Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obviously if it is 2 degrees warmer today than it was 50 years ago, then it has warmed up.
Change in temperature is more important than absolute temperature. The thermal expansion coefficient of water is about 0.0002 meaning that for every degree Centigrade the temperature rises, it expands by .02%. That does not sound like a lot except for the fact that the ocean is 10,000 feet deep for much of it and a .02% change in volume results in a rise of 2 feet in level.
The solubility of CO2 and of methane (there is enormous amount of frozen methane hydrate at the bottom of the ocean, and methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2) in the ocean goes down as the temperature of the ocean rises. So again, the important thing is the change in temperature. The ocean will expel more dissolved CO2 and will release trapped methane. This adds to the greenhouse effect, making it even warmer and in turn releasing more CO2 and methane. This is a classic positive-feedback loop which is never a good thing.
Darn .. you found where I hid my cattle ranch? Silly cows ... did they have to let bubbles float to the surface when they let off 'gas'. I told them to keep those diapers on and put them in the freezer when they were full. Sigh.
Global warming IS a hoax. That's why they renamed it to "climate change."
Yes, very Orwellian.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour
The effective temperature of the earth is -21 degrees C. The actual average temperature across the entire surface of the planet is +15 C. The effective temperature is a constant value and has nothing to do with climate change, it is calculated from the energy absorbed and energy emitted by the earth. The actual temperature differs from the effective due to the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere.
Many people would prefer that the greenhouse effect not change; that is the essence of the AGW debate. If it doesn't change, than the "exact proper temperature" of the earth should be +15 C.
I hope that answers your question.
Well, then you'd be wrong.
So far the ice cores can only provide us a glimpse into the Eemian warm period. But we can already tell that Eemian climate was significantly warmer than the climate of the current Holocene interglacial - probably about 5°C warmer.
People want the government to force so they don't have to do it themselves.
Quit flying. Live in a location where you don't drive more than 5 miles to any place you go to regularly. Only buy clothes that don't have to be sorted so you never do a partial load or need hot water. Buy a home the size you need not the size you want. Unless you do these and more you have no right to complain about what others or the government does.
Do you people realize that business has gone for the Democrat in the last few elections and so have the rich.
Speaking of which, if we are pitting billionaires against each other, Mark Cuban and a number of Silicon Valley Tech billionaires would make much, much better leaders.
Science is never settled and to brutally honest when you make such statement you sound just like a religious zealot where no amount of reasoning could convince him otherwise. History is littered with such statements proved otherwise. In the early part of the last century the "settled" science was the Milky Way was the Universe and it was collapsing because that is what the math dictated, we know this to be wrong because of observation made by Hubble.
Science is never settled and to brutally honest when you make such statement you sound just like a religious zealot where no amount of reasoning could convince him otherwise. History is littered with such statements proved otherwise. In the early part of the last century the "settled" science was the Milky Way was the Universe and it was collapsing because that is what the math dictated, we know this to be wrong because of observation made by Hubble.
Always question things.
I agree with this. 100%. My aptitude for math and science is poor, but at least I know the purpose of science isn't to prove anything. It's to disprove other things.
The likelihood that the collective understanding of anthropogenic climate change will change is very high, but it doesn't mean that it will be disproved. I think that's where you and I will begin to disagree.
The will try mightily to dismantle the EPA but some of the clean air and clean water rules that govern have been codified by Congress into laws in a way that will make it impossible for them to easily get rid of all regulation. They'll try to do it though just to flex their muscle and because the EPA is a name recognized by even relatively low-information voters.
I'm far more afraid of them giving people like the Bundys the green light and them selling off protected Federal land. Even National Parks. Just recently McCain wrote provisions into a defense-spending authorization bill to give a FOREIGN-owned mining company domain over land in Arizona sacred to the San Carlos Apache tribe. As if we haven't we done enough to hurt the native people of this country? http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/29/op...land.html?_r=0
So far the ice cores can only provide us a glimpse into the Eemian warm period. But we can already tell that Eemian climate was significantly warmer than the climate of the current Holocene interglacial - probably about 5°C warmer.
Previous Inter-Glacial Periods were much warmer than today.
The question you should be asking is, "Why is it cooler than normal?"
.
You do realize that the study you linked-to was from a single location? It is hard to extrapolate that to the entire planet.
As to the proper question to ask, what I always want to know in this debate are three things;
1) do you believe the earth is warming?
2) if 'yes' to (1), do you believe it is caused mostly by human activity?
3) if 'yes' to (2), do you think we should do anything about it?
Having a debate on science is very different then a debate about our ethical obligations. My belief is that it is stupid for any of us, me included, to argue the science. Let the professionals who do that full time have that debate. That's what we pay them for.
Whether you want to follow the recommendation of the science community is another matter. I can actually understand if someone says, "Yeah, it is warming but I am not gonna pay for it". That is a lot better argument than some yahoo arguing science with scientists who spend their whole lives studying this stuff.
There is a practical limit to what can be done and the law of diminishing returns rears it's ugly head. The benefits need to outweigh the consequences of regulations.
The mercury rules implemented a few years back that closed many aging coal plants will reduce mercury deposition rates in the US 1 to 10 percent resulting in the average IQ increasing an estimated 2/1000 of one point.
Mercury emissions are a global issue, EPA studies suggest that most of the mercury emissions from US coal fired plants are not deposited inside the US. Their emissions are already low prior to this rule and account for less than 1% of the global pool. The affects of these rules are negligible both inside and outside the US.
The primary sources of mercury emissions are from Asia in particular China and third world gold mining operations. The extent of emissions from gold mining is hard to pin down but some estimates suggest they easily exceed global emissions from coal. If you really wanted to do something about mercury you start by banning ornamental gold jewelry that serves no purpose other than looking good.
One last thing to note here, if these rules have increased the cost of electricity driving more manufacturing overseas you could in fact increase deposition rates in the US.
I have read that the US has such a large supply of coal that it could meet all of our energy needs for a very long time but that there is really no way to make coal clean enough to avoid polluting the air like they have done in China.
Your name suggests you know a lot about coal. I found an article that discusses the different new ideas they have for making coal cleaner in the future it discusses pulling the co2 out of the coal and storing it. I wish they could find a way to make coal completely clean our energy problems would be over . I also feel bad for the coal miners because of the diseases the job can bring. I remember seeing the film Coal Miners Daughter years ago about country music singer Loretta Lynn, her father died young from working in the coal mines
So you are badmouthing conservatives while overconsuming energy yourself? Wow.
Maybe we already use less energy than you and pollute less.
Your leader, Al Gore, comes to mind.
I actually do not use much energy . I have a small house and a good gas mileage car but even I can probably do more if I have to. I would love to have solar panels and rain water collection for a start. It is just expensive to create that, but I have plans for it in the future.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Silly cows ... did they have to let bubbles float to the surface when they let off 'gas'. I told them to keep those diapers on and put them in the freezer when they were full. Sigh.
