AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Yet another climate change thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Yet another climate change thread - Page 2

post #41 of 145
9/15/06 at 7:44am
I think you're pretty alone in your thinking.

I mean, we will all lose friends and family, and cities will be underwater, and there will be mass migration and war and civil breakdown and stuff, but yeah, humanity will probably survive...
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 145
9/15/06 at 8:48am
How the hell are you, Idris?
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #43 of 145
9/15/06 at 9:01am
Thread Starter 
  • e1618978
  • will burn in the Fiery Pit of Hell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah

I think you're pretty alone in your thinking.

I mean, we will all lose friends and family, and cities will be underwater, and there will be mass migration and war and civil breakdown and stuff, but yeah, humanity will probably survive...

2 degrees is not enough to significantly raise the sea level. You seem to have a quantification problem - everything is black or white (fine or FUCKED) without noticing the differences between 2 degrees and 10.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #44 of 145
9/15/06 at 9:14am
How do you know eric?

Seriously, two degrees is an average over the world, what if it was 10 over Antarctica and 1 over the rest of the planet...

Blanket statements like 2 degrees is not sufficient to raise ocean levels are really the height of ignorance.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #45 of 145
9/15/06 at 9:23am
Thread Starter 
  • e1618978
  • will burn in the Fiery Pit of Hell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar

How do you know eric?

Seriously, two degrees is an average over the world, what if it was 10 over Antarctica and 1 over the rest of the planet...

Blanket statements like 2 degrees is not sufficient to raise ocean levels are really the height of ignorance.

Because we have had temparatures 2 degrees hotter than now within the last 10K years, and that warm period lasted
4000 years without a significant sea level rise.



If you look at the graph that I started this thread with, you will see that the poles melt around 4-6 degrees warmer than now.
Not only that, but it probably takes them a really long time to melt. The poles will have greater rise than the equator, but your
suggestion of 10 degree difference puts you in pretty fringe-thinking territory - right in there with the fake moon landing guys.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #46 of 145
9/15/06 at 10:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978

Because we have had temparatures 2 degrees hotter than now within the last 10K years, and that warm period lasted
4000 years without a significant sea level rise.



If you look at the graph that I started this thread with, you will see that the poles melt around 4-6 degrees warmer than now.
Not only that, but it probably takes them a really long time to melt. The poles will have greater rise than the equator, but your
suggestion of 10 degree difference puts you in pretty fringe-thinking territory - right in there with the fake moon landing guys.

Global Warming is just another anti-human, guilt infused, narcessitic "we did it" movement. Heaven forbid we actually looked at the science and the confidence (or lack there of) in our predictions - nope, just read a copy of Discovery and GET SCARED!

Hail Mother Earth - 21st century druids.
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 145
9/16/06 at 12:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978

Because we have had temparatures 2 degrees hotter than now within the last 10K years, and that warm period lasted
4000 years without a significant sea level rise.



If you look at the graph that I started this thread with, you will see that the poles melt around 4-6 degrees warmer than now.
Not only that, but it probably takes them a really long time to melt. The poles will have greater rise than the equator, but your
suggestion of 10 degree difference puts you in pretty fringe-thinking territory - right in there with the fake moon landing guys.

MaxParrish, you are just being an overly protective mother. No one need blame human, you crack whore.

Eric, what are you defining as significant?

Even just a few inches will sink my home town. I am sorry but there are loads of people who don't think that is ok. Regardless, as we have seen in Africa tropical jungle becomes savannah becomes desert pretty quickly -- to be honest, I see a hotter earth consisting of large ranges of desert where most people currently live. Unfortunately, this is also where we grow most of our food, and we don't know how to terraform newly thawed tundra into usable land...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #48 of 145
9/16/06 at 5:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish

Global Warming is just another anti-human, guilt infused, narcessitic "we did it" movement. Heaven forbid we actually looked at the science and the confidence (or lack there of) in our predictions - nope, just read a copy of Discovery and GET SCARED!
.

Something tells me that 'looking at the science' isn't one of your priorities.

MAX: Where are my keys?
MRS MAX: You are holding them.
MAX: Says who?
MRS MAX: Me. I can see them. You are holding them.
MAX: And why should I believe you?
MRS MAX: Because I can see them. They are in your hand.
MAX: And who are you?
MRS MAX: I am the person who can see that you are holding your keys in your hand.
MAX: Right. Rather than looking at the evidence, you're telling me that my keys are in my hand. Pathetic.
MRS MAX: OK. I'm going shopping.
MAX: Heh. I showed her.
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 145
9/16/06 at 5:54am
Thread Starter 
  • e1618978
  • will burn in the Fiery Pit of Hell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar

MaxParrish, you are just being an overly protective mother. No one need blame human, you crack whore.

Eric, what are you defining as significant?

Even just a few inches will sink my home town. I am sorry but there are loads of people who don't think that is ok. Regardless, as we have seen in Africa tropical jungle becomes savannah becomes desert pretty quickly -- to be honest, I see a hotter earth consisting of large ranges of desert where most people currently live. Unfortunately, this is also where we grow most of our food, and we don't know how to terraform newly thawed tundra into usable land...

You live in the Maldives? A few inches would not even sink New Orleans...

Anyway, if you have any facts on your side about which cities would sink with a few inches, then you are probably right, as that part of my argument is definitely an intuitive one. Perhaps we should stop living places that are so fragile that a couple of inches of sea level rise could destroy them...

Anyway, I really disagree with your second point. The world will be significantly wetter when it gets warmer, I think that there will be less desert (or if there is more, it won't come from warming - the Sahara grew even when the earth was cooling, so there is obviously more going on than warming).

We don't need to know how to terraform thawed tundra, plant species will aggressively move north as the climate opens the way, we are seeing it already. We move in after the weeds do.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #50 of 145
9/16/06 at 10:10am
Actually there is no evidence that the world would be significantly wetter. More moisture in the air is caused by plant associated evaporation than thermal evaporation, if deserts expand (especially in the amazon and congo) then the world would actually be drier.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #51 of 145
9/16/06 at 10:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar

Actually there is no evidence that the world would be significantly wetter. More moisture in the air is caused by plant associated evaporation than thermal evaporation, if deserts expand (especially in the amazon and congo) then the world would actually be drier.

Nonsense. Most climate models suggest greater evaporation rates from increased temperature. That rain has to fall somewhere and recent data suggests that the Saharan desert has had increased greening and rainfall, and the UK is warmer and now has a wine industry not seen since the 1300's (the medieval warming period).

The bottom line is that:

a) We are marginally confident that global warming will continue, but less so than previously predicted (the draft of the IPCC fourth assessment).

b) We are mainly in the dark about the positive or negative effects.

c) There is nothing we can do about it.

However, if the medieval warming period is any indication then the Mediterranean climate zone will move north, warming Northern Europe. The tree lines in Scandinavian will move up slope at least 300 feet, and Greenland will be green. Gee, sounds scary!!!!
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 145
9/16/06 at 10:25am
Thread Starter 
  • e1618978
  • will burn in the Fiery Pit of Hell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar

Actually there is no evidence that the world would be significantly wetter. More moisture in the air is caused by plant associated evaporation than thermal evaporation, if deserts expand (especially in the amazon and congo) then the world would actually be drier.

Sorry, I call BS on this for the following reasons:

1. The oceans cover most of the planet
2. Plants have a vested interest in keeping moisture from evaporating, so they will have evolved ways to keep it in.
3. When the sun shines on the ocean, 100% of the energy goes to evaporating the water. In the forest, most of the energy goes to growing the plants - where would the energy come from to evaporate more water per acre than sunlight shining directly on the open ocean?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish

Greenland will be green. Gee, sounds scary!!!!

Well, that part really would be scary, but I don't think it will happen anytime soon.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #53 of 145
9/16/06 at 10:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978

Sorry, I call BS on this for the following reasons:

1. The oceans cover most of the planet
2. Plants have a vested interest in keeping moisture from evaporating, so they will have evolved ways to keep it in.
3. When the sun shines on the ocean, 100% of the energy goes to evaporating the water. In the forest, most of the energy goes to growing the plants - where would the energy come from to evaporate more water per acre than sunlight shining directly on the open ocean?



Well, that part really would be scary, but I don't think it will happen anytime soon.


Surface area eric.

Not to mention the fact that ALL sunlight falling on earth results in evaporation - all energy eventually becomes heat. The rate of evaporation, however, is dependent upon surface area.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #54 of 145
9/16/06 at 11:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978

Sorry, I call BS on this for the following reasons:

1. The oceans cover most of the planet
2. Plants have a vested interest in keeping moisture from evaporating, so they will have evolved ways to keep it in.
3. When the sun shines on the ocean, 100% of the energy goes to evaporating the water. In the forest, most of the energy goes to growing the plants - where would the energy come from to evaporate more water per acre than sunlight shining directly on the open ocean?

Well, that part really would be scary, but I don't think it will happen anytime soon.

Why would a glacial retreat, and greening of "Greenland" be any more scary that it was during the MW Period? Only recently have the edges of glaciers started to reveal artifacts and settlements that are currently buried. Obviously much of Greenland was green, and the world got along quite nicely.

The predictions are that sea levels will rise about 15 inches in 100 years (it has already raised 12" in the last 100 years) - hardly a crisis.
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 145
9/16/06 at 11:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar

Surface area eric.

Not to mention the fact that ALL sunlight falling on earth results in evaporation - all energy eventually becomes heat. The rate of evaporation, however, is dependent upon surface area.

And therefore as sea level rise, more area is exposed to a warming atmosphere - which increases evaporation and rainfall.
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 145
9/16/06 at 12:04pm
Thread Starter 
  • e1618978
  • will burn in the Fiery Pit of Hell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar

Surface area eric.

Not to mention the fact that ALL sunlight falling on earth results in evaporation - all energy eventually becomes heat. The rate of evaporation, however, is dependent upon surface area.


How do you explain the tropical rainforests that stretched over most of the planet during the Eocene, when temparatures were 10-12 degrees warmer than now? Your desert theory just does not add up for me.

http://archive.greenpeace.org/climat...port/conc.html

"Physical arguments clearly indicate that global warming will cause an increase of evaporation from the ocean. Moreover, a warmer atmosphere can carry more moisture, which leads to larger amounts of precipitable water. Global warming will also induce higher temperature differences between the land and sea surfaces, causing an increased transport of precipitable water to the continents, and an increase of convectional rainfall."
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #57 of 145
9/16/06 at 12:17pm
I didn't say evaporation wouldn't increase from the ocean, that is more or less given. I was suggesting that plants are a more important source for atmospheric moisture.

Our climate has never repeated an era in its history so making arguments about how wonderful it will be to have eocene like period are pure bullshit.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #58 of 145
9/16/06 at 1:25pm
Thread Starter 
  • e1618978
  • will burn in the Fiery Pit of Hell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar

I didn't say evaporation wouldn't increase from the ocean, that is more or less given. I was suggesting that plants are a more important source for atmospheric moisture.

Our climate has never repeated an era in its history so making arguments about how wonderful it will be to have eocene like period are pure bullshit.

Even greenpeace is not enough to convince you? I knew that you would disregard a right wing link that I posted, but I thought that you would change your mind when both the right and left disagree with you. It seems foolish that you are saying "It will be dryer" and "you can't predict how wet or dry it would be" - which is it?

The Miocene was a little warmer and wetter than now also:

http://scotese.com/miocene1.htm

I went through all the climate analysis on this page, and the only arid climates were when Pangea was a single continent, which makes sense because rainfall would be less likely to reach the center of a large continent. Since we have never had a warm/dry climate with multiple separate continental masses, I suggest that my scenario is much more likely than yours:

http://scotese.com/climate.htm

"During the Late Jurassic the global climate began to change due to breakup of Pangea. The interior of Pangea became less dry, and seasonal snow and ice frosted the polar regions."

http://scotese.com/ljurclim.htm

The factor that makes climate largely non repeating over hundreds of millions of years (but not 10s of millions of years) is the shifting continental masses, which affect climate. The Eocene was not long enough ago (50 million years) to give it significantly different contenental masses.

Here is one repeating pattern that we are well rid of via global warming, we were do for an 8 degree drop in temperature as we entered a new ice age:

45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #59 of 145
9/16/06 at 2:08pm
I wonder where all that dust is coming from?

"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #60 of 145
9/16/06 at 2:28pm
Thread Starter 
  • e1618978
  • will burn in the Fiery Pit of Hell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar

I wonder where all that dust is coming from?


It seems to match up with the warm periods, so maybe it is pollen? Maybe the dust is captured in glaciers during ice ages?
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #61 of 145
9/16/06 at 3:01pm
Bah!!
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #62 of 145
9/16/06 at 4:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar

I didn't say evaporation wouldn't increase from the ocean, that is more or less given. I was suggesting that plants are a more important source for atmospheric moisture.

Please spare us of excuses for thoughtless comments. Your claim was "Actually there is no evidence that the world would be significantly wetter."Why? Because you 'suggested' that "More moisture in the air is caused by plant associated evaporation than thermal evaporation". This reasoning is painfully embarrassing to a thinking person - it's obvious that the total contribution of a current source to water vapor is irrelevant. What is relevant is any INCREASE of ANY source of water vapor to the atmoshere. And so increased temperatures will increase evaporation rates, and
then increase humidity and rainfall, even if sea levels did not change (which they will).

Moreover, to suggest that "if deserts expand (especially in the amazon and congo) then the world would actually be drier" is confusing the effects of dryer air with the causes. Deserts (arid regions) will not expand when there is MORE precepitation - they are a result of "less water vapor", i.e. the Amazon is wet because of rainfall. The more heat, the more ocean evaporation, the more rainfall, and the fewer areas of dry climate.

Quote:
Our climate has never repeated an era in its history so making arguments about how wonderful it will be to have eocene like period are pure bullshit.

The irony meter just pegged out.
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 145
9/16/06 at 5:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978

Even greenpeace is not enough to convince you? I knew that you would disregard a right wing link that I posted, but I thought that you would change your mind when both the right and left disagree with you. It seems foolish that you are saying "It will be dryer" and "you can't predict how wet or dry it would be" - which is it?...

Good points.
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 145
9/16/06 at 5:20pm
Max,

Excuse me for considering you to be an idiot, but rainforest are wet because of plant respiration and evaporation from their leaves. Rain forests DON'T grow simply because the areas are wetter, but grow because of a number of factors one of which is the temperature of the environment. Increased rainfall does not necessarily result in increased forest growth because there are many other factors involved.

I am so terribly sorry you fail to understand these obvious points, perhaps you should return to school?
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #65 of 145
9/16/06 at 5:29pm
I am not the only one who sees a problem.

Yes, this desertification is caused by drought, but there are other means of causing desertification in rain forests, particularly on the edges of the forests.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #66 of 145
9/16/06 at 11:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar

Max,

Excuse me for considering you to be an idiot, but rainforest are wet because of plant respiration and evaporation from their leaves. Rain forests DON'T grow simply because the areas are wetter, but grow because of a number of factors one of which is the temperature of the environment. Increased rainfall does not necessarily result in increased forest growth because there are many other factors involved.

So when I said the Amazon RAINforest is wet because of RAINfall that is incorrect - it is wet because of resperation and evaporation from forest leaves...GEE, that's funny, evaporation is DRYING, which means the water vapor is released, which means IT leaves the forest. HEY, you think it might eventually return in RAINfall, and that might make it wet ?

LOL...

Quote:
I am so terribly sorry you fail to understand these obvious points, perhaps you should return to school?

I'll let the reader savor that comment...heh heh.

Quote:
I am not the only one who sees a problem.

Yes, this desertification is caused by drought, but there are other means of causing desertification in rain forests, particularly on the edges of the forests

No, you are not the only unthinking alarmist. The link you gave was mainly alarmist "implications" unsupported by the text. It was nearly worthless.
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 145
9/17/06 at 9:23am
I really don't need to point out your logical fallacies as everyone can see them clear as day.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #68 of 145
9/17/06 at 9:38am
Here is a question, if you took an area the size of the Sahara and turned it from desert to grassland, or grassland to deciduous forest, how much more moisture would that hold?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #69 of 145
9/17/06 at 9:48am
Quite a bit.

And quite a bit of carbon as well.

But Lachatlier's principle doesn't work that well here, as can be evidenced by the fact that increases in world carbon dioxide haven't caused growth of forest land (if that's the direction you were going, aksoldotna?).
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #70 of 145
9/17/06 at 3:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar

But Lachatlier's principle doesn't work that well here, as can be evidenced by the fact that increases in world carbon dioxide haven't caused growth of forest land.

I must be a dumb ass, 'cause I thought that the growing human population had a 'burning' desire to eradicate and replace our current forests with suburban homes and additional crop land to feed an ever-increasing populace.

Shoulda' known that some damn principle of thermodaynamics, just didn't work here!

Paz
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem to lightly...it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Thomas Paine
Reply
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem to lightly...it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Thomas Paine
Reply
post #71 of 145
9/22/06 at 2:26am
Holy shit.

"They call it pollution. We call it life."

Is this actually being broadcast on American telly?
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 145
9/22/06 at 2:36am
Just found this.

Right up your street, ENumbers: "We may not hve the power to stop global warming. But together, we have the power to enjoy it."

Stephen Colbert rules.
Reply
Reply
post #73 of 145
9/22/06 at 4:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah

Just found this.

Right up your street, ENumbers: "We may not hve the power to stop global warming. But together, we have the power to enjoy it."

Stephen Colbert rules.

Actually, in the world's 1/3rd of the nations that have a form of democracy, "we" do have the power to stop CO2 'pollution' from those countres- its rather simple in concept.

1) Ban human caused combustion (feces,wood, oil, natural gas, etc.).
2) Return to hunting and gathering, letting excess population die (most people).
3) Ask the remaing 2/3rd's not to occupy the nearly vacated territories and start it all over again.

Ya, that's the ticket.
Reply
Reply
post #74 of 145
9/22/06 at 6:43pm
Isn't that effectively what's going to happen anyway...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #75 of 145
9/22/06 at 7:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah

Holy shit.

"They call it pollution. We call it life."

Is this actually being broadcast on American telly?

NO WAY! Is that for real?
Reply
Reply
post #76 of 145
9/22/06 at 8:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK

NO WAY! Is that for real?

Of course its for real, but I doubt its being broadcast widely (I've never seen it). But its spot on...
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 145
9/22/06 at 8:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar

Isn't that effectively what's going to happen anyway...

No, but if so then why jump the gun - let your grand kids return to digging grubs..
Reply
Reply
post #78 of 145
9/22/06 at 8:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish

Of course its for real, but I doubt its being broadcast widely (I've never seen it). But its spot on...

Prove It - Feel free to put a bag over you mouth and breathe in all that good life giving carbon dioxide.
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 145
9/22/06 at 11:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK

NO WAY! Is that for real?

Yes, I saw it on TV here in San Francisco. Can't remember the station.
Reply
Reply
post #80 of 145
9/23/06 at 8:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish

Of course its for real, but I doubt its being broadcast widely (I've never seen it). But its spot on...


No, as a scientist, it isn't 'spot on.'
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Yet another climate change thread