quote:

ORIGINAL: deadbluebird

Mars Warming Due to Dust Storms, Study Finds

I guess people can't use mars warming anymore to support their foolish claims that it isnt humans are causing global warming.

I guess people can't use mars warming anymore to support their foolish claims that it isnt humans are causing global warming.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy


Lovely post.

Missed a few things.

DDT is not necessarily bad if it is used properly.  Spray it from aerial sprayers on crops, wind up with no pelicans.  Spray it from an aerosol can in a house, it is not overly bad since it does not pollute the water supply and cause fowl to lay eggs without sufficiently thick shells.

One of the problems I frequently have with your posts, FirmKY, is that they seem to lack a real contextual understanding of the issue at hand.

The consensus view of the scientific community, from what I have read, is that DDT aerosols provided to third world countries will dramatically decrease malaria.  The consensus view of the uninformed public is that all DDT is bad all the time.

Since you seem to be so contextually uninformed about DDT and the consensus view, I am left to wonder if you are similarly uninformed about global warming and the consensus view.

For example, you have yet to provide any scientific peer-reviewed studies to prove that the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 16 does not prove that the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is man made.

If you want to discuss DDT, perhaps it would be more appropriate to start another thread so we can focus on the topic at hand.

Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

And why should I provide you anything in relation to carbon 14 and 16? If you wish to make a claim about them, then make it, and provide your own cites and sources. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

And why should I provide you anything in relation to carbon 14 and 16? If you wish to make a claim about them, then make it, and provide your own cites and sources. 

I did actually.

Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

And why should I provide you anything in relation to carbon 14 and 16? If you wish to make a claim about them, then make it, and provide your own cites and sources. 

I did actually.

Sinergy

Then link it, or say it again.\

quote:



I have to admit, I tend to ignore most of your stuff, nowadays anyway.  It's just "forum noise" to me. 

quote:



Doesn't matter.  You don't grasp what I was saying anyway, and I've no interest in explaining simple logic and analogies to you.  You've proven time and time again that those concepts aren't ... familiar ... to you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

DDT is not necessarily bad if it is used properly.  Spray it from aerial sprayers on crops, wind up with no pelicans.  Spray it from an aerosol can in a house, it is not overly bad since it does not pollute the water supply and cause fowl to lay eggs without sufficiently thick shells.

The consensus view of the scientific community, from what I have read, is that DDT aerosols provided to third world countries will dramatically decrease malaria.  The consensus view of the uninformed public is that all DDT is bad all the time.

Since you seem to be so contextually uninformed about DDT and the consensus view, I am left to wonder if you are similarly uninformed about global warming and the consensus view.

quote:


Consensus doesn't create "fact".

Consider the following examples where previous consensuses were proven wrong:

1. Iraq possesses WMDs.
2. Enslaving negroes is justifiable.
3. DDT is bad.
4. Silicone implants are unsafe.

Based on the above, can you guess how much weight should be given to the idea that it is a "fact" that global warming is caused by man simply because there is a consensus?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

The problem you have is that you brought up a point (DDT, in case you dont remember) and got your ass handed back to you because I know more about the issue of DDT than you do.

Now you are furiously backpedalling.

I cant figure out whether I find it pathetic or amusing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: deadbluebird

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070404-mars-warming.html

I guess people can't use mars warming anymore to support their foolish claims that it isnt humans are causing global warming.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy


The ice on Greenland and Antarctica are sitting on land (in other words, they are not in the water).  When they melt, they will be in the water, not on land.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand.

edited to point out that 90% of an ice cube is submerged because of the difference in density.  This means that when it melts the other 10% raises the water level.  This, as you pointed out, is grade school science.

quote:

ORIGINAL: deadbluebird

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070404-mars-warming.html

I guess people can't use mars warming anymore to support their foolish claims that it isnt humans are causing global warming.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrutalDemon

quote:

ORIGINAL: deadbluebird

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070404-mars-warming.html

I guess people can't use mars warming anymore to support their foolish claims that it isnt humans are causing global warming.

Actually, that article can be used to demonstrate the opposite... obvioulsy because Mars has zero Human population but is still experiencing a period of warming, then how are Humans accountable for Earths climate change?

That's the reverse of the process I described earlier, where some scientists predicted that high altitude cloud would INCREASE Albedo to the point of causing a Nuclear Winter.

quote:

Global warming may result in an increase in the rate of sea level rise due to thermal expansion of seawater and the melting of ice in glaciers and polar regions (Figure 2). The coefficient of thermal expansion of seawater is 0.00019 per degree Celsius, meaning that if a volume of seawater occupied 1 cubic meter of water (1000 L, 264.20 gal), after warming by 1°C, it would expand to 1.00019 m3 (1000.19 L, 264.25 gal). Translated over the mean depth of the ocean (3.8 km, 2.4 mi), an increase in temperature of 1°'C will cause a sea level rise of about 70 cm (28 in). Whereas thermal expansion acts upon water already in the basin, contributions from melting ice represent new, added water to the present ocean volume. The melting of ice that is currently perched upon land, as in the ice sheets of Greenland, Iceland, and the Antarctic, has the potential to raise sea level considerably, by about 80 meters (262 ft). Ice that is already floating in the ocean water, as in the Arctic ice mass, Antarctic ice shelves, and much smaller icebergs, may melt but will not contribute to sea level rise since the mass of water contained in these features already displaces its equivalent water volume.

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

Brutal Demon, Earth's glaciers and ice sheets hold incredible amounts of fresh water. If they were to melt they would alter the salt content of the ocean, killing many species all over the world... also there is going to be sea level rise with this phenonema too... I refer you to this link and information

quote:

Global warming may result in an increase in the rate of sea level rise due to thermal expansion of seawater and the melting of ice in glaciers and polar regions (Figure 2). The coefficient of thermal expansion of seawater is 0.00019 per degree Celsius, meaning that if a volume of seawater occupied 1 cubic meter of water (1000 L, 264.20 gal), after warming by 1°C, it would expand to 1.00019 m3 (1000.19 L, 264.25 gal). Translated over the mean depth of the ocean (3.8 km, 2.4 mi), an increase in temperature of 1°'C will cause a sea level rise of about 70 cm (28 in). Whereas thermal expansion acts upon water already in the basin, contributions from melting ice represent new, added water to the present ocean volume. The melting of ice that is currently perched upon land, as in the ice sheets of Greenland, Iceland, and the Antarctic, has the potential to raise sea level considerably, by about 80 meters (262 ft). Ice that is already floating in the ocean water, as in the Arctic ice mass, Antarctic ice shelves, and much smaller icebergs, may melt but will not contribute to sea level rise since the mass of water contained in these features already displaces its equivalent water volume.

http://wps.prenhall.com/esm_thurman_introocean_9/0,7305,348099-,00.html

Ice that is already floating in the ocean water, as in the Arctic ice mass, Antarctic ice shelves, and much smaller icebergs, may melt but will not contribute to sea level rise since the mass of water contained in these features already displaces its equivalent water volume.