|
First of all, what is a polar ice cap? Polar ice I get, but what's a cap?
Second of all, I had this discussion with some friends the other day about global warming and all that jazz, and I got a brainwave about the polar ice.
People wail and go on about how the polar ice will melt and drown the world like in Waterworld with Kevin Costner, that movie where he hits a naked chick in the head with an oar. I'm questioning this assumption.
Granted, there is a lot of ice on the poles. When ice melts, it becomes water, and if enough ice melts, the water levels rise, right? But have you ever tried filling a swimming pool with water? Even a little blow-up one? It takes fucking forever to raise the water level even a centimeter. It takes huge amounts of water to increase the level in a swimming pool, so I went on a limb and just assumed that it would take a really, really, really huge amount to raise the water level of the world's oceans.
I suppose you might say "well, there's a really, really, really huge amount of ice at the poles". But if you finished preschool you would know that when water freezes into ice, it actually increases in volume. If you watch discovery every now and then, or if you have someone in your life who like to make cryptic claims about hidden information, you would also know that as far as icebergs go, 90% or so is underneath the surface of the water. Basically the ice takes more room frozen than if it were melted into water. So shouldn't the world's ocean levels in fact recede if the polar ice caps melt?
Just a thought, anyone here good at volumes and geography? Or with any kind of higher learning beyond preschool?
 
|
United States24734 Posts
Yes this misconception has been brought up many times. Much of the ice we are talking about is not floating.
|
Even so, is there really enough ice to raise the water level of the entire world by any significant degree?
|
|
|
The major problem with polar ice caps melting is that the reflectivity of the Earth (albedo) decreases, because ground and water absorbs more radiation than ice. With the ice caps gone, land and ocean would have increased surface area, meaning they would warm up faster.
Ultimately, the major component of rising sea levels is not due to more water with the ice caps gone. It is due to the thermal expansion of water. The warmer the water gets, the more it expands, and the higher the sea levels will be.
|
Just a note. British Antarctic survey tells us that western Antarctica sea ice is cracking off!!!! yet in the eastern Antarctic the ice is expanding`!!!!!
"(D)uring the winter freeze in Antarctica this ice cover expands to an area roughly twice the size of Europe. Ranging in thickness from less than a metre to several metres, the ice insulates the warm ocean from the frigid atmosphere above. Satellite images show that since the 1970s the extent of Antarctic sea ice has increased at a rate of 100,000 square kilometres a decade."
|
it depends if the ice is floating or if it's a giant mass under the ocean.
another reason is that the floating ice is fresh water because it came for precipitation, and the others are salt water, which displaces more water when melted.
something like that, i remember very little after doing a little paper on it this semester.
|
On December 23 2009 07:42 arcticStorm wrote:
The major problem with polar ice caps melting is that the reflectivity of the Earth (albedo) decreases, because ground and water absorbs more radiation than ice. With the ice caps gone, land and ocean would have increased surface area, meaning they would warm up faster.
Ultimately, the major component of rising sea levels is not due to more water with the ice caps gone. It is due to the thermal expansion of water. The warmer the water gets, the more it expands, and the higher the sea levels will be.
Thank god someone pointed this out, because apparently half the world fucking failed 7th grade physical science and never drank any beverage with ice in it, the displacement is already there.
|
OK so from wikipedia I got that the sea level appears to be rising at about 2mm per year. Which means that in about 100 years it will have risen about 20cm? I guess that sucks for those paradise islands that are only like a meter above sea level (though anyone could surely figure out a solution or build a small dam even in 100 years?) but for the rest of the world I really don't see how its a disaster.
|
On December 23 2009 07:51 Osmoses wrote:
OK so from wikipedia I got that the sea level appears to be rising at about 2mm per year. Which means that in about 100 years it will have risen about 20cm? I guess that sucks for those paradise islands that are only like a meter above sea level (though anyone could surely figure out a solution or build a small dam even in 100 years?) but for the rest of the world I really don't see how its a disaster.
ummmm i think it's 0.02 x 100 :S so it'd be 2cm? am i even right? lol
|
On December 23 2009 07:51 Osmoses wrote:
OK so from wikipedia I got that the sea level appears to be rising at about 2mm per year. Which means that in about 100 years it will have risen about 20cm? I guess that sucks for those paradise islands that are only like a meter above sea level (though anyone could surely figure out a solution or build a small dam even in 100 years?) but for the rest of the world I really don't see how its a disaster.
Yeah, long-term isn't important. Let's focus on the NOW
|
On December 23 2009 07:54 ShroomyD wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2009 07:51 Osmoses wrote:
OK so from wikipedia I got that the sea level appears to be rising at about 2mm per year. Which means that in about 100 years it will have risen about 20cm? I guess that sucks for those paradise islands that are only like a meter above sea level (though anyone could surely figure out a solution or build a small dam even in 100 years?) but for the rest of the world I really don't see how its a disaster. ummmm i think it's 0.02 x 100 :S so it'd be 2cm? am i even right? lol
1 cm = 10 mm
0.2 cm x 100 = 20 cm
Units people, units. ;]
|
On December 23 2009 07:31 Osmoses wrote:
Or with any kind of higher learning beyond preschool?
Nope.
|
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
|
On December 23 2009 07:55 Jyvblamo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2009 07:54 ShroomyD wrote:On December 23 2009 07:51 Osmoses wrote:
OK so from wikipedia I got that the sea level appears to be rising at about 2mm per year. Which means that in about 100 years it will have risen about 20cm? I guess that sucks for those paradise islands that are only like a meter above sea level (though anyone could surely figure out a solution or build a small dam even in 100 years?) but for the rest of the world I really don't see how its a disaster. ummmm i think it's 0.02 x 100 :S so it'd be 2cm? am i even right? lol 1 cm = 10 mm 0.2 cm x 100 = 20 cm Units people, units. ;]
Hahaha oh dear 
On December 23 2009 07:55 LordWeird wrote:
Yeah, long-term isn't important. Let's focus on the NOW
Assuming this went on for like another 1000 years, 2 meters higher sea level, the ice ought to be pretty damn gone by then :p I mean I only just learned its actually the thermal expansion that's the biggest factor here, but come on, you think in 1000 years the water level will be a concern at all? If global warming exists and it gets hotter that might be bad, breathing poisonous fumes might be bad, but surely the rising water levels is the least of our problems?
edit:
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
In a hundred years those cities will be atolls.
No but seriously the entire world coast is not at sea level. If the New York Harbor is in fact juuust 20 cm over sea level then not only does some city planner deserve to get fired, but his successor needs to put one more layer of brick on the coastline and they'll be all donesies.
|
On December 23 2009 08:03 Osmoses wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2009 07:55 Jyvblamo wrote:On December 23 2009 07:54 ShroomyD wrote:On December 23 2009 07:51 Osmoses wrote:
OK so from wikipedia I got that the sea level appears to be rising at about 2mm per year. Which means that in about 100 years it will have risen about 20cm? I guess that sucks for those paradise islands that are only like a meter above sea level (though anyone could surely figure out a solution or build a small dam even in 100 years?) but for the rest of the world I really don't see how its a disaster. ummmm i think it's 0.02 x 100 :S so it'd be 2cm? am i even right? lol 1 cm = 10 mm 0.2 cm x 100 = 20 cm Units people, units. ;] Hahaha oh dear Show nested quote +On December 23 2009 07:55 LordWeird wrote:
Yeah, long-term isn't important. Let's focus on the NOW Assuming this went on for like another 1000 years, 2 meters higher sea level, the ice ought to be pretty damn gone by then :p I mean I only just learned its actually the thermal expansion that's the biggest factor here, but come on, you think in 1000 years the water level will be a concern at all? If global warming exists and it gets hotter that might be bad, breathing poisonous fumes might be bad, but surely the rising water levels is the least of our problems?
Well, that projection is based on the assumption that the rise in sea level is linear with respect to time. But if the rate of ice melting is increasing, as it may be, then sea levels could rise substantially quicker and higher.
|
Ifs and buts, I'm thinking the sea level would have to rise pretty damn fast to cause any significant problems.
|
On December 23 2009 07:55 Jyvblamo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2009 07:54 ShroomyD wrote:On December 23 2009 07:51 Osmoses wrote:
OK so from wikipedia I got that the sea level appears to be rising at about 2mm per year. Which means that in about 100 years it will have risen about 20cm? I guess that sucks for those paradise islands that are only like a meter above sea level (though anyone could surely figure out a solution or build a small dam even in 100 years?) but for the rest of the world I really don't see how its a disaster. ummmm i think it's 0.02 x 100 :S so it'd be 2cm? am i even right? lol 1 cm = 10 mm 0.2 cm x 100 = 20 cm Units people, units. ;]
hahaha.....ooooopppppssss ^^;;;;;;
|
Do you really think that the scientists behind the global warming research would make such critical mistakes?
|
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?
But they might fix data to support their research. XD
|
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
|
On December 23 2009 08:55 7mk wrote:Show nested quote +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
That's actually quite hilarious. Fixed.
|
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?
|
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.
|
On December 23 2009 09:19 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +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.
No king can tell us how long a foot is. Damn monarchs.
|
On December 23 2009 09:19 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +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.
haha
|
Try observing the change in water level in a glass of water with a frozen ice and then after it melts.
|
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?
|
What alot of you cretins overlook is that the south pole and the ice on greenland is not floating in water but it is resting on landmass.
gg no re
|
i learned that iceland is really green and greenland is really icey on mighty ducks
quack quack quack quack
|
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,
|
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.
|
Polar ice caps are generally used to refer to any ice in a polar region, though ice caps specifically refer to ice over land (glaciers).
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.
|
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?
|
*sigh*
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:
Oh and here is most of the climate change denier's arguments refuted in one go.
+ Show Spoiler +
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.
|
United States24734 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.
|
That is an awesome picture. I think I'll use that in every global warming argument i ever enter 
|
On December 23 2009 11:59 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
On December 23 2009 09:19 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +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.
LOL thats what I get for mixing mass quantities of marijuana with simple 2nd grade math skills. Sigh.
|
Another thing people in this thread seem to be forgetting (or simply never learnt) is that a materials mean temperature doesn't begin to change significantly until a decent proportion of the material has changed state. Because of this mean surface temperatures at the polar ice caps won't change significantly. Locally both the ice and water may be 0 degrees C. However once the ratio of ice to water reduces you will begin to see an acceleration in temperature change, (because of the nature of heat transfer. with a lower surface area the ability of energy to transfer between the ice and water will reduce.).
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.
|
If the Earth suddenly decides to erupt all the volcanoes. Ain't shit we can do about it. If the Earth decides to melt the ice caps. Ain't shit we can do about it.
I'm all for making the air cleaner and recycling etc. It's just 99% of the World Population just doesn't give a shit.
|
On December 23 2009 11:59 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I think it does apply - there is absolutely a greater need for critical examination of issues than currently goes on, in my opinion. Questions like those of the original poster should absolutely be raised, but not without a significant attempt on the part of he/she who raises them to answer them in an educated manner.
Asking difficult questions without a significant attempt to answer them and educate is of course what you do when you want to discredit the opposing agenda without any real discrediting information...
|
Sanya12364 Posts
I'll believe the global warming climate alarmists as soon as they open up all their data and methodology up for review and their results can be replicated.
At this point, alarmists are trusting a bunch of scientists who are also happen to be very politically motivated. I don't buy all of the skeptical arguments, but until the scientists open up everything for review, it is a religion as far as I am concerned because it's all based on having faith in several key climate scientists and a bunch of climate models that have little track record for getting things right.
|
On December 23 2009 13:54 TanGeng wrote:
I'll believe the global warming climate alarmists as soon as they open up all their data and methodology up for review and their results can be replicated.
At this point, alarmists are trusting a bunch of scientists who are also happen to be very politically motivated. I don't buy all of the skeptical arguments, but until the scientists open up everything for review, it is a religion as far as I am concerned because it's all based on having faith in several key climate scientists and a bunch of climate models that have little track record for getting things right.
Are you saying people are making arguments based on things that aren't in the literature? Have you checked?
You're right that you shouldn't just believe what random people tell you, but you also shouldn't automatically believe the opposite! You should believe nothing at this point, while entertaining the possibilities. If you are really interested, then you should take the time to further educate yourself, and actually read the literature.
There is much debate over atmospheric modeling and such, but I don't believe there is any serious debate anymore about the physics of the greenhouse effect, or the anthropogenic increase of greenhouse gases. These, assuredly, are well published. As such, in the absence of significant cooling effects, it seems reasonable to conclude that Earth is getting hotter - we just don't know the timescale, or if any observed warming is actually the result of human activity. However, because of the possibility, acting on the claims of 'alarmists' actually seems to me to be the cautionary approach in this case.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Oh, I believe in very limited set of ideas, where the real consensus exists.
The effects of greenhouse gases is documented. It's also documented that methane and CFCs are hundreds of times more potent than CO2 because it exists in such smaller concentration in the atmosphere than CO2. Many of the CO2 abatement credits under Kyoto has been related to methane and CFCs abatement rather than cutbacks to CO2. Every doubling of CO2 produces 1 C of temperature increase. Human liberation of carbon into the atmosphere is going at a furious level. It's probable that humans are the cause of the rise of the CO2 as well.
The methodologies in climate science that are unclear or the results are not conclusive are the positive feedbacks assumed in the IPCC climate models - which also have no clear track record for making accurate climate predictions - and the long term records of surface temperature and proxy chronologies. These parts of the "consensus are black boxes. Looking at GISS, HADCRUT3, NCDC, and GHCN, there isn't remotely enough information to verify if their methodology is correct.
The so called independent verification of Mann's hockey stick are not independent verifications. Many of the these "verifications" use the same sets of proxies. Furthermore, the original hockey stick is over a thousand years of temperature reconstructions while newer "hockey sticks" agreement charts start off in 1400, omitting the era known as the medieval warm period. When the new reconstructions are extended further they put modern temperatures solidly within the confidence interval of the temperatures of the medieval warm period. So perhaps current temperatures aren't so unprecedented?
Frankly, I am tired of these misleading and incomplete arguments being pushed by proponents of CAGW. I don't like the misleading arguments of the skeptical side either, but at least they aren't proposing trillion dollars of taxation around the world in the form of carbon trading schemes - an inefficient and corruption-laden mechanism for cutting carbon emission.
As for the precautionary principle for acting before hard proof exist, that is a hedging strategy. It is proper to hedge, but precaution doesn't warrant such costly hedging like immediate CO2 abatement. It would instead suggest small amounts of hedging while putting more resources into verifying the risk - including funding the skeptics to poke holes in the CAGW thesis.
|
Yay I caused discussion ^^ And now I know the deal with "caps" as well.
The reason I put forth this question was because, as has been said and said better by other people, we've yet to have consensus on pretty much any of the environmental issues from our best and brightest, even about whether the issues exist at all! Showing neat charts off the internet doesn't really help when either side's arguments can be complete bullshit. Take the tooth paste commercials. What the fuck is fluor anyway and where could I find documented test results showing its positive effect on teeth if I gave a shit? Test results that were not doctored to shit to make us buy more tooth paste.
... So I figured the possibility that the rising water levels were not in fact catastrophic was a perfectly reasonable assumption. Every single day we are bombarded with fear, be it African killer bees, terrorists, Bush or Aids, and though I am by no means a conspiracy theorist (except on the internet, for the funsies), wouldn't it be terrific if it turns out the whole global warming thing was all an elaborate hoax to fund the government's drug habits? Obviously they wouldn't come out and actually say that there was never any evidence to support it, they'd just throw some smoke screens and dawdle until the next big fear came along. I'm thinking the next time it will be the slowing of the earth's core, due to all the mobile phones.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On December 23 2009 17:06 TanGeng wrote:
Oh, I believe in very limited set of ideas, where the real consensus exists.
The effects of greenhouse gases is documented. It's also documented that methane and CFCs are hundreds of times more potent than CO2 because it exists in such smaller concentration in the atmosphere than CO2. Many of the CO2 abatement credits under Kyoto has been related to methane and CFCs abatement rather than cutbacks to CO2. Every doubling of CO2 produces 1 C of temperature increase. Human liberation of carbon into the atmosphere is going at a furious level. It's probable that humans are the cause of the rise of the CO2 as well.
The methodologies in climate science that are unclear or the results are not conclusive are the positive feedbacks assumed in the IPCC climate models - which also have no clear track record for making accurate climate predictions - and the long term records of surface temperature and proxy chronologies. These parts of the "consensus are black boxes. Looking at GISS, HADCRUT3, NCDC, and GHCN, there isn't remotely enough information to verify if their methodology is correct.
The so called independent verification of Mann's hockey stick are not independent verifications. Many of the these "verifications" use the same sets of proxies. Furthermore, the original hockey stick is over a thousand years of temperature reconstructions while newer "hockey sticks" agreement charts start off in 1400, omitting the era known as the medieval warm period. When the new reconstructions are extended further they put modern temperatures solidly within the confidence interval of the temperatures of the medieval warm period. So perhaps current temperatures aren't so unprecedented?
Frankly, I am tired of these misleading and incomplete arguments being pushed by proponents of CAGW. I don't like the misleading arguments of the skeptical side either, but at least they aren't proposing trillion dollars of taxation around the world in the form of carbon trading schemes - an inefficient and corruption-laden mechanism for cutting carbon emission.
As for the precautionary principle for acting before hard proof exist, that is a hedging strategy. It is proper to hedge, but precaution doesn't warrant such costly hedging like immediate CO2 abatement. It would instead suggest small amounts of hedging while putting more resources into verifying the risk - including funding the skeptics to poke holes in the CAGW thesis.
I don't think we really disagree at all, or rather, on any issue on which I'm sufficiently informed to have an opinion. It seems like you don't really disagree with the principle of taking some action (even without conclusive science, which undoubtedly on many fronts we lack) but rather with the nature of current approaches to the issue. Anyway, I appreciate that you clarified your stance - I worried, initially, that your first post might to the hasty reader seem to validate a blindly anti-global-warming-activism stance, which ultimately is just as problematic as a blindly pro activism stance.
Also, you spoke assertively and aggressively on the internet, but you actually (as far as I can tell) had the knowledge to back it up. You are a rare breed - I think I love you. 
Osmoses - I like that you asked this as well. I think it's helpful to be skeptical, so long as you are indiscriminately skeptical (rather than just toward things you hope are false! :p) I prefer to take anything remotely questionable with a grain of salt and file it under "pending further investigation" if you see what I mean. Ultimately I think it's clear that humans are doing things that might in the future affect the climate (if not already), and it's clear that climate change could be potentially problematic (assuredly for biodiversity even if humans could avoid serious consequences), but the immediate connection between current climate trends and human activities is not at all well established.
Night everyone.
|
On December 23 2009 11:49 Alethios wrote:
How could you possibly think something as vastly complex as the earth's climate can be solved with one short sentence?
This is precisely why I hate this website so fucking much sometimes and why I continuously rail against the "TeamLiquid Know-it-alls"
Seriously, guys. You're not that fucking intelligent.
|
On December 23 2009 18:44 pubbanana wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2009 11:49 Alethios wrote:
How could you possibly think something as vastly complex as the earth's climate can be solved with one short sentence?
This is precisely why I hate this website so fucking much sometimes and why I continuously rail against the "TeamLiquid Know-it-alls" Seriously, guys. You're not that fucking intelligent.
maybe because 1 line per post equals more posts per day?
|
On December 24 2009 04:18 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2009 18:44 pubbanana wrote:On December 23 2009 11:49 Alethios wrote:
How could you possibly think something as vastly complex as the earth's climate can be solved with one short sentence?
This is precisely why I hate this website so fucking much sometimes and why I continuously rail against the "TeamLiquid Know-it-alls" Seriously, guys. You're not that fucking intelligent. maybe because 1 line per post equals more posts per day?
... So what?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/revolutionary.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.thestandard.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/climate_skeptics_960w.gif)
