Koyoto is here

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by jaguar

Does anyone honestly think Kyoto is going to help?

Not me. The earth will create another ice age all by itself. The oceans are warmer than the ice caps so sooner or later, they will melt. Higher water levels will increase and redistribute pressure on the tectonic plates which will lead to increased vocanic activity which will lead to more greenhouse gases and a filtering out of sunlight which will cool the earth and possibly lead to another ice age.

Kyoto didn't stop the last one did it?

Entropy, baybee, entropy.

[Wombat]

Originally Posted by Beestie

The oceans are warmer than the ice caps so sooner or later, they will melt.

Please tell me you're joking. Please tell me you don't really think that because the sea around the equator is warm it is melting the ice in the arctic.

Incidentally, (most of) the ice in the antarctic isn't bathed in seawater anyway, it's sitting high up on land.

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by Wombat

Please tell me you're joking.

Ok, I'm joking. But while we're on the subject, why did the last ice age end?

[Wombat]

Originally Posted by Beestie

Ok, I'm joking. But while we're on the subject, why did the last ice age end?

that's a relief

The last ice age ended as a part of a natural cycle. What we are doing is raising the whole cycle up several degrees (at least), in a very short space of time. Normally the cyclical changes are slow enough that we don't notice them in the course of one lifetime, however this change is so rapid that we will suffer.

tw, yes you are right! Sorry if I didn't say what I said clearly. Good point about the north pole ice not changing the sea level, most people don't realise that so it's always worth re-iterating.

This is one of those topics where there are two opposing groups with such inconsistent beliefs that at least one group must be fooling themselves: so which is it? Can we prove/disprove global warming conclusively? (without just waiting to see if we're right/wrong!) And if we can find a conclusive proof one way or the other, will it actually convince everyone or will some people still stubbonly refuse to believe?

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Wombat

This is one of those topics where there are two opposing groups with such inconsistent beliefs that at least one group must be fooling themselves: so which is it? Can we prove/disprove global warming conclusively? (without just waiting to see if we're right/wrong!) And if we can find a conclusive proof one way or the other, will it actually convince everyone or will some people still stubbonly refuse to believe?

Once it becomes obvious which side is correct, the other side will join them and will claim that they always held that position.

[russotto]

Originally Posted by Beestie

Ok, I'm joking. But while we're on the subject, why did the last ice age end?

The so-called Little Ice Age in the seventeenth century ended because the temporary reduction in the solar constant associated with the Maunder minimum (a period where very few sunspots were visible).

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Originally Posted by russotto

The so-called Little Ice Age in the seventeenth century ended because the temporary reduction in the solar constant associated with the Maunder minimum (a period where very few sunspots were visible).

And which, also, just so happened to be the dawn of the industrial revolution when mankind began to burn a lot of petro-based fuels, starting with coal, and releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere.

Don't get me wrong, many climatologists feel that solar activity does impact the earth's climate. However, man has also now gotten into the act. It's way past time that we finally recognize this point.

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by Schrodinger's Cat

And which, also, just so happened to be the dawn of the industrial revolution when mankind began to burn a lot of petro-based fuels, starting with coal, and releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere.

One thing I'm curious about is a comparison between the amount of greenhouse gas released by some of the bigger volcanic eruptions over the last 300 years and, for example, the total amount of greenhouse gas emitted by every car in America in one weekday. When I have a moment, I'll try to find it and will post the results in case anyone else is interested.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Originally Posted by Beestie

One thing I'm curious about is a comparison between the amount of greenhouse gas released by some of the bigger volcanic eruptions over the last 300 years and, for example, the total amount of greenhouse gas emitted by every car in America in one weekday. When I have a moment, I'll try to find it and will post the results in case anyone else is interested.

And you intend to prove...?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Wombat

Please tell me you're joking. Please tell me you don't really think that because the sea around the equator is warm it is melting the ice in the arctic.

That's not what the science says. The science says sea around the equator is warming - both significantly and quickly. (It is why we teach the concept of differentials to high school students - so they can appreciate the major difference created by three letters.) Furthermore numbers show the depth of that unusually significant warming is slowly moving into deeper regions of the ocean - because the sudden increase in temperature has been so large and recent.

Melting of ice in water (ie Arctic Ocean) is not a concern for landmass flooding. Melting of ice in Greenland and Antartica will cause sea level rise. To understand the principles, pour yourself a coke with lots of ice. Notice that as the ice melts, the coke overflows the glass. Or does it.

[xoxoxoBruce]

No it doesn't overflow. The melting of the block of ice sitting on top of the glass causes it to overflow.