To The Global Warming Crowd

[Quanon]

Nice weird graph :

 

My 2 cents :

 

The warming is a natural event that appears in cycles , but temperture takes a long time to go up .

 

If you look at the beginning of the graph , one of the first peaks takes its time to go up and down again .

 

Look more at the end with lots of human activity and you see that goes rapiditly .

 

That's what is wrong , not the warming persé , but the speed at wich we're pushing it .

 

If it goes to fast , animals don't have time to adapt , they die .

If it goes to fast , most people will die of the effects of the warming .

 

Its just up to us to try and cut down our fumes and toxis , to let the warming go more at a natural pase .

 

Sure volcanos make the warming go faster at times , but humies didn't make vulcanos ... we don't controle volcanos , they go off as nature demands .

[True_Avery]

The warming is a natural event that appears in cycles , but temperture takes a long time to go up .

If you look at the beginning of the graph , one of the first peaks takes its time to go up and down again .

Look more at the end with lots of human activity and you see that goes rapiditly .

That's what is wrong , not the warming persé , but the speed at wich we're pushing it .

 

If it goes to fast , animals don't have time to adapt , they die.

If it goes to fast , most people will die of the effects of the warming.

 

Its just up to us to try and cut down our fumes and toxis , to let the warming go more at a natural pase.

 

Sure volcanos make the warming go faster at times , but humies didn't make vulcanos ... we don't controle volcanos , they go off as nature demands .

QFE

 

I was going to post a long post, but I saw this. Took the words right out of my mouth. Bravo.

[Tommycat]

Keep in mind this only covers about 4000 years... Also keep in mind that the increase in variation does not have an appreciable link to the human population. If you look at the graph itself(assuming that it is not ficticious) the variation has been increasing at a relatively steady rate(well possibly an exponential rate) for the full 4000 years. This would indicate that the increase has little to do with the fumes and toxins as that is a very new development.

 

If you have a grudge against vehicle emissions take it up with the line of reasoning following air quality and ground water toxins. Temperature variance as we see did not start with CFC usage, and it did not stop(or even slow down) with us instituting harsh vehicle emission regulations in the country with the most vehicle usage(not per capita, maybe, but we do have more vehicles on the road than any country). Air quality has improved(slightly) in places like LA(VERY slightly). And that is a very good thing. We need to clean up our air. Just not for global climate change purposes.

 

Also the site so easily dismissed by others on this board, used as it's reference NASA(JPL to be exact). I have a hard time calling that organization biassed on the matter.

[Jvstice]

There being so few data points does make me question how they know to fill in the shape of the rest of the chart. How do they have enough data to tell that it's truly representative of the world as a whole at those times?

 

Even overlooking that, there is a pretty drastically steepening in the last century or so.

 

Darth Insidious: The predicted time for the birth of Christ could vary by as much as 7 years, depending on what sources you consider to be credible. They don't really even know the time of year. The Bible doesn't normally date things by year, but by events going on in the world at the time, many of which we've lost the references to their reference event.

 

And the exodus, there are people that think they know which Pharaoh it was, but limiting it to within one lifetime, isn't the same as limiting it to a year. Those are some pretty inexact dates even if you place full faith in people's ability to guess which pharaoh it was.

[Darth InSidious]

Let me put the bottom-line on this:

 

- This guy is talking outside his field. This = zilch authority, and questionable supportability of his argument.

 

- This graph is not scientifically questionable, it's scientific pig's testes.

 

- Global warming is happening.

 

- We are pumping vast amounts of toxin into the air.

 

- These may be related, or may not. Regardless,

 

- This is not good.

[Quanon]

Yeah the graph is a bit short on time

 

If you go back to dinosaurs and pre-dinosaur times , our earth was pretty hot .

 

Scientist still say where in a mild peroid of a longer Cold Ice time . Still , doesn't mean we have to pump the temperture in just a few decades , where it should take 1000's of years .

 

Most natural events seem to have cycles . Danger is that we humiez tend to disrubt these cycles , that mostly means BAD BAD BAD things will happen .

 

Even though I find hard that people don't believe our activitys do bad things and can have great effects on our Earth .

 

There's enough proof that MEN has made toxin hazourdess enviroments , by accident , greed and plain lazzyness to do something about it .

 

Besides , I don't see people hanging behind buses and cars just to breath the healthy fumes coming out .

[Prime]

C'mon, Prime. That doesn't negate what they have to say. Afterall, you've heard of the saying "even a paranoid has enemies". Just b/c they identify themselves as combating what they see as unchallenged information from the "mainstream" doesn't mean they lack credibility.

It doesn't. But why would I bother with an organization whose goal is not first and foremost to present the facts and allow the audience to judge for itself, but to counterattack other organizations. Why shouldn't I just go straight to the source? The article posted is so ridiculously biased that it should be disregarded out of hand. I would say the same thing if it was just as grossly left.

 

At least they are more honest than the mainstream media which is demonstrably liberal/left wing but loathe to admit to it.

They are no more honest than any source that attempts to forward leftist views.

 

The problem, though, is determining who is truly credible. Everyone has some degree of bias, even if we aren't aware of it.

In some cases it is. But in some cases, like this article and site, where their tagline advertises the fact that their goal is to forward right wing views, it is pretty damn obvious.

 

I think that Reagan had a saying: trust, but verify. It's not really enough to say "oh, he's fighting liberal/conservative bias in the media, must just be bs".

The first sentence is the important part. Instead of posting the article that has an obvious slant, why not go directly to the source of the information?

 

Keep in mind this only covers about 4000 years...

It doesn't. The only data it presents goes back to 1998.

 

Also the site so easily dismissed by others on this board, used as it's reference NASA(JPL to be exact). I have a hard time calling that organization biassed on the matter.

They why not go to the original source and cut out the obviously biased middleman and read what they are actually saying?

[Totenkopf]

It doesn't. But why would I bother with an organization whose goal is not first and foremost to present the facts and allow the audience to judge for itself, but to counterattack other organizations. Why shouldn't I just go straight to the source? The article posted is so ridiculously biased that it should be disregarded out of hand. I would say the same thing if it was just as grossly left.

 

They are no more honest than any source that attempts to forward leftist views.

 

In some cases it is. But in some cases, like this article and site, where their tagline advertises the fact that their goal is to forward right wing views, it is pretty damn obvious.

 

The first sentence is the important part. Instead of posting the article that has an obvious slant, why not go directly to the source of the information?

 

Well, you're a little guilty of imposing your bias on them. Their tag line only claims to combat liberal media bias. It nowhere states that they wish to impose conservative/neo-con/facist/communist/liberatarian/ad nauseum views on anyone. That can only be inferred by a reader. Fact is, though, that we often have to read both the biased as well as the supposedly neutral to get a clearer picture of what's going on. Someone else's bias may force us to think about what we're reading in a different light (nevermind our own natural biases). So long as we don't restrict ourselves to just one slant when attempting to analyze what's before us (assuming we can suss the content of the original article out on our own), we can perhaps get a grip on what we're reading. Don't know about you, but most scientific/financial/etc literature can be so dry and cumbersome as to leave the layman with his head spinning. This then forces most of us to rely on a secondary source for the purposes of interpreting what we consume. Can you truly say that those people won't (consciuosly or otherwise) try to export their bias to us?

[Tommycat]

It doesn't. The only data it presents goes back to 1998.

Ok soooo from 2500 BC to 2007 AS THE TITLE OF THE GRAPH STATES, is not ABOUT 4000 years(ok ABOUT 4500 years, feel better?) Now are you done picking nits? Or do you wish to continue the strawman defense. Just because all of the points are not labeled does not mean that the data is not REPRESENTED. Admittedly I would prefer to have more data be present in the graph, but you cannot dismiss it outright. To me the scale of the graph looks like + or - 4º f

 

They why not go to the original source and cut out the obviously biased middleman and read what they are actually saying?

They summarized and QUOTED the original text, but you probably didn't even read enough of it to see. And judging by the fact that you didn't even know about the originating NASA link within, you just used the typical ad hominem attack that because it has right wing bias, it cannot be credible in any way. Well the BBC has left wing bias, CNN has left wing bias(if you don't believe me on that look at the Democratic presidential debate and their "Undecided" voters with pre approved questions), and I don't tell people not to trust them for information, I just tell them to ignore the bias, and go on the FACTS AS PRESENTED. To get a clear picture you should enlist left wing, centrist, and right wing sites, and somewhere in between you get a true picture.

[Ray Jones]

I think the problem isn't really any "global warming". I mean, this last summer here in Germany was rather cold with only 2 weeks of normal summer temperatures.

 

The problem is a climatic change, causing warmer winters, and colder summers, or vice versa somewhere else. Basically said: the local weather is changing. It does that all the time, it did million years ago, and still will do in a million years. Snow falls where it doesn't really before, and somewhere else it's missing out etc.

 

I'm not saying a climatic change is good for us, nor that we don't have anything to do with it, just that people should stop crying about global warming when it's not the whole truth, and moreover, not the problem.

 

How is the global temperature measured anyway? You put a temperature sensor at a lot of places and "tie" them together to get an average value. And basically you must spread them equally over the whole planet, to get a *real* average value.

 

 

However, that picture above shows the global network of temperature measuring stations and how long they are recording already, and to me that doesn't look very equally spread, especially seen over the past 150 years, it seems rather we have a concentration of sensors in certain areas, some with cities around containing tons of humans and human stuff that produces heat and passes it to the environment. Regarding the fact that 70% of Earth's surface is covered with water, but most temperature sensors are *not* located over water, how do they want to create a valid, reliable, and representative measuring of Earth's overall "near surface temperature"? Plus, one cannot say the global temperature increased by 3°C in the past XXX years when you base that statement on values that come from a time when there were like only 3 stations recording temperature. At maximum they could say at these 3 places the average temperature increased by 3°C. That might sound like a big number, but what does that mean when we cannot say for sure that there weren't like 10 other places in that time where the average temperature decreased by 1°C. In the end that would mean that the overall temperature of all 13 spots even decreased by a 13th of 1°C.

 

The point is that under these circumstances given we cannot make a reliable and representative statement like "the Earth is warming up". What we can say is, "where we live, it's getting warmer".

 

And I personally do not wonder too much why the areas around our cities might heat up with the time, there are cars, and houses with heatings, millions of breathing humans, animals, huge areas of concrete and asphalt roads taking all the heat from the sun, we have wars or huge fireworks with big explosions, solar energy fields and wind power plants, or create huge lakes and thus water surfaces for hydro-power plants. And the list goes on.

 

I think it's not requiring much to conclude that this also might add to changes in the local climate (which happen anyway), and after all that must have an effect to the whole climatic system of this planet.

[Prime]

Well, you're a little guilty of imposing your bias on them. Their tag line only claims to combat liberal media bias. It nowhere states that they wish to impose conservative/neo-con/facist/communist/liberatarian/ad nauseum views on anyone.

But they are claiming that they are only combating one type of bias. Leftist bias. If they were attempting to filter all biases to get to the basics of the information, I would be more interested in what they have to say. To only go after one form of bias and not both sides sets alarm bells off for me. Thus my point that it is better to go to the source, which is easy enough to do.

 

That can only be inferred by a reader.

But aren't they telling me this? They are exposing leftist bias. So that excludes the left and the center (which also has some left bias by definition). Doesn't that only leave the right?

 

But this is getting away from the topic of this thread. My only point was that it is better to go to the source, which was in fact provided in that article.

 

Don't know about you, but most scientific/financial/etc literature can be so dry and cumbersome as to leave the layman with his head spinning.

I guess I am different, perhaps because I do have a physics degree. But when it comes to science matters (probably more that some other topics) I always attempt to look at the original information/data or at least summaries from the original authors/researchers, because that is how I was educated. Typically it is "safer" to view the data yourself or get conclusions from the researcher.

 

If you and others find such topics boring, then that is unfortunate. I agree that things can seem dry. But I found the NASA article quite interesting.

 

This then forces most of us to rely on a secondary source for the purposes of interpreting what we consume. Can you truly say that those people won't (consciuosly or otherwise) try to export their bias to us?

To me, conscious and otherwise is important. As I think you said earlier personal biases are going to come into play in any article, and that is a fact of life that has to be taken into consideration. But that is different that actively trying to promote a particular bias and/or attack a specific bias (and we agree it happens on both sides). IMO I think people need to be aware and careful of the latter. I think the Newsbusters.org article is the latter, which is why I ignored it and went to the original NASA article.

 

Ok soooo from 2500 BC to 2007 AS THE TITLE OF THE GRAPH STATES, is not ABOUT 4000 years(ok ABOUT 4500 years, feel better?) Now are you done picking nits?

No! Because presenting the actual data and how it was collected is the whole point and critical to the scientific analysis of what is being presented! How can any of what has been proposed here be scientifically peer reviewed (which is critical to the scientific process) when there is nothing to be reviewed? Nowhere that I have seen do they state why there are only 2-3 data values represented or what the full data set is or how the data was gathered. This information is critical because without it there is to way to verify or refute the claims they are making. For that reason, the chart is utterly useless.

 

Or do you wish to continue the strawman defense.

Can you explain how demanding actual data to be presented is a strawman? Or are what are you referring to exactly? I'm happy to be more specific on anything.

 

Just because all of the points are not labeled does not mean that the data is not REPRESENTED.

That is exactly what it means. And by labeled, I mean presented in some way, either as a part of the graph or separately through some other means.

 

The point is, if we are going to have the (valuable) debate on the causes/existence of climate change, lets at least get all of the data on the table so everyone can see it. If they have evidence that shows what they claim, great! That would be valuable information to include in the debate.

 

Admittedly I would prefer to have more data be present in the graph, but you cannot dismiss it outright.

I can, and so should you! There is nothing to back up what is being presented here. How can I, you, or anyone else show that this graph hasn't been pulled out of their collective asses? Isn't everyone taught this in science class?

 

To me, it is the same thing as if I presented this graph:

 

 

I have now provided just as much evidence as they have. I have created a chart (granted nowhere near as pretty) and put it on the Internet. That's it. You can't refute my data, because there is no data to refute. I can't confirm their data, because there is no data to confirm.

 

I hate to belabor the point, but that's Science 101. The Scientific Method requires that the data be presented so that it can be peer reviewed.

 

They summarized and QUOTED the original text, but you probably didn't even read enough of it to see.

I read the whole thing actually. And then the NASA article.

 

And judging by the fact that you didn't even know about the originating NASA link within

I misread what the referred NASA article was relating to. I thought that I had missed a NASA link on the original Global Temperatures chart's site. For that, I apologize.

 

you just used the typical ad hominem attack that because it has right wing bias, it cannot be credible in any way.

But the article misrepresents what the NASA article is talking about by taking specific snippets out and implies that climate change is bunk. For example, the Newsbusters article makes comments like "Is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration filled with climate change deniers?" There is nothing in the article that says that NASA is denying climate change. I feel they misrepresented what the NASA article was saying, thus my original comment.

 

Again, why not just read the NASA article and decide for yourself?

 

I don't tell people not to trust them for information, I just tell them to ignore the bias, and go on the FACTS AS PRESENTED.

Isn't that what I said? Go to the facts as presented! It's all right there in NASA's interesting article.

[Tommycat]

Well considering it has more points represented than the original "Hockey stick" graph(which is marvelously outdated and exceptionally misrepresentative by the way), I cannot understand the issue. Granted the data collected that is represented in the graph however is what is generally peer reviewed(and the hockey stick is one that failed peer review by the way, BUT it doesn't stop global warming sites from pointing to that as fact).

 

To those that look solely at the global warming sites, check out http://www.junkscience.com for another perspective. The bias is obvious, but then again, it's no more biassed than the global warming sites. Granted it's a bit like getting information on the DNC from the GOP(or for those across the pond, Labor party from the Conservative party), but at least you get a different point of view.

 

Actually if you look at a lot of the data from multiple sources it almost looks like a calibration phase. Basically instrumentation is way off at first, but after it's settled in, it seems to be leveling off. Honestly would you trust a thermometer from the 1800's? Then again the sites(physical sites not web sites) collecting data for global surface temperature are taking data from places that refused to follow the guidelines set forth for placing temperature gathering equipment. Placing temperature sensors near burn barrels, next to exhaust vents, right next to large slabs of asphalt, etc. It's like checking someone's temperature in a jacuzzi. If the initial data is incorrect, any extrapolations based on that data should be re-evaluated.

 

And yes the original NASA article was a much more interesting and definately was trying to cater to the GW croud.

[Totenkopf]

.....Thus my point that it is better to go to the source, which is easy enough to do.

 

But aren't they telling me this? They are exposing leftist bias. So that excludes the left and the center (which also has some left bias by definition). Doesn't that only leave the right?

 

But this is getting away from the topic of this thread. My only point was that it is better to go to the source, which was in fact provided in that article.

 

I guess I am different, perhaps because I do have a physics degree. But when it comes to science matters (probably more that some other topics) I always attempt to look at the original information/data or at least summaries from the original authors/researchers, because that is how I was educated. Typically it is "safer" to view the data yourself or get conclusions from the researcher.

 

If you and others find such topics boring, then that is unfortunate. I agree that things can seem dry. But I found the NASA article quite interesting.

 

To me, conscious and otherwise is important. As I think you said earlier personal biases are going to come into play in any article, and that is a fact of life that has to be taken into consideration. But that is different that actively trying to promote a particular bias and/or attack a specific bias (and we agree it happens on both sides). IMO I think people need to be aware and careful of the latter. I think the Newsbusters.org article is the latter, which is why I ignored it and went to the original NASA article.

 

I don't think we're too far apart here. I disagree that fighting leftist bias axiomatically make one a right winger (and vice versa), but agree that going to the source material is a good policy. Then, if you have problems there (outside your background/etc..), you can do further research elsewhere. My point about technical literature was just that many people have a hard time wading through it b/c they lack the education or interest. Like you, I'm capable of dealing with dry and even abstract material but recognize that it's not true of everyone.

[Tommycat]

No! Because presenting the actual data and how it was collected is the whole point and critical to the scientific analysis of what is being presented! How can any of what has been proposed here be scientifically peer reviewed (which is critical to the scientific process) when there is nothing to be reviewed? Nowhere that I have seen do they state why there are only 2-3 data values represented or what the full data set is or how the data was gathered. This information is critical because without it there is to way to verify or refute the claims they are making. For that reason, the chart is utterly useless.

 

As a definative scientific chart, and without the accompanying research possibly.

 

Can you explain how demanding actual data to be presented is a strawman? Or are what are you referring to exactly? I'm happy to be more specific on anything..

Primarily I was thinking you were picking nits on the years represented by the graph. And for reference the graph actually DOES go farther back than 1998. 1607. Though we cannot be certain of that. I am not denying that the chart in and of itself is in any way definative, just that it cannot be dismissed outright.

 

That is exactly what it means. And by labeled, I mean presented in some way, either as a part of the graph or separately through some other means..

 

Well considering the source it may only be for demonstration purposes. and not any form of definative this is how it goes. There are other sites that have a much better argument than this site. Even a few on the Discovery Channel which showed similar trends.

 

The point is, if we are going to have the (valuable) debate on the causes/existence of climate change, lets at least get all of the data on the table so everyone can see it. If they have evidence that shows what they claim, great! That would be valuable information to include in the debate..

Agreed, ask the site for the original sources. The original data. Of course again the site itself appears to be little more than a "This is how it works" kinda thing rather than "Lets debunk myths about global warming" type of site. I mean the second graph on the page of images, shows a rather interesting plateau after 1998.

 

I can, and so should you! There is nothing to back up what is being presented here. How can I, you, or anyone else show that this graph hasn't been pulled out of their collective asses? Isn't everyone taught this in science class? .

No, It is not enough to say that since all of the data is not presented we should ignore it. If that's the case then lets ignore about 90% of the global warming data. I mean I could create a labeled graph and plot random points on it and have a scale on it. It doesn't make it right either.

To me, it is the same thing as if I presented this graph:

 

 

I have now provided just as much evidence as they have. I have created a chart (granted nowhere near as pretty) and put it on the Internet. That's it. You can't refute my data, because there is no data to refute. I can't confirm their data, because there is no data to confirm.

 

I hate to belabor the point, but that's Science 101. The Scientific Method requires that the data be presented so that it can be peer reviewed..

Not if the intend is to provide a general overview to the non-scientific public. Yes, you and I would probably agree that we need the backing data, extrapolation methodology, and all the how-to's to repeat the test exactly to verify it, but then again, we aren't exactly the same as the general public now are we.

I read the whole thing actually. And then the NASA article.

 

I misread what the referred NASA article was relating to. I thought that I had missed a NASA link on the original Global Temperatures chart's site. For that, I apologize.

 

But the article misrepresents what the NASA article is talking about by taking specific snippets out and implies that climate change is bunk. For example, the Newsbusters article makes comments like "Is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration filled with climate change deniers?" There is nothing in the article that says that NASA is denying climate change. I feel they misrepresented what the NASA article was saying, thus my original comment.

 

Again, why not just read the NASA article and decide for yourself?

 

Isn't that what I said? Go to the facts as presented! It's all right there in NASA's interesting article.

Yes and from what I read, the article can be interpreted in just about any way you wanted. BUT it really put a damper on the Global warming causing Global cooling arguments(whether intentional or not)

 

Of course I think my main problem with a majority of the global warming debate stems from the most important aspect of the scientific method. Repeatability. A single coincidence does not imply causality(hmm basic science class anyone?). I can say that this year when I turned my lights on more, my house got cooler. It must mean that when I turn my lights on it cools my house, right? And its true, If the time when I turn my lights on for more than 5 hours my house gets colder by at least 5 degrees, does that mean that somehow my lights are causing my house to get colder? Absolutely not. In fact it is because the level of light in my house is lower that I turn my lights on, however it coincides with the time of year that it naturally gets colder.

[MdKnightR]

Well, I see that no one took my advice.

[Darth InSidious]

"General overview" = "lies-to-thick-people" = "bunkum".

 

"General overview" is a term used by second-raters who hypersimplify.

[Prime]

My point about technical literature was just that many people have a hard time wading through it b/c they lack the education or interest.

Fair enough. Unfortunately, that leads to misconceptions on all sides. Fact of life i guess...

 

As a definative scientific chart, and without the accompanying research possibly.

How is it a definitive scientific chart?

 

I am not denying that the chart in and of itself is in any way definative, just that it cannot be dismissed outright.

But why shouldn't it be? What makes the data presented in it any more reliable that the one I created? They are both backed up by the same amount of evidence.

 

Well considering the source it may only be for demonstration purposes. and not any form of definative this is how it goes.

But even if that is the case they should reference the data they used or at least how it was obtained so that for those interested can confirm what they are saying. It doesn't have to be on the chart and thus complicating the explanation. I mean, look at the NASA article. They give some summary information about how they gathered their data.

 

There are other sites that have a much better argument than this site. Even a few on the Discovery Channel which showed similar trends.

I have doubt there are!

 

Agreed, ask the site for the original sources. The original data.

Email sent to ContactUs@LongRangeWeather.com.

 

No, It is not enough to say that since all of the data is not presented we should ignore it. If that's the case then lets ignore about 90% of the global warming data. I mean I could create a labeled graph and plot random points on it and have a scale on it. It doesn't make it right either.

Correct. It is not right that I did it, nor should it be right when they do it. As for other data, what are you referring to specifically? Is there some thing from the link I posted earlier that has been disproven? Or are you talking about something else?

 

Yes and from what I read, the article can be interpreted in just about any way you wanted. BUT it really put a damper on the Global warming causing Global cooling arguments(whether intentional or not)

The point is that at least at that point we can both look at the data and come up with whatever conclusions we think are correct. If we disagree, at least we have some data in order to make our cases. Then the debate is much more meaningful and we can do so from a common point.

[Tommycat]

Well you could for one check out this BBC show which featured prominent scientists

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

 

Strangely enough it hasn't received ANY play in the US media.... So much for no media bias....

 

Sorry, I was saying that the chart presented was not for scientific purposes. Instead it was probably for the layman. Though I have seen similar charts with proper documentation showing the relationship between volcanic activity, solar activity, and global temperature.

 

And sorry, I can't point out where they were, it was simply one of the random meteorology sites I hit while trying to show proof of global warming:D

[Arcesious]

Global wamring people- calm down.

 

There is now a new car that has absolutwely no carbon emmissions, and solar power technolgoy has gotten soem major improvemenets in the last few years. all technology is becomign very nature friendly, along with the garbage plasma recysling invention that recyclyes pure garbage into clean, efficeitn power, global wamring is actually natural. THE ICE CAPS ARE SUPPOSED TO MELT! they melt away quite a bit each year, and then they come right back to normal and maybe a little above normal at times. Did you know that the ice cap in the north isn't a land form? There's an ocena up there called the Arctic Ocean, and every summer, the earth tilts it's northern hemisphere and pole more towards the sun more tham any other place on earth, and it natually melts, cause it's an ocean that was frozen! also, becasue the earth spins, it spins fast at the poles, and anything near the center of where something spins is pushed outwards. that's why the earth is not perfectly round, but it is bulged at the equator, the same effect causes the ice to drift outwards fromt he cente rof the north pole. The ice drift is prefectly natural and is actually good for the earth in order to keep the climates in check. The hurricanes may be bad but all you can really do is blame the cold fronts beign bounced off of africa and hittign the warm central amrerica/south north amercia warm fronts. besides, the hurricanes technically aren't caused by global warming completely, maybe a little though, and now, there are soem pretty good new anti-hurricane flood damage defenses that have been invented that are being implemented as we speak. and before you get mad at me and stuff, i admit, i believe there is some global warming that is our fault! i do repect the enviroment and nature, and i do support the plan of trying to keep our green/blue planet majestic and beautiful.

[mur'phon]

There is now a new car that has absolutwely no carbon emmissions, and solar power technolgoy has gotten soem major improvemenets in the last few years. all technology is becomign very nature friendly, along with the garbage plasma recysling invention that recyclyes pure garbage into clean, efficeitn power,

 

Yes, the technology is coming, the problem is that so far, it's more expensive than the alternatives.

 

global wamring is actually natural

 

Yes, some warming is, trouble is, if we first knock it off balance, we can get into a circle where some warming causes some warming which causes some warming etc.

 

THE ICE CAPS ARE SUPPOSED TO MELT

 

Just not as fast as they are now.......

 

they melt away quite a bit each year, and then they come right back to normal and maybe a little above normal at times

 

You seem to be talking about seasonal change in the size of the ice caps, in which case you are wrong, they are shrinking year after year.

 

Did you know that the ice cap in the north isn't a land form?

 

Yup, it's why the melting of the north pole won't cause the sea level to rise too much.

 

There's an ocena up there called the Arctic Ocean, and every summer, the earth tilts it's northern hemisphere and pole more towards the sun more tham any other place on earth, and it natually melts, cause it's an ocean that was frozen! also, becasue the earth spins, it spins fast at the poles, and anything near the center of where something spins is pushed outwards. that's why the earth is not perfectly round, but it is bulged at the equator, the same effect causes the ice to drift outwards fromt he cente rof the north pole. The ice drift is prefectly natural and is actually good for the earth in order to keep the climates in check.

 

And what does this have to do with climate change?

 

The hurricanes may be bad but all you can really do is blame the cold fronts beign bounced off of africa and hittign the warm central amrerica/south north amercia warm fronts. besides, the hurricanes technically aren't caused by global warming completely, maybe a little though, and now, there are soem pretty good new anti-hurricane flood damage defenses that have been invented that are being implemented as we speak.

 

I'm not that worried about hurricanes, and even if I where, I wouldn't be calmed by theese new defences unless they are cheap enough for poor countries to afford them. I am more concerned about: rising sea level, dessert expansion, drying up of farmland etc.

 

and before you get mad at me and stuff, i admit, i believe there is some global warming that is our fault!

 

No need to be afraid, if someone gets mad at you for stating what you believe, they clearly don't belong in kavars:)

 

And if you bump into those sites again, please let me know

[Arcesious]

everyone's entitled to there own opinion over this i guess. I guess i'm sorta 50/50 in between both sides about global warming. with part about the earth burging, here's waht i meant.

 

The bulged at the equator part doesn't matter, but it was meant to support my point in certain sense.

Here's to put it simply.

 

Grab a jumprope and sloly start spinning it aroudn you while you turn with it. start to go faster and faster, and you'll notice the other end of the jumprope, th ehandle will go outwards spinnign farther and farther. Now imagine that you are earth. you are the core and the poles. imagine that the matter aroudn you is liek the jumprope. as you spin faster, you become bulged at the equator. This is a simpelw ay to explain the physics i was tryign to explain here. The lose ice in the north pole and south pole that is not actually land but is just frozen ice floatign on the water float's outwards towards the equator as the earth spins, and as it drifts outwards clser to the equator, it melts. see my point?

 

All i want to knwo is what would really happen if all the ice on earth completeyl melted. what woudl be the flood damge's extent?

[mur'phon]

All i want to knwo is what would really happen if all the ice on earth completeyl melted. what woudl be the flood damge's extent?

 

Kinda hard to predict, the north pole melting is not such a big deal as it is floating, the south pole and the ice/frost in alaska, canada, russia, greenland etc, are on solid ground, meaning they will cause quite a rise. The reason why it's dificult to predict is that water expands when heated. But the damage would be imense, low lying countries like Bangladesh would be mostly below sea level. Add to that drying up of farm land, and you can see that everyone would get affected.

[Ray Jones]

Grab a jumprope and sloly start spinning it aroudn you while you turn with it. start to go faster and faster, and you'll notice the other end of the jumprope, th ehandle will go outwards spinnign farther and farther. Now imagine that you are earth. you are the core and the poles. imagine that the matter aroudn you is liek the jumprope. as you spin faster, you become bulged at the equator. This is a simpelw ay to explain the physics i was tryign to explain here.

Congrats for finding out about centrifugal forces. Besides, the earth doesn't spin faster at the poles, the angular velocity is everywhere the same, what you might mean is the circumferential velocity, but that becomes larger (and thus causing larger centrifugal forces) towards the equator.

 

The lose ice in the north pole and south pole that is not actually land but is just frozen ice floatign on the water float's outwards towards the equator as the earth spins, and as it drifts outwards clser to the equator, it melts. see my point?

And where else should ice from the poles go if not towards the equator? And, the ice drifts mainly because of the big streams, not because it is "pressed" towards the equator due to earth rotation.

 

Also, the point is, it's not just the lose pole ice that's melting while it's drifting away from the poles. No one is wondering while ice is melting when it floats into warm water. Some studies say that there is *more* ice breaking off from the "eternal" ice, and thus more ice drifting off and melting. Of course some of the ice is "coming back" during winter, but it's getting less year by year (at least currently).

 

 

All i want to knwo is what would really happen if all the ice on earth completeyl melted. what woudl be the flood damge's extent?

With the current continental setup it would mean an about 200 feet higher sea level.

 

 

 

The reason why it's dificult to predict is that water expands when heated.

That is not quite correct. Water has it's highest density at 4°C, that means it expands when you chill it below or heat it above 4°C. However, when you warm up frozen water it will contract until it hits 4°C.

[mur'phon]

That is not quite correct. Water has it's highest density at 4°C, that means it expands when you chill it below or heat it above 4°C. However, when you warm up frozen water it will contract until it hits 4°C.

 

Thank you, I learnt something today

[Ray Jones]

No problem. It's also the reason why ice floats, because else it would sink.