Climate Change, yada yada

[Ace42]

Qdrop?

Blue touch paper here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4616431.stm

[catatonic]

While we're waiting for Qdrop, write to the President and Dick Cheney about this and how dramatic and unconscionable all the lost lives will be. Point out that the world only has to cut less than 1% of GDP over 50 years (just over 0.02% per year) to meet the necessary requirement, and that new studies show reducing trace gases makes it so we don't have to reduce as much CO2. Let me know if you're going to e-mail him and I'll find you lots of data and references to this information and others.

The reason being that there's a G8 summit in a month were Tony Blair anticipates that he might take action.

[Qdrop]

old news.

just the same rhettoric.

show me the conclusive satelite data of a global warming temp increase.

no one has been able to do so yet....

[Ali]

old news.

just the same rhettoric.

show me the conclusive satelite data of a global warming temp increase.

no one has been able to do so yet....bang (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7665636/) you dead, bitch.

Fuck. Somebody could come and ram conclusive evidence right up your stupid fucking nose and you'd still say it was untrue.

NASA, fuckhead.

[Qdrop]

bang (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7665636/) you dead, bitch.

Fuck. Somebody could come and ram conclusive evidence right up your stupid fucking nose and you'd still say it was untrue.

NASA, fuckhead.

but this doesn't correspond with most of the models out thier....some say we warm by 5º...

anyway...cool, so we have some scientific proof that the earth is warming...and they claim it is on target to raise 1º this century.

so how does this temp. increase and projected increase act as a smoking gun to human contribution? and therefore, what can/would human co2 caps do? if anything?

also, what evidence do we have that 1º in the next century will be catastophic?
also, have they taken in account that higher temps will produce more evap of water, causing increased cloud cover...which shields and cools the planet?

come on, ali..."bang" these ones out for me too....

[Ali]

come on, ali..."bang" these ones out for me too....bang your mama, bitch

I am so not going to do this again. You have your POV and I have mine. We'll leave it at that.

Just make sure you wear plenty of sunscreen at the beach, OK?

[Qdrop]

I am so not going to do this again. You have your POV and I have mine. We'll leave it at that.

Just make sure you wear plenty of sunscreen at the beach, OK?

i'll just go underground..and become a mutant warlock.

sounds like a party....

[Ali]

i'll just go underground..and become a mutant warlock.... except that the ground water's all polluted, dumfuk.

[ChrisLove]

QDrop,

To my knowledge, the fact that Global Warming is going on is hardly in dispute (I could be wrong but I have heard little plausible disagreement with this….), the only issue is whether we as humans are responsible for it.

If you do dispute it, here is a whole load of data from the Intergovernmental Climate Change Panal (IPCC). This gives just some key figures for policymakers but if you explore the sight you can get more detail.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/vol4/english/075.htm

Here is a good summary of some scientific evidence out there given in the opening chapter on the UK Govs Energy White Paper

http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/whitepaper/chap1.pdf

a summary of the paper is here


http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/whitepaper/wp_summ.pdf

its quite interesting


These sources are pretty non bias I think, its probably in the interests of governments to deny something like global warming exists because then they don’t have to deal with it which is cheaper!

Why do you require data from satellites? The IPCC reports incorporates sat data but does not sure the raw figures/images, Im sure if you dig around the report you will find it though.


The big question is whether or not humans are responsible for this, the correlation between CO2 emissions and temperature rise is significant (I use that word statistically!) but as with any statistical relationship it could be a coincidence this would seem highly unlikely tho.

[Qdrop]

QDrop,

To my knowledge, the fact that Global Warming is going on is hardly in dispute (I could be wrong but I have heard little plausible disagreement with this….), eh. up unto this report that ali just posted....it really was in dispute.
this debate has raged many times on this board.
do a search to check out some previous threads.

the only issue is whether we as humans are responsible for it. that is one of the issues. and that is a HUGE one.


These sources are pretty non bias I think, its probably in the interests of governments to deny something like global warming exists because then they don’t have to deal with it which is cheaper! that's somewhat nonsensical.

if gov't truley knew that humans were contributing to global warming and the the effects would be catastrophic withing the century or less...
why would they lie about it?
what good is billions saved now....if they are going to suffer just as the rest of us in the near future?
what good would billions of dollars be....if global floods, famine, and destructive weather desimated the globe?
business men and corporations get rich by being excellent planners....
why would they fuck their own future?

Why do you require data from satellites? because ground measurements are flawed or prone to flaws in accuracy.
satellites are the best we have.


The big question is whether or not humans are responsible for this, the correlation between CO2 emissions and temperature rise is significant (I use that word statistically!) but as with any statistical relationship it could be a coincidence this would seem highly unlikely tho.

here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html

yes, organizations that Fred Singer works with have recieved grants from EXXON...
we all know....
just read it.

check this out too. to get both sides: http://www.pbs.org/now/science/climatedebate.html

[Father_dougal]

Q-drop. Reading some of your posts you obviously have intellegence but lack restraint and are so self obsessed you ignour other opinions. Always a bad conbination.

Global warming, does it or does it not exist?

Ok, it does exist, but what is causing it? Is it natural or to do with pollution - or is it a bit of both i wonder?

Thats not the real issue. The real issue is - is pollution going to lead to problems environmentally (and with peoples health) in the future? Looking at the facts this is true. I used to live near a busy road and i was ill all the time there - move away, and i'm now totally healthy. What can be done about this? is it gonna be at the expense of the people of america, or don't they care about the future?

[Qdrop]

Q-drop. Reading some of your posts you obviously have intellegence but lack restraint and are so self obsessed you ignour other opinions. Always a bad conbination. what the hell is the point in that personal attack?
i listen to everyone.
i read every post.
just because i disagree or don't back down and meet people halfway with a smile on my face doesn't mean i'm self obsessed and lack restraint.
back off, newb.



Ok, it does exist, but what is causing it? Is it natural or to do with pollution - or is it a bit of both i wonder? yes, that is the question. and now much of each?

Thats not the real issue. The real issue is - is pollution going to lead to problems environmentally (and with peoples health) in the future? Looking at the facts this is true. I used to live near a busy road and i was ill all the time there - move away, and i'm now totally healthy. What can be done about this? is it gonna be at the expense of the people of america, or don't they care about the future? no, that is the real issue.
because of the things you just listed.
you are talking about REAL, MEASURABLE issues related with the enviroment when you are talking about your health and the health of others in that area.
those are provable, unmistakable issues that should take priority...and should get the resources to fix it.
something like global warming...of which the effects are pure speculation and debatable.....taking on the Kyoto treaty and spending Trillions to cut CO2 emmisions would require issues like you local ones to take a back seat.
is that fair?

[Father_dougal]

what the hell is the point in that personal attack?



Yeah, sorry. Stealing your style.

[Qdrop]

Yeah, sorry. Stealing your style.
dude, you have like 40 posts and you've been here how long? you've read how many of my posts and think you got me pegged and know my style?
bitch please.

you start off with a personal attack and then cop out like a coward...saying "well that's what you do....nah nah.."


is this what you're here for?

to start shit?

we have enough trolls.
go change your diaper....

[Father_dougal]

dude, you have like 40 posts and you've been here how long?

EDIT

Never mind, not worth it.

i'm not that new.

[Qdrop]

2 years.

so that june 2005 member date is a typo?

or are you one of those "i'm quitting, i hate this place!" bitches who signs back up a month later to try again.


classic troller.

[Father_dougal]

so that june 2005 member date is a typo?

or are you one of those "i'm quitting, i hate this place!" bitches who signs back up a month later to try again.


classic troller.

I was here for 1 year. Then i left to go traveling and see some places for 2 month, got a new pc and had to sign up with a new account (as i lost my username/password) Why i'm even explaining myself i don't know.

[Qdrop]

Why i'm even explaining myself i don't know.

neither do i.

talk about the weather.

[Ali]

back off, newb. Hey, Tough Guy.

Father D already said he was an old member with a new logon.

But you didn't read his posts, did you? :rolleyes:

[Ace42]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1506553,00.html

since the industrial period carbon dioxide levels have risen from 270 parts per million (classical for all previous warm periods) to 379ppm today, and are rising at 2ppm per year. In 10 years' time they will be at 400ppm; at 500ppm, Greenland's ice will melt entirely - it's already receding by 10 metres a year - and the sea level will rise, drowning coastal cities and entirely changing the contours of the earth. Most scientists now agree that unless we stabilise the earth's atmosphere by 2050, there will be no way to halt the disaster.

[racer5.0stang]

I read a report that in Alaska, a glacier had receded 1 mile in 5 years.

[ChrisLove]

since the industrial period carbon dioxide levels have risen from 270 parts per million (classical for all previous warm periods) to 379ppm today, and are rising at 2ppm per year. In 10 years' time they will be at 400ppm; at 500ppm, Greenland's ice will melt entirely - it's already receding by 10 metres a year - and the sea level will rise, drowning coastal cities and entirely changing the contours of the earth. Most scientists now agree that unless we stabilise the earth's atmosphere by 2050, there will be no way to halt the disaster.

As I see it facts like these are not in dispute, we know that...

1) Co2 in the atmostphere has been rising steadily since the industrial revolution
2) This is due to the amount of CO2 that humans put into the atmostphere
3) The global temperatures have been rising in a manner highly correlated to the increase in CO2

The problem is that is hard to prove that 3) is not just a coincidence as some people claim.

[valvano]

remember back in the 1970's the big concern was global freezing??? :eek:

just the latest hype to have a big freak out over
all you chicken little's can go on home now

http://www.kn4lf.com/kn4lf42.htm

[ChrisLove]

remember back in the 1970's the big concern was global freezing??? :eek:

just the latest hype to have a big freak out over
all you chicken little's can go on home now

http://www.kn4lf.com/kn4lf42.htm


This article you posted does little to disagree with the idea of global warming, it just lists a bunch of times when it was cold!

It starts of claiming to discredit "Man induced harmful global warming" and then ignores the key issues of harmful and Man induced, instead just giving anecdotal evidence of coldness.

Global Warming is a long term steady increase in mean temperature which has been accurately measured. The examples cited in this article have little to say about Global Warming.

[valvano]

we i guess we should all have a mass suicide day then and get it on over with???

:D

[Qdrop]

As I see it facts like these are not in dispute, we know that...

1) Co2 in the atmostphere has been rising steadily since the industrial revolution true.

2) This is due to the amount of CO2 that humans put into the atmostphere true.

3) The global temperatures have been rising in a manner highly correlated to the increase in CO2 not true.
temps...mostly taken with shoddy practice ground thermometers, showed a slight global temp increase in the first half of the century (industrial revolution)...then a plateau until recently....very recently.
there appears to even be a time when there was a cooling before the 70's...

the greatly increased CO2 levels DID NOT correlate very well with the temp increases and plateaus.....the earlier models all failed badly....
earlier on, the platuea and possible cooling were blaimed on air pollution/sulfites.....they were blocking some sunlight and giving us a false sense of cooling. we were warned that once we cleaned the air out (these pollutants have a very short life- about 3 years), we would see a dramatic warming.

legislation was put in...and air pollutants declined GREATLY....yet no warming...and only now, there appears to be a new record of a slight cooling (according to the study posted here earlier).

the lefties keep making new models to predict warming..but they keep failing....you can look up why.
but of course, they are already creating new models and making new predictions...that the earth will warm by 1º in this century....but THIS one will be right...they're just SURE of it. EVERYONE JUST HAS TO BE SURE OF IT....or else you're a corporate shill.

increased CO2 and warming also causes increased water vapor...which promotes cooling.
it the earth balancing effect....this is how nature works.

CO2, after all...traps heat....but is also the the main life source for oxegan giving plants. that's a good thing.

The problem is that is hard to prove that 3) is not just a coincidence as some people claim.
well global warming and cooling have taken place many times throughout our earths history...with no help from man.
yes..we are increasing the CO2 at record levels...and yes CO2 has been shown to trap heat in labs.
but the global climate is not a controlled lab.
there are global changes and effects taking place to keep balance that we hardly even understand.

for people to stand at the pulpit and argue that they KNOW what will happen and that ANYONE WITH A BRAIN CAN SEE THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL, IS MAN MADE, AND WILL KILL US ALL!!! is irresponsible and dangerous.

to try and get nations to commit trillions of dollars and cripple thier economies for a kyoto treaty, when we don't even know how much or if man is contributing greatly to a warming...OR if we can have any cutting effect on it.....is irresponsible and dangerous.

we should concetrate our resources on things in the enviroment we KNOW to be bad.....

[Ali]

we i guess we should all have a mass suicide day then and get it on over with???

:DAfter you...

[yeahwho]

well global warming and cooling have taken place many times throughout our earths history...with no help from man.
yes..we are increasing the CO2 at record levels...and yes CO2 has been shown to trap heat in labs.
but the global climate is not a controlled lab.
there are global changes and effects taking place to keep balance that we hardly even understand.

for people to stand at the pulpit and argue that they KNOW what will happen and that ANYONE WITH A BRAIN CAN SEE THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL, IS MAN MADE, AND WILL KILL US ALL!!! is irresponsible and dangerous.

to try and get nations to commit trillions of dollars and cripple thier economies for a kyoto treaty, when we don't even know how much or if man is contributing greatly to a warming...OR if we can have any cutting effect on it.....is irresponsible and dangerous.

we should concetrate our resources on things in the enviroment we KNOW to be bad.....

You are the only one who is on the pulpit, your arguments and the studies you quote are easily countered by the the best scientists on the planet. I've already gone through it with you before (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=49074&highlight=global+warming). I'm surprised by some of the lame ass bullshit you spouted on that thread. Now your starting out fresh again with your favorite strategy on this topic, post, post, post, rant on about the hard ass work serious scientists currently (today) are doing on climate change, then try and disprove them with some gay study from a previous date (some of them years old). Your quite the psycho-analyst on others around here, why do you feel it so important to put down somebody like Father Dougal?

I'm going with the fresh infromation being presented by the best researchers on the topic. Not the nay-say-I'm-gay-OK crap you've come up with.

It's really odd, young kids have a better grasp on global warming than you. I think you look at this as if it is a conspiracy, the intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy. Bizarre. On this planet we live, we study, we understand, we learn, then hopefully we move forward.

[Qdrop]

You are the only one who is on the pulpit, your arguments and the studies you quote are easily countered by the the best scientists on the planet. sigh. once again: "EVERYONE knows it's true...only idiots don't believe.....if you don't believe, you're an idiot!!!
the argument of intimidation doesn't get old.

I've already gone through it with you before (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=49074&highlight=global+warming). I'm surprised by some of the lame ass bullshit you spouted on that thread. Now your starting out fresh again with your favorite strategy on this topic, post, post, post, rant on about the hard ass work serious scientists currently (today) are doing on climate change, then try and disprove them with some gay study from a previous date (some of them years old).
you wanna know why i really don't respect much of your opinion on this subject? because you seriously barely have a grip on the science of it. you have very little understanding of the science at play here.....meteorology and climate study.
you are purely a parrot on this topic. you just regurgitate....act as a CB radio for the liberal left.

you try and make the call that I purely just argue to argue, and that i pay no attention to the facts in front of my face, blah blah...

what i do is purely point out, time and time again, the questions that have yet to answered, the gaping holes in many points, and try to purvey the general lack of knowledge that all of science has about the global climate.
you see a report that says: scientists find smoking gun, global warming and human contribution proven.
and you just swallow it down. no question.
"it right there Qdrop! see!?! everyone knows now...you're just being stubborn!"

but if you just a had a little more understanding of climate studies...you would be able to find these holes yourself.
and if perhaps, you weren't so biased.

just consider how much effort and skepticism you put into ANYTHING said by the right. ANYTHING.
if you put just a fraction of that much skepticism into the these global warming reports...i wouldn't have to say anything....
you'd see it for yourself.

yes, i do bring up old arguments about this topic....BECAUSE MANY OF THEM HAVE YET TO BE ANSWERED!!
yet you act as if they have.
you act as if the latest scripps (scribbs, whatever) report answers everything...but it doesn't! not even close.

finding some conclusive evidence about temp increases using satellite readings ARE a good move forward, i admit.
but they've a long way to go before i feel science has proven all the global warming claims that so many others take for granted.

see, we've been arguing for about a year now....yet nothing has changed much with us. i'm still skeptical about just about everything.....and you are still unable to give even an ounce of skepticism to anything coming from the left....yet you scrape apart everything that comes from the right.

see, this really isn't about global warming, yeawho....
it's about you....it's about your brutally apparent bias....and how you just have no interest in addressing it.

once again...it's about psychology.


I think you look at this as if it is a conspiracy, the intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy. Bizarre.
well, i wouldn't go as far as to say "conspiracy"....
more of a conspiracy of culture.
it's "hip" to be anti-global warming. it shows that you are "with it"...you are "intelligent and aware".
the MAN IS KILLING OUR PLANET, SHEEPLE! OPEN YOUR EYES!!

but popularity in a cultural context does not make for good truth.
otherwise, IRaq would have had WMD's and ties to al-queda.....

[yeahwho]

That pulpit fits perfect. Your hilarious. A parody of yourself. thanks for the pep talk on how to perceive Global Warming, you've really kept up with the science.

I think your name calling and labeling pretty much sums up the type of people who leave caution inside the door. It's really sad.

The Liberal Left! HAHAHAHAHAHA! Yeah right, you've got my number. You are as goofy as they come. As far as a grasp of the who, when, why, where and how of Global warming, I have but a passing interest in it....true....but the one place where you are dead wrong is meteorology. Studied it, passed with a 4.0 College level. I was offered a job with NOAA the day I left school, I declined. My family has been plying the waters of Puget Sound up to the Bering sea for decades, I have more than a passing interest in which way the wind blows.

I don't know shit about Global warming....your the one with the big brains Qdrop...so go ahead, sport some more of your great insights that neglect current science. That is always enlightening.

I'll just lurk in the shadow's while you dazzle all with your brilliance.

[Qdrop]

As far as a grasp of the who, when, why, where and how of Global warming, I have but a passing interest in it....true.... then why post in these threads? why entertain debate?

but the one place where you are dead wrong is meteorology. Studied it, passed with a 4.0 College level. I was offered a job with NOAA the day I left school, I declined. My family has been plying the waters of Puget Sound up to the Bering sea for decades, I have more than a passing interest in which way the wind blows.
enlightening.
then you MUST have enough knowledge of weather and general climate variables to see how predicting weather patterns a couple weeks in advance with accuracy is difficult...
let alone predicting global changes 50+ years from now.

tell me why that's so difficult if not impossible.

yes, weather and climate are very differant things....i know.

but, as you know better than I, similar variables and difficulties exist between them when making predictions....

why your lack of skepticism?

I don't know shit about Global warming....your the one with the big brains Qdrop...so go ahead, sport some more of your great insights that neglect current science. That is always enlightening. if you studied meteorolgy, you probably have a better grasp of this topic than anyone on here....despite the fact that we are talking about climate vs. weather.


i'm starting to see a pattern here.

just like ALI, you don't really care about the topic being debated....you just want to attack ME. tear ME down.
topic be damned...you just want to serve one up on qdrop.

how disapointing....

[yeahwho]

Damn you Qdrop! You sure know how to bait a peep. I'll give you that. I said I was going to lurk. I honestly feel we have differing views supported by different inputs, which is sad, who is right/who is wrong I do not know at this point in time, I'm hedging my sights on caution, I'm seeing a yellow light and slowing down, not speeding up.

But really now, this statement is what brought me out again, it is a gem!

i'm starting to see a pattern here.

just like ALI, you don't really care about the topic being debated....you just want to attack ME. tear ME down.
topic be damned...you just want to serve one up on qdrop.

how disapointing....

That's Great! I love it. Reminds me of the old saying,

"The defination of an egotist is somebody who thinks more about themselves than me." :D

OK, back to lurk.

[Ali]

"The definition of an egotist is somebody who thinks more about themselves than me."W :p rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrd!

[guerillaGardner]

also, what evidence do we have that 1º in the next century will be catastophic?

1 degree rise in temperature is important as it creates a chain reaction. Every degree rise melts the ice caps a little and as these help to keep the earth cool and it causes the temperature to rise another degree which causes the ice caps to melt a little more which causes ..... you get my drift.

An illustration of the importance of this is the planet Venus. Before scientists were able to examine close up conditions on Venus there was a belief that the planet could have a living biosphere just like planet earth. This was due to the fact that temperatures on Venus shouldn't be too much different from Earth's based on relevant distances from the sun, but Venus is a parched, harsh, unliveable planet. It turned out that seven degrees difference in temperature was enough to set off a chain reaction that makes the temperature spiral out of control.

Think about that - just 7 degrees. I don't understand why anyone can be so against the possibility that we might be contributing to our doom. Isn't it better to be on the safe side even if we later find out it's nothing to do with us. It's called the precautionary principle.

[catatonic]

60 of 99 Senators today either didn't share your precaution or thought we were doing enough today.

[Qdrop]

1 degree rise in temperature is important as it creates a chain reaction. Every degree rise melts the ice caps a little and as these help to keep the earth cool and it causes the temperature to rise another degree which causes the ice caps to melt a little more which causes ..... you get my drift. whoa. hold on.
temp increases causes ice caps to melt right? causing more evaporation as well. more water vapor. right.

what does water vapor do when it hits the atmosphere?
cloud cover.
it cools the earth.

balance.

careful with your science....


Think about that - just 7 degrees. I don't understand why anyone can be so against the possibility that we might be contributing to our doom. Isn't it better to be on the safe side even if we later find out it's nothing to do with us. It's called the precautionary principle.

think about this - trillions and trillions of dollars. i don't understand why anyone can be so against the possibility that such spending can/would cripple the world economy. Isn't it better to be more certain of our global climate future with more solid science before we cripple our world economies on something we may or may not be contributing to, may or may not be able to control, and may or may not have a significant effect on our world health.?
it's called pragmatic thinking.
also known as rationale.
or logic.

[Ace42]

whoa. hold on.
temp increases causes ice caps to melt right? causing more evaporation as well. more water vapor. right.

No, not from a 1 degree rise in temperature it doesn't. It causes much more melting, but subsequently less evaporation. For ice to jump state to a gas (sublimation) requires a disproportionately larger input of energy.

And cloud cover is caused by *condensed* (cold) water particles suspended in the air. A hotter world means less cloud cover.

[Qdrop]

No, not from a 1 degree rise in temperature it doesn't. It causes much more melting, but subsequently less evaporation. For ice to jump state to a gas (sublimation) requires a disproportionately larger input of energy. but do you know approx. how much more energy in degrees differance? on a global scale?
does anyone?

i'd like to see that research. and see it peer reviewed.


so increased temps by 1 degree globally would mean melting- and would cause see levels to rise....but not much evaporation.
hence, flooding?
is that the crisis we are referring to here?

you say that melting (flooding) would always have head start over evaporation?

i'm just curious where you stand.
you are probably the only other person on this board who cares to/can delve into the scientific aspect sof this and look past the ideological politics...

And cloud cover is caused by *condensed* (cold) water particles suspended in the air. A hotter world means less cloud cover.
to an extreme....

but the upper atmosphere is always cooler and clouds will form...
even deserts get clouds.

my point being that *before* the GLOBE got to a point where few areas had enough colder atmospheric levels to form sufficient cloud cover from the evaporation....i would challenge that there would have been enough water vapor/cloud cover that would have formed from the increased evaporation over time...to create balance and cooling...
meaning, it would never get to that point where the earth was too hot to form much cloud cover.
that's just one theory anyway....
i'm not saying it's lock stock...

i am well aware that human production pumps a huge amount of CO2 into the atmosphere....much more than the natural process does *at this moment*.
but i DO NOT think that that precludes that we will permantly throw the earth off it's climate balance.

lest we not forget....CO2 levels have been FAR higher than they are now at many times in the past....without ANY human involvment....
and life survived....actually, it thrived.
this planet keeps itself balanced.

yes, it has limits...i'm sure.
but how can everyone be so sure that we have reached that threshold....or are even close to that point?

[Ace42]

but do you know approx. how much more energy in degrees differance? on a global scale?
does anyone?

Common sense should show you. Water freezes at 0 degrees C and evaporates at 100 degrees C. In order for your assertion that evaporation would counter the effect of melting, the average temperature would need to be closer to 100 degrees C (boiling point) than 0 degrees C (melting point).

Clearly, life would be unsustainable at that point. Unless your skin is resistant to boiling hot temperatures? Personally, I wilt at anything over 26 C.

is that the crisis we are referring to here?

The rise in sea level is quite tangible, and it threatens many ways of life.

You say that melting (flooding) would always have head start over evaporation?

Certainly. I do not believe the average world temperature is 50 deg C+, and so temperatures are naturally closer to a liquid water form than the alternatives. Otherwise we'd not be living on such an aqeuous planet.

i'm just curious where you stand.

Personally, I don't. While I am well aware of the fact that the world has undergone vast environmental changes without our input, I also think that it is erroneous to assume that we do not have enough clout to bring about changes of our own devising.

The climate is in a state of equilibria, which means if we push in one direction, it will push back in the other. While this may make it *seem* like we are "above the law" so to speak, it doesn't take into question where the "breaking point" actually is. Will the world continue to push back no matter how much we alter it? Will the effects it pushes back with (El Nino, and other dramatic climate effects, etc etc) be survivable by us?

It could be that one way of the system coping with the vast amount of chemicals we fill the atmosphere with is for it to release other, more noxious chemicals. While that would be fine and dandy in the CO2 stakes (lots of oxygen) - it still might be totally unable to support human life.

Will there be a point where the straw of CO2 emissions, or any other factor of human involvement, breaks the camels back, and the whole thing crumbles?

Even if you accept that human involvement is 0.000001% of the total CO2 output into the atmosphere, is that the infitessmally small amount that pushes the system over the edge and into freefall?

Even in the wake of a total nuclear apocalypse, some life would survive. Does that mean that the world is "sturdy" enough to take it? No. Humans didn't make the grand canyon, and until recently the scope of it would defy human efforts. But yet, ancient man without sophisticated tools managed to craft the pyramids, and that in a lifetime. We have transported plagues that have devastated continents, we have caused extinctions. Mankind has totally altered climates and habitats in a very substantial way, just by casual consumption. Indeed, the Sahara desert has been attributed to mankind's interference with the eco-system. We can cause desertification, and we are doing so.

I do not think it is arrogant to think that the tons and tons and tons of pollutants that we are releasing into the atmosphere can have a substantial effect on numerous diverse environmental conditions. And as such I think that, irrespective of "scientific proof" (not evidence, there is plenty of evidence as many people here point out) mankind has an obligation to clean up its act. Cows might release billions of tons of methane into the atmosphere, but this they have done for millions of years. People have not been releasing tons of greenhouse gases (Not just CO2 and methane) and CFCs for that long, and the short-term effects (the changes we can see now) are palfry compared to the long-term damage we could be doing.

Think of how much radioactive material there is on the planet (we don't important it from elsewhere) - and yet until that satellite with the nuclear power-source detonated shortly after take off (I think it was on one of the Ariadnes) caesium was not a radioactive isoptope people had in their bodies. Now we all do.

We do change the whole world in ways we cannot see, and then we say "look how little effect we have on the world."

but the upper atmosphere is always cooler and clouds will form...

Yes, but different sorts of clouds. The thick clouds that we are more familiar with (the fluffy cumulonimbus clouds) are relatively low-level.

lest we not forget....CO2 levels have been FAR higher than they are now at many times in the past....without ANY human involvment....
and life survived....actually, it thrived.
this planet keeps itself balanced.

Again, life will thrive after a nuclear holocaust. If you are a rat or a cockroach.

but how can everyone be so sure that we have reached that threshold....or are even close to that point?

When I was young, my class was queueing for "assembly" - which was a little meeting where all the kids had to sit down, sing hymns, and listen to any messages. It was a pretty boring and pointless waste of time, as is most schooling apart from the three Rs at that age. Anyway, one girl was interested to note that the "glass" in the "Break glass in case of fire" alarm was infact plastic, and infact would bend when pressed. So she pushed it, and it bent, and eventually it broke, sounded off the alarm, starting the fire drill, and she started crying and making up excuses about how she had accidentaly brushed up against it.

My point being that it is best to find out the breaking point well in advance to pushing its limit, and that really it is best to not push the thing at all.

[Qdrop]

Common sense should show you. Water freezes at 0 degrees C and evaporates at 100 degrees C. In order for your assertion that evaporation would counter the effect of melting, the average temperature would need to be closer to 100 degrees C (boiling point) than 0 degrees C (melting point).

eh...while temp does effect evaporation rate....it does not have to be 100º C to evaporate.

evaporation rate is determined by:

1) The temperature of the water at the air-water surface

2) The humidity of the air

3) The area of the air-water surface

4) The temperature of the air

5) water currents convecting heat and the ability to keep the temperature constant at 100 degrees F

6) airflow past the water/air surface.

after a rain storm....the puddles in the road dissapear shortly after the sun comes out....but they aren't warmed to a boiling temp.

actually, i'm sure you know this...(this is all googled too)

and you're point does still stand to a degree (no pun intended)...

will the evaporation rate equal out the increased water levels from ice melting.....

this really isn't known...and can't be known. not with our current knowledge.



While I am well aware of the fact that the world has undergone vast environmental changes without our input, I also think that it is erroneous to assume that we do not have enough clout to bring about changes of our own devising.

The climate is in a state of equilibria, which means if we push in one direction, it will push back in the other. While this may make it *seem* like we are "above the law" so to speak, it doesn't take into question where the "breaking point" actually is. Will the world continue to push back no matter how much we alter it? Will the effects it pushes back with (El Nino, and other dramatic climate effects, etc etc) be survivable by us?

It could be that one way of the system coping with the vast amount of chemicals we fill the atmosphere with is for it to release other, more noxious chemicals. While that would be fine and dandy in the CO2 stakes (lots of oxygen) - it still might be totally unable to support human life.

Will there be a point where the straw of CO2 emissions, or any other factor of human involvement, breaks the camels back, and the whole thing crumbles?

Even if you accept that human involvement is 0.000001% of the total CO2 output into the atmosphere, is that the infitessmally small amount that pushes the system over the edge and into freefall?

Even in the wake of a total nuclear apocalypse, some life would survive. Does that mean that the world is "sturdy" enough to take it? No. Humans didn't make the grand canyon, and until recently the scope of it would defy human efforts. But yet, ancient man without sophisticated tools managed to craft the pyramids, and that in a lifetime. We have transported plagues that have devastated continents, we have caused extinctions. Mankind has totally altered climates and habitats in a very substantial way, just by casual consumption. Indeed, the Sahara desert has been attributed to mankind's interference with the eco-system. We can cause desertification, and we are doing so.

I do not think it is arrogant to think that the tons and tons and tons of pollutants that we are releasing into the atmosphere can have a substantial effect on numerous diverse environmental conditions. And as such I think that, irrespective of "scientific proof" (not evidence, there is plenty of evidence as many people here point out) mankind has an obligation to clean up its act. Cows might release billions of tons of methane into the atmosphere, but this they have done for millions of years. People have not been releasing tons of greenhouse gases (Not just CO2 and methane) and CFCs for that long, and the short-term effects (the changes we can see now) are palfry compared to the long-term damage we could be doing.


and agree with most of this.
i do believe it is theoretically possible to push us past the point of equilibrium....
but who knows what that limit is....or if we are even close.


Yes, but different sorts of clouds. The thick clouds that we are more familiar with (the fluffy cumulonimbus clouds) are relatively low-level. all cloud level counts. and it's not just cloud cover that cools and reflects the heat...



My point being that it is best to find out the breaking point well in advance to pushing its limit, and that really it is best to not push the thing at all. yes.
but at this point....that will cost trillions and trillions (for global warming alone, really). is it money well spent?
compared to spending it on more provable environmental issues?

[Ace42]

eh...while temp does effect evaporation rate....it does not have to be 100º C to evaporate.

(this is all googled too)

Indeed, you omitted air and water pressure, as well as the purity of the water.

However, all these factors can work either way, and thus aren't of the greatest significance. Much as the "average temperature" increase is less relevant than the precise temperature increase above the poles, the same can be said of the environmental factors. Water takes less heat to boil at higher altitudes, but for obvious reasons the artic ice-pack melts at "sea level" (itself not a global constant due to lunar and tectonic effects. There are "dips" and bulges in the sea surface). Likewise the artic ice-pack is uniformly "clean" (pure) water.

Generally though, water needs to be at 100 deg C to evaporate. The reason water in a lower ambient temperature evaporates is because water does not evaporate or conduct heat evenly - hence the "bubbling" at boiling point - the bubbles are pockets of hotter water evaporating, and thus moving through pieces of cooler water.

Also, the collecting of water particulates by the wind is not technically "evaporation" is I would term it. although a super fine suspension of water particulates, they are not gaseous, and thus not "steam" (evaporated water).

all cloud level counts. and it's not just cloud cover that cools and reflects the heat...

But it is predominantly the case. For light-waves to be reflected, they need to be blocked by an opaque substance. Thick white fluffy clouds are more opaque than fine translucent patchy stratus clouds, and as such block more light. The same is true of photons.

Even airplane contrails can block substantial amounts of sunlight, so I am not saying that high altitude cloud formations don't, merely that it is the low-altitude cumulos that have a more significant effect.

However, metereolgy is certainly not my forté, so if anyone has pertinent information, I'd be interested to hear it.

[Qdrop]

Indeed, you omitted air and water pressure, as well as the purity of the water.

However, all these factors can work either way, and thus aren't of the greatest significance. Much as the "average temperature" increase is less relevant than the precise temperature increase above the poles, the same can be said of the environmental factors. Water takes less heat to boil at higher altitudes, but for obvious reasons the artic ice-pack melts at "sea level" (itself not a global constant due to lunar and tectonic effects. There are "dips" and bulges in the sea surface). Likewise the artic ice-pack is uniformly "clean" (pure) water.

Generally though, water needs to be at 100 deg C to evaporate. The reason water in a lower ambient temperature evaporates is because water does not evaporate or conduct heat evenly - hence the "bubbling" at boiling point - the bubbles are pockets of hotter water evaporating, and thus moving through pieces of cooler water.

Also, the collecting of water particulates by the wind is not technically "evaporation" is I would term it. although a super fine suspension of water particulates, they are not gaseous, and thus not "steam" (evaporated water).

but water does not have to be at 100ºC to evaporate....period. water evaporates anywhere from 0º to boiling.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03444.htm

my girlfriends turtle tank has to get a refill every month or so...as the waterlevel has dropped by about a 1.5 inches or so....that water never comes near boiling (lucky for the turtle).

i think we're splitting hairs....

(ha!...turtle...."hares"....ha......yeah...)

[Ace42]

but water does not have to be at 100ºC to evaporate....period. water evaporates anywhere from 0º to boiling.

But, the closer it is to 0, the less the cooling effect is of the evaporation, thus negating its effectiveness. And the water particulates which "evaporate" (literally, form water vapour) have the kinetic energy equivalent to 100 degs C under one atmosphere. As your article says.

Furthermore, the evaporation rate is lessened if there is more water in the atmosphere, causing diminshing returns.

[Qdrop]

Furthermore, the evaporation rate is lessened if there is more water in the atmosphere, causing diminshing returns.

and there in lies the rub...i will admit.

even if higher water vapor and evaporation from a warming DOES have a cooling effect (to balance out the warming)....
there would come a point (due to vapor saturation in the air over the decades) where this process would start to become limited.....

i mean, the whole planet can't just become the equivilent of a tropical rainforest...there would be a price to pay...

[catatonic]

Published on Thursday, June 23, 2005 by the Independent (UK)
We are Killing the Planet. That is Not an Exaggeration
by Charles Secrett

The statistics released yesterday are a wake-up call to individuals and families that we're all responsible for climate change. Too many people think: "Climate change has nothing to do with me - it's the fault of government and industry." But statistics like this show the cumulative effect of millions of people doing the wrong thing.

We can't escape the link between climate change and our individual daily behavior: how much we drive; what sort of fuel we use and what sort of car we own; whether we use public transport, walk or cycle whenever possible; whether we pile on board budget airline flights, the most irresponsible form of transport; whether we turn off the tap while we brush our teeth; whether we try to find local producers for our food, so that it hasn't traveled halfway across the world to reach our dinner plate. And, of course, whether we turn off our electrical appliances.

We have got to make the connection between our own lifestyles and big, global problems like climate change.

The couldn't-care-less attitude puts our future in peril. Our generation and future generations cannot afford it - we are killing the planet. That is not an exaggeration, but a scientific fact.

We all have a role to play. Yesterday's report shows how very simple changes in our behavior and lifestyles can have a positive effect in tackling climate change. What the individual does matters greatly.

All too often we're lazy - leaving the TV, radio, computer or DVD player on standby, so it can jump from red light to switched-on at a touch of the gizmo. What could be simpler than turning them off?

We need to be aware of the consequences of our own actions and not rely on the Government to legislate and save us. It would be beneficial for the Government to introduce stringent pollution taxes for those companies and households that waste dirty energy - and reward those that "go clean" in their energy use. But how far do we want legislation to go? What sort of society will it be when government has to legislate for everything we do to avoid terrible pollution and the catastrophic effects of climate change, trampling on our civil liberties in the process? We as individuals need to act to prevent such a green Orwellian nightmare.

We are already running out of time and common sense tells us to start today. It is lazy and irresponsible to leave a machine on standby, so switch it off.

Charles Secrett is environmental adviser to the Mayor of London and was executive director of Friends of the Earth from 1993 until 2003.

© 2005 Independent Newspapers

###