Such a calculation would not fit on the back of an envelope, contains many unknowns, and would end up too involved for the average person reading a forum. I have alluded to this many times already and included a basic diagram of the carbon cycle once already. I also disagree that it makes the figures meaningless, I was actually surprised when I first saw the result. It gave me a better understanding of how tenuous the atmosphere is compared to the processes that occur on the earth.
94% of Greenland has melted
- Thread starter Lysander
- Start date
I don't need to see a diagagram, the diagram is irrelevant. You also don't need to do the maths, you can simply look on wiki for some ball park figures. Just like you did for usage and weights.
It's like saying a petrol tanker holds 10000 gallons and my car does 32mpg. So what does that mean? Nothing, you need to include the relation between the two numbers, you simply haven't done that.
Your missing the important steps and as you haven't included those steps, your calculation adds no weight to your conclusion.
How can you tell that? Would you still think that if the natural co2 production was a million times more than man made. Would you still think that if as well as naturall being a million times more, the natural carbon sinks had a direct correlation with co2 emissions?
See my point, those figures again mean nothing, that's was my issue.
Not that I don't think human co2 emissions have an effect or anything else you've tried to deflect with, which has no basis on the original calculation.
It's like saying a petrol tanker holds 10000 gallons and my car does 32mpg. So what does that mean? Nothing, you need to include the relation between the two numbers, you simply haven't done that.
Your missing the important steps and as you haven't included those steps, your calculation adds no weight to your conclusion.
How can you tell that? Would you still think that if the natural co2 production was a million times more than man made. Would you still think that if as well as naturall being a million times more, the natural carbon sinks had a direct correlation with co2 emissions?
See my point, those figures again mean nothing, that's was my issue.
Not that I don't think human co2 emissions have an effect or anything else you've tried to deflect with, which has no basis on the original calculation.
Last edited:
I don't understand why some people insist on arguing for climate change. As someone has already said, its naive and dangerous to assume that what is happening isn't totally natural and humans have little to no effect on it.
Soldato
You're corrupting the debate there - please don't be foolish.
Climate change is natural, however, evidence broadly suggests that human input is accelerating the rate of it.
Such large scale melt has not been seen in hundreds of years.
you do realise that the mass of ice is forcing the sea levels up, so when it melts it stays pretty much the same level right?
I mean, I have never left ice to melt in a glass and come back to find the glass has overflowed
Not when hat ice Sit on land like Greenland
But thats the entire point i was making, the "evidence suggests". To take this as proof and ignore any other possibilities is stupid hence my reversal of the post made by Mat.
The problem people who insist that climate change is man made / assisted is that they are basing there opinion on evidence collected in the last 50-100 years. This evidence only accounts for about 0.00000022% of the climate history of the earth.
In any other field if you were to take such a small population of data and claim the results as fact you would be laughed at.
Caporegime
I think that its Muslims causing global warming and i think they should be sent back to Eastern Europe were they come from. Fact.
I also dont need to see limited research data. I think It common sense to understand that by releasing CO2 on the levels we have been doing for 150 + years the atmosphere would have a hiccup to deal with it and its only the crap parts of the world that get flooded anyway, mostly where the Muslims live anyway.
I also dont need to see limited research data. I think It common sense to understand that by releasing CO2 on the levels we have been doing for 150 + years the atmosphere would have a hiccup to deal with it and its only the crap parts of the world that get flooded anyway, mostly where the Muslims live anyway.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
So hundreds of years ago, when it last happened. What caused it then?
Caporegime
Just to point out that the GISP2 Core Ice Core data shows that this kind of rapid melting happens on a cyclical basis every 150 years or so, the last one happening in 1889....no-one understands why and the furore is a little premature. After a few people pointed this out they altered the "unprecedented" to "unprecedented in the Satellite Era"......
Lora Koenig a NASA Goddard Institude Glaciolgist stated in the NASA release:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/266/5191/1680.abstract?sid=05247132-40d2-46d3-b47a-3d18efad95b3
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/25/unprecedented-greenland-surface-melt-every-150-years/
So the truth seems somewhat different than the headline....
Associate
- Joined
- 10 May 2012
- Posts
- 1,768
that info cheer me up.
123 is not 150 though?
123 is not 150 though?