Notice that the temperature of very recent years is not included. This is because these years completely diverge from the trend and do not tell the story the pseudoskeptics want you to believe.
On September 08 2012 03:12 Crownlol wrote: Heat cycles, baaaahahahahahahaha.
Electromagnetic radiation doesn't heat the Earth, bros.
There are people who deny the holocaust too. Fighting the uneducated, misinformed, and too-lazy-to-research in this country (the US) is impossible- largely due to polarizing bipartisan politics.
The idea that the sun warms up the earth is indeed laughable
No point in trying to lecture people on sunspots or annything else sun related. Its all irrelevant since the sun simply can not heat up the earth at all /sarcasm.
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
Badly worded. But probably an element of truth to this. I'm certain mass consumption of fossil fuels contributes something to the overall heating of the planet, but I reeeeaaally doubt it's enough to cause a measurable change. But, what the fuck do I know? I'm just some jackass on the internet that has done like no research. Just a gut feeling. Heh.
I don't know enough about trustworthy UK sites. But so tired of people tryin' to say "People are the reason for climate change". Cows alone outproduce 18% of "Greenhouse gases"...obviously climate change is a cyclical pattern as the Earth tilts on its axis. The last reports I've read of the southern hemisphere is that the shelf is actually slowly growin', not at the rate the north is meltin', but that's do to the chemistry of salt water, not a greenhouse gas effect. Global warmin'/climate change is just a whole bunch of crap tryin' to scare people into buyin' more expensive "alternative energy" products. Sure there may be some truth to greenhouse gases bein' captured by the atmosphere, but our ozone let's most of the deadly gases escape, we aren't Venus that traps everythin'. Our ozone is structured differently.
And why would you think this many cows exist in the first place? Their skills at eluding predators?
Indeed.
The point is industry causes the bulk of problems. Cows count as industry as we breed them on an industrial scale.
Climate change is an issue, yes the earth has certainly been in worse predicaments but that isn't the point. Noone is worried about the health of the earth, its the ability to sustain our massive population, changes in climate will have a dramatic effect on food production, water supply and extreme weather, problems in which will caused increased immigration from areas worst hit, further straining those areas which are still habitable. These problems are already visible in a lot of the third world and will only increase.
It's a sad truth but we really can't sustain this rate, and for the record I don't think "alternative energy" is the solution being pushed. It's a general reduction is our rate of consumption, energy problems can be solved with nuclear power, which the alternative energy movement ignorantly opposes, resulting in a lack of development in nuclear production technology, leaving us with a bunch of less than ideal sites all over the place which should've been updated.
On September 08 2012 03:12 Crownlol wrote: Heat cycles, baaaahahahahahahaha.
Electromagnetic radiation doesn't heat the Earth, bros.
There are people who deny the holocaust too. Fighting the uneducated, misinformed, and too-lazy-to-research in this country (the US) is impossible- largely due to polarizing bipartisan politics.
The idea that the sun warms up the earth is indeed laughable
No point in trying to lecture people on sunspots or annything else sun related. Its all irrelevant since the sun simply can not heat up the earth at all /sarcasm.
On September 08 2012 06:54 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: It's not all that bad. At least we won't have to get shot at by Somalian pirates anymore.
That is nice. Global warming caused by oil, lets us find more oil (article mentions how this opens up new areas for oil and gas drilling) Wich will increase global warming so that we can find even more oil!
I actually support nuclear power. People keep whining about nuclear accidents and potential fission side effects, but nuclear power is far from the only source of energy that causes accidents. It's safe and has the potential to be safer with some investment, and is a good springboard towards clean fusion.
On September 07 2012 23:17 Tanukki wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong here, but though the melting of ice is a very graphic and easily recognised event, it's not proportional to the rise in sea levels, which is the phenomenon we should worried about.
A simplified example: Water is most dense at 4 degrees celcius, so if you took a bunch of floating ice, and melted that ice to 4 degrees celcius, the sea level would actually drop.
Of course, the result of heavy global warming is still a net rise in sea levels (an increase in the ratio of warmer water to 4 degree water), but this is still a thing to consider.
No, because some the ice is floating above the water, so it's not displacing any water.
Now that is wrong mate. The volume of a piece of ice floating (no matter how high above the water the ice is) is equal to the volume of water displaced. Archimedes told us so.
Only thing that counts at sea level increase is the ice melting from the land areas, glaciers and stuff.
I think you need to look up Archimedes' Principle again.
Because that's not what it tells us. At all.
He's still right though cow. Any piece of ice that floats in the water displaces as much water (in weight) as the piece of ice weighs, if the ice melts the water it turns to will still weigh the same, and so it will not increase the sea level more so than the original piece of ice did in the first place.
On September 07 2012 23:17 Tanukki wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong here, but though the melting of ice is a very graphic and easily recognised event, it's not proportional to the rise in sea levels, which is the phenomenon we should worried about.
A simplified example: Water is most dense at 4 degrees celcius, so if you took a bunch of floating ice, and melted that ice to 4 degrees celcius, the sea level would actually drop.
Of course, the result of heavy global warming is still a net rise in sea levels (an increase in the ratio of warmer water to 4 degree water), but this is still a thing to consider.
No, because some the ice is floating above the water, so it's not displacing any water.
Now that is wrong mate. The volume of a piece of ice floating (no matter how high above the water the ice is) is equal to the volume of water displaced. Archimedes told us so.
Only thing that counts at sea level increase is the ice melting from the land areas, glaciers and stuff.
I think you need to look up Archimedes' Principle again.
Because that's not what it tells us. At all.
lol go fill up your bathtub to the top and lay in it
On September 07 2012 23:17 Tanukki wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong here, but though the melting of ice is a very graphic and easily recognised event, it's not proportional to the rise in sea levels, which is the phenomenon we should worried about.
A simplified example: Water is most dense at 4 degrees celcius, so if you took a bunch of floating ice, and melted that ice to 4 degrees celcius, the sea level would actually drop.
Of course, the result of heavy global warming is still a net rise in sea levels (an increase in the ratio of warmer water to 4 degree water), but this is still a thing to consider.
No, because some the ice is floating above the water, so it's not displacing any water.
Now that is wrong mate. The volume of a piece of ice floating (no matter how high above the water the ice is) is equal to the volume of water displaced. Archimedes told us so.
Only thing that counts at sea level increase is the ice melting from the land areas, glaciers and stuff.
I think you need to look up Archimedes' Principle again.
Because that's not what it tells us. At all.
lol go fill up your bathtub to the top and lay in it
tell me what happens to the water
thats irrelevant. Free floating ice will not raise the water level as they melt. The problem is that greenland is not a giant piece of ice cube. Its an ice sheet that sits on top of a bedrock.
I've found that global warming deniers (particularly some people I'm friends with on facebook) who use the sun argument have never taken a good, rigorous course on solar physics. Sun spots have almost no impact on total radiative flux, they're just points where the magnetic field lines converge due to the charged plasma rotating at differential speeds. A bit more radiation does escape through these holes, but the measurements show a maximum increase in radiative flux of about 1.3 W/m^2 - the sun emits an average of 1366 W/m^2 normally. The change is just extremely negligible, and does not even begin to account for the changes in our climate measurements.
That's a lot of melt, hopefully this will slow down by itself, because I have absolutely zero faith in our politicians dealing with it. Too few votes to be scored by a true green profile :-(.
On September 08 2012 11:58 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I actually support nuclear power. People keep whining about nuclear accidents and potential fission side effects, but nuclear power is far from the only source of energy that causes accidents. It's safe and has the potential to be safer with some investment, and is a good springboard towards clean fusion.
I am not against nuclear power, but your logic is kindda flawed, because a (major) nuclear disaster will ruin all land around the nuclear for several generations. Compared to this, other sources of energy will be more like to only cause short term damage (aside from greenhouse gas emission ;-)).
As a final word, guys you shouldn't worry, because winter is coming!
Notice that the temperature of very recent years is not included. This is because these years completely diverge from the trend and do not tell the story the pseudoskeptics want you to believe.
There's a good portion on this in here. Then you could start reading the literature.
Sorry nooby question: What's so bad about climate change? I mean, it's bad that it gets hot and shit but is there any disastrous effects of climate change?
On September 09 2012 04:24 Kluey wrote: Sorry nooby question: What's so bad about climate change? I mean, it's bad that it gets hot and shit but is there any disastrous effects of climate change?
Yes, eventually all life ends and the environment becomes so extreme that life can't ever develop or thrive again. I'd say that counts as "disastrous".
On September 09 2012 04:29 claybones wrote: I understand that global warming is probably occurring but... has anyone considered geothermal activity having something to do with this?
The Earth's core is changing but its widely believed that there's some sort of cycle we're going through. The magnetic shield is weakening and also rotating which will eventually result in compasses pointing south when its North and vice versa.
On September 08 2012 03:12 Crownlol wrote: Heat cycles, baaaahahahahahahaha.
Electromagnetic radiation doesn't heat the Earth, bros.
There are people who deny the holocaust too. Fighting the uneducated, misinformed, and too-lazy-to-research in this country (the US) is impossible- largely due to polarizing bipartisan politics.
The idea that the sun warms up the earth is indeed laughable
No point in trying to lecture people on sunspots or annything else sun related. Its all irrelevant since the sun simply can not heat up the earth at all /sarcasm.
This cant be correct at all, the Maunder minimum corresponds to extended periods of VERY low temperatures. Are you implying that there isn't even a correlation between them?
On September 09 2012 04:29 claybones wrote: I understand that global warming is probably occurring but... has anyone considered geothermal activity having something to do with this?
Yes. Lots of people have. Lots of people have shown that it's not substantial.
Geez, people think that they have this novel idea that nobody has ever thought of before even though there are thousands of PH.Ds that spend every single day thinking about this subject. How egotistical are you? Really, this is the one reason why people need to take philosophy classes in college, it teaches you that any idea you have had, someone has had before. To get to anything novel, you have to read through all of the ideas that you have had and then would have had next (maybe, if you have another 2000 years to think about it) to finally get to a point where you may have an idea that someone hasn't had before.
Yes, unless you're a PH.D on the subject, your idea has been thought of before and if it's not mentioned as a "good idea" then it has already been thrown out. I can guarantee it.
On the other hand, if it really is so easy for you to come up with such a stellar argument, just write down the whole thesis and any PH.D program will instantly accept you with lots of funding. Don't sit on your ass, take the free money!
This came off as a lot more aggressive than I intended, but still the idea is there. Really, in every subject you study you're probably saying "geez, why do people listen to people who are not experts!". Even a guy I know who is a fish salesperson gets pissed when a friend tells another friend how to care for fish! No matter who you are, you know that non-experts say the dumbest shit about the subject and think they know it all and everyone must either be dumb or corrupt. Now flip the argument, are you an expert on this subject? What do you sound like to the people who study it all day?
No good indepth coherent argument for/against any of these arguments will appear on a web form because it would be a semester long project. Accept expert opinion if you are not willing to read it all.