Forums | MacLife

For some reason, I feel compelled to address the most ridiculous of these claims.

- Re: ocean levels rising.  The oceans comprise approximately 989,000,000 km^3 of volume.

Let's assume that every ship on earth contains a sub-surface volume that is 100x100x20'.  This, of course, is only average, things like subs and aircraft carriers will tend to be balanced out by dinghys and kayaks.

This amounts to each ship encompassing 2.22x10^-5 km^3, sub surface.
Furthermore, let us assume we have seen a 1% rise in the oceans.
To account for this, we would need to put 4.45x10^11 boats into the ocean.
This is about 68 boats for every person on earth.

- Re: Solar Cycles.  Sorry people already tried that.  The articles are posted in MiniThink.  Oddly enough, places like Mars and Jupiter are going through cooling cycles despite increased solar radiation.  My what a funny universe!

- Re: The "X-files" attitude about alternate theories.  I went to school in probably the town with the most hippy douchebags per square kilometer in the US: Berkeley.  Yet, while I was there, we still examined alternate theories for global warming: we discussed urban warming, desertification of forests, and examined atmospheric and spatial reasons.  We also assigned numbers to these studies: we CALCULATED exactly how much heat is given off by the city of New York, or how much extra heat is contributed to the system when you cut down several million square kilometers of rain forest.  All of it pales in comparison to atmospheric effects, principally related to carbon emissions.

Why is this?  Because rainforests, as beautiful and wonderful as they are, still only represent a small fraction of the total surface area of Earth.  Atmospheric considerations take place over a far larger area and heating is magnified because IR light bounces off the atmosphere many times before finally escaping, making it the most dramatic effect (IR light is frequently retrappd 5-6 times before finally escaping).

The other thing that most people don't realize is that the Earth has a large capacity to absorb carbon dioxide.  The oceans are capable of hydrolising CO2 as carbonate ions, and removing a large portion of it from the atmosphere.  In environmental sciences this is referred to as the 'carbon sink'.  Nobody knows exactly how much carbon the oceans can hold, but based on current estimates of exactly how big it is, we could probably have burned many, many more rainforests down and done OK if we'd stayed away from coal, oils, and other long hydrocarbons.

If displacement makes a difference of 20 cm out of a 10m rise then every person in the world has 2 of my boats floating around for them.

A 10 degree C increase in the temperature of water results in a change of about 0.3% in the density of water.  The oceans haven't even close to risen 10C.  The specific heat of water is so high that ocean temperature has yet to really change.

We calculated the change in albedo due to the earth's temperature.  It would actually be helpful if people had shiney, reflective roofs instead of dull black ones.  However, metal, which is shiney, increases reflection of IR radiation and cools the earth.  However, albedo change is a big problem: as ice melts, the earth is less 'shiney' and retains more heat.

Well that's a good example. Shiny stuff makes a difference. My entire argument is that the theory of global warming is blaming it on CO2 emissions when other little things can stack up both ways and it's the little things that can make a difference.

What does 1% rise represent? As the oceans are rather deep, is a 1% rise 1km or 10mm?

Global warming is actually going to be a very good thing for Australia. We don't have enough water. When water levels rise enough to flood the interior (which is well below sea level for the most part) we should see a lot better rain falls on the East coast.

reece_james wrote:

I totally agree you can't take sides in science. However there is good science and there is bad science. Homeopathy is a great example. The memory of water was peer reviewed and was published. It was later revisited and then found to be wrong. Dolphins have big brains and therefore they are smart. A good recent example of peer reviewed research gone awry.Just cause it is peer reviewed doesn't mean that it is correct.

Here are 2 recent examples of scientific smurf. Global warming could be another.

Looking at alternative theories (and studies and peer reviewed papers) such as vegetation density affecting global temperature and global inversion, there is not enough evidence to say what is causing the warming and the CO2 scapegoat is getting old real fast.

The Benveniste paper wasn't a smurf. It was planned.

His Benveniste's paper (dated 30 June 1988) Note the "reservation".

and the independent followup report (dated 28 July 1988).

As for the dolphin bit, perhaps you'd be so kind as to provide a cite.