Antarctica is melting

[chequita guevara]

My efforts alone are pointless, but if we all did the same, it would have an impact. If we all say, screw it, we're all in a lot of trouble.

[Japher]

My point; the comforts and benefits of modern day society are because of our polution. 3rd world countries are 3rd world inpart because of our demands that they not use banned pesticides nor participate in industries that we have since proven to be "bad".

However, it is because of said industries that alternatives have been derived that can afford the comforts without the consiquences.

Are these comforts worth the payment?

If that payment is an end to the world as we know it, than no

However, if we are not causing such problems would it not behoove us to figure out how to deal with the inevitable by any means necessary instead of trying to stop the inevitable?

I think doing nothing is the worst thing we can do,

but stopping our line of "progress" can be more detrimental than continuing it

[Japher]

blame blame blame

to continue your analogy, che

it is IMO that the one who may pay the biggest price is the one who doesn't bother to pull the trigger

like in the Deer Hunter the game is already in play, if you don't play you die, if you continue to play you might actually win

[Odin]

Originally posted by Berzerker

All interglacials end with higher temperatures, we're near that peak. And you're wrong, swings within the interglacial are not puny in comparison. Furthermore, the big news recently was that CO2 levels are higher now than they had been for 4-650,000 years depending on which report you want. Umm...CO2 levels were higher back then? I thought you said they had never been higher.

Actually, interglacials peak early, the current interglacial peaked 8,000 years ago, only 3,000 years after the interglacial began. You're thinking of interstadials, short warm periods in a glacial period that end in a abrupt cooling called a Heinrich event.

On CO2, 650,000 is the furthest back we have direct CO2 samples from bubbles in the glacial ice (as opposed to isotopic data), not the last time CO2 levels were this high. The last time CO2 levels were as high as they are now was before the current ice age began 3 million years ago. It is a proven fact that the current increase of CO2 is a result of human activity. People who deny that global warming is caused by human activity are in the same catagory as creationists as far as I'm concerned.

[Vince278]

Wouldn't it be hard to seperate out what was caused by man and what are natural variations?

[Berzerker]

Actually, interglacials peak early, the current interglacial peaked 8,000 years ago, only 3,000 years after the interglacial began. You're thinking of interstadials, short warm periods in a glacial period that end in a abrupt cooling called a Heinrich event.

If the peak was 8,000 years ago, what is your problem? Wouldn't that mean it was warmer then? And you/we dont know the peak yet because it hasn't been hit. And once the peak is hit and the cold snap returns, it can return very fast.

On CO2, 650,000 is the furthest back we have direct CO2 samples from bubbles in the glacial ice (as opposed to isotopic data), not the last time CO2 levels were this high. The last time CO2 levels were as high as they are now was before the current ice age began 3 million years ago. It is a proven fact that the current increase of CO2 is a result of human activity. People who deny that global warming is caused by human activity are in the same catagory as creationists as far as I'm concerned.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4467420.stm

The article says the core is nearly 900,000 years old

Now, you raise an interesting point. If CO2 levels were this high or even higher before the "Ice Age" began, is there evidence of doom and destruction from those higher levels? Seems to me ice ages aren't exactly desirable, so CO2 is 30% higher? How much higher does it need to be to keep us nice & toasty as opposed to freezing our butts off?

Btw, one article I was just reading argued the interglacial we are in might last another 15,000 years. Researchers say our interglacial resembles another long interglacial from 400,000 years ago - one that lasted 28,000 years. The Earth's orbit today closely matches the orbit during that time.

CO2 increases as temperatures increase, true? Does the CO2 increase lag behind the temperature increase? Kinda important if you want to argue that CO2 is the catalyst.

[Solly]

Originally posted by Agathon
Republicans in denial again?

My own view is that when they finally admit that global warming is a reality, we should find all the sophists who argued against it and dump them in the middle of the Sahara... or Florida... sucks either way.

Agreed. And we can dump those who supported the notion there too.

[Solly]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


How dumb is this?

If it's so ridiculous then why did you even bring up the possibility?

How much is significant? The object need only effect polar sea levels, not throw us into a "significantly" new orbit.

Wow. You obviously have no experience working with orbital mechanics.

You can not accurately predict the orbits of more than two planets.

[Solly]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I don't know that the changes we're effecting right now will be climactic (please pardon the pun). I doubt that any of the current best guesses as to sea levels or other such temperamental (there I go again) variables have much to do with reality as yet. I don't know (but highly doubt) that any reasonable limits we start putting on emissions will materially affect future climate change, given the huge mass of people in this world who are looking forward to a slightly less ****ty existence with far more anticipation than the fear they feel regarding greenhouse gases.

But I'm sick and tired of listening to scientific know-nothings deny the existence of a readily understood and empirically justified effect.

State the "climate change" hypothesis. Then it becomes Science. Then we can test it.

[Solly]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

How do you know that? A few volcanos going off over several years can certainly cause a similar increase in that "key element"

No, they can't. We're beyond that now. We're into uncharted territory, and we will not stop before we reach 1000 ppm. We will, at some point in the near future, become the single biggest determinant of the global climate.

We are not that important.

We are always in uncharted territory.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
Agreed. And we can dump those who supported the notion there too.

I'll take Florida.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Park Avenue


You can not accurately predict the orbits of more than two planets.

Yes you can.

[KrazyHorse]

Postulate: Spinkie does not understand the difference between the lack of an analytic solution and the lack of accurate predictions.

[Solly]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse




Yes you can.

You can not.

We now know that, except for special cases, the general motion of many (n) bodies interacting through gravity, the "n-body problem", is not integrable. A simpler task is to attempt to solve the three-body problem. At the end of the 19th century, the French mathematician Henri Poincaré tackled this problem in some depth. It is clear from his writings that he was aware of the unpredictability of some solutions of the equations of motion. He did not solve the three-body problem; in fact, he proved that a simple, general solution did not exist.

http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/solarsys.html

The reason we can predict the Solar System's planet's orbits quite well is because the Sun is so large. Were the Sun and planets of equal mass, it would be impossible.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Postulate: Spinkie does not understand the difference between the lack of an analytic solution and the lack of accurate predictions.