Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

kirkydu (95.28)

A Simple Global Warming Experiment

Recs

6

December 05, 2009 – Comments (14)

Get a small tub and fill it half way with tap water at 70 degrees (room temp). 

Add a 20 pound bag of ice.  Take the temp.

Let it sit overnight.  Take the temp.

What were the results?

Repeat using a 7 pound bag of ice.

Results?

The polar ice caps are melting due a few things.  One of those things is our contribution to destroying to the protective portion of the atmosphere (ozone layer).  It doesn't make any sense, common or scientific why we would continue ruining the atmosphere for any of the silly reasons we do.

To all those who are claiming that Global Warming doesn't exist because the temps haven't dropped over land the past decade think about this little experiment.  You really need to think a little more scientifically and lot less LimHanbeckilly.  Once the ice is done melting, we are in big trouble.  We need very much and very quickly, not over 20 or 30 years, to stop killing the atmosphere.

14 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On December 05, 2009 at 1:32 PM, kirkydu (95.28) wrote:

should have read: "temps haven't increased"

Report this comment
#2) On December 05, 2009 at 2:12 PM, awallejr (82.39) wrote:

"To all those who are claiming that Global Warming doesn't exist "

That's never been the real question (It has, however, been a disengenuous one by conservationists). Of course it exists, it is why you are seeing massive population growth.  It started when mankind lived in caves.  It will continue to ebb and flow over time.  The continents will continue to shift and change ocenaic currents (north atlantic current).  Volcanic activity could explode at any time (Yosemite national park).  Sea levels will constanly rise and fall over time. 

 

Report this comment
#3) On December 05, 2009 at 2:16 PM, SolarisKing (< 20) wrote:

Here's a little global warming experiment.

   Move to a largely agricultural area, buy about 100+ acres of fruit orchard next to several thousand acres of fruit orchard. Invest 10k in fruit heaters and 10k in propane.
   Now wait till spring, and after your buds bloom wait for a -10 degree night, and go out and light all 10,000 propane heaters at the same time as your neighbors light theirs.

   Now, walk around in your warm orchard. Walk down the road a few miles past everybody elses orchard.
   Feel how cold it is in between the orchards? but how warm it is in the orchards that are lit?

   Now go back to your truck (don't worry, you left it running so it would be warm) and drive to your house (don't worry, you left on the central heat, so it would be warm). Before you go inside though, reach in your pocket and pull out your $200 laser thermometer (handy) and point it at the ground and take a reading. Then point it at the door/window/walls/roof of your house and take more readings (you should be writing them down, you'll need records for the next freeze, to know how much propane to burn in the orchard).

   Man is releasing a billion years of stored solar energy, in the form of coal, oil, wood, etc, as fast as he can release it.

Argue all you want about carbon caps and greenhouse effect all you want. Global warming is real, and you don't need a greenhouse effect to prove it, Fool.

-solaris

 

Report this comment
#4) On December 05, 2009 at 2:43 PM, kirkydu (95.28) wrote:

Ever wonder why the govt decided not to rebuild New Orleans?

Anyway, here's a few...

Resources:

http://e360.yale.edu/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/series/guardian-environment-network

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html#

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

Articles:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/may/24/steven-chu-environmentalist-anger

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jan/16/greenpolitics-georgebush

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29krugman.html?em

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/jul/01/environment-economy-89-months

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/02/obama-climate-change-james-hansen

Books:

Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity
http://www.amazon.com/Storms-My-Grandchildren-Catastrophe-Humanity/dp/1608192008/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260040475&sr=1-1

Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming
http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Cover-Up-Crusade-Global-Warming/dp/1553654854/ref=pd_sim_b_2

Climate Change: Picturing the Science
http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Cover-Up-Crusade-Global-Warming/dp/1553654854/ref=pd_sim_b_2

Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming
http://www.amazon.com/Dire-Predictions-Understanding-Global-Warming/dp/0756639956/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_c

Report this comment
#5) On December 05, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Option1307 (30.47) wrote:

Ever wonder why the govt decided not to rebuild New Orleans?

Because its below sea level and is a stupid idea to rebuild a city that has been destroyed so many times by the inevitable hurricanes/storms.

I love New Orleans, but could they ahve picked a worse location?

Report this comment
#6) On December 05, 2009 at 4:12 PM, rexlove (99.24) wrote:

kirkydu - not sure sure what the purpose of your experiment is - it does not explain global warming at all.

Also global warming has nothing to do with the destruction of the ozone.  You should get your facts straight.

1. The destruction of ozone is believed to be caused by CFC's commonly found in refrigerants. These CFC's destroy the ozone layer when the reach the upper atmosphere. Many of these refrigerants are banned today.

2. The thinning and destruction of the ozone allows more ultraviolet rays to pass. The main concern here is things like skin cancer - not warming. 

3. Increased carbon dioxide levels are suspected of creating a 'greenhouse effect' when they reach the upper atmosphere.

4. The theory was that there may be a global waming occuring due to large amounts of carbon dioxide being released by the large amount of fossil fuels being burned and releasing this to the atmosphere.

5. It is now believed that scientists fudged their numbers to make the theory hold more true.

6. Scientists have also been able to determine that the earth over time has gone through several periods of warming and cooling with varying carbon dioxide levels - all before the advent of man. 

Conclusion - man may be having no impact on global warming/cooling. It may all be part of a natural earth cycle. In fact there are scientists that believe we are headed into a period of global cooling.  

Report this comment
#7) On December 05, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Eudemonic (69.43) wrote:

What is the scientific reponse to increased CO2 levels stilumate plant growth which in turn consumes more CO2 and releases O2?

 

Report this comment
#8) On December 05, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Teacherman1 (49.44) wrote:

Foolanthropy On.

Report this comment
#9) On December 05, 2009 at 7:08 PM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

@kirkydu,
"The polar ice caps are melting due a few things.  One of those things is our contribution to destroying to the protective portion of the atmosphere (ozone layer)."
You're wrong on this, although there's some relationship. The destruction of ozone (a natural process) is accelerated by the catalytic activity of some free radicals and one of them is atomic chlorine which is generated from man-made compounds (CFCs, HCFCs) in presence of UV radiation.



@Option1307,
"Ever wonder why the govt decided not to rebuild New Orleans?
Because its below sea level and is a stupid idea to rebuild a city that has been destroyed so many times by the inevitable hurricanes/storms.
I love New Orleans, but could they ahve picked a worse location?"
New Orleans' raison d'être:
"New Orleans is home to one of the largest and busiest ports in the world, and metropolitan New Orleans is a center of maritime industry.
(...)
New Orleans came into being to act as a strategically-located trading entrepot, and it remains, above all, a crucial transportation hub and distribution center for waterborne commerce. The Port of New Orleans is the 5th-largest port in the United States based on volume of cargo handled, second-largest in the state after the Port of South Louisiana, and 12th-largest in the U.S., based on value of cargo. The Port of South Louisiana, also based in the New Orleans area, is the world's busiest in terms of bulk tonnage and, when combined with the Port of New Orleans, it forms the 4th-largest port system in volume handled."


@rexlove,
"The thinning and destruction of the ozone allows more ultraviolet rays to pass. The main concern here is things like skin cancer"
There are other concerns as well.

"Increased carbon dioxide levels are suspected of creating a 'greenhouse effect' when they reach the upper atmosphere."
This is an irrefutable fact. The thing is that the warming forcing brought by an enhanced greenhouse effect may be augmented or opposed by other forcings (orbital cycles, sunspot cycle, natural and anthropogenic aerosols, natural and anthropogenic changes to albedo, etc)


"It is now believed that scientists fudged their numbers to make the theory hold more true."
- There's no evidence of data manipulation yet.
- There are multiple lines of evidence, all pointing to a long-term, sustained warming trend:
* Independent reconstructions of global average temperature anomalies: HadCRUT, GISSTemp, NCDC, JMA.
* Satellite reconstructions of tropospheric temperatures (one reconstruction is developed by "skeptics"): UAH, RSS.
* Measurements of the heat content of the ocean.
* Worldwide glacier retreat.
* Sustained decrease in Arctic sea ice.
* Poleward migration of wildlife.
* Earlier onset of spring.
* Increased water vapor in the atmosphere (warmer air holds more water vapor).
* Stratospheric cooling (telltale sign of enhanced greenhouse effect)
* Reduction in outgoing IR radiation at absorption wavelenghts of GHGs.
So what would happen if the HadCRUT reconstruction was proven to be bogus? It would mean next to nothing in the overall picture.

"Scientists have also been able to determine that the earth over time has gone through several periods of warming and cooling with varying carbon dioxide levels - all before the advent of man."
Through Earth's history, temperatures closely track atmospheric CO2 levels. In other times, the sources of the carbon emissions were super-volcanoes, unstable methane hydrates, warming oceans (as the ocean warms it releases CO2 to the atmosphere) and other things. Currently, we're the source of most of the rise in CO2 levels and there's empirical evidence to prove that.

"It may all be part of a natural earth cycle."
The weight of evidence suggests otherwise.

"In fact there are scientists that believe we are headed into a period of global cooling"
Yep, it's highly probable that we'll enter into a new ice age in some thousands years if the anthropogenic forcing eventually ends.

Report this comment
#10) On December 05, 2009 at 7:18 PM, jesusfreakinco (29.54) wrote:

Should we kill all the cows, destroy all the trees, and somehow figure out how to block the sun?

 

Report this comment
#11) On December 05, 2009 at 7:42 PM, SolarisKing (< 20) wrote:

There are about a million option between where we are now and the ultimatum of killing all cows and all trees. . .

Your analogy is analagous to having too much bass in the speakers, so you want to shut off power to the whole city block.

How about driving a little less, spending a little less, and eating a little less meat. Just a little at first, till you get the hang of it.

Just a little less soap. Just a little more recycling. Have you heard of Arbor Day?

Report this comment
#12) On December 06, 2009 at 12:31 AM, kirkydu (95.28) wrote:

"Should we kill all the cows, destroy all the trees, and somehow figure out how to block the sun?"

Jesusfreakinco, you are either a great satirist or a moron. 

Solaris right on.  In being brief I didn't bother with the greenhouse effect and just tossed out how we are in general destroying the atmosphere.  Destruction of the ozone level does in fact influence global warming btw for the nube who questioned that as a result of decreased Ozone is destruction of plants and plankton, both of which play a part in the water cycle and temperature of the planet.  It also impacts the temperature of the stratosphere and air that passed through.  I'm not going to teach a class, but at least start with wikipedia rexlove.

The experiment demonstrates a very simple premise.  When the ice is present it holds the water temp down, but after it melts, the water warms up.  That is exactly what is happenin to the planet.  The reason the lower lats haven't had warming the past decade IS because the cold water is being released into the oceans.  Once that water warms, man o man are we in trouble.  About 5-12 years from now based on current rates.

Seems to me New Orleans isn't being rebuilt because even with the best levy system, the ocean is going to win as it continues to rise. 

The oil and coal industries are brainwashing people into thinking that it is economically more sensible to burn than not burn fossil fuels.  They have been masters at not including externalities (look it up) in the costs of burning fossil fuels.  When clean up is included, burning fossil fuels is more expensive than solar and wind power. 

It makes no sense for any reason, economic or environmental to not cut our carbon output by over 50% by using solar, wind, and some nuclear as a backbone of the power system.

We need to force the coal and oil industries to completely pay for the external costs of their industries, even if that means doubling the cost of coal and oil.  We also need to give short term breaks to solar and wind, and eventually phase out home interest deductions and business depreciation on buildings that don't generate their own energy with wind or solar or purchase their energy from wind or solar power producers.

Report this comment
#13) On December 06, 2009 at 9:03 AM, TheClub55 (48.00) wrote:

KirKydu - The earth has not had ices caps for more of its 4 bln plus years than it has.  So, its likely they coudl melt again w/out human intervention.  We need to learn to live with natural tempature fluctations and learn the diffence in what we cause and whats natural (without making up the data), then work on technologies to adapt to the new changes.  

 

Report this comment
#14) On December 06, 2009 at 10:28 AM, kirkydu (95.28) wrote:

Well let's see, we've added carbon to the natural system and temps are trending up.  Are there natural reasons too.  Probably.  Does that mean we should not worry about piling on???  That attitude is very unintelligent you have.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement