case of flooding into the interior of it's flat outback? Would bunny rabbits evolve flippers?

They are all very pressing and very intriguing questions...

Only one way to find out.

well the polar ice caps never did melt before because they never existed. But since then a lot has happened, the breaking of Pangaea, tectonic movement, the creation of island chains. If the ice caps melt you can wave bye bye to the maldives. If the sea rise by one metre then their gone. Quite True with that, as well as many other low areas, there actually has been an island that has gone under somewhere in the pacific, it's abandoned because with the raising of the water, the tides now go over the island.
I think I'll only have to go 20 miles to the beach when it reaches 2 meters.
(Currently it's over 100 miles to the beach)

Also an imbalance in fresh and salt water levels in the sea could destroy the ecosystem and distort all the water flows like the Labrador which could result in a new ice age.
Too much "Day after Tomorrow."

I've been looking at ethanol futures on CBOT, and it's definitely a bubble just like the IPOs of 1999/2000. In fact, it has a striking similarity to the performance of Amazon.com's stock in 1998...if you're considering investing in ethanol, it might be wise to short it or to try and play volatility, but this market is out of control.

My favorite has to be Pacific Ethanol. No profits and a negative profit margin...up 300% in a nearly vertical climb from March 2005-March 2006. I think a slowdown in the viable alternatives might be a desirable way to avoid the shakeout in the biofuel bubble that will drag a big chunk of the entire industry. Thankfully, many of the wind and solar stocks aren't displaying the same parabolic move of the biofuels.

It's inconvenient. It'll displace costal populations, and since the majority of Earth's cities are situated on the coast, the majority of Earth's infrastructure will be under water if the ice caps melt.
No. most cities are on rivers.

I've been looking at ethanol futures on CBOT, and it's definitely a bubble just like the IPOs of 1999/2000. In fact, it has a striking similarity to the performance of Amazon.com's stock in 1998...if you're considering investing in ethanol, it might be wise to short it or to try and play volatility, but this market is out of control.

My favorite has to be Pacific Ethanol. No profits and a negative profit margin...up 300% in a nearly vertical climb from March 2005-March 2006. I think a slowdown in the viable alternatives might be a desirable way to avoid the shakeout in the biofuel bubble that will drag a big chunk of the entire industry. Thankfully, many of the wind and solar stocks aren't displaying the same parabolic move of the biofuels.
I own that. Bought it at $17 and it's now at about $30 and has been over $40 when oil was nearing $75.

No. most cities are on rivers.
But most people are on the coasts. The cities are much bigger.

Personally, I'm somewhat interested in exactly what the world would look like if the sea levels rose. Granted, I'm not very enthusastic about the hundreds or thousands of cities and towns that would run into very serious trouble, but what would the new boundaries be like? Would America have another inland sea, like it used to? Would some countries just cease to exist? How far apart would the continents all be? Would Australia have a major case of flooding into the interior of it's flat outback? Would bunny rabbits evolve flippers?

They are all very pressing and very intriguing questions...

Well, if you can find a map with elevations in 20m intervals, you could take a look at what the world would look like. I've read estimates that there's enough glacial ice in the north to raise sea level 20m, and enough in Antarctica to raise it 23m. From current projections, they're guessing 20m increase by 2100.

The elevation map I found gave 200m increments, so it wasn't so useful. But probably someone, somewhere has created a map of what the world would look like without any ice caps.

No. most cities are on rivers.
... London, New York, Savannah, Maimi, Boston, New Orleans, Los Angles, San Franciso, Tokyo, Hong Kong, and others.

I own that. Bought it at $17 and it's now at about $30 and has been over $40 when oil was nearing $75.

Nice...that's a pretty healthy profit there.

It's now down to $28; it will probably recover somewhat due to part of the decline being a marketwide trend rather than a specific one, but it is not a profitable company even with the subsidies it recieves. It was simply overextended and may have set a top for a while...the ethanol market was driven to irrational exuberance due to the MTBE phaseout, and it is deflating now that the process is complete.

Nice...that's a pretty healthy profit there.

It's now down to $28; it will probably recover somewhat due to part of the decline being a marketwide trend rather than a specific one, but it is not a profitable company even with the subsidies it recieves. It was simply overextended and may have set a top for a while...the ethanol market was driven to irrational exuberance due to the MTBE phaseout, and it is deflating now that the process is complete.
Actually, it's pretty easy to track. Just plot it's 20 day average over the top of a 20 day average of the price of oil.

We have certainly proven beyond any doubt in a laboratory that carbon heats when it is exposed to infrared radiation.

We have not tested what happens to the planet when CO2 levels in the atmosphere are raised because all efforts to put our planet into the laboratory have failed due to physical space limitations.

In research, there is a difference between laboratory and field studies for a reason. Lab studies allows you to control for many factors, however the results do not always generalize outside the lab. For instance, do these studies control for differing concentrations of carbon in the atmosphere in different locations, shifting atmospheric patterns, the volume of the space in question? If so, how could they possibly know all of these vairables to control for them? I don't see your argument as definitive evidence. I don't see anything even approaching dfinitive from either side in the debate.

Researchers that tout the global warming theory are usually university meteorologists, geologists, biologists etc... that do not have a personal stake in the results of their research. They'd get the same research grants if they were out there disproving the theory. "Researchers" who disagree are usually lawyers, statisticians and economists that work for oil companies or the Bush administration. Who has a stake in their results?


The fact is that the consensus is there. The overwhelming majority of the scientific community who's fields of expertise are actually in the fields in question agree that human activity is, indeed, causing the planter to heat up.


This is not true. Especially your assertion of the same grant funding for each side of the debate. Much research is funded by groups whose very existance is predicated and dependent on global warming. To say that has no influence on the results, while research funded by oil companies does is disingenuous.

By the way, there are acadmics, meteorologists, and other scientists who argue that global warming is far from certain and that the evidence supporting it is weak - Dr. Gray over in Colorado is one distinguished example. Of course, since this is heresy to the official doctrine, he must be a shill, right?

Please. I stand by my previous statement that anyone trying to tell you that global warming has been proven or disproven is selling a bill of goods.

In research, there is a difference between laboratory and field studies for a reason. Lab studies allows you to control for many factors, however the results do not always generalize outside the lab. For instance, do these studies control for differing concentrations of carbon in the atmosphere in different locations, shifting atmospheric patterns, the volume of the space in question? If so, how could they possibly know all of these vairables to control for them? I don't see your argument as definitive evidence. I don't see anything even approaching dfinitive from either side in the debate.That woudl only be necessary if they were trying to figure out what the exact, local and regional effects of global warming would be. They have models that try to predict that and they have theories about general trends, but they do not claim to be able to guess exactly what woudl happen and where. They only say that CO2 will trap more of the Sun's energy in teh lower atmosphere.



This is not true. Especially your assertion of the same grant funding for each side of the debate. Much research is funded by groups whose very existance is predicated and dependent on global warming. To say that has no influence on the results, while research funded by oil companies does is disingenuous.There are definately organizations that fund climate research that are environmental in nature. There is also government funded and university funded research from all over the world to the tune of billions of dollars that show that global warming is a reality. No claim of the opposite can be said to be true. Virtually all of the "research" that claims that global warming is a farce is funded by conservatiove think tanks and energy companies.

By the way, there are acadmics, meteorologists, and other scientists who argue that global warming is far from certain and that the evidence supporting it is weak - Dr. Gray over in Colorado is one distinguished example. Of course, since this is heresy to the official doctrine, he must be a shill, right?They are not all shills, but legitimate scientists that argue against global warming are very few and far between and usually their arguments are not thst it isn't happening, but that it's not as much our fault as others say or it won't be as bad or it won't cause certain problems. There's a lot of debate about what exactly will happen, but there is no real debate amongst scientists in relevant fields that the result of us pumping CO into the atmosphere is that the atmosphere will hold more solar energy.

Please. I stand by my previous statement that anyone trying to tell you that global warming has been proven or disproven is selling a bill of goods.
You're right on both counts. I think the consensus is that anthropogenic warming is a near certainty and that the likely results will not be positive. The permafrost in the northern hemisphere, for example, has been around for 11,000 years - almost as long as civilization. It began melting in the last decade and we have no idea how that will effect civilization - seeing as how most of our civilization is on coast lines and seeing as how the permafrost contains more methane than all the conventional natural gas fields in the world combine many times. We do know that that methane is starting to escape and that it is 22 times as powerful a greenhouse gas as CO2. Do we know exactly hwo things will work in the way an engineer knows how a tool he has used many times knows? No. We just know somethings and the things we do know are highly suggestive and corrolative and pretty scary if you take the time to actually read teh science from credible sources.

Saturn is far enough from the sun that it's certainly not getting a majority of it's heat from the sun. Volcanic activity probably provides more.
Saturn doesn't have volcanos. I think it's got some heat due to the formation of the planet still if I recall. But yeah, most of its heat comes from the sun.

Saturn doesn't have volcanos. I think it's got some heat due to the formation of the planet still if I recall. But yeah, most of its heat comes from the sun.
Actually, Saturn radiates more energy into space than it receives from the Sun. Saturn's interior is very very hot (12000 K at the core).

Most of the extra energy is generated by the Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism* as in Jupiter. The rest isn't that well understood and is thought to possibly be the "raining out" of helium deep in Saturn's interior.


*Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism: The slow gravitational compression of the planet which produces heat (None of the outer gas giants, including Jupiter, are large enough to produce nuclear fission like the Sun).
This interior heat causes convection deep within Jupiter's liquid layers and is responsible for the complex motions we see in the cloud tops. Saturn and Neptune are similar to Jupiter in this respect, but oddly, Uranus is not.


Here endth your astronomy lesson.

Saturn doesn't have volcanos. I think it's got some heat due to the formation of the planet still if I recall. But yeah, most of its heat comes from the sun.

Actually, like Jupiter most of its heat comes from the planet; the high albedo of the gas giants and the weak sun at that distance would produce temperatures far cooler than they would be without internal heating. In fact, Jupiter's (and Saturn's) temperature in the middle cloud deck is a comfortable 21–23 degrees Celsius...enough to support liquid water clouds and even (albeit extremely unlikely due to lack of carbon) life.

TO sum up:

The Earth keeps on trucking when radical climate change occurs. The plants and animals tend to die out though, or at least are terribly inconvenienced. Rising Oceans are a concern because our race, lemming-like, prefers an ocean view. We are also resistant to changing our ways and moving out of harm's way, even when given ample warning.

There are not enough school buses to evacuate the coastal areas of the world.

Ice, because it is less dense than water, floats. When it melts, it displaces the exact same volume it displaces as ice (unless the ice is fresh water and the water it's floating in is salt...salt water being denser than fresh water.)

Using arbitary numbers, if 9/10 of an iceberg is submerged, it is because it is 9/10 as dense as the water it's floating in. Unless God is pressing his thumb on the iceberg, and then all bets are off.

Most people who argue against Global Warming or Climate Change usually take the stance that there isn't any evidence. This, of course, ignores the overwhelming weight of evidence freely available to a person who is interested in looking at the evidence rather than listening to those who, rather than arguing against the evidence, claim that there is none.

Read science magazines. Try to find criticisms that actually target the evidence presented therein. YOu won't find much of the latter. You will find a whole lot of claiming that there is no evidence. That in itself should speak volumes.

FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF GODDAMMIT! Now! Pretend you're Scooby Doo or something. Be a meddling kid. Unmask that old codger.

"We'd have gotten away with causing a mass extinction if it wasn't for those meddling scientists!"

Do you read the articles you link or just skim and hope no one else will?
Quite probably the latter. *nods solemnly*
BTW, GREAT sigs. Cornfed rocks. Jamie's cool too.

So, tell me again how global warming is an unmitigated, irreversible, apocalyptic disaster of untold proportions that has never happened before. Polar ice caps melting, yadda yadda yadda...

Al Gore says so, it must be true

i find it hillarious people claim things such as "the republicans use fear to gain political power" then a certain democrat (and many others but i will use this one just for example) decides he wants to warn people of globol warming and the "dangers" that come with it. With that they even seem to mention that the current administration "republicans" are not doing enough about it. sounds to me they are trying to use enviromental fear to get them elected.

I'm still trying to figure out how melting all the ice in the North Pole is going to raise the ocean. Isn't that all free-floating now?


Basically when Ice melts it expands. Also there is a large portion of the polar ices above sea level. Assuming that they melt they will flow into the sea thus raising the sea levels. However I don't think the disaster scenerio that some predict will come into being. We will have to build dykes such as the dutch have done. But in the overall scheme of things the industrialized nations should be alright. Maybe lose New orleans and parts of Florida for the US. But overall with warming the US will gain alot of useable land in Alaska that is now frozen Tundra. Canada will most likely gain large tracts of useable land due to it's large size being so close to the artic circle. I say bring it on. I wouldn't mind spending summers on the balmy artic coast. Although I would probably have to live half a million years to see it.

Basically when Ice melts it expands. Also there is a large portion of the polar ices above sea level. Assuming that they melt they will flow into the sea thus raising the sea levels. However I don't think the disaster scenerio that some predict will come into being. We will have to build dykes such as the dutch have done. But in the overall scheme of things the industrialized nations should be alright. Maybe lose New orleans and parts of Florida for the US. But overall with warming the US will gain alot of useable land in Alaska that is now frozen Tundra. Canada will most likely gain large tracts of useable land due to it's large size being so close to the artic circle. I say bring it on. I wouldn't mind spending summers on the balmy artic coast. Although I would probably have to live half a million years to see it.
Let's not get started on this again.

Al Gore says so, it must be true

i find it hillarious people claim things such as "the republicans use fear to gain political power" then a certain democrat (and many others but i will use this one just for example) decides he wants to warn people of globol warming and the "dangers" that come with it. With that they even seem to mention that the current administration "republicans" are not doing enough about it. sounds to me they are trying to use enviromental fear to get them elected.

Al gore wants to get elected? I didnt think he was still in politics.

Let's not get started on this again.
Yeah, then facts might have to be countered by "proof of contradiction by allegory" as employed in the topic post.

Yeah, then facts might have to be countered by "proof of contradiction by allegory" as employed in the topic post.

What's interesting is that since they found essentially tropical strata in the North Polar regions, that means it's worth exploring for oil.

And if there's oil, I'm sure Russia, the UK, and Norway will drill it. But Canada and the US will not.

What's interesting is that since they found essentially tropical strata in the North Polar regions, that means it's worth exploring for oil.

And if there's oil, I'm sure Russia, the UK, and Norway will drill it. But Canada and the US will not.
I may be confusing myself, but didn't they already know there was oil in Arctic (north) regions and recently discovered there may be oil in Antarctic (south) regions, which have nothing to do with "tropical" climates.

What's interesting is that since they found essentially tropical strata in the North Polar regions, that means it's worth exploring for oil.

And if there's oil, I'm sure Russia, the UK, and Norway will drill it. But Canada and the US will not.
Tropical strata =/= oil bearing strata

Yeah, then facts might have to be countered by "proof of contradiction by allegory" as employed in the topic post.
Actually, I was refering to the poor knowledge of chemistry that is displayed when talking about ice and water. Water is one of those rare liquids that expands when it freezes, rather than when it melts. Some of us old folks know that without needing any further proof. We used to get milk in bottles and when it was left outdoors too long in the winter, the caps would pop off due to freezing.

I may be confusing myself, but didn't they already know there was oil in Arctic (north) regions and recently discovered there may be oil in Antarctic (south) regions, which have nothing to do with "tropical" climates.

Well, a tropical climate lends itself to the formation of fossil fuels more readily than an arctic one because there has to be organic matter to turn in to the fuels, and a tropical climate has a hell of a lot more plants and animals than the Arctic. Millions of years ago, the Arctic regions were much warmer and had a lot more things living there so there was a lot of material to turn in to fossil fuels.

One way to find oil would be to examine climatological patterns from millions of years ago and then drill in places that had extensive amounts of organic matter that could be fossilized. It doesn't always work, though, due to the shifting of tectonic plates and oil resivoirs.

Tropical strata =/= oil bearing strata

It can make it more likely; the Middle East is oil rich due to the climatology of the region during various periods in the past.

Well, a tropical climate lends itself to the formation of fossil fuels more readily than an arctic one because there has to be organic matter to turn in to the fuels, and a tropical climate has a hell of a lot more plants and animals than the Arctic. Millions of years ago, the Arctic regions were much warmer and had a lot more things living there so there was a lot of material to turn in to fossil fuels.

One way to find oil would be to examine climatological patterns from millions of years ago and then drill in places that had extensive amounts of organic matter that could be fossilized. It doesn't always work, though, due to the shifting of tectonic plates and oil resivoirs.
Oil is formed from the remains of small marine animals and algae, not land dwelling plants, thus climatological patterns are not that useful for finding it. It is the palaeogeography, not the palaeoclimate that is important.

Oil is formed from the remains of small marine animals and algae, not land dwelling plants, thus climatological patterns are not that useful for finding it. It is the palaeogeography, not the palaeoclimate that is important.
Yes, though large, inland fresh water bodies are good at forming the right setiment as well, provided they exist long enough.

Oil is formed from the remains of small marine animals and algae, not land dwelling plants, thus climatological patterns are not that useful for finding it. It is the palaeogeography, not the palaeoclimate that is important.

And the paleogeography of tropical regions in the past were very wet and marshy; most of them were covered by shallow inland seas, so if you know a place's climate was tropical it is very possible that it had extensive inland seas and abundant algae and similar organism.

The tropical climates also had extensive freshwater lakes, and the bulk of primitive ground cover was algae and small plants.

What the fuck does any of this have to do with the price of tea in China? :mad:

My balls are covered in algea, too, so? :mad:

Yes, though large, inland fresh water bodies are good at forming the right setiment as well, provided they exist long enough.
And the paleogeography of tropical regions in the past were very wet and marshy; most of them were covered by shallow inland seas, so if you know a place's climate was tropical it is very possible that it had extensive inland seas and abundant algae and similar organism.

The tropical climates also had extensive freshwater lakes, and the bulk of primitive ground cover was algae and small plants.

I'm not sure about that. Currently, the majority of algae rich waters are formed from cold bottom currents, rich in nutrients, upwelling. Crucial to forming oil deposits is an anoxic layer, such as that found at the bottom of deep oceans (or in the coal swamps, in the case of coal deposits). Are these layers present in shallow freshwater lakes, and do they support large plankton blooms? I'm not sure they did/do. I'll concede that tropical sunlight would help algae, but large amounts of algae feeding plankton exist in the polar waters, so it's clearly not a necessity.

Al Gore says so, it must be true

i find it hillarious people claim things such as "the republicans use fear to gain political power" then a certain democrat (and many others but i will use this one just for example) decides he wants to warn people of globol warming and the "dangers" that come with it. With that they even seem to mention that the current administration "republicans" are not doing enough about it. sounds to me they are trying to use enviromental fear to get them elected.

The difference being that the evidence backs up what environmentalists say about why we should be concerned, but the evidence reveals the Republicans (terrorists are gonna git ya!) are full of shit.

I'm not sure about that. Currently, the majority of algae rich waters are formed from cold bottom currents, rich in nutrients, upwelling. Crucial to forming oil deposits is an anoxic layer, such as that found at the bottom of deep oceans (or in the coal swamps, in the case of coal deposits). Are these layers present in shallow freshwater lakes, and do they support large plankton blooms? I'm not sure they did/do. I'll concede that tropical sunlight would help algae, but large amounts of algae feeding plankton exist in the polar waters, so it's clearly not a necessity.

They're definitely present in freshwater/saltwater swamps; during the Triassic and earlier periods, the tropical areas were almost entirely marshland due to geographic and climatic factors with the result being that large swathes of these regions possessed the anoxic layer necessary for widespread algal blooms. Also, the low oxygen levels of these waters further made the environment ideal for the eventual formation of kerogen and eventually coal or oil.

Also, areas where freshwater empties in to saltwater are also prime anoxic environments; the shallow inland seas and swamps would have had numerous drainage areas where freshwater mixed with salt water. However, the climate change during later periods reversed some of this trend; the Jurassic in particular was a good deal drier than previous periods, and the shifting continents gradually eliminated the inland seas.

What's interesting is that since they found essentially tropical strata in the North Polar regions, that means it's worth exploring for oil.

And if there's oil, I'm sure Russia, the UK, and Norway will drill it. But Canada and the US will not.
That's a bold statement considering that Bush has authorized drilling in Alaska.

That's a bold statement considering that Bush has authorized drilling in Alaska.
Bush can't authorize that, only Congress can and they haven't - yet. They will, though, and Bush will sign the bill.

And they'll drill in Arctica and Antarctica, too.

Bush can't authorize that, only Congress can and they haven't - yet. They will, though, and Bush will sign the bill.

And they'll drill in Arctica and Antarctica, too.
Wait, what was this news about last year about Bush, Alaska, ANZAC (IIRC) and environmentalist making a huge fuss about then?

Call me stupid but I remember reading "Bush authorize drilling in Alaska" as news headline. Are you saying that piece of legislation has been delayed somehow? I honestly would like an answer please. I want to use facts to back up my arguments contrary to some posters here on NS.

You'll note humans weren't around then, either.
Especially not in the numbers there are today.
Hmm... what species possibly died from total temperature shift...
Oh yeah... dinosaurs.
No, climate change isn't anything to worry yourself over.
When the temperature gets so hot that no human can live in those zones, I'll remember the dinosaurs, and hope for their swift return in our absence.
You might also recall that the dinosaurs were cold-blooded and died off after an asteroid collided with the planet knocking so much dust and debris into the atmosphere that the sun's energy was unable to penetrate. The dinosaurs died off from massive global cooling brought on by the impact of a large object.

Wait, what was this news about last year about Bush, Alaska, ANZAC (IIRC) and environmentalist making a huge fuss about then?

Call me stupid but I remember reading "Bush authorize drilling in Alaska" as news headline. Are you saying that piece of legislation has been delayed somehow? I honestly would like an answer please. I want to use facts to back up my arguments contrary to some posters here on NS.
There was a bill going through Congress that would have allowed it but it got tabled. It'll get picked back up and passed, though. And the thing that may be confusing you is that Bush has made it clear he wants to drill there and he'd sign a bill for it, but he still has to wait for Congress to authorize it.

You might also recall that the dinosaurs were cold-blooded and died off after an asteroid collided with the planet knocking so much dust and debris into the atmosphere that the sun's energy was unable to penetrate. The dinosaurs died off from massive global cooling brought on by the impact of a large object.
So? :confused:

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060529/full/060529-5.html

It seems that millions of years ago, the North Pole was as warm as the equatorial regions.

Obviously, at some point in the past, the planet was warm enough to have no ice cap (at least at the North Pole), and the world did not come to an end. It also seems that the Earth subsequently cooled, at least in the northern polar regions.

So, tell me again how global warming is an unmitigated, irreversible, apocalyptic disaster of untold proportions that has never happened before. Polar ice caps melting, yadda yadda yadda...
well, the nature grows back, whatever we do. but it would most likely be irreversible to humans

That's not even remotely possible.
Yes it is, when you take into account that the earth's axis is changing. When this occured the axis was much different meaning that the amount of energy recieved by the two regions was not as different as it is today.

Equator is not a fixed line, it's simply 0 latitude based upon the axial tilt. No matter how you realign the planet there'll by a hot strip down the middle called the equator.

Now if the planet spun so that what is currently the poles were on the equator that's the only method by which the temperature at the current north pole could be the same as the temperature at what used to be the equator.

Actually it'd probably be hotter, since the pole would face the sun constantly, the other side of the planet would get colder and colder since it never receives light.
Wrong again. The Equator is the line halfway between the poles. This is how it was defined. The equator will always lie halfway between the two poles defined by the axis of rotation of the planet.

I think it's about time we had a large depopulation of humankind, we haven't had one of those for a while.


Also, what ever happened to that polar exchange thing, where the magnetic poles of the world switch suddenly? We were talking about it in science class a few years ago, said we were just about a hundred or so years overdue for one, and scientists couldn't figure out why it hadn't happened, seeing as it had happened regularly since before then.
They wouldn't be that concerned by being a hundred years overdue. That isn't anything in geological time. What they were saying more likely is that we're likely to get one in the near (geologically speaking) future.

There was a bill going through Congress that would have allowed it but it got tabled. It'll get picked back up and passed, though. And the thing that may be confusing you is that Bush has made it clear he wants to drill there and he'd sign a bill for it, but he still has to wait for Congress to authorize it.
Thanks for the info. You learn something every day.

Anyways, my point was DK's claims were wrong... again.

Venus is under the effect of a runaway greenhouse effect, solar heating may not be the primary source of it's heat anymore.

Saturn is far enough from the sun that it's certainly not getting a majority of it's heat from the sun. Volcanic activity probably provides more.
Then where praytell does Venus get energy? A far as I know the only planet in the system that gets energy from another source is Jupiter, which is a brown dwarf capable of producing it's own energy by fusion at it's core (not much, but it's there). Since Jupiter was just shy of having the mass to become a star itself, it produces some energy and emits more than it receives. Venus does not have any such processes.

And Saturn is a gas giant. There is no volcanic activity because there is no solid surface.

Let's take an iceberg. If it is nine tenths submerged, those nine tenths displace water. The remeining tenth doesn't displace water, simply because it's not submerged! Stick your finger into a glass of water. Not stick it in further. What will happen?
It doesn't matter that ice isn't completely submerged because it displaces an equivelant mass. Take away the ice above the surface and guess what happens? More ice comes up. That's because the total mass of the ice is less and it no longer has the force necessary to displace the amount of water it was before.

Basically when Ice melts it expands. Also there is a large portion of the polar ices above sea level. Assuming that they melt they will flow into the sea thus raising the sea levels. However I don't think the disaster scenerio that some predict will come into being. We will have to build dykes such as the dutch have done. But in the overall scheme of things the industrialized nations should be alright. Maybe lose New orleans and parts of Florida for the US. But overall with warming the US will gain alot of useable land in Alaska that is now frozen Tundra. Canada will most likely gain large tracts of useable land due to it's large size being so close to the artic circle. I say bring it on. I wouldn't mind spending summers on the balmy artic coast. Although I would probably have to live half a million years to see it.
*sigh*
No, it doesn't. Go back to school and learn the basic physical properties of water. Ice is less dense than it's liquid counterpart and therefore when it melts it becomes more dense and takes up less volume. When water freezes it reaches it's maximum density at 4ºC and the expands until it becomes ice. Theoretically if you cooled the ice down far enough it would have to expand as it warmed (at absolute zero there would be no energy and thus the atoms themselves would not be able to maintain their electron orbits, plunging to the nucleus. The result being that the substance would become a super dense, taking up virtually no volume.).

Let me interject a related observation. We are discussing global warming and the possible effects that may occur if the earth's atmosphere continues to warm. I'd say this is a topic that needs at least a cursory level of understanding of both chemistry and physics. But the level of scientific knowledge that has been displayed by some of the participants is amazingly weak. When we spend a page or two about Archimedes' principle, followed by a few posts on state transitions of water, I'm more than a little worried that the people actually making the policy decisions are horribly handicapped. We're supposed to be the intelligensia, aren't we? And even we don't know how much water will overflow a full glass when the last ice cube melts? This isn't a real sound foundation for decision-making.

Let me interject a related observation. We are discussing global warming and the possible effects that may occur if the earth's atmosphere continues to warm. I'd say this is a topic that needs at least a cursory level of understanding of both chemistry and physics. But the level of scientific knowledge that has been displayed by some of the participants is amazingly weak. When we spend a page or two about Archimedes' principle, followed by a few posts on state transitions of water, I'm more than a little worried that the people actually making the policy decisions are horribly handicapped. We're supposed to be the intelligensia, aren't we? And even we don't know how much water will overflow a full glass when the last ice cube melts? This isn't a real sound foundation for decision-making.
Yes. Thus my comment on page four here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11070966&postcount=49

Okay, now that I'm done reviewing the thread (so many pages of debating whether ice displaces as much water as it contains. *shudder*)
Now it's time to put in my 2 cents:

Frist, do you know what the problem was in the 1970s? Global cooling. Caused by greenhouse gases. The very same ones you're talking about today. Then they were reflecting the sun's energy so that it didn't reach the planet. Guess what. It does both.

Second, The majority of the temperature rise in the last hundred years occured before 1940. Before industry was a major player in the world. In fact the temperatures in the last decade have fluctuated very little, going both up and down.

Third, historically carbon dioxide tends to follow changes in climate, not cause them. Why is this? Warmer temperatures means better conditions for the majority of life on this planet, giving them a loinger portion of the year to be active. This leads to an increase in biomass and an increase in carbon dioxide as a result of cellular respiration. The reverse is also true.

Forth, Just a few hundred years ago the end of the "little ice age" occured. before which the temperatures had been warmer than they are today. The temperatures have been moving back towards those since the end of this little ice age.

Fifth: Look at this map (http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/islands_oceans_poles/antarctic_region_pol01.jpg)
The enlarged area is actually the only part of Antarctica where any increase in ice flows have been observed. The rest of the continent has experienced the same rate of ice flow for years.

I do have charts, but unfortunately I lack a place to upload the pictures to post them here. If anyone has an idea as to where I could upload them, then I'd be happy to post them.

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060529/full/060529-5.html

It seems that millions of years ago, the North Pole was as warm as the equatorial regions.

Obviously, at some point in the past, the planet was warm enough to have no ice cap (at least at the North Pole), and the world did not come to an end. It also seems that the Earth subsequently cooled, at least in the northern polar regions.

So, tell me again how global warming is an unmitigated, irreversible, apocalyptic disaster of untold proportions that has never happened before. Polar ice caps melting, yadda yadda yadda...
OH GOD... stop. please, stop.

Okay, now that I'm done reviewing the thread (so many pages of debating whether ice displaces as much water as it contains. *shudder*)
Now it's time to put in my 2 cents:

Frist, do you know what the problem was in the 1970s? Global cooling. Caused by greenhouse gases. The very same ones you're talking about today. Then they were reflecting the sun's energy so that it didn't reach the planet. Guess what. It does both.Wrong. Collect your consolation prize on your way out the door. In the 70s they were saying that according to the cycle that had prevailed for several thousand years we were due for an iceage. That was an observation that was based on temperature variations over centuries. Completely seperately other scientists were studying CO2 concentrations and noticed that CO2 concentrations were associated with increases in temperature. They warned of a global warming epsiode on teh scale of decades. CO2 and other greenhouse gasses do not cause global cooling. What I think you are referring to is called optical dimming and it is cause by particulates from industry blocking sunlight.

Second, The majority of the temperature rise in the last hundred years occured before 1940. Before industry was a major player in the world. In fact the temperatures in the last decade have fluctuated very little, going both up and down.Wrong again. 10 of the hottest years in since we have reliable records have all occured in the last fourteen years with 2005 being the hottest.

Third, historically carbon dioxide tends to follow changes in climate, not cause them. Why is this? Warmer temperatures means better conditions for the majority of life on this planet, giving them a loinger portion of the year to be active. This leads to an increase in biomass and an increase in carbon dioxide as a result of cellular respiration. The reverse is also true.Wreong again. Sentiment samples clear show the opposite to be true. CO 2 levels rise BEFORE a warming event. During the last thermal maximum they believe the chain reaction that led to the methane burping episode was caue by a major upsurge in volcanic activity that released an enormous amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. Warming followed this over the next few centuries.

Forth, Just a few hundred years ago the end of the "little ice age" occured. before which the temperatures had been warmer than they are today. The temperatures have been moving back towards those since the end of this little ice age.Wrong again. The temperatures are warmer now than before the little ice age depending on what kind of moving average you use. The last decade certainly has been.

So, tell me again how global warming is an unmitigated, irreversible, apocalyptic disaster of untold proportions that has never happened before. Polar ice caps melting, yadda yadda yadda...

You do realize that it was 55 million years ago or so right?

Gradual change versus man's affect......

You do realize that it was 55 million years ago or so right?

Gradual change versus man's affect......
It wasn't gradual.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11070966&postcount=49

Let me interject a related observation. We are discussing global warming and the possible effects that may occur if the earth's atmosphere continues to warm. I'd say this is a topic that needs at least a cursory level of understanding of both chemistry and physics. But the level of scientific knowledge that has been displayed by some of the participants is amazingly weak. When we spend a page or two about Archimedes' principle, followed by a few posts on state transitions of water, I'm more than a little worried that the people actually making the policy decisions are horribly handicapped. We're supposed to be the intelligensia, aren't we? And even we don't know how much water will overflow a full glass when the last ice cube melts? This isn't a real sound foundation for decision-making.

If you've ever been through the misery of listening to the idiotic questions posed by Senators and Congressmen (and Congresswomen) on CSPAN, and how stupid our leaders and policymakers actually are on the most simple of subjects, you would be even more worried.

As posters on this forum, we aren't actually in charge, but the Senators actually are.

Most of them have little scientific knowledge, and I do not believe they should be considered qualified to make decisions in that regard. They will be forced to believe whatever they hear, or whatever agenda their party is pushing, rather than being able to judge what is good science.

A lot of the idiocy was pointed up during the investigation of the first Shuttle accident, and was pointed out by physicist Richard Feynman. No one could grasp the concept that rubber might get less flexible when it was as cold as a glass of ice water.

Wrong. Collect your consolation prize on your way out the door. In the 70s they were saying that according to the cycle that had prevailed for several thousand years we were due for an iceage. That was an observation that was based on temperature variations over centuries. Completely seperately other scientists were studying CO2 concentrations and noticed that CO2 concentrations were associated with increases in temperature. They warned of a global warming epsiode on teh scale of decades. CO2 and other greenhouse gasses do not cause global cooling. What I think you are referring to is called optical dimming and it is cause by particulates from industry blocking sunlight.
Check again. There were just as many scientists back then saying we needed to stop burning fossil fuels and cut back on emmisions in order to prevent a catastrophic global cooling.

Wrong again. 10 of the hottest years in since we have reliable records have all occured in the last fourteen years with 2005 being the hottest.
Please read my comment again. I didn't say that the last decade wasn't the warmest we've had on record (unfortunately reliable records for yearly temperatures only go back a hundred years or so), I said that there had been very little fluctuation in those years, some years it even went down from the previous year.

Wreong again. Sentiment samples clear show the opposite to be true. CO 2 levels rise BEFORE a warming event. During the last thermal maximum they believe the chain reaction that led to the methane burping episode was caue by a major upsurge in volcanic activity that released an enormous amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. Warming followed this over the next few centuries.
I assume you mean sediment right? You are looking on too small a scale. Look in geological terms. The correlation between CO2 and temperature increase cannot be made when you look at geological timeframes.

Wrong again. The temperatures are warmer now than before the little ice age depending on what kind of moving average you use. The last decade certainly has been.
I apologize, my words were chosen poorly to show my point. 10,000 years ago (there abouts) we exited the last major ice age. The temperatures after continued to rise until the little ice age. Now we are continuing the warming trend that was in the process before the little ice age. We still have not reached the level of global temperatures that existed prior to the last major ice age.

Well, a tropical climate lends itself to the formation of fossil fuels more readily than an arctic one because there has to be organic matter to turn in to the fuels, and a tropical climate has a hell of a lot more plants and animals than the Arctic. Millions of years ago, the Arctic regions were much warmer and had a lot more things living there so there was a lot of material to turn in to fossil fuels.

One way to find oil would be to examine climatological patterns from millions of years ago and then drill in places that had extensive amounts of organic matter that could be fossilized. It doesn't always work, though, due to the shifting of tectonic plates and oil resivoirs.
That has not a god damn thing to do with what I said.

Check again. There were just as many scientists back then saying we needed to stop burning fossil fuels and cut back on emmisions in order to prevent a catastrophic global cooling.

Well, they were right about cutting back on emissions. Climate Change is a difficult thing to understand.

psh, I live in wisconsin. I fucking want global warming to happen. :gundge:

Check again. There were just as many scientists back then saying we needed to stop burning fossil fuels and cut back on emmisions in order to prevent a catastrophic global cooling.

Revisionist history. The consensus of scientists never got on the bandwagon of anthropogenic cooling. Some observed dimming due to pollutents and hypothesized that ti could produce a cooling effect, but their views were put to bed by the consensus of scientific evidence. The difference now is that the CONSENSUS is with Global Warming. Entirely different situations with entirely different data sets and data gathering techniques as well. This is pure, unadulterated BS thrown out by Global Warming skeptics (who are mostly in the pocket of the Energy industry,) to fool naive rubes.


Please read my comment again. I didn't say that the last decade wasn't the warmest we've had on record (unfortunately reliable records for yearly temperatures only go back a hundred years or so), I said that there had been very little fluctuation in those years, some years it even went down from the previous year.

Reliable records go further back than that. Sediment. Ice cores. Growth patterns and frequency of certain plant species/insects/microbial life. You're just tossing out the data that you don't like or don't understand. This is called DENIAL.


I assume you mean sediment right? You are looking on too small a scale. Look in geological terms. The correlation between CO2 and temperature increase cannot be made when you look at geological timeframes.

You're not even saying anything here. The evidence is that CO2 precedes warming trends which then causes a feedback loop. This is really only measureable by our current methods on a geological scale, so I have no idea what you're talking about.


I apologize, my words were chosen poorly to show my point. 10,000 years ago (there abouts) we exited the last major ice age. The temperatures after continued to rise until the little ice age. Now we are continuing the warming trend that was in the process before the little ice age. We still have not reached the level of global temperatures that existed prior to the last major ice age.

Listen very carefully. Do you really think scientists who study for years and years and years haven thought of such basic disproof of their hypothesis? Checking to see if there is a natural cause IS THE FIRST THING they check before they suggest that man is a cause (or catalyst,) for Climate Change. THe points you bring up are the points first year students cover. It's an elementary question and it's been asked time and time and time again. ..and answered.

Read this very carefully. Weather patterns are not magic. WHen they flutuate natuurally, there is a natural cause. Climatologists isolate those causative factors. With me so far? Now, just using the natural factors, they CANNOT account for the amount of warming (some warming IS natural, but the Warming now is out of proportion to the warming expected,) that is happening right now. This happens in report after report after report, in study after study after study. THey think of everything thing you can think of, plus about 5,000 more. They are EXPERTS. They know more than you, because they have studied FOR YEARS. Okay? Still with me? Head hurting yet? Okay, now, when they account for the influence of man, the warming FITS PERFECTLY.

So, if you want to disprove anthropogenic climate change, you need to find a natural cause (or causes) that mimick man's contribution, and then have that finding stand up time and time and time again under the scrutiny of EXPERTS.

This is how the tenuous theory of global cooling was demolished.

Once again:

If you want to disprove anthropogenic climate change, you need to find a natural cause (or causes) that mimick man's contribution, and then have that finding stand up time and time and time again under the scrutiny of EXPERTS.

psh, I live in wisconsin. I fucking want global warming to happen. :gundge:
I'm sure Wisconsin will be quite the desirable island to travel to for future Spring Breaks.

Well, the world didn't end because why would it? No ice on the poles wouldn't cause the planet to implode or anything. What it WOULD cause is a pretty different life for humanity (the end of the world as we know it?). We'd be living on tiny islands I guess, all crowded up.

...well, I wouldn't. My descendents = suckas!

psh, I live in wisconsin. I fucking want global warming to happen. :gundge:

So, is about the 500th time I've seen a comment long enough to let it pass without commenting?

Do you really want global warming? It's a chaotoc warming, meaning it's not a diffuse and evenly spread warming. Some locations might cool. Some places might experience greater temperature variations, higher highs and lower lows. Some places wetter. Some places drier. Some places windier. Some places stiller. Some places won't change much at all. Some places might become more fertile. Some places will go barren. Some places will be under water. Some nasty fumes will probably come from long-frozen places. Some places ice-free for ages might experience some ice. Some places will become tropical that previously weren't. They too will become breeding-grounds for rampant disease. Which we'll probably cure at great expense after a lot of research.

The development of large-scale desalinization plants will probably accelerate. When the public reaches that "ah-ha" moment about Global Climate change, stocks in large-scale desalinization plants will soar, baby. And solar technology. Wind. Geothermal. All kinds of high-altitude doodads.

Subtle changes will probably dominate the more drastic shifts in climate, though drastic alterations of local climate WILL occur in SOME, probably far-flung places.

It's not a doomsday prediction. It's just pointing to a period of greater hardship, instability and population migration (I mean, immigration sucks now. Imagine famines happening in places that rarely experience drought. Immigration will REALLY suck then. Think how much anti-Irish sentiment followed the Potato Famine.)

It's gonna suck and it's gonna be different and probably some great innovations and discoveries will come of it. Some absolutely horrible things will happen...but they happen in the world anyway.


But anyways, that's chaotic systems for ya. You kick an ant-hill, you sure do get an awful lot of activity. Interesting times and all that.