Climate Change (2 Viewers)

[Tangent]

But there is also alot of evidnece against this.
*CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas compared to water vapour, which is responsible for approx. 95% of the greenhouse effect.
furthermore, not all carbon dioxide is man-produced. Other emitters are volcanic activity around the globe and the ocean life contribute to quite a bit of it.

The only reason we focus so much on carbon dioxide is because there is something we can do about it, but on a global scale there isnt going to be much of an impact at all

As for taking temperatures, the thermometer was invented in 1724 (woot wikipedia) by Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit. The thermometer used rats blood to measure the temperature
In 1742 Anders Celsius made another scale, one which we use today which uses the melting and boiling point of water.

Considering that there were only made in the mid 18th century, compare this with the age of earth and you dont have a very big picture of the earths weather patterns

~im all for clean energy, fossil fuels wont last forever

 

[Omie Jay]

imo we should use nuclear power.

releases very little fossil fuels right? (if it releases any at all), its safe, and produces heaps and heaps of energy.

edit: also fill up outback with solar cells.

 

[Tangent]

But produces radioactive waste that never truely decompose. + people working in close proximity to it would be affected by radiation.

other than that, im all for nuclear power- we have lots of uranium, yet no nuclear stations used as power sources.

 

[Yasser Arafat]

yes it does and no it doesnt

 

[ComingUpForAir]

But there is also alot of evidnece against this.
*CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas compared to water vapour, which is responsible for approx. 95% of the greenhouse effect.

As for taking temperatures, the thermometer was invented in 1724 (woot wikipedia) by Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit. The thermometer used rats blood to measure the temperature
In 1742 Anders Celsius made another scale, one which we use today which uses the melting and boiling point of water.

Considering that there were only made in the mid 18th century, compare this with the age of earth and you dont have a very big picture of the earths weather patterns

You have to be kidding....
It's unclear whether your statments are the product of deliberate deceit or just plain naviety, but past atmospheric tempuratures can be gauged through isotopic ratio's (Oxygen I believe) in ice cores, shells, etc...those old thermometres are not at all necessary (and barely used today)
The preposed 'warming' problem orginates not from the scalar tempurature increase as such (it's been alot hotter in the past), rather the rate of the increase in tempurature.
The other 'evidence' you suggest does not at all contradict the current theory, it's well understood that water vapor makes up 95% of lower stratosphere greenhouse gasess.
But, in the essentially complex phenomina that is climate , I doubt there's sufficient evidence to suggest embracing 'crabon' reduction policies will have any effect on the system

 

[Kwayera]

But there is also alot of evidnece against this.
*CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas compared to water vapour, which is responsible for approx. 95% of the greenhouse effect.
furthermore, not all carbon dioxide is man-produced. Other emitters are volcanic activity around the globe and the ocean life contribute to quite a bit of it.

The only reason we focus so much on carbon dioxide is because there is something we can do about it, but on a global scale there isnt going to be much of an impact at all

As for taking temperatures, the thermometer was invented in 1724 (woot wikipedia) by Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit. The thermometer used rats blood to measure the temperature
In 1742 Anders Celsius made another scale, one which we use today which uses the melting and boiling point of water.

Considering that there were only made in the mid 18th century, compare this with the age of earth and you dont have a very big picture of the earths weather patterns

~im all for clean energy, fossil fuels wont last forever

How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | A Grist Special Series | Grist

 

[Tangent]

You have to be kidding....
It's unclear whether your statments are the product of deliberate deceit or just plain naviety, but past atmospheric tempuratures can be gauged through isotopic ratio's (Oxygen I believe) in ice cores, shells, etc...those old thermometres are not at all necessary (and barely used today)
The preposed 'warming' problem orginates not from the scalar tempurature increase as such (it's been alot hotter in the past), rather the rate of the increase in tempurature.
The other 'evidence' you suggest does not at all contradict the current theory, it's well understood that water vapor makes up 95% of lower stratosphere greenhouse gasess.
But, in the essentially complex phenomina that is climate , I doubt there's sufficient evidence to suggest embracing 'crabon' reduction policies will have any effect on the system

Well im always open to learning new things, so instead of saying how ignorant i am, please educate me.

I'm not denying that climate change is taking progress, but i do disagree that humankind is having a marked impact on global warming, which is what i was trying to say in my last post.

 

[ComingUpForAir]

How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | A Grist Special Series | Grist

I just read some articles from that site, no offence, it's pretty awful, really just a babble of straw-man arguements that fail to adress the key point (i.e what should the policy response be, and how do we know it to be correct)

the main article writer really just rambles on about the observed climate change, as if that's what the arguement is about.
Here a quote

"Objection: Correlation is not proof of causation. There is no proof that CO2 is the cause of current warming.
Answer: There is no "proof" in science -- that is a property of mathematics.
In the case of anthropogenic global warming, there is a theory (first conceived over 100 years ago) based on well-established laws of physics.
Given the lack of any extra planet Earths and a few really large time machines, it is simply impossible to do any better than this."

Yeah...obviously its more about promoting eco-shop section

 

[Planck]

I just read some articles from that site, no offence, it's pretty awful, really just a babble of straw-man arguements that fail to adress the key point (i.e what should the policy response be, and how do we know it to be correct)

The whole point is that the policy debate is up in the air because groups of society refuse to pay attention to the science on the issue.

the main article writer really just rambles on about the observed climate change, as if that's what the arguement is about.
Here a quote

"Objection: Correlation is not proof of causation. There is no proof that CO2 is the cause of current warming.
Answer: There is no "proof" in science -- that is a property of mathematics.
In the case of anthropogenic global warming, there is a theory (first conceived over 100 years ago) based on well-established laws of physics.
Given the lack of any extra planet Earths and a few really large time machines, it is simply impossible to do any better than this."

Because it's targeted at laypeople and climate change skeptics. Did you expect an erudite dissertation on the socio-geopolitical impacts of increased salinity or degradation in ocean currents?

Yeah...obviously its more about promoting eco-shop section

Your insight, is as ever, stunningly retarded by your limited intellect.

 

[shady145]

it cant be proved that greenhouse gas emissions made by humans caused this.

but there is a relationship in rising temperature and CO2 emissions

 

[Tangent]

but there is a relationship in rising temperature and CO2 emissions

So?
The increase in temperature compared to the increase in CO2 is insignificant. We are coming out of a mini ice age, therefore it would be worrying if the temperature wasn't increasing, its part of earths natural cycle.

 

[Kwayera]

So?
The increase in temperature compared to the increase in CO2 is insignificant. We are coming out of a mini ice age, therefore it would be worrying if the temperature wasn't increasing, its part of earths natural cycle.

No it ain't.

 

[Kwayera]

I just read some articles from that site, no offence, it's pretty awful, really just a babble of straw-man arguements that fail to adress the key point (i.e what should the policy response be, and how do we know it to be correct)

the main article writer really just rambles on about the observed climate change, as if that's what the arguement is about.

That's the whole point. He's not trying to dictate policy. That's not the point of the site - it's to defuse common arguments by climate change skeptics.

Here a quote

"Objection: Correlation is not proof of causation. There is no proof that CO2 is the cause of current warming.
Answer: There is no "proof" in science -- that is a property of mathematics.
In the case of anthropogenic global warming, there is a theory (first conceived over 100 years ago) based on well-established laws of physics.
Given the lack of any extra planet Earths and a few really large time machines, it is simply impossible to do any better than this."

Yeah...obviously its more about promoting eco-shop section

As Planck said, it's for laypersons, because people like you refuse to actually read the papers involved. You also refuse to read the full IPCC documents on the matter.

 

[pman]

Two basic physics questions, if the north poles ice cap were to melt, how much would the sea level rise?
Given that the south poles ic cap is -50 degrees for the most part, how much must the temperature rise for a significant rise in sea levels?

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

that is insignificant

WE MUST PROTECT AGAINST DAYS THAT ARE 2C WARMER
WE MUST PROTECT THE 106 CITIZENS OF VANUATU
WE MUST PROTECT SOME DOUCHEBAG FROGS IN RAINFORESTS
WE MUST PROTECT AGAINST INCREASED RAINFALL, LEADING TO MORE FERTILE SOILS
WE MUST PROTECT AGAINST THE INCREASING AVAILABILITY OF POLAR RESOURCES, AND LAND

srsly wtf. how can climate change be regarded as a bad thing. you're all retarded.

having said that, i enjoy cold weather. i'm thoroughly confused, and although i believe it, i'm not entirely sure it's a bad thing. all we've done is created a heater for ourselves in the winter months. come on guys, it's not like we're gonna be the next venus. are we? ARE WE!??!?!

 

[pman]

Two basic physics questions, if the north poles ice cap were to melt, how much would the sea level rise?
Given that the south poles ic cap is -50 degrees for the most part, how much must the temperature rise for a significant rise in sea levels?

If the north pole were to melt, the water level would not rise due to rules of boyancy and antarctica would have to ris about 40 degrees before we'd lose the sand on cronulla beach or bondi beach, even after they put the high rise there

 

[Kwayera]

Two basic physics questions, if the north poles ice cap were to melt, how much would the sea level rise?
Given that the south poles ic cap is -50 degrees for the most part, how much must the temperature rise for a significant rise in sea levels?

None. The North Pole ice cap is already floating on water, so it will melt into what the ice caps already displace.

If the Antarctica ice caps melt, however, that would be a different story entirely as those ice caps are sitting on a continent.

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

If the north pole were to melt, the water level would not rise due to rules of boyancy and antarctica would have to ris about 40 degrees before we'd lose the sand on cronulla beach or bondi beach, even after they put the high rise there

losing cronulla would be a gain, imho

 

[pman]

None. The North Pole ice cap is already floating on water, so it will melt into what the ice caps already displace.

If the Antarctica ice caps melt, however, that would be a different story entirely as those ice caps are sitting on a continent.

Correct, but most of the antarctic ice cap is over water, you would need to raise temps 20-40 degrees to get any change ant all (large variation cos of the shape of the landmass)

 

[Kwayera]

Correct, but most of the antarctic ice cap is over water, you would need to raise temps 20-40 degrees to get any change ant all (large variation cos of the shape of the landmass)

Uh, no. There is a significant winter ice cap over water, but the majority of the permanant ice caps are over the continent. The ice is about 2500m thick in some places.

Also, please cite sources for your temperature estimations.