Edtharan

It would be nice if it worked that way, but it doesn't. We (that is the scientists of the world) have known of Global Warming for over 3 decades. The solutions that are still being proposed today (solar, wind, geothermal, etc) are still the ones that were proposed back then. The problem is that the solutions that end up being taken up are ones that continue our reliance on the cause of the current problems. It is not that we have been acting too fast when implementing solutions, it is that we have been acting too slow and trying to keep the status quo. Solutions like Carbon Sequestration is what I am talking about. We don't know if it will work, but that is not the problem. It is only addressing the symptoms. If you broke your arm, would accept that the only "solution" the doctors gave you was to take painkillers for it because it is causing you pain? No! Carbon Sequestration is addressing the symptom (the pain) rather than the cause (the broken arm). It is our reliance on fossil fuels that is the problem. They are finite, polluting, and they are most readily available in locations of the world that are unstable (the instability is most likely caused by the availability of the fossil fuels). If the politicians of a country woke up one day and said "Lets switch to Solar Power", then that would be good. It might not be the best, it might damage the economy slightly, but it is far better than the current system (reliance of fossil fuels).

Well the magnetic field actually protects us from high energy charged particles emitted by the sun. When these charged particles encounter a magnetic field they are deflected. If these weren't deflected, they would rain down on us and damage our cells and DNA. As the change of the poles would not happen instantly (maybe over decades or centuries), then we would be exposed to these highly damaging particles for that length of time. Rates of cancers would sky-rocket, and this would be bad for humanity (not to mention virtually all other forms of life too).

Especially where electricity is involved. I know someone who was electrocuted and didn't even remember it happening. They just though that they tripped over power cord and fell onto the ground, but instead they were electrocuted by a wall socket (it had been raining and water had got into the plug). So it is quite possible that you have amnesia caused by the electricity of the lightning and that is why you don't remember getting hit. You could try looking for an exit wound where the electricity left you body. There might be a small burn (it can be surprisingly small). If you are really worried, of course, see your doctor.

Also, not all fashions are directed at mate selection. Take for example the fashions in "Gang Colours". This has nothing to do with mate selection, but everything to do with group identification. This is an incorrect stereotype pushed forward by the mass media. It is a Meme, a fashion if you will. It has only really be in existence since around the 60's. Many a time the desirability of a woman was based around their family's status rather than her looks. With glossy colour photos, it was in the media's interest to promote something that they could deliver (pictures). Appearance has played a part in the desirability of a woman, but that desired "image" changes. Today it is the thin look that is in, not all that long ago it was narrow waists and wide hips (and women wore clothing to accentuate and create these looks). Back in the Palaeolithic era it was what today we would call obese (there are figurines of fertility goddesses that today we would call obese, yet fertility goddesses are a representation of the desirability of a woman). So attractiveness is a fashion, I'll agree, but mate selection is not the only driving force behind fashions. There are many fashions that have nothing to do with mate selection at all. Mate selection is a factor, but it is by far not the only one. If mate selection was a major factor, then it wouldn't actually act the way you presented it. If mate selection was a major driving force in fashions, then more emphasis would be put on being unique (as that is guaranteed to be "new") and major marketing franchises would not exist. Mate selection is a factor, but it is more of a limited factor (it only applies to some fashions, not all) and acts more to fine tune them than drive the change in the first place.

Unfortunately the Permian-Triassic event was not as simple as a huge hunk of rock slamming into the Earth. There were 3 phases to that event, 3 distinct extinction events around that time. The asteroid was the 2rd one (the first was likely due to climatic changes that were occuring at the end of the Permian and the 3rd one was likely due to volcanic activity which was probably set off by the asteroid impact like you said). So there was extinction events happening before the asteroid hit. But that was only 1 example. There are many more examples of rapid climate changes causing massive disruptions of the ecosystems (the end of the last Ice age for another example). But it also seem like we disagree about what to do about it. You seem to be arguing that we shouldn't do anything about the change, where as I am saying that we should try to reduce the effects of human activity as much as possible. It is a bit like if you park a car at the top of a hill and not put on the brakes. Sure you could claim that it was not your fault that the car rolled down the hill, it was instead the fault of gravity, and it could have rolled down anyway if the brakes failed. But, ultimately it would have been your fault for not minimising your own contributions to the situation. It is the same rational behind climate change. Sure, GW might not produce a bad outcome (it could even be better than it is now), but the problem is that we don't know if it will be bad or good. Sure we could say that GW would occur without our influence and just "leave the brakes off", or we could put the brakes on and minimise our responsibility for what occurs. Ignorance is not bliss, especially in this case. You have argued against using climate models as they are incomplete. You are arguing for ignorance and therefore "plausible denyability" in the case of disaster (we didn't try to predict what would happen, so no one predicted it would occur, so it's not really our fault). I am not arguing for the alarmists, instead I am arguing that we should open our eyes and be sceptical of both sides of the argument, both for and against. This does entail looking at worst case scenarios and not just dismissing them because they are worst case scenarios. To do otherwise is called Cherry Picking and is it is a Logical Fallacy (and as someone who claims to be a sceptic, one would think you would be alert for logical fallacies so as to properly be sceptical of the arguments ).

I have not been ignoring the Negative feedbacks. I have (repeatedly) stated that they exist and that they are actually having an effect on global climate. What I am saying is that if you increase the positive feedback loops so that the exceed the Negative feedback loops, then you will get rapid and unpredictable changes. Yes, other negative feedback loops exist and will then check the positive feedback loops, but it will not be immediate (lag) and the resulting state of the system will not be the same as it is today. As much of our survival infrastructure relies on the current predictability of the climate systems (when to plant crops, which areas don't have too many storms so that crops don't get ruined, flooding, etc), changes to these regularities will necessarily cause disruption to those self same survival systems. Stop with the "ists" (Alarmists, Catastrophist). This is just plain steriotyping. Just because someone makes a prediction (or even just speculation) that things could get bad, does not make them wrong. Sure, the Y2K thing had there "ists", and you are thinking that this could just be another Y2K thing. I actually agree that we don't need to be alarmist and predict the "End of the World" Yes, it is unlikely to be a total disaster. But we don't try to avoid disasters only if they are "total". If we could do something that would save the lives of a few million people, that would be good. Even if it was only a few hundred thousand, or even just 1, it would still be good. Humanity is intelligent (ok an few :rolleyes:), and we will adapt to this new environmental state. But many will die and loose their lively hood in the process. If we could stop that, or even reduce the amount of damage done, that is a good thing. I am not an alarmist, I just value human lives. I am not a pessimist (another "ist"), but I just don't blindly think that things will be rosy, I try to make thing better (or at least try to avoid things becoming worse). A true optimist is one that knows that things can get bad, but with effort, things don't have to stay bad. The person that claims to be an optimist and so continues on without any effort is just a pessimist in disguise (if this is the best it can be, why even bother to try to improve things?). Yes, and the world had millions of years to adapt to those states. What we are talking about is climate change on a much more rapid scale. And yes, there is evidence that there was rapid climate changes in the past. And these were all accompanied by mass extinctions. That would be a "total disaster". The Permian-Triassic mass extinction event (the largest known event), happened in 3 phases (pluses), the first was though to be due to climate change. This is just one example, there are many other mass extinctions that have been caused by climate changes. But then the animals evolve to suit the new environments. But that takes millions of years. Yes, life thrived in these warmer climates, but there didn't thrive until long after these changes occurred and they had had time to evolve to suit these environments. This seems to indicate that when these changes take place, it becomes difficult for all life to survive. So, based on historical precedent (which you seem to like), climate change is near total disaster for any creatures alive at the time of the changes. Hmm, maybe we should be alarmist...

Fashion is a cultural identifier. It allows members of a culture (or subculture) to label themselves as part of that culture and show someone who is from "outside" that culture. However, with today's mass media, it is much more easy for someone from outside the culture to "infiltrate" because it is more easy to get representations of that culture's identifying symbols (this is not just for fashion as in cloths, but also with mannerisms and other symbols). So if a culture is to maintain its uniqueness and be able to spot interlopers, then it must constantly keep changing. The more easy it is for outsiders to fake it, the faster that culture must change its fashions. Some people see this as the culture that is changing, but it is only the symbols that change. However, a lots of people think that the symbols are the culture . So these changes in fashion are not just for the sake of change, but are the culture's means of maintaining the symbols of it's unique identity.

This is skirting the long disproved "Elan Vital" concept. It was a concept that there was something other than the matter in living organisms. They said that there was a "Vital Force" (which is what Elan Vital means ), that made non living matter into living matter. Have a look at this (on youtube). It is an example of how life might have got started (it is one out of many plausible ways, we just can't be sure that this was the way it actually happened).

Which would work out at (approximately): 180,000,000,000,000,000 joules Yes, although a bit of an understatement. Not only would your 4kg be vaporised, but I think most of the Earth too.

I think that it is that we agree on most thing, but that we disagree on the conclusions. No, Tipping points and Runaway feedback are properties of complex systems (actually the mechanisms for them to occur), and the climate is a complex system, therefore it should have the same properties as other complex system (the mechanisms for tipping points and runaway feedback). Actually I have been saying that both positive and Negative feedback exist in complex systems. What I have been saying is that when the effects of the positive feedback loops don't exceed the effects of the Negative feedback, the system is stable (specifically a Dynamic Stability). However, all it then takes is for something to push the positive feedback effects above the Negative feedback effects and you have a tipping point and a runaway effect (see how systems with both positive and negative feedback naturally have these tipping points, it is not just a theory it is a mathematical fact). Yes, because of the nature of the climate systems, they will find new equilibriums. The thing is, that equilibrium will be different to the one we have now. Sorry, I should have been more specific. What I should have said is Dynamic Stability and Dynamic Equilibrium. But as we were discussing complex systems and the concepts of dynamic Equilibrium and Stability are part of that subject, I assumed that it would make sense. The concepts of Dynamic Equilibrium/Stability are based around how complex systems either tend to enter a runaway effect (either getting bigger or crashing to 0) or remain around particular values. When a complex system remains around particular values (or behaviours), this is called dynamic Equilibrium/Stability. In these states the systems tend to be fairly predictable. In terms of climate systems this means we can be fairly certain what the weather is going to be like. For instance, we know that the tropics will tend to have lots of storms and rain at certain times of the year. Or that when the El Nino event is occuring that the weather in Australia will be a certain way. Because at these times, the system is dominated by negative feedback effects, the system will be similar over time. There are still positive feedback effects so there will be some variation (and these variations are also used to show that there are positive feedback effects in the system - even if we don't know what they are). If there were no positive feedback effects, the system would move to a certain state (values/behaviour) and there would be no variation from that state. However, because there are fluctuations, we know that there are positive feedback effects in the system. The thing is, if the positive feedback effects ever get bigger than the negative feedback effects, the system becomes unstable and can rapidly shift to a new and very different state. Some systems will go into a complete unchecked runaway spiral, but the climate system has certain negative feedback effects (specifically the one where the hotter an object the more heat it radiates - so we can never enter into a completely unchecked runaway heating spiral). If you want an absolute extreme for what a climate system could go to, just look a Venus. However, the amount of disruption needed to cause that on Earth is nowhere near the effects we are talking about here (now that would be alarmist ). What we might be looking at is a few degrees change in temperature (up or down), but a few degrees of change could cause a lot of disruption to the world as we know it. The other problem with complex systems is that when tipping points are reached and the dynamic stability breaks down (and you enter instability), is that the systems, being complex, are unpredictable (well really hard and you can't be accurate as the slightest uncertainty about the initial state will lead to a large difference from the predicted state). The only reason we can make predictions about our climate system, is that we are in a dynamically stable period. If we are lucky (and act in time) then we might not hit a tipping point (or only hit one that ends up not having a big effect - but we will only know how bad until after we hit it and see the effects) and all we end up with is a little more uncertainty in our current climate systems (it will make it harder to predict the weather, but we will develop models for the new state). If we hit a major tipping point, then it is all up in the air. It could be bad, it could be neutral, or it could even be good (unlikely but it is a possible outcome). If we hit that tipping point, about all we can say at the moment is that it will be different, it won't be the end of the world, and we will (eventually) adapt. I recomend two books to read: Patterns in the Sand this is all abut complex systems. Collapse: How Societies choose to fail or survive this is about how societies can either adapt or fail to adapt to change.

Yes, not predictable at all if you use think that it is a linear system. However, non linear maths can make the predictions. The variables don't "lead" to a non linear system, the describe the non linear system. Actually it is not the "unpredictable" nature of the variables at all. We are not trying to predict the values of the input variables to the system in any way. What leads the system to unpredictability (of any degree) is that we don't know precisely the input values. Although we can't know the input values precisely, we can run the models many, many times with slightly different input values and see what common behaviours the models have under these conditions. Certain things seem to come out: When temperatures exceed certain level in certain locations, sudden, dramatic and very difficult to prevent changes occur to the Earth's climate systems. Now, depending on certain other values of input variables that we might not know about (you unpredictability) do have some minor effect. Essentially by choosing values for them (rather than getting them from measurements), we can see what would happen. Now this technique does not require us to actually have these measurements because we run the models again and again with different values of these unknowns. So even if we don't know the values, we have tested what would occur. In this case, measurement of these "Unknown" factors just narrows down the which result (that we already have) are the ones it is actually going to be. So, yes, there are unknowns, but they have already been accounted for and we don't actually need to know them (it will help, but not really necessary). Actually this is the most fundamental thing about modelling in non linear system (and even linear system too). The fact that you keep demonstrating that you don't understand the very basics of this topic indicates to me that you don't actually know what you are talking about. It is even just common sense. If you don't know the value of something, then work out what the result would be for all values of that unknown. That way you can know what would occur regardless of what value that unknown actually is.

Acceleration = Force / Mass But as you approach the speed of light you mass increases towards infinity (if you were to reach the speed of light your mass would be infinite). So what is a finite (force) divided by Infinity (mass)? This means that no matter how much you accelerate, you can never reach the speed of light. This is true for your own frame of reference, however, someone in a different frame of reference would see your speed getting close to the speed of light (but as it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate you to the speed of light, you will never actually reach it even from another person's frame of reference).

Ok, if the world was warmer in the past, what made it so warm then and now is colder? Answer: A tipping point. The Earth has been warmer and it has been colder. The amount of energy emitted from the sun has not varied enough to account for the differences in temperatures alone. However, non linear systems with tipping points do account for it. Even non linear systems alone (with the tipping points) can not account for the behaviours of the climate systems. The fact that the warm and cold periods were stable means that there are tipping points and that these were in effect. It is not "dubious" at all. You are ignoring the data (that the Earth has have variations in it's climate systems and it has had stable periods despite those variations) which proves that the Earth's climate systems are non linear and have tipping points. This is why I thought that you didn't understand the basics of non linear systems. The two factors: variations not directly proportional to the inputs and periods of stability despite variations in the inputs, are direct evidence that a system is non linear (output not directly proportional to the input) and has tipping points (a non linear system that has periods of stability despite variations in the input). As the climate systems show both of these properties, I can't seem to understand why you can't make the link between a system that displays these factors as having the consequences of those factors.

They are only "theoretical" because they haven't happened in this period (yet). Anyone who understand the basics of how non linear systems work, will know that in any non linear system there are "tipping" points. These are where the various positive feedback loops locally exceed other local negative feedback loops. These can be temporary or permanent. Yes, they can be temporary. One thing about non linear systems is that they can have lag in them. When one factor goes up, it can be some time before a dependent factor responds to this. A simple one is with rabbits. More food means more rabbits can survive. But there is a gestation period before the baby rabbits are born. This introduces a lag into the system and can delay the response of other factors depend on the lagged factor. This lag will create oscillations in the values of various attributes. It is almost a signature of non linear systems. Have a look at the situation we are in now. Recently (in geological time) we have bee experiencing dramatic swings in global temperatures. From ice ages to warmer than today. The climate systems are oscillating. Another thing is that some systems have natural limits, or can be limited by other negative feedback loops. These create a metastable state which can trap a system in one of several states that are "locally" (local as in the system state, not as in spatial position) stable. So in a complex system you will expect that there are factors that will stay relatively stable despite changes, but when a certain threshold is reached, fast and dramatic changes will occur to that factor. But does this apply to the climate systems? Well, if you look at what I was saying about melting. In this model, imagine that you have a large black sheet divided into grid cells. However, on top of that sheet you have crushed ice (so it reflects the sunlight). The ice, however, is not evenly distributed. In some places it is quite thick and in other places it is thinner. Now for a while you can slowly raise the amount of heat directed at the sheet and what you will find is that the ice will only melt a little bit. But once one section if the ice is completely melted and exposing the back sheet underneath, the surrounding ice will melt faster. This exposes more black sheet and so more heat is absorbed which melts the surrounding areas faster (and you have more area that is next to th4e black areas). This is a tipping point. Once you have that black sheet exposed, it greatly accelerates the melting of nearby sections which exposes more black plastic. Now, I am not talking about just the land. I am also talking about the ocean. In the poles there is sea ice, and this will reflect sunlight without turning it into heat. But once this sea ice starts to melt, it will absorb the sunlight turning it into heat. This then speeds up the melting of sea ice. But, the problem with a warmer ocean at the poles is that it also warms the atmosphere. But this warming will have a lag. What you might expect is that as the sea ice melts it will provide some form of cooling (why do you put ice cubes into a drink? as the ice melts it takes the heat needed to melt from its environment). What you would probably expect is a slight cooling for some time before the warming lag catches up with the land. And that is just what you said is happening. The sea is warming up around the poles and the land at the poles is getting slightly cooler Not only is this showing that that is occuring, it is also indicative of a non linear system that is prone to tipping points. You are showing a distinct lack of understanding about the nature of non linear systems as opposed to linear systems. You seem to be rejecting tipping points because they haven't occurred . The thing is there is plenty of evidence that they have occurred in the past (the whole glacial/interglacial swings is one really big give away). Also the fact that the Earth has an average temperature of around 16 degrees C, and that certain events have pushed it away from that average and held it there for a period before something pushes it away again. These are all fingerprints of non linear systems subject to tipping points. In linear systems the factors would be proportional to whatever changes are occuring, so if the sun gets a little warmer, then you would expect the Earth to get proportionally warmer as well. In non linear system without tipping points, you would expect to see constant fluctuations with changes to the inputs to the system. What you would not expect to see are stable periods. In non linear system with tipping points would would expect to see stable periods punctuated by periods of fluctuations (ie: The last ice age then these interglacial periods, or the warmer periods in the times of the dinosaurs). In non linear systems (in general, not just the ones with tipping points), you would also expect to see some forms of self similarity. That is on small scales you will also get these kinds of behaviours. So on the scales of centuries, or even as small as decades, you would expect to see in a non linear system with tipping points, periods of stability coupled with other periods of instability. The El Nino/La Nina is actually one such event that I can explicitly point to that does exist within our climate systems.

Actually you did misunderstand. It is not the distinction between Heat and Temperature, but Heat/Temperature and Energy. The misnamed Global Warming (by the media) is all about the retention of Energy within the global climate systems. Heat and Energy are just one way that this Energy can manifest. Yes, as I said the melting of the Arctic will not change sea levels. However, the Antarctic ice cap lies on land (yes there is also sea ice there too and melting this sea ice will not cause a rise in sea levels). and it is this melting that will cause a rise in sea levels. Not only from the amount of melt water, but also from the fact that the ice weighs a lot and has been pushing down the crust and once it starts to go the crust will spring back up (although this will take longer than the 100 year time frame we have been discussing). I also specifically mentioned that this applied to the Ice Caps of Greenland and Antarctica. The only way the oceans could be expanding thermally is if they are warming up. Hang on... Climate systems warming up... That is Global Warming. So why are you "sceptical" of global warming? This indicates that the atmosphere is also warming up. So you have agreed that the Oceans are warming up and that the Atmosphere is warming up. Warmer oceans and atmospheres should cause less ice at the poles (and a loss of ice will mean that the water has to go somewhere - which is the oceans). Ice caps over land (Antarctic and Greenland) will cause an increase in sea levels. The amount of water locked up in glaciers (excluding the ice caps of Antarctica and Greenland) are not enough to significantly raise the sea levels. If enough water was being lost from glaciers to raise global sea levels by 3mm / year, then we would have to see a much greater reduction of them than we already are. Glaciers are at most a few hundred metres thick. The Ice caps on Greenland and Antarctica are kilometres thick. It is an order of magnitude of difference and that Mountain Glaciers just can't provide enough water to account for the rise in sea levels. Yes. And I do know that they have been discussed before (I think I even mentioned a couple my self). However, in the Warming -> Melting -> Warming cycle there is not direct negative feedback loop. There are some that are indirectly tied to it, but that one is a direct positive feedback loop without any negative ones directly involved. And that is the danger as once that one starts it will be almost impossible for us to stop. The only way to stop it is for us to amplify the effects of the indirect negative feedback loops (without amplifying any harmful positive ones tied to them) in an effort to overwhelm the (accelerating) effects of the positive one. If there was a direct negative feedback loop in that system, then we could easily control it with that negative loop, but as one doesn't exist it has the potential to get away form us and exceed our ability to prevent it. I too am against panic reactions. But I am also against the "business as usual" as sticking your head in the sand until it is too late leads to panic reactions. Science has known about global warming (or at least the potential for it) for decades, and yet it was all "business as usual". We are getting very close to certain tipping points (and maybe even past some of them). This is why there are panic reactions. Once these tipping points are past, then positive feedback loop dominate (the tipping points are when the effects of the Positive feedback loops exceed the effects of the Negative ones) and we loose control. The difficulty is to separate the alarmist reactions from the alarming realities.

Something like a natural lake? Actually, using a lake as a reservoir and using natural rain fall as your pump could make this quite environmentally friendly (depending on how much water you actually use). Pumping the water up yourself would, of course, be a waste of energy (although if you used wind turbines...).

Atoms are actually made up of smaller parts. There is the Nucleus made up of Protons and Neutrons. Then there are the Electrons that exist in a cloud that surrounds the nucleus. As the electrons are (relatively) loosely bound into the atom, it is easy to strip them away from the atom. This process is called ionisation. An easy way to do this is by directing photons (light) of the right frequency at them. Also, if enough photons hit the electrons in succession, they will also get enough energy to be knocked away form the atom. Another way is to heat the atoms up. This heat can cause the electrons to escape the atom and hence ionise it. There are just as many forms of antimatter as there are normal matter. Anti Matter is a type of matter with an opposite charge. So you can have an antimatter electron called a positron that is the same as an electron but has a positive charge instead of a negative charge. When matter and antimatter of the same particle type collide (and because they are opposite charges they naturally attract each other), they annihilate into photons. There is nothing left of both particles except for these photons. Of course any particles not involved in the annihilation will still exists, and the photons created in the annihilation can interact with them, just and any other photons would.

Yes, as more energy is put into changing the way energy moves around the climate systems. And here is your problem. You keep insisting that energy input only equals temperatures. It does not! (how many times must this be said before you understand ). Yes, temperatures might be more even. Yes, the ocean can absorb a lot of heat. But is it not the heat, or temperatures that are the only problems. The problems are with energy. The energy might not show up as heat or temperature changes, but instead as changes to how that heat or temperature is moved around. One of which is to move more of it to the poles. This would greatly increase the rate ice cap melting and provide faster sea level rises (much faster than 3mm a year). Which brings me to: As you said: "in a warming world, the distribution of temperature is more even". This means that the poles are going to heat up. This means that melting is going to increase. But you have a problem with the fact that melting will increase. The average temperature of the Earth (currently) is around 16 degrees C. So if the Earth's temperature differences were to become more even, this is the temperature that they will converge to. However, with the poles they are a system in a dynamic stability. that is the amount of ice that is accumulating is roughly equal to the amount of ice that is being lost (melting). It is not a static stability because the two effects (accumulation and loss) are not directly linked (that is because ice is lost from the poles, it does not automatically mean that it will be immediately added). This means that if there is an increased rate of melting or a reduction in accumulation, then there will be a net loss of ice. When ice is lost from the south pole or the Greenland ice sheets, this loss will lead to an increase in sea levels (where as if it is from the Arctic then this will not lead to an increase in sea levels). However, there is a link between ice coverage (including the Arctic) and warming (this is direct warming unlike the general increase in energy due to the greenhouse gasses). This is because Ice and Snow are good reflectors of sunlight (high albedo) and that rock and sea are bad reflectors and good absorbers of sunlight. This warming produces not only a global increase, but it is also a local increase (which means the area around these experiences the warming (again, unlike what the greenhouse gasses do). So, with a small increase in temperature that increases the rate of melting, it will reveal more sea and land. These in turn will amplify the warming and hence increase the melting, which revelas more land and ocean... ...and so on. This feedback effect of the warming/melting/warming cycle is a positive feedback loop. This create an exponential amplification of the initial warming and any results from it. So, looking at the underlying effects of what actually happens when the melting starts in these places leads to an exponential increase in melting. And, as sea level is a (nearly) linear effect of this melting (basically the land area covered be the rising water will disturb it from a perfect linear increase), then if the melting is exponential, we can expect that the increase in sea level will follow that same (exponential) curve closely. Actually the fact that we are getting any sea level rise must mean that the ice caps are melting as there is a finite amount of water on Earth and there are no other massive stores of water that are being drained fast enough to account for that level of sea level increase. It can't be from rivers as the water that is coming down the rivers was initially taken from the oceans (so the net amount of water there is 0 - or close enough to it to not be a significant factor). So the very fact that there is a sea level rise means that the ice caps are melting. And when the ice caps melt and expose more land or ocean (although with the ocean we would not get a sea level rise), then this produces both a local and global increase in temperature and both a global and local increase in melting in a positive feedback loop (which causes an exponential increase in this cycle). What this means is your disbelief of an exponential increase in sea level rise is completely unfounded and is in fact a logical fallacy (argument from ignorance). ALso your argument that tghe sea level rise is only 3mm per year so is nothing to worry about is also another logical fallacy (Appeal to tradition). Just because it has been 3mm per year in the past does not mean that it is still going to only be 3mm per year in the future. In fact, the sea level rise in the past has actually been negative, so this argument "in the past it has only been X" should mean that there is no water in the oceans. This is why the "appeal to tradition" is a logical fallacy. What he was talking about here is that he thinks there is a positive feedback loop that will cause the sea level rise to be non-linear (exponential) rather than linear. As I have showed, there is a direct link that provides a positive feedback loop (hence exponential) between melting and ice cover. As ice melts it increases the amount of land exposed to sunlight. The more land (rather than ice) exposed to sunlight, the more local and global warming that will occur. The more warming that occurs, the more ice that melts. It is that loop that is important. And it is that loop that shows that there will be a non-linear rate of melting (and hence sea level rise). He says that he can't prove that his 10 year doubling time is accurate, but he is not saying that he can't prove that there will an exponential increase in sea level rise. He also says that it is an estimate (in other words not a prediction). As he is a scientist involved in climate research, measuring and modelling, I would guess his estimates are actually an educated guess. Lets assume that he got it quite wrong and it is only half what he expects: Doubling every 20 years. 2000 - 2020: 3mm/year (average) = 3mm/years * 20 years = 60mm 2020 - 2040: 6mm/year (average) = 60mm + (6mm/year * 20 years) = 180mm 2040 - 2060: 12mm/year (average) = 180mm + (12mm/year * 20 years) = 420mm 2060 - 2080: 24mm/year (average) = 420mm + (24mm/year * 20 years) = 900mm 2080 - 2100: 48mm/year (average) = 900mm + (48mm/year * 20 years) = 1860mm 1.86 meters. And that is only if half the increase is achieved and only if the rate is a doubling (it could be greater but it also could be less). One of the things you have to udnerstand about an exponential increase is that near the beginning it will look like a linear increase. This is why you can't just go off a chart, but look at the underlying system for the reason you will have an increase. So at this stage of the game, you might not see it in a diagram, but if you understand the reason that we will get an increase in sea level (the melting/warming/melting cycle I explained above) then you can see it will have to be exponential.

Yes. It is often used in Archaeology to detect what types of objects are under ground (usually whether there are stones, or changes in soil types).

Infra-red radiation is still photons , so it wouldn't even emit heat. It depends on your frame of reference (frames of reference are an integral part of Relativity, which black holes are a consequence). From the frame of reference of an outside observer (many light years away), then the person/object falling into the black hole will appear to slow down and never enter the black hole. However, from the frame of reference of the observer that is falling into the black hole, they don't see themselves slow down but they do see the rest of the universe speed up. So they will eventually cross the event horizon (there will be nothing physical that will mark the Event Horizon, but they will be able to determine that they have crossed where it should be based on the positions of matter outside the black hole). This is really strange stuff. From one point of view, the person never enters the black hole, but from the other point of view they do. How can one enter a black hole and also not enter it? Actually, the outside observe sees the person take an eternity to enter the black hole, but the person falling in sees an eternity occur out side the black hole as they fall in.

True. We can map where the unknowns are and take a guess at what they are using this fact. Energy is conserved. This too is what is underpinning the whole Global Warming Debate. Energy is conserved. So if we have a constant (or nearly constant) rate of energy incoming, and we are effecting the rate that this enrgy can escape, then what is going to happen to the energy? That energy will go somewhere in the climate systems, it just can't vanish from the universe. This energy will cause an imbalance (ie more energy in one location than another), and it will try to even out. As it does this it will do "work" and that work will be on the climate systems. Thus, if there is extra energy within the climate systems, and it is not evenly distributed (as it won't be), then it will cause changes to those climate systems as the energy tries to even out. This is what is meant by global warming and global climate change. It is a consequence of the laws of thermo dynamics: Energy must be conserved. To deny climate change is to deny the laws of conservation of energy. It is simple as that. The rest of the stuff (models, etc) are just our attempts to work out how this extra energy will effect the climate systems as it evens out. Sure the models might not be perfect, but the fact of the matter is that greenhouse gasses prevent heat (energy) from escaping the Earth's climate systems. The sun has not significantly changed its output in the last 100 years (and even so this would just exacerbate the problems), but the amount of greenhouse gasses that are being pumped into the atmosphere buy us humans has increased. Even the question of whether or not we are exceeding prior natural greenhouse gas events is moot. The Earth is warming (whether naturally or by human intervention) and we have a means that would allow us to control that to some degree. Warming is bad for us as it would disrupt many ecosystems that we rely on. We have the tools to stop this happening, so if we think that it is a good idea to prevent making life harder for our children, don't you think that it is a good idea to do so? This is what I don't get about GW deniers. Either they have to disregard basic physics (conservation of energy) or not care about their children's future. It is an inescapable consequence of thermo dynamics that there will be more energy in Earth's climatic systems and this extra energy will effect them. These effects will be disruptive (we will adapt and survive, we just might not have the same quality of life as we have now). If we can do something to prevent it, should we not do so? Yes, there are unknowns, but 2 facts are all that is needed: 1) Greenhouse Gasses trap heat energy in the Earth's climate systems 2) Energy can't be created or destroyed so it will have to go somewhere and it will cause things to change. Just these 2 facts alone dictate that Climate change will occur. You are just arguing against specific effects of this climate change and because the climate systems are complex and non-linear, they will be inherently hard to predict (and almost certainly we will never be 100% accurate). But, just because it is hard to predict and we will never be completely accurate does not mean that we should give up any attempt to do so, and it does not mean that that Global Warming is not occuring. What you seem to have conveniently forgotten is that although these models seem to be under predicting the problems (or that the problems are occuring in a different place), they are still predicting that there will be problems and that GW is real. I kind of agree (sort of). Yes, NS is a basic reference, but it is not as reliable as a peer reviewed journal. NS is accountable for its content (mostly at their own initiative), but they are journalists (although familiar with science and how it operates). I would accept that an article in NS is a valid reference, but that an article in a peer reviewed journal trumps whatever is taken from NS. It is a bit like Wikipedia. Sure you can reference it, but it is not a completely reliable reference for all things. I think its best use is to clarify a position or the concept being debated rather than a technical reference. A agree that attacking the person is not a valid argument (ad hominem logical fallacy). However, if it can be shown that the data that you based your argument on is wrong, then your conclusions form that data is also likely to be wrong. So when disputing the accuracy and validity of data, attacking a reference is perfectly valid (but the counter arguer has to show that the data of that reference is wrong). But the data might be incorrect, or the data in the reference might be an interpretation from data in another source (this is usually the way it is in NS, so it is valid to challenge the NS references). The unknowns only influence the specific effects of GW, not the fact that GW is happening and that there will be effects caused by it. Models of the Earth's climate system are pretty accurate over short term (days) for a specific location. They are also fairly accurate over long terms (>50 years - but of course if something dramatic occurs within that 50 years it can throw out the model until the modellers take that change into consideration), but in between these scales the models are not as accurate. Your arguments are that because we have inaccuracies in the middle scale, then the long term scale must also be wrong. This is a complete logical fallacy (Composition). Actually this whole argument against the models falls under the Perfect Solution logical fallacy.

When they make hindsight predictions, what they do is start with the known climate details at a particular date. They don't use the data that lies ahead of that date (ie closer to today). They then use their model to make predictions based on that limited data set and then check how close they got with the data from the model. Essentially what they are doing is seeing what their model would have predicted if it were available at some time in the past. So, if a climate modeller from 100 years in the future time travelled back to our time and use the data we have now in their model on their computers, would you consider their model valid if it then predicted the climate over the next 100 years? Because, except for the time machine, this is what we are doing now with our models. If that future modellers modelled data is considered valid, then so must our models data from hindsight modelling. In other words the models of today are better then they were years ago. So, what is your problem with them? If they are better at modelling the climate, then why not use them. Ther eis a reason the are called global climate models and not location specific climate models.

I jumped off a cliff today hoping that I could fly. However, I plummeted to my death. Of course this was in a virtual world. Just because a world is "virtual" does not mean that it does not have rules and that you as an individual can do whatever you desire. A virtual world is just a computer program and a computer program operates on logic. The computer would be implementing rules (the program) and using the logic of its processors would then calculates the result. If that result says that you fall to your death then you can do that. If it says you can respawn then you can respawn, if it says that you can't respawn, then you can't respawn and once you die that would be it. Your argument actually is a strawman as not all virtual worlds would be different from what we know of as reality (especially is they were a simulation of reality).

There is not such measurement as a "Nuclear Megaton". Megaton is not a unit of mass or weight, it is a unit of explosive potential. Megatons is a unit of measurement that is rated against TNT. So when they say that a Nuclear bomb has a rating of 50 megatons, then the energy from its detonation is equivalent to 50,000,000 tons of TNT . Now that you know this, could you rephrase your question, as you are asking a question about a unit or measurement that does not exist then we can't actually give you an answer that is not a guess that what you a mean.

Here is a question. How much area does the roof surface of every building in the US cover? A square 14m on each side would be enough to provide this. As the average house is much bigger than this (not to mention all the office buildings and other infrastructure), then this plan does not seem all that impossible.