Global Climate Change

[OCinBuffalo]

He just looked at cloud cover in England and talks about cosmic rays. Why are Mars and Jupiter getting warmer then?

Now that's a great point.

 

Unless of course, they have Hummers on Mars and Jupiter. Nothing like a real control group when one is attempting to conduct real scientific research. Oh, I forgot, England, which makes up less than 1% of the surface of the earth, is a fine "control group". If things are getting hotter on planets that have no humans at all, and never have, with the exception of our space garbage, um, I mean Nasa programs, then that would poke a serious hole in the environtologists argument. In fact, if it was proved that 4 or more planets were in fact becoming warmer, that's too much of a coincidence and that's pretty much the end of Al Gore.

[OCinBuffalo]

Fundamentally, the video's logic is flawed because it assumes that the effects of global warming are NOT inevitable, and it assumes that human activity both to create global warming and to stop global warming will ALWAYS have an effect. The bottom right quadrant can occur even though the left column was chosen, and, it's contrapositive, the top left quadrant can occur even though the right column was chosen, are both true statements. And that is where this construct's, this guy's, this video's, and anyone, obviously not trained in logic, who supports this video's, argument ends. Permanently.

 

Read the rest if you want to know why.

 

The effects of global warming can be inevitable, just as inevitable as the 3-4 ice ages we are sure happened(anyone who has ever been to Watkins Glen knows this and you don't have to be a genius to see the obvious effect of glaciers moving back and forth), with no human involvement whatsoever. Also, humans may or may not be able to stop another ice age from occurring.

 

1. It is entirely possible that humans do everything we possibly can to avert global warming, AND, that the earth still undergoes a disaster, THEREFORE, humans end up dead, having no affect at all.

2. It is also possible that humans do nothing we possibly can to avert global warming, AND, we have no effect on the cause, THEREFORE, humans end up dead, having not been the cause of global warming.

 

His little logic chart doesn't take these, or others, into account. It is lame at best and representative of the general lack of logic training so blatantly prevalent in so-called "intellectuals" running around today. It's like nobody took Course II, or, they forgot it by the time they got around to their grad work.

 

The false choice: in his rows we can only choose true or false with regard to global warming being extremely bad. What about the opposite? What about extremely good(i.e. averts the next ice age)? This chart is premised upon global warming having no effect or a bad effect, when it is LOGICALLY possible that it can have a good effect. Building a logical construct that doesn't include all possibilities is wrong all day, every day, and twice on Sunday. Therefore, the premises of his argument are biased, and as such, illogical. It may have some rhetorical value, but it is logically worthless.

 

Inversely, the false choice in the columns is that we can only choose true or false on whether humans do something. We don't see a place for whether either choice has an effect on the outcomes. Logically the whole thing breaks down because it is possible(and I am inclined to believe far more probable) for the bottom right quadrant to occur(mass chaos) even though the left column(do something) was chosen. Bottom right can occur even though left column was chosen = my statement.

 

The contrapositive(which is always supposed to be true as well by the way) of my statment? It is possible for top left quadrant to occur even though even though the right column was chosen = we can still have mass economic upheaval and a new great depression even if we choose to do nothing about global warming. This is also, hopefully obviously, true. Getting it now? Both my statement and it's contrapositive are TRUE! Thus proving the soundness of my argument, and, proving the ridiculousness of the video's.

 

Most importantly it proves that his little chart is perhaps the furthest thing I have seen from a logical endeavor in a long while.

 

Environtolgists should leave the logic and the math, and the use of both, to those of us who are trained how to use them properly. They can have their "science" but logic/math is our domain and here we have rules here that must be followed, especially by outsiders. Anybody want to put me to the test, please understand I can CASE statement this out for you, that's right, the whole thing....properly.

[ExiledInIllinois]

I ask again, are these folks considering that when ice melts it takes about 9 or 10 less space. Also, there is a lot of sediment that will stay in place. If we did have global warming and melting of the ice caps, I don't believe a 20 foot rise in water. In fact, seeing as most people think that 90 percent of a burg is below water, I won't venture to say it is a push at best and maybe even a lowering of costal water levels as more water evaporates into the air. I suspect a rise in global humidity, but rising waters doubtful.

 

You know there is land under Antarctica... It is a continent...

 

??

[VABills]

You know there is land under Antarctica... It is a continent...

 

??

Yeah because Antarctica is the only place in the world with ice.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Yeah because Antarctica is the only place in the world with ice.

 

If all the melted and most ran into the sea... Would it effect the oceans...

 

??

[DC Tom]

Yeah because Antarctica is the only place in the world with ice.

 

Fine. Let's turn it on its head. Assume Antarctica is the ONLY place where ice rests on land. How much water is that added to the ocean if it melts?

[Chef Jim]

Fine. Let's turn it on its head. Assume Antarctica is the ONLY place where ice rests on land. How much water is that added to the ocean if it melts?

 

So how much ice would actually have to melt to raise all the ocean levels 20 feet. Is there even that much ice on the planet?

[finknottle]

So how much ice would actually have to melt to raise all the ocean levels 20 feet. Is there even that much ice on the planet?

 

Yes - current estimates of the ice-pack yield an increase of 80-100 meters. In fact, the buildup of glaciars on Antartica 40-30 million years ago was a major contributor to the lowering of sea levels that reconnected the land bridges between continents. Prior to that there was a sustained period of isolation in which life evolved in their own directions - for example, the common ancester to the carnivore family split into the dog side of the family in North America and the cat side in Asia. Then, bam! The ocean in the middle of the US turned into plains, the Bering shelf was exposed, the straits separating Europe and Asia dried up, and land-bridges started popping up between Africa and the rest; and all those species went at it tooth and nail and claw and hoof.

 

Here's a map of the earth 94 million years ago which gives you an idea of what how things change over time.

http://www.scotese.com/cretaceo.htm

The sea-levels then were about 200 meters higher. The unusually high level is partly due to all the melted ice, partly due to they way the shelfs happened to be at the time (they were relatively young and shallow), but also partly do to another relevant factor: the volume occupied by water is also a function of temperature. While we are used to thinking about climate change in terms of surface temperature, most scientists focus on deep sea temperatures. Back then they were about 15 degrees higher, giving the water more volume.

[Booster4324]

Fine. Let's turn it on its head. Assume Antarctica is the ONLY place where ice rests on land. How much water is that added to the ocean if it melts?

 

I assumed he was trolling. If not, he ranks right up there with the local radio host who explained it as a "glass full of ice and water that melts...it doesn't overflow right?"

[Hollywood Donahoe]

ok, what are the logical holes in the argument? You would have to attack his assumptions - which one?

I kind of lost interest about halfway through, but it seemed to me like a lame repackaging of the precautionary principle (please correct me if I've misinterpreted the message).

 

In that case, here are some of the existing criticisms.

[Booster4324]

I kind of lost interest about halfway through, but it seemed to me like a lame repackaging of the precautionary principle (please correct me if I've misinterpreted the message).

 

In that case, here are some of the existing criticisms.

 

I cannot recall anyone using a disputed Wiki article for evidence before; although I am sure it is commonplace.

[DC Tom]

So how much ice would actually have to melt to raise all the ocean levels 20 feet. Is there even that much ice on the planet?

 

Surface area of the oceans is 361,132,000,000 square meters. 20 feet is about six meters. that's 2.1 trillion cubic meters of water. Antarctica is 14 billion square meters in area...14 billion into 2.1 trillion is about 150 meters thickness of water over Antarctica needed to raise the oceans 20 feet. Multiply by 1.1 for the density of ice...and if Antarctica's ice sheet has an average thickness of more than 165 meters and melts completely, the oceans rise 20 feet.

 

The lowest estimates I can find for the thickness of Antarctica's ice are an order of magnitude higher - about 2000 meters thick. So yeah, apparently there's more than enough ice.

[Hollywood Donahoe]

I cannot recall anyone using a disputed Wiki article for evidence before; although I am sure it is commonplace.

Pick your own, then.

[swede316]

Surface area of the oceans is 361,132,000,000 square meters. 20 feet is about six meters. that's 2.1 trillion cubic meters of water. Antarctica is 14 billion square meters in area...14 billion into 2.1 trillion is about 150 meters thickness of water over Antarctica needed to raise the oceans 20 feet. Multiply by 1.1 for the density of ice...and if Antarctica's ice sheet has an average thickness of more than 165 meters and melts completely, the oceans rise 20 feet.

 

The lowest estimates I can find for the thickness of Antarctica's ice are an order of magnitude higher - about 2000 meters thick. So yeah, apparently there's more than enough ice.

DOOOMED!!!

[VABills]

Surface area of the oceans is 361,132,000,000 square meters. 20 feet is about six meters. that's 2.1 trillion cubic meters of water. Antarctica is 14 billion square meters in area...14 billion into 2.1 trillion is about 150 meters thickness of water over Antarctica needed to raise the oceans 20 feet. Multiply by 1.1 for the density of ice...and if Antarctica's ice sheet has an average thickness of more than 165 meters and melts completely, the oceans rise 20 feet.

 

The lowest estimates I can find for the thickness of Antarctica's ice are an order of magnitude higher - about 2000 meters thick. So yeah, apparently there's more than enough ice.

Thanks Tom, that's what I was looking for.

 

So right now how much is the net loss of ice melt each year? Meaning melt - refreeze, over the entire surface of the earth?

[swede316]

Thanks Tom, that's what I was looking for.

 

So right now how much is the net loss of ice melt each year? Meaning melt - refreeze, over the entire surface of the earth?

Another Ice Age may happen...but I don't think it's man made...How many Ice Ages have happened prior to us driving cars and burning fossil fuels for electricity? 60 in the last 2 million years!!!! Nothing we can do to stop it. Break out your parkas!

[ieatcrayonz]

I cannot recall anyone using a disputed Wiki article for evidence before; although I am sure it is commonplace.

WWFLPU?

[ieatcrayonz]

Another Ice Age may happen...but I don't think it's man made...How many Ice Ages have happened prior to us driving cars and burning fossil fuels for electricity? 60 in the last 2 million years!!!! Nothing we can do to stop it. Break out your parkas!

Agreed. Canada hasn't even come out of the last ice age yet, and we're worried about Global warming.

[DC Tom]

Thanks Tom, that's what I was looking for.

 

So right now how much is the net loss of ice melt each year? Meaning melt - refreeze, over the entire surface of the earth?

 

I honestly don't know. WAG...a block about the size of Rhode Island annually, maybe? In percent of total ice volume world-wide, I'd think it's well below 1% annually so far.

[Chef Jim]

Surface area of the oceans is 361,132,000,000 square meters. 20 feet is about six meters. that's 2.1 trillion cubic meters of water. Antarctica is 14 billion square meters in area...14 billion into 2.1 trillion is about 150 meters thickness of water over Antarctica needed to raise the oceans 20 feet. Multiply by 1.1 for the density of ice...and if Antarctica's ice sheet has an average thickness of more than 165 meters and melts completely, the oceans rise 20 feet.

 

The lowest estimates I can find for the thickness of Antarctica's ice are an order of magnitude higher - about 2000 meters thick. So yeah, apparently there's more than enough ice.

 

Thank you. And I knew that would come from you. Howerver that would only be if all the ice melted.

[DC Tom]

Thank you. And I knew that would come from you. Howerver that would only be if all the ice melted.

 

Reread the math. A 20-foot rise in sea level is only 10% of the ice melting...assuming you accept the estimates of the Antarctic ice sheet being about 2km average thickness (and some estimates run as thick as 5km).

[ExiledInIllinois]

Surface area of the oceans is 361,132,000,000 square meters. 20 feet is about six meters. that's 2.1 trillion cubic meters of water. Antarctica is 14 billion square meters in area...14 billion into 2.1 trillion is about 150 meters thickness of water over Antarctica needed to raise the oceans 20 feet. Multiply by 1.1 for the density of ice...and if Antarctica's ice sheet has an average thickness of more than 165 meters and melts completely, the oceans rise 20 feet.

 

The lowest estimates I can find for the thickness of Antarctica's ice are an order of magnitude higher - about 2000 meters thick. So yeah, apparently there's more than enough ice.

 

Thanks for the data... That is what I was elluding to.

 

Just goes to show you that America is really filled with way too many of these lame brains that argue the oceans would not rise.

 

[Chef Jim]

Thanks for the data... That is what I was elluding to.

 

Just goes to show you that America is really filled with way too many of these lame brains that argue the oceans would not rise.

 

 

I don't think it's so much whether or not the oceans will rise. It's more of an arguement on how much or even if mankind has contributed to the change.

[VABills]

I don't think it's so much whether or not the oceans will rise. It's more of an arguement on how much or even if mankind has contributed to the change or if we can in fact do anything to really effect change.

fixed it for you

[Chef Jim]

fixed it for you

 

Buy a Prius, plant a tree........peace, love, waterbeds.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

It's the new religion....idiotic causes designed to control the ignorant masses.

 

That was my immediate reaction. He was parroting the old "God vs. Atheism" gambit argument.

[Dan]

If I may point out a fairly glaring flaw in many posters continual posts on this subject. It's been stated by numerous people that the earth has cooled and warmed multiple times on its own and without human intervention; therefore, why would we assume humans are effecting the global climate now? It has been suggested that the climate change we may, or may not, be observing is just a natural fluctuation in the earth's climate. However, these assertions are neglecting one of the primary observations of global climate change... the rate of the change.

 

Yes, the earth's climate has warmed and cooled in the past. However, these previous cycles are measured in 10's of thousands of years. The changes currently being measured are being measured in 100's of years. Hence, the rate of change is considerably increased over what could be considered a "natural" cycle. It's this unnatural rate of climate change that leads many to conclude human involvement and causes problems for species throughout the world. Most animal and plant species are not equipped to evolve as quickly as the observed climate change. Hence, mass extinction and a world much different from the current one is expected.

 

Furthermore, it has been suggested that we're just being narcissistic to think that humans can do anything as grand as affect the earth's climate. To that I would say, don't underestimate the power of 6.someodd billion people. If we have enough nuclear weaponry to obliterate the planet; surely we can do just enough to heat things up a little bit. Not necessarily saying we are, just saying certainly it's possible for humans to have some effect on the earth. Ever see how much damage 1 grasshopper can do to a field? Not much, I agree. Put 6 billion in that same field and watch it disappear. There's power in numbers.

 

 

Fundamentally, the video's logic is flawed because it assumes that the effects of global warming are NOT inevitable, and it assumes that human activity both to create global warming and to stop global warming will ALWAYS have an effect.

...

Sorry, but I stopped reading there (well not really, but I should have, if not for my curiosity an/or boredom with the television right now). I'm fairly certain he stated nearly the opposite relatively early in his diatribe.. that you don't have to assume that humans are effecting the global climate and that even if we spend lots of money and that spent money only results in minimal effect then what are we out, but alot of money and a slightly better world than one in which we did nothing. He put a smiley face in that box, but he said we'd have a very different world or something to that effect. I'm guessing he just likes to spend money; hence, the smiley face.

[Wacka]

One volcanic eruption like Pinatubo puts out more "pollutants" than man does in years. Relating to the "human caused" ozone hole, Pinatubo put out more chlorine into the atmosphere than man has EVER done.

 

CO2 is now a "greenhouse gas". Lets kill all the people and animals since they all produce CO2.

[ieatcrayonz]

One volcanic eruption like Pinatubo puts out more "pollutants" than man does in years. Relating to the "human caused" ozone hole, Pinatubo put out more chlorine into the atmosphere than man has EVER done.

 

CO2 is now a "greenhouse gas". Lets kill all the people and animals since they all produce CO2.

We have been through this and you are way off base. Although people and animals produce CO2, the trees and some other plants use it and convert it to oxygen. The O in CO2 stands for Oxygen which means air. If we got rid of all the people and animals, the trees and other CO2 using plants would eventually die and only fish would be around.

 

Methane is the problem more than CO2. Mammals like cows produce methane when they fart. I think it would be sad but I would be in favor of a rule to kill all mammals so that we could be sure humans would survive.

 

We discussed this in another thread which got erased.

[/dev/null]

Methane is the problem more than CO2. Mammals like cows produce methane when they fart. I think it would be sad but I would be in favor of a rule to kill all mammals so that we could be sure humans would survive.

 

Hamsters are mammals too. I don't t think Sammy or Carl would like that idea

[TheMadCap]

It's nutjobs like this guy who make it difficult for actual scientists to get thier point across to the masses without being laughed at. Fact is, we don't know how much humans have affected the natural climate change for the reasons Dan pointed out: we haven't been collecting the data on it long enough to really know. What cannot be disputed is that CO2 does absorb infrared raditation and will cause a warming affect. Yes, volcanic eruptions do in fact put large amounts of particulates and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the thing, is, they don't happen on a constant basis, as is the case with the byproducts of combustion.

 

The other fact that has not been mentioned here, that concerns me much more than rising sea levels in and of themselves is the effect that all that freshwater will have on global climate and thermohaline circulation in the worlds oceans. All that water doesn't just slosh around, there are actual currents and patterns in effect, which directly drive weather on Earth.

 

Bottom line is that we just don't know how much we are affecting climate change. We haven't been doing it long enough to say for sure. Either way, we have to find other ways to supply energy to our masses eventually. Peak Oil will take care of the problem eventually...

[ieatcrayonz]

Hamsters are mammals too. I don't t think Sammy or Carl would like that idea

They are rodents, not mammals.

 

Plus, I have more than enough money to pay someone off to keep them alive.

[/dev/null]

I have more than enough money to pay someone off

 

I see you understand Al Gore's real philosophy

[finknottle]

It's nutjobs like this guy who make it difficult for actual scientists to get thier point across to the masses without being laughed at. ...

 

The other fact that has not been mentioned here, that concerns me much more than rising sea levels in and of themselves is the effect that all that freshwater will have on global climate and thermohaline circulation in the worlds oceans. All that water doesn't just slosh around, there are actual currents and patterns in effect, which directly drive weather on Earth.

 

Case in point: global warming will lead to localized global cooling.

 

The last time the north pole melted (about 5 million yeas ago) it led to freezing temperatures in Europe. It has to do with the mid-atlantic conveyer belt. Right now, warm salty water from the gulf stream glides along to Europe keeping it warmer than it's latitude would dictate. But salt water is heavier than fresh water, and when the two meet the former is driven down to the ocean floor and dispersed. As the north pole ice pack melts, it creates a steadily encroaching bank of less salty water which will in time act as a break on the conveyer belt and disrupt it before it ever gets to Europe. Long-term outlook: Spain will be more like Maine in temperature, France like Newfoundland, and England like the Hudson Bay. It's happened before. Sell off your beach-front villas and your stock in Spanish olive oil companies.

[ieatcrayonz]

Case in point: global warming will lead to localized global cooling.

 

The last time the north pole melted (about 5 million yeas ago) it led to freezing temperatures in Europe. It has to do with the mid-atlantic conveyer belt. Right now, warm salty water from the gulf stream glides along to Europe keeping it warmer than it's latitude would dictate. But salt water is heavier than fresh water, and when the two meet the former is driven down to the ocean floor and dispersed. As the north pole ice pack melts, it creates a steadily encroaching bank of less salty water which will in time act as a break on the conveyer belt and disrupt it before it ever gets to Europe. Long-term outlook: Spain will be more like Maine in temperature, France like Newfoundland, and England like the Hudson Bay. It's happened before. Sell off your beach-front villas and your stock in Spanish olive oil companies.

Thanks for the history lesson. I'm curious if that is why Spain and Maine sound alike. Is it because they were alike in the olden days? Plus they have that song.

[finknottle]

Thanks for the history lesson. I'm curious if that is why Spain and Maine sound alike. Is it because they were alike in the olden days? Plus they have that song.

 

Because during the Eocene they both featured heavy rain on their plains.

[ieatcrayonz]

Because during the Eocene they both featured heavy rain on their plains.

That's what I figured.

[Alaska Darin]

Solar Scientist David Archibald Says all you hippies are fulla crap and are gonna be begging for CO2 in the atmosphere in the not-so-distant future...

 

I'm sure Al Gore and the rest of the IPCC will use the available cash to strike this down. Beware anything that has money, Pat Robertson, and Al Sharpton involved.

[GG]

It's nutjobs like this guy who make it difficult for actual scientists to get thier point across to the masses without being laughed at. Fact is, we don't know how much humans have affected the natural climate change for the reasons Dan pointed out: we haven't been collecting the data on it long enough to really know. What cannot be disputed is that CO2 does absorb infrared raditation and will cause a warming affect. Yes, volcanic eruptions do in fact put large amounts of particulates and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the thing, is, they don't happen on a constant basis, as is the case with the byproducts of combustion.

 

The other fact that has not been mentioned here, that concerns me much more than rising sea levels in and of themselves is the effect that all that freshwater will have on global climate and thermohaline circulation in the worlds oceans. All that water doesn't just slosh around, there are actual currents and patterns in effect, which directly drive weather on Earth.

 

Bottom line is that we just don't know how much we are affecting climate change. We haven't been doing it long enough to say for sure. Either way, we have to find other ways to supply energy to our masses eventually. Peak Oil will take care of the problem eventually...

 

Can't argue too much with this post, except that the nutjobs you refer to usually reach the conclusion that global warming is the most pressing need fcaing humanity and immediate action must be taken, regardless of cost. Never mind that "action" is usually unquantifiable, nor is the real cost nor the substantial unintended consequences.

 

But I bet you can sell a lot of movies & books with images of Statue of Liberty's torch under water.

[erynthered]

It happened once, it can happen again.