Paris Climate Change Conference 2015

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

Only water in sea becomes ice not Salt content (or very little saline).If you don't know science keep quiet. Water become dense at 4 C that is why layer above water becomes ice not entire water/sea/river. So all living creatures live below happily.

But,but,but........................

Just thought about it. Ice is light and floats over water, which means 10% of it is outside water and is concentrated in the polar regions. Now you melt it and it spreads as water around the whole world. So water levels would indeed rise if all the ice melts in the polar region.

P.S. I am undecided on climate change. And I think India should not compromise on its development.

 

[Screambowl]

Only water in sea becomes ice not Salt content (or very little saline).If you don't know science keep quiet. Water become dense at 4 C that is why layer above water becomes ice not entire water/sea/river. So all living creatures live below happily.

the entire water doesn'T become ice, because of high pressure as you go down and more concentration of salt. And as you go below, due to warm sea bed (as magma flows beneath it) works as anti freeze.

 

[Screambowl]

the entire water doesn'T become ice...............That is why MILLIONS OF YRS fish living below... nothing new.
because of high pressure as you go down and more concentration of salt...... saline depends on 10+ factors not only 1.

you are repeating my point... copy cat. lol

 

[Bahamut]

Some help full data for climate change

 

[Mad Indian]

Just thought about it. Ice is light and floats over water, which means 10% of it is outside water and is concentrated in the polar regions. Now you melt it and it spreads as water around the whole world. So water levels would indeed rise if all the ice melts in the polar region.

But ice is not dense as cold water so any icemelting, would be offset by the higher density their new form(cold water has).

So there is no merit to the amount of alarm caused by the global warming cultists.

Also, I read that contrary to popular scare mongering by the cultists, mount Everest is growing by half centimetre every year a d that the ice cover of poles or Himalayas have actually increased in the last two decades.


Now that their global surface temperature warming has been proven to be demonstrably falss, they have switched the term to ocean warming..really? So do they mean to tell us that there was no ocean warming before? If ocean warming was indeed there,then why did surface temp warming occur three decades before that from 1940-70?

Any theory ,which can't predict what the future would look like or isn't reproducible, is not a gheory which has been confirmed.

However, global warming cultists want us to believe that the science has been settled even though they have not been able to predict anything so far- be it temperature rise or the rising sea level or what not. These people have got the idea of scientific method backwards

 

[Aravind Sanjeev]

India only accounts for around 5.8% of the global emissions making it fourth/third largest emitter of CO2. That is even a smudge because India should be producing way more with one-seventh of the planet's population. All the bothersome talk about India's influence on climate change is a little ridiculous, India have lowest emission per capita, that means if you were to take parallel assessment over method to determine the standard of living (GDP per capita), India should be on top for not producing CO2.

There are 1.2 Billion people in India which make a 6% (rounded) GHG emissions. There are 7 billion people, and an approx 6 billion is making the rest of 94%. That means a single Indian is producing 0.0,000,000,000,000,006% of total world's GHG compared to a global average of 0.0,000,000,000,000,015%. So each one living outside India produces 2.5 times more GHG than the one living in. Now this large generalisation might be biased provided not everyone outside India is just exactly producing 2.5 times more, that just means, this is even more accumulated in the western world and China where the exact problem should be solved.

I am sure India cannot do much about it.

 

[Mad Indian]

No reason to not clean up India & have sustainable thorium energy.

No reason to not send West the bill.. :biggrin2:

Realistically look east to deny west those devel markets

Politics of ghg has to be separate from science.

As brf thread says


The only way it works is to behave like an umerican here., India must take this position:

Quote:
India has the right to emit as much GHGs per capita as Americans, Australians and Canadians. India will strive to match per capita emissions of US, Australia and Canada. Whichever is higher


Now we can negotiate. If Australians do not want us to emit more GHGs., let them give us Uranium and we keep the plutonium. Same with America., they can as well send in some plutonium to start our 3rd generation thorium reactors.

And Canadians can give us zero-interest loans to install nuclear power plants and solar plants. The rest of the Europe can give us technologies (free) for setting up Solar Cell manufacturing.

Till that time, we *must* emit GHGs to develop our economy.

I agree fully.

India should commit to reducing the per capita emissions of ghgs to the level of USA, UK, France ,Germany etc

 

[Mad Indian]

But,but,but........................

Just thought about it. Ice is light and floats over water, which means 10% of it is outside water and is concentrated in the polar regions. Now you melt it and it spreads as water around the whole world. So water levels would indeed rise if all the ice melts in the polar region.

P.S. I am undecided on climate change. And I think India should not compromise on its development.

Dude, float an ice in a water filled glass .it would have displaced the water based on its weight and volume on adding it to the glass.

But now is the catch, allow that ice to melt. Will the water level in the glass rise any more?

 

[Rowdy]

Dude ... lets relax and think it over.....
Should we release so much CO2 in the air .... probably not ... does it have a bad effect .... this fact is clearly not established.
I say we take what ever money we can and do just what ever that money allows us to do without sacrificing our climate goals.