Author Topic: global warning update.  (Read 6881 times)

Offline Holden McGroin

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8591
global warning update.
« Reply #270 on: June 15, 2006, 06:26:36 AM »
Beetle, I was quoting lukster, and it looks like he did not have a close quote on his quote of yours that was just the caption of the greenland pic.

Angus using your post, you quote "Global ocean levels are rising twice as fast today as they were 150 years ago, and human-induced warming appears to be the culprit, say scientists at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, and collaborating institutions."

In that article* it also says, "The findings establish a steady millimeter-per-year rise from 5,000 years ago until about 200 years ago."

So twice as fast would be 2 mm/yr.

Then you quote, "However, over the past century, sea level over much of the United States has risen by 25 to 30 centimeters relative to land, according to Jim Titus, the Environmental Protection Agency's project manager on sea level rise. Even that figure is a guesstimate, Titus says. "We only know that sea level last century rose more than average over the last several thousand years."

250 to 300 mm / hundred yrs is 2.5 to 3 mm/yr.

Which expert is right?

*also found at science daily
Holden McGroin LLC makes every effort to provide accurate and complete information. Since humor, irony, and keen insight may be foreign to some readers, no warranty, expressed or implied is offered. Re-writing this disclaimer cost me big bucks at the lawyer’s office!

Offline bj229r

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6732
global warning update.
« Reply #271 on: June 15, 2006, 06:41:55 AM »
Al Gore worries the world's getting hot,
    And all over the globe he will trot,
    Warmly warning the masses
    About grave greenhouse gases
    Caused by people who travel a lot.
    -- F.R. Duplantier
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers

http://www.flamewarriors.net/forum/

Offline Hap

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3908
global warning update.
« Reply #272 on: June 15, 2006, 06:48:46 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Ripsnort
And when did we offically begin keeping historic weather records? The past 80 years? Compare that to the planet, which is more than a billion years old....



Then, over the last 80 years, we've been heating up.  And as far as earth being a billion + years old.  i don't think that is the case at all.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

hap

Offline Jackal1

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9092
global warning update.
« Reply #273 on: June 15, 2006, 06:49:04 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Angus
Jackal, I am not getting you. You're getting stuck in total nonsense. Or rather, debating in a field where you are lost?
 


I can see where you are not getting me Angus. :) Where the nonsense comes in is when you start in the middle or nearing the end of a process instead of the beginning. One of us is lost Angus..and I don`t believe it is me. :)

Quote
Does it cost more energy to create a vehicle than the vehicle will consume in it's lifespan? From scratch to the end of the assembly line?


Makes no difference Angus. Fuel consumption from the tractor is not factoring end the process of it`s being built, shipped, etc. from the beginning of the process. It also doesn`t factor in the C02 produced and emitted. It doesn`t factor in the C02 emiited in the exploration, drilling, recovery,refining, producing, shipping, etc even of the fuel itself. Remember...we`re talking your global warming theory here that you are in such a frenzy over. If you have a theoretical cure for this highly theoretical problem, then you will have to consider starting at the BEGINNING of the process for the cure, not in the middle or near the end. Old saying here "That`s like burning down the barn to get rid of the rats."

Quote
But who am I to ask, if you do not even understand the essence of photosyntesis and what soil contains?


LOL OK.......is this the point we start insulting each other? I certainly hope not. I can do that with Beetle. :)

There is no answer to a problem that hasn`t even been proved to be a problem yet. (global warming)
If one thing has been shown in this thread it is that there is mass confusion and total uncertainty concerning the theory of global warming.
The one thing that I have seen that makes more sense and carries more weight, to me, in anything I have read concerning this so far is this line from the article I posted...."The reality is that the more scientists study climate, the more aware they are of its incredible complexity."
I ,for one, like to know that there actualy is a problem , before the entire world is forced to go on a wild goose chase. The fact is, that it is just plain unknown. I don`t consider natural changes in the earth to be a problem......at least to the point of believing we can change the natural course of mother nature. If I did I would be living on the wrong planet. :)
« Last Edit: June 15, 2006, 07:01:20 AM by Jackal1 »
Democracy is two wolves deciding on what to eat. Freedom is a well armed sheep protesting the vote.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Offline Mini D

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6897
      • Fat Drunk Bastards
global warning update.
« Reply #274 on: June 15, 2006, 07:21:50 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Angus
Yet another little goodie:
[IMG]"Global sea level rise is caused by two factors. One is the delivery of water to the ocean as land ice melts, such as mountain glaciers and polar icecaps.
BZZZZZZZZT.

Unless the polar icecap is frozen over something solid, which it is not in most places, this is not the case. If I giant mountain size chunk of ice breaks off of it and floats in the ocean, the rest of the ice will rise just a little because it's mass has been reduced. That will cause a drop in sea level. The huge new iceburg will then displace an equivelent amount of water. The only thing is that now there is a larger surface area of ice that will be exposed to air and water which means it melts faster.... causing the effective level to drop.
Quote
Does it measure?
Quote
"Warming ocean = rising ocean?
After the last ice age, the rapid melting of glaciers rapidly raised sea level. That melting tapered off about 6,000 years ago, and sea level -- compared to land -- became fairly stable. However, over the past century, sea level over much of the United States has risen by 25 to 30 centimeters relative to land, according to Jim Titus, the Environmental Protection Agency's project manager on sea level rise. Even that figure is a guesstimate, Titus says. "We only know that sea level last century rose more than average over the last several thousand years."
An unbiased source to be sure, with the "it's just a guess" caveate.

What part of florida is being flooded out again? I know... the flooding in Louisianna is proof of it. Wait... it's the ummmm.

1/3 of killimanjaro's glacier has melted and nobody's noticed. There's a doom and gloom for you. This is because of global warming... because precipitation has nothing to do with an glacier reducing in size, it's all about global warming.

This is religion with most folks. They believe something and they're looking for anything that supports it. Nobody from your camp will point to a glacier that's growing in size. That is counter productive. It's important to remember that there are glaciers that are shrinking on FIVE CONTINENTS!... and less important to remember they didn't say "all of the glaciers on five continents are shrinking". This is not science. It's panic inducing datamining.

1) create panic
2) ask for money

Really... spend some time thinking about that when you read these things.

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
global warning update.
« Reply #275 on: June 15, 2006, 07:48:50 AM »
WOOT!
1. A chunk of ice falling from solid ground into water will increase the level of the water. Try getting into yer bathtub M8 and see what happens.
2. That chunk melting in the water will not affect the volume. Make a test, put an icecube in yer whiskyglass. Whisky rises. Wait untill it melts. Whisky stays in the high level.
And here:
"BZZZZZZZZT.

Unless the polar icecap is frozen over something solid, which it is not in most places"

It is. The main volume is in Antarctica. The amount stored on the land of Greenland is also quite impressive.
But again, I said this:
"I don't see a quick doomsday here for Antarctica will hold quite long."

And Jackal. I am serious. You're lost here.
Oil. How much energy goes getting it compared to the energy output? NEVER MORE THAN THE ENERGY OUTPUT. Or do you need a liter of oil to bring a liter to the gas station?????????
And how much energy goes into creating, say a Tractor. Would be very logical to assume LESS than the vehicle consumes in its lifespan. Actually you should be able to calculate it from the price of it. It cannot cost more than a certain value in energy.......
And Photosyntesis and the function and containance of soil, biomass, - the very essence of properly vegetated areas do bind up CO2. You only need a share of the area to maintain itself with the charbon needed for the job. Depends on where on the globe you are.
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline lukster

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2581
global warning update.
« Reply #276 on: June 15, 2006, 09:15:16 AM »
Angus, one of the articles you just quoted said that ice is breaking off from Antarctica at an alarming rate. I mentioned this before and pointed out that since Antarctica is no where near melting, any part of it, this can only be caused by an increase in the amount of ice building up there. Won't you agree then that that author is being either very disingenuous or ignorant?


I'll concede that we really don't know why the ice there may be breaking off at an increasing rate.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2006, 09:37:12 AM by lukster »

Offline Jackal1

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9092
global warning update.
« Reply #277 on: June 15, 2006, 10:10:18 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Angus

And Jackal. I am serious. You're lost here.
Oil. How much energy goes getting it compared to the energy output? NEVER MORE THAN THE ENERGY OUTPUT. Or do you need a liter of oil to bring a liter to the gas station?????????
And how much energy goes into creating, say a Tractor. Would be very logical to assume LESS than the vehicle consumes in its lifespan. Actually you should be able to calculate it from the price of it. It cannot cost more than a certain value in energy.......
 


No Angus, I disagree. It is you that are lost IMHO. You are still using magic wand as if the said tractor or tractors magical appear on location of use. Not the case. You are not even considering iron ore exploration, mining, refining to the point of use. Then the shiiping and production of metal for parts, the factories involved in the making of the parts......more shipping ....more factories for production.....more shipping. Factories and operations, vehciles to shp..all belching mass, mass quanities of C02 in the process. Same with oil exploration, drilling , refining , shipping..on and on and on. Your dog won`t hunt bud. :) You are suggesting burning down the barn to kill the rats. Then you will turn right around and suggest that vehicles using oil byproducts should be eliminated to reduce C02 emmisions. Can`t have your cake and eat it too. Things just do not magical appear. They have to be built.

Quote
And Photosyntesis and the function and containance of soil, biomass, - the very essence of properly vegetated areas do bind up CO2. You only need a share of the area to maintain itself with the charbon needed for the job. Depends on where on the globe you are.


As said before.....granted. But if mass areas of forest/vegetation are left untended/unthinned/unharvested, such as would be the case in your mass forests theory, they will emit more C02 than can be bound, It will enter the atmosphere. (rotting,decomposition) Otherwise you wouldn`t be worried or concerned about the permafrost. :)

The true effects are not known due to the unknowns/unpredictables not being availble to enter into scenarios/equations when it comes to the global warming theory. Noone can predict or put them into a sterile scenario/theory/equation. They are just that...unknowns.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2006, 10:22:06 AM by Jackal1 »
Democracy is two wolves deciding on what to eat. Freedom is a well armed sheep protesting the vote.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
global warning update.
« Reply #278 on: June 15, 2006, 10:49:25 AM »
Lukster:
"Angus, one of the articles you just quoted said that ice is breaking off from Antarctica at an alarming rate. I mentioned this before and pointed out that since Antarctica is no where near melting, any part of it, this can only be caused by an increase in the amount of ice building up there. Won't you agree then that that author is being either very disingenuous or ignorant?"

Firstly, do you have a source there?
Secondly, tell me from WHAT is the sea level rising?
For although the N-Pole is melting swiftly that icemass bobbing in the ocean does NOT raise the SL.
Thirdly, why is there only an increased meltdown up north ???? N-Polar melting exclusive?

And Jackal:
"As said before.....granted. But if mass areas of forest/vegetation are left untended/unthinned/unharvested, such as would be the case in your mass forests theory, they will emit more C02 than can be bound, It will enter the atmosphere. (rotting,decomposition) Otherwise you wouldn`t be worried or concerned about the permafrost."
Absolute nonsense and this has gone 180 degrees in your head.
"Free" or "Wild" forests bind more material then they release. It's called soil. Therefore it has been excercized in quite notable amounts in the 20th century to take a "rotting" forest, burn it down for quick access to the soil (thereby emitting all the Charbon tied in the upper biomass) then planting and replanting the soil untill all the "juice" is gone. The leftover will corrode or become a modest grassland. Lovely and smart, isn't it. Example: Brazil.
And that IS why I worry about the meltings of the Tundra. The permafrost stores ancient remains of boglands and other dead greenmass. It contains vast amounts of C and Methane. Ooops, how does vegetation store methane?

Second one.
"No Angus, I disagree. It is you that are lost IMHO. You are still using magic wand as if the said tractor or tractors magical appear on location of use. Not the case. You are not even considering iron ore exploration, mining, refining to the point of use. Then the shiiping and production of metal for parts, the factories involved in the making of the parts......more shipping ....more factories for production.....more shipping. Factories and operations, vehciles to shp..all belching mass, mass quanities of C02 in the process. Same with oil exploration, drilling , refining , shipping..on and on and on."

Give me a number. It has to be very very high. To axcept your point is 2 things:
1. Mechanized Agriculture cannot but emit more C than it binds.
2. Therefore non-mechanized Agriculture would be better.

And again, show some figures. Flash the cash. Like I said, this is a calculable point, - a point of pivot where the energy costs of creating machinery exceed the practical level. Claim this if you like, but I've sure never heard anyone claim it before.
I didn't claim they appear in thin air, don't try to turn things into such nonsense. But there is a limit to the cost.
BTW, a Typical tractor like mine will probably consume a few times its own price worth in fuel. If the energy costs in creating that piece of equipment are more than what it costs on the market, who bears the loss? Get me?
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline lukster

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2581
global warning update.
« Reply #279 on: June 15, 2006, 12:06:21 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Angus
Secondly, tell me from WHAT is the sea level rising?
For although the N-Pole is melting swiftly that icemass bobbing in the ocean does NOT raise the SL.
Thirdly, why is there only an increased meltdown up north ???? N-Polar melting exclusive?


Are you saying that sea level is rising? What is your source?

What I've been reading is that ice has been melting in one place while reforming in another in continuous cycles for all of recorded history.

What you're article stated was that ice is breaking off from Antarctica in record levels. It does not say whether it is due to melting of the shelves or simply that more ice is being produced which naturally results in more breaking off at the edges. I don't know which it is and I suspect that at this time neither does anyone else.

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
global warning update.
« Reply #280 on: June 15, 2006, 01:49:34 PM »
Sea levels rising. Yes.
Try google :D
You might even find out by how much...approximately.
Some land is rising too so the measuring is a bit tough.
So, there is a debate, not whether the SL is rising but by how much exactly.

And here's another physics test.
Take a glass of water. Put a line on the glass at the waterlevel. Pour one ounce into a little form and freeze it. You will now observe that the level is below the line. Now put the frozen water into the glass again. Where is the line compared to the waterlevel now?
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Jackal1

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9092
global warning update.
« Reply #281 on: June 15, 2006, 05:45:19 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Angus

And Jackal:
"Free" or "Wild" forests bind more material then they release. It's called soil. Therefore it has been excercized in quite notable amounts in the 20th century to take a "rotting" forest, burn it down for quick access to the soil (thereby emitting all the Charbon tied in the upper biomass) then planting and replanting the soil untill all the "juice" is gone. The leftover will corrode or become a modest grassland.  


Free or wild forests? We`re talking your mystical , magical mass forests that you claimed cure to global warming. They don`t magicaly appear Angus. They will have to be planted . To plant they will have to have machinery. To have the machinery someone has to build it. When built, they have to have and burn fuel. To get the fuel it has to be explored, drilled, tapped, refined and shipped. Just like all of the above. Things simply just do not magical appear. Start at the start of this magical solution of yours. Incluide all steps. Not just the latter.
Then when you get to that point you have forests that will , if not thinned, will have fallen timber , which will rot.decay. In the process not all C02 is bound. It is released into the atmosphere. Just as your global warming theorists suggest. They are worried about the existing, not the mystical, yet to be planted.
Then......................... ...

Quote
Give me a number.

You are the paper/computer farmer, not me. I would rather deal with reality.

Quote
1. Mechanized Agriculture cannot but emit more C than it binds.

Wheeeeeeeew talk about your 180s. )

Sure it emits more...in big, big loads. That`s the point I have been putting forth and you have been pulling the magic wands. You are figuring from when the machinery is on the spot/in place/on site. Whatever you wish to call it. You can`t wave that magic wand and get the machinery to appear. There is many, many  steps before the machinery is on site. All of which produce mass amounts of C02 which is spewed into the atmosphere. Then as has been explained many, many times so far....the fuel does not magicaly appear on site. Many, many steps before it reachs that point all of which spews mass amounts of C02 in the air.
Up to this point I haven`t even mentioned the plastics, rubber, glass, alloy production and shipping of such. All of which produce mass amounts of C02 that is put into the atmosphere.

Quote
2. Therefore non-mechanized Agriculture would be better.


LMAO........Yea...haul out the Ancient Eygyptians.

Quote
And again, show some figures. Flash the cash. Like I said, this is a calculable point, - a point of pivot where the energy costs of creating machinery exceed the practical level. Claim this if you like, but I've sure never heard anyone claim it before.

Try common sense. Works real well.

Quote
I didn't claim they appear in thin air, don't try to turn things into such nonsense. But there is a limit to the cost.


No. You are just putting them on site magiical . :) That`s the nonsense.
The nonsense is not taking the theory from the beginning , instead of trying to start in the middle or near the end. It is a fairy tale at that point. Which it is anyway, but hey.......................... ..........:)



Quote
BTW, a Typical tractor like mine will probably consume a few times its own price worth in fuel. If the energy costs in creating that piece of equipment are more than what it costs on the market, who bears the loss? Get me?


Loss, smoss.  Dollars/cents. I could care less. I don`t think your tractor can be counted upon to plant these mass forests of yours. :)
Get back to your mystical forests to cure global warming.
To undertake such a project on such a scale that would even show up in a percentage of one percent...you would have to either take the current factories/refineries, etc and either add to them by building more.or increase the current ones production by 10, 20,30, 40 fold.
Now ...are you trying to tell me that the forests/vegetation planted with the machinery produced, factoring in the unimagianable amounts of C02 spewed into the atmosphere would be taken care of by the amount of forests/vewgetation planted? Horse crap.
If that were true , then the global warming theory would immediately have to be thrown out the window and considered a fairy tale by everyone. (which btw it is by a lot of us:)) The reason being, is that if it were true, then there would be no problem to begin with because the current forests/vegetation would be taking care of existing pollutants with room to spare.
Either that, or the so called scientists would be suggesting the exact opposite of what is currently be suggested. That being that we should crank up/increase oil byproduct/fuel useage to the max build/transport machinery and oil to plant these mystical,magical forests.
The whole kit and kaboodle is a load of horse crap.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2006, 05:51:48 PM by Jackal1 »
Democracy is two wolves deciding on what to eat. Freedom is a well armed sheep protesting the vote.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Offline lukster

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2581
global warning update.
« Reply #282 on: June 15, 2006, 06:02:50 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Angus
Sea levels rising. Yes.
Try google :D
You might even find out by how much...approximately.
Some land is rising too so the measuring is a bit tough.
So, there is a debate, not whether the SL is rising but by how much exactly.

And here's another physics test.
Take a glass of water. Put a line on the glass at the waterlevel. Pour one ounce into a little form and freeze it. You will now observe that the level is below the line. Now put the frozen water into the glass again. Where is the line compared to the waterlevel now?


Not significantly.

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

Offline weaselsan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
global warning update.
« Reply #283 on: June 15, 2006, 06:07:43 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Hehe.

Well, we do know for a fact the ozone layer has been depleted over the polar ice caps at both poles.  Seems to me, more UV, more meltage.

The problem I have with virtually every study I have seen/read is they either do not list all the variables they included in the study, or they list them and they are falling way short of all the potential variables.

A study looking a CO2 increases, and nothing else, is rather useless.  One that adds water vapor is still useless.  There are just too many variables involved for any current study to make an absolute statement about what is going on and way it is happening.


No problem...I have the perfect PC solution. We can launch the shuttle and install a large condom over the hole in the ozone. Then we can all have safe sun.

Offline weaselsan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
global warning update.
« Reply #284 on: June 15, 2006, 06:13:34 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Angus
Sea levels rising. Yes.
Try google :D
You might even find out by how much...approximately.
Some land is rising too so the measuring is a bit tough.
So, there is a debate, not whether the SL is rising but by how much exactly.

And here's another physics test.
Take a glass of water. Put a line on the glass at the waterlevel. Pour one ounce into a little form and freeze it. You will now observe that the level is below the line. Now put the frozen water into the glass again. Where is the line compared to the waterlevel now?


Sea level could rise by 1 to 4 inches in the next 5,000 years. I have seen places around the Globe that has tidal shifts of over 40 meters. Hit the rack in forty meters of water, wake up high and dry.