General Climate Discussion

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by lazs2
and friend angus.. you still have not said...

due to "MMGW"... how much have the ocean risen... what is the number.  I want a number.   the margin of error is about an inch or so by the way.

lazs

Who gives that margin of error sir?

[lazs2]

hmmm... love it when I can get moray to not only reply with a wall of text but... once again... reply when he said he would not be.

Again.   there are plenty of scientists.. even ones in your field.. who feel that we are not causing any global warming or that the effect is negligable.   Many more feel that even if we were having an effect it is far from a bad thing and more believe that we can't do anything about it in any case.

your idea that warmer is worse  than colder is not shared by any scientist that I am aware of.

The ocean is rising a tenth of an inch a year?   even if every single bit of that was due to man... we are talking a couple of inches... if nothing changes.. in what half a decade... we may be able to... if everything goes right and we are willing to spend billions and nothing else changes.... stop the sea from rising an inch in a century?

question tho.. do you feel that it is man made co2 that has caused the global warming?  Oh wait... you have said you would never reply to these threads anymore...

nevermind.

lazs

[Louis XVII]

Originally posted by lazs2
your idea that warmer is worse  than colder is not shared by any scientist that I am aware of.

How many scientists do you know then?

And why is warmer "better"? Are you thinking of it in terms of what might be "more pleasant for the human race in the northern US"? If that's all you have, then you have failed to take into account the deeper issues of how warming can/will affect micro-organisms lower down the food chain which are responsible for sustaining life on earth. You probably think like some guy who's an idiot or a Big Oil man or a politician (or all three, given the current govt administration) that if we get too much sun (stupid) that all we need do is put on sunglasses - an option not available to those organisms lower down the food chain. But hey... what do you care about those "insignificant" micro organisms. After all, the oceans are just dustbins to soak up unwanted CO2, in your book.

Your homework assignment for tonight - look up "food chain".

[john9001]

i personally have seen the ocean rise more than a foot, and then recede when the tide changes.

[lazs2]

your homework is to look up "ice age" and then explain to us which is better.. warmer or colder.

We are in a warming period.. it is a time of great prosperity and comfort for most on this planet.   things would be worse in a cold period.  more people die from the cold than the heat.   crops grow better in warm weather than cold weather.

we are by no means in an extreme hot spell.. there is no evidence that it will either be colder or hotter by the end of the century.    we have no way of knowing.    

climate science is a young science.   as such... it has made great strides in predicting weather out to about 7 days.. pretty fuzzy even at that tho... over about seven days?   what do you think?   truth is... they haven't a clue.   There simply are too many factors that we know nothing about.   we can't say for sure that anything causes anything... we can see the results... and sure... we do know that increased sun activity does increase temp and release co2 but... much more than that?  who knows.

lazs

[Angus]

LOL, compare Venus and Iceage, and I'll pick Iceage.
(However, in my business and where I am, some warming is good for the business, - providing it won't go too far    ..... I am very happy for a softer climate, I can feel it and I am already benefitting from it, so telling me that it isn't happening is kind of....hopeless)

Anyway Lazs, - the sea level

[john9001]

8" in 130 years, that's great, in another 200 years i can sail over that sand bar off pinellas point in tampa bay.

[lazs2]

angus...we have never had "venus" nor is there any proof that we will ever..

We have had ice ages and warm periods... this warm period is not even the hottest.  it is simply a warm period... sooo.. compare an ice age.. the coldest it has been here with today and tell me which you would rather have?

say the alarmists are right tho and man can make the temp go up (all other natural factors not changing) say... 2 degrees.. in the next century...  how bad will that be?  Ice age better?

your chart...lets say it is accurate.   I think 20 cm in 125 years... I think we can live with that... hell.. by your reasoning.. we have about melted all the ice that is gonna melt anyway.. gonna be hard for us to feed rise...

unless of course it is something else.. like sea floor spreading or sinking of continents.

lazs

[crockett]

Originally posted by Thrawn
He's not a climate scientist, he's an electrical engineer.



Edit:


Hell, he's an electrical engineer that has worked on climate change "research" for  Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association.

I was staying out of this topic, because I know where it will lead. However that's way too funny if it's true.

Remember kids smoking is healthy for you.

[Shaky]

Agnus: Couple things.....

Sea levels have been rising at a more or less consistant rate since at least 1900? How does MMGW explain that, given that modern CO2 emmisions are supposed to be the cause.

This data is extrapolated from a mere 23 tide stations? Where are they located?

And lastly...it is from Wikpedia, after all.

[Angus]

Here is a linkie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#Glacier_contribution


And then think that after the Iceage there was landrise. So again, the N-Hemisphere Glacier-loaded countries were a good indicator, - there was severe rising of land when the glaciers retreated. I for example live on an old seabed (under 10 feet of soil) while being some 100 feet above the current SL. The land is still rising while the SL stays rougly the same. So what does that tell you?
(More than 10% of the country is under glacier with very great thickness, - the closest (< 70 km) has a some 2000 feet on ice resting on an active volcanoe.)
Anyway, land is rising still from the weight of the last iceage. Makes things a bit more complicated. But SL is now catching up.
Look
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isostatic_depression

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raised_beach

Moray might know more about this from maritime biology. As well as how the measurements are made, - what is the aiming point. Anyway, with landrise still ongoing while SL is rising it points into the same conclusion, - there's more water around.

BTW, I am not a scientist! But I (had to so I..) did study quite a bit of Metreology, Geology and Biology, then agriculture. I am grateful for it, and it pisses me of when some hillbillies boo on the weathermen for not being able to make completely accurate forecasts. The one who does that has obviously no knowledge of the fluid problems they face. I should perhaps be frustrated, for in my line of work, I make the stakes after looking at the forecasts.

Moray, are you a maritime biologist? May I ask what is your field and area??

[bongaroo]

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/video.html

so singer went from disproving cigarettes causing cancer on behalf of tobacco interests (wrong) to disproving global warming on behalf of big oil interests (majority of scientists say he's wrong here too)

this guys out to make money, not help anyone.  the problem is greed.

[Angus]

Originally posted by Shaky
Agnus: Couple things.....

Sea levels have been rising at a more or less consistant rate since at least 1900? How does MMGW explain that, given that modern CO2 emmisions are supposed to be the cause.

This data is extrapolated from a mere 23 tide stations? Where are they located?

And lastly...it is from Wikpedia, after all.

Counter question, - why is SL rising? Where does the water come from if the S-cap is gaining such an icemass suddenly?

BTW I am on the point of warming occuring, not the "just" co2 thing which I remain sceptic about. But human impact, - definately. So IMHO it is warming and SL is rising. But the Anti-camp will debate that even with the charts in their face.


And Lazs:

"angus...we have never had "venus" nor is there any proof that we will ever..

We have had ice ages and warm periods... this warm period is not even the hottest. it is simply a warm period... sooo.. compare an ice age.. the coldest it has been here with today and tell me which you would rather have?"

We did not have Venus pos, but we did have long periods which we could not thrive in as a civization at all. There were times in earths atmosphere that would have choked you right away. And heats that provoked enormously extreme weathers.  All the hot periods did not spawn civilizations, but the slow melting stable iceage to post iceage did.
Co-insidence or subtler climate?
As for the polar caps (there were reptiles on Antarctica ones and forests on Greenland) you must bear in mind that at the time those places were on the equador...

[Angus]

Originally posted by bongaroo
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/video.html

so singer went from disproving cigarettes causing cancer on behalf of tobacco interests (wrong) to disproving global warming on behalf of big oil interests (majority of scientists say he's wrong here too)

this guys out to make money, not help anyone.  the problem is greed.

Wonder if he smokes

[Airscrew]

What goes around, comes around.  Circle of life and all that