Which is worse? ISIS or Global Warming?

[Bonam]

Obviously I was referring to the boiling point. A cup of coffee well above ambient temperature is different from the entire atmosphere being warmer.

Okay, let's see...

If I use the August-Roche-Magnus formula for the Clausius-Clapeyron relation at 338 K, I get a saturation vapour pressure of 171 atmospheres.

Mass of the Earth's atmosphere is 5.15 x 10^18 kg.

Mass of the Earth's oceans is 1.4 x 10^21 kg.

So the atmosphere can hold at most 62.9% of the Earth's oceans at that temperature in this highly idealized case.

So there will still be ocean left.

Haven't double checked the numbers but my guess is if a significant fraction of the Earth's ocean mass goes into the atmosphere as water vapor, that will quickly generate the needed extra warming to evaporate the rest of it, since water vapour is itself a greenhouse gas.

[Bonam]

That may be true atm. But what about 10 or 20 or even 30 years from now? They'll become entrenched and continue to gather resources. I'm sure the same things were said about Hitler in the early 30s.

Hitler controlled a technologically advanced state with an educated population that could build a powerful military. ISIS has no such capability, nor are its policies likely to give rise to such a capability.

[-1=e^ipi]

Haven't double checked the numbers

Also, remember that I'm using the Clausius-Clapeyron relation without taking the increase in pressure into account. Once you take into account the pressure increase, from memory you need a temperature of over 600 K to boil all the oceans away. So even a 100 C temperature increase won't eliminate the Earth's oceans. I'll see if I can find the link to the calculations I saw someone do on their blog.

if a significant fraction of the Earth's ocean mass goes into the atmosphere as water vapor, that will quickly generate the needed extra warming to evaporate the rest of it, since water vapour is itself a greenhouse gas.

Water vapour concentrations increases roughly exponentially with temperature, but radiative forcing is a roughly logarithmic function of water vapour concentrations. So the water vapour feedback is roughly constant with temperature. Anyway, I was referring to 50 C being the final equilibrium temperature. Also, if you do the calculations, the sun simply isn't strong enough for runaway global warming to occur on Earth for the next billion years.

[eyeball]

the sun simply isn't strong enough for runaway global warming to occur on Earth for the next billion years.

So ISIS it is until then I guess.

[Bonam]

Also, remember that I'm using the Clausius-Clapeyron relation without taking the increase in pressure into account. Once you take into account the pressure increase, from memory you need a temperature of over 600 K to boil all the oceans away. So even a 100 C temperature increase won't eliminate the Earth's oceans. I'll see if I can find the link to the calculations I saw someone do on their blog.

Water vapour concentrations increases roughly exponentially with temperature, but radiative forcing is a roughly logarithmic function of water vapour concentrations. So the water vapour feedback is roughly constant with temperature. Anyway, I was referring to 50 C being the final equilibrium temperature.

Fair enough on the assumption of an extra 50 C being the final equilibrium value. Still, a 50C increase in the equilibrium temperature would not be survivable in any meaningful sense. It would spell the end of any significant human civilization and kill not just the majority of the Earth's population (even if some tiny fraction could survive underground) but would eliminate almost any chance of humanity realizing its full long term potential.

In contrast, ISIS is just another petty brutal group, who would kill a lot of people given the power to do so but would fall sooner or later.

[cybercoma]

If the people of the ME and North Africa want to live under a caliphate, let them. We already let similarly brutal regimes exist, such as North Korea.

A rare (these days) point of agreement between us. We shouldn't be interfering in sovereign nations, unless they explicitly request our assistance and we recognize the authority of the government/group requesting the assistance. Even that step of recognizing authority can lead to issues. Picking sides in a civil war hasn't worked out very well historically. It usually leads to a much larger conflict with more casualties.

[Rue]

Cyber you are full of it. You pick sides each day and do the very thing you preach against in discussions about Israel and its right to exist. Um uh um uh um uh. Oh but that's different.

[Big Guy]

It is generally accpeted that the ISIS military consists of about 40,000 fighters. They have no armoured weapons, missiles, air planes or heavy artillery - yet they are in control of an area that houses 6 million people. How can the bright lights here explain that fact?

The area they control is predominantly Sunni. ISIS is a Sunni extremist organization. You think maybe lots of those folks in the areas controlled by ISIS would rather have them in control than those Shia figureheads in Baghdad or that staunch Shia dictator Assad? Hello!

By the way, Shia and Sunni have been killing each other for as long as any of them can remember.

Also a short message for those bright lights who appear clueless as to what is happening:

The ISIS army did not descend from ISIS alien spacecraft, they did not invade from some outside county and they were not created by some magic potion from a magician - their organized core is the remnants of the Saddam Hussein elite Republican Guard supported from people who live in Iraq and Syria. They are fighting for their country!! They are being re-enforced from extremist nationalistic volunteers from the rest of the world. It is a fight to the death, barbaric, cruel and without rules.

They are not invaders, they are not insurgents, they are one side of a civil war between the Sunni and Shia combatants. And anyone standing between them will not be standing for very long.

We are being played like a fine, fine fiddle.

Edited September 15, 2015 by Big Guy

[GostHacked]

Cyber you are full of it. You pick sides each day and do the very thing you preach against in discussions about Israel and its right to exist. Um uh um uh um uh. Oh but that's different.

Where has he said that? I believe I am the only one on this board who made the statement that I do not think Israel should exist.

[Rue]

I apologize for that misreading of his position. Excuse me. Quite correct you are the only one on the board who wants Israel wiped out. Thank you for that clarification,

Edited September 16, 2015 by Rue

[GostHacked]

I apologize for that misreading of his position. Excuse me. Quite correct you are the only one on the board who wants Israel wiped out. Thank you for that clarification,

No where have I said that Israel should be wiped off the map, I simply said that it should not exist. Big difference. I am opposed to GMOs, but there is little I can do to change the fact regardless of me wanting GMOs out of the food chain. I think I also would have better luck wiping GMOs out world wide single handed than pitching Israel to the dustbins of history.

But I guess my view is no more (or less) extreme than Canada_First's notion of wiping out Palestine.

[Bonam]

A rare (these days) point of agreement between us.

Not my fault you've drifted so much farther to the left over the years

We shouldn't be interfering in sovereign nations, unless they explicitly request our assistance and we recognize the authority of the government/group requesting the assistance. Even that step of recognizing authority can lead to issues. Picking sides in a civil war hasn't worked out very well historically. It usually leads to a much larger conflict with more casualties.

In my opinion, picking sides in a civil war should only be done under one (or both) of the following conditions:

1) It is the only way to prevent a genocide

2) The outcome of the civil war has a real impact on the security of the intervening nation(s)

In regards to (1), it is often easier to prevent the genocide by providing a means of escape to the endangered population rather than defending said population where it currently is. In regards to (2), almost all the violence of the middle-eastern regimes is inward-focused and so does not pose any real threat to Western nations.

[cybercoma]

Cyber you are full of it. You pick sides each day and do the very thing you preach against in discussions about Israel and its right to exist. Um uh um uh um uh. Oh but that's different.

You never did comprehend what I said about Israel and Palestine. Even jbg recognized that I support Israel's right to exist and right to defend itself. You can't get it through your head that someone can support that, but still be critical of the tactics that they use as well as being critical of their enemy. You think people need to pick a side and only criticize the other. Well, I'm sorry, but I don't have the utterly simplistic view of Palestine-Israel relations that sees it like picking sports teams. You want to don your jersey and uncritically support one side or the other, that's your prerogative. But don't sit here and misattribute a position to me because you're incapable of understanding the complexity of the problems over there. Edited September 17, 2015 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

I apologize for that misreading of his position. Excuse me. Quite correct you are the only one on the board who wants Israel wiped out. Thank you for that clarification,

I guess I should have read further before putting you on blast, but this still isn't the first time you've attributed that position to me. So I'm still not sure you get where I'm coming from.

[cybercoma]

In my opinion, picking sides in a civil war should only be done under one (or both) of the following conditions:

1) It is the only way to prevent a genocide

2) The outcome of the civil war has a real impact on the security of the intervening nation(s)

I agree, but I would also add to that the use of WMDs, land mines, or other internationally forbidden weapons, even when it doesn't reach the level of being genocide or attempted genocide. I'd also consider intervention if other treaty violations existed, even if they were not signatories, for example, attacking civilian populations, torturing POWs, killing combatants who surrendered.

The problem in a lot of these situations is that it's difficult to know who the sides are. Killing civilian populations is not something that's easy to figure out, since these conflicts are often civilians fighting against organized militaries. So it would certainly be up to debate about whether or not we should step in. However, these are the discussions we should be having before sending our soldiers there to potentially die or be crippled for life, before we dump millions of dollars in a situation that we may make worse rather than improving.

Edited September 17, 2015 by cybercoma