| Blogs > Osmoses |
|
7mk
Germany10157 Posts
On December 23 2009 08:46 Alur wrote: Do you really think that the scientist behind the global warming reasearch would make such critical mistakes? Exactly, I heard the guy is pretty smart | ||
|
Alur
Denmark3900 Posts
That's actually quite hilarious. Fixed. | ||
|
Psyonic_Reaver
United States4336 Posts
| ||
|
seppolevne
Canada1681 Posts
On December 23 2009 08:02 eXigent. wrote: What about coastal cities like vancouver, new york, florida etc. All of the major port cities that are located at sea level will flood. 20cm is over a foot of water. Having a foot of water flood all of those major cities will be a huge disaster. I can predict sewer systems all along the coast being overfilled and backing up, and tons of contaminated water to deal with at the very least, let alone all of the structural damage it would cause to the cities and all of the sinkholes / mudslides / electricity problems it would cause. Do you build a Dam all the way around the coast of the world? 0o A ruler begs to differ. | ||
|
Dasher
United States71 Posts
No king can tell us how long a foot is. Damn monarchs. | ||
|
JohnColtrane
Australia4813 Posts
haha | ||
|
FortuneSyn
1826 Posts
| ||
|
REDBLUEGREEN
Germany1903 Posts
On December 23 2009 08:57 Psyonic_Reaver wrote: Here's a surprise! The Earth is changing! Just like it's done the past Billions of years! Who knows, maybe Ohio will be the new polar ice cap? Of course the earth is an unstable system and changes are natural, same as tsunamies which kill 300,000 people in SE Asia are natural. Doesn't mean we should ignore the dangers of change does it? | ||
|
ArmChairCritic
Sweden36 Posts
gg no re | ||
|
Steveh
United States112 Posts
quack quack quack quack | ||
|
ArmChairCritic
Sweden36 Posts
On December 23 2009 08:57 Psyonic_Reaver wrote: Here's a surprise! The Earth is changing! Just like it's done the past Billions of years! Who knows, maybe Ohio will be the new polar ice cap? Here's a suprise! It isn't morally right to make other people pay for your actions! So we should stop polluting and thus making billions of people life's a bit better, | ||
|
gyth
657 Posts
Scientists previously lacked knowledge of changes in terrestrial storage of water. Surveying of water retention by soil absorption and by reservoirs outright ("impoundment") at just under the volume of Lake Superior agreed with a dam-building peak in the 1930s-1970s timespan. Such impoundment masked tens of millimetres of sea level rise in that span. ( Impact of Artificial Reservoir Water Impoundment on Global Sea Level. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/320/5873/212?rss=1. B. F. Chao,* Y. H. Wu, Y. S. Li). Just need to build more dams, problem solved ...err masked. | ||
|
synapse
China13814 Posts
By Archimedes's principle, we know that any ice floating in ocean water would not raise the sea level at all. However, the melting of ice caps / glaciers WILL cause significant rises in sea level; you cannot calculate sea rise linearly (with your little 2mm x 100) because ice reflects sunlight much better than water does, so as more and more ice melts, there is more water -> water soaks up more heat -> ice melts even faster. Vicious cycle of doom. | ||
|
Trident
Bhutan54 Posts
On December 23 2009 08:14 Osmoses wrote: Ifs and buts, I'm thinking the sea level would have to rise pretty damn fast to cause any significant problems. So, lets focus now and forget the future, eh? | ||
|
Alethios
New Zealand2765 Posts
I really expected better from teamliquid. So much armchair science going on. Your arrogance astounds me. How could you possibly think something as vastly complex as the earth's climate can be solved with one short sentence? Actually... well done to many of you, you've exposed the myth that is global warming. It's that easy. Seriously. All the scientists (amongst which there is a greater consensus than any other field of science) are wrong. There is nothing to worry about, we can all go back to business as usual. Seriously though, do you actually think nobody has considered the immensely basic principal that the melting of suspended ice does not increase the water level in and of itself? I'm reminded of an xkcd comic: ![[image loading]](http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/revolutionary.png) Oh and here is most of the climate change denier's arguments refuted in one go. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://www.thestandard.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/climate_skeptics_960w.gif) To quote xkcd again: What is more likely -- that you have uncovered fundamental flaws in this field that nobody has ever thought about, or that you need to read a little more? Hint: It's the one that involves doing less work and sticking your head in the sand. | ||
micronesia
United States24677 Posts
On December 23 2009 11:49 Alethios wrote: What is more likely -- that you have uncovered fundamental flaws in this field that nobody has ever thought about, or that you need to read a little more? Hint: It's the one that involves doing less work and sticking your head in the sand. As true as your message is, I'm reminded of the fact that it took millennia before people refuted the popular belief that heavier items fall faster... and all you have to do to disprove it is take two dissimilar items out of your pocket and drop them... On the other hand I don't think that counterexample applies well to such heated contemporary issues as global warming or evolution. | ||
|
synapse
China13814 Posts
That is an awesome picture. I think I'll use that in every global warming argument i ever enter  | ||
|
Alethios
New Zealand2765 Posts
On December 23 2009 11:59 micronesia wrote: As true as your message is, I'm reminded of the fact that it took millennia before people refuted the popular belief that heavier items fall faster... and all you have to do to disprove it is take two dissimilar items out of your pocket and drop them... On the other hand I don't think that counterexample applies well to such heated contemporary issues as global warming or evolution. Your point is a good one, we must be mindful of allowing ourselves to become trapped within our axioms. The reason, I feel, that such an idea survived for so long, was because it was itself axiomatic and simply accepted as fact rather than extensively researched. Scientists in the field know how much resistance there is to the widespread acceptance of their theory. One feels, upon reading such reports as those given to congress last year, that they have gone above and beyond what would generally be required. On December 23 2009 12:00 synapse wrote: That is an awesome picture. I think I'll use that in every global warming argument i ever enter Yeah, I pretty stoked to stumble across it myself. | ||
|
eXigent.
Canada2419 Posts
LOL thats what I get for mixing mass quantities of marijuana with simple 2nd grade math skills. Sigh. | ||
|
Ludrik
Australia523 Posts
This is also without taking into account the fact that ice will reflect a lot of radiation away while water will absorb more of it, this also causes the energy going into the system to increase and can occur without significant temperature change (because of what I explained in my first paragraph). This process can also cause a local decrease in air temperature because a lower proportion of energy is being radiated back through the atmosphere.(due to increased levels of liquid water) Most people don't seem to look at the system as a whole. They will either look solely at atmospheric temps or surface temps without understanding how they're interelated. Reduction in polar ice caps shows that the enthalpy of the system is increasing. This is essentially acting as a buffer to temperature change. The more they reduce the greater the acceleration of temperature change will be because energy will no longer be able to stored by merely a substance changing state. | ||
| ||
|
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV European League
Online Event
PiGosaur Monday
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
Sparkling Tuna Cup
|
|
|
EPT
