DouglasChick00's Blog

Whether global warming is "real" or not (hint, it's real, and the spikes in temperature and CO2 levels since the industrial revolution are, to say the least, suspicious) I can't possibly see why reducing our dependence on virutally non-renewable natural resources could possibly be construed as a bad thing.

Sorry, but the latest 'scientific' report came out last week, I believe, and they, the knowledgeable ones, have said the ice is ticker than it's been in decades; more ice, colder temps than in the last 100 years; so cold that it "negates any planetary warming", which NASA has now admitted was "extremely flawed".
So relaxed, the ice isn't melted; the polar bears are fine, and in fact, reports state a HUGE growth in population (wonder if they'll have to cull them?)
And no, I don't believe in Al Gore's financial graining theory/hoax. Guess time will tell, huh.

Sorry Chardoney,

Polar bears:

Only two studied populations of polar bears have seen increased growth, both in NE Canada where their numbers were severely reduced by hunting, and now are under government protection. The best studied groups of polar bears are still experiencing population reduction, here's a comprehensive review by the fish and wildlife department that goes into detail.

http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/pdf/Polar
_Bear_%20Status_Assessment.pdf

Cold temps in the last 100 years:

The most recent report by NASA indicates that temperatures *last* year were down due to reduced solar activity, but a one year cooling in temperatures doesn't negate a 100 year rise. If it continues for five or ten years, *maybe* we can use that as an indicator. Incidentally, the article that's been making the rounds from Dailytech is pretty horrible from a scientific standpoint, and isn't exactly unbiased.

In any case, here's a link to that article:

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Wo
rldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

and here's a link to 2007 data with no editorializing from NASA:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

There's a pretty clear disconnect there.

As far as ice caps and shelves go...they're shrinking, and I can't find anyone but the most tinfoil hat wearing Anti-Gore freakshows on the Internet that actually claim otherwise, though since crackpots are kind of a hobby of mine I'd dearly love to...

Half of the mass of the north pole is gone. That's proven.

DC - I don't know the data, so I am sure you are right...

Still - the existence of the human race is certainly not dependent on the mass of the north pole.

The fact is - we are using data that we have obtained in a VERY minuscule time period taking into consideration the total time since the creation of Earth. Who is to say the mass of the North Pole doesn't "vanish" every 1,500 years? No one.

Infectious sense, you're assuming that 100 years or so of data is all we have, without thinking about ice core samples, evidence in ancient (both living and fossilized) trees and plants, oceanic data, the geological record, etc. This kind of science doesn't take place in a vacuum, it requires a lot of specialized knowledge in varying fields.

Also, your idea that displacement caused by ships on the ocean could cause rising sea levels is laughable at best, I can show you the math if you really want.

You can find someone, somewhere, who will attempt to disprove anything. This is why consensus and peer review is so necessary in science, and, surprise surprise, why there is still *DEBATE* on what is causing global warming. I would also like to see your evidence on carbon dating being "totally wrong".

On with the displacement issue:

The total surface area of the earth is covered by 70.8% water, or roughly 361,000,000 square kilometers give or take. Now, if you want to lower the sea level by one millimeter, you'd need to remove 361,000,000,000 cubic meters of water, which is the equivalent of 95,366,110,900,000 gallons of water, or 762,928,887,200,000 pounds, or 340,593,253,214 tons.

Now, the combined weight of all of the supertankers in the world is around 145,000,000 tons. The combined Merchant tonnage is an additional 700,000,000 tons. For the sake of argument, let's go ahead and assume that in the history of mankind we've tripled that number (which we haven't, by the way, but I'm being extremely generous here) in the form of old battleships, Spanish galleons, offshore oil platforms and whatnot. That would give us 2,535,000,000 tons of displacement (I'm also sure I don't have to tell you that a ship doesn't displace 100% of its tonnage since a good portion of it still remains above water, but again I'm going to be *extremely* generous in my calculations).

So now we have 340,593,253,214 tons of water, displaced by 2,535,000,000 tons of metal, which is .7% of what we'd need to raise the sea level by *one millimeter*, much less the "few inches over the dec

Ok - I don't have time to do the calcs right now - I started to, but got busy at work - and now I am off to bed....

However, water displacement - if you are talking about regular water density - is pound for pound. 1 pound of ANY substance displaces 1 pound of water. So - how one amount of water is displaced by another amount of metal I have no idea - unless you are using some kind of tonnage calcs on there - but I will come back and add it up - because like I said - I didn't do the math, didn't worry about it - and have always asked.

That does NOT mean that my question is "laughable" - it is a question. And - while I am interested in the mathematics of it - it will NOT convince me that global warming is a reality NOR will it convince me that our scientists know the full cyclic history of our climate by taking chemistry "snapshots" from selected specimens. Science doesn't work that way - it is observed over time.... And FROM those observations over time, theories are developed - NOT "facts". Snapshots themselves provide static facts - theories are speculations using those snapshot facts to form a picture. But - using minuscule amounts (the "1% of data") doesn't hold "water" (hardy har), in my opinion, to accurately create ANY theory.

Again - this is a blog of opinions - except for the math. Which I WILL do later - because it intrigues me. Not because it changes or will change my opinion. Thank you for the info, though.

Sorry Infectious Sense, but that website is one that has a vested interest in "proving" carbon dating wrong, without regard for the scientific method. I would no more trust creationists about the controversy of carbon dating than I would a tenured math professor on fashion sense.

Also, you are confusing theories with hypotheses, a common mistake but one that inevitably leads to confusion. I also don't understand what you mean by "chemistry snapshots from selected specimens", there is a lot more to it than that, like I said regarding the geological record etc.

Also, "regular water density" can be a tricky subject (seawater weighing more than fresh water), so I used 8.3 pounds per gallon of seawater, also if you'll note I converted water poundage to tons.

You're right, FF - it was a biased website - sorry, I was tired and picked the first one that came up in the search. Blame google. The info that I have in my head was placed there by the National Geographic channel.

And - after waking up, I am just not interested enough to get into this - you will not hear me. First - hypothesis is considered a synonym for theory - I am not confusing them:

hy·poth·e·sis - 1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
theory - 1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

So - rather than go back and forth with science, websites, yadda yadda - you have one opinion, I have another. I will explain the core basis of mine with a simple example: (con't)