That climate change (Global Warming) is overrated.

[ninja_lord666]

ok, now thing expanding as temperature rises IS a law of nature.

Gases 'expand', but not liquids or solids, and it's not because of the temperature, it's because of the energy. When you heat gases, the molecules become more energized and fly around faster, thus, if inside of an enclosed space, will seem to be expanding as the molecules smash into the sides. Liquids and solids don't work that way. The extent of molecular movement in solids is a very, very, very slight vibration. If energized more, solids will vibrate a little more. The movement of molecules in liquids is a sloshing thing with the molecules sliding around, over, and under other molecules. If energized, liquids will do the same thing but faster.

There is no way to expand a liquid. Period.

 

and it would take about 10.000 years of co2 release to rise earth's temerature 10 degrees centigrade.

And where did you read this? I'm sure you're just pulling those numbers out of your ass. If you did find them somewhere, they pulled the numbers out of their asses.

[Marxist ßastard]

Ninja, stop. You are not Peregrine. Stop trying to be Peregrine. Everything you've said regarding density, temperature, and pressure is wrong. Much of what you've said in the evolution thread also has an obvious disconnect with reality.

 

As much as I disagreed with Peregrine sometimes, I respect him in that he knew the science, and never misrepresented it to support his side of an argument. He could (and, in fact, did) argue with some degree of scientific accuracy that the Sun revolves around the Earth. You, however, aren't even keeping the most basic theories straight. Do you know why? Peregrine was an aeronautical engineer. You are not. From what you've demonstrated here, you never can be.

 

Peregrine was obstinate and trollish. If you take his intelligence away --- as you have in your crude imitation of him --- you get someone who is just pigheaded and annoying. With that said, let's work through your backlog here, shall we?

 

You know, I've boiled a lot of water, and I've never seen it expand as the temperature rises. There's some first hand empirical evidence.

...Which is less than worthless in science.

 

Temperature doesn't change density...

Yes, it does. Solids, liquids, and gases all expand or contract in response to heat changes in temperature. Since the mass stays the same, that constitutes a change in density.

 

...now pressure on the other hand, that'll change the density.

Density only changes appreciably in response to pressure in gases. Water is particularly resistant to pressure, and is in fact one of relatively few substances that will be a liquid as opposed to a solid at extreme pressures --- this is how hydraulic lifts work. The volume of the water changes so astoundingly little when pressure is applied to it that one can press down on one end of a water-filled tube, and have the other end rise by the same amount.

 

Water covers about 75% of Earth's surface area.

Earth's surface area: 510,065,600 km²

Area*.75

> 382,549,200 km²

1 mile = 1.609344 km

> 237,705,052 mi²

1 mile = 1760 yds

> 148,360,891,520 yds²

Area*7yds

> 2,928,526,240,640 yds³

1 yard = 36 inches

> 105,426,944,663,040 in³

1 in³ = 2.54³ cm³

> 1,727,638,089,517,695 cm³

1 cm³ = 1 mL

> 1,727,638,089,517,695 mL

1 kL = 1,000,000 mL

> 1,727,638,090 kL

Square-cube. I'll take your number for the surface area of the oceans as-is, assume minimal change as the sea level rises (so that I can avoid a really nasty integral and do all this in Google calculator), and add in that the total volume of Earth's oceans is about 1.3 billion cubic kilometers:

 

75% of 510065600 square kilometers * 7 yards = 2.44862092 × 10^15 m^3

2.44862092 × 10^15 m^3 / 1.3 billion cubic kilometers in percent = 0.188355455 percent

 

Thus, it would take a change of less than one-fifth of one percent in the oceans' volume to effect a sea level rise of seven yards. For comparison, if your pot had six inches of water in it, it would rise perhaps one-third the width of an average human hair in response to the same temperature change that would cause the sea level to rise by the amount n00biepl0x is talking about.

[Duskrider]

Dear god... this is just painful to read. Risking a little necromancy here, but I think this qualifies under the "adds constructive material to the thread", and some misconceptions here really need to be corrected.

 

*dusts off thermodynamics textbooks*

 

Gases 'expand', but not liquids or solids, and it's not because of the temperature, it's because of the energy.

 

 

This is completely wrong. Gases can expand for various reasons, temperature is just one of them. Gases are governed (within a reasonable approximation) by the ideal gas law: pressure * volume = gas constant * moles of gas * temperature. If temperature increases, volume increases. If volume is held constant (due to a fixed container), pressure will increase instead. To give an obvious example, your car's engine depends on this fact.... you burn fuel, increasing temperature. To keep a constant pressure, the gas has to expand, driving the cylinders up and producing work. If temperature increases didn't cause a gas to expand, you'd be walking everywhere.

 

By the way, non-ideal gases follow a similar principle, it just isn't a perfectly linear relationship, the basic point of increasing temperature = increasing volume is still true. You just have to include an extra factor accounting for this (or in the practical real world, you look it up on a table).

 

And your attempt to draw a line between temperature and energy is completely wrong as well. "Temperature" is just a measure of the average kinetic energy of the atoms/molecules of a substance.

 

When you heat gases, the molecules become more energized and fly around faster, thus, if inside of an enclosed space, will seem to be expanding as the molecules smash into the sides. Liquids and solids don't work that way. The extent of molecular movement in solids is a very, very, very slight vibration. If energized more, solids will vibrate a little more. The movement of molecules in liquids is a sloshing thing with the molecules sliding around, over, and under other molecules. If energized, liquids will do the same thing but faster.

There is no way to expand a liquid. Period.

 

This is, big surprise, completely wrong. If you heat a solid or liquid, it does expand. The only difference is the forces between the atoms/molecules are higher and the expansion is smaller than with gases. It still exists, it's just small enough that for most everyday purposes we ignore it. Just to name a very obvious example, look at the expansion joints in the closest sidewalk. If solids don't ever change volume based on temperature, why is there a joint specifically designed to avoid cracking from temperature-produced volume changes?

 

You know, I've boiled a lot of water, and I've never seen it expand as the temperature rises. There's some first hand empirical evidence.

 

The reason is, as I said above, the change is small enough that you don't notice it just looking at it by eye. There's a very good reason scientists use more precise instruments instead of just looking at a pot of water and guessing if the volume changed. Not only that, but when you boil water, the volume will decrease... because there's less of it in the pot. I assume you've seen steam coming off a boiling pot, now guess where that comes from.

 

 

 

 

 

And to expand on what Marxist ßastard was saying, there are two reasons these small changes are so important:

 

1) Coastal areas, as a whole, tend to be very flat. I live near the eastern US coast, and hurricanes are a real problem here. A few yards of extra water can produce pretty serious flooding, far more than you would expect. In some places, even a couple feet of sea level increase could bring the coastline miles inland.. And not only that, but all of the tides/hurricanes/etc will go even farther inland, so your useful area is even smaller. Imagine something like New York City, or even better, New Orleans, then add 20' of water. It doesn't take all that much, proportional to the oceans as a whole, to cause problems for a lot of people. Sure, people can move, but consider the places where we already have overpopulation problems... where do you put all of them?

 

2) A lot of our weather depends on very subtle changes. You don't need to have catastrophic disasters appropriate for a movie and a billion-dollar effects budget to really hurt a lot of people. Right now, where I live, we have major problems with water shortages. We're talking 30 days of water left, because it's been an especially dry year... otherwise, things are pretty much normal, we aren't talking about 150* heat in the middle of winter. Guess what happens when stuff like this starts happening everywhere, and "import it from the state next door" disappears as an option. Yep, that's right, people start dying.

 

 

 

Now, you can protest all you want about "what if we're wrong", but it comes down to a simple bet. Even if the evidence is 50/50, to be very generous to the skeptics, consider your options:

 

If we try to slow/stop global warming and we're wrong and it's a natural thing, the worst that happens is we've wasted some money. But really, since most of the proposals (switching to renewable fuels, etc) have beneficial effects besides stopping global warming, it's not like that money is a complete waste.

 

If we say "it's all natural, we don't need to do anything" and we're wrong, we're screwed. In the best-case scenario, life really sucks for a lot of people, and a lot of people die. In the worst-case scenario (accompanied by the other consequences of refusing to make the needed changes, such as running out of oil), say goodbye to civilization. I hope you like a return to the dark ages, because that's what you're going to get?

 

 

Now, do you really have to drive that SUV and stubbornly say "it's not my problem"? Do you really want to take that risk?

[justwantmusicbe]

"Was it caused by humans and is it really having a noticeable effect on the planet?"

 

Yes and yes.

 

Al Gore is right, he knows what he is talking about and is not crazy. We are letting WAY too much Carbon Dioxide into our atmosphere.

 

Nature balances itself. If there were too many rabbits, for example, nature would adapt some other animal to eat more rabbits. Now, we have to help balance nature, because we are more powerful than it. We have to be responsible for our planet.

 

People like Ralph Nader are responsible and understand our planet needs saving and save it.

 

God Bless Nader and Gore.

They know what's going on.

[ninja_lord666]

"Was it caused by humans and is it really having a noticeable effect on the planet?"

 

Yes and yes.

 

Al Gore is right, he knows what he is talking about and is not crazy. We are letting WAY too much Carbon Dioxide into our atmosphere.

 

Nature balances itself. If there were too many rabbits, for example, nature would adapt some other animal to eat more rabbits. Now, we have to help balance nature, because we are more powerful than it. We have to be responsible for our planet.

 

People like Ralph Nader are responsible and understand our planet needs saving and save it.

 

God Bless Nader and Gore.

They know what's going on.

We are more powerful than nature? Than why do earthquakes, volcanoes, tidal waves, hurricanes, etc. still cause massive destruction? If we were more powerful than nature, then we'd be able to stop the destructive side. Obviously, those things are still a problem. You say Gore is right? If Gore is a reliable source, then Hitler was a good man.

[LordNyghthawk]

On the solids don't expand, they do. Take your car (*or motorcycle, ATV, or any other Internal combustion engine*). When it is operating, the engine expands slightly. That is why, when you shut it off, especially in colder weather, you'll hear a slight crackling or "tinking" sound. The engine is contracting as it cools. This is also why, when adding coolant, they say do not add cold liquid to a running or recently run engine. It will cause rapid contraction of the various metals, and have a chance to crack components. Same thing with spraying cold water on the outside of the engine, a large enough amount will cause similar damage to the block.

If you doubt this, try it an an engine you don't particularly care about, and see what happens. You might luck out the first few times you do it, but it WILL weaken the structural stability of the engine, and eventually cause failure, or massive degradation.

My 2 cents input for the day.

On the global warming part of this...I do think most of it is foolishness. A lot of things that have been mandated to 'prevent' emissions to harm the atmosphere have been proven wrong. The top one is the forced swith from R-12 A/C liquid to R-134a, because it was supposedly less harmful. Lo and behold, a few years later, more complete studies are done, and the new refrigerant is worse than the original. Yet we are stuck having to switch, or pay extravagantly to obtain R-12. Illogical in my opinion.

Now other aspects of environmentalism are strong points; tree conservation, recycling are the two most important things I agree with.

[xenxander]

(Looks at Ninja_lord666, shakes his head and posts his sign: Don't feed the Trolls)

(bows respectfully)

 

I will advise anyone to take Envoronmental Science and do a minor in global envoronments atop any Major you are taking for college.

I did, and it broadens my understanding about x100.

 

It is very clear that some here have no concept of Thermal Stree Limits or any understanding of heat transfer and fluid flow; advice in situations that one knows nothing about - do not speak. And the old "Plato" teachings that one must think about things and come to a logical conclusion rather than do experiemnts and trail and error are fully ridiculous.

They weren't at that time, but in the modern era they are extremely dated and not laudable in any way.

 

As for rises in sea levels due to a shift in global tempreatures of 3 degrees? That is very real. 3 degrees is an extreme climate change. Understand this means GLOBAL TEMPREATURES, not "oh god it's -4 instead of -7!" as many uneducated <censored> would like to spectate.

 

CO2 levels have never been this thick in our atmosphere even when studying mud and ice cores. The burning of fossil fuels due to heavy industry releases hundreds of times more carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide than any natural shift would have done. When you top this with deforestation (one of the main carbon sinks on our planet, not to mention oxygen recyclers) you remove natures natural defence against abrupt shifts.

 

Plate techtonics and geothermal energy are extreem forces man is not capable of removing - only dealing with. Changes in weather (and thus climate) man can change.

 

We have a real problem with too many undereducated people breeding and producing too many undereducated children. Education isn't the problem, people are the problem. The world's population is exceeding the freshwater capacity of the planet and still people continue to pump out babies.

I appologize, this is a tangent (just one I can get passionate about).

[justwantmusicbe]

I was talking about humans being more powerful than nature in controlling our climate. Those other things are beyond our control.

 

Hitler was a horrible person. The Jewish people did nothing to him. He was a fool to challenge the Soviet Union.

 

Nazi.

 

And how can you compare Gore to Hitler?

[ninja_lord666]

I was talking about humans being more powerful than nature in controlling our climate. Those other things are beyond our control.

 

Hitler was a horrible person. The Jewish people did nothing to him. He was a fool to challenge the Soviet Union.

 

Nazi.

 

And how can you compare Gore to Hitler?

Wow are you dim witted. I wasn't comparing Gore to Hitler; I was rebuking Gore's statements saying he was a moron who doesn't know what he's talking about. I was proving this by stating another impossibility. It's as likely for Gore to be right as it is for Hitler to be a positive influence on the world. In other words, Gore is wrong! Gore is stupid! You are st--*muffled noises* (Stupid no flaming rules)...

[Abramul]

Wow are you dim witted. I wasn't comparing Gore to Hitler; I was rebuking Gore's statements saying he was a moron who doesn't know what he's talking about. I was proving this by stating another impossibility. It's as likely for Gore to be right as it is for Hitler to be a positive influence on the world. In other words, Gore is wrong! Gore is stupid! You are st--*muffled noises* (Stupid no flaming rules)...

That is not a proof. All it is is a statement of the degree to which you consider your opinion to be correct, which isn't necessarily correlated with whether it is or not.