NationStates Jolt Archive

Now, you cannot deny that global warming is happening. How bad it is, and what is causing it is an enterly different thing. But, do you think global warming is a good thing? Think about it, longer summers and shorter winters are better for farmers, less people freezing to death, there's a lot that could be good for the earth in the long run. And about the ice caps melting, we won't get flooded because of that, if you don't belive me put some ice in a glass of water and watch it melt. Thoughts?

I'm Assuming what you say is true.
But other wildlife might not adapt to the climate change as well as us humans, as many animals who thrive in cold conditions at the Arctic or Antarctica such as Polar bears or Penguins might die off faster in warmer conditions.
Warmer climates mean that the already large areas of desert in various places in the world would expand more easily, and as farmers can't farm off desert land (as far as i know) it means crops are more likely to suffer in those regions.
Erratic weather conditions affect the globe more often (see thread on extreme weather http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=548637) meaning more spending for governments on flood defences as the heavens open.
among other factors, Global warming outwieghs any possible advantages gained from it.

less people freezing to death

Global warming will change things like the gulfstream. That would make life somewhat colder for many people.

Think about it, longer summers and shorter winters are better for farmers

Dead ecosystems outweigh those advantages.

less people freezing to death

How big a problem is this for humanity anyway? If people could just get some gas, or some damn blankets, then that seems the better option than turning the planet into an oven.

there's a lot that could be good for the earth in the long run

Yeah? Name 5.

And about the ice caps melting, we won't get flooded because of that, if you don't belive me put some ice in a glass of water and watch it melt.

No. The antarctic ice is not in the "glass" and would only become so if it melted, thus the water level would rise because the mass of water in the oceans would increase from what it currently is.

lol global warming
I'll most likely be dead by the time it has any real effect

if it is actually going to happen, i couldn't care less.

Now, you cannot deny that global warming is happening. How bad it is, and what is causing it is an enterly different thing. But, do you think global warming is a good thing? Think about it, longer summers and shorter winters are better for farmers, less people freezing to death, there's a lot that could be good for the earth in the long run. And about the ice caps melting, we won't get flooded because of that, if you don't belive me put some ice in a glass of water and watch it melt. Thoughts?

What about when runaway climate change causes the prevailing wind and ocean currents to shift, turning areas the were once fertile farmlands into deserts, and causes the mass extincition of important parts of the Earth's biosphere, both land and sea? Will global warming look so positive then?

Also, the I'm afraid I must tell you that the icepacks that matter are the ones that are on land. When they melt, the water will cause the sea level to rise.

lol global warming
I'll most likely be dead by the time it has any real effect

if it is actually going to happen, i couldn't care less.

That's the kind of attitude that will screw the coming generations, and I find it heinously short-sighted, selfish and reeking of asshattery.

What about when runaway climate change causes the prevailing wind and ocean currents to shift, turning areas the were once fertile farmlands into deserts, and causes the mass extincition of important parts of the Earth's biosphere, both land and sea? Will global warming look so positive then?

Also, the I'm afraid I must tell you that the icepacks that matter are the ones that are on land. When they melt, the water will cause the sea level to rise.

Actually the water levels won't rise very much at all due to ice melting. Much more will be caused if the water temps increase enough to reduce the density of water, thereby increasing the volume of the same mass of water. Theres not really enough water frozen on land to make a big difference in the oceans.

And about the ice caps melting, we won't get flooded because of that, if you don't belive me put some ice in a glass of water and watch it melt. Thoughts?

Try this, ok? Fill a cup with water, measure its volume. Take an ice cube and then drop it into the cup of water. Assuming nothing overflows, measure the volume again. It will be volume of water in cup + volume of ice cube.

Why do I say this? Because the ice people are worried about melting is LAND based ice. In essence, you are adding more volume to seawater.

Also, this ice is more reflective of the sun's rays than ocean water is. So when sea-based ice melts, this leaves more open ocean to absorb more of the sun's rays. What does that mean? More ocean water absorbing solar radiation will inevitably cause the expansion of the ocean as you heat it up. Remember the hotter, the less dense and if the mass of water remains constant, that means that means volume must increase.

That's because (average?) density is defined as d = m/v. If you decrease density and let mass remain constant, that means volume must, logically, increase. So in the end you wind up with a volume increase due to thermal expansion and the melting of land-based ice.

Never mind freshwater mixing with salt water and screwing with ocean currents, and such...

Global climate change.

No guarantee for longer summers and shorter winters.

Some may encounter mini-ice ages due to main ocean currents slowing or shutting down entirely.

I am trying to find information on this (although I am having trouble), but someone has come up with a plan on creating huge flooded inland farms that look like rice fields to grow [something - I forget] and that will also raise the water table in aqueducts. Someone has already started doing something similar with inland shrimp farms. Apparently, if their calculations are correct, the scale of these proposed farms could go a long way in keeping the sea from rising too high.

Try this, ok? Fill a cup with water, measure its volume. Take an ice cube and then drop it into the cup of water. Assuming nothing overflows, measure the volume again. It will be volume of water in cup + volume of ice cube.

Why do I say this? Because the ice people are worried about melting is LAND based ice. In essence, you are adding more volume to seawater.

Also, this ice is more reflective of the sun's rays than ocean water is. So when sea-based ice melts, this leaves more open ocean to absorb more of the sun's rays. What does that mean? More ocean water absorbing solar radiation will inevitably cause the expansion of the ocean as you heat it up. Remember the hotter, the less dense and if the mass of water remains constant, that means that means volume must increase.

That's because (average?) density is defined as d = m/v. If you decrease density and let mass remain constant, that means volume must, logically, increase. So in the end you wind up with a volume increase due to thermal expansion and the melting of land-based ice.

Never mind freshwater mixing with salt water and screwing with ocean currents, and such...
You're right and I'm wrong there. But even so, there's enough room on the earth so that if it floods most people could move inland.

lol global warming
I'll most likely be dead by the time it has any real effect

if it is actually going to happen, i couldn't care less.

What a brilliant moral argument.

That's the kind of attitude that will screw the coming generations, and I find it heinously short-sighted, selfish and reeking of asshattery.

oh well

Think about it, longer summers and shorter winters are better for farmers

except that you'll also get less water to go along with it. desertification ftw?

And about the ice caps melting, we won't get flooded because of that, if you don't belive me put some ice in a glass of water and watch it melt. Thoughts?

that you should really try filling a glass with water and then put a bunch of ice cubes in it sometime.

Now, you cannot deny that global warming is happening. How bad it is, and what is causing it is an enterly different thing. But, do you think global warming is a good thing? Think about it, longer summers and shorter winters are better for farmers, less people freezing to death, there's a lot that could be good for the earth in the long run. And about the ice caps melting, we won't get flooded because of that, if you don't belive me put some ice in a glass of water and watch it melt. Thoughts?

You should probably go and tell this to all the scientists. They probably haven't thought about it. You could save us all a lot of bother.

You're right and I'm wrong there. But even so, there's enough room on the earth so that if it floods most people could move inland.

ah, i see, the mass movement of hundreds of millions and the loss of trillions of dollars of infrastructure is a good thing...

ah, i see, the mass movement of hundreds of millions and the loss of trillions of dollars of infrastructure is a good thing...
I said IF. It's not a certain thing. Heck we might be in a short global change like the Medieval warming period(Which I belive we are). Or we could be in a massive climate change(Which I don't belive)

You're right and I'm wrong there. But even so, there's enough room on the earth so that if it floods most people could move inland.

I'm happy to find a fan of immigration :)

firstly, you made no such qualification in the OP. second, do you have reasons for thinking we are in a short-term change rather than a big one?
Do you have reason to think that we're in a long-term change?

I said IF. It's not a certain thing. Heck we might be in a short global change like the Medieval warming period(Which I belive we are). Or we could be in a massive climate change(Which I don't belive)

Was the Medieval warming period global?

Some may encounter mini-ice ages due to main ocean currents slowing or shutting down entirely.

I am trying to find information on this (although I am having trouble), but someone has come up with a plan on creating huge flooded inland farms that look like rice fields to grow [something - I forget] and that will also raise the water table in aqueducts. Someone has already started doing something similar with inland shrimp farms. Apparently, if their calculations are correct, the scale of these proposed farms could go a long way in keeping the sea from rising too high.


I found it!

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9606/18/t_t/saltwater.farms/index.html

Although they don't mention the part about raising the water table.

I said IF. It's not a certain thing. Heck we might be in a short global change like the Medieval warming period(Which I belive we are). Or we could be in a massive climate change(Which I don't belive)

firstly, you made no such qualification in the OP. second, do you have reasons for thinking we are in a short-term change rather than a big one?

How bad it is, and what is causing it is an enterly different thing"

No, the consensus is clear that CO2 emissions caused by mankind are the primary factor in global warming. Link (http://books.nap.edu/html/climatechange/summary.html).

With regard to your question, I say there will be positive effects (it actually snowed here in Ireland today!) but the negative effect will vastly outweigh the bad ones, especially in the third world.

Do you have reason to think that we're in a long-term change?

yes. all that fossil carbon we put into the air. barring intervention on our parts, it is going to have to wait until lots and lots and lots of plants become buried in swamp sediments and lots and lots and lots of algae sink to the bottom of the ocean to be removed from the air. that's how we got out of the carbon hothouse last time.

Snip don't belive me put some ice in a glass of water and watch it melt. Thoughts?
Hold an ice cube over the glass and let it melt see if the water rises.

You're right and I'm wrong there. But even so, there's enough room on the earth so that if it floods most people could move inland.

Except lots of people tend to live on these coastlines that get threatened by sea level rise. Mass movements of people inland won't be all too orderly. Never mind people losing property, homes, and so on because they had to move.

And even if you think it'll be a short-term rise in sea level, people will still need to evacuate it, right? I mean, what do you say: "well just sit here in this water for the next few years, it'll clear up by then."

yes. all that fossil carbon we put into the air. barring intervention on our parts, it is going to have to wait until lots and lots and lots of plants become buried in swamp sediments and lots and lots and lots of algae sink to the bottom of the ocean to be removed from the air. that's how we got out of the carbon hothouse last time.
Pardon? Carbon hothouse? The last warm period was The Medieval Warm period, and it slowly faded away, as I belive this one will. Oh, and seeing some evidence might be nice.

Pardon? Carbon hothouse? The last warm period was The Medieval Warm period, and it slowly faded away, as I belive this one will. Oh, and seeing some evidence might be nice.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Errr, looks like the temperature is shooting up much more rapidly now than the medieval warming period...also note the gradual increase over several hundred years for MWP and the rapid increase over at least half that time for current temps..

Was the Medieval warming period global?

Well, it was only in Western Europe and parts of the Eastern seaboard of North America, and really, they're the only places that matter. Or something.

Okay, yeah. I can't even use sarcasm with this.

Illinois' weather is already bipolar, where you can have all four seasons in a 12 hour period. So with that said, I don't think global climate change will affect us all too much here.

Pardon? Carbon hothouse? The last warm period was The Medieval Warm period, and it slowly faded away, as I belive this one will. Oh, and seeing some evidence might be nice.

the so-called medieval warm period was caused by a change in ocean currents, rather than the addition of gigatons of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. also, it was cooler than we are now then. the carbon hothouses i am talking about occurred millions and millions of years ago. you see, the way there got to be all this carbon in the ground for us to release by burning fossil fuels now was that it used to be in the air.

Well, it was only in Western Europe and parts of the Eastern seaboard of North America, and really, they're the only places that matter. Or something.

Okay, yeah. I can't even use sarcasm with this.

:D

I'm just happy you tried :fluffle:

Actually the water levels won't rise very much at all due to ice melting. Much more will be caused if the water temps increase enough to reduce the density of water, thereby increasing the volume of the same mass of water. Theres not really enough water frozen on land to make a big difference in the oceans.

That's odd. Because I could have sworn there was enough ice on land to make water levels rise by over 65 meters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_sheet). Whereas the change in density of water is virtually negligible (http://www.simetric.co.uk/si_water.htm).

I wish people wouldn't persist in using the phrase "global warming" - it's inaccurate and misleading.

Climate change is happening on a global scale, of this there is no doubt. Whether or not its primary cause is human activity is irrelevant, although the weight of current scientific opinion certainly seems to be leaning that way.

Whether or not it's a "good thing" I suppose very much depends on your point of view. If you happen to be a Pompeii worm, I don't suppose that any of the effects that our current climate shift might have are likely to make a shit's worth of difference to your life. If, on the other hand, you make your living on the land's surface you're likely to find that you - and all the other living things that you depend on to produce food or feed (not to mention all the things that they depend on, etc, etc) - are beautifully evolved to thrive in a pretty narrow temperature range and that, if the range moves outside your little comfort zone, you're likely to become extinct.

Over-dramatic? Perhaps, but that's the fate that has befallen the vast majority of species ever to wander Earth, and it's nothing short of colossal arrogance for us to assume that we'd fare any better. Of course, as a species, we are unique in having developed the intelligence to foresee such changes ahead of time and - just possibly - to come up with ways to alleviate to worst of it, so we might just get away with it.

Global warming should make where I live somewhat colder, which means more annual snowfall. This is a good thing since snow is proportional to awesome.

The factors involved in global climate change are far too numerous to get into on this forum. Suffice it to say that nobody knows what the net effect will be, much less be able to predict what will happen to specific areas.

There are always balancing factors - the judgment people use to say that global warming is bad is that it will cause change. Change is not always bad. While some areas will no longer be viable for farming, others will become viable farmland. Areas currently uninhabitable will become habitable just as currently habitable areas become less so.

My prediction is that the 'cure' will be worse than the cause. Everyone that wants to panic and impose draconian measures, 'save' everything, and be a stereotypical bleeding heart, will cause more hardship than climate change ever could.

This planet cannot support an infinite number of people. You have to accept that you cannot support millions of people on a tiny patch of scrubland. The more you try to 'feed the hungry and impoverished' peoples of the world, and keep them exactly where they are, and in ever increasing numbers, the more damage you do. Accept that the world changes, that nature is not some loving caring mystical force that wants to protect and care for everything, but is instead just harsh reality.

We have seen massive population explosions around the world, especially in areas that cannot support those massive populations. So we provide them food and medicine, because it would be 'immoral' not to, so they survive and continue to breed, producing more overpopulation, which we feed and provide for, so they can continue to breed, and so on ad infinitum. Eventually you have to accept that reality is harsh, people die, and it is far better for everyone in the long run to live within your means rather than try to support unchecked population growth.

The world changes. The world always has changed and always will change. 'Nature' doest care - creatures will adapt and change just as they have for a billion years.

The factors involved in global climate change are far too numerous to get into on this forum. Suffice it to say that nobody knows what the net effect will be, much less be able to predict what will happen to specific areas.

There are always balancing factors - the judgment people use to say that global warming is bad is that it will cause change. Change is not always bad. While some areas will no longer be viable for farming, others will become viable farmland. Areas currently uninhabitable will become habitable just as currently habitable areas become less so.

My prediction is that the 'cure' will be worse than the cause. Everyone that wants to panic and impose draconian measures, 'save' everything, and be a stereotypical bleeding heart, will cause more hardship than climate change ever could.

This planet cannot support an infinite number of people. You have to accept that you cannot support millions of people on a tiny patch of scrubland. The more you try to 'feed the hungry and impoverished' peoples of the world, and keep them exactly where they are, and in ever increasing numbers, the more damage you do. Accept that the world changes, that nature is not some loving caring mystical force that wants to protect and care for everything, but is instead just harsh reality.

We have seen massive population explosions around the world, especially in areas that cannot support those massive populations. So we provide them food and medicine, because it would be 'immoral' not to, so they survive and continue to breed, producing more overpopulation, which we feed and provide for, so they can continue to breed, and so on ad infinitum. Eventually you have to accept that reality is harsh, people die, and it is far better for everyone in the long run to live within your means rather than try to support unchecked population growth.

The world changes. The world always has changed and always will change. 'Nature' doest care - creatures will adapt and change just as they have for a billion years.

It could be argued that developed countries that import most of their food is just as bad. Are you going to stop all imports to everywhere? Once countries become more developed, their birth/death rates tend to level out.

And anyway, why not just skip the ending the aid and go stright to the mass culling. AFterall, it amounts to the same thing.

Now, you cannot deny that global warming is happening. How bad it is, and what is causing it is an enterly different thing. But, do you think global warming is a good thing?
No.

Think about it, longer summers and shorter winters are better for farmers,
Well, farmers that don't want crop failiures due to droughts and diseases.

less people freezing to death,
Instead we have people suffering from heat exhaustion. Yay.

there's a lot that could be good for the earth in the long run. And about the ice caps melting, we won't get flooded because of that, if you don't belive me put some ice in a glass of water and watch it melt. Thoughts?
Yeah, because that's not totally oversimplified or anything.

A warmer climate would flood a lot of places, but it might also increase the amount of viable farming land on earth as well. More people die from hypothermia than heat stroke, but hotter climates will allow malaria breeding mosquitoes to expand their territory. There are billions of variables and considering how much there is that we do not understand about earth science and climatology, I think the only safe position one can take on this issue is agnostic. I really do not know what is going to happen if the earth gets warmer by a few degrees.:confused:

The earth's environment is not static. It goes through cycles. All paleoclimatologists will say that warming and cooling cycles are a part of natural history. As little as 30 years ago, the doomsayers ere warning of GLOBAL COOLING. Human activity has a nearly unmeasurable effect on global temperatures. I do try to be reasonably careful in my activities to minimize my environmental impact, but that's just because pollution is poor stewardship of the planet.

In case you didn't notice, there have been an unknown number of ice ages, seperated by warming periods. None of those previous warming or cooling events were caused by humanity. Furthermore, a single volcanic eruption likely releases more greenhouse gasses than humans have in all the past century.

According to the statistics I've seen, there has been no increase in overall global temps in the past several years. the warming period may already be over. The most reasonable solution is to plant trees. If warming IS a problem, they'le consume CO2. If cooling is the new issue, we can use them for firewood. Just read the cover of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Don't Panic.

The earth's environment is not static. It goes through cycles. All paleoclimatologists will say that warming and cooling cycles are a part of natural history. As little as 30 years ago, the doomsayers ere warning of GLOBAL COOLING. Human activity has a nearly unmeasurable effect on global temperatures. I do try to be reasonably careful in my activities to minimize my environmental impact, but that's just because pollution is poor stewardship of the planet.

In case you didn't notice, there have been an unknown number of ice ages, seperated by warming periods. None of those previous warming or cooling events were caused by humanity. Furthermore, a single volcanic eruption likely releases more greenhouse gasses than humans have in all the past century.

According to the statistics I've seen, there has been no increase in overall global temps in the past several years. the warming period may already be over. The most reasonable solution is to plant trees. If warming IS a problem, they'le consume CO2. If cooling is the new issue, we can use them for firewood. Just read the cover of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Don't Panic.
It's like a collection of all of the anti-global warming talking points. It's precious, almost, isn't it, especially since so much of it is wrong?

Now, I may be wrong, but I thought mass extinctions, ecosystems destroyed, massive flooding in heavily populated regions, fertile lands turned into desert, etc were all bad things?

How could anyone see this as good?

Global climate change is real, and is thought to have dire effects on the world. It is not a 'good thing'.

The earth's environment is not static. It goes through cycles. All paleoclimatologists will say that warming and cooling cycles are a part of natural history. As little as 30 years ago, the doomsayers ere warning of GLOBAL COOLING. Human activity has a nearly unmeasurable effect on global temperatures. I do try to be reasonably careful in my activities to minimize my environmental impact, but that's just because pollution is poor stewardship of the planet.

In case you didn't notice, there have been an unknown number of ice ages, seperated by warming periods. None of those previous warming or cooling events were caused by humanity. Furthermore, a single volcanic eruption likely releases more greenhouse gasses than humans have in all the past century.

According to the statistics I've seen, there has been no increase in overall global temps in the past several years. the warming period may already be over. The most reasonable solution is to plant trees. If warming IS a problem, they'le consume CO2. If cooling is the new issue, we can use them for firewood. Just read the cover of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Don't Panic.

ooh, i love a game of "count the falsehoods"

i found 9

It's like a collection of all of the anti-global warming talking points. It's precious, almost, isn't it, especially since so much of it is wrong?

You did see who is was posted by, right? I'd assume it some regular getting his/her jollies off of being silly.

The earth's environment is not static. It goes through cycles. All paleoclimatologists will say that warming and cooling cycles are a part of natural history. As little as 30 years ago, the doomsayers ere warning of GLOBAL COOLING. Human activity has a nearly unmeasurable effect on global temperatures. I do try to be reasonably careful in my activities to minimize my environmental impact, but that's just because pollution is poor stewardship of the planet.

In case you didn't notice, there have been an unknown number of ice ages, seperated by warming periods. None of those previous warming or cooling events were caused by humanity. Furthermore, a single volcanic eruption likely releases more greenhouse gasses than humans have in all the past century.

According to the statistics I've seen, there has been no increase in overall global temps in the past several years. the warming period may already be over. The most reasonable solution is to plant trees. If warming IS a problem, they'le consume CO2. If cooling is the new issue, we can use them for firewood. Just read the cover of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Don't Panic.

don't listen to these global cooling deniers. I don't think volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans, and most above-water plants tend to produce as much CO2 as they take in, but the part about no major increase in global temperature is true. The global climate has been like plus or minus 5-6 degrees for the past 200 years or so with no major increase.

the so-called medieval warm period was caused by a change in ocean currents, rather than the addition of gigatons of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Humans have only added 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere, and it has a logarithmic effect, in other words each molecule only has half as much of an effect as the last one. also, it was cooler than we are now then. Wrong, it was slightly hotter.

less people freezing to death
Wow... Does that happen more often then I realise?

But even so, there's enough room on the earth so that if it floods most people could move inland.

...

I said IF. It's not a certain thing.

True. If there is massive global flooding, immigrants and refugees will be fleeing inland.

This is not a good thing. Ergo, global warming would not be a good thing. QED.

I will not even waste my time reading all of your posts -- global warming will kill millions of people, even if we start doing things to reduce it right now. Mark my words. Anyone who thinks that it's a good thing is seriously deluded.

:headbang:

You should all know enough to know that global warming is a bad thing!

don't listen to these global cooling deniers. I don't think volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans, and most above-water plants tend to produce as much CO2 as they take in, but the part about no major increase in global temperature is true. The global climate has been like plus or minus 5-6 degrees for the past 200 years or so with no major increase.

When living a plant cant produce as much CO2 as it takes in. Thats utter nonsense. Where the hell does the carbon for growth come from if the plants are producing all this carbon dioxide? No one is feeding trees oil.

With regard to your question, I say there will be positive effects (it actually snowed here in Ireland today!)

That's not really a good thing.

When living a plant cant produce as much CO2 as it takes in. Thats utter nonsense. Where the hell does the carbon for growth come from if the plants are producing all this carbon dioxide? No one is feeding trees oil.

Plants do take carbon out of the atmosphere, hence carbon fixation, but its not very much. Thats why the NASAs bio-dome experiment failed. They didn't take into account the oceans and how little CO2 plants actually get rid of.

some stuff to read:

link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4269066.stm)
link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_Cycle)

Plants do take carbon out of the atmosphere, hence carbon fixation, but its not very much. Thats why the NASAs bio-dome experiment failed. They didn't take into account the oceans and how little CO2 plants actually get rid of.

Not that I agree, but that brings up an interesting question. How much carbon is contained in the average tree, and how much carbon is contained in a barrel of oil?

There is no such thing as global warming; God is just giving the earth a big hug!

We are all safe! No reason to fear, anyone!

Humans have only added 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere

haha

Wrong, it was slightly hotter.

source?

Plants do take carbon out of the atmosphere, hence carbon fixation, but its not very much. Thats why the NASAs bio-dome experiment failed. They didn't take into account the oceans and how little CO2 plants actually get rid of.

some stuff to read:

link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4269066.stm)
link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_Cycle)

Regarding the BBC article: so European ecosystems are releasing more CO2 into the air than they absorb because all the plants are dying because of climate change?
It's not the plants' fault then, the problem is that we're killing them all.

Now, you cannot deny that global warming is happening. How bad it is, and what is causing it is an enterly different thing. But, do you think global warming is a good thing? Think about it, longer summers and shorter winters are better for farmers, less people freezing to death, there's a lot that could be good for the earth in the long run. And about the ice caps melting, we won't get flooded because of that, if you don't belive me put some ice in a glass of water and watch it melt. Thoughts?

That is the dumbest thing I've ever read.

For instance, global warming fucks up the gulf stream by dumping all the glacial water from Greenland into the North Atlantic. This actually makes Europe far colder, the northern bits would be uninhabitable.

Also, it floods coastal areas, which tend to be the most populated. This screws up lives for many people.

In places like California, we depend on annual snowpack for our water supply. Less snow = less water, drought and water shortage. We also seem to be having drier winters.

In places that have hurricanes, they will become more frequent and more destructive. How many Katrinas does the Gulf Coast need?

So no, it's not a good thing. Plus, we're already the farthest from the Glacial Maxima we're supposed to get in our cycle.

On the bottom of the world's oceans, there are also frozen methane traps, which, if the oceans increase in temperature, could rise to the surface and enter the atmosphere. Methane is a much more effective greenhouse gas than Carbon Dioxide, so once that happened, things would be even more catastrophic, as that would accelerate the temperature increase much more drastically.

There are several other feedback loop effects that as the temperature increases will make the problem worse and worse, the above example was just one.

Global warming is a very very bad thing.

Not that I agree, but that brings up an interesting question. How much carbon is contained in the average tree, and how much carbon is contained in a barrel of oil?

Oil is an assortment of complex hydrocarbons, so it is mostly carbon. Trees have a lot of carbon too, though.

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/prog1.htm#suspend

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/swindle.htm

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/pointlss.htm

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20070315&articleId=5086

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131



Global warming caused by man is a myth. It goes right along with the hysterical predictions that every computer in the world would experience sudden meltdown at the turn of the century, or that the world was going to end at both millenium (1000 and 2000). It follows along the same patterns that used to lead to lynch crowds, hysterical mobs, conspiracy theories, etc.

You make a villain (human or otherwise) and you announce to everyone who will listen this villain is going to kill them and all their loved ones. There will be enough people believing this myth that it will spread, and the more it spreads, the more people believe it, the more it's touted as the "correct" answer, because HEY, look at all the people who are saying it must be true!

There is no evidence man is causing any sort of global warming. There IS evidence that we're going through something of the opposite of global warming right now. There is also evidence that this is a very natural cycle the earth goes through.

But that's not the popular answer. That's not what people BELIEVE, therefore it can't be true, right? Just as Galileo must have been wrong about the earth circling the sun, right? Because everyone BELIEVED the sun circled the earth. Ignore the science, it's belief that counts.

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/prog1.htm#suspend

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/swindle.htm

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/pointlss.htm

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20070315&articleId=5086

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131



Global warming caused by man is a myth. It goes right along with the hysterical predictions that every computer in the world would experience sudden meltdown at the turn of the century, or that the world was going to end at both millenium (1000 and 2000). It follows along the same patterns that used to lead to lynch crowds, hysterical mobs, conspiracy theories, etc.

You make a villain (human or otherwise) and you announce to everyone who will listen this villain is going to kill them and all their loved ones. There will be enough people believing this myth that it will spread, and the more it spreads, the more people believe it, the more it's touted as the "correct" answer, because HEY, look at all the people who are saying it must be true!

There is no evidence man is causing any sort of global warming. There IS evidence that we're going through something of the opposite of global warming right now. There is also evidence that this is a very natural cycle the earth goes through.

But that's not the popular answer. That's not what people BELIEVE, therefore it can't be true, right? Just as Galileo must have been wrong about the earth circling the sun, right? Because everyone BELIEVED the sun circled the earth. Ignore the science, it's belief that counts.

Wouldn't it be YOU ignoring the science and vast majority of climate scientists then?

Wouldn't it be YOU ignoring the science and vast majority of climate scientists then?

Because their "science" is either scare tactics, based on outdated models or out of date information, and completely ignores any evidence that might disprove their foregone conclusions.

That's not science.

Oil is an assortment of complex hydrocarbons, so it is mostly carbon. Trees have a lot of carbon too, though.

Well, using THE POWER OF MOLECULAR COMPOSITION, the carbon accounts for about 88% of the mass of petroleum, and for about 44% of the mass of cellulose. So about 300kg of cellulose contains the same amount of carbon as a barrel of oil.
I doubt that really means anything though.

Because their "science" is either scare tactics, based on outdated models or out of date information, and completely ignores any evidence that might disprove their foregone conclusions.

That's not science.

You know, don't tell the people building the new supercomputer centre down the road that, they might get a little upset.

Anyway, in answer to the OP
a) its called climate change for a reason
and b) How about hell no?

I'm Assuming what you say is true.
But other wildlife might not adapt to the climate change as well as us humans, as many animals who thrive in cold conditions at the Arctic or Antarctica such as Polar bears or Penguins might die off faster in warmer conditions.
Warmer climates mean that the already large areas of desert in various places in the world would expand more easily, and as farmers can't farm off desert land (as far as i know) it means crops are more likely to suffer in those regions.
Erratic weather conditions affect the globe more often (see thread on extreme weather http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=548637) meaning more spending for governments on flood defences as the heavens open.
among other factors, Global warming outwieghs any possible advantages gained from it.

On the flip side however, in addition to the benefit to farmers, it would open up vast mineral deposits in Greenland and Russia, and as for flooding, that could easilly be controlled with dams like those used in the Netherlands. There would be no reason for displacement. No one would need to evacuate the coast unless they lived in a small community where it was not practical to build such things. Also, I remember from a while back that scientists actually publicly complained about Al Gore's figure of 20 meters for the sea level rise, saying it was closer in most research to 1 meter.

As for the erratic weather, the really sad thing about New Orleans is they actually had everything they needed to respond to the storm, but they didn't use it. They had extensive disaster response plans and blueprints to strengthen the dikes. There were hundreds of school buses left in the depots to be covered over by floodwaters that could've easilly been used to evacuate the poor. I have a theory as to why they didn't do it, and I think those corrupt politicians didn't do it because they wanted a bloodbath. They wanted people to die so they could get more money and more attention to squabble buying votes and laundering money to themselves, and they knew that the Bush Administrator had so little clout they could easily be turned in to a scapegoat, even though the President of the United States has no power whatsoever over the disaster evacuation plans of Louisiana!

As for the erratic weather, the really sad thing about New Orleans is they actually had everything they needed to respond to the storm, but they didn't use it. They had extensive disaster response plans and blueprints to strengthen the dikes. There were hundreds of school buses left in the depots to be covered over by floodwaters that could've easilly been used to evacuate the poor. I have a theory as to why they didn't do it, and I think those corrupt politicians didn't do it because they wanted a bloodbath. They wanted people to die so they could get more money and more attention to squabble buying votes and laundering money to themselves, and they knew that the Bush Administrator had so little clout they could easily be turned in to a scapegoat, even though the President of the United States has no power whatsoever over the disaster evacuation plans of Louisiana!
CONSPIRACY!!!!!
On the flip side however, in addition to the benefit to farmers, it would open up vast mineral deposits in Greenland and Russia, and as for flooding, that could easilly be controlled with dams like those used in the Netherlands. There would be no reason for displacement. No one would need to evacuate the coast unless they lived in a small community where it was not practical to build such things. Also, I remember from a while back that scientists actually publicly complained about Al Gore's figure of 20 meters for the sea level rise, saying it was closer in most research to 1 meter.

1 meter? Well, Al Gore isn't the most reliable of sources so there's a good chance that he's wrong.;)

That's not really a good thing.

I'm a sucker for snow ;)

lol global warming
I'll most likely be dead by the time it has any real effect

if it is actually going to happen, i couldn't care less.

It will effect your children and future generations. Why would you want to put them through that?

On the flip side however, in addition to the benefit to farmers, it would open up vast mineral deposits in Greenland and Russia
And on yet another flip side however, opening up the vast mineral deposits in Greenland and Russia would cause the tundra (which is mostly peat) to thaw out, resulting in massive amounts (as in billions of tonnes) of methane being released into the atmosphere.
Methane in atmosphere = not good at all.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997GeoRL..24..229W

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4141348.stm

Global warming is a good thing because I can stay in bed all day and still make money.
http://newsbusters.org/static/2007/06/2007-06-22GlobalWarming.gif

Methane in atmosphere = not good at all.

It would make it easier to fart and then blame global warming.

Methane in atmosphere = not good at all.

Then we need to shut down all the sewer plants world wide to reduce methane emissions...oh wait...kill all the old people because everyone knows we fart the most...oh wait...eat less beef and more vegetables because everyone knows cows produce a lot of methane...oh wait...more vegetables means more beans..oh wait...beans...methane...Don't change our diet...please :rolleyes:

Then we need to shut down all the sewer plants world wide to reduce methane emissions...oh wait...kill all the old people because everyone knows we fart the most...oh wait...eat less beef and more vegetables because everyone knows cows produce a lot of methane...oh wait...more vegetables means more beans..oh wait...beans...methane...Don't change our diet...please :rolleyes:
yeah, of course.:rolleyes: Having billions and billions of tonnes of extra methane being released in the atmosphere as a result of the peat tundra thawing is exactly the same as a cow burping or a man farting.
I mean it's exactly the same!
It's only a few billion tonnes, the world can cope!
How silly of all those scientists who have studied this and said if it happens, it'll be a major problem, if not catastrophe to the Global climate.
Quick, Celt, best get hold of them and tell them how silly and wrong they are and that's it's no worse than one of your farts.

Now, you cannot deny that global warming is happening. How bad it is, and what is causing it is an enterly different thing. But, do you think global warming is a good thing? Think about it, longer summers and shorter winters are better for farmers, less people freezing to death, there's a lot that could be good for the earth in the long run. And about the ice caps melting, we won't get flooded because of that, if you don't belive me put some ice in a glass of water and watch it melt. Thoughts?

I do deny global warming is happening. Al Gore is a crock. I've never had to crank my heater nearly as much until this winter. The Cincinnati area usually has 50 degree winters. But we've been socked in with week in, week out of ice, sleet, and snow. And they had to issue a blizzard warning in Shanghai (That's on the same latitude as Houston, by the way).

I do deny global warming is happening. Al Gore is a crock. I've never had to crank my heater nearly as much until this winter. The Cincinnati area usually has 50 degree winters. But we've been socked in with week in, week out of ice, sleet, and snow. And they had to issue a blizzard warning in Shanghai (That's on the same latitude as Houston, by the way).

And, once again, that's why its called Climate Change. Convenient, eh?

best get hold of them and tell them how silly and wrong they are and that's it's no worse than one of your farts.

What global warming?
http://www.drybonesproject.com/blog/D07204_2.gif

What global warming?
what indeed?
I never said Global warming. Where did I say Global warming?
All I said was immense change to the Global climate due to tundra thaw.
If you can't see the difference, then perhaps you should read up a bit more on Global Climate change instead of just posting unfunny spammy cartoons.

Isn't it amusing how all the deniers completely disregard any actual evidence?

Hey, the IPCC and a consensus of climatologists say...

SPECIAL INTERESTS! There's no conclusive evidence!

Well, what do you mean?

By that I mean, ExxonMobil has yet to publish something supporting global warming. Thus, no evidence exists.

Well, what about climatologists, meteorologists, and others who have been conducting research...

SPECIAL INTERESTS!

Which ones?

Well, they're far left socialist radicals. Here's an unfunny cartoon proving it.

Ok, so you're either saying:

A) We're not releasing tons of CO2 into the atmosphere
B) CO2 does not affect the magnitude of the greenhouse effect
C) Warming and cooling periods and extremely lesser magnitudes correlate directly to the current trend
D) IT R BAD FER FREE MARKETZ THERE4 IT R NOT SCIENCE

Of course, why would I want to base my conclusions on anything coming from evidence? I don't like environmentalism all too much, so any type of environmental issue is obviously overhyped or nonexistent, despite any evidence to the contrary.

Well, that doesn't seem all too scientific. I mean, you've already shown a gross misunderstanding of the subject of climate change, and don't you think it's a bit logical when a consensus of people trained in this field of study are saying that yes, indeed, there is global climate change, and yes indeed, it will have serious repercussions lest we do something about it? Wouldn't you say they have a bit more credibility than someone who majored in political science or some other bullshit field unrelated to studying how the climate works? Wouldn't you say that the massive amounts of reports published in peer-reviewed journals is far more reliable than some fucking politically motivated cartoon?

COMMIE!!

Isn't it amusing how all the deniers completely disregard any actual evidence?
It'd be a lot more amusing if it wasn't so damned sad to see so many people keeping their heads in the sand so that their wallets could continue to bulge.

don't you think it's a bit logical when a consensus of people trained in this field of study are saying that yes, indeed, there is global climate change, and yes indeed, it will have serious repercussions lest we do something about it? Wouldn't you say they have a bit more credibility than someone who majored in political science or some other bullshit field unrelated to studying how the climate works? Wouldn't you say that the massive amounts of reports published in peer-reviewed journals is far more reliable than some fucking politically motivated cartoon?
Indeed, and yet they get tarred as some kind of 'special interest group'? Damn right all the climatologists and the vast range of scientists from other disciplines who make up the IPCC are a 'special interest group'. The global climate, by its very definition, should be in everyone's 'special interest'.

My response to people who do not believe in global warming :

Denial is a defense mechanism in which a person is faced with a fact that is too painful to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence. The subject may deny the reality of the unpleasant fact altogether (simple denial), admit the fact but deny its seriousness (minimisation) or admit both the fact and seriousness but deny responsibility (transference).

From Wikipedia

Now, you cannot deny that global warming is happening. How bad it is, and what is causing it is an enterly different thing. But, do you think global warming is a good thing? Think about it, longer summers and shorter winters are better for farmers, less people freezing to death, there's a lot that could be good for the earth in the long run. And about the ice caps melting, we won't get flooded because of that, if you don't belive me put some ice in a glass of water and watch it melt. Thoughts?

Yay crop failure and desertification! :rolleyes:

What global warming?
http://www.drybonesproject.com/blog/D07204_2.gif

Well, that proves it. A poorly-drawn and incoherent cartoon that has left a gaping hole in comedy by virtue of it's utter lack of humor? There's no way we can refute that.

...

just checking, but has any image you've ever posted been anything other than unintentionally funny?

What global warming?
http://www.drybonesproject.com/blog/D07204_2.gif

This has convinced me. I was wrong, climate change must be a hoax. After all, if there's one thing I've learned in my time at NSG, it's that if Celtlund doesn't believe in it, it doesn't exist. Thank you for showing me the light.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b106/uarkman/heavysarcasm.jpg

My response to people who do not believe in global warming :

Denial is a defense mechanism in which a person is faced with a fact that is too painful to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence. The subject may deny the reality of the unpleasant fact altogether (simple denial), admit the fact but deny its seriousness (minimisation) or admit both the fact and seriousness but deny responsibility (transference).

From Wikipedia

My response to people who do believe in global warming:

Communal reinforcement is a social phenomenon in which a concept or idea is repeatedly asserted in a community, regardless of whether sufficient empirical evidence has been presented to support it. Over time, the concept or idea is reinforced to become a strong belief in many people's minds, and may be regarded by the members of the community as fact.

From Wikipedia

See, when debating something involving science, it really helps to provide actual scientific evidence, not shit from politically-based web sites or blogs. But hey, I know numbers are scary, so keep on ranting about some bullshit conspiracies "OMG communal thoughts lulz!!"

Here's something you can do:

-provide evidence that carbon dioxide doesn't affect the greenhouse effect -- evidence disproving or even re-evaluating CO2's chemical structure in its relationship to climate (stuff like IR wavelengths it absorbs and so on)
-provide evidence that current concentrations of CO2 are not enough to change the climate -- explain why this is so: what other factors can reduce this effect, how the molecular structure of CO2 and its relationship to other molecules etc in the air will not make increasing [CO2] significant in global climate change
-provide evidence that we aren't outputting as much CO2 as claimed -- graphs, explain how current methodologies are inaccurate
-refute the IPCC report, explain why, use facts and observational evidence gathered from neutral scientific sources--particularly ones trained in the fields involving climatology
-explain why introducing carbon previously stored in fossil fuels will somehow not increase CO2 concentrations
-explain how the ice caps aren't melting -- show evidence that their mass has not decreased
-explain why sea-based ice will not result in the thermal expansion (and hence volume increase) of the earth's oceans, or why/how this magnitude is overestimated and not significant
-explain how the medieval warming period/etc are similar in magnitude and causes to what's currently happening and why it will result in the same outcome

Any of these would be a starting point. Or you could always just use bullshit arguments.

And, once again, that's why its called Climate Change. Convenient, eh?

"Climate change" is a much more recent invention, if you've noticed. For the past 20 years, it's "Global warming, global warming, global warming..." now within the last three or so it's suddenly climate change? They're doing so to cover their asses.

http://xtronics.com/reference/christy-spensor/global.png

Pretty insignificant change over the years when you look at it.

Besides, science is not a democratic process. Just because L. Ron Gore has led many of them to fanatically believe in a theory doesn't make it true.

Do any of you idiots ever stop to ask yourselves WHY the Global Warming debate is being stoked-up?? In any witch-hunt/media-scare always, ALWAYS look to see if there's anyone making any cash out of it. In this case, the scientific community and business are making an absolute, categoric fortune out of hyping the idea of "Global Warming"! Science needs funding, business needs product sales, hence the "Global warming" scapegoat! 11,000 years ago we were just exiting an ICE-AGE which had nothing to do with industrialization WHATSOEVER. Back in the 70's numerous climatoligists were talking about the on-coming ICE-AGE. And as for the laughable idea of "Limiting our carbon footprints", we're fecking made of carbon!! Always, always look at where the money's going! That way, it's easier to figure-out fact from fiction!

"Climate change" is a much more recent invention, if you've noticed. For the past 20 years, it's "Global warming, global warming, global warming..." now within the last three or so it's suddenly climate change? They're doing so to cover their asses.

Or maybe it's because it more accurately describes the phenomenon? Naaah...


Pretty insignificant change over the years when you look at it.

Besides, science is not a democratic process. Just because L. Ron Gore has led many of them to fanatically believe in a theory doesn't make it true.

Luckily for the rest of us, the issue of global warming has been observed before An Incovenient truth. But who the heck cares about facts?

Also, I'd like to know what your qualifications for judging what exactly counts as "significant" and "insignificant". Whats your qualifications in climatology?

Do any of you idiots ever stop to ask yourselves WHY the Global Warming debate is being stoked-up?? In any witch-hunt/media-scare always, ALWAYS look to see if there's anyone making any cash out of it. In this case, the scientific community and business are making an absolute, categoric fortune out of hyping the idea of "Global Warming"! Science needs funding, business needs product sales, hence the "Global warming" scapegoat! 11,000 years ago we were just exiting an ICE-AGE which had nothing to do with industrialization WHATSOEVER. Back in the 70's numerous climatoligists were talking about the on-coming ICE-AGE. And as for the laughable idea of "Limiting our carbon footprints", we're fecking made of carbon!! Always, always look at where the money's going! That way, it's easier to figure-out fact from fiction!

Yeah, it's not like humans can release gigatons of carbon dioxide into the air or anything. Nope, climate changes can only be due to natural causes. Give me a break. Conspiracy theories also don't hold much water in debate; disprove the theories about climate change or don't bother posting.

Global cooling never achieved scientific consensus, this is where history class comes into play.

Again, when you come back with your scientific qualifications on the subject, maybe we'll consider what you're saying until then I'll take the word of thousands of certified climatologists over any substance-less rant by a denialist. You wanna talk about common sense? That's more common sense than any of that conspiracy theory bullshit you're dreaming up.

"Climate change" is a much more recent invention, if you've noticed. For the past 20 years, it's "Global warming, global warming, global warming..." now within the last three or so it's suddenly climate change? They're doing so to cover their asses.

so what do you think the acronym ipcc (established in 1988) stands for exactly?

Pretty insignificant change over the years when you look at it.

approximately 0.1 degree per decade is 'insignificant'? on what do you make that claim, oh great and knowledgeable one?

Besides, science is not a democratic process. Just because L. Ron Gore has led many of them to fanatically believe in a theory doesn't make it true.

hahahahahaha

Also, I'd like to know what your qualifications for judging what exactly counts as "significant" and "insignificant".

One degree over a hundred years is not significant. Hell, solar output has increased over the past hundred years, ever thought of that?

Nah, it seems you've been sucked into the cult following of L. Ron Gore, too.

One degree over a hundred years is not significant. Hell, solar output has increased over the past hundred years, ever thought of that?

Nah, it seems you've been sucked into the cult following of L. Ron Gore, too.

Translation: "I have no qualifications. But believe everything I say anyways."

Translation: "I have no qualifications. But believe everything I say anyways."

Does Al Gore have any qualifications? You certainly seem to believe what he is saying. I am assuming it works both ways with sheeple.

Does Al Gore have any qualifications? You certainly seem to believe what he is saying. I am assuming it works both ways with sheeple.

Damned if I know what Al Gore's saying. I don't pay attention to him. I prefer to listen to actual climatologists. You know, the people whose job it is to know this stuff.

Now, you cannot deny that global warming is happening. How bad it is, and what is causing it is an enterly different thing. But, do you think global warming is a good thing?
No. It's very bad.
Think about it, longer summers and shorter winters are better for farmers
In some areas. In other areas, they made need a short season. In others it may be too hot or other weather problems. This would probably exacerbate the already unfavorable conditions in Africa(can't reference a specific country) or Bangladesh or whatever
less people freezing to death
More dying of heat stroke
there's a lot that could be good for the earth in the long run.
What good?

And about the ice caps melting, we won't get flooded because of that, if you don't belive me put some ice in a glass of water and watch it melt. Thoughts?
The ice isn't floating in the water. It's solid all the way to the ground, separate from the water. It hasn't displaced yet. If it melts, it starts going into the oceans. On your analogy, it's like filling a glass of water to the top and then letting an ice cube drip into it. The water will overflow and there you go.

Nice try though.

Do any of you idiots ever stop to ask yourselves WHY the Global Warming debate is being stoked-up?? In any witch-hunt/media-scare always, ALWAYS look to see if there's anyone making any cash out of it. In this case, the scientific community and business are making an absolute, categoric fortune out of hyping the idea of "Global Warming"! Science needs funding, business needs product sales, hence the "Global warming" scapegoat! 11,000 years ago we were just exiting an ICE-AGE which had nothing to do with industrialization WHATSOEVER. Back in the 70's numerous climatoligists were talking about the on-coming ICE-AGE. And as for the laughable idea of "Limiting our carbon footprints", we're fecking made of carbon!! Always, always look at where the money's going! That way, it's easier to figure-out fact from fiction!
name me ten businesses that are making a fortune out of promoting "Global Warming".
go on.
I'm waiting.

As for your tedious dragging up of the, "They said we were entering an ice age in 1970" cliche, please try to do some reading of this first before spouting off dittohead talking points. It would make you look a bit less,...welll...uninformed shall we say.
here's a start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

you might be interested in this part:
A history of the discovery of global warming states that: While neither scientists nor the public could be sure in the 1970s whether the world was warming or cooling, people were increasingly inclined to believe that global climate was on the move, and in no small way.

In 1972 Emiliani warned "Man's activity may either precipitate this new ice age or lead to substantial or even total melting of the ice caps". By 1972 a group of glacial-epoch experts at a conference agreed that "the natural end of our warm epoch is undoubtedly near"; but the volume of Quaternary Research reporting on the meeting said that "the basic conclusion to be drawn from the discussions in this section is that the knowledge necessary for understanding the mechanism of climate change is still lamentably inadequate". Unless there were impacts from future human activity, they thought that serious cooling "must be expected within the next few millennia or even centuries"; but many other scientists doubted these conclusions.

The 1970 "Study of Critical Environmental Problems" reported the possibility of warming from increased carbon dioxide, but no concerns about cooling, setting a lower bound on the beginning of interest in "global cooling".
mmm...hmmm. What were you saying again about scientists in the 1970s claiming a ice age was imminent?

name me ten businesses that are making a fortune out of promoting "Global Warming".
go on.
I'm waiting.

Nanosolar, the Ethanol producers, the Nuclear Industry including Georgia Power, the Burlington Northern Railway which has been given an absurd amount of money (26 billion) to build a rail system in the least inhabited part of Seattle, the Silicon Valley Venture Capitalists, which are financing green venture after green venture and making huge amounts off of the interest, which is paid for by taxpayers, electric power utilities which are collecting on subsidies for "green power," corn farmers, Toyota with it's Prius and Ford with it's numerous research grants, plus any business that benefits from lower land and labor prices in oil-producing regions... Bottom line is: you don't have to be an oil man to be greedy.

Now I don't know about the other man's claims, but I can tell you, you might want to check your own reasoning before accusing someone of "spouting off dittoheads talking points."

And on yet another flip side however, opening up the vast mineral deposits in Greenland and Russia would cause the tundra (which is mostly peat) to thaw out, resulting in massive amounts (as in billions of tonnes) of methane being released into the atmosphere.
Methane in atmosphere = not good at all.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997GeoRL..24..229W

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4141348.stm

And yet another flip side: the thawing of the Tundra would expand the northern tree line in Siberias arctic and open up arable land in Greenland, removing substantial amounts of CO2 from the air through a wonderful process called photosynthesis.

As for the "billions of tonnes" of CH4, I have serious doubts of that. How many scientific studies have been done on this? Do the results agree? I mean, I would believe some release but billions of tonnes? Seems a bit far fetched, as for a gas even one ton is an incredible volume. It would've only started collecting about 900 years ago as back then you could farm wheat in Greenland and I'm pretty sure Siberia would've been warmer too.

And yet another flip side: the thawing of the Tundra would expand the northern tree line in Siberias arctic and open up arable land in Greenland, removing substantial amounts of CO2 from the air through a wonderful process called photosynthesis.

Hey, you know where all those trees would go? Yep, into the atmosphere as CO2. Yay! And why thawing tundra would open arable land in Greenland is beyond me - melting icecaps, possibly - Greenland not being noted for its tundra.

As for the "billions of tonnes" of CH4, I have serious doubts of that. How many scientific studies have been done on this? Do the results agree? I mean, I would believe some release but billions of tonnes? Seems a bit far fetched, as for a gas even one ton is an incredible volume. It would've only started collecting about 900 years ago as back then you could farm wheat in Greenland and I'm pretty sure Siberia would've been warmer too.
In answer to your questions: Lots. Within reason - lower bounds being 3.8 Million tonnes, and upper bounds being in the billions. Pretty precise, considering what they're modelling. And Greenland climates have bugger all to do with the Siberian tundra - the bogs could theoretically have been there for 18000 years, easily.

lol global warmingYeah, sure is funny, isn't it.

I'll most likely be dead by the time it has any real effectHow old are you? 90? If so, you're still not going to die soon enough to miss it.

if it is actually going to happen, i couldn't care less.As much as anyone cares for your opinion. Thanks for sharing.

Nah, it seems you've been sucked into the cult following of L. Ron Gore, too.

I've got an idea.
Why don't you type up the forum archives and review posts and information from here and specific posters regarding this particular issue, BEFORE "An Inconvenient Truth" came out, and start arguments with them before saying ignorant, uninformed bullshit like this.
Go ahead.

"Climate change" is a much more recent invention, if you've noticed. For the past 20 years, it's "Global warming, global warming, global warming..." now within the last three or so it's suddenly climate change? They're doing so to cover their asses.so what do you think the acronym ipcc (established in 1988) stands for exactly?

well?

Yes, I love global climate change. Snowstorms in Baghdad, increase in tornado and hurricane activity, droughts, floods, snow in North Carolina, crop-killing frosts in California. Yep, love it (not).

Damned if I know what Al Gore's saying. I don't pay attention to him. I prefer to listen to actual climatologists. You know, the people whose job it is to know this stuff.

You must be terribly mistaken. If you think that climate change is happening and mankind is in some way responsible then you must worship at the altar of Al Gore. It's the rules.

Whether or not global climate change is a good thing (which I don't believe it is), the factors causing it are harmful in many other ways. Global pollution is probably a more pressing issue at the moment. Global climate change is just another harmful side effect of our polluting ways.

Do any of you idiots ever stop to ask yourselves WHY the Global Warming debate is being stoked-up?? In any witch-hunt/media-scare always, ALWAYS look to see if there's anyone making any cash out of it. In this case, the scientific community and business are making an absolute, categoric fortune out of hyping the idea of "Global Warming"! Science needs funding, business needs product sales, hence the "Global warming" scapegoat! 11,000 years ago we were just exiting an ICE-AGE which had nothing to do with industrialization WHATSOEVER. Back in the 70's numerous climatoligists were talking about the on-coming ICE-AGE. And as for the laughable idea of "Limiting our carbon footprints", we're fecking made of carbon!! Always, always look at where the money's going! That way, it's easier to figure-out fact from fiction!

You mean like finding out that the bulk of 'dissent' over global warming is funded by heavy carbon producing industries?

Hey, you know where all those trees would go? Yep, into the atmosphere as CO2. Yay! And why thawing tundra would open arable land in Greenland is beyond me - melting icecaps, possibly - Greenland not being noted for its tundra.

Trees take CO2 OUT, not IN, at least overall. And yes, there are Tundras in Greenland near the COASTLINE. If there weren't, no one would live there. Not that there aren't very few people there, but just not zero.

In answer to your questions: Lots. Within reason - lower bounds being 3.8 Million tonnes, and upper bounds being in the billions. Pretty precise, considering what they're modelling. And Greenland climates have bugger all to do with the Siberian tundra - the bogs could theoretically have been there for 18000 years, easily.

And which scientific studies do you have to back this up? I've seen one scientific study. You cannot make an assumption off of one scientific study. Scientists like everyone else are capable of failure, and you will be surprised what one addition mistake or failed unit conversion in calculation can do to a result. NASA has blown up more then a couple rockets that way.

Trees take CO2 OUT, not IN, at least overall.

Until they die or get burned. Dead organic mass emits CO2.

Now, you cannot deny that global warming is happening. How bad it is, and what is causing it is an enterly different thing. But, do you think global warming is a good thing? Think about it, longer summers and shorter winters are better for farmers, less people freezing to death, there's a lot that could be good for the earth in the long run. Droughts and more people dying of thirst. Fun, fun, fun. The water table in the Sahara is shrinking by 10% every year. Also, the farmland in China, India, and all other countries sourrounding the Himalayas are going to suffer the lack of water, as they are now, since the glaciers are melting. Also, Israel is going to have it tough if they use up the non-renewable water resources before they manage to get the desalinization plants running in time. Hasn't rained there properly in quite some time.
And about the ice caps melting, we won't get flooded because of that, if you don't belive me put some ice in a glass of water and watch it melt. Unfortunately, this only counts for floating ice. Ice that is bound on land that then melts and flows into the sea will raise sea levels. This includes most of the ice in the Antarctic, as well as glaciers on Greenland. Don't believe me? Take an ice cube and put it in a funnel held in place above a glass of water and watch it melt.
Thoughts?This interesting idea came to me: What if all the countries benefitting from global warming actually had to take up people who's lives can no longer be sustained because their region is suffering due to global warming? Would they still be so hot about it happening?

Trees take CO2 OUT, not IN, at least overall.Yes, no, maybe. Trees and woody plants take up more CO2 than they emit, but not long. This happens mainly when they're growing and accumulating biomass. Once they stop growing as fast, the balance can become negative, particularly in northern latitudes. This is in turn due to the amount of sunshine available which regulates photosynthesis, which is the process that removes CO2 from the air. In Winter (again, sunshine is the key here) trees tend to respire more than photosynthesize.

Now, you cannot deny that global warming is happening. How bad it is, and what is causing it is an enterly different thing. But, do you think global warming is a good thing? Think about it, longer summers and shorter winters are better for farmers, less people freezing to death, there's a lot that could be good for the earth in the long run. And about the ice caps melting, we won't get flooded because of that, if you don't belive me put some ice in a glass of water and watch it melt. Thoughts?

One: My dad can and does deny global warming.
Two: The Emperor does not agree with your optimistic appraisal of the situation.

Two: The Emperor does not agree with your optimistic appraisal of the situation.
*GASP* HOW DARE YOU! Calling me an optimist! I've never been so insulted in my life! *Sob*

And which scientific studies do you have to back this up? I've seen one scientific study. You cannot make an assumption off of one scientific study. Scientists like everyone else are capable of failure, and you will be surprised what one addition mistake or failed unit conversion in calculation can do to a result. NASA has blown up more then a couple rockets that way.

Google is your friend. I'd bet if you bothered to look, you'd see that there is more than one scientific study on climate change.


Call it a hunch.

You must be terribly mistaken. If you think that climate change is happening and mankind is in some way responsible then you must worship at the altar of Al Gore. It's the rules.


You're just to narrow minded to understand that people can alter the climate. I don't like people like you insulted great scietific minds who have prooven global warming is happening, and is a threat. It's people like you that deal with problems after they've caused trouble, instead of taking care of them before they can do any harm.

Good points Laerod.

And on yet another flip side however, opening up the vast mineral deposits in Greenland and Russia would cause the tundra (which is mostly peat) to thaw out, resulting in massive amounts (as in billions of tonnes) of methane being released into the atmosphere.
Methane in atmosphere = not good at all.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997GeoRL..24..229W

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4141348.stm

500 billion tons of carbon, locked away in a mix of methane an organic matter ripe for decomposing, to be precise. To put this in perspective, humanity releases about 7-10 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year. That's 50 years of emissions that could be emitted in a few extra warm summers. If global warming isn't a problem by then, it quickly will be.

Google is your friend. I'd bet if you bothered to look, you'd see that there is more than one scientific study on climate change.


Call it a hunch.

With all due respect I am not going to spend that much effort looking for your little theory. That's your responsibillity.

*GASP* HOW DARE YOU! Calling me an optimist! I've never been so insulted in my life! *Sob*

Well, you apparently think that desertification, mass extinction, flooding and increasingly violent hurricanes are good things. You should be insulted.

With all due respect I am not going to spend that much effort looking for your little theory. That's your responsibillity.
translation:
I'm going to ignore it cause I can't disprove it.

translation:
I'm going to ignore it cause I can't disprove it.

no, translation:

You need to learn your manners and realize that I am not going to google things cause you want me to. YOU provide the links. It doesn't have to be a gazillion scientific studies, just some good analysis showing me this is a sound theory from multiple different scientists.

no, translation:

You need to learn your manners and realize that I am not going to google things cause you want me to. YOU provide the links. It doesn't have to be a gazillion scientific studies, just some good analysis showing me this is a sound theory from multiple different scientists.

What, like an Intergovernmental Panel (http://www.ipcc.ch/index.htm) of scientists?

the problem with global climate chainge, like that of excessive human population itself, which also in part drives it, is unnaturally rapid decline in species diversity.

which may not apear critical in and of itself, yet it IS nature's cycles of renewal without which we would not have breathable air to breathe at all.

so there is no universal good out of it. watching resaulting local climates chainge is passingly amusing, if you don't happen to be too complete of a victum of it.

but it is strongly suggestive of our having made a collective big oops.

one that we DON'T have to keep making (nor 'go back to caves in order to stop doing so either. getting electrical power and propelling transportation without the use of combustion is neither impractical nor requiring of tecnologies not already well proven, but simply requiring the use of multiples of them, just as we are using multiples of the 'dirty' tecnologies now, and just as much having to as we would using clean ones.)

=^^=
.../\...

Is Global warming a good thing?

No.

On a mostly unrelated note, I just saw someone argue, in all seriousness, that global warming wasn't a problem because it's too cold for the icecaps to melt, and if they did happen to melt everyone would already have burned to death from the immense heat.

:headbang:

The Earth goes through natural heating and cooling cycles anyway. This is why there are ice ages. The process however, is being sped up to an unnatural rate by the greenhouse effect. This will take a dramatic toll on the Earth and many species of plants, animals and other living things will not be able to cope.
Other species will probably take there place and humans living in well-off countries will most likely survive because of our advanced technologies. Other, less fortunate people, may have it way worse. They could see their crops, animals, homes and livelyhoods disappear from under them.
Whether global warming woul have a positive or negative effect on humans (which is only part of the issue), is difficult to say, because of the complexity of the issue. But, it is not something to be taken lighty, it can't be judged based on 'more pool time vs. melted ice-cream.

With all due respect I am not going to spend that much effort looking for your little theory. That's your responsibillity.

no, translation:

You need to learn your manners and realize that I am not going to google things cause you want me to. YOU provide the links. It doesn't have to be a gazillion scientific studies, just some good analysis showing me this is a sound theory from multiple different scientists.

What, like an Intergovernmental Panel (http://www.ipcc.ch/index.htm) of scientists?

Or how about these?

http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2004/Nov/08-21489.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041108213307.htm
http://www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html
http://www.eesi.org/publications/Fact%20Sheets/Consensus%20on%20Climate%20Change.htm

Presented with all the respect you're due, you arrogant SOB -- none whatsoever. The information is out there; lots of it. That you choose to ignore it may be your business, but that you mock me with your feigned politeness makes it mine, Plotadonia.

On a mostly unrelated note, I just saw someone argue, in all seriousness, that global warming wasn't a problem because it's too cold for the icecaps to melt, and if they did happen to melt everyone would already have burned to death from the immense heat.


Were they used to the Fahrenheit scale ?

Were they used to the Fahrenheit scale ?

i doubt if they were familiar with the scales on fish.

=^^=
.../\...

You're just to narrow minded to understand that people can alter the climate. I don't like people like you insulted great scietific minds who have prooven global warming is happening, and is a threat. It's people like you that deal with problems after they've caused trouble, instead of taking care of them before they can do any harm.
*takes aside*
Remember that part on Men In Black, when Kay is introducing Jay to the installation, and has to pull him aside from one of the more perturbed travelers?

Maybe we are still in the Ice Age, I hear if thats true, Global Warming is delaying the Ice Age, at least for now.........

Now, you cannot deny that global warming is happening. How bad it is, and what is causing it is an enterly different thing. But, do you think global warming is a good thing? Think about it, longer summers and shorter winters are better for farmers, less people freezing to death, there's a lot that could be good for the earth in the long run. And about the ice caps melting, we won't get flooded because of that, if you don't belive me put some ice in a glass of water and watch it melt. Thoughts?

Oh, boy. Talk about terrible geographical knowledge.
You ARE aware that the Antarctic continent is covered in ice, which will - once melted - raise sea levels, yes?
And you're also aware of the several meters of ice that currently cover Greenland? Yes?
And you have enough basic grasp of physics to understand that while ice floating in water will not raise the level of said water once it melts, melting ice that's added that WASN'T floating in the water before is a different matter? Or am I hoping for too much there?

It's hard to predict the exact results of Global Warming... it's possible that the Gulf Stream will no longer work as it does now, which is rather bad news for everyone living anywhere close to the North Atlantic.
I'm sure that places like California and Greece will appreciate longer and hotter summers, that way they won't get cold while trying to extinguish all those forest fires.

You're right and I'm wrong there. But even so, there's enough room on the earth so that if it floods most people could move inland.

Yep. Sure. I can see Ireland moving "inland". Or Madagascar. Or Cyprus. Or Poland. Or the UK. Or Sri Lanka. Or New Zealand. Or Japan. ...

Oh, boy. Talk about terrible geographical knowledge.
You ARE aware that the Antarctic continent is covered in ice, which will - once melted - raise sea levels, yes?
And you're also aware of the several meters of ice that currently cover Greenland? Yes?
And you have enough basic grasp of physics to understand that while ice floating in water will not raise the level of said water once it melts, melting ice that's added that WASN'T floating in the water before is a different matter? Or am I hoping for too much there?

It's hard to predict the exact results of Global Warming... it's possible that the Gulf Stream will no longer work as it does now, which is rather bad news for everyone living anywhere close to the North Atlantic.
I'm sure that places like California and Greece will appreciate longer and hotter summers, that way they won't get cold while trying to extinguish all those forest fires.

Yes, while trying to extinguish them with all the water we won't have because our state depends on annual snowfall in the mountains for its water supply.

Maybe we are still in the Ice Age, I hear if thats true, Global Warming is delaying the Ice Age, at least for now.........

Nope. Sorry, we're the furthest away from the glacial maxima that we're supposed to get. It should be leveling off now, not getting warmer.

Nope. Sorry, we're the furthest away from the glacial maxima that we're supposed to get. It should be leveling off now, not getting warmer.

Are we? I remember once reading somewhere that the definition of an ice age is the existence of glaciers. So, going by that, we still are in an ice age, just in a warmer phase....

no, translation:

You need to learn your manners and realize that I am not going to google things cause you want me to. YOU provide the links. It doesn't have to be a gazillion scientific studies, just some good analysis showing me this is a sound theory from multiple different scientists.

You're the one with poor manners here. I don't think you're nearly as dumb or ignorant as you pretend to be. You know that the studies are out there, that the overwhelming mountain of evidence supports the idea that the Earth is getting hotter at an alarming rate and that it's basically due to our activity, you just don't want to look up what is by now pretty much common knowledge because out of pride you're hoping your opposition in the argument will be too lazy to look them and supply the hundreds of studies, enabling you to 'win' a petty little internet fight. Stop cloaking douchebaggery in fake politeness, you're not fooling anyone.

Think about it, longer summers and shorter winters are better for farmers
Actually they're worse. Less water, more pests, more need for artificial fertilisers, more sand. Remember what happened to the US Midwest when it turned from a fertile plain to a dust bin (in the '20s-'30s iirc).

less people freezing to death
Compare the number of people freezing to death every year in the world to the number of people starving (or dying from thirst) because of desertification every year in the world. Then we could also add the number of people dying because of the intensification of tropical storms due to global warming (which also lead to flash floods and land/mudslides).

And about the ice caps melting, we won't get flooded because of that, if you don't belive me put some ice in a glass of water and watch it melt.
Actually, the largest glaciers are those of Antarctica (totally on land!) and Greenland (totally on land, again!). So, your "experiment" is total crap, because your ice was already afloat, while the glaciers of Antarctica and Greenland aren't.

Is global warming even reversible? Or is at least possible to slow it down?

Is global warming even reversible? Or is at least possible to slow it down?

Considering that we're speeding it up by adding greenhouse gasses, it should in theory be possible to stop Global Warming or at least drastically reduce the speed by no longer releasing those gasses into the athmosphere. Reversible, now, that's another question. To which I would have to reply in all honesty : I've got no idea.

since most of my country is north of Newfoundland and Toronto, and is pretty close to Moscow, the only thing keeping us warm is the Gulf Stream. assuming climate change melts the ice caps and disrupts the north atlantic current, then we're going to be icy and cold.... not good! :(


most of Europe would also chill down

Yep. Sure. I can see Ireland moving "inland". Or Madagascar. Or Cyprus. Or Poland. Or the UK. Or Sri Lanka. Or New Zealand. Or Japan. ...Try the Maldives or Seychelles.

Try the Maldives or Seychelles.

Or the Azores, the Falklands, Galapagos, Sicily, Corsica... the list is almost endless.

Or the Azores, the Falklands, Galapagos, Sicily, Corsica... the list is almost endless.

Venezia.

Venezia.That's going to sink anyway, global warming or no. :p

And about the ice caps melting, we won't get flooded because of that, if you don't belive me put some ice in a glass of water and watch it melt. Thoughts?

The ice caps are not floating on the oceans. But you ARE right that they needn't melt. Just breaking off a shelf has the same effect.

Venezia.

Vanuatu, Kiribati, all of Bangladesh - 150 million people and a heck of a lot of arable land underwater right there.

The ice caps are not floating on the oceans. But you ARE right that they needn't melt. Just breaking off a shelf has the same effect.

Well, a large part of the northern one is floating ice, but the southern one is on a continent. Some of it is suspended over the water, kind of an overhang from land over the ocean.

So yes, we are in agreement, the icecaps melting or breaking apart is very very bad.

You're the one with poor manners here. I don't think you're nearly as dumb or ignorant as you pretend to be. You know that the studies are out there, that the overwhelming mountain of evidence supports the idea that the Earth is getting hotter at an alarming rate and that it's basically due to our activity, you just don't want to look up what is by now pretty much common knowledge because out of pride you're hoping your opposition in the argument will be too lazy to look them and supply the hundreds of studies, enabling you to 'win' a petty little internet fight. Stop cloaking douchebaggery in fake politeness, you're not fooling anyone.

The problem I have, Callisdrun, is that someone attacked me for not Googling something. You don't criticize somebody for not looking at something - you provide them with it. That is ridiculous and poor manners.

And anyways, I know that there may be many studies out there, I just object to people assuming that any kind of questioning or debating about what is considered an established fact is "stupid" or "ignorant." The only thing that is "ignorant" Callisdrun is not questioning what you know, and I really doubt that many who post here could be considered "stupid." I'm not saying that these studies aren't real, and I'm not even saying you're wrong, I merely object to somebody being so close minded as to assume that anyone who doesn't agree with them is a "douchebag" and that I would get insulted for not going out of my way to look at something.

It is true that I am playing a devils advocate. I am doing this because no one else will seem to. I am not doing it to troll, merely to challenge. I am here to bait reason, not flaming, and I apologize if I may have overreacted for an instance.

And yes, as a matter of fact, that particular study I really was not aware of. Not that I'm generally ignorant, but that I was ignorant of. I was surprised because I know according to the Ideal gas law that, assuming a partial pressure of 0.1 atmospheres (trying to calculate that would get complicated), and a temperature of 273 Kelvin (little less then 0 centigrade) and a unit conversion of 1000 kg/ton (near correct):

(0.1)*Volume in Liters = (billion tonnes*1000kg*1000gforkg /16 gformol (molar weight of CH4))*(0.08206)*(273K) = 1.4e15

1.4e15/0.1 = V

V = 1.4e16

1.4e16 Liters seemed like a very impressive volume, and I really have a hard time seeing how that much could get trapped under the tundra in Siberia. Maybe it's right, there may be and in fact probably is something I'm not taking in to account, but it really would be surprising.

SIDENOTE: If you're wondering why it's called the Ideal gas law, it is referred to as this because it assumes a very slight amount of interaction between gas molecules, something which is generally true unless either pressures are incredibly high or temperatures are incredibly high or the gas involved is starting to condensate or is a vapor. This would be unlikely with CH4, as CH4s boiling point is very low, though I suppose a little non-ideal interaction could exist with a trapped and force-compressed sample in the soil, provided it was not able to escape. I don't know the exact figure of CH4's boiling point, but let's just leave it at even Siberia wouldn't be able to do it.

i doubt if they were familiar with the scales on fish.

=^^=
.../\...

Ouchouchowieouchouchooch

http://www.idrewthis.org/comics/idt20041123globalwarming2.gif

http://www.idrewthis.org/comics/idt20041123globalwarming2.gif

It kinda implies that the bird left a little flavour in the water for the guy. Ironic.

The problem I have, Callisdrun, is that someone attacked me for not Googling something. You don't criticize somebody for not looking at something - you provide them with it. That is ridiculous and poor manners.

And anyways, I know that there may be many studies out there, I just object to people assuming that any kind of questioning or debating about what is considered an established fact is "stupid" or "ignorant." The only thing that is "ignorant" Callisdrun is not questioning what you know, and I really doubt that many who post here could be considered "stupid." I'm not saying that these studies aren't real, and I'm not even saying you're wrong, I merely object to somebody being so close minded as to assume that anyone who doesn't agree with them is a "douchebag" and that I would get insulted for not going out of my way to look at something.

It is true that I am playing a devils advocate. I am doing this because no one else will seem to. I am not doing it to troll, merely to challenge. I am here to bait reason, not flaming, and I apologize if I may have overreacted for an instance.

And yes, as a matter of fact, that particular study I really was not aware of. Not that I'm generally ignorant, but that I was ignorant of. I was surprised because I know according to the Ideal gas law that, assuming a partial pressure of 0.1 atmospheres (trying to calculate that would get complicated), and a temperature of 273 Kelvin (little less then 0 centigrade) and a unit conversion of 1000 kg/ton (near correct):

(0.1)*Volume in Liters = (billion tonnes*1000kg*1000gforkg /16 gformol (molar weight of CH4))*(0.08206)*(273K) = 1.4e15

1.4e15/0.1 = V

V = 1.4e16

1.4e16 Liters seemed like a very impressive volume, and I really have a hard time seeing how that much could get trapped under the tundra in Siberia. Maybe it's right, there may be and in fact probably is something I'm not taking in to account, but it really would be surprising.

SIDENOTE: If you're wondering why it's called the Ideal gas law, it is referred to as this because it assumes a very slight amount of interaction between gas molecules, something which is generally true unless either pressures are incredibly high or temperatures are incredibly high or the gas involved is starting to condensate or is a vapor. This would be unlikely with CH4, as CH4s boiling point is very low, though I suppose a little non-ideal interaction could exist with a trapped and force-compressed sample in the soil, provided it was not able to escape. I don't know the exact figure of CH4's boiling point, but let's just leave it at even Siberia wouldn't be able to do it.

I would bet that methane trapped under the Siberian tundra would be at pressures significantly greater then .1 atmospheres. Something about tons of earth above it that does that.

You have to remember that the Siberian tundra covers an area of about one million square kilometers (a conservative estimate). That is a lot of dirt to hide methane and decomposable material in the permafrost.

The problem I have, Callisdrun, is that someone attacked me for not Googling something. You don't criticize somebody for not looking at something - you provide them with it. That is ridiculous and poor manners.

And anyways, I know that there may be many studies out there, I just object to people assuming that any kind of questioning or debating about what is considered an established fact is "stupid" or "ignorant." The only thing that is "ignorant" Callisdrun is not questioning what you know, and I really doubt that many who post here could be considered "stupid." I'm not saying that these studies aren't real, and I'm not even saying you're wrong, I merely object to somebody being so close minded as to assume that anyone who doesn't agree with them is a "douchebag" and that I would get insulted for not going out of my way to look at something.

It is true that I am playing a devils advocate. I am doing this because no one else will seem to. I am not doing it to troll, merely to challenge. I am here to bait reason, not flaming, and I apologize if I may have overreacted for an instance.

And yes, as a matter of fact, that particular study I really was not aware of. Not that I'm generally ignorant, but that I was ignorant of. I was surprised because I know according to the Ideal gas law that, assuming a partial pressure of 0.1 atmospheres (trying to calculate that would get complicated), and a temperature of 273 Kelvin (little less then 0 centigrade) and a unit conversion of 1000 kg/ton (near correct):

(0.1)*Volume in Liters = (billion tonnes*1000kg*1000gforkg /16 gformol (molar weight of CH4))*(0.08206)*(273K) = 1.4e15

1.4e15/0.1 = V

V = 1.4e16

1.4e16 Liters seemed like a very impressive volume, and I really have a hard time seeing how that much could get trapped under the tundra in Siberia. Maybe it's right, there may be and in fact probably is something I'm not taking in to account, but it really would be surprising.

SIDENOTE: If you're wondering why it's called the Ideal gas law, it is referred to as this because it assumes a very slight amount of interaction between gas molecules, something which is generally true unless either pressures are incredibly high or temperatures are incredibly high or the gas involved is starting to condensate or is a vapor. This would be unlikely with CH4, as CH4s boiling point is very low, though I suppose a little non-ideal interaction could exist with a trapped and force-compressed sample in the soil, provided it was not able to escape. I don't know the exact figure of CH4's boiling point, but let's just leave it at even Siberia wouldn't be able to do it.

Ah. Devil's Advocate has always annoyed me a little bit, not too much, but a little. Not sure why. Maybe because I'm incapable of doing it, as I can't argue anything I don't believe in myself with any strength.

I would bet that methane trapped under the Siberian tundra would be at pressures significantly greater then .1 atmospheres. Something about tons of earth above it that does that.

You have to remember that the Siberian tundra covers an area of about one million square kilometers (a conservative estimate). That is a lot of dirt to hide methane and decomposable material in the permafrost.

A better way to think of it might be to consider the methane being stored within the tundra, not under it, I think.

I would bet that methane trapped under the Siberian tundra would be at pressures significantly greater then .1 atmospheres. Something about tons of earth above it that does that.

You have to remember that the Siberian tundra covers an area of about one million square kilometers (a conservative estimate). That is a lot of dirt to hide methane and decomposable material in the permafrost.Surely you agree that melting permafrost is a good thing! Think of the fun driving across thermokarsted lanscapes will be:

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a205/ulteriormotives/Gel_07.jpg

Now, you cannot deny that global warming is happening. How bad it is, and what is causing it is an enterly different thing. But, do you think global warming is a good thing? Think about it, longer summers and shorter winters are better for farmers, less people freezing to death, there's a lot that could be good for the earth in the long run. And about the ice caps melting, we won't get flooded because of that, if you don't belive me put some ice in a glass of water and watch it melt. Thoughts?

Not here it isn't. We're now in the grip of a 5+ year drought, with no real end in sight. Rivers & reservoirs are at their lowest recorded levels & would take seasons of exceptional rains to bring them back up to normal levels. Many farmers have been unable to grow crops for some time now & are having to leave their land because of it.

Not here it isn't. We're now in the grip of a 5+ year drought, with no real end in sight.

I thought that El Nina was supposed to start kicking in soon.

Of course water saving methods such as recovering water from sewage (or devoloping ways to prevent water loss from cachements) is ignored in favour of a desalination plant...

I thought that La Nina was supposed to start kicking in soon.

It was supposed to, but it's had very little effect & I think now has swung back to El Nino again.

Of course water saving methods such as recovering water from sewage (or devoloping ways to prevent water loss from cachements) is ignored in favour of a desalination plant...

Very true, and it comes back to how little foresight we are actually applying to the problem. A quick fix & pretend it's not happening is the preferred solution.

no, translation:

You need to learn your manners and realize that I am not going to google things cause you want me to. YOU provide the links. It doesn't have to be a gazillion scientific studies, just some good analysis showing me this is a sound theory from multiple different scientists.
And why should I bother to do all that work for you, when I did in fact provide you with some links from which you could have easily researched further but instead you decided to ignore it outright and claim that it was just 'one study' and therefore, somehow, flawed and thus not worth your time investigating. If you don't think it's valid or don't think it's extensive enough, then the onus is on you to prove why, not on us. We're not here to spoonfeed you.
If you're not going to do us the courtesy of actually reading the links provided and arrogantly dismiss any counterclaims with no reasonable explanation other than a whiny, "That's not enough! You have to do more" why should we show any courtesy in return?

And why should I bother to do all that work for you, when I did in fact provide you with some links from which you could have easily researched further but instead you decided to ignore it outright and claim that it was just 'one study' and therefore, somehow, flawed and thus not worth your time investigating.
If you're not going to do us the courtesy of actually reading the links provided and arrogantly dismiss any counterclaims with no reasonable explanation other than a whiny, "That's not enough! You have to do more" why should we show any courtesy in return?

Yeah you're right you know. Come on people! Umm could one of you chaps come over here to London and do my job for me while we're at it?

Global warming will change things like the gulfstream. That would make life somewhat colder for many people.

I was just about to say that.


And what about all the places that are losing their beaches (and will eventually lose million dollar beach front property)?

(Venezia)

That's going to sink anyway, global warming or no. :p

No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOSE_project

(Venezia)

No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOSE_projectCorrect me if I'm wrong, but isn't Venice sinking simply because of the underlying soils in addition to the rising sea level? The MOSE project doesn't strike me as something that will help in that regard...

A better way to think of it might be to consider the methane being stored within the tundra, not under it, I think.

Well to be fair, I said "under" the tundra since tundra refers to the surface climate. But yeah, it might just be easier to say "within" the tundra. I did clarify later about methane being trapped in the permafrost.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Venice sinking simply because of the underlying soils in addition to the rising sea level? The MOSE project doesn't strike me as something that will help in that regard...

Bah let it sink, it's more stinky than Paris!