Man Made global warming. Is it real or a massive hoax?

[SSBbo]

blazed, although i think that we aren't the only factor and maybe not even the major factor in the climate crisis, i think we should do something, not an extreme ruction in emmisions (unless it's possible to extremely cut down emmisions, like with alternative forms of energy), but a reduction. like carpool if you can, don't leave lights on for no reason, drive a fuel-efficient car, etc.
if not for the environment's sake, for the sake of the economy.

 

[manhunter098]

But wasting your money in many cases is actually good for the economy (especially considering that the US is going through a recession). The more people spend the more the economy prospers. Well it can also cause inflation as well, but there will still be increased economic growth even with a little bit of inflation. Furthermore the environmental impact of individuals, is essentially insignificant compared to industry.

 

[SSBbo]

although it is good for the economy, i think that if we cut down on gasoline and petroleum gas prices wont go up as much as if we bought alot. i know alot of people that say if gas prices go too high, they'll boycott, or carpool on such a massive scale that individuals involved in the carpool will pay less money per gallon than they ever did, making the economy worse.

yes, i've seen the emmisions of industry (i used to live in birmingham), and also i saw a photo of an idustrial city in china (i might look it up later... or not) and it was a skyview shot. the only things you could see were the very tops of powerplants. the rest of the powerplants and the city was covered in a pitchblack smog.

 

[EC_Joey]

i think that we aren't the only factor and maybe not even the major factor in the climate crisis

Why do you think this? What do you believe is the "major factor"?

 

[blazedaces]

Why do you think this? What do you believe is the "major factor"?

Read the original post that started this thread...

-blazed

 

[Kur]

Something else I have come across is that even if the climate is warming (whether man made global warming or natural causes) the polar ice caps will not melt and flood the coast lines.

Well, the Arctic might melt, but 80% of the water held in ice is located at the south pole. The temperature there is so far below zero that even we saw a global temperature increase of 10 degrees (far more than even Al Gore is predicting) Antarctica still wouldn't be warm enough to melt the ice. As a matter of fact, if the earth does warm, there will be MORE ice and sea levels will fall.

Warm water evaporates. It can evaporate very quickly actually. The Indian ocean is as much as 40cm lower in level than other oceans and that is because it is a very warm ocean and it evaporates very quickly. All that evaporated water rises into the atmosphere and condenses as clouds.

Suppose the earth really is warming. The sea levels are going to fall because of evaporation. Some of the clouds formed by this evaporation are going to find themselves over Antarctica dropping snow, increasing the amount of ice.

I have also found out that temperatures of the atmosphere have hardly changed at all. Ground temperature readings can be off by as much as 10 degrees depending on where they are taken. The 'official' temperature of the Phoenix AZ. area is taken at Sky Harbor airport, on the roof of a big concrete building.

Somebody has already mentioned the 'heat bubble' effect of medium to large cities and towns. It is caused by having large glass and concrete buildings connected by acres and acres of black top streets and parking lots. It is simple heat radiation.

If you look at the 'global warming' graphs, they show the last 100 years or so getting warmer. Now does is this because we have been producing CO2 for 100 years? Or is this because the temperature readings for those graphs were taken in the middle of cities that have expanded ever outward over the last 100 years?

Seriously, I can drive 20 minutes out of the city into the desert and watch the temperature display on my truck drop by 5-10 degrees.



Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off? Part 1-5.

Part 1- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA
Part 2- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD6VBLlWmCI
Part 3- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZS2eIRkcR0
Part 4- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIbTJ6mhCqk
Part 5- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2XALmrq3ro

A petition signed by over 31,000 scientists (from the US alone) agreeing that CO2 does not cause global warming.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

 

[Aesir]

^ That petition was concluded to be false.

I think I read somewhere some are dead, others aren't even scientists in the field, it's no different then what conservative think tanks do when they try and say evolution isn't valid.

have you read the requirement to have sign the petition? LOL

Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

Most bachalors don't take very long LOL..

another thing they specify they have 9,000 PHD's on that list, PHD's in what field? it was never specified it seems they just got a bunch of scientists probably over half the list doesn't even know the difference between climate and weather.


Another thing the amount of people backing a science shouldn't matter, as the science is whats being judged not the scientists.

Oh yeah lets not forget the dead scientists who were included as well lol.

Lol

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Signers_By_Last_Name.php?run=all

W. Kline Bolton. You know what this guy's PHD is in?

http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/nephrology/faculty/bolton.cfm
W. Kline Bolton, M.D., FASN
Professor of Medicine
Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology
Division Chief

apparently all I need to do is get a bachalors degree in biochemistry and I can sign that petition too.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Well, the Arctic might melt, but 80% of the water held in ice is located at the south pole. The temperature there is so far below zero that even we saw a global temperature increase of 10 degrees (far more than even Al Gore is predicting) Antarctica still wouldn't be warm enough to melt the ice.

I don't think the claim ever was that Antarctica would entirely melt. Anyway, obviously the temperature in Antarctica is not homogeneous. Some places are closer to the melting point than others. In these places warming will cause melting. In other places it won't.

As a matter of fact, if the earth does warm, there will be MORE ice and sea levels will fall.

Let's examine your evidence for this claim shall we.

Suppose the earth really is warming. The sea levels are going to fall because of evaporation.

The way this is worded is misleading. You should more properly say that evaporation will contribute to change in sea level in a decreasing manner. The sea levels will fall IF everything else being equal, evaporation increases, but this is not the case.

Some of the clouds formed by this evaporation are going to find themselves over Antarctica dropping snow, increasing the amount of ice.

To be sure, they will, but to what degree? If you want to show that the amount of ice increases, you have to demonstrate that this effect more than cancels out the rate of ice loss from melting. Again like the last point, this is just one contribution to the overall effect.

So in short, you've not demonstrated that sea levels will fall, only that there are contributions to the overall effect which by themselves would cause falling sea level. I do not dispute that these effects exist, just that you haven't shown they cancel out the contribution to rising sea level from melting.

There are also other contributions to rising sea level, such as the fact that the volume of the oceans will increase with higher temperature because of thermal expansion.

I did find this bit of information though:
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020820southseaice.html

However this only mentions area, and not volume.

I have also found out that temperatures of the atmosphere have hardly changed at all. Ground temperature readings can be off by as much as 10 degrees depending on where they are taken. The 'official' temperature of the Phoenix AZ. area is taken at Sky Harbor airport, on the roof of a big concrete building.

Somebody has already mentioned the 'heat bubble' effect of medium to large cities and towns. It is caused by having large glass and concrete buildings connected by acres and acres of black top streets and parking lots. It is simple heat radiation.

If you look at the 'global warming' graphs, they show the last 100 years or so getting warmer. Now does is this because we have been producing CO2 for 100 years? Or is this because the temperature readings for those graphs were taken in the middle of cities that have expanded ever outward over the last 100 years?

Seriously, I can drive 20 minutes out of the city into the desert and watch the temperature display on my truck drop by 5-10 degrees.

Here you claim that "temperatures of the atmosphere have hardly changed at all." But you haven't actually provided evidence, you've merely insinuated that data indicating otherwise is invalidated because of the 'heat bubble' effect of cities.

 

[blazedaces]

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_FAQs.pdf <- Faq

2.1 deals with the human activity bit.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html their 2007 report.

I would suggest the faq as the actual report where the faq is from is a pretty long read.

Sorry I didn't respond to this earlier.

I didn't read the whole IPCC 2007 report, though I have read a report from the past. I did skim the FAQ and read more thoroughly the section you told me to read (2.1). I'm sorry, but this section (and the rest of the FAQ) merely point out a correlation: temperature is rising while humans are increasing the amount of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere (there were other chemicals, but these were the larger contributions).

I personally think they are being scientific about it, because they are only pointing out facts, not insinuations that humans are directly causing this heating. Correlation does not imply causation. I wish they tested and explained things out further, but this faq did seem more general than specific. When I have time I will attempt to read the 2007 IPCC report as well.

So far though, the evidence you have provided (I don't mean the whole document, just what you told me to read) did not provide a convincing argument to make the case humans = significant contribution to global warming.

I'm just telling you the way I work. I go with the evidence.

-blazed

Edit: I have to say I agree with Hyuga. The arguments you have provided in your last post, kur, are faulty and lacking of evidence.

 

[Aesir]

I would have quoted something from the actual report but it's a daunting task and I personally just don't care enough. /johns.


I thought that's what you were asking for the collation between the two, as human activity does indeed effect a lot of earths systems with these higher temperatures it throws off our greenhouse effect and gives rather odd climate changes. I think I once compared it to having to much of a good thing.

 

[blazedaces]

I would have quoted something from the actual report but it's a daunting task and I personally just don't care enough. /johns.

Fair enough. I can't say I disagree too much.

I thought that's what you were asking for the collation between the two, as human activity does indeed effect a lot of earths systems with these higher temperatures it throws off our greenhouse effect and gives rather odd climate changes. I think I once compared it to having to much of a good thing.

I don't know if I'm not completely understanding you, but isn't this another jump from correlation to causation? Didn't we go over this?

-blazed

 

[Aesir]

I don't agree with the notion that we are causing global warming, I agree with the notion that we're effecting global warming.

That's the simplest way I can explain it.

Global Warming is a natural process and based on the evidence we are playing a roll in that process, until more evidence is given I'm with holding judgment on the argument that we're causing it.

Hopefully that can clear some things up.

 

[blazedaces]

I don't agree with the notion that we are causing global warming, I agree with the notion that we're effecting global warming.

That's the simplest way I can explain it.

Global Warming is a natural process and based on the evidence we are playing a roll in that process, until more evidence is given I'm with holding judgment on the argument that we're causing it.

Hopefully that can clear some things up.

Understandable. Though "playing a roll" is a very vague answer that obviously I can't argue against.

The next question is of course by how much? The goal is a quantifiable answer. We need to know if how much we're "playing a roll in that process" is significant or not.

-blazed

 

[Kur]

I don't think the claim ever was that Antarctica would entirely melt.

Actually, yes, that is the claim. The global warming activists constantly claim that we are headed towards melting all of the ice on the planet. They never mention however that it would take 2000-3000 years for that kind of melting to happen, even if the temperatures rise to the point where we couldn't survive the heat.

Anyway, obviously the temperature in Antarctica is not homogeneous. Some places are closer to the melting point than others. In these places warming will cause melting. In other places it won't.

You didn't watch the videos I linked did you? If Antarctica melted tomorrow, the sea level would rise about 90 meters. 70-80 meters of that would come from East Antarctica, the larger and much colder side of the ice sheet. It is colder simply because it is the part over land and does not melt away like the parts over the ocean do due to seasonal currents and warmer waters. If you pile more snow onto East Antarctica, it is going to stay there.

Also, Only the very edges of Antarctica, could possibly have enough temperature increase to begin melting the ice sheet. Even if the entire Antarctic continent was 50 degrees higher, it would still be below zero degrees all year over the majority of the area.

The way this is worded is misleading. You should more properly say that evaporation will contribute to change in sea level in a decreasing manner. The sea levels will fall IF everything else being equal, evaporation increases, but this is not the case.

No. Because I do not mean 'with everything else being equal' that is what got us into this mess in the first place. If the global temperatures go up, there will be more evaporation, regardless of whatever else is going on. That evaporated water will condense into clouds and fall as rain in other parts of the world. Sure, a lot of it may run off right back into the oceans, but a lot of it would still end up locked wherever it falls.

And if the global warming people are right, we are expected to be cooking in our own homes within 50 or 100 years. As I pointed out already, it would take thousands of years for the huge, dense, and very cold, ice sheets and glaciers to melt (if the temperature could actually get warm enough to overcome the extreme cold to do it)

To be sure, they will, but to what degree? If you want to show that the amount of ice increases, you have to demonstrate that this effect more than cancels out the rate of ice loss from melting. Again like the last point, this is just one contribution to the overall effect.

As I said, the rate the ice would melt is very slow. East Antarctica (about 70% of ice locked water on the planet) couldn't possibly melt except for around the very edges, which are in the oceans, but would still be gaining snow, locking it there for hundreds if not hundreds of thousands of years.

So in short, you've not demonstrated that sea levels will fall, only that there are contributions to the overall effect which by themselves would cause falling sea level. I do not dispute that these effects exist, just that you haven't shown they cancel out the contribution to rising sea level from melting.

Can you can show me how East Antarctica could possibly melt, much less melt so fast as to overcome ALL of the oceans evaporating at an increased rate?

There are also other contributions to rising sea level, such as the fact that the volume of the oceans will increase with higher temperature because of thermal expansion.

Thermal expansion? If you have a 55 gallon drum with 40 gallons of 70 degree water in it, and you heat it to 140 degrees, the water will expand by half a gallon, or just about 1% of its volume.

The problem with that is that it assumes there is no evaporation, or that the heat was applied so fast that there wasn't enough time for evaporation.

There are more problems when trying to scale this up to bodies of water the size of say, the Pacific Ocean. Atmospheric temperature can warm an ocean, but only for a few dozen (Even a few hundred to help your argument) feet or so. Below that the temperature is generally the same all the time. So if any thermal expansion is going to happen it will only happen in a relatively thin layer of water at the surface.

Another problem is that (again watch the videos I linked) the Indian Ocean is significantly lower than other oceans because of its higher temperature. Thermal expansion isn't doing much there.

And my example showed a very dramatic temperature increase. An increase far more than even the most concerned global warming activist would claim.

So I'll be generous. You have the top 100 feet of the oceans warming by about 15 degrees (over a period of 100 years). The thermal expansion caused by 15 degrees would be about (still being generous) .33%. One third of 1% of 100 feet is 4 inches. 4 inches is about 10cm, or 25% of the value the Indian Ocean is lower than other oceans because of evaporation.

Evaporation is fast. It is much faster than most people think. You can measure it yourself. I have. My fish aquarium kept at 80 degrees with a surface area of 9 square feet, loses 3.5 inches of water per week. The small pool I have in my yard for my dog with a surface area of about 20 square feet in 112 degrees loses almost 4 inches a day.

Of course you could claim that all that evaporation would just fall back filling the oceans up again and it certainly would, but not completely. There will always be a great deal of water in the form of clouds and vapor that is not there. Not to mention the loss of water from the system completely when it snows in Antarctica. I am also wondering how the oceans will rise from some simple melting ice or whatnot when the Indian Ocean evaporates so quickly that connected oceans can not overcome the evaporation.

I did find this bit of information though:
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020820southseaice.html

However this only mentions area, and not volume.

That study covers sea ice. Which I already said would melt if temperatures did rise. But sea ice accounts for less than 25% of the rise in sea level should all the ice melt.

Though this entire topic is moot because there is no man made global warming and if the planet does warm it won't be because of us, and there isn't anything we can do to stop it.

Here you claim that "temperatures of the atmosphere have hardly changed at all." But you haven't actually provided evidence, you've merely insinuated that data indicating otherwise is invalidated because of the 'heat bubble' effect of cities.

I didn't provide a direct link to an article, but it was covered in the video I linked.

And I should say here that I used the wrong wording there. Instead of "temperatures in the atmosphere have hardly changed at all" I should have said, "Temperatures in the atmosphere have not changed nearly as much as they should have if global warming by man made greenhouse gases were true."

Wikipedia - "Within measurement error, all of these records paint a similar picture of temperature change and global warming. However, climate models predict carbon dioxide based greenhouse warming should result in lower atmosphere warming roughly 1.3 times higher than the surface warming. This prediction is consistent with the RSS vs. surface comparison, though by contrast the UAH vs. surface comparison suggests a troposphere warming by slightly less than the surface of the Earth." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Satellite_Temperatures.png

This statement is saying that since 1982 the global temperature has gone up but atmospheric temperatures are not increasing nearly as quickly as they should be if CO2 or any other 'greenhouse' gas were to blame. It shows that whatever is causing the surface temperature of this planet to go up (which it hasn't done recently) is caused by something other than greenhouse gases.

Though I should point out that there are two sets of data points on the graph that measure lower atmospheric temperature. They are two ways of looking at the same data. One of them shows climate change as a result of man made global warming isn't real, and the other somewhat agrees with the predictions made by the global warming activists.

It becomes clear while looking at the graph that the RSS line is very erratic. It seems to spike much higher and lower more often than the UAH line does. Of course this doesn't discredit that set of data, but it seems a bit suspicious to me.

^That petition was concluded to be false.

I hadn't heard that. I heard there was some speculation as to whether or not SOME of the names are real or not, but I can't find anything that says it is an outright hoax.

I think I read somewhere some are dead, others aren't even scientists in the field, it's no different then what conservative think tanks do when they try and say evolution isn't valid.

Well if I gave you a list of 31,000 people, how long do you think it would be before some of them died? And does a person dying after signing something change the fact that they had a certain point of view while alive?

And I am sure there are a lot of scientists who 'aren't in the field' but what field is that exactly? I could laugh at a biologist telling me the age of the earth, saying "you aren't a geologist!" But biology can say a great deal about the age of the earth and a lot of sciences can tell a great deal about the climate.

have you read the requirement to have sign the petition? LOL

Quote:
Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

Most bachalors don't take very long LOL..

So what, people with only bachelor degrees are too stupid to know anything? What about people with a bachelors degree that went to post grad for a masters but didn't finish because they were hired by a company a few credits before they got the degree? And really, it doesn't take a PhD to look at this global warming mess and realize it is all a fraud.

Oh yeah lets not forget the dead scientists who were included as well lol.

People die. Even ones who sign petitions.

W. Kline Bolton. You know what this guy's PHD is in?

http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu...lty/bolton.cfm
W. Kline Bolton, M.D., FASN
Professor of Medicine
Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology
Division Chief

apparently all I need to do is get a bachalors degree in biochemistry and I can sign that petition too.

You sure you got the right W. Kline Bolton? My old pediatrician was Dr. John Whitman and as it turns out there is an entirely different Dr. John Whitman at the office I go to now.

Maybe you do have the right W. Kline Bolton. But who is to say he doesn't have a degree in meteorology or some other sort of climatology? Maybe he spent half his college education studying climatology and switched majors.

Maybe he didn't.

Now search through 31000 other names and find somebody else who may or may not belong on the list.

 

[Aesir]

Well if I gave you a list of 31,000 people, how long do you think it would be before some of them died? And does a person dying after signing something change the fact that they had a certain point of view while alive?

A little history about this petition, It first started in 1998, ultimately no one took it seriously. Then it started back up again in 2001. I'll conceed at the point that some may have died.

And I am sure there are a lot of scientists who 'aren't in the field' but what field is that exactly? I could laugh at a biologist telling me the age of the earth, saying "you aren't a geologist!" But biology can say a great deal about the age of the earth and a lot of sciences can tell a great deal about the climate.

The age of the earth is a scientific fact, global climate change is an on going debate.

Climate scientists are far more knowledgeable on this subject. I wouldn't really take an astronomer seriously if he tried to explain the way virus's evolve. why? he's an astronomer. it may be appeal to authority but if someones an expert in a field i'll take their word over someone's who isn't.

So what, people with only bachelor degrees are too stupid to know anything? What about people with a bachelors degree that went to post grad for a masters but didn't finish because they were hired by a company a few credits before they got the degree? And really, it doesn't take a PhD to look at this global warming mess and realize it is all a fraud.

Bold: IPCC's scientific findings hold very little baring on the decision making when it comes to their funding. Scientists have lost their jobs because they chose to speak about about man made global warming. Dr. Robert Watson was the previous chairman of the IPCC and he was removed, oddly enough the white house and Exxon admitted they caved to lobbyists

No I didn't say that, but the fact that all you need is a bachelors in mathematics and all of a sudden you're eligible to sign the petition that isn't a good way to convince especially if many of these scientists haven't even been in fields pertaining to climate change.

People die. Even ones who sign petitions.

The real question is did they die before signing petitions?

You sure you got the right W. Kline Bolton? My old pediatrician was Dr. John Whitman and as it turns out there is an entirely different Dr. John Whitman at the office I go to now.

I wouldn't have listed him if I wasn't sure, looked into it heavily only found one Dr. W. Kline Bolton.

Maybe you do have the right W. Kline Bolton. But who is to say he doesn't have a degree in meteorology or some other sort of climatology? Maybe he spent half his college education studying climatology and switched majors.

Maybe he did but we have no evidence he did.

Now search through 31000 other names and find somebody else who may or may not belong on the list.

Zhonggang Zeng <--- Mathematics

Hub Hougland <--- Dentist.

M. Robert Aaron <--- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._Robert_Aaron

Somehow I don't think he's qualified lol. he died back in 2007, I'll say he may have signed it.

Do you really want me to go through all 32,000?


Really this petition is seriously no different then the 300 scientists who reject evolution only not nearly as funny.

 

[Crimson King]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25419241/

Interesting. Scientist claim there is no link between the caps melting and the string of active volcanoes directly under it.

 

[Deleted member]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

This video demonstrates that no matter if global warming is true or not, it is in our best interest to assume that it is real, just in case.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Actually, yes, that is the claim. The global warming activists constantly claim that we are headed towards melting all of the ice on the planet. They never mention however that it would take 2000-3000 years for that kind of melting to happen, even if the temperatures rise to the point where we couldn't survive the heat.

Well anyone that claims we're going to entirely melt Antarctica is an idiot, and calling a decrease in ice "heading towards melting all the ice" is extremely misleading. But My post was entirely about your claims and I never made any of these claims so I don't know why we are talking about it. I never set out to defend so-called global warming activists so to bring them up is kind of a strawman and tangential.

If Antarctica melted tomorrow, the sea level would rise about 90 meters. 70-80 meters of that would come from East Antarctica, the larger and much colder side of the ice sheet. It is colder simply because it is the part over land and does not melt away like the parts over the ocean do due to seasonal currents and warmer waters. If you pile more snow onto East Antarctica, it is going to stay there.

Also, Only the very edges of Antarctica, could possibly have enough temperature increase to begin melting the ice sheet. Even if the entire Antarctic continent was 50 degrees higher, it would still be below zero degrees all year over the majority of the area.

Okay? I don't dispute any of that. I simply stated that your wording was misleading. I'm not sure what you're bringing all that up for.

And anyway, even though the average temperature in some areas will likely remain below freezing regardless of the temperature change, it will still increase the fraction of the time that that area is above melting, which will shift the equilibrium amount of snow there. So it is not true that just because some area is below freezing most of the time, it won't melt at all or that its snow/icepack will remain constant. Any increase in temperature WILL shift the equilibrium. To be sure, in places like the very interior it's negligible, but it is an incorrect oversimplification to state that only the outer areas will be affected. However I agree that the ice shelves that are already in the water can't have much effect if they melt since they are already in the ocean in the first place.

No. Because I do not mean 'with everything else being equal' that is what got us into this mess in the first place. If the global temperatures go up, there will be more evaporation, regardless of whatever else is going on. That evaporated water will condense into clouds and fall as rain in other parts of the world. Sure, a lot of it may run off right back into the oceans, but a lot of it would still end up locked wherever it falls.

You're pretty much just saying the same thing over again as in your previous post. Again, I never disputed that the evaporation effect contributes significantly, but you haven't demonstrated that the sum of the effects actually leads to a net negative change in sea level, which is what you CLAIM in your original post.

And if the global warming people are right, we are expected to be cooking in our own homes within 50 or 100 years. As I pointed out already, it would take thousands of years for the huge, dense, and very cold, ice sheets and glaciers to melt (if the temperature could actually get warm enough to overcome the extreme cold to do it)

You 'pointed it out,' but it was really just an assertion. I wouldn't take a CBC documentary any more seriously than any other TV documentary, because you can find people with credentials to support any position, especially when they get to be on TV.

As I said, the rate the ice would melt is very slow. East Antarctica (about 70% of ice locked water on the planet) couldn't possibly melt except for around the very edges, which are in the oceans, but would still be gaining snow, locking it there for hundreds if not hundreds of thousands of years.

I'm sure it is slow, and surely snow pack will increase in the interior (at least, from the effect you mentioned), but what we're looking for is for you to show the net melting is less than the net increase in snow gain, by volume of water.

Can you can show me how East Antarctica could possibly melt, much less melt so fast as to overcome ALL of the oceans evaporating at an increased rate?

Sure, if you can show me where I said it would. You're the one saying that it's NOT going to overcome the ocean evaporation rate. The burden of proof is on you. I'm just questioning your claims. I don't even necessarily disagree with you, because I'm not really sold either way on the issue at large, but I think you should be more careful on how you phrase your arguments because you're patently misleading in your previous post.

Thermal expansion? If you have a 55 gallon drum with 40 gallons of 70 degree water in it, and you heat it to 140 degrees, the water will expand by half a gallon, or just about 1% of its volume.

The problem with that is that it assumes there is no evaporation, or that the heat was applied so fast that there wasn't enough time for evaporation.

The fact that it doesn't take evaporation into account is irrelevant because the ocean is basically at equilibrium with the water vapor above it, whereas an open container of water is not. Although certainly an increase in temperature will shift the equilibrium, it is a minor correction to the thermal expansion effect (though the equilibrium shift is a significant effect in its own right). Point being, all I really intended to do was point out it existed, if you can show that it is negligible with respect to all other effects, more power to you.

There are more problems when trying to scale this up to bodies of water the size of say, the Pacific Ocean. Atmospheric temperature can warm an ocean, but only for a few dozen (Even a few hundred to help your argument) feet or so. Below that the temperature is generally the same all the time. So if any thermal expansion is going to happen it will only happen in a relatively thin layer of water at the surface.

Actually, to a first approximation, it would be basically the same amount of expansion. Instead of expanding the entire ocean by a factor of X, you're expanding some fraction of the volume of the ocean by X times the reciprocal of that fraction of the volume, because you've got that many times more absorbed energy concentrated in that certain volume. That is to say, instead of depositing the energy homogeneously in the ocean, it's all being concentrated in the top layer; instead of stretching the entire ocean by a certain amount, you're stretching 1/10 of it 10x as far (or whatever, numbers are used of entertainment purposes only and no warranty expressed or implied guarantees this number is anything like what it is in the real world). The expansion is basically the same in both cases. Corrections to the model would come from the fact that the coefficient of expansion isn't constant.

Another problem is that (again watch the videos I linked) the Indian Ocean is significantly lower than other oceans because of its higher temperature. Thermal expansion isn't doing much there.

Thermal expansion would only matter when we're talking about a CHANGE in sea level over time, not the current level. It doesn't make sense to talk about expansion if you're not talking about an interval of time.

Of course you could claim that all that evaporation would just fall back filling the oceans up again and it certainly would, but not completely.

So any decrease in ocean level due to evaporation must be balanced by an increase in ice pack elsewhere or in water vapor present in the atmosphere, since water can't just disappear unless by chemical reaction. You yourself showed that water vapor can't really affect global warming despite it being the most prevalent greenhouse gas (which I agree with) because it has a very fast half life in the atmosphere, so that suggests that most of the evaporated water has to "go somewhere" and not just be retained in the atmosphere (though to be sure the equilibrium amound of water in the atmosphere will increase but not by much). So, the change in sea level due to evaporation is by 1: how much the equilibirum amount of water vapor in the atmosphere increases, PLUS 2: how much water is not returned to the ocean. Everything else that was evaporated goes right back to the ocean and ultimately has no effect on sea level.

So, with that in mind, you need to show that the volume of water melting into the ocean is less than the volume of water lost by the ocean to those effects.

Though this entire topic is moot because there is no man made global warming and if the planet does warm it won't be because of us, and there isn't anything we can do to stop it.

Haha, "discussion's over because I'm right." Well isn't the whole point of this topic to actually ascertain whether that's true or not? You're not winning any points by brashly proclaiming victory.

 

[Kur]

Well anyone that claims we're going to entirely melt Antarctica is an idiot, and calling a decrease in ice "heading towards melting all the ice" is extremely misleading. But My post was entirely about your claims and I never made any of these claims so I don't know why we are talking about it. I never set out to defend so-called global warming activists so to bring them up is kind of a strawman and tangential.

I never said you made any claims.

This debate is about global warming. On the side of people who believe global warming is real, is the claim that we are melting all of the ice on the planet. Whether you agree or disagree, is beside the point because I was addressing that claim.

Okay? I don't dispute any of that. I simply stated that your wording was misleading. I'm not sure what you're bringing all that up for.

That was actually a reply to you claiming that parts of Antarctica are warmer than others. The reply to you claiming my wording was misleading came after that.

And anyway, even though the average temperature in some areas will likely remain below freezing regardless of the temperature change, it will still increase the fraction of the time that that area is above melting, which will shift the equilibrium amount of snow there. So it is not true that just because some area is below freezing most of the time, it won't melt at all or that its snow/icepack will remain constant. Any increase in temperature WILL shift the equilibrium. To be sure, in places like the very interior it's negligible, but it is an incorrect oversimplification to state that only the outer areas will be affected. However I agree that the ice shelves that are already in the water can't have much effect if they melt since they are already in the ocean in the first place.

No, it isn't an over simplification. Only the very outer edges, and areas directly over the oceans, ever melt. The rest is just so cold that it does not reach melting point ever. Most of the ice sheet in east Antarctica is so far below freezing that even if the average temperature were much higher, it would still be below freezing even in the middle of the antarctic summer.

You're pretty much just saying the same thing over again as in your previous post. Again, I never disputed that the evaporation effect contributes significantly, but you haven't demonstrated that the sum of the effects actually leads to a net negative change in sea level, which is what you CLAIM in your original post.

But I did. I explained that the vast majority of ice on the planet is locked up in East Antarctica and is incapable of melting. I then showed how if the earth does warm, rapid evaporation will move a significant amount of water out of the oceans and some of it will be locked permanently as ice in Antarctica, or absorbed into the soil of more arid and dry places (at least temporarily) This leads to sea levels dropping.

You 'pointed it out,' but it was really just an assertion. I wouldn't take a CBC documentary any more seriously than any other TV documentary, because you can find people with credentials to support any position, especially when they get to be on TV.

It is common sense really. Nobody knows exactly how long it would take, there are too many variables. But really, a solid sheet of ice 1.3 times larger than all of Europe, and at least a mile thick, is going to take a long long time to melt. Add to that the fact that if global warming were to increase the temperature enough to literally kill us all just from the heat, Antarctica would still be barely above freezing. There is also the point that the deeper you go into the ice sheet, the more dense the ice and the longer it takes to melt.

So lets try to melt all of that ice in slightly above freezing temperatures, for (generously) 3 months of the year, while for the other 9 months, new ice from heavy snow falls due to rapid evaporation of oceans, keeps dumping more snow on top.

If it doesn't just continue to grow straight up, it is going to take a very very long time to melt.

Even if we completely disregard the increased snow fall from evaporation, or even if we get rid of snow fall all together, it is going to take a long time to melt all that ice.

I'm sure it is slow, and surely snow pack will increase in the interior (at least, from the effect you mentioned), but what we're looking for is for you to show the net melting is less than the net increase in snow gain, by volume of water.

that is what I have been doing. I have explained that there will not be any melting. If anything melts, it will only be the parts over the ocean, and the very edges of the ice sheet where the ice is thinnest anyway. These are the parts that are already melting every year anyway. The rest of the entire ice sheet is just too cold to melt.

Sure, if you can show me where I said it would. You're the one saying that it's NOT going to overcome the ocean evaporation rate. The burden of proof is on you. I'm just questioning your claims. I don't even necessarily disagree with you, because I'm not really sold either way on the issue at large, but I think you should be more careful on how you phrase your arguments because you're patently misleading in your previous post.

How am I misleading? I presenting an argument. It is up to you to decide if my argument makes sense to you or not. I am not trying to 'trick' anybody into my view.

As I pointed out, there will not be any more melting that what there already is, and there will be more evaporation causing more snow to fall on antarctica locking it there. If this snow can not return to the ocean, then the ocean levels have to be falling.

The flaw in asking me to demonstrate that evaporation and snow fall will 'out-pace' melting, is that you are assuming that increased melting will happen.

The fact that it doesn't take evaporation into account is irrelevant because the ocean is basically at equilibrium with the water vapor above it, whereas an open container of water is not. Although certainly an increase in temperature will shift the equilibrium, it is a minor correction to the thermal expansion effect (though the equilibrium shift is a significant effect in its own right). Point being, all I really intended to do was point out it existed, if you can show that it is negligible with respect to all other effects, more power to you.

What?

Actually, to a first approximation, it would be basically the same amount of expansion. Instead of expanding the entire ocean by a factor of X, you're expanding some fraction of the volume of the ocean by X times the reciprocal of that fraction of the volume, because you've got that many times more absorbed energy concentrated in that certain volume. That is to say, instead of depositing the energy homogeneously in the ocean, it's all being concentrated in the top layer; instead of stretching the entire ocean by a certain amount, you're stretching 1/10 of it 10x as far (or whatever, numbers are used of entertainment purposes only and no warranty expressed or implied guarantees this number is anything like what it is in the real world). The expansion is basically the same in both cases. Corrections to the model would come from the fact that the coefficient of expansion isn't constant.

What?

For this to be true, (if using my example) you are telling me that an increase in temperature of 15 degrees, would result in 100 feet of oceans rising in temperature by more than 15 degrees.

It doesn't matter how much, or how little water I have. If the temperature of the atmosphere above it is 90 degrees, that water will not rise above 90 degrees. If what you say is true, I could probably make a perpetual motion machine.

Thermal expansion would only matter when we're talking about a CHANGE in sea level over time, not the current level. It doesn't make sense to talk about expansion if you're not talking about an interval of time.

Ok, 25 years ago the indian ocean was higher than it is today. Compared to the change in the levels of the rest of the worlds oceans, the indian ocean level is lower than what it should be, this is due to rapid evaporation due to warmer waters.

So any decrease in ocean level due to evaporation must be balanced by an increase in ice pack elsewhere or in water vapor present in the atmosphere, since water can't just disappear unless by chemical reaction. You yourself showed that water vapor can't really affect global warming despite it being the most prevalent greenhouse gas (which I agree with) because it has a very fast half life in the atmosphere, so that suggests that most of the evaporated water has to "go somewhere" and not just be retained in the atmosphere (though to be sure the equilibrium amound of water in the atmosphere will increase but not by much). So, the change in sea level due to evaporation is by 1: how much the equilibirum amount of water vapor in the atmosphere increases, PLUS 2: how much water is not returned to the ocean. Everything else that was evaporated goes right back to the ocean and ultimately has no effect on sea level.

Yeah. Basically. Though there are some other ways water won't be returned to the ocean. Such as being locked into a water table in the middle of an arid area, like the sanoran desert. this water will eventually return to the ocean but not in the kind of time scale that would matter to this debate.

So, with that in mind, you need to show that the volume of water melting into the ocean is less than the volume of water lost by the ocean to those effects.

As I said, you are assuming there is going to be more melting. My argument is that there won't be.

Haha, "discussion's over because I'm right." Well isn't the whole point of this topic to actually ascertain whether that's true or not? You're not winning any points by brashly proclaiming victory.

That is NOT what I was doing at all.

I was simply saying that none of this matters because we are discussing what the effects of man made global warming are. This whole portion of the debate assumes that global warming is really happening. My original, overall argument was that global warming is not happening. If you disagree, then we can debate it.

Unless global warming is real, this discussion is moot, we were debating 'what would happen if...?'

I was not proclaiming victory.

Please don't put words in my mouth.