Global Warming Discussion (16 Viewers)

[Hust]

Yes sea water is denser and yes floating ice doesn't make it rise to the effect of an ice cub in a glass from the tap. Floating ice in the arctic can have other ramifications such as salinity and temperature changes that can alter the density of the ocean and cause changes to thermohaline circulation.

Not to mention once the salinity has been changed this could drastically effect underwater ecosystems such as coral reef, artic reefs, etc. Oceans have been unaltered for billions of years, such a change could prove catastrophic for marine life.

His theory about the Ninja Turtles picking it up is what made me not -rep him!

It was creative, I will give him that.

Hows the feel?

Surprisingly well. It proves extraordinarily durable and much thinner than major household names.

You've been watching Nicholas Cage 'act' too?

I'm in agreement with Andy on cause and factors to consider, and have had this belief for a long time. Obviously we are not doing the planet any good however, if scaremongering, or perhaps I should say notable political agenda, is the way to get people to take better care of the environment then it is a positive. As he says though, if everyone isn't doing their bit then we are pissing into the wind.

Obviously we have our work cut out, but if politics is using it as a way to get us moving on the subject then fine, but don't lie about things. That is a concern of mine.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Enron]

Not to mention once the salinity has been changed this could drastically effect underwater ecosystems such as coral reef, artic reefs, etc. Oceans have been unaltered for billions of years, such a change could prove catastrophic for marine life.

Especially cold water corals, which can die out with just a minut change in temperature. Those are very productive ecosystems as far as biological diversity and feeding for some of the biggest fisheries in the word.

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

You've been watching Nicholas Cage 'act' too?

I'm in agreement with Andy on cause and factors to consider, and have had this belief for a long time. Obviously we are not doing the planet any good however, if scaremongering, or perhaps I should say notable political agenda, is the way to get people to take better care of the environment then it is a positive. As he says though, if everyone isn't doing their bit then we are pissing into the wind.

Yeah, it's great for rich, established first world nations to push for better care of the society. They already have all the infrastructure they need, now let's just tell the poor third world countries they can't have what those rich nations have.

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

If anyone can get his hands on "A State of Fear" by Michael Crichton. It's a great science fiction based on real scientific facts about a lot of the bullshit you hear about Global Warming.

 

[mikhail]

bout 1000 kg/m3 - Sewater Yeah?

900 kg/m3 - Ice

So in fact, and i'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, sea water is denser than fresh water and hence the level doesn't rise with floating ice like in a JD and coke.

If I have a glass of water and I add some ice, the level of the water rises. That's true even if the water is salt water.

If the ice is already there, and it melts, does the level go up or down? I think it stays the same (at least approximately).

So yeah, floating ice is not as big a deal for sea levels as continental ice, but as Aaron and Hustini have pointed out some other consequences of it melting.

 

[IrishZebra]

If we spray chemicals into the lower otmosphere will it create clouds?

I quote


Sulphur dioxide in the strathosphere seven miles above the earth "absorbs stratospheric water vapour and forms an aerosol cloud that circulates rapidly,blanketing most of the globe." A research model by Caldeira,a highly respected climate scientist,shows that the amount of vapour necessary to prevent global warming is surprisingly small,"about 34 gallons per minute,not much more than the amount of water that comes out of a heavy-duty garden hose." This amounts to about one-twentieth of 1% of current sulphur emissions.

The scientists propose that liquid sulphur dioxide could be pumped into the stratosphere through an 18 mile hose a couple of inches in diameter. The hose would be held up in the air by "a series of high-strength helium-filled balloons at 100 to 300 yard intervals."

The cost of this project would be so cheap,at about €20 million start-up costs plus €10 million annual operating costs,that it should easily find funding,in my opinion.

I like most non-Science people am afraid/ ill-informed. I understand the consequences and the root cause and would convert to an energy effiecient house drive a hydrogen car w/e. The simple fact is nobody has given us the oppourtunity or the guidance to change our lifstyles.

 

[Bjerknes]

So the answer is pumping Sulpher Dioxide into the atmosphere, right above the tropopause. Is that right. I'm sure there will be little repercussions of such a plan, with none of the sulpher dioxide being pulled down by gravity through the tropopause into the troposphere, creating more acid rain.

This stuff about creating clouds is just silly. Yes, clouds do absorb and scatter radiation, but not just radiation from the sun. They also trap radiation emanating from the Earth's surface, acting as a blanket. So if you place a ficticious layer if clouds over the entire Earth you are in turn warming the Earth as it is. Not as much of the Sun's radiance will hit the Earth's surface, yes, but then you're starting to screw with the environment in another way by limiting good radiation.

Look, one can fool around with this all they want, but we'll probably end up doing damage to something by pumping chemical compounds into the atmosphere, or even building a freaking dome over the planet. The last thing we want to do is screw up the global radiation balance because that not only has an effect on climate, but also internal mechanisms of the Earth. We're playing with fire.

 

[IrishZebra]

and yet nobody is telling people these things.

 

[Hust]

Andy just told us.

 

[IrishZebra]

Yes but not everybody is lucky enough to have an andy or a mandy for that matter.

 

[mikhail]

Yes but not everybody is lucky enough to have an andy or a mandy for that matter.

The problem is that many people have an emotional opinion on this whole topic. They tell you some piece of information which 'disproves' global warming. You spend an hour and a half finding out why it is misrepresented and/or cherry-picked, and they shrug and tell you another one. I've seen that pattern elsewhere - vaccine safety freaks, chiropractors who claim to cure cancer, people with an unreasonable fear of phone masts. It's not good company. I'll just stick to trusting the main body of scientists working on this to have a pretty good idea of what they're talking about.

 

[Hust]

Yes but not everybody is lucky enough to have an andy or a mandy for that matter.

Andy is wise in his years. I don't know who Mandy is...

The problem is that many people have an emotional opinion on this whole topic. They tell you some piece of information which 'disproves' global warming. You spend an hour and a half finding out why it is misrepresented and/or cherry-picked, and they shrug and tell you another one. I've seen that pattern elsewhere - vaccine safety freaks, chiropractors who claim to cure cancer, people with an unreasonable fear of phone masts. It's not good company. I'll just stick to trusting the main body of scientists working on this to have a pretty good idea of what they're talking about.

Following the general consensus?

 

[Enron]

Speaking of climate change. The of the foremost experts on the subject (academic Nobel winner, head of USGS) is coming to speak at the NCTC which is just down the road from my Uni. I'm real interested to hear her consensus on this issue.

 

[IrishZebra]

The problem is that many people have an emotional opinion on this whole topic. They tell you some piece of information which 'disproves' global warming. You spend an hour and a half finding out why it is misrepresented and/or cherry-picked, and they shrug and tell you another one. I've seen that pattern elsewhere - vaccine safety freaks, chiropractors who claim to cure cancer, people with an unreasonable fear of phone masts. It's not good company. I'll just stick to trusting the main body of scientists working on this to have a pretty good idea of what they're talking about.

I'd be inclined to argee with you if I hadn't seen the retarded attempt of the natural sciences to explain my disicpline (International Relations). Also it's very difficult to trust scientists when they don't have a united front of many,many issues, like diet and excercise for one, if they deal in facts then why is their so much dispute, in everything not just politically sensitive areas open to coercion.

Then again if they were to use the only thing about Science I understand, organic chemistry I'm pretty sure that they would convince me

 

[Enron]

I'd be inclined to argee with you if I hadn't seen the retarded attempt of the natural sciences to explain my disicpline (International Relations). Also it's very difficult to trust scientists when they don't have a united front of many,many issues, like diet and excercise for one, if they deal in facts then why is their so much dispute, in everything not just politically sensitive areas open to coercion.

Then again if they were to use the only thing about Science I understand, organic chemistry I'm pretty sure that they would convince me

You generalize science too much. Diet and excericise is a bit different. There are many ways to pinch pounds safely and eat healthy. Alas there aren't so many ways to split an atom.

If someone says they're an expert on Science, no they're not. If someone maintains an expertice in oh say astrophysics then that's a different story.

 

[mikhail]

I'd be inclined to argee with you if I hadn't seen the retarded attempt of the natural sciences to explain my disicpline (International Relations).

What? Did some daft statistician found a power law that irks you?

Also it's very difficult to trust scientists when they don't have a united front of many,many issues, like diet and excercise for one, if they deal in facts then why is their so much dispute, in everything not just politically sensitive areas open to coercion.

They don't have a united front on areas where they don't have good answers. More often than not though, the disharmony you're talking about is overblown by people with a financial interest in things. "Doctors don't know everything. Buy my magic but sciency shield against all that EM radiation which is making you feel tired."

 

[Enron]

What? Did some daft statistician found a power law that irks you?


They don't have a united front on areas where they don't have good answers. More often than not though, the disharmony you're talking about is overblown by people with a financial interest in things. "Doctors don't know everything. Buy my magic but sciency shield against all that EM radiation which is making you feel tired."

Also the media's portrayal that scientific findings can be nullified or proofed via poll tends to distort the opinion of the population. The Bush administration was a perfect example of this. So many times, on so many issues they turned to the opinion of theologists and politicians or public polls to make policy decisions based on scientific findings regarding subjects from climate change to endangered species and technology. Things would work so much better if science were left in the hands of the scientists.

 

[IrishZebra]

What? Did some daft statistician found a power law that irks you?


They don't have a united front on areas where they don't have good answers. More often than not though, the disharmony you're talking about is overblown by people with a financial interest in things. "Doctors don't know everything. Buy my magic but sciency shield against all that EM radiation which is making you feel tired."

Firstly yes yes he did and it is irksome.

Second, anything that isn't gorunded frimly in statistics/maths there seems to be a large lack on consensus in, with can be disheartening to people as I'm sure dicotomy in all subjects is. I'm not trying to devalue science, I love science, I was split between chemistry and politics for college, I'm just trying to put accross the attitude of somebody who doesn't know as much science as you and finds it hard to grasp the 'higher' end of the theory and explanation, there is no info for people like me

You generalize science too much. Diet and excericise is a bit different. There are many ways to pinch pounds safely and eat healthy. Alas there aren't so many ways to split an atom.

If someone says they're an expert on Science, no they're not. If someone maintains an expertice in oh say astrophysics then that's a different story.

I used that as one example, it goes for everything from global warming to evolutionary theory.

 

[Enron]

I used that as one example, it goes for everything from global warming to evolutionary theory.

Well diet is a very poor example. Would have been better to just stick with global warming.

As for evolutionary theory (and mind you it's only called "theory" to keep the zealots from rioting) there aren't several different scientific opinions on the the subject. Pretty much everyone agrees on natural selection.

 

[IrishZebra]

Well diet is a very poor example. Would have been better to just stick with global warming.

As for evolutionary theory (and mind you it's only called "theory" to keep the zealots from rioting) there aren't several different scientific opinions on the the subject. Pretty much everyone agrees on natural selection.

I fail to see how it is, Global Warming has as common sense a solution to diet does it not?

I know about evolutionary 'theory' (the most evidence of any theory that isn't mathematical) but their does exist a dichotomy within it, be it purposeful coericion or not it still goes back to the root cause.

From my experience the scientific community is either naive or intentionally elitist, they see all 'non-scientists' as a similar group in terms of their ability to percieve and evaluate evidence where are the UN or Univeristy or NGO sponsored advertisements informing people like me where information is readily available about these things. Asking somebody to believe something without actively trying to provide them with proof or at least encourage access to it smacks of theocracy and frankly is insulting. People are trying to get me to change my lifestyle without even attempting to relate their theories to my situation and mental competences. I'm not a genius but I'd say I could understand a reasonable proportion of the evidence were it presented to me, even if I only understood 40% , I'd be more inclined to accept a theory. I don't give credence to any empiricist that expects me to accept his findings without actively striving to provide me access to them.

Like I said, I may not be as smart as these climate change scientists but that doesn't make be a moron and it's insulting to be treated as such and actually encourages more skepticism.