NationStates Jolt Archive

A necessary reminder, methinks...


In Kiribati, two islets - Tebua Tarawa and Abanuea - disappeared in 1999. In Tuvalu and the Marshall Islands, people are being relocated inland because of coastal erosion. And in Tonga, recent figures showed that the sea level at one location has risen by 10 centimeters in the past 13 years.

[...]

With most of the islands’ population living close to the sea, a rise of as little as a meter could prove devastating, especially for small island states.

The impact of global warming on these countries is becoming more significant with changes in weather patterns, such as longer periods of rain and drought. There are also more hurricanes and typhoons that hit at either the wrong time of the year or at the most unexpected islands.

[...]

"Pacific nations contribute just 0.6 percent of the global greenhouse gas emissions yet are the first to suffer the consequences of sea level rise due to global warming," said Tuvalu Prime Minister Maatia Toafa during the summit.


(Source (http://www.eastwestcenter.org/events-en-detail.asp?news_ID=333))

And yet still there will be people who'll stick their heads in the sand, turn their backs to reality and whinge about how they somehow know more than all the world's best scientists put together.

'State of Fear' by Michael Crichton is a read you may find interesting.

And yet still there will be people who'll stick their heads in the sand, turn their backs to reality and whinge about how they somehow know more than all the world's best scientists put together.
They will eventually wake up when the seawater is washing around their necks and takes the sand they're hiding in away...

Too bad it'll be too late then to change anything.

'State of Fear' by Michael Crichton is a read you may find interesting.

State of Fear is, I am afraid to inform you, fiction. And fiction based on selected talking points taken from climate change skeptics. Not exactly an authoritative source on sea level rise in the pacific. If you can reference me a paper, I'll gladly read it.

State of Fear is, I am afraid to inform you, fiction. And fiction based on selected talking points taken from climate change skeptics. Not exactly an authoritative source on sea level rise in the pacific. If you can reference me a paper, I'll gladly read it.

I beg to differ (not on the fiction side - it is a novel but with factual evidence backing it up.

Just a few:-

http://www.giss.nasa.gov

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov

http://datasystem.earthkam.ucsd.edu

I beg to differ (not on the fiction side - it is a novel but with factual evidence backing it up.

Just a few:-

http://www.giss.nasa.gov

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov

http://datasystem.earthkam.ucsd.edu

I am confused, is all the data in each of those websites supposed to support Crichton's claims? Or are there specific pages I should be looking at?

I really am ridicoulosly confuzzled to how people can think that global warming doesnt actually exist...

Over here in the UK its Febuary. 10 years ago it would be bitterly cold, and possibly some snow. As a matter of fact, in Greater London, where i currently am the suns shining and its at least 11oC.

This reminds me so much of a conversation I had with someone on msn:

me: 'Globabl warming does exist'
him: 'It doesnt'
me: 'so what is it then?'
him: 'the warming of the globe has happened before...Look at when dinosaurs we're alive
me: 'that was 65 million years ago. After a metorite had hit the earth'
-snip-...a bit later, it had got slightly vulgar by now...
him 'prove the the sea levels are rising!'
me : 'Islands in the pacific are being submerged, where do you think the water is coming from to do that?'
him 'rain entering the sea'
me: there is only so much water in our atmosphere. It is not infinite. rain would not cause the sea levels to rise that much! Its the ice caps melting'
him: 'prove it'
me: Ice caps are getting smaller and smaller!'

Anyway, you get my point, its so obvious that something odds happening here, that has increased massivley since the Industrial Revolution, but people ignore it. Hoping it will go away. Guess what?

It won't unless we do something.

I am confused, is all the data in each of those websites supposed to support Crichton's claims? Or are there specific pages I should be looking at?

Sorry:-

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov - this one has been moved.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn - restricted access

http://datasystem.earthkam.ucsd.edu - this one is just cool.

You should read the book. btw I'm not going to type out the 26 page bibliography - many of the books therein are not agreeing with M C's opinions but their research helps to prove a point.

--snip--

http://datasystem.earthkam.ucsd.edu - this one is just cool.

You should read the book. btw I'm not going to type out the 26 page bibliography - many of the books therein are not agreeing with M C's opinions but their research helps to prove a point.

I like the last link alot :) Helps with Geography homework...

I really am ridicoulosly confuzzled to how people can think that global warming doesnt actually exist...

Over here in the UK its Febuary. 10 years ago it would be bitterly cold, and possibly some snow. As a matter of fact, in Greater London, where i currently am the suns shining and its at least 11oC.

This reminds me so much of a conversation I had with someone on msn:

me: 'Globabl warming does exist'
him: 'It doesnt'
me: 'so what is it then?'
him: 'the warming of the globe has happened before...Look at when dinosaurs we're alive
me: 'that was 65 million years ago. After a metorite had hit the earth'
-snip-...a bit later, it had got slightly vulgar by now...
him 'prove the the sea levels are rising!'
me : 'Islands in the pacific are being submerged, where do you think the water is coming from to do that?'
him 'rain entering the sea'
me: there is only so much water in our atmosphere. It is not infinite. rain would not cause the sea levels to rise that much! Its the ice caps melting'
him: 'prove it'
me: Ice caps are getting smaller and smaller!'

Anyway, you get my point, its so obvious that something odds happening here, that has increased massivley since the Industrial Revolution, but people ignore it. Hoping it will go away. Guess what?

It won't unless we do something.

Your friend is outrageously ignorant and stupid.

Sorry:-

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp
The link is collating surface temperature data of the earth. It draws no conclusions regarding the origin of the observed warming.
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov - this one has been moved.
Not much use then.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn - restricted access
Ditto
http://datasystem.earthkam.ucsd.edu - this one is just cool.
Again, not relevant.
You should read the book. btw I'm not going to type out the 26 page bibliography - many of the books therein are not agreeing with M C's opinions but their research helps to prove a point.

I did read the book - it was a load of crap.

Your friend is outrageously ignorant and stupid.

The Romans used to have vinyaerds in Northumberland. Icebergs that are in the sea have no effect on sea level when they melt (you can try this yourself - get a glass of water and put an icecube in it - when the icecube melts the water level stay the same) There are too many glaciers to measure, and some are growing!

Your friend is outrageously ignorant and stupid.

He isnt a friend, he's one of the many Americans i take on to try and educate them.

One by one, America is becoming less ignorant about global warming!

So, Turqoise days, do you not believe that global warming is in occurence currently?

He isnt a friend, he's one of the many Americans i take on to try and educate them.

One by one, America is becoming less ignorant about global warming!

So, Turqoise days, do you not believe that global warming is in occurence currently?

Huh? I do indeed believe that increased anthropogenic CO2 and associated greenhouse gases are responsible for the observed warming and predicted destabilising of the global climate. I consider it the biggest threat to human civilisation (such as it is). Do you have me mixed up with October3?

The Romans used to have vinyaerds in Northumberland. Icebergs that are in the sea have no effect on sea level when they melt (you can try this yourself - get a glass of water and put an icecube in it - when the icecube melts the water level stay the same) There are too many glaciers to measure, and some are growing!
Strange then that my drink next to me which has, or rather had, icecubes in has increased in volume giving me more to drink.
A single icecube won't do much. Release many or larger ice cubes and the results are significant.
Huh? I do indeed believe that increased anthropogenic CO2 and associated greenhouse gases are responsible for the observed warming and predicted destabilising of the global climate. I consider it the biggest threat to human civilisation (such as it is). Do you have me mixed up with October3?

I think he was quoting the point about you saying his friend was ignorant. He was pointing out it wasn't his friend.

Huh? I do indeed believe that increased anthropogenic CO2 and associated greenhouse gases are responsible for the observed warming and predicted destabilising of the global climate. I consider it the biggest threat to human civilisation (such as it is). Do you have me mixed up with October3?

quite probably, excuse my ignorance :D

so, October 3, you dont believe in global warming? that experiment you were talking about...I really have no idea how that would work...

say you have 25cm^3 of water, and a 2^3 cm cube of ice, surely when the ice melted, the water would go up..by erm....however much water is in the ice...
(im poor at maths, but isnt it 8cm?)

quite probably, excuse my ignorance :D

so, October 3, you dont believe in global warming? that experiment you were talking about...I really have no idea how that would work...

say you have 25cm^3 of water, and a 2^3 cm cube of ice, surely when the ice melted, the water would go up..by erm....however much water is in the ice...
(im poor at maths, but isnt it 8cm?)


The water displaced by the icecube in the water raises the level. When it melts the leven starys the same as water expands when frozen.

Strange then that my drink next to me which has, or rather had, icecubes in has increased in volume giving me more to drink.
A single icecube won't do much. Release many or larger ice cubes and the results are significant.
Impossible, it stays the same because floating ice moves as much water as it weighs.

The Romans used to have vinyaerds in Northumberland. Icebergs that are in the sea have no effect on sea level when they melt (you can try this yourself - get a glass of water and put an icecube in it - when the icecube melts the water level stay the same) There are too many glaciers to measure, and some are growing!

You cannot possibly deny that global warming is going to fuck us all over.

The Romans used to have vinyaerds in Northumberland. Icebergs that are in the sea have no effect on sea level when they melt (you can try this yourself - get a glass of water and put an icecube in it - when the icecube melts the water level stay the same) There are too many glaciers to measure, and some are growing!
But most glaciers aren't growing and Greenland is melting (and Greenland doesn't float!).

The Romans used to have vinyaerds in Northumberland. Icebergs that are in the sea have no effect on sea level when they melt (you can try this yourself - get a glass of water and put an icecube in it - when the icecube melts the water level stay the same) There are too many glaciers to measure, and some are growing!

The melting ice causing the sea levels to rise are land based glaciers that melt and rush into the sea.

How about an empty glass with ice cubes in? Water then appears...So...surely...even if there was already a liquid in the glass the level would rise...?
No.

The melting ice causing the sea levels to rise are land based glaciers that melt and rush into the sea.
Don't forget Greenland;)

How about an empty glass with ice cubes in? Water then appears...So...surely...even if there was already a liquid in the glass the level would rise...?

The Romans used to have vinyaerds in Northumberland.
Temperatures were slightly warmer then due to natural variations in the Earth's climate. It happens. However, the effects were are observing now are not natural, and are instead man made. That's the entire point.

Icebergs that are in the sea have no effect on sea level when they melt (you can try this yourself - get a glass of water and put an icecube in it - when the icecube melts the water level stay the same) There are too many glaciers to measure, and some are growing!
The problem isn't from melting ice, that only causes a few percentage points of sea level rise. The problem comes from thermal expansion of sea water - as it gets warmer, it's volume increases, and thus the sea level increases. It's similar to the effect of car tyre pressure increasing on a hot day.

The water displaced by the icecube in the water raises the level. When it melts the leven starys the same as water expands when frozen.
Bollocks. Why? Ice sheets float on top of the water. Thus, the ice cube analogy is irrelevant.

Impossible, it stays the same because floating ice moves as much water as it weighs.

Not quite impossible as not all the ice cube is submerged in the water. Only that ice which is submerged changes the level of the liquid, so when that additional ice melts it increases, if only slightly, the amount of liquid in the glass.

Bollocks. Why? Ice sheets float on top of the water. Thus, the ice cube analogy is irrelevant.Depends, if you take half a glass of water and toss a icecube made of 50 ml of water in it the waterlevel rises equally as it was 50 ml of water. But compared to the level from before the cube, the level has risen. (Which is logical)

Temperatures were slightly warmer then due to natural variations in the Earth's climate. It happens. However, the effects were are observing now are not natural, and are instead man made. That's the entire point.


The problem isn't from melting ice, that only causes a few percentage points of sea level rise. The problem comes from thermal expansion of sea water - as it gets warmer, it's volume increases, and thus the sea level increases. It's similar to the effect of car tyre pressure increasing on a hot day.


Bollocks. Why? Ice sheets float on top of the water. Thus, the ice cube analogy is irrelevant.

Thank god someone who knows physics has arrived....

OK, back to the main points...whoever didnt believe global warming didnt exist, who now believes that global warming does exist?

Not quite impossible as not all the ice cube is submerged in the water. Only that ice which is submerged changes the level of the liquid, so when that additional ice melts it increases, if only slightly, the amount of liquid in the glass.
No true. A 300 ton floating ice berg displaces 300 tons of water. Now if one-tenth is submerged that would displace 30 tons and the other 270 ton would be floating magically in the air?

Depends, if you take half a glass of water and toss a icecube made of 50 ml of water in it the waterlevel rises equally as it was 50 ml of water. But compared to the level from before the cube, the level has risen. (Which is logical)

erm...that was my point all the way through...If you have some water, and you add some more it has a bigger number then priviously...

erm...that was my point all the way through...If you have some water, and you add some more it has a bigger number then priviously...
Did I say otherwise?:confused:

The Romans used to have vinyaerds in Northumberland. Icebergs that are in the sea have no effect on sea level when they melt (you can try this yourself - get a glass of water and put an icecube in it - when the icecube melts the water level stay the same) There are too many glaciers to measure, and some are growing!
If you take some water from a system and freeze it, then return the water to the system in the form of ice, the water level will not change. This is why the sea level does not change as a result of the north polar ice cap melting and refreezing each year.

However, if you add water (frozen or not) to a system, the water level will rise. Icebergs that are in the sea have no effect on the sea level when they melt, this is true. What you are forgetting is that most ice is on land, and not displacing any seawater. As sea ice melts due to increasing temperatures, it allows landbound ice to enter the system, displacing water and raising sea levels.

As for glacial advance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850

Over the five-year period from 1995 to 2000, 103 of 110 glaciers examined in Switzerland, 95 of 99 glaciers in Austria, all 69 glaciers in Italy, and all 6 glaciers in France were in retreat.

In 2005, of the 91 glaciers observed, 84 were retreating and none were advancing.

report concluded that 67% of all Himalayan glaciers are retreating. In examining 612 glaciers in China between 1950 and 1970, 53% of the glaciers studied were retreating. After 1990, 95% of these glaciers were measured to be retreating, indicating that retreat of these glaciers was becoming more widespread.(Rai, Guring, et alia) Glaciers in the Mount Everest region of the Himalayas are all in a state of retreat.

Etc.

Did I say otherwise?:confused:

I dont know, i was just reminding you...Or like...stuff....

Depends, if you take half a glass of water and toss a icecube made of 50 ml of water in it the waterlevel rises equally as it was 50 ml of water. But compared to the level from before the cube, the level has risen. (Which is logical)
Salt water is denser than fresh water (which ice sheets are made from), and so the sheets float higher in salt water than ice cubes float in fresh water.

Salt water is denser than fresh water (which ice sheets are made from), and so the sheets float higher in salt water than ice cubes float in fresh water.
Which is irrelevant. A body in water will displace it weight in water. Archimedes already found this ~1500 BC ('Eureka';) )

Isn't the point about floating ice cubes that they are not completely submerged when attatched to the wall of the glass?

The antartic is a good examples as a lot of the ice is anchored to the landmass, allowing some of the weight of the ice to be borne by the surrounding ice.

That, along with decreased size of glaciers as well as more severe inland droughts which tend to put more water in the oceans rather than the lakes.

Which is irrelevant. A body in water will displace it weight in water. Archimedes already found this ~1500 BC ('Eureka';) )
I'll explain it again. Because of the large difference in density between ice and salt water (s compared to ice and fresh water) most of the ice will float above (not in) the water, therefore it will not be displacing any water. Only a smaller amount will be below the water line and displacing water.

I'll explain it again. Because of the large difference in density between ice and salt water (s compared to ice and fresh water) most of the ice will float above (not in) the water, therefore it will not be displacing any water. Only a smaller amount will be below the water line and displacing water.

Huh?
Density of water at 0degrees: 0.9998 g/cm3
Density of ice at 0degrees: 0.917 g/cm³
Density of Seawater (SMOW): 1.027 g/cm3

We'll explain it again: A body floating freely in water will displace its weight in water - irrelevant of how much of the body is submerged.

If the weight of an object is less than the weight of the fluid the object would displace if it were fully submerged, then the object has an average density less than the fluid and has a buoyancy greater than its weight. If the fluid has a surface, such as water in a lake or the sea, the object will float at a level so it displaces the same weight of fluid as the weight of the object. If the object is immersed in the fluid, such as a submerged submarine or a balloon in the air, it will tend to rise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes_principle#Density

I really am ridicoulosly confuzzled to how people can think that global warming doesnt actually exist...

Over here in the UK its Febuary. 10 years ago it would be bitterly cold, and possibly some snow. As a matter of fact, in Greater London, where i currently am the suns shining and its at least 11oC.

This reminds me so much of a conversation I had with someone on msn:

me: 'Globabl warming does exist'
him: 'It doesnt'
me: 'so what is it then?'
him: 'the warming of the globe has happened before...Look at when dinosaurs we're alive
me: 'that was 65 million years ago. After a metorite had hit the earth'
-snip-...a bit later, it had got slightly vulgar by now...
him 'prove the the sea levels are rising!'
me : 'Islands in the pacific are being submerged, where do you think the water is coming from to do that?'
him 'rain entering the sea'
me: there is only so much water in our atmosphere. It is not infinite. rain would not cause the sea levels to rise that much! Its the ice caps melting'
him: 'prove it'
me: Ice caps are getting smaller and smaller!'

Anyway, you get my point, its so obvious that something odds happening here, that has increased massivley since the Industrial Revolution, but people ignore it. Hoping it will go away. Guess what?

It won't unless we do something.
While I will agree your buddy's an idiot, there's something I hope you would notice there's a difference.
There is no denying that global warming exists- the planet is getting warmer, and the evidence does point to that. What skeptics like myself aren't so sure of is that humans are the sole cause of global warming, and also whether global warming is necessarily a bad thing that's going to kill us all.
I thought you just might like to keep a difference. I'm tired, so I don't feel like making a defense yet, but I'll get to it.

and also whether global warming is necessarily a bad thing that's going to kill us all.


Wouldn't kill all of us...but it would make living conditions much tougher, and some countries would probably disappear completely, in the worst case scenarios. For example, Holland and Bangladesh.

But most glaciers aren't growing and Greenland is melting (and Greenland doesn't float!).

Don't forget Greenland;)

It’s about time Greenland started warming up, it’s been seven hundred years of bitterly cold conditions up there… (see below)

The Romans used to have vinyaerds in Northumberland.
Temperatures were slightly warmer then due to natural variations in the Earth's climate. It happens. However, the effects were are observing now are not natural, and are instead man made. That's the entire point.


Temperatures were “slightly” warmer due to natural variations in the Earth’s climate then, you say? Really? Then those “natural” variations lasted for hundreds and thousands of years… In addition to the Romans world Climate being different that ours, that warmer climate made it possible for the Scandinavian/Icelanders five to seven hundred years later to be able to take advantage of it and use stone age agricultural horticultural practices to farm Greenland, and do so reliably for hundreds of years before it got too cold and the Greenland bays and inlets began to fill up with ice bergs and the winter’s got longer and longer and the crops failed and the animals lost their natural underbrush vegetation. Perhaps there is more to the disappearance of the Greenland Viking settlements than, it got cold and they died, but there is abundant evidence that the Greenland they first settled and the Greenland they finally disappeared from three to five hundred years later was vastly different. Greenland had gotten colder and it’s winters lasted longer.

When the day comes that Greenland is warm enough for stone tool technology to be good enough to grow sustaining crops there, hundreds of people in a settlement, then we might be back to normal.

It is just as likely that our most recent seven hundred years has been unusually cold. Temperatures might have been slightly colder lately due to natural variations in the Earth's climate. It happens, and it’s finally getting back to where it should be… Only we aren’t used to it anymore and the change is frightening.

I think most people in general in America believe "climate change" is occurring. The reason is the differences in winter conditions. That is the easiest way to say hey things are changing. We don't get snow like we use to. However this is a very narrow viewpoint seeing how the average human lifespan is between 70-80. That is blink of an eye in climate speak. I think some of you out there that think America is in denial are thick headed. That doesn't seem to be my observation of people's attitudes at all. I run a pub myself and see a wide variety of the public. The discussion has come up on climate change many times when I have been there. The vast majority of the viewpoints are that there is a climate change going on.

The media compounds this finding by saying "the climate is changing" which = bad from their point of view. Then there are scientists which say if we continue the trend upwards from today our coastal cities will be flooded. That of course adds to the scare mongering. Then you get some but not all scientists saying it's those damn humans causing it! Then the media in all of their wisdom adds more fuel to the fire by saying the climate is changing and its our damn faults. However I never see in the media reports how the Earth has changed in the past naturally. I also never see in the media if the warming stops or slows over the next decades things will have changed however you don't need to pack your bags and move to higher ground. I think basically my point to this is there is a lot of scaremongering out there and it is difficult to find out the truth. With that I also believe that scientists can guess at what the problems are but they truly don't know exactly what's going on. Only after tens of thousands of years are we going to know what is normal Earth cycles and or what the human effect is on the planet. So to deny the climate is changing is stupid in my opinion. However equally stupid is to pretend that we know what is exactly going on and we know whats going to happen for a fact. The fact is we barely have a clue.

Global warming is a great thing anyway. I mean we need to get the planet as hot as we can for when all the fosil fuels run out. Then I can turn my radiators off once and for all.

But most glaciers aren't growing and Greenland is melting (and Greenland doesn't float!).

neither is Antartica.

now what we should also do is increase the Desalinization of sea water, turn all those excess water into drinking water or even irrigation water for drought inflicted areas. heck, with the oceans rising, let's use the excess water for other things. like refilling wells, producing viable land... :p

neither is Antartica.Growing, melting or floating?:p

Growing, melting or floating?:p

yes. :D

Floating... don't know the melting/growing status of Antartica.

yes. :D
I see.:)

Better stay away from Antartica, there be aliens there:eek:

I see.:)

Better stay away from Antartica, there be aliens there:eek:

but... but... I heard it was a cool place to be. :D

Well, there are penguins.... and Aliens.... and 'it' is there too...

The Romans used to have vinyaerds in Northumberland. Icebergs that are in the sea have no effect on sea level when they melt (you can try this yourself - get a glass of water and put an icecube in it - when the icecube melts the water level stay the same) There are too many glaciers to measure, and some are growing!

True, icebergs already floating in the sea are not a particular problem. However, the overwhelming majority of the ice in the world is on land - and it's melting. Fast. Ice in Greenland is melting right now. Ice in Antarctica is melting right now. How anyone can ignore these indisputable facts is beyond me.

May I make a suggestion to you global warming skeptics? Rent "An Inconvenient Truth" sometime. It lays out the basic facts pretty simply and understandably, and I'm sure I and others on this site will be happy to answer any questions you might have afterwards.

Global warming is a great thing anyway. I mean we need to get the planet as hot as we can for when all the fosil fuels run out. Then I can turn my radiators off once and for all.

I'm sure I need not point out the flaws in this argument.

floating ice is not the problem as it amounts to very little in comparison to the Glaciers, Greenland Ice Cap and Antarctica Ice Cap...melting of all 3 would amount to an approximate 70meter rise in ocean level, goodbye South sea lslands, Miami, New York, London, LA, Shanghai, Stockholm, Vancouver, Florida Holland, Bangladesh ....

and to those who question whether the Glaciers are receding...every glacier measured is receding.....

and before some else comes up with "but Antarctica is getting more snow"....it snows more when the weather is warmer(more heat=more evaporation)...it snows very little or not at all at extremely cold temperatures....

-snip-
Temperatures being higher in the UK 2000 years ago doesn't automatically have anything to do with temperatures in Greenland 700 years ago. However, Carbon Dioxide and global (as opposed to regional) temperatures do have something to do with each other, and you don't need me to tell you that.

Temperatures being higher in the UK 2000 years ago doesn't automatically have anything to do with temperatures in Greenland 700 years ago. However, Carbon Dioxide and global (as opposed to regional) temperatures do have something to do with each other, and you don't need me to tell you that.

and if you think carbon dioxide is a problem just wait until the arctic permafrost melts and another greenhouse gas is released...450 billion tonnes of methane....

I won't hazard a guess at how many billions of tons of methane are currently locked on the sea floor,which will be released if the ocean's temp goes up 5 degrees

The reason why people don't want to believe in Global Warming is that they fell for the "Buy seaside property in Nevada" scheme and this is the only way to save face... by making sure those properties do turn into seaside land. :D

I accept that the evidence in favor of global warming seems to be stacking up rather heavilly, but it doesn't really bother me. Worse case scenario the ocean rises several meters and the average temperature goes up several degrees. These problems may trickle down into much more violent hurricanes and thunderstorms.

A large area of land is less than several meters above the ocean. Some developed countries will be able to to build keys and dams to protect the more important areas. Everyone else will have to pack up and leave, especially in third world countries such as the islands the OP mentioned. Cases of heat stroke in the summer will increase dramatically, especially at the beginning when people aren't used to the increased heat. Many people, mostly small children, the elderly, and athletes will die.

More powerful than usual hurricanes will bash coastal cities more frequently. In undeveloped countries this will lead to more deaths than usual, developed countries will mostly feel the pain in increased property damage.

So I think that is an accurate summation of the worst case scenario. Millions forced to relocate there homes, increased discomfort and heat stroke in the summer. More violent weather. I agree that this is something to avoid, but none of these problems are insurmountable in the least. Is global warming important? Yes, of course it is. Is global warming about to end life as we know it? Not even close. Humankind as a whole will shrug off that punch without even slowing down. Also it bears mentioning that I don't think that the worst-case scenario is going to happen, it rarely does.

Before I start getting flamed, note that I think that there are going to be adverse affects from global warming (even large ones, just not the worst case and I admit that what I describe as large most people describe as unbelievably horrible) and that we should try to stop global warming where we can. All I'm saying is that it's not the end of the world, not even close.

and if you think carbon dioxide is a problem just wait until the arctic permafrost melts and another greenhouse gas is released...450 billion tonnes of methane....

I won't hazard a guess at how many billions of tons of methane are currently locked on the sea floor,which will be released if the ocean's temp goes up 5 degrees
And since Methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than Carbon Dioxide, it really is something to worry about.

At least we can rest safe in the knowledge that Methane will wipe out all those nasty Chlorine/Bromine free radicals that have been playing silly buggers with the Ozone Layer.:rolleyes:

I accept that the evidence in favor of global warming seems to be stacking up rather heavilly, but it doesn't really bother me. Worse case scenario the ocean rises several meters and the average temperature goes up several degrees. These problems may trickle down into much more violent hurricanes and thunderstorms.

A large area of land is less than several meters above the ocean. Some developed countries will be able to to build keys and dams to protect the more important areas. Everyone else will have to pack up and leave, especially in third world countries such as the islands the OP mentioned. Cases of heat stroke in the summer will increase dramatically, especially at the beginning when people aren't used to the increased heat. Many people, mostly small children, the elderly, and athletes will die.

More powerful than usual hurricanes will bash coastal cities more frequently. In undeveloped countries this will lead to more deaths than usual, developed countries will mostly feel the pain in increased property damage.

So I think that is an accurate summation of the worst case scenario. Millions forced to relocate there homes, increased discomfort and heat stroke in the summer. More violent weather. I agree that this is something to avoid, but none of these problems are insurmountable in the least. Is global warming important? Yes, of course it is. Is global warming about to end life as we know it? Not even close. Humankind as a whole will shrug off that punch without even slowing down. Also it bears mentioning that I don't think that the worst-case scenario is going to happen, it rarely does.

Before I start getting flamed, note that I think that there are going to be adverse affects from global warming (even large ones, just not the worst case and I admit that what I describe as large most people describe as unbelievably horrible) and that we should try to stop global warming where we can. All I'm saying is that it's not the end of the world, not even close.

relocating 200+million people will not be a problem? can they come stay at your house?....if the now productive grain growing areas, Argentina, France, USA,Russia, Ukraine, Canada become deserts do you know of some secret alternate areas to grow grain?

I don't think you've looked at the ramifications of warming and you're only looking short term 100ys......think 200-300-500-1000yrs, think about the future of man and not the present....a 5c increase in Ocean temp will be mass extinction, us included, all the evolution since the dinosaurs gone....

I did a quick search for ocean methane... estimated between 2 trillion -8 trillion tonnes.

'State of Fear' by Michael Crichton is a read you may find interesting.
Oh HELL no, not that shit again.

Here's a nice link I got from Desperate Measures in a thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=470556) to the day one year ago tomorrow: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=188

A week before that, Deep Kimchi (no surprise there) was being a big fan of Crichton's fiction: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=469405. There are several good, non-frivolous links in that thread, too.

And now please all hail my excellent memory and my mad search function skillz.

And the lack of life you have?:eek:For once, a "lack of life" does actually not enter this, seeing how it took me about 0.2 seconds to remember and just under 10 minutes to find the threads.

And now please all hail my excellent memory and my mad search function skillz.
And the lack of life you have?:eek:

But you remember threads from a year ago;)
Did you miss the part where I mentioned my excellent memory? Maybe I should have bolded it? ;)

Also,why the hell are we warping each others' posts? Shouldn't we be on the same server?

For once, a "lack of life" does actually not enter this, seeing how it took me about 0.2 seconds to remember and maybe 10 to find the threads.
But you remember threads from a year ago;)

Did you miss the part where I mentioned my excellent memory? Maybe I should have bolded it? ;)

Also,why the hell are we warping each others' posts? Shouldn't we be on the same server?
I have selective reading skilzzzz:p

And yes, we should be, but it's fun:D

relocating 200+million people will not be a problem? can they come stay at your house?....if the now productive grain growing areas, Argentina, France, USA,Russia, Ukraine, Canada become deserts do you know of some secret alternate areas to grow grain?

I don't think you've looked at the ramifications of warming and you're only looking short term 100ys......think 200-300-500-1000yrs, think about the future of man and not the present....a 5c increase in Ocean temp will be mass extinction, us included, all the evolution since the dinosaurs gone....

I didn't say it wouldn't be a problem, in fact, I could have sworn that the last thing I said was that I thought it would be a large problem. What I said was that it wasn't going to slow down the human race. The more than 6,000,000,000 people on this world are going to collectively take the bee sting of 200 million people being relocated. I didn't say there wouldn't be adjustments, I didn't say there wouldn't be inconveniences, and I didn't say there wouldn't be suffering. What I said is that the human race will be just fine. And it will be.

So lets say that the 5C increase happens, and it very well may over the course of a hundred years. Is it going to cause problems? Yes, like the heat stroke I mentioned. Are some species going to die out because of it? Very likely. Are other species going to thrive because of it? Undoubtedly. Life on Earth will adapt, just like it's done for the last 3-4 billion years. Where will humans be in this new ecosystem? Exactly where they are right now, at the very, very top.

I didn't say it wouldn't be a problem, in fact, I could have sworn that the last thing I said was that I thought it would be a large problem. What I said was that it wasn't going to slow down the human race. The more than 6,000,000,000 people on this world are going to collectively take the bee sting of 200 million people being relocated. I didn't say there wouldn't be adjustments, I didn't say there wouldn't be inconveniences, and I didn't say there wouldn't be suffering. What I said is that the human race will be just fine. And it will be.

So lets say that the 5C increase happens, and it very well may over the course of a hundred years. Is it going to cause problems? Yes, like the heat stroke I mentioned. Are some species going to die out because of it? Very likely. Are other species going to thrive because of it? Undoubtedly. Life on Earth will adapt, just like it's done for the last 3-4 billion years. Where will humans be in this new ecosystem? Exactly where they are right now, at the very, very top.

200million+ is not a bee sting and I was being conservative with the estimate.....if we hit this 5c increase the population will be 9billion+....a 5c increase of ocean temps is catastrophic, mass die offs, collapse of the ocean ecosystem and food chain....massive expansion of deserts(prairie grain producing areas are borderline deserts now) and depletion of glacier fed rivers will curtail any irrigation...how do you suggest feeding these 9 billion + people...do you think we all move north and farm? there is no soil in the north to farm on....

and I don't think you understood clearly the impact of a 5c increase of the ocean temp(not surface air)...mass extinction, nothing larger than a rabbit will survive on land or in the seas.... bunnies may become the new overlords..

Huh?
Density of water at 0degrees: 0.9998 g/cm3
Density of ice at 0degrees: 0.917 g/cm³
Density of Seawater (SMOW): 1.027 g/cm3

We'll explain it again: A body floating freely in water will displace its weight in water - irrelevant of how much of the body is submerged.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes_principle#Density

You don't appear to understand. When the ice melts, it will lower the density of the seawater. As such, the sea level will rise above and beyond the level it was before.

And now please all hail my excellent memory and my mad search function skillz.
Ah, what the heck. http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/fleh.gifhttp://www.section.at/img/smiley/valentina2.gif

For those interested, a hypothesised worst case scenario for climate change... :eek: Click (http://www.exitmundi.nl/Runaway_greenhouse.htm)

For those interested, a hypothesised worst case scenario for climate change... :eek: Click (http://www.exitmundi.nl/Runaway_greenhouse.htm)
Damn, that looks just like me overcooking my planet on SimEarth!

For those interested, a hypothesised worst case scenario for climate change... :eek: Click (http://www.exitmundi.nl/Runaway_greenhouse.htm)

I first heard this 30 yrs ago....we're not supposed to talk about it as may cause ridicule and we'd be labeled nutters, "the sky is falling" type people...but the possibility is there....2nd worst case scenario, mass extinction of the scale that preceded the dinosaur extinction Cretaceous-Tertiary(which was caused by a meteor), 90% of all species disappeared due to global warming that was attributed to greenhouse gases...Permian-Triassic (P-Tr) extinction event, the great dying.