Topic: Dangers of Global Warming.

[333]

Ive never understood this theory of icebergs melting and raising sea level.
Achimedes sez that anything that floats disperses its own weight so if a berg is floating it has already dispersed the amount of water it contains so when it melts it will be the same

Actually, an iceberg has less water in it's frozen form, than it's melted state.  There are air bubbles in it that allow it to float and thereby make up some of the size.  But it's not melting icebergs that are the problem, it's the ice above sea level on the ground that will raise the sea level if allowed to melt.

So, I'm not a scientist, but here's what I've noticed.  I have lived in the same neighborhood all my life.  For the past 8 years, I have been in the same house I grew up in.  And when I was a kid, we would have multiple snows each winter.  I'm not talking a dusting, but enough to sled down the street for a couple days each snow.  That doesn't happen now, even taking into account the improved snow removal/salting prevalent today.  This year and last year, no snow more than 3 ", and only once each year, and the last decent snow was 6 or 7 years ago.  My sled sits rusting away.

[goon 1492]

There is a farly good debate here and I think TT is on the up and up here.
Why do we have scientists that claim the global warming, then in the same breath scientists say just what TT clearly stated that this is a normal cycle and there's evidence to prove it.

Politics is the freakin' problem, when had there been an issue that was normal with politics in it, espically where $$$$$ is in volved. That has been the problem since we have also in recorded time. who has the most marbles in their bag.

The earth has been warming since the last ice age, that is clear. We have had an impact in the warnming yes, that is also clear. What is not spoken is all the other things that are blown in the atmosphere when volcanos erupt, asbestos, sulphur, CO2, lead, toomany things to mention. Any hype about that......
We are nothing more than ants in one big ant hill.

Tell me how much you know about the monster termite hills in Aussie and the ammounts of pollution that they make? There is a record of methane gas that they produce for starters.

The problem with humans is the stuff we use leaves concentrated ammounts of stuff like lead, methane pockets from our land fills(which we have ways to collect it). Our automobiles have been proven many times that they have a very minor affect of pollution. Its what is used to power our homes that is the problem.

So why is legislation so hard on the auto manufacturers and theri "polution" problem.....Politics again my friends(don't forget we are a community of friends world wide, don't let politics make our decisions in the heat of the moment)

what will be interesting is what they start to discover in those iceburgs as it seems as with most things in science, a percentage is hard evidence and facts, the rest is just figures. The figures are what we are seeing that TT is talking about and isn't it strange how they are changing what they thought...

wait till they actually tell us the truth about Mars. Think about it the technology we see today all the world gov. have had for 2 decades now already, not tryin' to start a conspiracy but...
Wait till they try to scare the rest of the world enough to force us all to give up the last of what ALL our forfathers around the world built for one world government....

Why do you think they give us all these "things" to spend all of our free time to argue about, freedom, racisim(takes up alot of time), taxation, drugs, gangs. That way the world Gov. can do what they want and by the time out fires that we start amungst ourselves are out like alwasy it will be too late for us as a world community ant hill to stop them and their polotics....


Carry on though ya got somethin' to prove

[mlinder]

http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=19258.0

[Duke McDukiedook]

All forms of life on this planet derive their life energies from the sun, we are all solar beings.

That was once accepted belief.  However, they have now found life deep on the ocean floor where there is no sunlight.  These living beings and in fact an entire ecology, owe their small ecosystem's energy input from volcanic heat and gases escaping through the earth's crust.  The pictures and video are quite amazing.

Cheers,

Well, almost everything 

[333]

Comparing automobiles to volcanos is quite a stretch.  Every day, hundreds of millions of cars transport us around.  But how often does a volcano erupt.  Yes, there are ones that gurgle constantly, but certainly not more emissions that a few hundred cars in the same amount of time.

And if we do wait until the seas rise, and it can be proven that global warming is the cause, wouldn't it be too late to do anything about it?  Yes, there are opinions on either side of this issue, but wouldn't it be smart to do something about it now, rather than wait until it's too late?

[mlinder]

Comparing automobiles to volcanos is quite a stretch.  Every day, hundreds of millions of cars transport us around.  But how often does a volcano erupt.  Yes, there are ones that gurgle constantly, but certainly not more emissions that a few hundred cars in the same amount of time.

And if we do wait until the seas rise, and it can be proven that global warming is the cause, wouldn't it be too late to do anything about it?  Yes, there are opinions on either side of this issue, but wouldn't it be smart to do something about it now, rather than wait until it's too late?

That's assuming you CAN do anything. The earth has a natural cycle of heating up and cooling down, regardless of what animals are doing.

[ttr400]

News today (Friday) underwater volcanic eruption......when it was over it had created an Island..!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1163121/Pictured-The-spectacular-eruption-underwater-volcano-South-Pacific.html

[upperlake04]

Ive never understood this theory of icebergs melting and raising sea level.
Achimedes sez that anything that floats disperses its own weight so if a berg is floating it has already dispersed the amount of water it contains so when it melts it will be the same

 You're right about the icebergs. It's the melting of the 75% of the worlds' freshwater locked up in continental glaciers that would do it. Calculations show those 32 million cubic kilometers of glacial and cap ice would raise the ocean levels nearly 70 meters.

[sangyo soichiro]

Man... I just wanted to learn about motorcycles.  Yeah, yeah... I know I don't have to read this thread, blah, blah. 

Political discussions suck.  I frequented a political site before.  It's like volunteering to stick your head in a used toilet.  I hesitate to jump in, but I'm too stupid not to I guess.  Geronimo!

And if we do wait until the seas rise, and it can be proven that global warming is the cause, wouldn't it be too late to do anything about it?  Yes, there are opinions on either side of this issue, but wouldn't it be smart to do something about it now, rather than wait until it's too late?

That's assuming you CAN do anything. The earth has a natural cycle of heating up and cooling down, regardless of what animals are doing.

Either we can or we can't do something about it, but isn't it safer to assume we can?

[mlinder]

Man... I just wanted to learn about motorcycles.  Yeah, yeah... I know I don't have to read this thread, blah, blah. 

Political discussions suck.  I frequented a political site before.  It's like volunteering to stick your head in a used toilet.  I hesitate to jump in, but I'm too stupid not to I guess.  Geronimo!

And if we do wait until the seas rise, and it can be proven that global warming is the cause, wouldn't it be too late to do anything about it?  Yes, there are opinions on either side of this issue, but wouldn't it be smart to do something about it now, rather than wait until it's too late?

That's assuming you CAN do anything. The earth has a natural cycle of heating up and cooling down, regardless of what animals are doing.

Either we can or we can't do something about it, but isn't it safer to assume we can?

Not really.
Need to be sure, first, if we are, in fact, contributing to global climate changes.

After you do that, then you can decide if you WANT to contribute to global climate change.
I guess my question is, if we find out we aren't large contributors to this 'problem', should we take the responsibility of 'fixing' it, when in fact, it's just part of the natural cycle of climate change on this planet?
If you use conservationists arguments, the answer would be 'no'. The answer would be to let nature take it's course and make a bunch of the earth difficult to inhabit for OUR species.

By assuming you should 'do something', without understanding what is ACTUALLY happening, you may very well do the exact opposite of what you intended. Or you may do something very bad, or you may cause a whole crapton of unneeded misery.

[Inigo Montoya]

I will not debate the whole impact part and whether or not humans make things worse. I will say that I feel that we could do more to make less of an impact on the environment. Do I want to pay through the nose? Of course not but I am all for wind or solar energy instead of coal. Cleaner running vehicles would be great. In the winter, trying to breathe with car exhaust all around you is not too pleasant by any stretch. Just a general cleaning up of the human race if for no other reason than to save natural resources.

[sangyo soichiro]

About the ice...

Ive never understood this theory of icebergs melting and raising sea level.
Achimedes sez that anything that floats disperses its own weight so if a berg is floating it has already dispersed the amount of water it contains so when it melts it will be the same

This is easily discredited, get yourself a bucket of water and float a large piece of ice in it, the ice will float on the surface with about 50-75% of it under the water but still some above the surface, now push this piece of ice into the bucket until it is all covered with water, at about this time you should start to get wet feet because as you push the ice it displaces more water That is why a 14000 square kilometer piece of ice is a problem, with 200 foot walls of ice it displaces a lot more once melted.

The ice floats because it's less dense.  That is the key concept to keep in mind.  Water expands when it freezes (that's why pipes break in winter).

Archemedes' principle states that: "Any object, wholly or partly immersed in a fluid, is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the object."

If the object (the iceberg in this case) is made of basically the same stuff as the fluid it is immersed in (water), then when the ice melts there would be no difference in the level of the fluid.  (Neglecting the salt content, but it's fair to assume it's negligible.)

I believe it was 333 that said it was the above-sea level ice and the land-locked ice, if melted, that causes the rise in sea level.  That is correct.

[sangyo soichiro]

Man... I just wanted to learn about motorcycles.  Yeah, yeah... I know I don't have to read this thread, blah, blah. 

Political discussions suck.  I frequented a political site before.  It's like volunteering to stick your head in a used toilet.  I hesitate to jump in, but I'm too stupid not to I guess.  Geronimo!

And if we do wait until the seas rise, and it can be proven that global warming is the cause, wouldn't it be too late to do anything about it?  Yes, there are opinions on either side of this issue, but wouldn't it be smart to do something about it now, rather than wait until it's too late?

That's assuming you CAN do anything. The earth has a natural cycle of heating up and cooling down, regardless of what animals are doing.

Either we can or we can't do something about it, but isn't it safer to assume we can?

Not really.
Need to be sure, first, if we are, in fact, contributing to global climate changes.

After you do that, then you can decide if you WANT to contribute to global climate change.
I guess my question is, if we find out we aren't large contributors to this 'problem', should we take the responsibility of 'fixing' it, when in fact, it's just part of the natural cycle of climate change on this planet?
If you use conservationists arguments, the answer would be 'no'. The answer would be to let nature take it's course and make a bunch of the earth difficult to inhabit for OUR species.

By assuming you should 'do something', without understanding what is ACTUALLY happening, you may very well do the exact opposite of what you intended. Or you may do something very bad, or you may cause a whole crapton of unneeded misery.

Either we can or we can't do something about it, but isn't it safer to assume we can?

I specifically chose the word can, not should.  (Actually, you chose that word.)  I guess I was curious as to why you might think that we couldn't do anything about it.

[mlinder]

Of course we can visibly affect the global climate. I mean, blow up a couple thousand nuclear missles, and we can cause a pretty drastic effect.

However, why bother assuming we 'can', unless we are considering 'should'?

the whole convo went like this:
333 said "do something about it now"
I said "that's assuming we can do something about it"
you said "we should assume we can"
which leads back to 333's "do something about it now"

If you meant we should just assume it's possible, then I apologise. When I said "That's assuming you CAN do anything", I meant, can we do anything to stop climate change without really screwing #$%* up. As I noted earlier, it would be easy enough to cause drastic climate changes, but at what price.

[TwoTired]

Do I hear "the people must pay more for their sins" mantra?

Not at all, we just need to rethink our processes, we need to make what we do less of a burden on the environment and much more efficient, this is common sense.

You still seem to be on the side of making other people bend to your will for whatever it costs **them**.   Further, if it were "common sense", then their wouldn't be a debate, and my "common sense", wouldn't be different from your "common sense".  In reality, common sense isn't really that common.  Mob rule is more common, I think.  And THAT is the real danger of the global warming movement. 

how can you be so arrogant to assume humans are SOOOO powerful (evil?) that they can change these naturally occurring temperature changing cycles within a few human lifetimes?

Quite easily, nuclear weapons are capable of changing this overnight and with enough smog trapped inside the stratosphere it will trap heat as it is doing now.

I can't agree that creating small bits of sun on or in this planet is really any kind of comparable process to what goes on routinely in or on this planet. It would seem like you are reaching with such comparisons, and using scare tactics rather than "common sense".

However, I have seen smog, and it blocks sun rays.  If the suns rays are blocked from reaching the earth, why doesn't it cool the earth?  That's what volcanoes do when they erupt, tossing sun blocking material into the atmosphere, and the earth then cools.

I'm saying that the earth's temperature has varied by a far greater amount than what we have experience in our short recorded history and the existence of homo-sapiens on this planet.

Not in such a small time frame.

That is partly my point.  Our accurately measured time frame is so small, that such statement have no real meaning.  200 years out 4.5 billion?  Who are you trying convince that your limited amount of data has real relevance?  It seems comparable to determining what human lifestyle is like by only examining their existence between, say, age 50 and 50.5, and then deciding that's how they lived their entire life.  The last 30 years of recorded history is too small a sample base to determine what is normal for a global temperature and how fast temperature excursions may occur or th earth in its accumulated existence.

I agree these cycles are part of the earths natural cycles its just that we are speeding them up.

  I maintain your sample base is too small to make such a determination.   Further, a change of speed is relative.  If I did agree we (humans) were having an impact on world ecology, why quibble and become alarmist about a one year change in 10000 year cycle? (for example)

There is a lot more evidence to support this than there is against it or we wouldn't be having world summits on this very subject.

You are submitting summit popularity as proof of global warming?  Isn't this like saying neighborhood watch groups cause crime increases?    Anyway, the summits have to be funded by someone.  As someone who was active in creating international standards for communication, I can say first hand that these standards were funded by the very companies that stood to make a profit selling equipment into those marketplaces.   Further, they weren't attended by people who wished the standards be halted.   In fact, there was constantly introduction of new standards to self perpetuate the future of more standards.  So, I must reject the notion that summit activity is foundational support for a "global warming" position.

You are aware of submarine volcanic activity putting tons of sulfur dioxides (acidity) into the water, right?

Yes i am aware and there is a natural balance there also, research done in Antarctica suggests that this balance has been maintained over the eons and is on the rise now....Coincidence ?

Interesting innuendo, but no evidence presented. The answer is it may or may not be "coincidence".  There just isn't enough data to make an informed judgment.   

Which gives evidence of volcanic activity under the antarctic glaciers.
"Heat from the volcano creates melt-water that lubricates the base of the ice sheet and increases the flow towards the sea."
Do you think those land masses that you now hold dear were always above sea level?  Much of the US continent has fossilized remains of marine life.  I didn't think snails and marine fish could travel overland 1000 miles.

That would be fine if the ice in question was land based, but it is frozen ocean basically, not land based so that theory doesn't help. The exact same thing is happening in the northern hemisphere.

It IS earth based. It's down there somewhere under a bunch of ice!  With a long enough drill, you'll reach magma from the south pole.

We also have the habit of heeding bad advice and creating an even worse situation.

I would love you to explain how cutting pollution would make things worse? Do you think change is a bad thing? You couldn't be that stupid to think that even if pollution is doing nothing now and i doubt that, that at some time in the future our future generations will be left to clean up our mess, and at what expense then?

  So, if I agree that pollution is bad for humans, then it must be a cause for "Global warming"? Did you just change the argument away from "global warming theories"  to "Isn't pollution bad?"   It has not been openly established as fact that the two are inextricably linked.

There are also thousands of scientists that are scoffing at the "warning bells"

Actually i looked into that and i can guarantee you there are a hell of a lot more suggesting we are adding to the problem than saying that we are not. And also as you said "who is paying them? The biggest noise against the warming theory in Australia are backed by the mining industry.

[/quote]

Sorry, but I just need more than your personal guarantee in order to agree to a raise in my taxes on heating fuel or to mandate that I must only use state approved heating/cooking fuel for a government subsidized energy industry, or to determine which mode of transport I must use.    Where I live, you can be fined for using wood fuel to heat your home on days some government official decides wood shouldn't be burned.  It is up to the burner to figure out which days those are.  Must call someone and get their approval before you light that match or risk stiff fines. I see 'Global warming" as another means for government, or some special interest group, to be more invasive into personal lives.

To some, it is blatantly obvious that God exists

For something to be "blatantly obvious" you would need more proof than a pile of tales told 2000 + years ago, {ever hear of Chinese whispers} No i am not religious and regardless what you may think i do look at all the available evidence to base my comments.
There will always be 2 sides to any story but i strongly believe that it is very naive to think we can just continue to pump millions of tons of crap into the environment without doing any damage, whether it be short or long term, so why push the envelope what if we can't stop the damage being done we are a selfish society and i think we need to all get together, survey the situation and put all the bullsh1t aside and make sure we don't screw it up for everyone else.

You haven't defined the vague "envelope" being pushed.  The statement implies the envelope (whatever that is) is now fully utilized, without evidence.

Lot's of the "bullsh1t" presented has been gilded.

Why can't you believe the "global warmists" can be selfish?

There are 2 sides to the story and "we need to get together", where?  On your side of the story?  Is that selfish?  What is it you are willing sacrifice?

Cheers,

[Retro Rocket]

All i have to say after reading that crap TT is that you need to get out more often.
You say that if the sun can't get in then it would be cooler which proves that i am wasting my time conversing with you. Heat still gets in and is then trapped, look into it its not that hard. A lot of your points have been already proven wrong so once again i will not waste my time. Good luck with your theories TT, it will be hard to change anything when your head is stuck in the sand.

Mick

[mlinder]

I'll repost from the other thread, temperature changes from around Europe and Australia.
Never did get around to making that huge list of temp changes I said I would...

As far as global warming goes...

A few samples:

Cities around the world and their change in average tempuratures:

Alice Springs, Austrailia
From 1879-2003
20.5,  20.5

Clyde, NWT
From 1943-2004
-11.7, -12.8

Christchurch, NZ
From 1864-2003
11.4, 11.5

Rome, Italy
From 1811-1989
15.5, 15.6

Paris, Le Bourget
From 1757-1995
10.8, 10.5

Milano-Linate
From 1763-1986
12.8, 12.7

Stuttgart, Germany
from 1792-1999
10.0, 9.6

Navacerrada, Spain
From 1941-2004
7.0, 6.8

Goteborg, Sweden
From 1951-2004
7.3, 7.4


Kamenskoe, Siberia
From 1949, 1998
-6.7, -6.5

[sangyo soichiro]

1. I care about human survival, first and foremost.  (Any protozoa who may be reading, please accept my apology.)

2. A runaway greenhouse effect is bad for humans.

3. If the earth is indeed headed for a runaway greenhouse effect, then it doesn't matter who is responsible.  It should be stopped.  Natural cycle or not.  Otherwise, we're goners.



Can someone please tell me what's wrong with this argument....

[mlinder]

1. I care about human survival, first and foremost.  (Any protozoa who may be reading, please accept my apology.)

2. A runaway greenhouse effect is bad for humans.

3. If the earth is indeed headed for a runaway greenhouse effect, then it doesn't matter who is responsible.  It should be stopped.  Natural cycle or not.  Otherwise, we're goners.



Can someone please tell me what's wrong with this argument....

Nothing at all. I'm in agreement.
But no one has proven we have a runaway greenhouse effect.... please see the list I posted above.
I really hope I don't have to explain why temperatures appear to have gone up in the last 80 years in the middle of cities, where the temperature is being read...

[tramp]

holy smokes this is one active thread
i watched a inconvenient truth with al gore
i must admit that there is alot to be said about his point of view
the ice drilling in the artic was most appealing
but now they say the ice pack is not melting at any faster rate
this was one cold winter for most of us
and for you guys down under it looks pretty bad but is this the worse or was it really bad sometime before
with the exception of you guys down under this world is just about the same
might a shifting of magnetic poles also cause this?
we as humans must clean up our act
but the clean up must be worldwide and straight across the board
making one country comply but not another country is wrong

[sangyo soichiro]

If we really are in danger of a runaway greenhouse effect, then the climate could get to a point where there's no turning back.  That's what's meant by 'runaway.'

Pascal developed his 'wager' with respect to the belief in God.  Let's apply it to global warming:

Scenario 1:
If the GW crowd is wrong,
and we do what they say,
we end up with some inconveniences and some pain in the ass laws.

Scenario 2:
If the anti-GW crowd is wrong,
and we do what they say (do nothing),
we're goners.

[Retro Rocket]

Hi Mlinder, hope you have healed from your excursion down the road. Mate we are in the middle of record temperatures, the recent bushfires came in the middle of the hottest 3 or 4 weeks in our recorded history. Alice Springs is up north in the desert and  has maximums just under 50 degrees celcius, it is a very hot place and has typical desert cold nights, it goes from one extreme to the other. The average temp for alice Springs in the last 12 months has been 28.6 degrees celcius. My whole point is, there are a lot of weird weather phenomenon going on all round the world and have been increasing rapidly over the last ten years, just because someone doesn't actually see these changes doesn't mean that they don't exist. TT will argue till the cows come home as thats what he does but our pacific neighbors are loosing their homes as their islands are disappearing under water, something is causing this and it has only started to happen recently, or if it was happening slowly then it has sped up noticeably . Cutting pollution for whatever reason has got to be a good thing surely doesn't it. Our planet is an extremely rare thing that only exists because of a finely tuned balance of chemicals, proteins, temperatures and gasses {simple explanation} To blindly argue that there is nothing going to happen or not already happening is just ignorant, this is a highly popular opinion in this part of the world and others. I am getting sick of idiots crying "scare tactics" every someone disagrees with them, there is plenty of info out there, educate yourselves and you will find it pretty hard to argue with. I recently saw a story on an American scientist that has been trashing the idea of "global warming" for years and has now jumped ship as the more he researched and then went to look at the more affected places he started to come around and agreed that a lot of what he was witnessing was not normal. Mainly because if it wasn't normal for this to happen at the current rate at which it is happening, it was obvious to him that things had sped up and wasn't part of a natural cycle.


mick

[Retro Rocket]

we as humans must clean up our act
but the clean up must be worldwide and straight across the board
making one country comply but not another country is wrong

Amen..

Mick

[mlinder]

Hi Mlinder, hope you have healed from your excursion down the road. Mate we are in the middle of record temperatures, the recent bushfires came in the middle of the hottest 3 or 4 weeks in our recorded history. Alice Springs is up north in the desert and  has maximums just under 50 degrees celcius, it is a very hot place and has typical desert cold nights, it goes from one extreme to the other. The average temp for alice Springs in the last 12 months has been 28.6 degrees celcius. My whole point is, there are a lot of weird weather phenomenon going on all round the world and have been increasing rapidly over the last ten years, just because someone doesn't actually see these changes doesn't mean that they don't exist. TT will argue till the cows come home as thats what he does but our pacific neighbors are loosing their homes as their islands are disappearing under water, something is causing this and it has only started to happen recently, or if it was happening slowly then it has sped up noticeably . Cutting pollution for whatever reason has got to be a good thing surely doesn't it. Our planet is an extremely rare thing that only exists because of a finely tuned balance of chemicals, proteins, temperatures and gasses {simple explanation} To blindly argue that there is nothing going to happen or not already happening is just ignorant, this is a highly popular opinion in this part of the world and others. I am getting sick of idiots crying "scare tactics" every someone disagrees with them, there is plenty of info out there, educate yourselves and you will find it pretty hard to argue with. I recently saw a story on an American scientist that has been trashing the idea of "global warming" for years and has now jumped ship as the more he researched and then went to look at the more affected places he started to come around and agreed that a lot of what he was witnessing was not normal. Mainly because if it wasn't normal for this to happen at the current rate at which it is happening, it was obvious to him that things had sped up and wasn't part of a natural cycle.


mick

I hear you, mick, but I'll put this forward:

Probably millions of islands have disappeared under water from climate changes over the many, many years that earth has had liquid water. Had nothing to do with us. We weren't around.
There's very little proof that we have had any real effect on climate changes. So, Australia has had a crap year for weather. Santa Barbara had a drought that lasted some 10 or 12 years. Some parts of Arizona saw torrential downpour that was unheard of.
It happens. It happens all over the world, it happens all the time, and it's been happening for a couple billion years.

To top it off, if we are experiences heavy climate changes, let's pretend for a minute that it's a natural phenomena. How do you 'fix' this?
If it's a manmade phenomena, we need to find the actual CAUSES of this phenomena. 30 gajillion cows farting methane non-stop.... wtf are you going to do, stop growing cows, and remove a major food staple? Great, so instead of dying of 'global warming', we can die of malnutrition.

The only 'cure', if it is manmade, is the eradication of at least 30% of the world population. Looks like the climate changes, whether manmade or natural, may be taking care of that for us in the not so distant (historically speaking, anyway) future.

[Retro Rocket]

30 gajillion cows farting methane non-stop

That is an interesting point and you are absolutely right.
I saw a recent story where a guy in the States applied for a grant to do something about that on his farm. He had a large dam built on his farm and had a "shelter" built over the top of it, he then collected most of the manure he could and put it in the dam where it released its methane into the enclosure. I am not exactly sure of the process but he then collected the methane that was released and now uses it to power his fleet of trucks that are used to transport the meat and run a generator that powers the whole enterprise. Not a bad way of dealing with his methane.

Mick