SRL Archive - Discussions & Debates

Hai.

2 weeks ago, we had some suck-ass project about Global warming and stuff. When some guy began to explain global warming and the ice, he explained like this (short version):

1. Average temp. rises
2. North- and South Pole ice melt.
3. Sealevel rises
4. We drown.

m3 = volume.

Point 1 can be true.. But I am wondering about part 2, and following 3 and 4. let me explain: The density of ice is bigger than the density of water (10%). So, 100 m3 water, when it freezes, it expands with 10%, so it becomes 110 m3 big…. So actually, when earth temperatures rise, aren't sea levels supposed to be lowering? And only when the earth temperatures go down, aren't sea levels supposed to go up then, as the volume expands? So maybe the whole "OMG-We-Drown-Because-Earth-Warms" theory is bullshit? Or can someone give me a clear explanation about this?

Ice is more buoyant and therefore floats. By floating, an amount is above the water and therefore displaces not as much as if it were entirely below the water. This leads to the sea level remaining stable as the amount of ice increases or decreases. The rising and lowering of sea level is influenced by a lot of other things, such as volcanoes expanding the land, thus displacing water, or the huge increase in global shipping meaning that there are millions more ships on the sea that displace large amounts of water (not much in regards to Earth size, but enough to be noticeable) as well as other man induced reasons for less ocean and sea sizes, like the development in Dubai that created island in the sea.

From: mixster
Ice is more buoyant and therefore floats. By floating, an amount is above the water and therefore displaces not as much as if it were entirely below the water. This leads to the sea level remaining stable as the amount of ice increases or decreases. The rising and lowering of sea level is influenced by a lot of other things, such as volcanoes expanding the land, thus displacing water, or the huge increase in global shipping meaning that there are millions more ships on the sea that displace large amounts of water (not much in regards to Earth size, but enough to be noticeable) as well as other man induced reasons for less ocean and sea sizes, like the development in Dubai that created island in the sea.

Yes you're right, and when it melts it's not floating so it does actually rise.

But when the temperature increases the volume of an object or substance increases due to thermal expansion. With the increase of temperature the water in the oceans will expand and the water level will increase. I'm not sure of the magnitude of this increase though and the effect it will have.

There is a country in the Pacific (can't remember of the name) that is already being noticably affected by rising water levels. The country is comprised of several low lying islands that, with each increasing year, is being eroded by the rising water levels. They have no fresh water and most of the country is underwater during some parts of the year through flooding. They predict that withing 50 years or so they're whole country will be underwater.

north pole ice melting wont effect sea levels that much.

ice melting in greenland and the south pole will, because that ice is not floating, it is on land.
so when it melts, sea levels will rise.


also, ice melting has other consequences, like it reflects less sunlight, and the sea has more fresh water instead of salty water.

also, the earth heating up has other consequences, not just ice melting.

On a interesting side note;
The temperature of the Earth rose BEFORE the CO2 levels rose. This is because as the temperature rose, the sea (Which stores a MASSIVE amount of CO2) heated up a fraction of a degree, releasing stored CO2.

From: bobng
On a interesting side note;
The temperature of the Earth rose BEFORE the CO2 levels rose. This is because as the temperature rose, the sea (Which stores a MASSIVE amount of CO2) heated up a fraction of a degree, releasing stored CO2.

Wrong. This was one of those corporate funded Theories to try and discredit the enviromental lobby and take away co2 as a causal effect of rising temperature levels. It was not based on any real data and no reliable data exists to show it working that way.

As for sea levels, as Yakman points out most of the greenland/south pole ice are on land masses and thus not floating. This melted ice will increase sea levels. As the ice melts less sun is reflected and as the darker underlying land absorbs the sun it heats up escalating the problem.

There is also a lot of rotting ancient vegatation under this ice and that also creates a mass of further problems. As the rotting vegetation heats up, masses of stored methane is released into the atmosphere and as the vegetation continues to rot more methane is created. Methane as we all know is a much worse greenhouse gas than co2. As this effect accelerates things just go from bad to worse pushing us over the tipping point.

I would also like to explain the water densities. 4°C is when water is at its densest. Current models predict that the average global surface temperature of the sea will hit 6.4°C by the end of the century but bear in mind that most of the sea in under the surface and this is much much cooler so even though surface temperatures are moving away from max water density the vast majority of the oceans are moving towards increased density. The further away from 4°C you get the greater the volume but this is also skewed by salt within the water. In reality the temperatures we are actually talking about will have a tiny impact on the overall volume of water compared with the addition of the melted ice.

From: PriSoner
Wrong. This was one of those corporate funded Theories to try and discredit the enviromental lobby and take away co2 as a causal effect of rising temperature levels. It was not based on any real data and no reliable data exists to show it working that way.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11659

Newscientist is a respectable and widely-read science magazine, which is also very pro-global warming (Believes in it). They wouldn't publish that if it was in any way wrong. This shows that, at least a couple of million years ago, CO2 did not effect temperature. CO2 levels rose after the temperature after the ice age. Why? Because the sea released it.

Also, take a look at http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11659
And this has some pretty good reasons: http://glowarmers.blogspot.com/2007/07/co2-causes-global-warming-prove-it.html

Also, give me one scientific reason why CO2 would cause a lock-in of heat. Why would it cause the greenhouse effect, and not Oxygen or any of the other thousands of gasses in our atmosphere?

Killing all the cows or stopping them producing methane would reduce the effect of greenhouse gases as much as removing all the cars from the roads. I do my bit by setting Narcle's Autofighter to kill cows as often as possible.

CO2 and Methane cause global warming as they absorb reflected radiation from the Earth's surface rather than letting it escape into space. Oxygen does not absorb radiation, so does not contribute to global warming. Of course, the most major contributor to global warming is water vapor, but this is little commented on as it is seen as natural, even though the large scale burning of fossil fuels produces both water (vapor) and CO2.

From: mixster
Killing all the cows or stopping them producing methane would reduce the effect of greenhouse gases as much as removing all the cars from the roads. I do my bit by setting Narcle's Autofighter to kill cows as often as possible.

CO2 and Methane cause global warming as they absorb reflected radiation from the Earth's surface rather than letting it escape into space. Oxygen does not absorb radiation, so does not contribute to global warming. Of course, the most major contributor to global warming is water vapor, but this is little commented on as it is seen as natural, even though the large scale burning of fossil fuels produces both water (vapor) and CO2.

Thats not a scientific explanation as to why CO2 and CH4 absorb reflected radiation from the Earths surface.

You didn't ask why it did absorb radiation - you asked why it caused the heating up while oxygen doesn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#Greenhouse_gases
Not to mention the website that you linked to says that it does, so you should trust it if you claim it is a trustable website/magazine.
I don't see why you need to understand something to accept it though. You probably don't understand how your body manages to maintain a state of equilibrium or how respiration releases usable energy, but you can accept it.The fact that you say you trust that magazine because they say the oceans hold less CO2 when hot, when they don't seem to say why it does scientifically.

From: bobng
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11659
Newscientist is a respectable and widely-read science magazine, which is also very pro-global warming (Believes in it). They wouldn't publish that if it was in any way wrong. This shows that, at least a couple of million years ago, CO2 did not effect temperature. CO2 levels rose after the temperature after the ice age. Why? Because the sea released it.

New scientist does not have a stance on Global Warming and they do no research. New Scientist is an organ which publishes other peoples research and whilst they try to ensure that the research is valid and peer reviewed this does not always happen. They also publish many articles and stories from science correspondents and journalists.

New Scientist is a great magazine full of great articles but it has also published countless scientifically worthless papers and made many mistakes.

The Article you point to is just that. It's an Article putting forward the views of the journalist. It is not a peer reviewed scientific study and as such whilst it is posits a view that is designed to create discussion about a much larger picture it is not science and should not be quoted as fact!

It's also worth noting that just because one cause of global warming a million years ago may not have been attributable to CO2 does not mean that the current global warming is not attributable to CO2.

From: mixster
You didn't ask why it did absorb radiation - you asked why it caused the heating up while oxygen doesn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#Greenhouse_gases
Not to mention the website that you linked to says that it does, so you should trust it if you claim it is a trustable website/magazine.
I don't see why you need to understand something to accept it though. You probably don't understand how your body manages to maintain a state of equilibrium or how respiration releases usable energy, but you can accept it.The fact that you say you trust that magazine because they say the oceans hold less CO2 when hot, when they don't seem to say why it does scientifically.

Blind acceptance without questioning has led us down a bad road many times before.
Science is based on questioning. If you look back 1000 years ago, the world was flat. Why? Because everyone believed it was. The world was also at the centre of the universe, because everyone believed it was. The human jaw had two bones (Like a monkeys), and the human womb was light bulb shaped (Like a dogs) - because everyone believed this was true.

You can't compare an abstract theory thought up by a hippie-scientist at the height of the seventies to my body being in a state of equilibrium. I know my body is in a state of equilibrium, because if it wasn't I would be dead. However, I can't tell that the temperature is rising because of CO2 levels, and I won't accept it until someone gives me a scientific reason why. I won't accept it, because there is NO scientific reason why a carbon and two oxygen atoms would absorb heat in such a way.

CO2 and temperature is not the only correlation you can draw. How about the number of un-contacted Amazonian rainforest tribes (Which has been falling) and the temperature? By jove, I've found the answer! Contacting rainforest tribes must raise the mean global temperature! It's nothing to do with the fact that we live on a giant rock in the middle of space, with a global ecosystem in a delicate balance with millions of different factors that could push it either way, its because of the Tribes.

Also, this is the REAL reason behind global warming:

There have been countless physical experiments on the properties of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses. Actual physical experiments. Not just theoretical physics. We know how different gasses react under different conditions. The theory comes in applying what we physically know into a much larger and much more chaotic system. This is not just some hippy theory but a science with a growing amout of scientifically supported data.

Whilst it is always good to question, it aids in your understanding of things. The fact that you do not fully understand the mechanics behind this only goes to show that you are not informed enough to derail the current scientific consensus.

Oxygen reacts differently to CO2 in many many ways. Apply a Oxygen to a lit match and see what happens compared to applying CO2 to a lit match.

this is almost like arguing against people who believe in intelligent design.

except the anti-global warming guys have much much more (oil) money.

lol.. :) I couldn't agree more.. The difference is that if the world goes their way and they are wrong, the world ends. If the world goes the enviromental way and we are wrong, at least we will all have cleaner air to breath and fresher water.

From: PriSoner
There have been countless physical experiments on the properties of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses. Actual physical experiments. Not just theoretical physics. We know how different gasses react under different conditions. The theory comes in applying what we physically know into a much larger and much more chaotic system. This is not just some hippy theory but a science with a growing amout of scientifically supported data.

Whilst it is always good to question, it aids in your understanding of things. The fact that you do not fully understand the mechanics behind this only goes to show that you are not informed enough to derail the current scientific consensus.

Oxygen reacts differently to CO2 in many many ways. Apply a Oxygen to a lit match and see what happens compared to applying CO2 to a lit match.

Yep - The temperature is rising, so are the CO2 levels. Its not evidence, its a correlation.
And not being informed enough about it makes it even more stupid that you would take this seriously.

Oh lawd. I just read your last sentence. What does that have to do with anything? For combustion to occur you need oxygen, and it gives off water and CO2.

From: Yakman
except the anti-global warming guys have much much more common sense

Fixed

From: PriSoner
lol.. :) I couldn't agree more.. The difference is that if the world goes their way and they are wrong, the world ends. If the world goes the enviromental way and we are wrong, at least we will all have cleaner air to breath and fresher water.

And when the world completes its temperature cycle and it begins to fall, you will look like idiots.

From: bobng
Yep - The temperature is rising, so are the CO2 levels. Its not evidence, its a correlation.

Temperature rising and CO2 increasing is correlation and not evidence in itself and few would argue otherwise. What you are singularily failing to get to grips with is that the whole CO2 global warming argument isn't just based on those 2 bits of data but a whole raft of other experiments, models and theories. The simple fact is that various climate models have been created over the past few decades based on physical experiments and extrapulated data. The current CO2/temperature situation acts as corroborating evidence and helps to prove the earlier experiments.

From: bobng

And not being informed enough about it makes it even more stupid that you would take this seriously.

I fully admit that I do not fully understand the science behind every aspect of the science but I do have a good grounding in science and understand a lot of the debate. Given that I have to look at the current evidence as published by the scientific community. The vast majority of scientific studies, data and oppinion within the scientific community is that global warming is an issue and that CO2 is one of the larger contributing factors. Given that and given my limited understanding I would prefer to go with the evidence.

You however with you even more limited understanding would prefer to dig out articles stating opinions from the fringe and then convince yourself that the articles are actual scientific studies. You would prefer to go with the minority opinion with the scientific community. :duh:

From: bobng

Oh lawd. I just read your last sentence. What does that have to do with anything? For combustion to occur you need oxygen, and it gives off water and CO2.

It was a very basic example of different gasses having different properties which is something that you apparently fail to grasp.

From: bobng
And when the world completes its temperature cycle and it begins to fall, you will look like idiots.

I would rather look like an idiot and breath fresher cleaner air, eat better less chemically induced food and hydrate with unpoluted water than than suffer the consequences of what would happen if you are wrong. ;)

From: PriSoner
Temperature rising and CO2 increasing is correlation and not evidence in itself and few would argue otherwise. What you are singularily failing to get to grips with is that the whole CO2 global warming argument isn't just based on those 2 bits of data but a whole raft of other experiments, models and theories. The simple fact is that various climate models have been created over the past few decades based on physical experiments and extrapulated data. The current CO2/temperature situation acts as corroborating evidence and helps to prove the earlier experiments.

A whole raft of evidence, based on a correlation. If the correlation is wrong, then the entire raft of evidence sinks faster than the temperature will when the temperature cycle is complete.

From: PriSoner
I fully admit that I do not fully understand the science behind every aspect of the science but I do have a good grounding in science and understand a lot of the debate. Given that I have to look at the current evidence as published by the scientific community. The vast majority of scientific studies, data and opinion within the scientific community is that global warming is an issue and that CO2 is one of the larger contributing factors. Given that and given my limited understanding I would prefer to go with the evidence.

What this means, for anyone else who is reading, is that PriSoner has read a bit about it, watched some TV, looked it up on wikipedia and has come to the firm and informed conclusion that it is an issue.

From: PriSoner

You however with you even more limited understanding would prefer to dig out articles stating opinions from the fringe and then convince yourself that the articles are actual scientific studies. You would prefer to go with the minority opinion with the scientific community. :duh:

I'm gonna refer to a couple of hundred years ago in the vain hope that you can grasp the simple concept that opinion does not equal fact. A couple of hundred years ago the opinion was that the world was flat. Does this mean that they were right, because all the 'intellectuals' told everyone else (Who had no hope of ever finding out for themselves) that it was true?

From: PriSoner

It was a very basic example of different gasses having different properties which is something that you apparently fail to grasp.

What you fail to grasp is that CO2 not being an oxidant, and therefore preventing combustion (Which requires the presence oxidant) has nothing to do with it. So what, they have different properties. Wow. If CO2 en-masse absorbs reflected radiation, then a single molecule must do it to, on a much smaller scale. Give me one good reason why this would be. Structualy, it is not much different to many other substances with two double bonds.

From: PriSoner

I would rather look like an idiot and breath fresher cleaner air, eat better less chemically induced food and hydrate with unpoluted water than than suffer the consequences of what would happen if you are wrong. ;)

1) No water is unpoluted. No water ever has been, and no water ever will be.
2) You will never ever breath fresh cleaner air while you try to maintain a high living standard enjoyed by most of the western world

From: bobng

I'm gonna refer to a couple of hundred years ago in the vain hope that you can grasp the simple concept that opinion does not equal fact. A couple of hundred years ago the opinion was that the world was flat. Does this mean that they were right, because all the 'intellectuals' told everyone else (Who had no hope of ever finding out for themselves) that it was true?

So far you have only posted opinion and not fact. You have referenced material which is oppinion and claimed it as science fact because it appeared in an article within New Scientist, despite it only being an article, by a journalist and not a peer reviewed scientific paper.

As a side note it may interest you to know that a few hundered years ago folk didn't think the world was flat. That's just a modern myth about past beliefs to make us feel more intelligent compared to our contempories….

From: bobng
What this means, for anyone else who is reading, is that PriSoner has read a bit about it, watched some TV, looked it up on wikipedia and has come to the firm and informed conclusion that it is an issue.

I have a lot more of a background in it than that and it is an imformed conclusion.

Just how much research of your own have you done or is it just a case of believing the minority, fringe, oil funded, few so that you don't have to give up any of your lifestyle? Smells like pot calling kettle black to me..

Anyway. Post what you like, believe what you want and ignore the scientific community. I have made my points and I have no intention of banging my head against a brick wall of ignorance any more. :duh:

Finished!

From: PriSoner
So far you have only posted opinion and not fact. You have referenced material which is oppinion and claimed it as science fact because it appeared in an article within New Scientist, despite it only being an article, by a journalist and not a peer reviewed scientific paper.

As a side note it may interest you to know that a few hundered years ago folk didn't think the world was flat. That's just a modern myth about past beliefs to make us feel more intelligent compared to our contempories….

Good point. I got that wrong, it was common until way before that - 4th and 5th century BC.

From: PriSoner

I have a lot more of a background in it than that and it is an imformed conclusion.

Just how much research of your own have you done or is it just a case of believing the minority, fringe, oil funded, few so that you don't have to give up any of your lifestyle? Smells like pot calling kettle black to me..

We all need to go back to living like they did in the pre-industrial era, if global warming is right that is. But, its not, and people won't go back to living like that.
If the majority believed this, then why have our carbon emissions not halfed? Because politicians are just humouring the seemingly invisible environmental movement. Its a joke.

From: PriSoner

Anyway. Post what you like, believe what you want and ignore the scientific community. I have made my points and I have no intention of banging my head against a brick wall of ignorance any more. :duh:

Finished!

The air is cleaner then it was in the 1980's! So why are we complaining about bad air? In the 1970's, everyone thought there was going to be in ice age. Is there one? NO!

People are always trying to come up with ways to scare us. Ozone is a greenhouse gas, it traps heat that would otherwise radiate into space. If the ozone layer is DECREASING, then why do people say the temperature is rising? Ozone traps heat! If there's less of it, there's less heat being trapped!


Also, Carbon dioxide is a weak IR absorber, 380 ppm in air. Water is a powerful IR absorber, 30,000 ppm in air. Where are the hysterics about humidity? By that measure, the clouds would be absorbing most of the heat, causing epic global warming, and we have just come through some of the most active sunspot years on record.

the ozone layer is quite thin, its depletion is neglegable compared to other gasses which are rising.

the thing with water is probably because water keeps falling down all the time, it gets removing from the atmosphere when it rains,
but carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for ~300 years or whatever the number is.


although some of you are talking about "cleaner" air, could you define "clean" please?
i dont think carbon dioxide is dirty, i guess you must be thinking of soot or stuff like that.



tbh im cynical about the whole situation, nothing is going to get done because the politics of humans is complete rubbish,
we're on a dying planet, just forget about it and get on with your life.

i think the attidute of most politicians is wrong, they seem to belive "if we lower the emissions, the temprature will fall".
if you think about it, even if all the emissions stopped, the carbon dioxide is still left in the air, and still making it hotter.
politicians have the misconception that all this is completely reversable.