| Britain |
| Its not whether or not it exists.. Its whether or not its natural.. and if it is natural, how much are we speeding it up.. It does exist and we are contributing to it.. We just don;t know how much! |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by Britain
Its not whether or not it exists.. Its whether or not its natural.. and if it is natural, how much are we speeding it up.. It does exist and we are contributing to it.. We just don;t know how much!
Uhhhhh.......did you read the article? It talks about COOLING in lots of places. So it wouldn't be "global warming" it would be "regional warming". So the article is, basically, saying global warming is a hoax and it doesn't exist. So I would say whether or not it exists is definately the question it's addressing. |
|
|
| Britain |
Actually the term "global warming" refers to changes in the overall temperature of the earth. Whether it be positive or negative. The reason they call it "Warming" is because the Earths temperature as a WHOLE has always increased in modern times...Maybe if it cools down for some reason they'll have global warming and cooling...
So.. Say china cooled by 3 degrees and we went up 4 degrees it would still be warming.. If some place is cooling down its still not enough to set off the general trend of the earth's increase in temp.. If it is then I guess that would prove that its natural and it's natures balance..
edit: regioanl warming isnt enuogh to offset GLOBAL warming.
On the topic of REGIONAL temperature changes thats intersting but has little to no effect on global warming. (which exists). It's like saying Cancer doesnt exist cause they were able to cure somebody. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by Britain
Actually the term "global warming" refers to changes in the overall temperature of the earth. Whether it be positive or negative. The reason they call it "Warming" is because the Earths temperature as a WHOLE has always increased in modern times...Maybe if it cools down for some reason they'll have global warming and cooling...
So.. Say china cooled by 3 degrees and we went up 4 degrees it would still be warming.. If some place is cooling down its still not enough to set off the general trend of the earth's increase in temp.. If it is then I guess that would prove that its natural and it's natures balance..
edit: regioanl warming isnt enuogh to offset GLOBAL warming.
On the topic of REGIONAL temperature changes thats intersting but has little to no effect on global warming. (which exists). It's like saying Cancer doesnt exist cause they were able to cure somebody.
I don't get your analogy to cancer, that makes no sense to me and I fail to see how it's anything like what you're trying to say.
Not that it matters. Global warming is a lie. This is proof. |
|
|
| ~30oZ~ |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
Global warming is a lie. This is proof.
And decals add horsepower!!!!:dunno: But no one will ever believe us. |
|
|
| Britain |
quote:
Originally posted by ~30oZ~
And decals add horsepower!!!!:dunno: But no one will ever believe us.
Nice.
Hhaha. What I meant is just becuase a few places are cooling off, doesnt mean the world is!
"Just cause you cure one patient doesnt mean cancer doesnt exist" |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
| Except I think a better analogy for your point would be "Just because we cured your liver cancer doesn't mean you're brain cancer doesn't exist." In your scenario, you would be saying "Just because one planet is cooling doesn't mean Earth is." |
|
|
| LeadSled |
The IPCC just released a report at the beginning of the month stating that they've gone from being 5% certain that global warming is due to human activity to being over 90% sure.
Nearly the entire scientific community agrees on that global warming is happening. The "what is causing it" was the question they are trying to answer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interg..._Climate_Change |
|
|
| ae1969 |
Nigel Calder has been the poster boy for the new ice age since the early 70's.
Actually Britain hit it on the head..... "Its not whether or not it exists.. It is whether or not its natural.. and if it is natural, how much are we speeding it up.. It does exist and we are contributing to it.. We just don;t know how much!"
Britain does not hit the mark too many times....so lets give him credit. :D
Britain's statement I would say is true of either a warming or cooling trend.......and in that lies our dilemna.......
I am afraid we will not know who is correct until it is too late for us to do anything........ |
|
|
| stealth |
I think people care way to much.
I think we are doing a fine job as it is with Greenhouse gas emissions. |
|
|
| Britain |
quote:
Originally posted by ae1969
Nigel Calder has been the poster boy for the new ice age since the early 70's.
Actually Britain hit it on the head..... "Its not whether or not it exists.. It is whether or not its natural.. and if it is natural, how much are we speeding it up.. It does exist and we are contributing to it.. We just don;t know how much!"
Britain does not hit the mark too many times....so lets give him credit. :D
Britain's statement I would say is true of either a warming or cooling trend.......and in that lies our dilemna.......
I am afraid we will not know who is correct until it is too late for us to do anything........
I managed to hit your mom's mark. Over and over and over.
haha jk. Gimme some examples of me missing the mark. (via pm so as not to cause embarassement and so we dont clog the thread) |
|
|
| stealth |
quote:
Originally posted by Britain
I managed to hit your mom's mark. Over and over and over.
haha jk. Gimme some examples of me missing the mark. (via pm so as not to cause embarassement and so we dont clog the thread)
We don't have all day.;) jk. |
|
|
| ehos |
quote:
Originally posted by stealth
I think people care way to much.
I think we are doing a fine job as it is with Greenhouse gas emissions.
What exactly are we doing to reduce Greenhouse emissions?
(And how are we measuring emissions so that we can determine if we are indeed doing 'fine'?) |
|
|
| Cyanide Ride |
| Wasn't it recently our PM said that the Kyoto accord environment laws were unreasonable and that noone could meet them?. |
|
|
| ehos |
quote:
Originally posted by Cyanide Ride
Wasn't it recently our PM said that the Kyoto accord environment laws were unreasonable and that noone could meet them?.
Then why did we sign it? At least the Americans had balls enough to say No.
We look like idiots signing it, then not doing anything to meet the requirements. THEN, after the fact saying, oh, we can't meet them?
Liberals signed it. Made some token steps toward it. PC's scrapped all those changes. NOW they want to go back and reimplement those same changes (jeez...) |
|
|
| Vive le Quebec |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
ZOMG somebody has to make up my mind for me as to what's going on.
what's ZOMG mean? well the 'z'...i know omg = oh my god. |
|
|
| stealth |
quote:
Originally posted by ehos
What exactly are we doing to reduce Greenhouse emissions?
(And how are we measuring emissions so that we can determine if we are indeed doing 'fine'?)
Well Plants of many sorts have laws to follow in regards to all types of pollution (Air, Water, Noise, Land, and Thermal).
Devices are used to clean these components, before they are put back into the environment.
Their are flue gas analyzers in Plants, that measures and records everything (O2, CO2, Methane, etc Analyzers).
Their is a lot of protocols to follow when working in these settings, which can be very lengthy to go into detail about.
But I believe it is sufficient. |
|
|
| Inzane |
quote:
Originally posted by ehos
Then why did we sign it?
You can thank Cretien for that. :rolleyes:
quote:
PC's scrapped all those changes. NOW they want to go back and reimplement those same changes (jeez...)
The Liberals are trying to force the issue on the PCs, with the threat of another election.
PS - the Kyoto requirements ARE unreasonable. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by Vive le Quebec
what's ZOMG mean? well the 'z'...i know omg = oh my god.
ZOMG is the l33t version of OMG. I use it in cases when OMG just isn't dramatic enough. |
|
|
| Buddyworm |
I think this whole thing has been blown way out of proportion and everyone's buying in to it. This isn't to say we should ignore it but really, we can't accurately predict the weather 10 days from now. Much less 100 years.
Did you know it was actually warmer in medieval times than it is now? Despite the emissions then being a microscopic fraction of what they are now
The problem is that our environment is an infinitely complex system and is impossible to predict. One input can deliver drastically different results on two different days because the result is entirely contingent on the circumstances of each time.
I'd prefer it if we tried to stabilize what we are putting in to the environment instead of trying to reverse it. Bad things happen when humans try to change things they don't fully understand. Just look at what happened with Yellowstone Park when they tried fucking with the wildlife there.
B-Wurm :D |
|
|
| JeepGirl |
quote:
Originally posted by Vive le Quebec
what's ZOMG mean? well the 'z'...i know omg = oh my god.
maybe he has a lisp? :dunno:
:lol:
*EDIT*
global warming exists and its Bad M'Kay....
no point trying to preach to people about global warming, either they dont believe its happening *OR* they do agree that its happening but are to unwilling to give up some of their perceived creature comforts.
i'm willing to bet that people here have not once considered making their own power, to lessen their burden on the grid (coal), i'm not even talking about forming a plan to do it, but just thought about it....
canada is becoming a respectable leader in terms of R&D and production/consumer use of solar/wind generation systems.
more people are jumping on the grid-tied band wagon. grid-tied means that you arent making enough power to run everything in your house, but it means you are using MUCH less of that grid (coal fired) power, making your bills lower, and if you are really slick... you can run your whole house at night (after youve gone to bed) from power saved in batteries.
this tech is getting cheaper, lasts longer because people actually do care.
when we move we are planning to have a solar/wind power generation system as well as changing our lifestyle.
sorry about the ramble.. i'm just waking up... |
|
|
| ehos |
quote:
Originally posted by stealth
But I believe it is sufficient.
But anyone who measures/tracks greenhouse gas say they have gone up every single year. Is that a good thing?
Also, if big factories are monitoring/reducing GH gases, what about the other big polluters, cars? If we control one and let the other go crazy, are we actually doing anything positive?
I think people are worried about the upcoming Carbon Tax (inevitable?) that's coming. It will effect 40% of the companies on the TSX. People want to help the environment, but not at the expense of their own money/jobs/portfolio (uh, honestly, me included).
Capitalism trumps all. The environment is just a pretender to derail the king. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by Buddyworm
Did you know it was actually warmer in medieval times than it is now?
ok....and do you have links to anyone in the field making that claim? |
|
|
| 95EagleAWD |
I was under the impression that it was the "Little Ice Age" back in medeival times.
My favorite is people saying the Arctic melting is raising sea levels.
They forget that since the arctic ice pack floats on water and has no land under it, that it will, in effect, drastically lower sea levels once all the ice is gone. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by 95EagleAWD
I was under the impression that it was the "Little Ice Age" back in medeival times.
My favorite is people saying the Arctic melting is raising sea levels.
They forget that since the arctic ice pack floats on water and has no land under it, that it will, in effect, drastically lower sea levels once all the ice is gone.
Huh? Your logic doesn't make sense to me. The ice pack is ice, correct? So when it melts, it will turn into water, and that water will be added to the oceans, won't it? Even if you argued it currently is displacing water, ice is more dense than water, so once it melts it will actually occupy a larger volume then it presently does.
So I think I must be missing something completely... |
|
|
| 95EagleAWD |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
Huh? Your logic doesn't make sense to me. The ice pack is ice, correct? So when it melts, it will turn into water, and that water will be added to the oceans, won't it? Even if you argued it currently is displacing water, ice is more dense than water, so once it melts it will actually occupy a larger volume then it presently does.
So I think I must be missing something completely...
Ice is less dense than water... that's why it floats.
It displaces more water than it is, so water levels will go down. Something people seem to ignore... |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by 95EagleAWD
Ice is less dense than water... that's why it floats.
It displaces more water than it is, so water levels will go down. Something people seem to ignore...
Ah yes, ice/water breaks the rules. Dunno how I forgot that. |
|
|
| ehos |
quote:
Originally posted by 95EagleAWD
Ice is less dense than water... that's why it floats.
It displaces more water than it is, so water levels will go down. Something people seem to ignore...
Not entirely correct. Ocean levels are way to complicated to be explained by something so simple. There's so many variables at work, that there's equal proof that water could raise or fall.
(Density of the ocean can be effected by things like salinity, the movement of the earth itself, sea level pressure. Plus, lets' not forget that it's impossible to model how the ice will actually melt or 'fall apart'. No one understand thermal dynamics, atmosphere etc etc well enough to truely be sure right now).
I passed my Thermal Dyanmics unit @ Univ, but I have NO idea how that all works, or if it's just one math profs. wet dream. |
|
|
| LeadSled |
quote:
Originally posted by ehos
Not entirely correct. Ocean levels are way to complicated to be explained by something so simple. There's so many variables at work, that there's equal proof that water could raise or fall.
(Density of the ocean can be effected by things like salinity, the movement of the earth itself, sea level pressure. Plus, lets' not forget that it's impossible to model how the ice will actually melt or 'fall apart'. No one understand thermal dynamics, atmosphere etc etc well enough to truely be sure right now).
I passed my Thermal Dyanmics unit @ Univ, but I have NO idea how that all works, or if it's just one math profs. wet dream.
It displaces a tiny bit less volume of water it is. Volume of fluid displaced X its density = the total volume of the floating object (not just the submerged part) X its density, but because the meltwater of the iceburg is fresh, it is slightly less dense than the seawater (about 3% less) and takes up more volume for a given weight. I remember this problem from an eas ocean's class I took... the ~3% increase is so small for the super slow melt rate of the floating ice shelves that it's ignored like 95EagleAWD said.
We were told that the biggest cause of sea levels rising is the increase in volume of the ocean due to water expansion from rising sea temperature, that's the part that really suprises me. |
|
|
| 95EagleAWD |
Except rising sea temperatures evaporate more water which then finds its way onto land, and not all of it makes it back...
Very, very complicated. |
|
|
| sk8jas |
quote:
Originally posted by 95EagleAWD
..........
It displaces more water than it is, so water levels will go down. Something people seem to ignore...
^ nahhhhh... see calcs below or skip calcs and see "laymans terms" below
----------------------------------
density of frozen sea water=1025kg/m^3
density of liquid sea water= 1030kg/m^3
-------------------------------
90% of an iceberg is under water.
--------------------------------------------
lets say an iceberg is 1000m^3
900m^3 is under water
-----------------------------
if the entire 1000m^3 iceberg melts thats
1000m^3 * 1025kg/m^3
=1,025,000 kg
-------------------------------------
1,025,000kg of liquid / density of liquid sea water
1,025,000 kg/ 1030kg/m^3
=995.1 m^3
-------------------------
995.1 m^3 goes into the ocean for every 1000m^3 of iceberg.
BUT ORIGINALLY ONLY 90% (900 meters cube) of that ice was under water!
995m^3 is > 900m^3
in laymans terms, everytime an iceberg melts ocean levels dont go down-> they go up by about 10% of the volume of ice that was under water.
|
|
|
| 95EagleAWD |
Except much more than 90% of most icebergs are under water.
And the ice caps aren't salt water; they're fresh water. |
|
|
| sk8jas |
quote:
Originally posted by 95EagleAWD
Except much more than 90% of most icebergs are under water.
No, actually on average 12.5% is above so actually less than 90% is below, i said 10 to simplify everything.
quote:
Originally posted by 95EagleAWD
And the ice caps aren't salt water; they're fresh water.
so change 1025 and 1030 to 1000 and 997 respectively youll get basically the same results |
|
|
| sk8jas |
oh yeah and also
"arguing on the internet is like competing in the special olympics, it doesnt matter who wins your still a retard!"
haha, im not calling you a retard, im just saying in general...
(not excluding myself either)
:)
anyways, *unsubscribe* |
|
|
| 95EagleAWD |
quote:
Originally posted by sk8jas
so change 1025 and 1030 to 1000 and 997 respectively youll get basically the same results
And reasons like that one are the reason that 90% of the population think that the world is ending... |
|
|
| sk8jas |
quote:
Originally posted by 95EagleAWD
And reasons like that one are the reason that 90% of the population think that the world is ending...
I dont know what that means but refferring to above. changing 1025 and 1030 to 1000 and 997 still gives you
990m^3 which is still 10% larger than 900m^3
Im not trying to be a dick here Im just trying to clarify that melting of icebergs does increase the total volume of the ocean. Thats all Im saying, take whatever you want from that or dont. |
|
|
| LeadSled |
Sk8jas, ice has a density of ~920kg/m3, way less than fresh water and salt water... And the amount thats submerged is proportional to the densitys... so 920/1030 is around 90%.
It works out to a 3% increase in volume as it melts in salt water. |
|
|
| sk8jas |
can i ask where you got 920 from?
also im taking into account 90% under water is frozen sea water and 10% above is fresh water
*edit*
"can i ask where you got 920 from?"
on second thought nm... who cares,
-----------------------------------------
back on topic (sorry dtjohnst)
so global warming is a hoax eh? |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by sk8jas
can i ask where you got 920 from?
also im taking into account 90% under water is frozen sea water and 10% above is fresh water
*edit*
"can i ask where you got 920 from?"
on second thought nm... who cares,
-----------------------------------------
back on topic (sorry dtjohnst)
so global warming is a hoax eh?
I actually thought this was on topic. |
|
|
| sk8jas |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
I actually thought this was on topic.
Yeah, I just didnt want to turn this into a Math-Off, which is where it was going.
And LeadSled you are right about the 3%. I just grabbed the first numbers I could find from an intro chem book, but
heres an actual detailed study which likely took more than 5 minutes to do:
"The Melting of Floating Ice will Raise the Ocean Level" submitted to Geophysical Journal International, Noerdlinger demonstrates that melt water from sea ice and floating ice shelves could add 2.6% more water to the ocean than the water displaced by the ice
http://www.physorg.com/news5619.html |
|
|
| ehos |
Your math is about 100% wrong if you're trying to figure out 'does melting ice sheets increase or decrease sea levels?'
That link only proves a very narrow case, in a closed system that has nothing to do with the real question at hand. For one thing, any real world math involves differential calculus (at a minimum). |
|
|
| sk8jas |
quote:
Originally posted by ehos
Your math is about 100% wrong if you're trying to figure out 'does melting ice sheets increase or decrease sea levels?'
so where is it wrong
quote:
Originally posted by ehos
That link only proves a very narrow case, in a closed system that has nothing to do with the real question at hand.
:read:
Its not the study in the link its the paper they refer to in it
"The Melting of Floating Ice will Raise the Ocean Level" submitted to Geophysical Journal International
quote:
Originally posted by ehos
For one thing, any real world math involves differential calculus (at a minimum).
You dont need differential calculus to do a simple proof to someone who doesnt give a fuck about math which is what I was doing.
And since you so insist you need calculus to calculate melting of ice, than Id love to see your 'differential calculus' on this. |
|
|
| sk8jas |
See part B:
This proportion does not depend on the shape or size of
the iceberg, only the density of the ice and the water.
Therefore you dont need calculus.
with the 90% go back to my previous post and use 920kg/m^3 like LeadSlead said and youll get a number thats greater than 0, like about 3%. Without differential calculus.
So ehos,
since this isnt a real world problem, I guess if you were going to figure out how much water was going to melt you would walk onto each iceberg and GPS profile it, and then log your 3 billion data points into AutoCad, and then get it to intergrate the 3 dimensional function youve created, to get a volume of all icebergs in the world?
Get real.
Its great you know the two words 'differential' and 'calculus'. But its a good thing I didnt take 5 'differential'-'calculus' courses to know when you need it and when you dont. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| 180sxforthewin |
I say that it is partially real and partial hoax. Our pollution cannot be held accountable for all global warming. Since the dawn of time there have been ice ages and I imagine there has been periods of global warming. The media and goverment has helped blow this way out of perportion, it is a way of getting the public to spend money. From efficient bulbs, to cars, they want you to consume. The easiest way to get the public to do things is to scare them into doing it.
So lets all go out and buy anything with an energuide symbol, on it because that will save the enviroment. Sure thing............ |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by 180sxforthewin
I say that it is partially real and partial hoax. Our pollution cannot be held accountable for all global warming. Since the dawn of time there have been ice ages and I imagine there has been periods of global warming. The media and goverment has helped blow this way out of perportion, it is a way of getting the public to spend money. From efficient bulbs, to cars, they want you to consume. The easiest way to get the public to do things is to scare them into doing it.
So lets all go out and buy anything with an energuide symbol, on it because that will save the enviroment. Sure thing............
Wow, you really are a conspiracy theorist.
Think about it, a more efficient light bulb, more efficient cars, what's the result? Less money spent. If you're bulb lasts twice as long, you only have to buy half as many. (btw, are you one of those people who believes that a lightbulb exists that never burns out but that the government and corporations have supressed it?) If you're car is more efficient, you spend less on fossil fuels.
So your argument that the government made it up to make us spend more actually shows we'd spend less. |
|
|
| ehos |
quote:
Originally posted by sk8jas
But its a good thing I didnt take 5 'differential'-'calculus' courses to know when you need it and when you dont. :rolleyes:
And it shows.
You just cited another closed system example that has no relevance to the real world. You're 3% means nothing in the real world because you haven't accounted for any real world variables.
Just so you get the point. Your math doesn't really prove anything in the real world. If it did, the whole raising/lowering of the ocean levels would be settled. |
|
|
|
