A Question About Global Warming and Melting Ice caps

[TotallyFake]

CO2 is also necessary for us to survive. With no CO2, we would suffocvate, as the body gauges respiration by CO2 levels rather than oxygen levels. Also, as you said, too much CO2 would also cause problems.

We would not suffocate. How the hell could we suffocate when we're surrounded by oxygen?
Yes, you're correct in that the body's main measure of respiration is CO2 levels, but taking away the ability to measure breathing needs doesn't just STOP you breathing. You can hook someone up to a box of air through a calcium carbonate filter (to remove the CO2) and they'll breath perfectly normally. Once all the oxygen in the box is used up they'll pass out, but they won't feel a thing.

 

[Lemeza]

*cough* *cough* [http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php]
The links to a guide called 'How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic'. I think you guys should read it.

 

[Skeleon]

Incidentally, why does everyone focus on CO2 as a greenhouse gas so much? It's not as efficient as, say, methane or water vapour (though water vapour also creates clouds, which help counter warming a bit) for the trapping of heat?

Because neither of these have changed as much as the CO2-levels over the last decades.
There are scientists, by the way, that look into the effects methane. Especially because there is a vast amount of it stored in Antarctica's ice, that is slowly being released as it melts.

 

[Pingieking]

CO2 kills us (heard of CO2 poisoning before?), so it's not exactly good for us. Also, it's kind of hard to argue against thousands of different data sets pointing to the same conclusion (that CO2 causes temperature increases).

CO2 is also necessary for us to survive. With no CO2, we would suffocvate, as the body gauges respiration by CO2 levels rather than oxygen levels. Also, as you said, too much CO2 would also cause problems.

Incidentally, why does everyone focus on CO2 as a greenhouse gas so much? It's not as efficient as, say, methane or water vapour (though water vapour also creates clouds, which help counter warming a bit) for the trapping of heat?

The thing is, we don't (speaking as a physicist), people not involved in the research do. We care about the permafrost and methane, not so much CO2. Water vapor has very little net effect for the trapping of heat. Rising seawater is a problem for engineers and politicians, CO2 is a problem for the industry and politicians, and the most important climate researches usually focus on methane.

One of my friend who's in atmospheric physics showed me a hilarious video of a bunch of Russians standing by a lake in Siberia where the permafrost is melting. They talk for a bit, and one of the guy takes a lighter and LIGHTS THE FUCKING LAKE ON FIRE! The melting permafrost had released massive amounts of methane, which is coating the surface of the lake. It was an awesome video. The only way a burning lake could be more awesome is if it had tits.

 

[Stephanos132]

CO2 is also necessary for us to survive. With no CO2, we would suffocvate, as the body gauges respiration by CO2 levels rather than oxygen levels. Also, as you said, too much CO2 would also cause problems.

We would not suffocate. How the hell could we suffocate when we're surrounded by oxygen?
Yes, you're correct in that the body's main measure of respiration is CO2 levels, but taking away the ability to measure breathing needs doesn't just STOP you breathing. You can hook someone up to a box of air through a calcium carbonate filter (to remove the CO2) and they'll breath perfectly normally. Once all the oxygen in the box is used up they'll pass out, but they won't feel a thing.

Well, that sure learned me. I admit my knowledge on that was sketchy at best, so the enlightenment is appreciated.

 

[Epifols]

The global warming theory is based almost entirely on statistics. And if you believe every statistic you are presented with, you are a complete tool.

Umm... really? Because the last time I checked, both statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics (quantum if heavily based in stats) both worked 100% of the time. And global warming is not completely based upon stats, it's actually mostly based upon thermodynamics.

Those are mathematical applications of stats, not really the same thing they put up on the news. I meant more the kind of stuff that goes along with improperly labeled graphs and implication of causation when there is none.

"50% of people that eat bread score bellow average on standardized testing"

Al Gore's stuff is a bit more complex than that, but its still there. Like when he says that lines for CO2 and temperature go hand in hand, except he leaves out the fact that the temperatures rose 500 years before CO2. That movie/book is just awful.

 

[NeutralDrow]

It looks like most of the points I'd want to make (ice masses on land, desalinization of the ocean, rapid pace at which the Earth is warming, data pointing towards it) has already been made, and subsequently ignored. I don't think I'll bother, in that case.

On the other hand, I notice no one's mentioning sulfer dioxide or methane. Look people, just because CO2 is easier to say...

 

[kannibus]

Not to mention that it might help deal with any freshwater shortages... take THAT enviromentalists!

Besides if Global Warming results in a -20C winter where there was once a -40C winter, you'll forgive me if I don't trade in my SUV (which I don't own).

 

[TotallyFake]

if i ever came into power i would just get a hell of alot of fridge/freezers and place them up there but leave the door open to let the coldness out to add to the already cold air up there to make it extra cold so ice caps don't melt XD

Thus neatly snapping the first two laws of thermodynamics over your knee.

 

[Daveman]

snip

yep your science is good (except it actually doesn't displace any more water melted or frozen because it displaces the same mass of water which is the same volume of water it would normally occupy i thinks ), unfortunately it's continental ice we're worrying about here, the stuff isn't floating, it's on land, therefore sea levels rise.when it melts and runs into the sea.

my understanding at least

 

[TotallyFake]

if i ever came into power i would just get a hell of alot of fridge/freezers and place them up there but leave the door open to let the coldness out to add to the already cold air up there to make it extra cold so ice caps don't melt XD

Thus neatly snapping the first two laws of thermodynamics over your knee.

A) my theory will work just you watch LOL! XD
B) what on earth is thermodynamics?

May I refer you to my earlier post on "This is GCSE level science"?

The actual laws are pretty nutty, in plain English:
1st Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed
2nd Law of Thermodynamics: Moving energy from one place to another requires a net increase of energy.

Stick your hand round the back of a fridge/freezer. It's bloody hot. Similarly, air-con units belch out one pipe of cold air, one pipe of really hot air. Having both pipes going to the same place just heats it up, won't cool it down.

 

[Pingieking]

The funny thing about this is that global warming doesn't even need greenhouse gases (though it is the main contributor). Mass-Energy conversion can cause global warming on its own. THAT'S RIGHT, E=MC^2 WILL KILL US ALL! And yes, that was sarcasm.

Lets do a quick thought experiment. Assume that the greenhouses gas levels stay constant for the next 500 years, while the power production levels increase linearly using non-renewable energy sources (Fission, a coal/oil power plant that recaptures all its emissions, a possible fusion power plant, etc...). Also assume that the amount of energy entering and leaving the Earth's atmosphere stays zero (a solid assumption, since if it's not zero then the Earth would have either completely boiled away or reached 0 degrees Kelvin, which we all know from thermodynamics is impossible).

Now, mass is converted to energy through the power plants and the energy used in our electronics. When the energy is used, it emits a portion of it as heat, thus putting more heat into the atmosphere. The Earth thus will warm up due to the fact that the energy flux of the atmosphere is a zero, so that extra heat generated by the power plants cannot escape into space. There you have global warming. Funny result isn't it?

The way to prevent this is quite simple; use power plants that don't involve mass-energy conversion. Hydro, wind, and solar are all good choices (photons are mass-less, so solar works).

EDIT: I originally wrote the flux should be a constant, it's actually zero. Zero is a constant, but any other constant would still be shitting for the Earth, so zero is necessary. The current global warming is caused by humans changing the value of that flux to something non-zero, thereby taking the Earth out of thermo-equilibrium.

 

[Quick Ben]

The main problem is that if the North Pole melts, it will be only sea water there instead. The water will reflect less sunlight than the ice and snow, which will lead to a rise in global temperature.

That will make ice supported by landmasses melt, like Antarctica and glaciers, which will make the sea levels rise substantially.

 

[LewsTherin]

I assume most of you live in coastal-ish cities, so you should exactly take this issue too lightly.

 

[Ashtovo]

water expands a little but then begins to shrink again when it cools.