Btw, with my original glacier melting/iceberg melting post I was trying to make out more the problem of big chunks of ice breaking off and falling into the sea. I was right anyway though with my other assumptions so I guess it doesn't matter. :P
Johannen on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Btw, with my original glacier melting/iceberg meltin post I was trying to make out more the problem of big chunks of ice breaking off and falling into the sea. I was right anyway thogh with my other assumptions so i guess it doesn't matter. :P
The problem with the chunks falling into the sea is that it's an indication of what else is happening. Also, they tend to assist in raising the water level, although not by much, really. I think. The problem could be worse than I'm aware of.
Btw, with my original glacier melting/iceberg melting post I was trying to make out more the problem of big chunks of ice breaking off and falling into the sea. I was right anyway though with my other assumptions so I guess it doesn't matter. :P
well you know what they say about assumptions. they make an ass of u and mptions.
Btw, with my original glacier melting/iceberg melting post I was trying to make out more the problem of big chunks of ice breaking off and falling into the sea. I was right anyway though with my other assumptions so I guess it doesn't matter. :P
well you know what they say about assumptions. they make an ass of u and mptions.
great argument, i mean, you totally refuted global warming right there!
My hat is off to you, good sir, and all who argue with your tactics
:roll:
I'm still waiting for the peer reviewed articles rebutting global warming.
Btw, with my original glacier melting/iceberg melting post I was trying to make out more the problem of big chunks of ice breaking off and falling into the sea. I was right anyway though with my other assumptions so I guess it doesn't matter. :P
well you know what they say about assumptions. they make an ass of u and mptions.
great argument, i mean, you totally refuted global warming right there!
My hat is off to you, good sir, and all who argue with your tactics
:roll:
I'm still waiting for the peer reviewed articles rebutting global warming.
but..but... I WASN'T EVEN SAYING ANYTHING
I WAS MAKING A JOKE
BECAUSE THIS THREAD IS TRYING TO CRUSH ME INTO A FINE PASTE FOR TRYING TO INJECT A LITTLE BALANCE INTO THE ARGUMENT
Btw, with my original glacier melting/iceberg melting post I was trying to make out more the problem of big chunks of ice breaking off and falling into the sea. I was right anyway though with my other assumptions so I guess it doesn't matter. :P
well you know what they say about assumptions. they make an ass of u and mptions.
great argument, i mean, you totally refuted global warming right there!
My hat is off to you, good sir, and all who argue with your tactics
:roll:
I'm still waiting for the peer reviewed articles rebutting global warming.
but..but... I WASN'T EVEN SAYING ANYTHING
I WAS MAKING A JOKE
BECAUSE THIS THREAD IS TRYING TO CRUSH ME INTO A FINE PASTE FOR TRYING TO INJECT A LITTLE BALANCE INTO THE ARGUMENT
I AM SO SORRY
The point I was making is that if you want to inject "balance" into this argument, then do it with actual evidence and not arm waving.
It was asked earlier what evidence people would want that would actually provide some balance. The request wasn't outlandish, it was very fair: peer-reviewed articles rebutting global warming theory that were not done by scientists whose research is primarily funded by oil companies and other interested parties.
This has not been done. If you really wanted to provide "balance", then go find some articles rather than post stupid, trite crap like that.
Btw, with my original glacier melting/iceberg melting post I was trying to make out more the problem of big chunks of ice breaking off and falling into the sea. I was right anyway though with my other assumptions so I guess it doesn't matter. :P
well you know what they say about assumptions. they make an ass of u and mptions.
great argument, i mean, you totally refuted global warming right there!
My hat is off to you, good sir, and all who argue with your tactics
:roll:
I'm still waiting for the peer reviewed articles rebutting global warming.
but..but... I WASN'T EVEN SAYING ANYTHING
I WAS MAKING A JOKE
BECAUSE THIS THREAD IS TRYING TO CRUSH ME INTO A FINE PASTE FOR TRYING TO INJECT A LITTLE BALANCE INTO THE ARGUMENT
I AM SO SORRY
The point I was making is that if you want to inject "balance" into this argument, then do it with actual evidence and not arm waving.
It was asked earlier what evidence people would want that would actually provide some balance. The request wasn't outlandish, it was very fair: peer-reviewed articles rebutting global warming theory that were not done by scientists whose research is primarily funded by oil companies and other interested parties.
This has not been done. If you really wanted to provide "balance", then go find some articles rather than post stupid, trite crap like that.
that's not what i'm responding to. I made some sort of joke. you suddenly jump on me for nothing.
this argument is wearing to the point where I can't even talk without having this kind of shit. don't have a go at me for having an opinion different to yours, for taking the time to see both sides of the argument and coming to the conclusion that we know so little about the atmosphere and it's fluctuations that we can't just jump to conclusions. this doesn't mean I'm denying global warming, or that I think dumping shit into our atmosphere or the earth is a very good thing to do.
that's it. I'm done. now can I go and make comments about other things without you fucking going off on one?
this argument is wearing to the point where I can't even talk without having this kind of shit. don't have a go at me for having an opinion different to yours, for taking the time to see both sides of the argument and coming to the conclusion that we know so little about the atmosphere and it's fluctuations that we can't just jump to conclusions. this doesn't mean I'm denying global warming, or that I think dumping shit into our atmosphere or the earth is a very good thing to do.
that's it. I'm done. now can I go and make comments about other things without you fucking going off on one?
:roll:
sanstodo on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited January 2007
It's possible that the phrase "Don't assume, it makes an ass out of you and me" is unfamiliar to these people.
I didn't make assumptions I pointed out facts using knowledge, I was just trying to say that everything i'd said had been right. I used the word "assumptions" just to vaguely outline my posts.
Gets ready for the "I'm rubber and you're glue" defence
I didn't make assumptions I pointed out facts using knowledge, I was just trying to say that everything i'd said had been right. I used the word "assumptions" just to vaguely outline my posts.
Gets ready for the "I'm rubber and you're glue" defence
yes, I know you didn't really make assumptions, I read your post, picked out the phrase 'assumptions', and jokingly put it into the phrase 'never assume, bceause it makes an ASS out of U and ME', where the word 'assumptions' does not fit- instead, the phrase is rendered 'it makes an ASS out of U and MPTIONS', which is a joke, lolz.
this argument is wearing to the point where I can't even talk without having this kind of shit. don't have a go at me for having an opinion different to yours, for taking the time to see both sides of the argument and coming to the conclusion that we know so little about the atmosphere and it's fluctuations that we can't just jump to conclusions. this doesn't mean I'm denying global warming, or that I think dumping shit into our atmosphere or the earth is a very good thing to do.
that's it. I'm done. now can I go and make comments about other things without you fucking going off on one?
:roll:
My hat is off to you, good sir, and all who argue with your tactics.
I will suggest that posts following mine should be substantive.
It's tough to be substantive when one side calls for "balance" and fails to provide anything of substance to support their arguments. There has been ample opportunity to provide peer reviewed articles arguing against global warming and no such articles have been provided, probably because they don't exist.
It's tough to debate something that really only has one side in line with reality.
Oceans = 90,000,000,000 tonnes released each year
Decaying life = 90,000,000,000 tonnes released each year
volcano = 30,000,000,000 tonnes released from occasional volcano
grand total = 210,000,000,000 tonnes
Humans = 12,000,000,000 tonnes release each year
I'd like to see sources for those figures.
Even if we assume those are correct, stuff like "decaying life" is part of a cycle, so that is just releasing gases that were originally taken out of the atmosphere to create that life in the first place.
As you can see here, while the ocean gives off CO2, it also ABSORBS CO2, and is in fact a carbon sink (the bit that goes to ocean sediment).
juice for jesus on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Oceans = 90,000,000,000 tonnes released each year
Decaying life = 90,000,000,000 tonnes released each year
Oceans and "decay" are likely to be at net steady-state considering that we'd expect, at equilibrium, the same amount of new things being born as old things dying and decaying.
this argument is wearing to the point where I can't even talk without having this kind of shit. don't have a go at me for having an opinion different to yours, for taking the time to see both sides of the argument and coming to the conclusion that we know so little about the atmosphere and it's fluctuations that we can't just jump to conclusions. this doesn't mean I'm denying global warming, or that I think dumping shit into our atmosphere or the earth is a very good thing to do.
that's it. I'm done. now can I go and make comments about other things without you fucking going off on one?
You haven't submitted anything aside from saying "there's two sides to the argument," though. You can say that there's two sides to the argument on UFOs abducting people from trailers, but until you show me scientific research suggesting that it's a possibility, I'll still consider it bullshit.
Doc on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
...Because, oh yes it's so terribly difficult to find any type of peer-reviewed article out there. I mean...it would have to involve a...a..search! :roll:
Sounds like the U.N. is about to release the results of a 6-year Global Warming study, to which 2500 scientists contributed, which confirms that Global Warming is caused by humans.
Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from subaerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at the present time. Gerlach (1991) estimated a total global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes. This is a conservative estimate. Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150 times.
Sulfur Emissions
Volcanoes and other natural processes release approximately 24 Tg of sulfur to the atmosphere each year. Thus, volcanoes are responsible for 43% of the total natural S flux each year. Man's activities add about 79 Tg sulfur to the atmosphere each year. In an average year, volcanoes release only 13% of the sulfur added to the atmosphere compared to anthropogenic sources. Andres and Kasgnoc (1997) noted that the bulk of the anthropogenic flux is located in the northern hemisphere while volcanic fluxes occur in much more focused belts around the world.
They certainly do exist. It is simply difficult to find ANY peer reviewed articles with out access to an academic database.
I don't know of any reason that a combination of Google Scholar and Scirus wouldn't be necessary for your needs. If you even put forward a cursory effort and said "Hey, this article looks like it supports what I'm saying, but I can only access the abstract," I find it very hard to believe that someone here with access to an academic database couldn't procure a copy (or even just read it themselves and then report back).
a) People saying "it's to hueg lol" does nothing for you.
b) It's not that it's to hueg lol, it's that there is an equilibrium built into the system.
Here’s how it works. CO2 is entrained by rain (Making it slightly acidic). That then enters the ocean, and a large amount of it forms carbon sediment which is recycled back into the ocean by volcanic activity, and then is depleted both by algae and water plants, and released into the atmosphere from the oceans, which was the 90,000,000,000 tonnes that I was talking about. But the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere are at equilibrium, as are the concentration of CO2 in rain and concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, such that If the concentration of atmospheric CO2 increases, rain will then deplete it, and if the concentration of oceanic CO2 increases, sedimentation and algae will deplete it.
Being in equilibrium, a change in one side of the balance causes a shift in the other side of the balance, and that maintains a fairly constant atmospheric concentration over an amount of time.
The truth is that volcanic activity would have a greater effect than all of the cars combined, because volcanic activity recycles the sedimentary carbonates back into the ocean, which then gives up some of its CO2 back into the air, like a soda going flat. But if the under water volcanic activity stopped, CO2 levels would be lower, and there wouldn’t be enough CO2 for the plants.
What you may ask would happen if underwater volcanoes stopped.
A decrease in underwater volcanic activity causes more carbonate residue to form on the ocean floor. As the carbonate residue continues to precipitate out, the oceanic CO2 levels drop, and less CO2 is released back into the atmosphere. As the atmospheric CO2 levels drop, the less CO2 is depleted by the rain. As the rain dumps less CO2 into the ocean, oceanic CO2 levels drop, causing less precipitation of carbonate residue. Algae growth diminishes somewhat due to reduced CO2 levels, producing less oxygen. Similarly, plant growth on the earth’s surface is reduced slightly, producing less oxygen. A shift in worldwide oxygen production causes an effective increase in CO2 levels in the ocean from animal respiration, and to some extend, in the atmosphere. A new equilibrium level is reached where CO2 levels in the atmosphere may be measurably lower than they were before, but not significant enough to cause global warming/cooling. CO2 levels in the ocean are measurably lower, but total dissolved gas concentrations remain roughly the same. Oceanic animals breathing slightly higher concentrations of oxygen flourish a bit more than usual, causing an increase in the production of CO2. A new “biological equilibrium†is reached in the oceans.
The same kind of analysis applies when CO2 levels are increased, which may be increased due to car exhaust and other human caused exhaust.
However, if our system were unstable, and not at equilibrium, even a slight change (such as increased population, like from 1 billion humans to 6 billion in the last millennium) would have a giant effect on our global climate, forcing the climate to radically bounce from ice age to planetary oven and drought, flooding of the coastal lands by repeated cycles of polar caps melting, and a whole bunch of other climactic images you may have seen on the Day After Tomorrow. But we know it has been at equilibrium since the previous ice age, which was probably caused by an asteroid or comet hitting the earth. Something we may be able to prevent ourselves… possibly.
I'm just glad that there's no middle ground between the planet being able to absorb anything and everything we do to it with no discernable effects on global climate and a hellscape alternating between the entire world being frozen in ice and covered in molten lava controlled by a randomly switching boolean variable, because then we might actually have to conduct research instead of saying "it's not a hellscape so obviously it's the only alternative (a near-permanent equilibrium where positive feedback loops don't exist)"
Acid deposition is a general term that includes more than simply acid rain. Acid deposition primarily results from the transformation of sulphur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides into dry or moist secondary pollutants such as sulphuric acid (H2SO4), ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3) and nitric acid (HNO3).
Sorry my mistake. I was mistaken that "acid rain" was created by CO2.
Note: unpolluted rain water is typically slightly acidic due to equilibration with atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2).
edit: if it's fine with you I will now edit that part of my earlier explination.
Oh and agem, do negative feedback loops exist. I understand that as the earth gets warmer, there's more water vapor, thus causing the earth to get warmer. But then as we all know more water vapor causes more clouds, thus causing the world to get cooler, you know shade and such.
Where the hell is nuclear fusion? Come on, isn't this the future?
[spoiler:2ba1ab1c9b]is nuclear fission really that bad to use for power while we research alternative sources?[/spoiler:2ba1ab1c9b]
Not inherently, but it goes along the same old paradigms that have gotten us here rather than moving forward with efficient design and planning so as to not piss in God's eye constantly. I'd much rather have a concerted Federal subsidy yatta yatta to turn every newly constructed building in the US (as well as retrofitting older construction) into a LEED gold or platinum building than fund research into fusion power plants since it just might remove our need to even have power plants, let alone ones powered by fusion.
Also, since I've mentioned it in every other ecologically involved thread. Read this book.
Except the fission technology in the US is about 30 years old and we have some sort of crazy illogical fear of breeder reactors. We could be working on updating our currently inefficient reactors instead of working on something that is years out.
(yes I understand our lack of breeder reactors gives us a weak leg to stand on when we get on our high horse to yell at other countries for their nuclear programs.)
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
If an iceberg melts, the sea level goes down... good job.
Huh?
If a floating ice cube melts, the water level stays the same. Why would that be any different for a floating iceberg?
If an iceberg is on land it's not displacing any water. Therefore, when it melts there's no "water gap" (my words) to fill, and thus it raises water levels.
Actually it goes down a bit. Ice displaces more water then it contains.
And I was only talking about icebergs, not glaciers on land. However, whether those glaciers are even losing mass is up for debate.
Ice is less dense than water, and thus an equal mass of ice takes up a greater mass of volume. However, it does not displace more water than it contains. Physics time.
The reason ice floats is that there are two counteracting forces that keep it in place. Gravity pulls down on it with a force of mg, while the buoyancy force (caused by differing water pressure below and above the object) pushes it upwards. The buoyancy force is equal to the mass of the water displaced by the ice cube. For ice, the buoyancy force is greater than the force of gravity when more than 90% or so of the cube is submerged (don't remember the exact figure), and less when less than that amount of the cube is under water.
When the ice cube is floating, the weight of the ice cube is exactly supported by the weight of the water displaced. The two weights are the same, g is obviously the same, and the water and ice are made of the same kind of atoms. Therefore, the same number of atoms of H20 are in the ice cube and in the gap in the water created by the ice cube, and the ice cube melting will have no effect on the water level.
edit* As Doc above and Goumindong below note, this is fresh water->fresh water. With icebergs->ocean, the water from the iceberg will be less dense and thus take up more space.
No, still wrong. You seem to be forgetting the percentage of the ice cube that is above water, which when melts contributes to the overall waterlevel. Jesus, you can measure this yourself with a clear cup of water, just drop an icecube in, measure the water level, and then remeasure it after it melts. Your physics is...fucked.
IloroKamou on
"There are some that only employ words for the purpose of disguising their thoughts."
If an iceberg melts, the sea level goes down... good job.
Huh?
If a floating ice cube melts, the water level stays the same. Why would that be any different for a floating iceberg?
If an iceberg is on land it's not displacing any water. Therefore, when it melts there's no "water gap" (my words) to fill, and thus it raises water levels.
Actually it goes down a bit. Ice displaces more water then it contains.
And I was only talking about icebergs, not glaciers on land. However, whether those glaciers are even losing mass is up for debate.
Ice is less dense than water, and thus an equal mass of ice takes up a greater mass of volume. However, it does not displace more water than it contains. Physics time.
The reason ice floats is that there are two counteracting forces that keep it in place. Gravity pulls down on it with a force of mg, while the buoyancy force (caused by differing water pressure below and above the object) pushes it upwards. The buoyancy force is equal to the mass of the water displaced by the ice cube. For ice, the buoyancy force is greater than the force of gravity when more than 90% or so of the cube is submerged (don't remember the exact figure), and less when less than that amount of the cube is under water.
When the ice cube is floating, the weight of the ice cube is exactly supported by the weight of the water displaced. The two weights are the same, g is obviously the same, and the water and ice are made of the same kind of atoms. Therefore, the same number of atoms of H20 are in the ice cube and in the gap in the water created by the ice cube, and the ice cube melting will have no effect on the water level.
edit* As Doc above and Goumindong below note, this is fresh water->fresh water. With icebergs->ocean, the water from the iceberg will be less dense and thus take up more space.
No, still wrong. You seem to be forgetting the percentage of the ice cube that is above water, which when melts contributes to the overall waterlevel. Jesus, you can measure this yourself with a clear cup of water, just drop an icecube in, measure the water level, and then remeasure it after it melts. Your physics is...fucked.
This... really is not so hard to understand.
Let's say you have a gallon of water, freeze it, and put the ice in your (filled) bathtub. The ice chunk will displace an amount of water equal to its own mass. Because the ice chunk was formed from a gallon of water, it contains as much as mass as a gallon of water. Therefore it displaces a gallon of water, raising the water level however much (depends on the dimensions of the bathtub, obviously).
You know what else has enough mass to displace a gallon of water? A gallon of water. What's the ice chunk going to be when it melts? A gallon of water.
That some of the ice is sticking out of the water is irrelevant, and is in fact related to the reason why ice floats. Ice is less dense than water. However, an ice chunk frozen from a gallon of water will displace as much water as anything that contains the same mass as a gallon of water (such as a gallon of water) because it has the same amount of mass, meaning that when the ice melts, the water level remains the same. At no point during the melting will the water level change, because an equal mass of water is added for each mass of ice that is removed from the system.
Of course, as noted, it's different for different solutions (freshwater vs. saltwater, etc.), and ice that isn't already in the water (but on land) will obviously contribute to the water level. But if the ice was frozen from the same water it's floating in, the water level won't change when it melts.
If an iceberg melts, the sea level goes down... good job.
Huh?
If a floating ice cube melts, the water level stays the same. Why would that be any different for a floating iceberg?
If an iceberg is on land it's not displacing any water. Therefore, when it melts there's no "water gap" (my words) to fill, and thus it raises water levels.
Actually it goes down a bit. Ice displaces more water then it contains.
And I was only talking about icebergs, not glaciers on land. However, whether those glaciers are even losing mass is up for debate.
Ice is less dense than water, and thus an equal mass of ice takes up a greater mass of volume. However, it does not displace more water than it contains. Physics time.
The reason ice floats is that there are two counteracting forces that keep it in place. Gravity pulls down on it with a force of mg, while the buoyancy force (caused by differing water pressure below and above the object) pushes it upwards. The buoyancy force is equal to the mass of the water displaced by the ice cube. For ice, the buoyancy force is greater than the force of gravity when more than 90% or so of the cube is submerged (don't remember the exact figure), and less when less than that amount of the cube is under water.
When the ice cube is floating, the weight of the ice cube is exactly supported by the weight of the water displaced. The two weights are the same, g is obviously the same, and the water and ice are made of the same kind of atoms. Therefore, the same number of atoms of H20 are in the ice cube and in the gap in the water created by the ice cube, and the ice cube melting will have no effect on the water level.
edit* As Doc above and Goumindong below note, this is fresh water->fresh water. With icebergs->ocean, the water from the iceberg will be less dense and thus take up more space.
No, still wrong. You seem to be forgetting the percentage of the ice cube that is above water, which when melts contributes to the overall waterlevel. Jesus, you can measure this yourself with a clear cup of water, just drop an icecube in, measure the water level, and then remeasure it after it melts. Your physics is...fucked.
This... really is not so hard to understand.
Let's say you have a gallon of water, freeze it, and put the ice in your (filled) bathtub. The ice chunk will displace an amount of water equal to its own mass. Because the ice chunk was formed from a gallon of water, it contains as much as mass as a gallon of water. Therefore it displaces a gallon of water, raising the water level however much (depends on the dimensions of the bathtub, obviously).
You know what else has enough mass to displace a gallon of water? A gallon of water. What's the ice chunk going to be when it melts? A gallon of water.
That some of the ice is sticking out of the water is irrelevant, and is in fact related to the reason why ice floats. Ice is less dense than water. However, an ice chunk frozen from a gallon of water will displace as much water as anything that contains the same mass as a gallon of water (such as a gallon of water) because it has the same amount of mass, meaning that when the ice melts, the water level remains the same. At no point during the melting will the water level change, because an equal mass of water is added for each mass of ice that is removed from the system.
Of course, as noted, it's different for different solutions (freshwater vs. saltwater, etc.), and ice that isn't already in the water (but on land) will obviously contribute to the water level. But if the ice was frozen from the same water it's floating in, the water level won't change when it melts.
Water expands when it freezes. I guess you were absent on that day of first grade.
Posts
The problem with the chunks falling into the sea is that it's an indication of what else is happening. Also, they tend to assist in raising the water level, although not by much, really. I think. The problem could be worse than I'm aware of.
well you know what they say about assumptions. they make an ass of u and mptions.
great argument, i mean, you totally refuted global warming right there!
My hat is off to you, good sir, and all who argue with your tactics
:roll:
I'm still waiting for the peer reviewed articles rebutting global warming.
That's because far too many of them are on a ship captained by the Dread Pirate Wesley.
but..but... I WASN'T EVEN SAYING ANYTHING
I WAS MAKING A JOKE
BECAUSE THIS THREAD IS TRYING TO CRUSH ME INTO A FINE PASTE FOR TRYING TO INJECT A LITTLE BALANCE INTO THE ARGUMENT
I AM SO SORRY
The point I was making is that if you want to inject "balance" into this argument, then do it with actual evidence and not arm waving.
It was asked earlier what evidence people would want that would actually provide some balance. The request wasn't outlandish, it was very fair: peer-reviewed articles rebutting global warming theory that were not done by scientists whose research is primarily funded by oil companies and other interested parties.
This has not been done. If you really wanted to provide "balance", then go find some articles rather than post stupid, trite crap like that.
that's not what i'm responding to. I made some sort of joke. you suddenly jump on me for nothing.
this argument is wearing to the point where I can't even talk without having this kind of shit. don't have a go at me for having an opinion different to yours, for taking the time to see both sides of the argument and coming to the conclusion that we know so little about the atmosphere and it's fluctuations that we can't just jump to conclusions. this doesn't mean I'm denying global warming, or that I think dumping shit into our atmosphere or the earth is a very good thing to do.
that's it. I'm done. now can I go and make comments about other things without you fucking going off on one?
:roll:
Gets ready for the "I'm rubber and you're glue" defence
I wouldn't assume so, though. Because that makes an a-
Well, you get the idea.
yes, I know you didn't really make assumptions, I read your post, picked out the phrase 'assumptions', and jokingly put it into the phrase 'never assume, bceause it makes an ASS out of U and ME', where the word 'assumptions' does not fit- instead, the phrase is rendered 'it makes an ASS out of U and MPTIONS', which is a joke, lolz.
My hat is off to you, good sir, and all who argue with your tactics.
[spoiler:0552968a7a] :roll: [/spoiler:0552968a7a]
It's tough to be substantive when one side calls for "balance" and fails to provide anything of substance to support their arguments. There has been ample opportunity to provide peer reviewed articles arguing against global warming and no such articles have been provided, probably because they don't exist.
It's tough to debate something that really only has one side in line with reality.
<img src="http://card.mygamercard.net/gelsig/Akula765.png" border=0>
</a>
I'd like to see sources for those figures.
Even if we assume those are correct, stuff like "decaying life" is part of a cycle, so that is just releasing gases that were originally taken out of the atmosphere to create that life in the first place.
As you can see here, while the ocean gives off CO2, it also ABSORBS CO2, and is in fact a carbon sink (the bit that goes to ocean sediment).
You haven't submitted anything aside from saying "there's two sides to the argument," though. You can say that there's two sides to the argument on UFOs abducting people from trailers, but until you show me scientific research suggesting that it's a possibility, I'll still consider it bullshit.
You mean like this academic database with such articles as:
* How Much More Global Warming and Sea Level Rise?
* The change in oceanic O2 inventory associated with recent global warming
* Contributions of past and present human generations to committed warming caused by carbon dioxide
...Because, oh yes it's so terribly difficult to find any type of peer-reviewed article out there. I mean...it would have to involve a...a..search! :roll:
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html
Give me the phrase I should search for and I'll run it through the college academic journal database.
I don't know of any reason that a combination of Google Scholar and Scirus wouldn't be necessary for your needs. If you even put forward a cursory effort and said "Hey, this article looks like it supports what I'm saying, but I can only access the abstract," I find it very hard to believe that someone here with access to an academic database couldn't procure a copy (or even just read it themselves and then report back).
That gives almost 500 hits in jstor...
b) It's not that it's to hueg lol, it's that there is an equilibrium built into the system.
Here’s how it works. CO2 is entrained by rain (Making it slightly acidic). That then enters the ocean, and a large amount of it forms carbon sediment which is recycled back into the ocean by volcanic activity, and then is depleted both by algae and water plants, and released into the atmosphere from the oceans, which was the 90,000,000,000 tonnes that I was talking about. But the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere are at equilibrium, as are the concentration of CO2 in rain and concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, such that If the concentration of atmospheric CO2 increases, rain will then deplete it, and if the concentration of oceanic CO2 increases, sedimentation and algae will deplete it.
Being in equilibrium, a change in one side of the balance causes a shift in the other side of the balance, and that maintains a fairly constant atmospheric concentration over an amount of time.
The truth is that volcanic activity would have a greater effect than all of the cars combined, because volcanic activity recycles the sedimentary carbonates back into the ocean, which then gives up some of its CO2 back into the air, like a soda going flat. But if the under water volcanic activity stopped, CO2 levels would be lower, and there wouldn’t be enough CO2 for the plants.
What you may ask would happen if underwater volcanoes stopped.
A decrease in underwater volcanic activity causes more carbonate residue to form on the ocean floor. As the carbonate residue continues to precipitate out, the oceanic CO2 levels drop, and less CO2 is released back into the atmosphere. As the atmospheric CO2 levels drop, the less CO2 is depleted by the rain. As the rain dumps less CO2 into the ocean, oceanic CO2 levels drop, causing less precipitation of carbonate residue. Algae growth diminishes somewhat due to reduced CO2 levels, producing less oxygen. Similarly, plant growth on the earth’s surface is reduced slightly, producing less oxygen. A shift in worldwide oxygen production causes an effective increase in CO2 levels in the ocean from animal respiration, and to some extend, in the atmosphere. A new equilibrium level is reached where CO2 levels in the atmosphere may be measurably lower than they were before, but not significant enough to cause global warming/cooling. CO2 levels in the ocean are measurably lower, but total dissolved gas concentrations remain roughly the same. Oceanic animals breathing slightly higher concentrations of oxygen flourish a bit more than usual, causing an increase in the production of CO2. A new “biological equilibrium†is reached in the oceans.
The same kind of analysis applies when CO2 levels are increased, which may be increased due to car exhaust and other human caused exhaust.
However, if our system were unstable, and not at equilibrium, even a slight change (such as increased population, like from 1 billion humans to 6 billion in the last millennium) would have a giant effect on our global climate, forcing the climate to radically bounce from ice age to planetary oven and drought, flooding of the coastal lands by repeated cycles of polar caps melting, and a whole bunch of other climactic images you may have seen on the Day After Tomorrow. But we know it has been at equilibrium since the previous ice age, which was probably caused by an asteroid or comet hitting the earth. Something we may be able to prevent ourselves… possibly.
Note: unpolluted rain water is typically slightly acidic due to equilibration with atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2).
edit: if it's fine with you I will now edit that part of my earlier explination.
Oh and agem, do negative feedback loops exist. I understand that as the earth gets warmer, there's more water vapor, thus causing the earth to get warmer. But then as we all know more water vapor causes more clouds, thus causing the world to get cooler, you know shade and such.
[spoiler:b8df533956]is nuclear fission really that bad to use for power while we research alternative sources?[/spoiler:b8df533956]
We're working on it
Not inherently, but it goes along the same old paradigms that have gotten us here rather than moving forward with efficient design and planning so as to not piss in God's eye constantly. I'd much rather have a concerted Federal subsidy yatta yatta to turn every newly constructed building in the US (as well as retrofitting older construction) into a LEED gold or platinum building than fund research into fusion power plants since it just might remove our need to even have power plants, let alone ones powered by fusion.
Also, since I've mentioned it in every other ecologically involved thread. Read this book.
Except the fission technology in the US is about 30 years old and we have some sort of crazy illogical fear of breeder reactors. We could be working on updating our currently inefficient reactors instead of working on something that is years out.
(yes I understand our lack of breeder reactors gives us a weak leg to stand on when we get on our high horse to yell at other countries for their nuclear programs.)
No, still wrong. You seem to be forgetting the percentage of the ice cube that is above water, which when melts contributes to the overall waterlevel. Jesus, you can measure this yourself with a clear cup of water, just drop an icecube in, measure the water level, and then remeasure it after it melts. Your physics is...fucked.
Let's say you have a gallon of water, freeze it, and put the ice in your (filled) bathtub. The ice chunk will displace an amount of water equal to its own mass. Because the ice chunk was formed from a gallon of water, it contains as much as mass as a gallon of water. Therefore it displaces a gallon of water, raising the water level however much (depends on the dimensions of the bathtub, obviously).
You know what else has enough mass to displace a gallon of water? A gallon of water. What's the ice chunk going to be when it melts? A gallon of water.
That some of the ice is sticking out of the water is irrelevant, and is in fact related to the reason why ice floats. Ice is less dense than water. However, an ice chunk frozen from a gallon of water will displace as much water as anything that contains the same mass as a gallon of water (such as a gallon of water) because it has the same amount of mass, meaning that when the ice melts, the water level remains the same. At no point during the melting will the water level change, because an equal mass of water is added for each mass of ice that is removed from the system.
Of course, as noted, it's different for different solutions (freshwater vs. saltwater, etc.), and ice that isn't already in the water (but on land) will obviously contribute to the water level. But if the ice was frozen from the same water it's floating in, the water level won't change when it melts.
Water expands when it freezes. I guess you were absent on that day of first grade.
<img src="http://card.mygamercard.net/gelsig/Akula765.png" border=0>
</a>
except that, with glaciers, part of the glacier is above water. that part equalizes the whole equation so water levels dont move.