Thread: Global Warming

Originally Posted by kingwillyhggtb

Originally Posted by benbaaa

Originally Posted by kingwillyhggtb

look at the scale! its only 1 degree difference. and thats only 140 years

At the peak of the last ice age, 18,000 years ago, global temperature was less than 4 degrees celcius cooler than it is today.

which is a difference of 400% !

You are focusing too much on a single measurement and ignoring exactly what is being discussed: a single degree rise in temperature merely indicates how much faster the molecules are moving in a given sample. It doesn't measure the magnitude of that energy.

For example, as I pointed out, a glass of water and the ocean. Both at the same temperature. Raise each by a single degree C. Which one contains more heat?

If you raise one gram of water 1 degree C the measurement of energy in that item was raised about 4.2 J. If you have 10 grams of water and raise that water 1 degree C you need 10 cal or 42 J. 10 times the energy content even though the temperature is the same.

The amount of energy needed to raise 1 L of water 1 degree C is a kcal or 4.2kJ. (4200 J).

The ocean contains about 1,367,290,742,000,000,000,000 liters of water. If you raise the temperature 1 degree C you have just added 5,742,621,116,400,000,000,000,000 J of energy to the ocean.

What does this mean?

Well, for 5.7x10^24J you get the following: enough energy to power the world for one year with about 10^7 J left over. More energy than the largest nuclear explosion in human history. More energy than was used by the Indian Ocean earthquake in 2004. More energy than the sun radiates. More energy than all the known fossil fuels on the planet combined.

And you say it's only a single degree?

Originally Posted by surasak

Originally Posted by kingwillyhggtb

Originally Posted by benbaaa

Originally Posted by kingwillyhggtb

look at the scale! its only 1 degree difference. and thats only 140 years

At the peak of the last ice age, 18,000 years ago, global temperature was less than 4 degrees celcius cooler than it is today.

which is a difference of 400% !

You are focusing too much on a single measurement and ignoring exactly what is being discussed:

wrong. I was replying to a (short term) graph indicating a rise in temperature posted as evidence of gloabl warming.....

a single degree rise in temperature merely indicates how much faster the molecules are moving in a given sample. It doesn't measure the magnitude of that energy.

For example, as I pointed out, a glass of water and the ocean. Both at the same temperature. Raise each by a single degree C. Which one contains more heat?

I do not disagree, in fact I answered that question above...

but again if an atmospheric or oceanic temperature change is the guide for an Ice age event.....

and it is 4 degrees less, and the graph shows same of a change of 1 degree then that is a 4 fold difference.

The ocean contains about 1,367,290,742,000,000,000,000 liters of water. If you raise the temperature 1 degree C you have just added 5,742,621,116,400,000,000,000,000 J of energy to the ocean.

What does this mean?

the ocean is not one uniform temperature.

I am not saying enhanced effect of global warming is or is not happening due to human activity, however, I do like to apply a healthy scepticism to the 'religion' of global warming alarmisits.....

Would you rather be safe than be sorry?

These kinds of arguments always tend to bring up the temperature measurements without discussing what's being measured.

For example, wouldn't an atmosphere full of CO^2 in 2006 hold more heat at a certain temperture than an atmosphere with less CO^2 100 years ago?

If we cut back, and, they turn out to be wrong then what harm has been done?

If we don't cut back, and, they turn out to be right then....

Originally Posted by kingwillyhggtb

Originally Posted by Gerontion

2. All science is dependent on research funding. There's as much reason to suspect climate change theorists

agreed. I would have made a comparision to computer virus software companies or security companies in the US....... you need to build up the fear to optain more 'sales or funding'

as those empire-building Darwinians who, cap in hand, go begging to governments and university departments pleading their absurd case that life "evolved" by "chance" (ha! crazy idea) rather than, as any sensible intelligent skeptic knows, being generated by divine fiat in 4004 BC.

you just lost me now, there's a few other threads for that rubbish.....

It was an analogy. I thought that it was fairly straightforward but obviously not. There are people, armed with PhDs who dispute evolution, who wish to present the creationist-Darwinian dispute as a reasonable debate. Those who believe that the theory of evolution is indisputably correct (and in case this isn’t clear, I include myself in this group) receive large quantities of money from governments to pursue their research; creationists receive, to the best of my knowledge, none. I can’t see how this situation is substantially different from that of theories of man-made climate change. After all, if receipt of government money constitutes grounds for doubt then evolutionary theory is just as open to doubt as that of man-made climate change. I, however, think that this is just a stupid argument. There is no end of websites happily regurgitating rubbish from Exxon PRs but that doesn’t mean that there is a genuine dispute any more than the shit endlessly repeated about intelligent design means that evolution is disputed. The acid test lies in peer-reviewed publications and I’m not aware of the work of the IPCC being disputed. I’m happy to be proved wrong so if there is any significant material in, for example, Science or Nature that does this, please post it.

Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth





That'll do for me. Goodnight.

The Wall Street Journal 1997: Global Warming is a myth.

The Wall Street Journal September 2006: "A recent study concludes that the Earth’s temperature is rising to a point higher than any time in the last million years and warns about the continuing effect of pollution caused by human activity."

It's hard to believe but even the gruesome, money-grabbing little turds at the Wall Street Journal, notorious for their scepticism about climate change, seem to be changing their tune. But have a look for discussion of the WSJ arguments on the web; there are a number of very respectable climatologists who have gone through point-by-point rebuttals of the (slightly more recent) WSJ editorials which are forever getting recycled by climate change sceptics.

it is all a ruse...i still ain't worried. but then i be pretty old.....

Originally Posted by RDN

Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth





That'll do for me. Goodnight.

Your data is a bit old, doncha think?

Better yet: there might be a brick wall up ahead, wouldn't it be better to slow down a bit to less the impact in case there is a wall?

Originally Posted by Gerontion

...respectable climatologists...

Oxymoron?

Originally Posted by surasak

Originally Posted by RDN

Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth





That'll do for me. Goodnight.

Your data is a bit old, doncha think?

Yes it is, sorry about that - it only goes back to the year 1750. I suppose the last 10 years would completely invalidate the previous er... let me count... 250 years worth of data, and the correlation between Solar Activity and Atmospheric Temperature shown in the first graph would suddenly disappear.

If you are sleeping in a bed with several blankets on top which blanket will be warmest and which will be coolest?

One of the false conclusions in the report you linked to regards the use of weather balloons and satellites to measure temperatures...temperatures which occur high up in the atmosphere, not at the ground where the higher temperatures and effects of global warming will be most devestating.

The real danger the link you mentioned avoided is the increased concentration in water vapor that will occur as the earth warms. We all know how miserable a hot muggy day is in Thailand; where I live a 35-40 degree day is nice due to lack of moisture in the air. If you increase global temps then more water will evaporate into the air...causing even worse of a blanket effect than CO2.

Planting Trees to Atone for our Environmental Sins

Companies offer customers the option of offsetting the CO2 emissions caused by air travel, driving a car or home energy use by paying for environmental projects. But how effective can personal emissions offsetting programs be in fighting climate change? ...

The Climate Indulgence Market: Planting Trees to Atone for our Environmental Sins - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News

UN: Man's Impact ON Global Warming Less Than Claimed
Link

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

UN: Man's Impact ON Global Warming Less Than Claimed
Link

Excellent link, BM. Here's an extract:

"...the overall human effect on global warming since the industrial revolution is less than had been thought, due to the unexpected levels of cooling caused by aerosol sprays, which reflect heat from the sun." Now, these people are desperate indeed if they're going to claim new data on aerosol sprays is the reason that they were off the mark by 25% on human impact, and 50% on ocean rising. You read the whole story you'll find out that the ocean rise that's been predicted is 50% off.

They banned this stuff forever ago because they knew it was bad, these aerosol sprays, but it was making things hotter or colder when they told us it was bad. I don't remember. They probably don't remember which, either. I don't remember the problem they were causing, but now all of a sudden aerosol sprays may be a cure for global warming.

CFCs destroy the ozone layer, that's why it's banned.
Noone claims it's a 'cure' for global warming.
Rimbaugh is merely waffling, a weak attempt at ridicule without basis.

It's all readily available info.

Originally Posted by stroller

CFCs destroy the ozone layer, that's why it's banned.
Noone claims it's a 'cure' for global warming.
Rimbaugh is merely waffling, a weak attempt at ridicule without basis.

It's all readily available info.

Rimbaugh is waffling? A weak attempt at ridicule?

Is the Sunday Telegraph also waffling and ridiculing?:

The IPCC has been forced to halve its predictions for sea-level rise by 2100, one of the key threats from climate change. It says improved data have reduced the upper estimate from 34 in to 17 in.

It also says that the overall human effect on global warming since the industrial revolution is less than had been thought, due to the unexpected levels of cooling caused by aerosol sprays, which reflect heat from the sun.

In case you missed it:

due to the unexpected levels of cooling caused by aerosol sprays, which reflect heat from the sun.

Yes, it's all readily available info, Stroller:

Telegraph | News | UN downgrades man's impact on the climate