Quote from SamH :

A job is a job, and research grants pay for researchers' salaries. Nothing drives a person like the offer of a steady income.

being close to fininshing uni in an engineering disciplin i do know a few things about the job situation in both engineering and natural sciences and unemployment is not a worry you have to deal with in these fields (not atm anyway)

Quote :

And FTR they are in industry. Global warming research is a "hotbed" of industry.

even if its a hotbed research is done in universities where salaries are low and theres very few possibilities of getting promoted ... if they were in it solely for the money they certainly arent stupid enough to not get a job out in the industry which easily pays twice as much

Quote :

I'm just not ready to go "on faith" with what the scientists say yet.

science isnt faith based thats the entire point of it

Quote :

They've been wrong before. A lot.

name one of these instances then
i cant think of anything where a theory has been completely binned

Quote :

Heck, most religions started out as sciences. They offered rationalised explanations for things that couldn't be explained, and they gained followers that way.

theres a huge difference between rationalising and providing something that can be proven via experimentation

Quote :

It will have to be, since much of it is in direct conflict with other theories.. but all of it is proffered by qualified scientists, asserting that their research is valid.

while there are a few conflicting theories out there all of them work just fine as long as you keep them within their boundaries
dont mistake incompleteness for failure

@SamH's most recent point: But where are the rebuttals to the IPCC report from scientists that disagree with conclusions and statements within it? It appears to me that we have a scientific consensus on this topic. Am I mistaken?

Todd, I'm not drawing any conclusions. I'm not smart enough to understand all this stuff I'm just observing the dynamics from an almost purely sociological perspective (with a bit of theological postulation into the mix). I'm more interested in the political thermals of GW than I am with GW itself. I'm an agnostic, basically. Just because I reject religion, this does not necessarily make me an atheist.

Floating Ice, melted, actually lowers the water level, due to the mass disapating. CO2 Increases mean a hell of a lot of Plants, what needs to be changed?!

Quote from BlueFlame :

Floating Ice, melted, actually lowers the water level, due to the mass disapating.

Ummm, no. The water level will be exactly the same. The ice above water also melts usually...

Quote from BlueFlame :

Floating Ice, melted, actually lowers the water level, due to the mass disapating.

How's that? Firstly, mass doesn't change: density does, but that's semantics (in this case you're forgiven since I know what you mean but it's a pretty critical mistake). Secondly, water is at its greatest density at 4 degrees, yes. However a large amount of the ice mass is currently above the surface of the water: floating, as you put it. If it melts, my money is on the water level rising. Simple estimate of 1/3 of the ice being above the the actual water (though it's probably more) and a guess that ice will not change volume by as much as 33% when raised to 4degrees leads to a pretty safe bet.

Don't take my word for it, put two blocks of ice in a glass of water and record the water level before and after they have melted. I can't say I've tested it myself so I wait to be corrected if it's otherwise. This can be your first scientific experiment.

Quote :

CO2 Increases mean a hell of a lot of Plants, what needs to be changed?!

Where are these plants magically going to sprout up from when we keep chopping them down? Their evolution into plants that absorb more CO2 would take thousands of years, as will improvement in their reproductive system: their reproductive system cannot facilitate greater rates of reproduction all of a sudden because of an increase in CO2.

Quote from SamH :

Just because I reject religion, this does not necessarily make me an atheist.

That's an excellent point, and one that a lot of people don't get. After reading 'The God Delusion' I believe even Richard Dawkins has trouble with that distinction.

Quote from axus :

How's that? Firstly, mass doesn't change: density does, but that's semantics (in this case you're forgiven since I know what you mean but it's a pretty critical mistake). Secondly, water is at its greatest density at 4 degrees, yes. However a large amount of the ice mass is currently above the surface of the water: floating, as you put it. If it melts, my money is on the water level rising. Simple estimate of 1/3 of the ice being above the the actual water (though it's probably more) and a guess that ice will not change volume by as much as 33% when raised to 4degrees leads to a pretty safe bet.

Don't take my word for it, put two blocks of ice in a glass of water and record the water level before and after they have melted. I can't say I've tested it myself so I wait to be corrected if it's otherwise. This can be your first scientific experiment.



Where are these plants magically going to sprout up from when we keep chopping them down? Their evolution into plants that absorb more CO2 would take thousands of years, as will improvement in their reproductive system: their reproductive system cannot facilitate greater rates of reproduction all of a sudden because of an increase in CO2.

Put ice into your Water, or Jack and Coke, you will see, after the ice has melted, the level of contents actually drops.

What happens is the Ice has less water in it, than its actual mass, Ice is just O2 frozen with Water.

Regarding plants? ... The sea level rising (which won't happen) is going to change the fact there are Sea living plants and they will all die? are you for real?

Of course not, they are gonna stay, and eventually, some sea weed will make its way to land, and be able to live out of water, etc etc etc

Quote from BlueFlame :

Put ice into your Water, or Jack and Coke, you will see, after the ice has melted, the level of contents actually drops.

What happens is the Ice has less water in it, than its actual mass, Ice is just O2 frozen with Water.

Regarding plants? ... The sea level rising (which won't happen) is going to change the fact there are Sea living plants and they will all die? are you for real?

Of course not, they are gonna stay, and eventually, some sea weed will make its way to land, and be able to live out of water, etc etc etc

The seas level will definately rise, it already did because of GW and is measured very precisely.
Like you can see for example in the alps or himalaya not only the ice floating on the water melts + antarctica is a continent and most ice there is not floating on water. There is an ice shield several km thick which already starts thinning, first time in several hundred thousand of years.
And the sea level rising happens not only because of the amount of water added, the other factor is thermal expansion. Which is if we take the amount of water into account much bigger then most usually think. Didnt find the exact numbers right now in my notes but if you need them i will have a closer look on my desk.

Quote from Nobo :

The seas level will definately rise, it already did because of GW and is measured very precisely.
Like you can see for example in the alps or himalaya not only the ice floating on the water melts + antarctica is a continent and most ice there is not floating on water. There is an ice shield several km thick which already starts thinning, first time in several hundred thousand of years.
And the sea level rising happens not only because of the amount of water added, the other factor is thermal expansion. Which is if we take the amount of water into account much bigger then most usually think. Didnt find the exact numbers right now in my notes but if you need them i will have a closer look on my desk.

I understand 'Antartica in Particular is a solid Continent' but remember , in my opinion, there is no such thing as global warming, if the world becomes hotter, surely that will increase the scale and speed of Water Evapouration?

Evaporation is just a buffer and the amount of water that possible evporates is limited.
I know you dont believe on global warming, but there are enough measurements that already show GW is happening. I know its easier to close the eyes and dont be affected by the problems which our planet has and live on the cost of the poor, our children and following generation. Thats the easy way (After me the sense flood).
There are by far a lot more environmental problems which our earth has, i know you will hide your eyes by all this problems, too. (A good report http://www.na.unep.net/OnePlanetManyPeople/index.php2005)
For Example:
Ressource question, energy question, biodeversity, forrests, soils, smog, ozone hole,
Aerosols and pollutants...

Temperature increase is just one thing caused by humans, its happening, its measured and first effects already happening, people dieing. We should start to take measures to slow it down. Here is a chart which shows effects of GW, we are already completely in the first step. Even if there would be a 1 % chance GW is not happening. I wouldnt risk the consequences.

For scientists sth like a wonderland, they see things happen they prognosed 20 years ago.

Your trying to make out, like i am Selfish in the way i believe, its the opposite, if climate change is going to happen, it needs to happen as FAST as possible, so the World can get used to it, your going to postpone it, probobly make it WORSE, for people 10 generations away, now THAT is selfishness, your not supposed to change the world like that, just leave it, it will change into something you have never even thought of before, which will be? oh yea, the world it is today.

Try to work out your countries from list, problem is they don't release this kind of stats anymore, maybe because then it would be difficult to get more taxes from our arse. Suomi = Finland for example, UK = Iso Britannia, Ranska = France and Saksa = Deutchland, top of list is Venäjä = Russia.

From that Finland's share traffic is something around 11-13%, now if we would loose all cars how much that would effect to global warming?

Now I might be bit selfish here indeed, but I certainly don't understand why I have to pay more taxes if I drive a car that produces 250 instead of 200 of CO2, when it really does not mean much at all, I can fart few times to cover difference.

I'm sure all in with that long term consuming and less use once and throw away, but this CO2 stuff has really gone too far here.

Now put China, Africa and India to that map for example, how about rest of middle east and USA?

1990 was quite warm winter here, so that level is quite hard to achieve if we get cold winter, heating our homes is biggest share for sure, but what you can do it? making better houses, not these modern use and throw it away cheap boxes they make today is perhaps easiest way, but still it does not make lot of difference at all.

I would say that, reducing CO2 amount so that it matters is not possible for us, only thing it does is that it makes life expensive and difficult. So I don't see it meaning much if I'm bit selfish and don't do much for it, at least not in way government wants me to do.

If we get a fast change the biodiversit of the planet will decrease by a huge amount. We know that from earth history, fast changes always resulted in mass die of species (not only speaking of climate changes). If we had slow changes the number of species, stayed constant or just decreased by a bit.

+ if we slow down the process, that will also lead that the maximum global warming will decrease.



This graph is showing the diversity of marine species since paleozoic. There we have "the big 5" events and some minor events, where we always had rapid changes in climate and living conditions. If we had slow changes the effects werent that big.

I could be rather relaxed sitting in an industrial country which will not have the biggest effects of global warming. But i think thats selfish. because the most affected are the poor of the poorest by harvest failure, droughts and diseases. The forgotten continent Africa, South America, Asia...
Already today I would love the 10.000 hunger death a day because of the agricultural war between industrial countries would get the same publicty as those dieing by terror, but thats another topic.
But i also understand people wont change their living behaviour on their own if they dont have an incentive to change it which can only be made by governments, since money rules the world and the industry wants us to consume a lot to earn a lot of money.

Actually I don't wish that hunger deaths would be solved, of course it is not nice and social thing to say, but planet has too many people already, all those food help etc. are really making bad things only, in bigger scale.

Certainly I don't understand why some are trying to prevent deaths in areas where living is quite impossible at best, it is like trying to put out fire with gasoline, add more food help and more problems will come in future, you can perhaps help this generation and give them life which is struggling with hunger and seeing how friends die diseases, next generations will be just in deeper trouble, maybe hunger in some other parts of world etc.

Doing bad in good, that is, imo.

Quote from JTbo :

Actually I don't wish that hunger deaths would be solved, of course it is not nice and social thing to say, but planet has too many people already, all those food help etc. are really making bad things only, in bigger scale.

Certainly I don't understand why some are trying to prevent deaths in areas where living is quite impossible at best, it is like trying to put out fire with gasoline, add more food help and more problems will come in future, you can perhaps help this generation and give them life which is struggling with hunger and seeing how friends die diseases, next generations will be just in deeper trouble, maybe hunger in some other parts of world etc.

Doing bad in good, that is, imo.

OTT Off Topic!

I agree with it, Africa has its own revenues, sure, us 'whiteys' have stolen in the past, but not anymore, i think Africa as a continent are pretty imoral people, and thats nothing to do with what education they have, they just can't seem to run countries, CMON, its 2007!

PS: You can state that the country is Economically behind ALL you want. Just look how much eastern European countries have come along!? If Africa can compete in World Cup football, and Intertional Athletics, why can't they keep a country steady? I really don't understand, obviously to get Sports talents on the game, you NEED a good government, i just don't get it dunno

Quote from BlueFlame :

<Idiotic rant>

Yay racism! Can't you just go away or something?

Quote from wien :

Yay racism! Can't you just go away or something?

How was that racism? There are white people that live in Africa too?

Hmm, whos the uneducated one. Whos the 'omg i have to be PC' one?

The word 'black' was never mentioned, so just vær så snill å hold kjeften din

Quote from BlueFlame :

How was that racism? There are white people that live in Africa too?

I really don't care what the hell it is. Grouping an entire continent of people together and calling them all "imoral" [sic] doesn't sit well with me. And that has absolutely nothing to do with being "PC".

EDIT: Nice touch with the Norwegian though.

Quote from wien :

I really don't care what the hell it is. Grouping an entire continent of people together and calling them all "imoral" [sic] doesn't sit well with me. And that has absolutely nothing to do with being "PC".

EDIT: Nice touch with the Norwegian though.

Well, if i said Europe deserved to burn , that would make me racist too? No... it wouldn't. It either IS or it Isn't, thats the beauty with Political Correctness, including GW

Well, i can speak quite alot of Norwegian, its my future home it has been in my 'dream' for some time now.

Maybe i am Racist in terms of the Dislikes of peoples values, but not Racist on the subtle DIFFERENCES E.I SKIN COLOUR!

Quote from BlueFlame :

Maybe i am Racist in terms of the Dislikes of peoples values, but not Racist on the subtle DIFFERENCES E.I SKIN COLOUR!

Ah, so you have other reasons for saying Africans are immoral people? Thank god it wasn't about skin colour! Whew, had me going there for a minute! :rolleyes: The point is you clearly imbue certain negative traits onto a group of people based their geological origin. That might not make you a racist in the strict sense of the word, but it does make you a right prick, which was the extent of my point...

Quote from BlueFlame :

OTT Off Topic!
I agree with it, Africa has its own revenues, sure, us 'whiteys' have stolen in the past, but not anymore, i think Africa as a continent are pretty imoral people, and thats nothing to do with what education they have, they just can't seem to run countries, CMON, its 2007!

I thought your ignorance on the subject of global warming was breathtaking, but this reaches a new low.

Quote from JTbo :

Actually I don't wish that hunger deaths would be solved, of course it is not nice and social thing to say, but planet has too many people already, all those food help etc. are really making bad things only, in bigger scale.

Certainly I don't understand why some are trying to prevent deaths in areas where living is quite impossible at best, it is like trying to put out fire with gasoline, add more food help and more problems will come in future, you can perhaps help this generation and give them life which is struggling with hunger and seeing how friends die diseases, next generations will be just in deeper trouble, maybe hunger in some other parts of world etc.

Doing bad in good, that is, imo.

you do realize that a lion share of africas agricultural and politcal problems are a direct result of european stupidity during colinization dont you ?

The African countries seem to take alot of Arms from other countries, but rarely do they use them for self-defense, NO, they start wars. Rarely does the money sent to these Countries ever get to the citizens of THOSE countries. If a Black guy doesn't care about his own Black people dying, and fighting each other, that doesn't give me a good view on African Blacks in ANY way.

Just because its a bit risqué, people aren't going to mention stuff like this, and it makes me sick, freedom of speech, that freedom, is to say what ever you want, in the phrase alone, does it mention your not supposed to upset of offend anybody? No. It does neither say people are supposed to Agree either.

I've begun to tolerate Ethnic Minorities (before anyone asks) Why can't i say i don't like African Blacks, without being racist to ALL blacks, ALL over the world. PC isn't specific enough, to bypass but there are so many Grey areas, why do people follow the other White Wooled Animals.

Quote from BlueFlame :

Why can't i say i don't like African Blacks,

Feel free, but don't expect me to shut up and like it. The problem I have with you not liking Africans is that since you obviously haven't met them all, you're using some stereotype you've developed and applying those traits to an entire group of people. Personally I like to withhold judgment until I've met someone.