Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: »Climate Change and Global Warming
Something else probably also not unimportant is the temperature of ice. Under normal conditions ice has it's biggest volume at around -5 degrees C. If you cool a massive volume of sea ice (e.g. the north pole) from -1 to -4 you would get a rising sea level. I don't know if this might be of any significance (probably not), but what I'm trying to illustrate is that global warming isn't as simple as a lot of people belief. It's not like an increase of consumption will lead to an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere which will lead to global warming, melting ice poles, and a risen sea level.
I would just like to add that the sea level will not rise due to ice melting.
(edited)
(edited)
This won't work. The influence of CO2 is minimal. Twice the amount of CO2 in the air will lead to an increase of around 1 degrees celsius. There must be something else which is triggering global warming.
I've different numbers on that. According to Fred Pearce, A British Journalist, A swedish guy named Arrhenius (spelling?) calculated somewhere quite early that an increase of the co2 level of 100% would lead to an increase of temperature of 5-6 degrees. Modern scientists have only been able to do some slight alterations on his calculations.
(edited)
I've different numbers on that. According to Fred Pearce, A British Journalist, A swedish guy named Arrhenius (spelling?) calculated somewhere quite early that an increase of the co2 level of 100% would lead to an increase of temperature of 5-6 degrees. Modern scientists have only been able to do some slight alterations on his calculations.
(edited)
Also; the IPCC report on climate change is a scientifical consensus. There are sceptical people who think that there's not that much of a climate change going on, but there are also people who believe that the IPCC-prediction is very mild, and that the temperature and sea-level rise might be much bigger than the IPCC is estimating.
Edit: All of these things might happen.
(edited)
Edit: All of these things might happen.
(edited)
lol, you are the first one that claims that humans are coded to look out for nature and would willingly put money in the second place, due to genetics. Apart from the fact that I really don't see how that could be a problem, but so far every one on both sides of the argument has said the exact opposite, both to defend their behavior (in the case of company-owners) or to give a cause for the stubbornness by which people destroy the environment.
If you would be well-informed about all this, you would know this, but I'm going to give you some really old examples of how deforrestation is a direct problem. Northern Africa, Greece and Spain used to be (more densely) forrested. Because some people needed the wood for warships, entire forests were cut down and look how nice the climate is there now for agriculture... Southern spain already looks a lot like a desert. Northern Africa has more Sahara than 500 years ago. Greece used to be green.
Second, the sealevel already rised.
Third, temperature never rose that fast before human economic activity spewed CO2 in the air in massive amounts.
Don't be silly.. :p
If you would be well-informed about all this, you would know this, but I'm going to give you some really old examples of how deforrestation is a direct problem. Northern Africa, Greece and Spain used to be (more densely) forrested. Because some people needed the wood for warships, entire forests were cut down and look how nice the climate is there now for agriculture... Southern spain already looks a lot like a desert. Northern Africa has more Sahara than 500 years ago. Greece used to be green.
Second, the sealevel already rised.
Third, temperature never rose that fast before human economic activity spewed CO2 in the air in massive amounts.
Don't be silly.. :p
Firstly I said something different, secondly I'm not the first one to say that.
"If you would be well-informed about all this, you would know this, but I'm going to give you some really old examples of how deforrestation is a direct problem. Northern Africa, Greece and Spain used to be (more densely) forrested. Because some people needed the wood for warships, entire forests were cut down and look how nice the climate is there now for agriculture... Southern spain already looks a lot like a desert. Northern Africa has more Sahara than 500 years ago. Greece used to be green."
This is not because of lost forests, but something else could have triggered those problems when the forests were removed. It sounds very logical, but it's scientifically incorrect.
"Second, the sealevel already rised."[i]
This would be an argument [i]against global warming.
"Third, temperature never rose that fast before human economic activity spewed CO2 in the air in massive amounts."
This is not true. You should change 'never' in 'the last x years'.
"If you would be well-informed about all this, you would know this, but I'm going to give you some really old examples of how deforrestation is a direct problem. Northern Africa, Greece and Spain used to be (more densely) forrested. Because some people needed the wood for warships, entire forests were cut down and look how nice the climate is there now for agriculture... Southern spain already looks a lot like a desert. Northern Africa has more Sahara than 500 years ago. Greece used to be green."
This is not because of lost forests, but something else could have triggered those problems when the forests were removed. It sounds very logical, but it's scientifically incorrect.
"Second, the sealevel already rised."[i]
This would be an argument [i]against global warming.
"Third, temperature never rose that fast before human economic activity spewed CO2 in the air in massive amounts."
This is not true. You should change 'never' in 'the last x years'.
"Also; the IPCC report on climate change is a scientifical consensus. There are sceptical people who think that there's not that much of a climate change going on, but there are also people who believe that the IPCC-prediction is very mild, and that the temperature and sea-level rise might be much bigger than the IPCC is estimating."
When there's a consensus that doesn't mean that it's right and when there is global warming it doesn't mean that it's because of CO2 expulsion.
"I've different numbers on that. According to Fred Pearce, A British Journalist, A swedish guy named Arrhenius (spelling?) calculated somewhere quite early that an increase of the co2 level of 100% would lead to an increase of temperature of 5-6 degrees. Modern scientists have only been able to do some slight alterations on his calculations."
I've heard a lot of different numbers. Who's right? I'm not going to accept something as truth when I hear something new. I would have to change my mind very often. I also don't see how an journalist can obtain these numbers himself. What I know is that those lower increases of temperature are found in more recent and "improved" (improvement can be a very subjective word) studies.
It may look like it, but I'm definitely not against the idea of global warming. I'm not convinced of neither side yet and I'm trying to make you folks ask yourself why you would blindly believe what important people say. It's very important to think yourself and ask your self what kind of relations you see (what is causing what?) and how figures have been obtained. Gore's film was absolutely fake. Weak references and wrong cause-effect patterns.
When there's a consensus that doesn't mean that it's right and when there is global warming it doesn't mean that it's because of CO2 expulsion.
"I've different numbers on that. According to Fred Pearce, A British Journalist, A swedish guy named Arrhenius (spelling?) calculated somewhere quite early that an increase of the co2 level of 100% would lead to an increase of temperature of 5-6 degrees. Modern scientists have only been able to do some slight alterations on his calculations."
I've heard a lot of different numbers. Who's right? I'm not going to accept something as truth when I hear something new. I would have to change my mind very often. I also don't see how an journalist can obtain these numbers himself. What I know is that those lower increases of temperature are found in more recent and "improved" (improvement can be a very subjective word) studies.
It may look like it, but I'm definitely not against the idea of global warming. I'm not convinced of neither side yet and I'm trying to make you folks ask yourself why you would blindly believe what important people say. It's very important to think yourself and ask your self what kind of relations you see (what is causing what?) and how figures have been obtained. Gore's film was absolutely fake. Weak references and wrong cause-effect patterns.
When there's a consensus that doesn't mean that it's right and when there is global warming it doesn't mean that it's because of CO2 expulsion.
Indeed, however, the most evidence is pointing in that direction... But it could also be that the co2 expulsion causes much worse effects than expected by the IPCC.
Indeed, however, the most evidence is pointing in that direction... But it could also be that the co2 expulsion causes much worse effects than expected by the IPCC.
"Indeed, however, the most evidence is pointing in that direction..."
Most evidence can be wrong. It's not about quantity, but about quality;)
"But it could also be that the co2 expulsion causes much worse effects than expected by the IPCC."
We'll agree on that:P
Most evidence can be wrong. It's not about quantity, but about quality;)
"But it could also be that the co2 expulsion causes much worse effects than expected by the IPCC."
We'll agree on that:P
Very Interesting Movie: "The Great Global Warming Swindle" (BBC, 1h15')
the Sun's influence on climate = 99.9%
Man-made climate change, co2 & all the other crap = 0.1%
...so just like the dinozaurs were wiped-out by ice, and outer space commets, the same will happen to our great-great-great-great-great-grand-children and they will be wiped-out by heat, or something from outer space, unless they bugger off (from earth) to Mars, Jupiter or whatever... ;-) to survive. ...and there is nothing hippies can do about that. :-P
...so in conclusion (after watching the movie): our infulence on global warming is as real, as a potential "war of the worlds"-type alien attack. ;-) ...or shall we just stick to: half man, half bear & half pig.
mmmkay...?
...if you need more evidence, go back to te top of this post and watch the movie :-P
(edited)
the Sun's influence on climate = 99.9%
Man-made climate change, co2 & all the other crap = 0.1%
...so just like the dinozaurs were wiped-out by ice, and outer space commets, the same will happen to our great-great-great-great-great-grand-children and they will be wiped-out by heat, or something from outer space, unless they bugger off (from earth) to Mars, Jupiter or whatever... ;-) to survive. ...and there is nothing hippies can do about that. :-P
...so in conclusion (after watching the movie): our infulence on global warming is as real, as a potential "war of the worlds"-type alien attack. ;-) ...or shall we just stick to: half man, half bear & half pig.
mmmkay...?
...if you need more evidence, go back to te top of this post and watch the movie :-P
(edited)
Most evidence can be wrong. It's not about quantity, but about quality;)
Off course, but if evidence is bad you are able to find other evidence contradicting the first.
I also don't see how an journalist can obtain these numbers himself. What I know is that those lower increases of temperature are found in more recent and "improved" (improvement can be a very subjective word) studies.
The journalist makes a collection of numbers others have maked. About the second sentence, could you provide me some links. Not to pull these in doubt, but just because I want to know what they're based on.
(edited)
Off course, but if evidence is bad you are able to find other evidence contradicting the first.
I also don't see how an journalist can obtain these numbers himself. What I know is that those lower increases of temperature are found in more recent and "improved" (improvement can be a very subjective word) studies.
The journalist makes a collection of numbers others have maked. About the second sentence, could you provide me some links. Not to pull these in doubt, but just because I want to know what they're based on.
(edited)
"Off course, but if evidence is bad you are able to find other evidence contradicting the first."
That kind of evidence has been found (it still doesn't mean that's good).
About your second question: I have to think about where I got it from. As soon as I find it, I let you know.
That kind of evidence has been found (it still doesn't mean that's good).
About your second question: I have to think about where I got it from. As soon as I find it, I let you know.
It took some time, but I found the sources for mjakk. All articles are from NWT (Natuurwetenschap & Techniek, Natural Science & Technology), a popular scientifical magazine. References are often not made at the end of an article or vaguely described in an article. This is because it's a popular scientifical magazine, long lists of references would make it less interesting. On the other hand I believe that NWT is not just spreading bull crap as it's run by professionals and it has a good reputation.
However the articles are in Dutch I will post them here as mjakk asked for it and he is just. I could have contacted him by SK-mail, but I prefer to post links to articles here to show that I'm not shouting something biased on nothing.
On request I'm willing to do some translations.
- Bewijs achter Kyoto deugt niet (Proof of Kyoto is crap)
- Verspild geld (wasted money)
This is it for now. I have dozens of other articles, but those are all on paper. I will try to scan them as soon as possible, but I can't promise anything as I do not have a scanner myself.
However the articles are in Dutch I will post them here as mjakk asked for it and he is just. I could have contacted him by SK-mail, but I prefer to post links to articles here to show that I'm not shouting something biased on nothing.
On request I'm willing to do some translations.
- Bewijs achter Kyoto deugt niet (Proof of Kyoto is crap)
- Verspild geld (wasted money)
This is it for now. I have dozens of other articles, but those are all on paper. I will try to scan them as soon as possible, but I can't promise anything as I do not have a scanner myself.
Again sorry for a reply with an article in Dutch, but I just read Yesterday something about the guy (Singer) in the second article you post. I'm not suggesting that the guy who wrote it, is completely right, the truth will be probably somewhere in the middle. George Monbiot is someone who strongly believes in the idea of global warming caused by humans.
Denial Industry
The essence of the piece about Singer is that many of his claims are not well backed by evidence, and that the funding he has received by exxon is bigger than Singer claims to be the case.
However: The main problem is in my opinion. People will reproduce the things the think. Somebody who is sceptical will search for things that prove he's right, and somebody who believes in human induced climate change will do the same. For every article arguing that there is a human contribution to climate change, there also one who argues the opposite.
Denial Industry
The essence of the piece about Singer is that many of his claims are not well backed by evidence, and that the funding he has received by exxon is bigger than Singer claims to be the case.
However: The main problem is in my opinion. People will reproduce the things the think. Somebody who is sceptical will search for things that prove he's right, and somebody who believes in human induced climate change will do the same. For every article arguing that there is a human contribution to climate change, there also one who argues the opposite.