Flying by Air- the carbon footprint

[Tomcat]

(grunyen @ Feb. 11 2007,03:32) Is this "warming fast". I'm glad these scientists did not design my new microwave.

Grunyen, dear felllow

There is a time lag effect for warming due to the Oceans absorb much of the heat energy in the amtmosphere.
Eventually this will hit eqilibrium and the Ocean can absorb no more so the warming will become very rapid.
Even a very small rise can effect the balance.

Sea levels are rising, this is a fact and this really will effect lives.... and take them .

How can you say that there is no evidence when 2500 Scientists have spent six years working day in day out
From the paper i reading its pretty much black and white

How do you suggest we aquire our knowledge anyway.
You have studied Philosophy i believe and so im interested in your view on this.

[donnnnnny]

(katoeylover @ Feb. 11 2007,03:50)

(grunyen @ Feb. 11 2007,03:32) I just want to see the EVIDENCE.

You cant see the evidence, because its not there, YET.

These tests and experiments that are happening in Antarctica are not giving the results they are expecting, that as ice is melting in certain parts, it is forming in others, sea levels and temperatures are not rising, and most of the warming is in cities is due to urbanization and not global factors.

as Grunyen says, we need to see the real data, not forecasts and models.

well said sir' by the way on the subject of sea levels rising. may i ask a question>>??if you have 1 cubic meter of ice and it melts, how much water by cube do you have left when melted??
i understand it is less that the original cubic meter, if so , and the ice melts?? is it not so that 80%of an iceburg is below sea level, there for ice melting will make sea levels fall??
if i see one more cooling tower belching out steam(water vapor) ill go mad)

[Tomcat]

(donnnnnny @ Feb. 12 2007,11:42) is it not so that 80%of an iceburg is below  sea level, there for ice melting will make sea levels   fall??

The ice shelf is above sea level. The bits at the edge are below sea level. Thats why it called a shelf .actually Nasa predict that the sea levels will rise a metre in the future and not 50cm at the waterd down evidence suggests. The future may be a long way off but it always arrives... and on time...

[donnnnnny]

thanks for the clarification tom cat??but i thought the whole of the north pole was in the water??a massive ice sheet with %80 below the sea?
and at more danger of melting than in the south which is basically a land mass with ice allover it.I still dont get how the ice comes to the edge of the water then stopps??? i thought these ice sheets where huge and extended into the oceans, ?? do they float?? if not? then most of it will be below sea level? therefor i stan d by my prediction that if the ice melts then bondi beach will be 5 miles out to sea

[Road Runner]

Hello Donny,

The answer is in your own question  

Ice has a lower specific gravity than water  -  that's why it floats.  As you said only 80%  (I think it's nearer 90%) is under water.
So the remainder is above the water.  When the ice melts that remainder goes back into the water  -  increasing the volume by 20%

In plain English for every 0.8 cubic meter of ice that is under water there is 0.2 cubic meters above.   There are lots and lots of cubic meters of ice out there!

RR.

[Guest]

All free floating ice, if it were to melt would not change the sea level one iota. The amount of ice that floats above sea level represents the level of gasses that are trapped in the ice.

If you have a glass that is full of ice and you leave it on the counter, it will not overflow.

Now, glacial ice is a different critter. Because any ice on a land mass is not accounted for in the current sea level. If glacial ice melts and runs into the sea, it will increase the level of the water.

The good news is that there is no net loss in glacial ice. Although a lot of people are making dire warnings about glacial calving, there is nothing to fear.

Glacial calving is a normal process. Snow accumulates, pushes the glacier down, it breaks up at the end. It can look scary and dramatic if you edit it that way in a movie with dramatic music, but it's been going on exactly like that for millions of years.

There is one area called the Antarctic Peninsula that is receding dramatically. But the Antarctic Peninsula is just a name, just like Hoboken. It represents 2% of the Antarctic land mass. This receding isn't likely due to global warming, because it's been happening in that same place for 6,000 years.

Overall Antarctic land mass is actually increasing. On the other side of the marble, the scientist in Greenland whose work has been cited as evidence of global warming is hopping mad. He insists that it shows no such thing, and you can hear him talk about it if you watch that movie I mentioned earlier. It is on Pirate Bay.

Tomcat I hear you saying evidence, but you just keep talking about papers and numbers of scientists. I'm an NT, forgive my character traits but I just don't work that way. I have no particular respect for degree or decree.

You would think that with all those brilliant scientists, they would be able to come up with some measurable evidence that I can't refute in two minutes. A big book of an IPCC report is not evidence- it's a paperweight.

Now it *may* contain some evidence, but so far I haven't heard of any.

To recap, the stats so far are that the earth MAY have increased by one degree in 100 years. The temp increases are being measured in exactly the opposite place that global warming theory predicts. The sea levels are not rising, and there is no net loss of glacial or free floating ice.

[donnnnnny]

good so basically there will be very little sea level increase, just another golbal joke
another question?? we go back a convenient 100 years in most predictions.but is it not true that man has only been able to mesure earth tempretures accuratly since the onset of satalites??if so we have only had accurate tempreture readings for 35odd years????so therefor how can we accuratlysay what tempretures were 100 years ago???
cheersdonnnnnny

[Tomcat]

(grunyen @ Feb. 13 2007,12:42) . A big book of an IPCC report is not evidence- it's a paperweight.

You are joking i take it.

It took six years to collate this evidence and 2,500 scientists were involved. 113 countries, including China and USA agreed on the findings. I have read a pracy of the report and it looks pretty " in the real world" to me .

If you dont consider this as evidence then i dont understand where your coming from. what counts as evidence...im perplexed..

You also dismissed Science in your earlier post as some kind of witchcraft. tell me then

1) Do you believe in medicine or do you go to a witch doctor when your ill
2) How do you think the plasma screen arrived on your wall and the IPOD in your ears.
3) How did they get the rover on Mars
4) How do they posit 25 different particles smaller than an atom.

Science is a growing body of knowledge that works by evolution, only the strongest ideas survive. And survive they do. E=MC2 has been shown accurate to 10 decimal places

Anyway if you guys want to have a wager, im game.

[Guest]

I'm not joking at all, and I think you keep continually missing the point.

You keep listing facts about this IPCC report; how many scientists, where they are from, etc. You might as well list the dimensions of the book in centimeters and how much it weighs. I have yet to see you convey any of the INFORMATION from the report.

Just so you understand, it would look something like this:

Tomcat - "According to the IPCC report, net glacial ice is down 20% since ten years ago".

Instead, we get this:
Tomacat - "This IPCC report is REALLY thick, I'm impressed and you should be too"

I am absolutely a believer in science. Which is why I keep harping on evidence. I never dismissed science as witchcraft. That would mean I do not understand or believe in it's origin, and I believe it has some mystical element.

What I did say is that science has many hypothesis, and over time, many have been horribly wrong. Are you denying that scientists at one point believed that the earth was the center of the cosmos?

All those LCD TV's and iPods come from science, the best kind, involving REAL WORLD observation, experimentation, and physical reproducability. No THEORY alone will ever make a working iPod. And no production line that makes one working iPod and can never repeat it will make a profit for Apple.

Imagine Apple not actually having the science to make an iPod. They create a brilliant, very convincing PR campaign. Millions of people are woo'ed and excited about getting their new iPod.

When they show up at the store, there is the little white plastic case, the headphones, buttons and lights. But it doesn't actualyl play music. People rabble rouse and complain, there are iPod skeptics.

Apple puts out a 900 page report on how the iPod works. 2500 Scientists sign a petition swearing that they believe the iPod works. Computer projection models indisputably predict that when you press the button, the iPod will play music.

But it doesn't play music. Would you consider that a successeful demonstration of science?

I'll tell you what we can both agree on as facts. You are convinced that man has caused an unatural increase in gloabl temperatures. You are scared of this phenomena. Because you are scared, you are willing to turn over control to others who you deem to be more worthy, or better able to handle the disaster.

In that regard, I would say the global warming campaign has been a huge success.

[Tomcat]

(grunyen @ Feb. 14 2007,00:58) Instead, we get this:
Tomacat - "This IPCC report is REALLY thick, I'm impressed and you should be too"

 

Ive read a 4 page summary. Ill fax it to you if you want.

I can tell you this , i dont just quote things for the fun of it Grunyen. Science is something i do happen to know about and believe me my own reference library is pretty big.

If you think im bullshitting then so be it. We will obviously never agree. Thanks anyway.


btw
im not scared of anything, take my word for it

[Road Runner]

(donnnnnny @ Feb. 13 2007,07:57) good so basically there will be  very little sea level increase, just another  golbal joke
another  question?? we  go back a convenient 100 years in most predictions.but is it not true that man has only  been able to  mesure earth tempretures accuratly since  the onset of satalites??if so  we have only  had accurate tempreture readings for 35odd years????so therefor how can we accuratlysay what tempretures were 100  years ago???
cheersdonnnnnny

Hello Donnnny,

The answer your post in reverse order  -  because it is easier that way  

We have had accurate thermometers since the 1650's.  The problem was they were very expensive to make then  -  so only a few scientists with generous benefactors could afford them.
That's why the records start then and there is nothing wrong with their accuracy  -  it's the lack of coverage that is a problem.  We get arround that by comparing other things like tree ring growth and polar ice caps.

Around 1900 the first major global telegraph/telephone networks were complete and the worlds meterologists got together and agreed to pool their data.  This continued even through the two world wars  -  all the waring nations continued to send weather data to Geneva even though it could potentially help the enemy.

Hence the 'convenient' 100 years.  It's the date from which we can say the coverage was adequate without resorting to other means.  It has served to prove that the other means are surprisingly accurate.

The piece of the jigsaw that was missing was sea temperatures.  British ships have been taking these since about 1880 and various other nations joined in over the following decades.  Again even with the numbers of ships involved the readings were confined to the trade routes.  In fact you could say the only decent coverage was confined to the major trade routes.

The project by the worlds navies I mentioned above widened the coverage some and extended it greatly under water. This still meant we only had a relatively small percentage of the oceans covered and the first model I was taught of ocean current flows had big areas around the poles with zero information. A bit like those old maps that showed Terra Australis as a big blob going all the way to the South Pole.

When satelites showed up they allowed initially coverage of all the sea surface only.  Then as the technology improved they were developed to be able to look deeper. ie. down to about 50-100 metres  -  maybe even deeper now.  This is backed up by a large number of ODAS buoys  -  Ocean Data Acquisition System.  These give weather readings from hundreds of locations around the world.

It wasn't until about the mid 1980's that there was enough data to produce an accurate computer model of the currents flows.  Until we had that were trying to forcast weather with only half the picture.

You will notice that it was around this time that the idea of global warming came about.  This is no co-incidence.

Go and watch the film The Day After Tomorrow.  Although Hollywood has messed around with nearly all of the details and the timescale in order to make it watchable the basic premise is correct.

The Gulf Stream is the biggest river in the world.  It is something like 1000 times the volume of all the worlds fresh water rivers put together.  It carries many times more heat away from the Equator to the northern lattitudes than all the weather systems.  It's flow is influenced not only by the shape of the land and ocean floor  -  but also by the cold currents from the North Pole.
In the event that the balance of forces were affected and the Gulf Stream flow was permanently changed by just a few percent it's effect WILL be felt all around the world.

If you are buying a house in Brisbane  -  make sure it's on a hill!

RR.

[Guest]

(Tomcat @ Feb. 14 2007,01:17)

(grunyen @ Feb. 14 2007,00:58) Instead, we get this:
Tomacat - "This IPCC report is REALLY thick, I'm impressed and you should be too"

 

Ive read a 4 page summary. Ill fax it to you if you want.

I can tell you this , i dont just quote things for the fun of it Grunyen. Science is something i do happen to know about and believe me my own reference library is pretty big.

If you think im bullshitting then so be it. We will obviously never agree. Thanks anyway.


btw
im not scared of anything, take my word for it

Great. But you still keep talking ABOUT it instead of just PRESENTING it.

This is like continually talking about how big your dick is instead of just whipping it out.

You can TELL me how much you know about science, or what you've read, or how big your reference library is. I still haven't heard you posit the evidence that you say you believe in.

I've listed many incidents of evidence that disputes global warming theory. I'm actually advancing an argument here- not talking about how I could advance a position, I'm actually just doing it.

If there is something you believe in, and you think others are wrong, just start making your points. I can't remember you having made any yet. Well, I take that back, you have definately proved that an IPCC report actually exists.

Are you going to talk about global warming, or keep talking about talking about it?

[donnnnnny]

Thank you  road  runner, most of what you posted i was aware off  and i have seen the dreadfull movie  the day after tomorrow.How did they start those  4 w d's in minus 70 centigrade temps lmao.
Sorry i am a sceptic when it comes to the   global warming or is  the catch frase  now "climate change'  because they are not sure if it will be warming maybe cooling??
Read a few books on this  subject, one called global warming the myth behind the truthCant remember the authers name???  but it did touch on such subjects as reserch institutes who are granted money to carry on there studys   and there for its  possible the benifacters get the results they look for.??
It also   devoted a chapter to  green house gas. there is a green house otherwise we fry.It stated in the book that %90 odd of  green house gas was naturally occuring, and that global cooling occured when volcanoes erupt  releasing billions of silica  particles into the atmosphere that act like tiny mirrors  reflexting back the suns rays.A natural phenomina.
I  also believe that the earth has changed since  year1 , take  australia as an example, the whole continent used to be a temperate rain forrest(remnants still remain in tasmania).as the continent  has drifted northward  it has found its  self in a much drier and hotter area than the position  it was in  from a  few million years ago, there fore leading to forrests receading and turning into arrid dessert regions with only  fringes of  forrest left
Absoulutly nothing to do with human activities.
Greenland was a fertile and warmer  place back in the   early past of  last century,  and is now frozen over  with nothing growing.Nothing to do with  human acrivities,
NO the worlds tempreture changes all the time, but im dammed if its anything to do with all the fartsi let off  from drinking to much beer.
cheers the flash

[Guest]

(Tomcat @ Feb. 11 2007,21:12) Grunyen, dear felllow
How can you say that there is no evidence when 2500 Scientists have spent six years working day in day out
From the paper i reading its pretty much black and white

Grunyen does not believe that AIDS is caused by HIV either.

A key fact underlying the theory of global warming is that although the opinions are expert, no one here is.

And like most trannychasers opining on the changing climate, Tomcat and Grunyen are laymen.

Kind of reminds me of Ziggy opining on changing sex.

I for one love to debate on the internet with Cliff Clavin, but we should keep in mind that as the discussion heats up, we may need to cap all the CO2 we are exhaling.

Headline on Drudgereport: "HEARING ON 'WARMING OF PLANET' CANCELED BECAUSE OF ICE STORM "

Damn I love Drudge...

Here's a good read:

[Tomcat]

(grunyen @ Feb. 14 2007,04:13) I'm actually advancing an argument here- not talking about how I could advance a position, I'm actually just doing it.

Well the IPCC report is about a zillion pages long and is not availabel unless you pay. why dont you read the website ...

The report is evidence for sure. If you dont consider this as evidence then you wont consider anything . this link reveals the hard science that has been done to prove that global warming is REAL.

http://www.ipcc.ch/activity/wg1outlines.pdf
THIS IS THE EVIDENCE

however you dont need to buy it......
The findings were published last week in New Scientist.
in black and white. why dont you go and buy a copy.
Im not going to type it out word for word. If you want a copy ill post it to you... however if you dont believe 2500 scienstists who are you going to believe.

ill post the bullet points later when im back in my office

John Gribben, a well respected Scientist and whos book came out yesterday
THE UNIVERSE A BIOGRAPHY

" The planet is getting warmer and humans are to blame
. The planet will at some change hit an increase of 5 degrees average temperature over and above what it is now. In the percieved time span that this will happen it
means that humans have amplified the problem by a factor of 10,000,000."

This guy is pretty serious and is no idiot. And its up to date.

As i said grunyen, i posit that Global warming is a reality and im prepared to make a very substantial wager that im right. ....