Originally by: Logi3

---

Earth has been heating up since the last Ice Age.

---

Originally by: Cornucopian

---

lol. your best post ever Sokra :-)

---

Originally by: Captian Internet

---

Did some one say IBTL? because I think I just heard some one say IBTL

---

Originally by: Locus Bey

---

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/werent-temperatures-warmer-during-the-medieval-warm-period-than-they-are-today/

---

Originally by: Death Kill

---

Originally by: Locus Bey

---

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/werent-temperatures-warmer-during-the-medieval-warm-period-than-they-are-today/

---

Thats common knowledge. But the point is, today the climate change at a rate we have never seen before, and the changes is conflicting with the established pattern.

---

Originally by: Locus Bey

---

it was in response to the person who posted about it earlier. it is a common bogus argument used to say GW isn't happening.

---

Originally by: Captian Internet

---

Did some one say IBTL? because I think I just heard some one say IBTL

---

Originally by: DarkMatter

---

Edited by: DarkMatter on 18/09/2007 17:00:30

Quote:

---

Just because it's not 100% certain that we are the cause of this global warming, there is no excuse not to do something, all the way down to the individual level.

---

As soon as all the politicians, actors & other rich people prove to me they are making individual sacrifices to save the planet, I'll think about it...

Until then, they can shove it!

---

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

Edited by: Sokratesz on 19/09/2007 15:16:50
--

I got a question for you all. Why does the ocean water level rise?

--


Hint: 'ice caps melting' is not it.

---

Originally by: CCP Morpheus

---

Post with your alt.

---

Originally by: Kirjava

---

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

Edited by: Sokratesz on 19/09/2007 15:16:50
--

I got a question for you all. Why does the ocean water level rise?

--


Hint: 'ice caps melting' is not it.

---

Assuming this isn't rhetoric....
Ocean levels rise for a myriad of reasons and in diferent places.
As I mentioned earlier in Soutern Britian, the land is literaly sinking into the channel as part of isostatic movement. Essentialy this is from the weight of the ice in the last ice age pushed down on the land and very slowly pushed it into the magma. Thousands of years after the ice is gone isostaic movement is the correction of this and an equilibriam being formed (it's so slow because of the viscosity of the magma).
Theres the famous "ice cube" show in "The Inconvinient truth" - the ice allready floating on the ocean such as the ice shelves isn't a problem in itself as it melts, as it allready displaces its own mass as it's floating. When the land based ice melts it displaces the seawater, thus raising sea levels.
Thirdly as the water absorbs heat it expands due to thermal expansion which also increases the effective volume of the oceans.
I think thats all of it, and ice caps melting does contribute something as what was previously not in the system is going back in, but at the moment I don't think it's made an appearance as a contributor, just is sitting over in the corner waiting to pounce in the future....

---

Originally by: Captian Internet

---

Did some one say IBTL? because I think I just heard some one say IBTL

---

Originally by: Nyphur

---

I'm really not seeing a good counterargument to living underground here. I'll start digging, who wants to live in my new underground land?

---

Originally by: Cornucopian

---

wiki has the vapor numbers between 36% and 66%

Some people also say that the increased heat of the globe also enables CO2 to stay in the atmosphere longer: so the higher carbon count is actually a result of warming, not a cause. Its all very very confusing

---

Originally by: Asperger

---

Originally by: Cornucopian

---

wiki has the vapor numbers between 36% and 66%

Some people also say that the increased heat of the globe also enables CO2 to stay in the atmosphere longer: so the higher carbon count is actually a result of warming, not a cause. Its all very very confusing

---

CO2 getting into the atmosphere is resulting in a positive feedback loop, as a temperature increase releases CO2 into the atmosphere which increases the temperature even more. I think the original post was talking about this in the thread.

In a simplified way this is the explanation why CO2 levels appear to be lagging behind temperature increases in some graphs and the reason why CO2 getting into the atmosphere can both be a cause and a result.

---

Originally by: Royaldo

---

complete win by Cornucopian!

---

Originally by: Cornucopian

---

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

Originally by: Locus Bey

---

Volcanos

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/223957/72

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/index.php?p=306

---

Quoted from that source:

One point that is also worth making is that although volcanoes release some CO2 into the atmosphere, this is completely negligable compared to anthropogenic emissions (about 0.15 Gt/year of carbon, compared to about 7 Gt/year of human related sources)

---

yawnnnnn

"The 1991 eruption of Mt Pinatubo in the Philippines was one of the largest in the past 100 years. The injection into the stratosphere of 14-26 million tonnes of sulfur dioxide led to a global surface cooling of 0.5¦C a year after the eruption. The climatic impact of the Pinatubo aerosol was stronger than the warming effects of either El Ni±o or human-induced greenhouse gas changes during 1991-93."

we need more volcanos please. also, the biggest greenhouse gas is WATERVAPOR, to which the oceans are by far the biggest contributors. Anthropogenic Warming is of course having its effect, but I doubt that it's so great as everyone says it is.

---

Originally by: Celeste Coeval

---

Originally by: Cornucopian

---

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

Originally by: Locus Bey

---

Volcanos

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/223957/72

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/index.php?p=306

---

Quoted from that source:

One point that is also worth making is that although volcanoes release some CO2 into the atmosphere, this is completely negligable compared to anthropogenic emissions (about 0.15 Gt/year of carbon, compared to about 7 Gt/year of human related sources)

---

yawnnnnn

"The 1991 eruption of Mt Pinatubo in the Philippines was one of the largest in the past 100 years. The injection into the stratosphere of 14-26 million tonnes of sulfur dioxide led to a global surface cooling of 0.5¦C a year after the eruption. The climatic impact of the Pinatubo aerosol was stronger than the warming effects of either El Ni±o or human-induced greenhouse gas changes during 1991-93."

we need more volcanos please. also, the biggest greenhouse gas is WATERVAPOR, to which the oceans are by far the biggest contributors. Anthropogenic Warming is of course having its effect, but I doubt that it's so great as everyone says it is.

---

yes and a warmer climate leads to more water vapour in the atmosphere. A vulcanistic injection of carbon is a one shot deal, it isn't sustained in it's emissions.

Also sokrat, much <3 for faithless

---

Originally by: Royaldo

---

complete win by Cornucopian!

---

◕◡◕

Originally by: Nyphur

---

I'm really not seeing a good counterargument to living underground here. I'll start digging, who wants to live in my new underground land?

---

Originally by: CCP Morpheus

---

Post with your alt.

---

Originally by: Celeste Coeval

---

I'll type more in sec, my indian neighbour just made me some food

afk:P

---

Originally by: CCP Morpheus

---

Post with your alt.

---

Originally by: Celeste Coeval

---

I read your other posts, but i respond as im reading

I think the most important point to mention here is that even if we are wrong about co2 emissions, then there is no harm in reducing them. As somewhere along the line they will create an effect (I think it is happening though).

I think the Gaia principle is the closest theory we have that encompasses all the factors you mentioned cornie. The thing is 99% of the universe isnt man, the same proportion is representative for the earth.

Lets take a fish thats 10 cm long. This fish defends a territory of 1 m3 of water. The fish is actually presuming that that territory is part of itself and will defend that territory from any intruders. Territory works in similar ways fro those animals that operate under externalizing the self. Humans, unfortunatley have extended this territory to the entire earth, which sorta creates problems for everything else that shares the space. Unlike the fish we are actually capable of reasoning in consequences and theirfore have a responsibilty to take the results of our actions into account.

I'll type more in sec, my indian neighbour just made me some food

afk:P

---

Originally by: Royaldo

---

complete win by Cornucopian!

---

Originally by: Cornucopian

---

the end result though is that man is contributing to the warming but nowhere near the apocalyptic levels the treehuggers would have you believe.

---

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

Originally by: Logi3

---

Earth has been heating up since the last Ice Age.

---

Thanks for your contribution to this thread.

---

Originally by: Nyphur

---

I'm really not seeing a good counterargument to living underground here. I'll start digging, who wants to live in my new underground land?

---

Originally by: Asperger

---

Originally by: Cornucopian

---

the end result though is that man is contributing to the warming but nowhere near the apocalyptic levels the treehuggers would have you believe.

---

As far as I'm concerned a treehugger means the state of not being informed. Things like being against nuclear fission energy when it's by far the safest and long term sustainable way to produce energy on the planet, barring fusion, is simply being ignorant.

I don't know what would constitute as apocalyptic levels, but currently humans increased the CO2 levels above the natural level by at least 30%.

---

Originally by: Asperger

---

Originally by: Cornucopian

---

the end result though is that man is contributing to the warming but nowhere near the apocalyptic levels the treehuggers would have you believe.

---

As far as I'm concerned a treehugger means the state of not being informed. Things like being against nuclear fission energy when it's by far the safest and long term sustainable way to produce energy on the planet, barring fusion, is simply being ignorant.

I don't know what would constitute as apocalyptic levels, but currently humans increased the CO2 levels above the natural level by at least 30%.

---

Originally by: Royaldo

---

complete win by Cornucopian!

---

Originally by: Cornucopian

---

True, but Co2 levels being 15% of the greenhouse effect that would increase it to 19.5%, not an overly extreme number. We are altering the normal balance though.

---

Originally by: Asperger

---

Originally by: Cornucopian

---

True, but Co2 levels being 15% of the greenhouse effect that would increase it to 19.5%, not an overly extreme number. We are altering the normal balance though.

---

I'm not sure I agree with it not being an extreme number. If CO2 were the main driving force of the greenhouse effect we wouldn't be discussing things on the internet at the moment, but possibly trying to rebuild the post industrial era civilization.

In my opinion the crucial point is to understand that while the 30˚C temperature increase that the greenhouse effect produces is crucial for life on Earth, a 1-3˚C increase leads to massive disruption aswell. A few degrees is all it takes to increase the snowline globally by a few hundred meters, which in turn means melting glaciers, which in turn means half of Asia is suddently without drinking water, as those people depend on glaciers for their water supply.

A few degrees is what it takes to melt the North Pole for a bigger part of the year. Ice reflects most of the light, while water mostly absorbs it, so with a few degrees we turned the North Pole from a giant mirror into a huge heatsink. A few degrees is all it takes to melt the syberian permafrost, which means the massive release of further amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

By the time these effects really get going land based ice could start to melt, increasing water levels worldwide. Temperature changes could drastically alter oceanic currents, to which humans and the environment so carefully adapted to.

To sum it up, temperature changes affect many things. I would also add that noone disputes that natural shifts in climate exist, but the two are very unlike each other. I think people have a hard time understanding the difference so I think the following might help in trying to visualize it:

Imagine classical music, with a violin that slowly changes, a slow solemn tune. That's the natural cycle. Now imagine, that suddently someone makes that sudden, high pitched noise that you encounter when you put the microphone too close to the speakers. That's the human effect.

The human effect is so sudden that neither humanity nor other species has time to adapt without losses.

---

Originally by: Royaldo

---

complete win by Cornucopian!

---

Originally by: Cornucopian

---

Originally by: Asperger

---

Originally by: Cornucopian

---

True, but Co2 levels being 15% of the greenhouse effect that would increase it to 19.5%, not an overly extreme number. We are altering the normal balance though.

---

I'm not sure I agree with it not being an extreme number. If CO2 were the main driving force of the greenhouse effect we wouldn't be discussing things on the internet at the moment, but possibly trying to rebuild the post industrial era civilization.

In my opinion the crucial point is to understand that while the 30˚C temperature increase that the greenhouse effect produces is crucial for life on Earth, a 1-3˚C increase leads to massive disruption aswell. A few degrees is all it takes to increase the snowline globally by a few hundred meters, which in turn means melting glaciers, which in turn means half of Asia is suddently without drinking water, as those people depend on glaciers for their water supply.

A few degrees is what it takes to melt the North Pole for a bigger part of the year. Ice reflects most of the light, while water mostly absorbs it, so with a few degrees we turned the North Pole from a giant mirror into a huge heatsink. A few degrees is all it takes to melt the syberian permafrost, which means the massive release of further amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

By the time these effects really get going land based ice could start to melt, increasing water levels worldwide. Temperature changes could drastically alter oceanic currents, to which humans and the environment so carefully adapted to.

To sum it up, temperature changes affect many things. I would also add that noone disputes that natural shifts in climate exist, but the two are very unlike each other. I think people have a hard time understanding the difference so I think the following might help in trying to visualize it:

Imagine classical music, with a violin that slowly changes, a slow solemn tune. That's the natural cycle. Now imagine, that suddently someone makes that sudden, high pitched noise that you encounter when you put the microphone too close to the speakers. That's the human effect.

The human effect is so sudden that neither humanity nor other species has time to adapt without losses.

---

nice way of putting it.

---