| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Materialist99
Forum Plebian
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Posts: 176
Local time: 11:41 AM
Location: Chicago
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 4:00 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
Why is the sea ice in the Arctic important, and the sea ice in the Antarctic not important? Yes, there was a record (satellite record) low amount of sea ice in the northern hemisphere last year,
but there was a record amount of sea ice in the southern hemisphere last year.
In fact, for most of this year there has been a positive anomaly for the total amount of sea ice in the world.
Mod edit: placed graph of daily Ice trends @ north pole since 1979 in spoiler to normalize thread viewing
_________________
Last edited by Materialist99 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 4:31 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
Materialist99
Forum Plebian
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Posts: 176
Local time: 11:41 AM
Location: Chicago
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Possible reason for melting of Arctic ice besides mankind.
Study finds Arctic seabed afire with lava-spewing volcanoes
Could be that the massive amount of heat from volcanic activity is having an affect on Arctic ice.
Also, the volcanoes seem to be emitting a lot of carbon dioxide.
"...but Sohn says the huge volumes of CO2 gas that belched out of the undersea volcanoes likely contributed to rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. How much, he couldn't say."
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Noggin
Joined: 13 Jan 2004
Posts: 1055
Local time: 12:41 PM
Location: Columbus Ohio
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I can prove scientifically that after each apex on this squiggly line, the line indeed falls. And furthermore, at the bottom of each convergence, the line will suddenly go in the upward direction and continue this progression till the end of the graph. What more proof could you possibly need?
-Noggin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
munky99999
Provisional moralist.
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 4671
Local time: 12:41 PM
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe the ice caps on mars will melt completely also by september?
We know the ice caps there are melting... though those are made of co2 I believe. So kind of ironic maybe 
_________________
A cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his fleshand drink his blood; while telepathically tell him you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
You cant outsmart me; you can only outnumber me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ApostateLois
Infinity Welcomes Careful Drivers
Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 2067
Local time: 1:41 AM
Location: In space, with a traffic cone
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
MOAR PIRATES PLZ
And where is Santa Claus going to live?
_________________
Kryten: Don't you believe that God exists in all things? Aren't you a Pantheist?
Lister: Yeah, I just don't think it applies to kitchen utensils. I'm not a Fryingpantheist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eximius
Located: Behind you
Joined: 30 Aug 2007
Posts: 716
Local time: 5:41 PM
Location: Wales
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| munky99999 wrote: |
I know what a house boat is lol... the name is self-explanatory even if i didnt know.
The point I was making is that the great lakes for example(where I live) have dropped multiple feet for water level.
| Quote: | | Water based ice does not affect water levels as ice displaces the same amount of water as it contains. But land based ice melting such as in Antarctica will cause water levels to rise. |
That's an interesting point. I'd have to ask the question... how much of that land actually will continue to be covered by water anyway... or will the continent itself actually become all land? Thusly water moving into the oceans and such?
| Quote: | | See the graph in my other post. |
Indeed I have seen those many times. As I have said. This is correlation and not causality. Not to mention there's a nasty %error on those. One ice core which wasnt that large covering a huge amount of time. It just isnt all there.
Furthermore if you look at the temperature change. The delta change moves from around 3celcius down to -9celcius. If the current human activity is only accounted to 0.6 celcus change. This is quite acceptable.
Furthermore this still doesnt link fossil fuels and such... but rather the huge population boom and the cutting down of many forests I suspect have quite the hand in the problems.
| Quote: | | Deforestation is a major problem granted. But to say that humans, cattle, chickens and JP breath and fart more greenhouse gases than cars produce is ridiculous. |
Actually not that ridiculous. If you run the numbers you find about same amount of correlation. Which is respectable but it cant be pushed ahead. Even if it turns out the huge population is at fault... it's not like we can go exterminate africa and the middle east to kill 2-3 billion people. Though that wouldnt be a bad idea 
| Quote: | | Your right in saying that cattle contribute to global warming but nowhere near as much as cars. |
It isnt just cattle. It's ALL animals including humans. There has also been a huge population boost in tons of different species. For example at the end of The Price of Right the old tymer Bob Barker used to tell you to spade and neutre your pets. There's tons of cats and dogs and other things. I would really love to see actual hard numbers on this.
| Quote: | | And humans even as a species produce very little CO2 on a global scale. |
Actually each person produces about 300kg of CO2 every year.
A car roughly burns 200gram per km. BUT that really isnt much of a constant effect unless you look at the very large scale. Unlike hooomans who unfortunately have to keep breathing all the time. There's also a tonfuck more people then cars which run. I know many people who dont even have cars or if they even have them use them so infrequently that it's meaningless.
Does the average person drive 1500km per year? Probably more... but when you look at the 1billion poor people in africa... they arent driving... so the reverse occurs.
Plus the point is that hoomans arent necessarily that large. The huge increased amount of cows and chickens and such for our food which has been increased with the population. Also produces lots of CO2.
| Quote: | | And with the electric car, it's only green if the energy to power it is produces in an eco-friendly manner. But it's brilliant that your thinking of getting one. |
I live in the great lakes area. So Niagra falls pretty much powers the area. There are also 5 nuclear power plants around. They are also building wind farms and such also. Which interestingly enough are pretty good stuff.
My electricity in other words has been quite green for a long time now.
Also I know global warming is real. CO2 relationship to it... isnt real enough. Just a correlation.
That doesnt mean anything though. The reasons to go green and get an all electric car is there entirely. You will likely be able to get 250km on a charge. Which is tons for me if I'm just driving around the city... everynight I can go home and recharge. Which is super cheap compared to oil/gas prices. You win just because of price value. If I need to go to say Toronto which is 400km away... I can take a plane. Which planes will be capable of going green also. Boeing I do believe is designing their green passenger plane. I am personally debating if I should take some of my money and build an all electric plane which can carry 2 and cargo or 4 people with no luggage. Then the plane can fly nutty distances and recharge on the ground in the hangar.
The best part of the electric plane is that people who live near airports will no longer have some crazy loud engines. Which is the number 1 problem with airports is noise problems. |
Sorry if I seemed patronizing, I just found the houseboat magazine website funny, what can I say, I've got a freaky sense of humor.
It doesn't matter if the land itself is then covered in the water because the land based ice that was on it would have melted and become ocean/sea water. Rather than being above sea level it would have become sea thus causing water levels to rise.
But it is known that the greenhouse effect exists. We can even see it on Venus and the opposite on Mars. We also know that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas. So this leads us to believe that there is a connection between C02 levels and temperatures. The fact that the correlation is so perfect reinforces that there is a connection. And if by size you mean the area the ice core covered I can't find an exact figure but granted it was quite small. But the core was over 3.6km long.
| Quote: | | Beginning with the industrial revolution in the 1850s and accelerating ever since, the human consumption of fossil fuels has elevated CO2 levels from a concentration of ~280 ppm to more than 380 ppm today. These increases are projected to reach more than 560 ppm before the end of the 21st century. It is known that carbon dioxide levels are substantially higher now than at any time in the last 750,000 years. Along with rising methane levels, these changes are anticipated to cause an increase of 1.4–5.6 °C between 1990 and 2100. |
Granted the information is from wikipedia so it's not the most accurate of sources.
And yes I understand it does not link the burning of fossil fuels directly.
And I apologize I should have done more research into it before dismissing your point. This
link is quite interesting, although again it's not exactly the most accurate of sources. But with animals the CO2 they produce is displaced in part by the plants that they eat. Partly carbon neutral.
Fuck Bob Barker! We had Bruce Forsyth. 
Amount of CO2 produced by vehicles:
700million vehicles in use around the world (estimated)
produce 250grams of CO2 per km (I've increased the number to make up for trucks, lorries etc, but the number is extremely low and in reality is much higher, just can't be arsed finding it)
let's say that each one goes 10KM a day (again this is extremely low and in reality would be higher)
700,000,000 x 10 x 250 x 365 = 638750000000000 grams of CO2 or 638750000000kg of CO2
And this is an extremely conservative estimate. The true number is evidently much higher. And none of this is displaced naturally.
My area is quite eco-friendly. We have a nuclear power station nearby, a proposed dam 1.3 miles long that will produce 30% of the UK's power, thousands of wind turbines and "Electric Mountain" which is essentially a huge battery which stores unused power that would go to waste by pumping it into a lake and letting it out thus spinning a turbine when the extra power is needed.
Electric plane  ZOMFG.
_________________
"One is all for religion until one visits a really religious country. Then, one is all for drains, machinery and a miniumum wage." - Aldous Huxley
"Time is a great teacher. Unfortunately, it kills all its pupils." - Hector Berlioz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eximius
Located: Behind you
Joined: 30 Aug 2007
Posts: 716
Local time: 5:41 PM
Location: Wales
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| munky99999 wrote: |
I know what a house boat is lol... the name is self-explanatory even if i didnt know.
The point I was making is that the great lakes for example(where I live) have dropped multiple feet for water level.
| Quote: | | Water based ice does not affect water levels as ice displaces the same amount of water as it contains. But land based ice melting such as in Antarctica will cause water levels to rise. |
That's an interesting point. I'd have to ask the question... how much of that land actually will continue to be covered by water anyway... or will the continent itself actually become all land? Thusly water moving into the oceans and such?
| Quote: | | See the graph in my other post. |
Indeed I have seen those many times. As I have said. This is correlation and not causality. Not to mention there's a nasty %error on those. One ice core which wasnt that large covering a huge amount of time. It just isnt all there.
Furthermore if you look at the temperature change. The delta change moves from around 3celcius down to -9celcius. If the current human activity is only accounted to 0.6 celcus change. This is quite acceptable.
Furthermore this still doesnt link fossil fuels and such... but rather the huge population boom and the cutting down of many forests I suspect have quite the hand in the problems.
| Quote: | | Deforestation is a major problem granted. But to say that humans, cattle, chickens and JP breath and fart more greenhouse gases than cars produce is ridiculous. |
Actually not that ridiculous. If you run the numbers you find about same amount of correlation. Which is respectable but it cant be pushed ahead. Even if it turns out the huge population is at fault... it's not like we can go exterminate africa and the middle east to kill 2-3 billion people. Though that wouldnt be a bad idea
| Quote: | | Your right in saying that cattle contribute to global warming but nowhere near as much as cars. |
It isnt just cattle. It's ALL animals including humans. There has also been a huge population boost in tons of different species. For example at the end of The Price of Right the old tymer Bob Barker used to tell you to spade and neutre your pets. There's tons of cats and dogs and other things. I would really love to see actual hard numbers on this.
| Quote: | | And humans even as a species produce very little CO2 on a global scale. |
Actually each person produces about 300kg of CO2 every year.
A car roughly burns 200gram per km. BUT that really isnt much of a constant effect unless you look at the very large scale. Unlike hooomans who unfortunately have to keep breathing all the time. There's also a tonfuck more people then cars which run. I know many people who dont even have cars or if they even have them use them so infrequently that it's meaningless.
Does the average person drive 1500km per year? Probably more... but when you look at the 1billion poor people in africa... they arent driving... so the reverse occurs.
Plus the point is that hoomans arent necessarily that large. The huge increased amount of cows and chickens and such for our food which has been increased with the population. Also produces lots of CO2.
| Quote: | | And with the electric car, it's only green if the energy to power it is produces in an eco-friendly manner. But it's brilliant that your thinking of getting one. |
I live in the great lakes area. So Niagra falls pretty much powers the area. There are also 5 nuclear power plants around. They are also building wind farms and such also. Which interestingly enough are pretty good stuff.
My electricity in other words has been quite green for a long time now.
Also I know global warming is real. CO2 relationship to it... isnt real enough. Just a correlation.
That doesnt mean anything though. The reasons to go green and get an all electric car is there entirely. You will likely be able to get 250km on a charge. Which is tons for me if I'm just driving around the city... everynight I can go home and recharge. Which is super cheap compared to oil/gas prices. You win just because of price value. If I need to go to say Toronto which is 400km away... I can take a plane. Which planes will be capable of going green also. Boeing I do believe is designing their green passenger plane. I am personally debating if I should take some of my money and build an all electric plane which can carry 2 and cargo or 4 people with no luggage. Then the plane can fly nutty distances and recharge on the ground in the hangar.
The best part of the electric plane is that people who live near airports will no longer have some crazy loud engines. Which is the number 1 problem with airports is noise problems. |
Sorry if I seemed patronizing, I just found the houseboat magazine website funny, what can I say, I've got a freaky sense of humor.
It doesn't matter if the land itself is then covered in the water because the land based ice that was on it would have melted and become ocean/sea water. Rather than being above sea level it would have become sea thus causing water levels to rise.
But it is known that the greenhouse effect exists. We can even see it on Venus and the opposite on Mars. We also know that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas. So this leads us to believe that there is a connection between C02 levels and temperatures. The fact that the correlation is so perfect reinforces that there is a connection. And if by size you mean the area the ice core covered I can't find an exact figure but granted it was quite small. But the core was over 3.6km long.
| Quote: | | Beginning with the industrial revolution in the 1850s and accelerating ever since, the human consumption of fossil fuels has elevated CO2 levels from a concentration of ~280 ppm to more than 380 ppm today. These increases are projected to reach more than 560 ppm before the end of the 21st century. It is known that carbon dioxide levels are substantially higher now than at any time in the last 750,000 years. Along with rising methane levels, these changes are anticipated to cause an increase of 1.4–5.6 °C between 1990 and 2100. |
Granted the information is from wikipedia so it's not the most accurate of sources.
And yes I understand it does not link the burning of fossil fuels directly.
And I apologize I should have done more research into it before dismissing your point. This
link is quite interesting, although again it's not exactly the most accurate of sources. But with animals the CO2 they produce is displaced in part by the plants that they eat. Partly carbon neutral.
Fuck Bob Barker! We had Bruce Forsyth.
Amount of CO2 produced by vehicles:
700million vehicles in use around the world (estimated)
produce 250grams of CO2 per km (I've increased the number to make up for trucks, lorries etc, but the number is extremely low and in reality is much higher, just can't be arsed finding it)
let's say that each one goes 10KM a day (again this is extremely low and in reality would be higher)
700,000,000 x 10 x 250 x 365 = 638750000000000 grams of CO2 or 638750000000kg of CO2
And this is an extremely conservative estimate. The true number is evidently much higher. And none of this is displaced naturally.
My area is quite eco-friendly. We have a nuclear power station nearby, a proposed dam 1.3 miles long that will produce 30% of the UK's power, thousands of wind turbines and "Electric Mountain" which is essentially a huge battery which stores unused power that would go to waste by pumping it into a lake and letting it out thus spinning a turbine when the extra power is needed.
Electric plane ZOMFG.
_________________
"One is all for religion until one visits a really religious country. Then, one is all for drains, machinery and a miniumum wage." - Aldous Huxley
"Time is a great teacher. Unfortunately, it kills all its pupils." - Hector Berlioz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
munky99999
Provisional moralist.
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 4671
Local time: 12:41 PM
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | It doesn't matter if the land itself is then covered in the water because the land based ice that was on it would have melted and become ocean/sea water. Rather than being above sea level it would have become sea thus causing water levels to rise. |
It does matter if the land is covered or not.
| Quote: | | But it is known that the greenhouse effect exists. |
It is known for very very very high concentrations of greenhouse gases. Like if CO2 consisted of around 80% of the atmosphere then yes.
When the co2 concentration is lower then 5% the effect is so significantly less.
| Quote: | | We can even see it on Venus and the opposite on Mars. |
Different concentrations. Yet for some reason both Venus and Mars is globally warming and as I said... the ice caps are melting on mars.
| Quote: | | We also know that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas. So this leads us to believe that there is a connection between C02 levels and temperatures. |
still isnt a causal link.
Venus is 97% CO2 while earth is 0.038%
That's a huge difference.
| Quote: | | The fact that the correlation is so perfect reinforces that there is a connection. |
perfect? The correlation is around 40%... If I got 40% on my final exam and I told my dad I got perfect and then he saw I got 40% I might be missing an arm...
| Quote: | | And if by size you mean the area the ice core covered I can't find an exact figure but granted it was quite small. But the core was over 3.6km long. |
The point I was making is that there is a high degree of error.
| Quote: | | Beginning with the industrial revolution in the 1850s and accelerating ever since, the human consumption of fossil fuels has elevated CO2 levels from a concentration of ~280 ppm to more than 380 ppm today. These increases are projected to reach more than 560 ppm before the end of the 21st century. It is known that carbon dioxide levels are substantially higher now than at any time in the last 750,000 years. Along with rising methane levels, these changes are anticipated to cause an increase of 1.4–5.6 °C between 1990 and 2100. |
The CO2 concentrations for the future is pure speculation. Which means nothing. Last I checked we couldnt time travel to check.
Furthermore even if it rises 5.6celcius. your graph already allows the delta change of wayyyy more then that. So I guess it's fair... we are perfectly safe until 2100 according to the data.
| Quote: | And I apologize I should have done more research into it before dismissing your point. This
link is quite interesting, although again it's not exactly the most accurate of sources. But with animals the CO2 they produce is displaced in part by the plants that they eat. Partly carbon neutral. |
the link doesnt account for animals at all. your point that plants are displacing hasnt been seen yet.
| Quote: | | And this is an extremely conservative estimate. The true number is evidently much higher. And none of this is displaced naturally. |
none? the co2 concentrations have only gone 30% in the last century.
| Quote: | | Electric plane Surprised ZOMFG. |
It's very doable.
The tesla roadster for example has over 250hp. Which is plenty of horsepower to get into the air. Less then 100hp is enough per about 1 ton. Double the power allows much heavier and larger wing loading. Meaning if you strapped wings to the tesla roadster it would fly with a prop. Then add batteries to the wing space and you have a plane which flies well.
Ofcoarse you wouldnt do such a thing.
_________________
A cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his fleshand drink his blood; while telepathically tell him you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
You cant outsmart me; you can only outnumber me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tormentor
Royal Citizen
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 483
Local time: 12:41 PM
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is a question of "ARE HUMANS DOING THIS?" not that it isn't happening.
Seriously. We know that earth changes, but can humans be blamed for a natural occurrence that has happened MANY times before? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hillbillyatheist
Administrator
Joined: 29 Jun 2004
Posts: 16067
Local time: 12:41 PM
Location: Denver Colorado.
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
question: if all the ice melts where will santa and his elves live?
global warming could end christmas as we know it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
munky99999
Provisional moralist.
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 4671
Local time: 12:41 PM
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hillbillyatheist wrote: | question: if all the ice melts where will santa and his elves live?
global warming could end christmas as we know it. |
The people with Santaphobia would say that santa doesnt exist.
_________________
A cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his fleshand drink his blood; while telepathically tell him you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
You cant outsmart me; you can only outnumber me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Materialist99
Forum Plebian
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Posts: 176
Local time: 11:41 AM
Location: Chicago
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 8:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
It looks like there is a lot more sea ice in the Arctic this year than last year.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chookrooter
Forum Master
Joined: 07 Jun 2008
Posts: 2237
Local time: 3:11 AM
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 8:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | We're fucking up the planet. |
Bollocks.
We're not harming the planet in any meaningful way. We ARE making it uninhabitable for ourselves.
As George Carlin observed; "The planet isn't going anywhere, we are"
The human animal is a relatively recent and temporary species,one of many thousands on the planet.Our sentience gives us the arrogant delusion of unique entitlement to the resources of our world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
baddogma
antitheist
Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 9905
Local time: 2:41 AM
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 8:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chookrooter wrote: | | Quote: | | We're fucking up the planet. |
Bollocks.
We're not harming the planet in any meaningful way. We ARE making it uninhabitable for ourselves.
As George Carlin observed; "The planet isn't going anywhere, we are"
The human animal is a relatively recent and temporary species,one of many thousands on the planet.Our sentience gives us the arrogant delusion of unique entitlement to the resources of our world. |
_________________
Join http://www.sefora.org/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
josephpalazzo
Illusion Master
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 8036
Local time: 12:41 PM
Location: D-brane
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chookrooter wrote: | | Quote: | | We're fucking up the planet. |
Bollocks.
We're not harming the planet in any meaningful way. We ARE making it uninhabitable for ourselves.
As George Carlin observed; "The planet isn't going anywhere, we are"
The human animal is a relatively recent and temporary species,one of many thousands on the planet.Our sentience gives us the arrogant delusion of unique entitlement to the resources of our world. |
You're right, but homo sapiens is the only species I care for... sorry for that bias...OTOH, if a few billions of humans would disappear, I think this planet could be a better place... where's Hitler when you need him...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
