|
I think you may have causes mixed up there. Higher temperatures cause more water in the air, but more water in the air doesn't really cause higher temperatures -- the amount of water vapor humans can dump into the air is nothing compared to the amount of additional evaporation a tenth of a degree increase in global temperature would "naturally" produce.
The actual causal path that I can see is :
1) Increased atmospheric CO2 causes increased global temperature
2) Increased global temperature increases absolute humidity through natural evaporation
3) Increased absolute humidity and increased temperature intensify the water cycle.
I wasn't actually looking at temperature at all there... just, 'more water in the air = more water coming out of the air'.
Also, yes, the amount of water vapor humans dump into the air is tiny compared to the increased water vapor content due to global warming.
That being said, more water vapor in the air DOES cause higher temperatures... because water vapor is a very powerful greenhouse gas. This effect can be observed in the difference between how quickly temperatures drop at night in a desert vs a very humid area... the desert temperature will quickly plummet because there is very little water vapor blocking the escape of heat while the humid area can remain hot all night as the heat just can't escape to space due to the water vapor greenhouse effect.
This water vapor feedback effect (i.e. more heat from CO2 greenhouse effect = more water vapor in the air = more heat from water vapor greenhouse effect) is actually one of the largest feedbacks (the other being albedo shift from ice and snow melt) pushing up the total warming. Doubling CO2 on its own would only cause ~1.2 C warming, but with the additional feedback add-ons (mostly those 2) it goes up to ~3 C.
"Kullen" is the avatar I use to signal *massive sarcasm alert* without me needing to spell that out. Basically, if I'm going to say something obnoxious that shouldn't be taken too seriously, that's what I click on for "post as."
Oh? Sorry I didn't realize.
I think you may have causes mixed up there. Higher temperatures cause more water in the air, but more water in the air doesn't really cause higher temperatures -- the amount of water vapor humans can dump into the air is nothing compared to the amount of additional evaporation a tenth of a degree increase in global temperature would "naturally" produce.
The actual causal path that I can see is :
1) Increased atmospheric CO2 causes increased global temperature
2) Increased global temperature increases absolute humidity through natural evaporation
3) Increased absolute humidity and increased temperature intensify the water cycle.I wasn't actually looking at temperature at all there... just, 'more water in the air = more water coming out of the air'.
Also, yes, the amount of water vapor humans dump into the air is tiny compared to the increased water vapor content due to global warming.
That being said, more water vapor in the air DOES cause higher temperatures... because water vapor is a very powerful greenhouse gas. This effect can be observed in the difference between how quickly temperatures drop at night in a desert vs a very humid area... the desert temperature will quickly plummet because there is very little water vapor blocking the escape of heat while the humid area can remain hot all night as the heat just can't escape to space due to the water vapor greenhouse effect.
This water vapor feedback effect (i.e. more heat from CO2 greenhouse effect = more water vapor in the air = more heat from water vapor greenhouse effect) is actually one of the largest feedbacks (the other being albedo shift from ice and snow melt) pushing up the total warming. Doubling CO2 on its own would only cause ~1.2 C warming, but with the additional feedback add-ons (mostly those 2) it goes up to ~3 C.
So I am right to worry about them switching all cars to steam emissions instead of carbon emissions?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I am right to worry about them switching all cars to steam emissions instead of carbon emissions?
No. I did the math on that a few posts up. The CO2->H2O loop is a big one and a real effect, but the amount of water we can add with steam-powered vehicles isn't enough to make any difference to that loop.
Basically, the atmosphere is already saturated with water, so we can't add any more water to it. But if we add more CO2, we change the saturation point, so the atmosphere will naturally saturate itself at the higher level.
|
For the water issue, also remember that water enters atmosphere through transpiration, a process of plants losing water from their leaves as part of the water transport system (for those not aware).
In parts of the world like the amazon, the trees themselves are actually responsible for the vast quantaties of rain that fall there. In areas where massive levels of trees have been cleared in order to develop land for building, the pattern of temperature and rain fall has changed. Higher temperatures but lower rainfall in general.
The pattern was particularly noted in a few of our growing belts in Aus. A few large settlements with high road coverage created a thermal updraft in an area that used to be a corridor for rain patterns. The rain clouds still form but now they deviate north and south of those heat columns. This effectively created a small rain shadow in a fairly productive peanut growing area.
If we replace the carbon emissions with water emissions, it may actually return the environment to something similar to pre deforestation levels in some areas.
Also, water acts to stabilise temperature, rather than allow for massive swings in temperature. Clouds reflect as well as absorb energy. Water has a high thermal capacity so it can absorb heat on hot days and release heat on cold days, keeping things relatively stable.
It also might mean certain arid regions begin recieveing more moisture and rain. That may be good or bad environmentally. Most deserts exist for a reason and the environment has evolved around that. Meh. It's oceans that really create the weather patterns any way. Those are the areas to keep an eye on for temperature change, not atmoshpheric readings. If oceans get warmer, they generate more severe weather patterns, absorb less gases (such as CO2 and O2) and undergo density changes that prevent upwellings of nutrient rich water from the depths. Once that starts to happen, we're screwed. Mass extinction screwed.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope the earth doesn't die. That's where I get my pizza.
Gaberlunzie: There was a referendum in 1980, yes. None of the alternatives was "let's keep and further develop it". Just that is enough to disqualify the vote.
Not when people voted on the stricter and faster disassembling of nuclear power, no. As you can see, there where three options; the first was basically "let's keep what we have for now, and sometime in the future we'll move away from nuclear". The second was basically "As the first, but also don't allow any profit from nuclear, and work to minimize energy consumtion so we can get rid of it sooner" and the third was "Get rid of it. NOW!!!!".
If the majority of the vote had gone to alternative 1, you would have had a point. It didn't. Only 18% voted for the first alternative, and there was a pretty even split between the more drastic measures.
Do you claim the "Kärnkraft nej tack!" campaign wasn't environmentally motivated?
No, but environmental groups advocating something doesn't mean "the environmental lobby" had some power to implement policy on it's own. Claiming "lobbies" set policies implies that it was against popular opinion, like say how the copyright lobby implemented changes in Swedish copyright law which the population didn't want.
Political groups openly advocating stuff, and people agreeing with it, doesn't some shady lobby make.
I mean, with that kind of argument, you could claim that any political change ever was implemented by "lobby groups".
I mean, this was what you said:
Sweden has had a ban on developing new nuclear technology for ages, only recently removed, instated by the environmental lobby.
A far less misleading claim would be this:
Sweden has had a ban on developing new nuclear technology for ages instated by popular vote, ignored by the state until recently removed by the nuclear lobby.
Carries a different tone, doesn't it?
Gaberlunzie: The referendum was a sham, and put in effect a ban which went above and beyond what was voted for. And if you claim the "nuclear lobby" removed it, please explain what the "nuclear lobby" actually did, who did it, and who makes up the "nuclear lobby". I would say it is far more correct to say that the ban was removed through our normal democratic process. I mean, claiming the "nuclear lobby" actively pushed through the removal of a ban they have yet to use the removal of, years later, that is pretty odd.
...duh.
Gaberlunzie objected to my use of "environmental lobby". And then proceeded to claim the "nuclear lobby" did so and so.
And if you claim the "nuclear lobby" removed it, please explain what the "nuclear lobby" actually did, who did it, and who makes up the "nuclear lobby".
Ah, those beautiful, beautiful standards; I love that there's more than one of them.
Also, water acts to stabilise temperature, rather than allow for massive swings in temperature. Clouds reflect as well as absorb energy. Water has a high thermal capacity so it can absorb heat on hot days and release heat on cold days, keeping things relatively stable.That's not what they said in any of my science classes or any paper I've seen on it >.>
Can you point me to papers that correct my information?
Wrath is more more less correct on that specific point. Water's high heat capacity is a well-known physical property, not some sort of cutting-edge research, so you'd need to go back centuries to find "papers" on that.
Here's a short, layperson-oriented piece about water's heat capacity, from the United States Geological Survey.See also here (scroll down to "Heat capacity and heats of vaporization and fusion").
...duh.
Gaberlunzie objected to my use of "environmental lobby". And then proceeded to claim the "nuclear lobby" did so and so.
No, he used your manner of argument to present the information biased in the opposite direction, demonstrating rather clearly why you should stop that.
And if you claim the "nuclear lobby" removed it, please explain what the "nuclear lobby" actually did, who did it, and who makes up the "nuclear lobby".Ah, those beautiful, beautiful standards; I love that there's more than one of them.
Exactly. There should be one standard, and you're first criticizing me for blaming the environmental lobby, which is not okay according to you. Then you blame the nuclear lobby, which is A-OK. So, let's keep it to ONE standard, yes?
No, he used your manner of argument to present the information biased in the opposite direction, demonstrating rather clearly why you should stop that....duh.
Gaberlunzie objected to my use of "environmental lobby". And then proceeded to claim the "nuclear lobby" did so and so.
Um, no. His quote was "far less misleading". Otherwise it wouldn't have been a problem.
Exactly. There should be one standard, and you're first criticizing me for blaming the environmental lobby, which is not okay according to you. Then you blame the nuclear lobby, which is A-OK. So, let's keep it to ONE standard, yes?And if you claim the "nuclear lobby" removed it, please explain what the "nuclear lobby" actually did, who did it, and who makes up the "nuclear lobby".Ah, those beautiful, beautiful standards; I love that there's more than one of them.
No.
First of all a a popular referendum passing a bill is not a lobby. Its the actual direct will of the people, not the backdoor deals and bribery in all but name that's become synonomous with lobbying.
Secondly the actual environmental lobby and the nuclear lobby are not equivalent. The environmental lobby wants clean air, clean water, open spaces for the sake of everyone. The nuclear lobby is out to make money for themselves. Those two things are worlds apart.
Exactly. There should be one standard, and you're first criticizing me for blaming the environmental lobby, which is not okay according to you. Then you blame the nuclear lobby, which is A-OK. So, let's keep it to ONE standard, yes?And if you claim the "nuclear lobby" removed it, please explain what the "nuclear lobby" actually did, who did it, and who makes up the "nuclear lobby".Ah, those beautiful, beautiful standards; I love that there's more than one of them.
No, I'm criticizing you for portraying the swedish population as an "environmental lobby" because the swedish population opposed more nuclear plants, while not using the term "nuclear lobby" about the much smaller political groups that worked to enable nuclear development without a new referendum.
First of all a a popular referendum passing a bill is not a lobby. Its the actual direct will of the people, not the backdoor deals and bribery in all but name that's become synonomous with lobbying.
Well, to clarify, the referendum was non-binding, and did not have an "expand nuclear power" alternative (and also didn't have a bunch of other alternatives one could consider, such as "build a fat nuclear bomb"). It had three options (you can find the exact wordings in the link above) that can be summarized as follows:
1. Continue with current and planned power plants over the foreseeable future. Sometime in the future, move away from nuclear.2. As 1, but also work towards minimizing energy usage, and ban profits from nuclear power.
3. Get rid of it ASAP.
Now, if public opinion had shown that many where for continued development Sissyl would have had a point, as the alternatives presented would not have been representative of public opinion. However, nearly noone was in favor of that. Sissyl would also have a point if the majority had voted for option 1, as it would have been possible that they wanted even lighter restrictions than that.
But 1 got 18%, 2 got 39% and 3 got 38% (roughly), so Sissyl doesn't have a point. The referendum had the options that summarized the basic views in public opinion at the time and didn't have options for stuff nearly noone wanted (such as a giant frakkin' bomb or more plants), and the very strictest option got more than twice the votes that the least restrictive was.
But the groups that lobbied for ignoring the referendum were definately what we consider "lobbies"; mainly small groups of neoliberal politicians and free-market think-tanks, such as Timbro and the oh so ironically named "Politikfakta" that claims to be politically unbound but is run by an unusually right-wing politician of a right-wing party (the equally ironically named "moderates").
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The figures they give are a nice baseline for theoretical modelling, but likely will not be seen in real life due to the massive chemical composition changes that Earth's waters have suffered in the past couple of centuries. If scientists are relying on centuries-old data on how water works, they need to consider that the current conditions of most waterways did not exist centuries ago and go back to basics on this issue.
If you really, honestly believe that most water is now fundamentally chemically dissimilar from water, and does not actually behave in any way like water, because of some kind of undefined "massive chemical composition changes" that you pointedly don't identify, then I have no idea what to tell you.
Selected waterways like the Port of Houston Industrial Canal? I'll concede that there's probably as much benzene as there is water in sections of that. No argument there. But that canal doesn't dictate climate, or have much of an effect on climate, compared to the Gulf of Mexico it eventually empties into. Claiming that understanding of how water actually works is irrelevant when studying water just isn't "real life," sorry.
But don't listen to me. I'm only a hydrogeologist for my day job. I don't know anything about water, or anything like that.
|
|
My overall point isn't that Climate Change should be ignored completely. We all want cleaner air and clear water. The overall concern I have is the very alarmist way that suedo scientist predict and talk about this issue as if it could explode in our faces tomorrow.
Man did not do this and is limited to almost nothing they can to to "fix" it. Making Coal expensive when it need not be, or force old "green" technology with new looks, is not a solution, it is a place holder. The longer we, as a nation, coalition, pact, or a world agreement, hold on to these (wind, solar, ect) as the replacement for perceived evil energies such at Oil, Coal, Nuclear, or even burning wood for heat, the longer it will take after it is abandoned years later to find better technology that uses actual current instead of a lot of storage.
Science Fiction uses fantastic ways to use energy such as Crystals, Fusion, and Carbon based cells, yet the insistence now is to look back a century to use the old stuff instead.
From the predictions of a former vice president that the Ice Caps would not be here today to the Emails that showed the fudging of numbers (that was explained away), do you really think anything said now will better predictions than what came before?
This has been the doom and gloom for the last 40 years, and my overall exasperation about it isn't that it is still going on, but that it is effecting actual policy in the USA that makes everything more expensive without any benefit to show for it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My overall point isn't that Climate Change should be ignored completely. We all want cleaner air and clear water. The overall concern I have is the very alarmist way that suedo scientist predict and talk about this issue as if it could explode in our faces tomorrow.
No one is doing that. Stop acting like they are. Pretty much everyone in this thread is getting fed up with how you are handling "discussion" here.
I mean, can I suggest a boycott on replying to thaX until he takes the time to demonstrate to us that he is capable of reading and responding to the people who take the time to address him? (ideally, by going back and replying to what others have said to him) I think we'd all be better off for it.
Um, no. His quote was "far less misleading". Otherwise it wouldn't have been a problem.No, he used your manner of argument to present the information biased in the opposite direction, demonstrating rather clearly why you should stop that....duh.
Gaberlunzie objected to my use of "environmental lobby". And then proceeded to claim the "nuclear lobby" did so and so.
Um, yes. My baseless and unsupported statements are just as good as yours.
The figures they give are a nice baseline for theoretical modelling, but likely will not be seen in real life due to the massive chemical composition changes that Earth's waters have suffered in the past couple of centuries. If scientists are relying on centuries-old data on how water works, they need to consider that the current conditions of most waterways did not exist centuries ago and go back to basics on this issue.If you really, honestly believe that most water is now fundamentally chemically dissimilar from water, and does not actually behave in any way like water, because of some kind of undefined "massive chemical composition changes" that you pointedly don't identify, then I have no idea what to tell you.
Selected waterways like the Port of Houston Industrial Canal? I'll concede that there's probably as much benzene as there is water in sections of that. No argument there. But that canal doesn't dictate climate, or have much of an effect on climate, compared to the Gulf of Mexico it eventually empties into. Claiming that understanding of how water actually works is irrelevant when studying water just isn't "real life," sorry.
But don't listen to me. I'm only a hydrogeologist for my day job. I don't know anything about water, or anything like that.
Anyone can claim to be any scientist they want online. Please understand I have reason to doubt you are one because of that. I won't ask for proof. It would be too dangerous for you to provide it to some random stranger.
A hydrologist would be able to point out that science is already aware of any changes in how water absorbs heat based on pollution-caused dilution and that any models based on them would take those changes into account. They also would understand that I am not talking about fundamental changes, but the effect dilution has upon water properties. Neither one of those is unknown, and the second is high school chem lab experiments at this point.
The Gulf of...
Kirth can correct me if I am wrong, but what I think he is getting at is that pollution levels globally are overall so trivial compared with total global water volume, especially taking in account all the processes that remove them and change them over time, that they have no really meaningful impact on climate modeling or influence over how water absorbs or retains heat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The figures they give are a nice baseline for theoretical modelling, but likely will not be seen in real life due to the massive chemical composition changes that Earth's waters have suffered in the past couple of centuries. If scientists are relying on centuries-old data on how water works, they need to consider that the current conditions of most waterways did not exist centuries ago and go back to basics on this issue.If you really, honestly believe that most water is now fundamentally chemically dissimilar from water, and does not actually behave in any way like water, because of some kind of undefined "massive chemical composition changes" that you pointedly don't identify, then I have no idea what to tell you.
Selected waterways like the Port of Houston Industrial Canal? I'll concede that there's probably as much benzene as there is water in sections of that. No argument there. But that canal doesn't dictate climate, or have much of an effect on climate, compared to the Gulf of Mexico it eventually empties into. Claiming that understanding of how water actually works is irrelevant when studying water just isn't "real life," sorry.
But don't listen to me. I'm only a hydrogeologist for my day job. I don't know anything about water, or anything like that.
One time, I was arguing with Kirth about science, when he took out this big ass sword (one of the ones that's flat at the tip instead of coming to point, like the one the executioner used in Wolf Hall) and said, "The name of this blade is Practical Application; I find a single demonstration ends all argument."
Dude, he was right; I've just agreed with whatever says ever since!
|
|
My overall point isn't that Climate Change should be ignored completely. We all want cleaner air and clear water. The overall concern I have is the very alarmist way that suedo scientist predict and talk about this issue as if it could explode in our faces tomorrow.No one is doing that. Stop acting like they are. Pretty much everyone in this thread is getting fed up with how you are handling "discussion" here.
I mean, can I suggest a boycott on replying to thaX until he takes the time to demonstrate to us that he is capable of reading and responding to the people who take the time to address him? (ideally, by going back and replying to what others have said to him) I think we'd all be better off for it.
My reaction to various points is that repeating numbers and going on about various scientific guesses isn't telling me anything I have not already heard. Various posters (who are neutral on this issue) in this thread have point out the overall inconsistency about the global concerns and how it's temperature is measured or not measured.
Al Gore did predict some awful stuff that simply was not, nor will likely never be, true. Extremes of the data provided? Why would it even be mentioned in a scientific report?
Maybe the posters on this forum isn't doing the bad predictions or saying everything will be underwater in 10 years, but it has been the main focus of a lot of the political underpinnings for a long time now. Obama recently went to Alaska to pine over the loss of icecaps while it was reported elsewhere that there is more ice than previous years there.
He also renamed a mountain. That was already in the process of being renamed. In Congress. Started by Representatives from Alaska.
I see things like this in the news and wonder how anyone believes anything he or his ilk say.
|
|
They also used them in their guns and for some of the newer prototypes of ships later in the program. The other races used various energy sources, I believe the Nimbari used a form of crystal energy.
The data storage was the most prevalent use, as it was shown in almost half of the episodes of the whole run, moreso in the first two seasons.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Al Gore did predict some awful stuff that simply was not, nor will likely never be, true. Extremes of the data provided? Why would it even be mentioned in a scientific report?
Maybe the posters on this forum isn't doing the bad predictions or saying everything will be underwater in 10 years, but it has been the main focus of a lot of the political underpinnings for a long time now. Obama recently went to Alaska to pine over the loss of icecaps while it was reported elsewhere that there is more ice than previous years there.
If you go back to the original sources you will find that in virtually every case those predictions have been mis-represented after the fact to create the fictional alarmist predictions you so despise. Gore cited a report that sea ice COULD be gone by now... OR take several more years. I know of two different 'under water by now' claims... which were both completely fictional. And the only way to say there is more ice 'than in previous years' is to find a location where the worst year ever was one to three years ago and pretend that the absence of a new record worse every single year means things are getting better.
He also renamed a mountain. That was already in the process of being renamed. In Congress. Started by Representatives from Alaska.
Yep... in the process of being renamed (BACK to what it has been called for hundreds of years by locals). In Congress. Since 1975.
I see things like this in the news and wonder how anyone believes anything he or his ilk say.
Yes, if you base your world view on propaganda then everything you say is completely logical. It's just that you are logically responding to a fantasy world.
My overall point isn't that Climate Change should be ignored completely. We all want cleaner air and clear water. The overall concern I have is the very alarmist way that suedo scientist predict and talk about this issue as if it could explode in our faces tomorrow.No one is doing that. Stop acting like they are. Pretty much everyone in this thread is getting fed up with how you are handling "discussion" here.
I mean, can I suggest a boycott on replying to thaX until he takes the time to demonstrate to us that he is capable of reading and responding to the people who take the time to address him? (ideally, by going back and replying to what others have said to him) I think we'd all be better off for it.
Seams reasonable, I'm in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can suggest. But I certainly won't let him be the only voice any newcomers hear when they join this discussion.My overall point isn't that Climate Change should be ignored completely. We all want cleaner air and clear water. The overall concern I have is the very alarmist way that suedo scientist predict and talk about this issue as if it could explode in our faces tomorrow.No one is doing that. Stop acting like they are. Pretty much everyone in this thread is getting fed up with how you are handling "discussion" here.
I mean, can I suggest a boycott on replying to thaX until he takes the time to demonstrate to us that he is capable of reading and responding to the people who take the time to address him? (ideally, by going back and replying to what others have said to him) I think we'd all be better off for it.
There are other ways to achieve that, such as by ignoring him, will keeping up a lively discussion about the actual science.
|
|
Hmmmmm, as a marine biologist by degree and a long serving science teacher by trade (whos job requirement is to keep up with current research), I have to say my credentials in knowing what I'm on about are up there too. However, this is the internet so nothing I can say will prove anything to you.
Understand that the sheer quantity of water on our planet has not been "diluted" to change its heat capacitance in any way. Global weather patterns are determined by ocean currents. Local weather patterns are determined by mountain ranges and thermal rising from heat sinks on the ground.
Air temperatures in dry climates have massive variation (diurnally) due to the lack of moisture in the air to trap and re radiate the heat.
Air temperatures in humid environments have a very narrow range of change (diurnally) as a consequence of the clouds trapping heat during the day and re radiating the heat at night when normal solar heat would escape into space.
Since there is a finite level to how much atmospheric water can be trapped, and therefore act as a heat sink, it means that at some point the atmosphere stabilizes in balance for water and temperate.
So, more atmospheric water leads to greater stability in both local and global temperatures on a whole. They may be higher for some places, lower for others, but generally far more stable.
Everything I've just said can be found in any weather information site you'd like to look up. It's also in most junior science textbooks that cover the topic and any senior geography or science textbook that covers the topic (at least that's true in Queensland where I teach).
As for class room science. If we get the sum of pollutants dumped into the oceans and scale it down to a beaker, I suspect that a single drop of solution would need to be added to a beaker of saline water in order to successfully scale model the change in heat capacitance of water on our planet.
Now, if we talk about the amounts of organic waste produce reaching depths where bacteria can still survive and produce methane which can cause haline (I think that's the correct term Kirth?) inversions through density changes, that might be different. I don't have the data on that, and certainly some of the coastal shallow seas around areas of high agriculture and over developed land might have something like that going on. Haline inversions mean deep water becomes less dense and bobs to the surface. Usually its due to gas absorption but sometimes it can be heat from rotting organic matter. It happens in slow moving rivers and lakes. Their pretty bad on a local scale, so I imagine they'd be catastrophic on a global scale. I believe one of the great extinctions was due to something like this happening.
Any how, that's all I can add to the topic I'm afraid. I do my research and readings for work purposes, and can't be bothered to track down references for a game site. No one here has to believe a word I say I guess.
This is where understanding some science differs from reading popular articles.
(a) Will warming of the climate, for example, cause disruptions in the Gulf Stream and cool Europe? I have no idea. Maybe. Would that cause global cooling? No, only local cooling for northern Europe. So we need to maybe be careful not to be too quick about extrapolating local conditions to global ones.
(b) Do some contaminants become sequestered in sediments, etc., only to be potentially released later? Yes, absolutely. I've seen it. But that's not the same thing as (a); it's a separate topic that operates differently.
(c) Does fertilizer runoff lead to algal blooms? Yes, we've seen that, too, but it's not the same as (a) or (b), nor should we conflate them.
(d) Does acidification of coastal waters have a deleterious effect on coral reefs, potentially affecting their ability to sequester carbon? I don't doubt it. But most of that carbon then enters the atmosphere and acts like other carbon already in the atmosphere. Can that exacerbate item (a)? Quite possibly. Does it have anything at all to do with (b) or (c)? Not so much.
(e) Do any of the above change the fundamental properties of water? Well, in (c) we see changes in the redox potential and dissolved oxygen content, and in (d) the pH is changing -- but those aren't fundamental chemical properties of water. Granted, if you dissolve enough stuff in water, you can change its boiling/freezing point, so I'm not even saying that those properties can't be affected. But to the best of my knowledge and experience, the only way to make water lose its heat capacity is to get rid of it entirely. So, yeah, if the oceans somehow boiled off into space and were replaced by chemicals with a lower heat capacity, the oceans would not moderate climate anymore.
Please be aware that I'm quite willing to change my opinion on that, given enough evidence -- but also note that no one has provided anything remotely resembling evidence for this particular claim.
See, it's easy to read some articles and say "pollution bad!" and not really understand how (luckily, no one here is doing that). What some people are doing, though, is carefully reading and digesting popular science articles, but then getting hazy on some of the distinctions and differences. And that's totally understandable, if not ideal. But where we start to lose it is when people say stuff like, "Well, I'm not going to link any papers, because I don't have to back my claims, and I'm going to ignore any you link, because they're probably obsolete or wrong, and I'm not going to listen to what you have to say, because as a layperson I know better than a scientist -- if you even are one, nanny-nanny-boo-boo." At that point, we've left behind any sort of pretext towards objective discussion.
|
|
I see things like this in the news and wonder how anyone believes anything he or his ilk say.Yes, if you base your world view on propaganda then everything you say is completely logical. It's just that you are logically responding to a fantasy world.
I am glad we agree on something, though what that fantasy is may be different according to our point of view.
Is there some sort of change in the global environment? Why, yes, all the time!
Did man make it worse or can they make it better? Inconclusive and likely did not and can not.
So your point about mis-representations of the overall issue is my overall problem with how it is represented to the public in general. It is the alarmist slant Doom! and Gloom! predictions that the "layman" remembers, and it makes it even more unbelievable than it already would be.
I have said it before to others, Global Warming is Congress's new bogyman. When Socialists went from cloak and dagger to a political pun, their was a need to have them replaced as the crisis of the moment. No matter what we do, how expensive energy gets or how our resources change, this issue will always be there. The drums of Climate Change will continue to beat, telling us about the war on Oil and Coal.
I see things like this in the news and wonder how anyone believes anything he or his ilk say.Yes, if you base your world view on propaganda then everything you say is completely logical. It's just that you are logically responding to a fantasy world.I am glad we agree on something, though what that fantasy is may be different according to our point of view.
Is there some sort of change in the global environment? Why, yes, all the time!
Did man make it worse or can they make it better? Inconclusive and likely did not and can not.
I ask again: Do you disagree with the scientific understanding of greenhouse gasses and how they affect temperature?
Do you disagree with measurements showing the rise in carbon (one of those greenhouse gasses) in the atmosphere, roughly tracking the increase in human emissions?
I too wish a responce to this, as I have asked the question several times.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@thejeff - he's not going to answer, he isn't interested in the science involved in this topic. He's only concerned with what political people, like Al Gore, have said. He isn't interested in science, or history.
I am pretty sure he is either an example of Poe's Law in action, in the form of a really well studied Troll, or he genuinely has such poor understanding of the science involved that he doesn't accept the existance of the green house effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
. . . If he read my last post on the thread, he's probably just scared that Kirth will demonstrate a Practical Application!