Pretty much what he said. Yeah.Originally Posted by Borman
Religon
Race
Greed
War
Disease
Other
You've just been marked!
Pretty much what he said. Yeah.
Hope and Fate
One simple practical test that will disprove you: a glass of water with ice cubes. As the ice melts, the water level does not change. You take into account volume, but you do not account for actual water displacement. Since the mass does not change, it displaces an equivalent amount of water caused by said mass. Here, just for your elucidation. Don't worry about that "grade level" stuff; it's probably more guidelines.
The reason the ice caps melting is a concern for water levels is in fact because of the ice that is not submerged in water. For instance, this includes the entire Antarctic ice sheet, Greenland, Siberia, and northern North America. The biggest concern from the melting of the Arctic ice sheet is a combination of albedo and ocean temperatures. The temperature decrease caused by such a large influx of cold water would, in all likelihood, disrupt important currents like the Gulf Stream. The loss of all that reflecting area would decrease the amount of solar radiation that escapes the Earth, though I'm not so sure on how much temperatures would increase. I wonder what studies have been done on it...
Болтаться
.6 degree change over the last 50 years...
thats not .6 degrees in 2 or 3 years, its 5 decades...
50 years is a long time... by 3007, 1000 years from now, that will be 12 degrees... do you think we can adapt to a 12 degree change over 1000 years? i do...
Soramimi cake~
Did you take into account the effect the moon would have on the resulting tides? Or the fact that the global water level has risen 4-8 inches over the last century (http://chronicle.augusta.com/images/..._Warming.jpg)? If the water level keeps rising at that rate, the earth would eventually be completely flooded (true it would take several if not hundreds of millenia to happen), would it not? True, the cause of this increase has been because of rain (mainly), but do you think that rain will ever stop? The point I'm trying to make (in a completely roundabout way, and I'm sorry about that) is simply that there is a very real possibility of global flooding, caused by global warming.
Japanese things' lover
War (between the Earth and some other planet that has much higher technology)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
RAWR!
We just gotz owned.
Senior Member
The Man
Fear and Loathing
It's actually a .8 degree increase in the average over the last century of which half occurred in the last two decades. Now India and China are gearing up their industralisation even further, and doing so using some rather CO2-heavy power sources.
Remember, it's not the temp increase alone that's the problem. It's the effects spreading from it, and you only need to look at Australia's weather for the last few years to get an idea of what that can do.
Last edited by Dr Mario; 14th-July-2007 at 01:22.
Hope and Fate
No, yes, yes. First, the Earth has had no ice caps at several points in its past, and it did not flood the entire Earth, nor would it take several millenia to deplete the ice caps even if it were the case under the worst-case projections. Second, the rain is part of the well-known water cycle, and it draws from liquid water only - conditions in the Arctic and Antarctic are not sufficient to cause sublimation. Any rain that falls was removed from exposed bodies of water, including the oceans, and has no appreciable effect on global ocean levels. Since you asked if it could "stop," I will simply state that in certain regions, it can and would, just like it did in the Sahara 13 000 years ago. Third, you are correct, but your reasons as given above are completely wrong. The biggest reasons for water level increases will be caused by the losses of the Antarctic ice sheet, which in turn is subdivided into the Ross and Western Antarctic ice sheets, or Arctic permafrost. The Amundsen Sea region of the Western Antarctic sheet is already melting, and suggestions indicate up to a 1.5 metre increase in water levels globally from the freed water contained within (honestly, I think it's pessimistic because the Amundsen Sea is, after all, a sea - much of the ice is already in the water).
More interesting is something I just relocated - information about methane deposits in the ice caps and surrounding regions, especially the Arctic permafrost. Methane is quite a bit more effective than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, which means that if it is released, it would accelerate the process by quite a bit.
Temperature increase is an interesting conundrum, since it is unclear how much is man-made, and how much is natural causes. It is worth noting that we came out of the Little Ice Age only a century ago, and climatological records indicate that the temperature has been increasing since then at a fairly decent pace - including for the time before significant industrialization occurred. The greatest concern with the averages is that while we have records stretching back quite some time, much of this time is occupied by said ice age. Of course, the biggest thing to consider is that it doesn't really matter which is the cause, or how both combined to make a bad situation worse. The biggest thing to consider is that, quite simply, it is happening, and it is happening now. A temperature shift that shuts down the Gulf Stream would throw Britain and Western Europe for a bit of a loop; the British Isles are at the same latitude as Scandinavia, and France and Spain would take a hit as well. Other similar currents provide moderating effects in other areas, and would be disrupted as well. Weather systems also depend on the present balance, and El Niño and La Niña actually show just how much a few degrees can change things - they are defined by only a half-degree change in the average water temperature in the central Pacific.
Last edited by Mistral; 14th-July-2007 at 04:06.
Soramimi cake~
Ok. Thanks for pointing out the (apparently many) flaws in my logic. But would the tsunamis that could very possibly occur cause more land to be flooded than was predicted in previous posts in this thread?
edit: And hasn't temperature risen more quickly after industralization than before? I'm just curious.
You're calculating density incorrectly. Its mass/volume, not volume/mass.
The more dense something is, the smaller its volume is in relation to its mass.
The less dense something is, the greater its volume is in relation to its mass.
Ice is less dense than water, which is why it floats and why pipes burst when the water in them freezes.
Hope and Fate
Tsunamis...ah, difficult to say. The biggest cause would be during the melt, when large regions of ice basically slough off into the ocean. They might, but only for the duration of the tsunami. Tsunamis usually do not stick around; the water hits and returns to the ocean.
As for temperature increase, it looks somewhat linear to me, give or take anomalies on closer observation. Mind that the averages for the two charts are calculated differently, and it does depend to a degree on how the values were normalized. I'd consider both charts with a grain of salt.
Lies, cursed lies, and statistics...
Weeknights at 8
I didn't know we had so many global warming experts here, guys.
*See Signature
Religion isn't the cause of war. Down at the core, war is only caused by mans inability to agree with one another. You take away religion, and 500 years from now someone will be screaming "Patriotism" and "Nationalism" are the two biggest causes of war in the world.
The fact is that difference alone is the cause of war. Whether its race, religion, economic ideals, any difference can lead to war. Ex: Cold War, WWII (the US, USSR, and the other Allies certainly didn't know about the gas-chambers until they reached them near Nazi-Germany's fall). Near-sighted persons these days claim that religion is the primary cause of war, but they neglect to mention that in those wars, what the ruling bodies were attempting to gain in the first place, was always money, land, or power. The people fought for their king, country, their freedom, Religion was just the smokescreen.
Doubt that, and I challenge you to pickup a good world history book. One that you could find at any high-school or university.
EDIT: In modern times, humanities dependence on electricity derived from natural gas seems likely to be on top of the list to end the world. Every day we need more, and everyday there is less to go around. Add this to the slow progress being made by a few scientific organizations (due to lack of funding, personnel, etc), and were approaching fast the day when oil will be worth more on the DOW Jones than the stock of the automotive companies that depend on it to run their vehicles.
Last edited by Paladin_Hammer; 14th-July-2007 at 20:15.
Spreading Fear and Uncertainty since 2004!
*Apparently the above doesn't fit in a custom user title. Bollocks.
Copyright Paladin_Hammer 2007: "Deus ex Imperator". "Dio Dal Genica".
NWO 4 Life!
Funniest Thread EVER
Hope and Fate
Facetious, and to say that religion was just a smokescreen (with the obvious implication that this is always the case) disregards that a lot of the people did in fact believe in the spiritual rewards of war. Even in the First Crusade, you saw a lot of the expense was covered by the sale of noble lands for the wealthier (in return for uncertain gain in the Levant, depending on the fickle fortunes of war), and poorer knights went only in the service of wealthier knights or by alms. You said right by "difference causing war" at first, then undermined it by saying "always money, land, or power."
Posting Permissions
