Global Warning Causes Falling Sea Levels

Global warming theory was created in the late 19th century. Gore may be getting up there in years but he isn't that old. So I have to deduct 46 victory points from you for failing at the histories.

LOL, I just posted the image cause I thought it was funny. 

LOL, I just posted the image cause I thought it was funny. 

Another 12 points for back-talking.

last time i peed in the ocean it raised close to that.

You peed in the ocean for a whole year? That must be some bladder you've got there.

Useless.

And it's rising at a rate of about 3.1+/-0.7 mm per year, I might add. What's your point?

The thread title is idiocy. 

Quote from: The Kommunist on August 02, 2007, 05:14:02 PM

Quote from: GeoGuy on August 01, 2007, 04:15:48 PM

Your case is generally that 'global warming is not caused by humans', yet you have given no other mechanism which explains the observed 20th century warming.

It's caused due to sweating to the oldies! But seriously, its caused by bovine flatulence, solar activity, volcanic activity, natural gas venting, internal energy increase, entropy, chaos theory, numerous other sources.  Think about it...we have faced cycles of ice ages and warm periods.  What makes this current trend an area odf grave concern to all civilization?

Because these previous ice ages have resulted in mass extinctions.  That quite literally is a grave concern. 

Not our mass extinction. If it doesn't involve us why must we care?  Its just a natural, uncontrollable cycle.

And it's rising at a rate of about 3.1+/-0.7 mm per year, I might add. What's your point?

That figure is not enough for anyone to worry about.  More attention should be placed in preventing land erosion rather than preventing coastal flooding.  Once again GW quacks like to create a panic.

Quote from: The Kommunist on August 02, 2007, 05:14:02 PM

It's caused due to sweating to the oldies! But seriously, its caused by bovine flatulence, solar activity, volcanic activity, natural gas venting, internal energy increase, entropy, chaos theory, numerous other sources.  Think about it...we have faced cycles of ice ages and warm periods.  What makes this current trend an area odf grave concern to all civilization?

Making crap up: not a crime in 52 states. (But it maybe should be. I mean, chaos theory? For real?)

I can respond to each of those claims in kind, but I'm not going to bother with any thought or content if you won't do the same. At least give some sources, please. (Note: Junkscience.com does not count as a source.)

These factors do contribute to climate change.  Look it up yourself. Cow flatulence is major factotr in methane production, which even GWists admit to climate contribution.

Whether or not it is "natural" is completely moot.  If we have some capacity to impact the environmental changes that will ultimately spell our demise then we should fucking do what we can. 

Your right. Lets plug up all those natural gas and volcanic vents. That''l save us 

It's caused due to sweating to the oldies! But seriously, its caused by bovine flatulence, solar activity, volcanic activity, natural gas venting, internal energy increase, entropy, chaos theory, numerous other sources.  Think about it...we have faced cycles of ice ages and warm periods.  What makes this current trend an area odf grave concern to all civilization?

-----------------------------
These factors do contribute to climate change.  Look it up yourself. Cow flatulence is major factotr in methane production, which even GWists admit to climate contribution.

Emissions from livestock raised for human consumption is considered an anthropogenic source. There wouldn't be all those cows belching and farting if we didn't want to eat them.

Change in solar activity can and has influenced climate change in the past, but it's not doing so now. According to research done by the PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978 (which is when accurate satellite measurements of solar activity began). And research done by the Max Planck Institute indicates that there may have been no increase since around 1940. So it's highly unlikely that the sun is the cause of the warming trend.

Volcanic activity has been pretty much average for quite some time now. And since volcanoes emit mostly aerosols in the form of dust, sulfates, and ash, the net effect of a volcanic eruption is a cooling one. (Source: RealClimate.org

Entropy, internal energy increase(?), and Chaos theory have nothing to do with anything, and were seemingly pulled from your ass.

What makes this current trend so consternating is the fact that these other past changes you speak of had an annoying tendency to cause mass extinctions; especially changes as rapid as the one we're currently undergoing. Also of note is the fact that our entire civilization is tailored to the way the climate is now; changes in sea level, more frequent and severe droughts, floods, storms, etc. Plus a complete disruption of many ecosystems upon which we depend isn't exactly going to be a picnic.

That figure is not enough for anyone to worry about.  More attention should be placed in preventing land erosion rather than preventing coastal flooding.  Once again GW quacks like to create a panic.

According to the IPCC Third Assessment Report has predicted a rise in sea level from 9 to 88 cm by 2100 (the range accounts for different levels of warming based on different emissions scenarios). So while the figure may seem like "nothing to worry about" now, it could be quite serious in the future. And preventing increased coastal erosions due to higher oceans levels is going to quite important.

Thus, idiocy. 

Quote from: The Kommunist on August 06, 2007, 11:39:55 PM

It's caused due to sweating to the oldies! But seriously, its caused by bovine flatulence, solar activity, volcanic activity, natural gas venting, internal energy increase, entropy, chaos theory, numerous other sources.  Think about it...we have faced cycles of ice ages and warm periods.  What makes this current trend an area odf grave concern to all civilization?

-----------------------------
These factors do contribute to climate change.  Look it up yourself. Cow flatulence is major factotr in methane production, which even GWists admit to climate contribution.

Emissions from livestock raised for human consumption is considered an anthropogenic source. There wouldn't be all those cows belching and farting if we didn't want to eat them.

Change in solar activity can and has influenced climate change in the past, but it's not doing so now. According to research done by the PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978 (which is when accurate satellite measurements of solar activity began). And research done by the Max Planck Institute indicates that there may have been no increase since around 1940. So it's highly unlikely that the sun is the cause of the warming trend.

Volcanic activity has been pretty much average for quite some time now. And since volcanoes emit mostly aerosols in the form of dust, sulfates, and ash, the net effect of a volcanic eruption is a cooling one. (Source: RealClimate.org

Entropy, internal energy increase(?), and Chaos theory have nothing to do with anything, and were seemingly pulled from your ass.

What makes this current trend so consternating is the fact that these other past changes you speak of had an annoying tendency to cause mass extinctions; especially changes as rapid as the one we're currently undergoing. Also of note is the fact that our entire civilization is tailored to the way the climate is now; changes in sea level, more frequent and severe droughts, floods, storms, etc. Plus a complete disruption of many ecosystems upon which we depend isn't exactly going to be a picnic.

What about buffalo flatulence, there used to be millions of buffalo roaming the planes producing methane. Why didn't this cause global warming but now our having cows does raise it?

The only explanation for rising sea levels is via water vapor emissions from volcanic eruptions.  Either there are a lot of venting and eruptions not documented (and also comets) or scientists are falsifying numbers in their water-level measurements. In regards to aersol emissions and sulfates, why does the government apply regulations on production if they help "impede GW"?

The only explanation for rising sea levels is via water vapor emissions from volcanic eruptions.  Either there are a lot of venting and eruptions not documented (and also comets) or scientists are falsifying numbers in their water-level measurements.

That might be one explanation, but it's a very poor one. A much better explanation for rising sea levels is thermal expansion from warmer oceans and runoff from melting glaciers and ice caps.

In regards to aersol emissions and sulfates, why does the government apply regulations on production if they help "impede GW"?

These pollutants have other effects that are much less desirable than their capacity to block sunlight. Acid precipitation is caused primarily by emissions of sulfur dioxide, for example.

What about buffalo flatulence, there used to be millions of buffalo roaming the planes producing methane. Why didn't this cause global warming but now our having cows does raise it?

Uh... what? Methane emissions from animals not raised for human consumption are not considered an anthropogenic source; that doesn't mean they aren't a source. Atmospheric methane always acts as a greenhouse gas, regardless of where it comes from. Presumably the methane emissions from pre-colonial bison were not great enough to cause a shift in Earth's radiation balance.

I think the main reason for rising sea levels can be contributed to abundance of dihydrogen monoxide in the seas.

I think the main reason for rising sea levels can be contributed to abundance of dihydrogen monoxide in the seas.

ZOMEEGOD!  LET'S BAN IT!

Quote from: Raist on August 08, 2007, 10:50:08 AM

What about buffalo flatulence, there used to be millions of buffalo roaming the planes producing methane. Why didn't this cause global warming but now our having cows does raise it?

Uh... what? Methane emissions from animals not raised for human consumption are not considered an anthropogenic source; that doesn't mean they aren't a source. Atmospheric methane always acts as a greenhouse gas, regardless of where it comes from. Presumably the methane emissions from pre-colonial bison were not great enough to cause a shift in Earth's radiation balance.

But given the amount of wildlife mankind has destroyed in the name of colonizing the world, wouldn't you expect the effect of the cows that are farting now to be offset by all the animals that farted in the past that aren't farting anymore?

But given the amount of wildlife mankind has destroyed in the name of colonizing the world, wouldn't you expect the effect of the cows that are farting now to be offset by all the animals that farted in the past that aren't farting anymore?

I honestly have no idea. It's possible that the emissions of livestock raised for human consumption have been exactly offset by every animal that has ever been killed by us ever. But I doubt it. And since I know you have no clue either, and are just trying to be contrary, I think I'll go with the IPCC on this one.

If the oceans theoretically increase in elevation, they would comprise a larger surface area which not only increases the rate of evaporation but also increases the rate of carbon dioxide absorption. Thus, a balanced system.

Here is an article which shows that Global Warming Theory is essentially over estimated : http://www.reason.com/news/show/34939.html

Since 1978, overall global temperatures have increased by .8 degrees Celsius per decade.  Thats less than .8 degrees by 2100, which is not much a threat.  However these temperatures do not follow this rate in localized areas; the Arctic has a rate of .39 degrees per decade increase while Antarctica has decreased by .12 degrees.  Since the Industrial Revolution, temperatures have not followed a smooth path; from 1940 to the 1970s the Arctic has witnessed expanding ice shelves.  The reasons for these variations are due to Arctic Oscillation, Pacific Decadal Oscilation, and North Atlantic Oscillation.  The gradually though slightly increasing global temperatures may not be such a definte trend in the future.  In fact it could be jsut one of the many long term oscillations that Earth has faced in the past before.

Since 1978, overall global temperatures have increased by .8 degrees Celsius per decade. 

Full stop.

The long term global mean is all we're concerned with here. We don't care about short term localized variations. They do not affect the overall trend.

Since 1978, overall global temperatures have increased by .8 degrees Celsius per decade.  Thats less than .8 degrees by 2100, which is not much a threat.

How did you work that out? The global mean has risen by .8 degrees centigrade, it can't possibly rise less than that by 2100. Scientists have predicted that temperatures are likely to increase by 1.1 to 6.4 °C (again, the range is due to different levels of projected warming based on different emissions scenarios) by the end of this century.

If the oceans theoretically increase in elevation, they would comprise a larger surface area which not only increases the rate of evaporation but also increases the rate of carbon dioxide absorption. Thus, a balanced system.

 

I just thought of a question pertaining to 'rising water' that, although seemingly mentally barren on the surface, I feel merits deep thinking and discussion. Perhaps it fits another thread, and I will make it if I see interest, and no one bothers...

Would the rising water level impact plate tectonics at all? I am of course referring to the volume, mass of the water (in relation to the planetary scale), etc.

Water does some pretty weird, unexpected things in large amounts. I am really deep into this thinking now...Anyone?

I just thought of a question pertaining to 'rising water' that, although seemingly mentally barren on the surface, I feel merits deep thinking and discussion. Perhaps it fits another thread, and I will make it if I see interest, and no one bothers...

Would the rising water level impact plate tectonics at all? I am of course referring to the volume, mass of the water (in relation to the planetary scale), etc.

Water does some pretty weird, unexpected things in large amounts. I am really deep into this thinking now...Anyone?

The surface area of the water does not impact the pressure increase (hydrostatic paradox). An increase in the water level of approxiametely 34 ft raises the pressure by only 1 atmosphere, so I don't think that is a significant factor.

Quote from: Midnight on August 11, 2007, 02:04:58 AM

I just thought of a question pertaining to 'rising water' that, although seemingly mentally barren on the surface, I feel merits deep thinking and discussion. Perhaps it fits another thread, and I will make it if I see interest, and no one bothers...

Would the rising water level impact plate tectonics at all? I am of course referring to the volume, mass of the water (in relation to the planetary scale), etc.

Water does some pretty weird, unexpected things in large amounts. I am really deep into this thinking now...Anyone?

The surface area of the water does not impact the pressure increase (hydrostatic paradox). An increase in the water level of approxiametely 34 ft raises the pressure by only 1 atmosphere, so I don't think that is a significant factor.

And your thinking this about hydrostatic paradox came from...a source that exists...where?

Oh noes.

http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger%2Bfinds%2BY2K%2Bbug%2Bin%2BNASA%2BClimate%2BData/article8383.htm

lol

Poor Al Gore.

Oh noes.

http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger%2Bfinds%2BY2K%2Bbug%2Bin%2BNASA%2BClimate%2BData/article8383.htm

Oh Gawd, not this again.

Ok, here's what actually happened. Recently, Stephen McIntyre found a very minor flaw in one data set from one US temperature station. He alerted James Hanson and Reto Ruedy of NASA of the error, which was subsequently fixed; McIntyre was accredited and thanked for the find. Immediately after, the story took hold among radio pundits and Bloggers, who blew the whole thing out of proportion (surprising no one in the process), claiming that it was a fraud, that warming had stopped in 1934, that 1998 was no longer the hottest year worldwide, and that the entire temperature record was a fake.


Stephen McIntyre himself has posted a message on his Blog, ClimateAudit.org, saying the whole thing, while significant in his view, wasn't nearly as important as people were making it out to be. You can read the post here:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1885#more-1885

RealClimate, a Blog run by thirteen climate scientists, has also posted an article explaining the issue. You can read that here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/

And James Hanson, the NASA scientist who fixed the problem, has also written a response, which you can read here:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro_LightUpstairs_70810.pdf

As RealClimate says, the whole thing is a classic case of trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Mountains always start out as mole hills. Thus is the term 'consequences'.