General Climate Discussion

[john9001]

they had go to Bali, Stockholm is too cold this time of year.

[AKH]

Take a glass, fill it halfway with brine, then add freshwater ice.

Measure the salinity, then wait for the ice to melt..

WOW!!! What do you know, the salinity drops.  Damn that physic stuff real does work.

Take a glass, fill it halfway with water, drop a funnel in the glass and put ice in the funnel.

Mark the level, then wait for the ice to melt..

WOW!!! What do you know the level does change. Damn that physic stuff real does work.

[Donzo]

Originally posted by john9001
they had go to Bali, Stockholm is too cold this time of year.

Damn that global warming!!!!!!!

[CptTrips]

Originally posted by crockett
So where is your proof? You right wingers always claim there is no proof of man made climate change. So where is your proof that counters what most of the worlds top scientists all agree on?

Don't bring up some crap about Venus or mars either. Lay it down if you know so much more than the worlds scientific community.

There is no obligation to prove a negative.

I do not need to prove there are no such thing as Elves.  If you make the claim that Elves DO in fact exist, the onus is upon you to provide the proof.

To prove there is such a thing a Man-Made Global Warming, you have to first prove there is a persistent warming trend over and above natural cyclical fluctuations, and then you must prove that Human activity is a signifigant causal factor.


Regards,
Wab

[AKH]

Chapter 6, page 466 onwards, you klutz.

[Sabre]

Originally posted by DiabloTX
I wonder what size carbon-footprint was created flying all of those delegates to Bali?

Estimates are that the Bali Boondoggle dumped as much CO2 in the air as 20,000 autos put out in an entire year.

As for evidence, there's plenty of it out there, with many links in the "Generic Global Warming" thread.  And before you reply with "Where is it?", I'd challenge you to ante up first.  The ice core data shows that CO2 lags temp, so it can not be driving it.  Most of the so-called evidence of global warming is computer models, which ignore key factors affecting atmospheric temps, and have time and again failed when compared with actual historical data.

It is interesting that at the Bali Conference, over seven hundred scientist who came to discuss evidence that MMGW is a sham were not allowed in to state the point of view.  I get a mental picture of some Al Gore or some UN stooge standing at a podium and speaking to the cameras:

"The consensus is unanimous; the debate is settled.  See, every scientist here agrees that man-made CO2 is to blame for what will be a catastrophic increase in global temps."

Meanwhile, 700 scientist disagreeing with the "consensus" are standing outside the locked door to the conference, security guards blocking the way, and a sign on the door saying, "Dissenters not allowed!"

[Sabre]

Originally posted by Tac
Take into account also that the bulk of the ice in the artic is over solid land.

If it melts it goes into the ocean, raising sea levels.


In any case, the real danger isnt that we'll lose a hundred feet of coastline, its the massive climate change the billions of tons of freshwater falling into the ocean and changing the salinity levels.

It kills the fish, it disrupts the flow the of the currents.. in fact if the gulf stream itself was to fail not only would most species in the ocean either die or significantly decrease in number, it would also alter the climate of the entire planet into an ice age like environment.

this all means starvation, conflict,etc .. a general decline in the # of humans in the planet. Which might not be a BAD thing but it'd be one very unpleasant world to live in while it happens.

Since its a fact that the world has been warmer numerous times in the past than it is now, and all those species managed to survive (including the much abused polar bears), I'd say the danger is over hyped.

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by lazs2
it is a hoax as it is presented..  it is also a very small slice of time so far as the planet goes

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11

http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/parody/tcs/

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/10/30/arctic-sea-ice-another-hockey-stick/

I mean.. even the UN left the silly thing out of their last report...

lazs

Do you read the sites you quote from?

This is from the site you posted above...http://www.realclimate.org.

MYTH #4: Errors in the "Hockey Stick" undermine the conclusion that late 20th century hemispheric warmth is anomalous.


This statement embraces at least two distinct falsehoods. The first falsehood holds that the "Hockey Stick" is the result of one analysis or the analysis of one group of researchers (i.e., that of Mann et al, 1998 and Mann et al, 1999). However, as discussed in the response to Myth #1 above, the basic conclusions of Mann et al (1998,1999) are affirmed in multiple independent studies. Thus, even if there were errors in the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction, numerous other studies independently support the conclusion of anomalous late 20th century hemispheric-scale warmth.

[lasersailor184]

Originally posted by Donzo
Yes.

On a larger scale the level could actually go down.

Why?  

Because of the air trapped in the ice.  The air itself has a weight and this contributes to the overall weight of the ice.  This in turn displaces a certain volume of water.  When the ice melts the air escapes and it's contribution to the weight that displaced the water is gone so less is displaced.

There is one way to test it.  It's not that hard to make pure ice.  


Take some water, boil it once.  Let it sit.  Boil it again.  Let it sit.  Then freeze it.

It should be free of all the impurities and airbubbles, and be clear.

[Angus]

Lazs:
"it is a hoax as it is presented.. it is also a very small slice of time so far as the planet goes"

A small slice of time is the timeframe within we have seen quite some changes.
Or is it that day of your month that there is a no-see?

[lazs2]

we have more polar bears now than ever before..  they do best during the warm periods of our natural climate cycles...

much like we do and almost every other species.

lazs

[lazs2]

crock-it... I see you have embraced the new PC "global climate change" now that winter and the ice storms are upon us...

pretty hard to sell that nasty old man made global warming thing when none of the predictions come true... so much better to simply say... "no matter what the weather does.. it is mans fault"

That way... no matter what happens.. the research money doesn't dry up.

lazs

[crockett]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WEATHER/12/23/winter.storm/index.html

http://www.mlive.com/news/citpat/index.ssf?/base/news-23/119790393239660.xml&coll=3

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7148300.stm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21942586/

http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=2460


Also:

First off I said "climate change" not "Global warming" as I think the term Global Warming is too hard for some people to understand.

The reason it's generally called "Global Warming" is because that's the trend for the overall planet. It doesn't on the other hand mean that it's going to get hot everywhere.

The warming trend causes the weather to go a bit out of whack. Some areas will most definatelly get warmer meanwhile other area will get cooler. The main thing is the weather will likely get more extreme and that's exactly what the scientist have been saying.

The only real issues is if you believe that man is playing a role or not. I think you have to be pretty dumb if you can't see our ice caps and ice packs are melting.

Considering the consequences are pretty drastic is it worth the risk that you maybe wrong? Is spending a few extra bucks really that big of a deal if we might be able to slow it down or stop it?

It's not like making things more environmentally friendly is going to go to waste. It's still going to help the environment and give you and your kids a better place to live.

[crockett]

Originally posted by lazs2
crock-it... I see you have embraced the new PC "global climate change" now that winter and the ice storms are upon us...

pretty hard to sell that nasty old man made global warming thing when none of the predictions come true... so much better to simply say... "no matter what the weather does.. it is mans fault"

That way... no matter what happens.. the research money doesn't dry up.

lazs

I've always called it Global Climate Change because guys like you don't understand what "Global Warming" really means. So we have to dumb it down for the typical right winger conservatives to understand.

I guess it's far too hard to put the words "Global + Warming" together and have you understand that it means the entire planet's average temperature..

[indy007]

It's not about whether its "Global Climate Change" or "Global Warming".

You'd have to be an idiot to argue that.

The only important part is the "Man-Made" in front of it, and the accuracy of that claim.