toldailytopic: Do you believe mankind is causing global warming?

[eameece]

You think it's funny that dozens of people die? Or you can't see the connection between your vote and what happens in the world?

We've known about global warming for decades. It is getting worse quickly. Republicans uniformly oppose action. Today they are seeking to strip virtually all environmental regulations. There's no doubt where they stand. And yet you voted for them. You are voting for what is happening.

Understand now? I don't think you will. :rotfl:

 

[Stripe]

What the heck was that? :AMR:

 

[some other dude]

Oh, just eemee thrashing about like a child. Be like everybody else here and ignore him and maybe he'll go away.

 

[The Barbarian]

That's probably where the two different ideas will have to clash. As I say, erosion is a complete non-issue for the explanation I have given. Thus it's effects would have to be removed in order to make sense of the numbers we might return.

So my prediction is likely incorrect, but possibly only because I didn't consider uplift due to erosion.

Mostly, the uplift in the Northern Hemisphere is due to the melting of the large continental glaciers. Because the Mantle is so viscous, the rebound is not yet complete.

Elevation can't be the cause of a worldwide glaciation, for reasons that should be obvious.

 

[eameece]

Oh, just eemee thrashing about like a child. Be like everybody else here and ignore him and maybe he'll go away.

No fair stealing my tactics against you! :wazzup:

 

[Stripe]

Mostly, the uplift in the Northern Hemisphere is due to the melting of the large continental glaciers. Because the Mantle is so viscous, the rebound is not yet complete.

Or perhaps the ice age was a lot more recent. :idunno:

Elevation can't be the cause of a worldwide glaciation, for reasons that should be obvious.

You've decided so by divine fiat?

 

[some other dude]

Oh Stripe.

Global Warming is so yesterday.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Mostly, the uplift in the Northern Hemisphere is due to the melting of the large continental glaciers. Because the Mantle is so viscous, the rebound is not yet complete.

Or perhaps the ice age was a lot more recent.

No, for two reasons.

1. There is abundant evidence for the time since the last ice age. If you like, we can go over it one more time.

2. The observed elasticity of the mantle is consistent with that amount of time.

Elevation can't be the cause of a worldwide glaciation, for reasons that should be obvious.

You've decided so by divine fiat?

The lack of a mechanism for raising the surface of the Earth to a higher level makes that extremely unlikely.

 

[Stripe]

2. The observed elasticity of the mantle is consistent with that amount of time.

Observed?

The lack of a mechanism for raising the surface of the Earth to a higher level makes that extremely unlikely.

So you are willing to agree that my explanation works, but for your disagreement that the time taken is available.

Right?

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The observed elasticity of the mantle is consistent with that amount of time.

Observed?

Yep. By a variety of methods. Seismic waves (refraction of the waves provides data about the composition and state of the mantle, and of course P waves can go through liquid, while S waves cannot, so we know it's an extremely viscous but deformable state.

Likewise, the behavior of the mantle at subduction zones and mid-oceanic ridges also shows us that it's not liquid, which you would need it to be for a fast rebound from continental glaciation.

Barbarian observes:
The lack of a mechanism for raising the surface of the Earth to a higher level makes that extremely unlikely.

So you are willing to agree that my explanation works

No, for the reasons cited earlier. The geologic record doesn't support the notion of a raise in the Earth's surface level. In fact, it's hard to see that such a notion has any meaning at all.

 

[Stripe]

Seismic waves (refraction of the waves provides data about the composition and state of the mantle, and of course P waves can go through liquid, while S waves cannot, so we know it's an extremely viscous but deformable state.

Actually you need to presume a model and fit seismic results to it because the waves need to travel through numerous layers. The 3D image of the interior of the Earth is highly dependent upon the starting conditions the scientist assumes.

Likewise, the behavior of the mantle at subduction zones and mid-oceanic ridges also shows us that it's not liquid, which you would need it to be for a fast rebound from continental glaciation.

What behaviour?

No, for the reasons cited earlier. The geologic record doesn't support the notion of a raise in the Earth's surface level. In fact, it's hard to see that such a notion has any meaning at all.

And yet you believe the Earth's surface has been raised. :idunno:

 

[eameece]

From the Royal Society, a fellowship of the world's most eminent scientists, the oldest scientific academy in existence.

Aspects of climate change on which there is wide agreement:

The Royal Society Climate change: a summary of the science I September 2010 I 5

Changes in atmospheric composition

25. Global-average CO2 concentrations have been observed to increase from levels of around 280 parts per million (ppm) in the mid-19th century to around 388 ppm by the
end of 2009. CO2 concentrations can be measured in “ancient air” trapped in bubbles in
ice, deep below the surface in Antarctica and Greenland; these show that present-day
concentrations are higher than any that have been observed in the past 800,000 years,
when CO2 varied between about 180 and 300 ppm. Various lines of evidence point
strongly to human activity being the main reason for the recent increase, mainly due to
the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) with smaller contributions from land-use
changes and cement manufacture. The evidence includes the consistency between
calculations of the emitted CO2 and that expected to have accumulated in the
atmosphere, the analysis of the proportions of different CO2 isotopes, and the amount
of oxygen in the air.
26. These observations show that about half of the CO2 emitted by human activity since the
industrial revolution has remained in the atmosphere. The remainder has been taken up
by the oceans, soils and plants although the exact amount going to each of these
individually is less well known.
27. Concentrations of many other greenhouse gases have increased. The concentration of
methane has more than doubled in the past 150 years; this recent and rapid increase is
unprecedented in the 800,000 year record and evidence strongly suggests that it arises
mainly as a result of human activity.

http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/

 

[eameece]

We're raising CO2 levels
Human carbon dioxide emissions are calculated from international energy statistics, tabulating coal, brown coal, peat, and crude oil production by nation and year, going back to 1751. CO2 emissions have increased dramatically over the last century, climbing to the rate of 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year in 2006 (EIA).

Atmospheric CO2 levels are measured at hundreds of monitoring stations across the globe. Independent measurements are also conducted by airplanes and satellites. For periods before 1958, CO2 levels are determined from air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores. In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million. Currently, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing by around 15 gigatonnes every year.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empi...al-warming.htm

atrol:

Read more here:

http://www.acoolerclimate.com/causes-of-global-warming/

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Seismic waves (refraction of the waves provides data about the composition and state of the mantle, and of course P waves can go through liquid, while S waves cannot, so we know it's an extremely viscous but deformable state.

Actually you need to presume a model and fit seismic results to it because the waves need to travel through numerous layers.

The observed refraction does indeed show numerous layers, as you admit. That's how we know they are there, and the state they are in.

The 3D image of the interior of the Earth is highly dependent upon the starting conditions the scientist assumes.

No. It merely depends on the nature of waves and the density and state of the material. It is as well-understood as a sonogram, which works the same way.

Likewise, the behavior of the mantle at subduction zones and mid-oceanic ridges also shows us that it's not liquid, which you would need it to be for a fast rebound from continental glaciation.

What behaviour?

Movement, mostly. The way it actually deforms the rift valley.

No, for the reasons cited earlier. The geologic record doesn't support the notion of a raise in the Earth's surface level. In fact, it's hard to see that such a notion has any meaning at all.

And yet you believe the Earth's surface has been raised.

Some parts relative to others. But the idea of the earth itself being raised to a higher level makes no sense at all.

 

[Stripe]

Barbarian observes:Seismic waves (refraction of the waves provides data about the composition and state of the mantle, and of course P waves can go through liquid, while S waves cannot, so we know it's an extremely viscous but deformable state.The observed refraction does indeed show numerous layers, as you admit. That's how we know they are there, and the state they are in.No. It merely depends on the nature of waves and the density and state of the material. It is as well-understood as a sonogram, which works the same way.

And it is these layers that make seismic measurements so very dependent upon the necessarily assumed model. Observation of the mantle is physically impossible. If we wish to determine the nature of a given layer we are forced to assume the nature of all the other layers that our seismic data passed through.

We have no problem understanding how difficult it is to map the interior of the Earth. And you are very wrong to deny the fact that a model must be assumed before an explanation and description can be given.

I find it very reasonable to suggest that your viscosity figure might be a few degrees off and that rebound can happen quickly.

And we do see quick responses on smaller scales.

Likewise, the behavior of the mantle at subduction zones and mid-oceanic ridges also shows us that it's not liquid, which you would need it to be for a fast rebound from continental glaciation.

The Amazon Basin goes through annual fluctuations of it's crust due to the load of water. Clearly a quick crustal response to the removal and addition of mass is not out of the question.

Movement, mostly. The way it actually deforms the rift valley.

Funny how the rift valley is comprehensive evidence against half of the PT theory adherents. :chuckle:

But nobody understands what you're talking about, Barbarian. How does deformation of the seafloor show isostatic rebound has to take as long as you say?

No, for the reasons cited earlier. The geologic record doesn't support the notion of a raise in the Earth's surface level. In fact, it's hard to see that such a notion has any meaning at all.Some parts relative to others. But the idea of the earth itself being raised to a higher level makes no sense at all.

Sounds like you need to get more well acquainted with the ideas you're up against. This is the second time you've confused yourself thinking that I need the entirety of the surface of the Earth to be raised. :chuckle:

 

[The Barbarian]

And it is these layers that make seismic measurements so very dependent upon the necessarily assumed model. Observation of the mantle is physically impossible.

\

Seismologists do it every time there's an earthquake. Petroleum geologists do it to take a look at oil and gas formations. And we know it works because we can check by drilling.

If we wish to determine the nature of a given layer we are forced to assume the nature of all the other layers that our seismic data passed through.

As you learned, by analyzing the different sorts of waves that go through the formations, we can accurately infer their composition and physical state.

We have no problem understanding how difficult it is to map the interior of the Earth. And you are very wrong to deny the fact that a model must be assumed before an explanation and description can be given.

Sorry, not buying that postmodernism stuff. Truth is not dependent on what we think. And there are ways to objectively test what is real. I thought you were claiming to be a Christian.

I find it very reasonable to suggest that your viscosity figure might be a few degrees off and that rebound can happen quickly.

It would take a lot more than a "few degrees." Measured rates of movement of mantle material are a few centimeters a year.

And we do see quick responses on smaller scales.

Anthills erode faster than drumlins. That doesn't mean drumlins can erode rapidly.

Barbarian observes:
Likewise, the behavior of the mantle at subduction zones and mid-oceanic ridges also shows us that it's not liquid, which you would need it to be for a fast rebound from continental glaciation.

The Amazon Basin goes through annual fluctuations of it's crust due to the load of water. Clearly a quick crustal response to the removal and addition of mass is not out of the question.

Show us how many centimeters, it fluctuates during the year, Stipe. Then apply it to the slower removal of material and the rebound in the upper midwest.

Funny how the rift valley is comprehensive evidence against half of the PT theory adherents.

Show us that.

But nobody understands what you're talking about, Barbarian.

You don't understand, Stipe. Not everyone here is ignorant of the process.

How does deformation of the seafloor show isostatic rebound has to take as long as you say?

It shows the viscosity of mantle material. And the time it takes to recover is consistent with other geological evidence.

Sounds like you need to get more well acquainted with the ideas you're up against. This is the second time you've confused yourself thinking that I need the entirety of the surface of the Earth to be raised.

How much of it do you think was uplifted? And what is your evidence for this?

 

[Stripe]

Seismologists do it every time there's an earthquake. Petroleum geologists do it to take a look at oil and gas formations. And we know it works because we can check by drilling.

And now you're resorting to dishonesty. It is physically impossible to observe the mantle.

As you learned, by analyzing the different sorts of waves that go through the formations, we can accurately infer their composition and physical state.

As you've willfully ignored, one cannot infer without assuming a particular model.

Sorry, not buying that postmodernism stuff. Truth is not dependent on what we think. And there are ways to objectively test what is real. I thought you were claiming to be a Christian.

:AMR:

It would take a lot more than a "few degrees." Measured rates of movement of mantle material are a few centimeters a year.

The mantle cannot be observed and movement of the mantle is irrelevant.

Show us how many centimeters, it fluctuates during the year, Stipe. Then apply it to the slower removal of material and the rebound in the upper midwest.

You could read the paper I linked to. And I'm not going to compare it with your presumed model. :nono:

You don't understand, Stipe. Not everyone here is ignorant of the process.

Are you going to explain how seafloor observations mean the mantle may not respond quickly to the removal of mass?

It shows the viscosity of mantle material. And the time it takes to recover is consistent with other geological evidence.

How? What other evidence?

How much of it do you think was uplifted? And what is your evidence for this?

The continents. As clearly and simply explained in my first post in this thread. My evidence is the same as yours as you agree that the continents were uplifted.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Seismologists do it every time there's an earthquake. Petroleum geologists do it to take a look at oil and gas formations. And we know it works because we can check by drilling.

And now you're resorting to dishonesty.

C'mon Stipe. You know better than to try that again...

A seismograph is an instrument that measures and records elastic ground vibrations called seismic waves that are generated by earthquakes and man-made explosions. By recording the arrival of seismic waves at remote seismograph stations, seismologists deduce information about the initial earthquake fault rupture or explosion, and about the physical properties of earth materials between the seismic source and the seismograph. Much of our present knowledge of Earth's large-scale interior structure came from analysis of seismograph records. Academic, petroleum, and mining geologists use other seismic techniques to study the structure of Earth's outer sedimentary layers, to prospect for petroleum, and to assess mineral ore bodies. Academic seismograph networks designed to detect earthquakes or planned survey explosions also perform double-duty as monitoring systems that detect military explosions that may indicate violations of international weapons bans.

Read more: Seismograph - http://www.faqs.org/espionage/Re-Se/Seismograph.html#ixzz1TVvFA4fA

It is physically impossible to observe the mantle.

No, that's wrong. In fact, we can even visually observe it in some cases. The magma from Muana Loa, for example, is mantle that erupted from a hot spot that broke through the Earth's crust.

Barbarian observes:
As you learned, by analyzing the different sorts of waves that go through the formations, we can accurately infer their composition and physical state.

As you've willfully ignored, one cannot infer without assuming a particular model.

Barbarian chuckles:
Sorry, not buying that postmodernism stuff. Truth is not dependent on what we think. And there are ways to objectively test what is real. I thought you were claiming to be a Christian.

It would take a lot more than a "few degrees." Measured rates of movement of mantle material are a few centimeters a year.

The mantle cannot be observed and movement of the mantle is irrelevant.

Wrong again. The depression of the Earth's surface during the Ice Ages was by isostasy; the additional weight pushed the core down into the mantle. When the ice melted, the mantle very slowly moved to push the material back up. Very slowly, because it is quite viscous and moves at very slow rates.

Barbarian suggests:
Show us how many centimeters, it fluctuates during the year, Stipe. Then apply it to the slower removal of material and the rebound in the upper midwest.

You could read the paper I linked to. And I'm not going to compare it with your presumed model.

So you're just guessing. No evidence at all, um?

Barbarian observes:
You don't understand, Stipe. Not everyone here is ignorant of the process.

Are you going to explain how seafloor observations mean the mantle may not respond quickly to the removal of mass?

Seafloor spreading is the result of mantle material rising up and pushing the crust aside. This goes on in centimeters per year. So we know it's a slow process.

Barbarian asks:
How much of it do you think was uplifted?

(Stipe declines to say)

Barbarian asks:
And what is your evidence for this?

The continents.

Sorry. They don't seem to have changed much on the whole. And the evidence is that the areas affected by continental glaciation, actually got lower, not higher.

 

[Stripe]

Barbarian observes:Seismologists do it every time there's an earthquake. Petroleum geologists do it to take a look at oil and gas formations. And we know it works because we can check by drilling.C'mon Stipe. You know better than to try that again...COLOR="Blue"]A seismograph is an instrument that measures and records elastic ground vibrations called seismic waves that are generated by earthquakes and man-made explosions. By recording the arrival of seismic waves at remote seismograph stations, seismologists deduce information about the initial earthquake fault rupture or explosion, and about the physical properties of earth materials between the seismic source and the seismograph. Much of our present knowledge of Earth's large-scale interior structure came from analysis of seismograph records. Academic, petroleum, and mining geologists use other seismic techniques to study the structure of Earth's outer sedimentary layers, to prospect for petroleum, and to assess mineral ore bodies. Academic seismograph networks designed to detect earthquakes or planned survey explosions also perform double-duty as monitoring systems that detect military explosions that may indicate violations of international weapons bans./COLOR]Read more: Seismograph - [u rl]htt p://ww w.faqs.org/ espionage /Re-Se/Seis mograph.ht ml#ixzz1TVvFA 4fA[/url]

And all those seismic wave must travel through every layer above and likely many below the layer you're trying to analyse.

Thus one needs to assume a model for the interior of the Earth in order to extract information from what is very tenuous data.

Ever worked in seismology, Barbarian?

No, that's wrong. In fact, we can even visually observe it in some cases. The magma from Muana Loa, for example, is mantle that erupted from a hot spot that broke through the Earth's crust.

:rotfl: So magma is mantle now?

Did you know magma is liquid?

the additional weight pushed the core down into the mantle.

:AMR:

So you're just guessing. No evidence at all, um?

you know Barbarian is frustrated when he starts umming. :chuckle:

Try reading the paper I linked to. :thumb:

Seafloor spreading is the result of mantle material rising up and pushing the crust aside. This goes on in centimeters per year. So we know it's a slow process.

I see.

So the way you know that isostacy must act slowly is because plates move slowly?

Have I read you correctly there?

Sorry

That's OK. Just don't do it again!

They don't seem to have changed much on the whole. And the evidence is that the areas affected by continental glaciation, actually got lower, not higher.

I notice you still haven't the grace or humility to address a man's ideas according to his description of them.

Glaciation wasn't the cause of continental uplift. It was the result.

 

[some other dude]

you know Barbarian is frustrated when he starts umming. :chuckle:

I get a mental image of a confused alzheimers patient when he does that.