Global Warming
 

Yes.. No?

Not really a question. It's happening.

Shit let me rephrase, Man made global warming? Mind you there is more ice in Antarctica than ever, and all the ice lost in Greenland has returned, and Chinas coldest winter in so long...

Can you source this? I'm just surprised because this is the opposite of what I've heard.

What a suprise, Chrome has bought in to even more republican bullshit.

Do you seriously not believe global warming is man-made? Of course the earth heats itself, but not at the rate that we're making it heat.

I never would have expected you of all people to be a fucking redneck republican.

Let me guess, you don't like them coloureds either, and you think racism is a lie, but you're probably racist against hispanics every chance you get. Grab your guns, boys, we gotta go take our country back from these illegals!

I do believe in Global warming, even Nasa has cited that man made resources are chaning the pattern up.

I deal with the same types of people here at work, that listen to Limbaugh/Hannity/Boortz that every time it gets cold joke about how "Oh man, this global warming is really taking off now! Damn it's only 35 degrees here!".. Their ignorance just kills me, and what's really sad about these "dittoheads" that can't make an informed opinion for themselves is that they really buy into all of the crap they hear and run with it.

I mean the sure simplicity of the studies they have done clearly show that Global warming is indeed a man-made trend. It does suck though because neither side can honestly difinitively show proof on their side, except for the guys that show Global warming is man made, i've seen tons of Carbon charts that show over the recent short period of time that the earth has warmed up more-so and has contributed to the rise in temperature.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4495463.stm
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global...worldbook.html

I think i'll side with the extraordinary minds of NASA over some moron back-spin talking clown like Rush Limbaugh that has been against the whole "Global Warming" and "Al Gore" since the early 90's.

Now, Nasa does say this.

Which aren't even their own scientists, so therefore I rule it out.

http://www.livescience.com/environme...ng_041115.html
http://www.mng.org.uk/gh/threat/threat6.htm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle516033.ece

What the fuck is wrong with you? This is not the flame forum. There is no need to attack me like that, I asked a question about global warming not race, if this is all you have to offer keep your fucking mouth shut.


Back on topic now that I have dealt with the riff raff.

I am in fact skeptical



The first thing that comes to mind when I doubt man made global warming is the climate change throughout history and corrosponding CO2 levels coupled with the fact that the Earth moves on it adapts and corrects.

In the 70's we were told(well not me..) that we were headed into an ice age. Not true obviously.

Then I think of volcanoes, The USGS studied Mount Saint Helens' emissions from 1980 to 1988.

At its worst, the output of CO2 was 23,000 tons per day. Or, in other words, what is emitted directly from the tailpipe when 2,371,134 gallons of gasoline are used. This ignores the fuel in the discovery, retrieval, transport, and refining required to actually get the fuel to your vehicle. The earth cooled 1.3 degrees over the next three years. Cooled. Not warmed. Though I damn sure do not want to live on a freezing cold ass planet either.
http://www.iceagenow.com/Ocean_Warming.htm
http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/1904.asp

Note, I am all for energy conservation(though not by government controlled thermostats omg scary) I burn wood every cold night in a wood stove in my house. In stead of using electricity, though I don't know about the emissions differences.

I see no problem with driving a hybrid or other more efficient vehicles.

I just think it's kind of absurd to think that we are destroying the planet like some kind of intruders, we belong here, the planet made us and I believe it can take what we throw at it. But indeed wether or not it causes global warming I don't like pollution of any kind and the idea of spewing gasses into the atmosphere bothers me.

The big problem I have with it is not wether or not we are causing cooling or warming, they are preying on our fear, global emissions taxes and such. California's nifty plan to gain controll of thermostats "in an emergency", and this country in general paying billions and billions, not to research and test new energy sources but to offset carbon emissions. I think that every dime paid into global warming should be paid into new energy sources.

Maybe I am wrong about Greenland, all evidence I see shows loss of ice.

"Researchers find Antarctic ice is thickening"
http://www.usatoday.com/news/science...is-thicker.htm

"China battles "coldest winter in 100 years""
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080204/...ina_weather_dc

I just see plenty of reasons to remain skeptical, plus if you look at the control exerted over the world in the name of global warming it is kind of alarming.

I have one question with Global Warming:

I was told that the polar ice caps were gonna melt and flood the fuck out of everything.

But then I'm like wait, water EXPANDS when it freezes, so when it melts, their won't be any flooding, but more land to build on.


That's just one flaw I found..

I... uh... lol.

Don't do drugs, kids.

I thought about that too, and when Asamin tried to argue me out of thinking it, he provided some explanation I couldn't really understand at the time and I forget now.

I don't see why the water would rise?

I don't follow the reasoning. Why would it matter that an ice crystal is less dense than water when it comes to flooding.

I can't tell who's shitting us, and who's for real here... so I'll jump in with abandon anyway. :)

First and foremost, a huge percentage of the worlds ice is on land. An absolutely massive percentage of it. When that melts, it's going to follow the path it's liquid cousin already follows, and flow down into the sea (some might flow into lakes, though, but that's its problem... stubborn bastards). Well that can't be too bad, can it? I mean, we have water flowing into the world's seas daily! Yes it is a problem - people don't realise the sheer volume of ice. Take glaciers, for example. They can be miles long, and hundreds of meters thick. The same goes for ice sheets, except that they can cover thousands of square miles. Only two exist, in Anartica and Greenland, and if they melt, then we're buggered. If the Greenland ice sheet melted completely it would cause sea levels around the world to rise by 20 feet (and completely re-direct the Gulf Stream, leaving little old Britain kinda cold), and if the ice sheet in Antartica melted, sea levels around the world would rise by 210 feet. That's a lot. Now I'm lucky, because I live in a very hilly country, and I'm over 1,000ft above sea level, so it'll take something stupid like the whole country sinking to immerse me in sea water, but there are a lot of places worldwide that would be completely flooded with only a six foot rise - take Holland, for example. Extremely flat. An extra six feet of water? Bye bye you crazy Dutch.

So to summarise - a lot of ice is on land. When that melts, billions of gallons of water would flow on their merry way to the sea, and Holland would drown.

Ah, thanks Lenny. I had not thought about the ice on land. XD

I had thought that most of the ice was in the ocean, therefore when the ice melted, it would displace less water than when it was in it's frozen state.

Ahh. Even so, there would be a significant rise in the water levels wouldn't you think?

Right. Of a glacier, about 90% of it is underwater, so I suppose you could assume that that 90% will not change anything when it melts, but the other 10% will.

I think what they are thinking is that it's like a glass of ice water, with ice cubes in it. Once you put the ice cubes in it, the water level is at the highest it will be, even once the ice melts. This is because the ice is already in the water.

However, it isn't the same as a glacier.

Water expands like 9 or 10% when frozen supposedly. In that case the change will be little to none, since 90% is already underwater. The poor coral reefs are fucked.

90% of icebergs are underwater, now without even slightly researching it, I can confidently tell you that most glaciers are not in the water, they are on land.

So, this goes back to Lenny's point. If these massive amounts of ICE on LAND melt, the water level will rise. It's as simple as that. Not only will the water level rise, but the Planet heating up could also have more severe weather changes that we are really unable to perdict, which is why I get so frustrated when people completely downplay Global warming and completely dismisss it as "not our fault" and don't care to take care of this poor country we're slowly destroying.

Where I live, we are roughly 5~7 feet above sea leval, now, if anything we're to shift within the next 10-15 years, I'm pretty much fucked, along with all of Florida which average above sea level is like 12 feet...

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c..._id=&Issue_id=

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature...ticle10866.htm

Man made global warming is a ploy to govern and tax the world, get a grip kids.

Anthropogenic global warming is not some conspiracy. The scientists aren't in some sort of cahoots with the left. It is very real. I have tests all week, but give me until saturday, and I will post all that I know on the subject to back my claim.

*noted.

Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations "Totally Wrong"

http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+...ticle10973.htm

Polar bears caught in a heated eco-debate

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/clim...s_N.htm?csp=34

I've been told that for years and have decided to just let the two sides battle it out and learn about it as much as I could. I favor that it's bullshit tbh.

The world changes naturally. Some form of nitroglycerin changed freezing temperature worldwide. All monkeys learned to use a tool simultaneously. People believe Bush is a pretty cool guy. These are all anomalies.

But the world goes through a pattern as the poles near their flip. It's a natural cycle.

I suppose that the tropical climate of the dinosaurs was caused by car emissions.

Just wanted to let you know, I still intend on responding. I haven't forgotten about this, just been busier than I anticipated.

I figured as much, I didn't assume you were ignoring it

There are two comments above I am compelled to respond to.

This is a fairy tale. The earth neither adapts nor corrects. In fact, such diction is nonsensical in this context. The earth does not need to adapt nor correct. It will persist regardless of whether or not life perishes. There will be no spontaneous rectification. The earth does not exist for the preservation of life. It will impetuously turn as hostile as Venus given the first chance. Your teleological argument is extraordinarily dangerous and naive.

We don't belong here. We are a transient species. Believing that life will persist despite what we do is once again an endearing thought, yet horrifically naive.

Adrenachrome, you somewhat scare me. You claim to be unbiased on the issue, however your sources are highly prejudicial. You will not find an unbiased presentation of the facts on a site like iceagenow.com. Cherry-picking from sites espousing your personal views is worse than merely ignoring evidence; it is self-proselytization.

Credible sources do exist that argue against anthropogenic global warming, however they are the minority. Your sources, however, are not exactly what one would call credible. Some deny global warming altogether. Denying anthropogenic global warming is one thing, however denying global warming altogether is simply absurd. Some of your sources have an obvious conservative bias. Other sources are news reporters. News reporters are not exactly the best scientific commentators. For instance, here some news reporter claims that scientists have confirmed an extraterrestrial signal. Though an anomalous extragalactic signal was picked up that day, nobody seriously thought that this was confirmation of extraterrestrial contact. My point is that the general media is not a completely credible source for scientific reports.

So what constitutes a credible source? Anything from a respected peer-reviewed journal works. I provided links as examples in another thread, but I will provide some more examples. For instance, you claimed earlier that Greenland recovered all its lost ice. This is simply fiction. In fact, the arctic lost ice the size of Texas and California combined in 2007 alone. A climate model based on conservative estimates of climate change has us with an ice-free arctic by 2030. How credible can your sources be when they directly contradict empirical evidence? [1-2]

To understand global warming one must have a basic understanding of the greenhouse effect. It is beyond the scope of this post to discuss the geochemical processes involved in the greenhouse effect, but I will discuss it on a superficial level briefly.

The greenhouse effect is a consequence of the presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These gases include, but are not limited to, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases. Greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere. This heat is radiated down, thus increasing global temperature. This is not necessarily a bad thing. The greenhouse effect is a natural process on earth, and without it the average temperature on the surface of this planet would be -19 degrees Celsius as opposed to 14 degrees Celsius as it is now.

It is imperative to understand that humans have significantly increased the greenhouse gas content in the atmosphere through activities such as burning fossil fuels and biomass. This has also introduced aerosols into the atmosphere, which play a very similar role. Though greenhouse gases and temperature vary through natural causes, there is apodictic evidence which should lead us to conclude that human activity has played a very significant role in increasing the greenhouse gas content, and as a corollary, the temperature on earth.

Over the past 650,000 years, the natural range of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has been 180-300 parts per million. [3] It is currently at 380 ppm. By the end of the 20th century scientists predict it will be in between 490-1260 ppm.[4] Either nature is inherently anomalous during times when the industry flourishes, or we need to seriously consider the cause of global warming to be anthropogenic.

It is not difficult to see that greenhouse gases have increased significantly since the industrial revolution.

Carbon Dioxide
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/sci...onc_co2-lg.gif

Methane
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/sci...onc_ch4-lg.gif

Nitrous Oxide
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/sci...onc_n2o-lg.gif

[5]

Notice how that instead of the gentle cyclic pattern that is normal, we see sharp spikes around the advent of the industrial revolution when we should be seeing drops in greenhouse gas concentration. Consequentially, this is exactly the time we also start seeing a global rise in temperature. [6] Nature did not decide to fool us by waiting for the industrial revolution before warming the globe by releasing enormous amounts of greenhouse gases from hidden sources. This is our doing.

The increase in temperature will not be evenly distributed throughout the earth. The change will become more severe as you approach the poles. One or more biomes may disappear completely and there will be species extinctions associated with the loss of those biomes. There is already concern about the survival of polar bears in the wild. We are already seeing ice thinning and the reduction in the size of glaciers at high latitudes and altitudes. We will probably have to change the name of Glacier National Park sometime this century.

In terms of global warming effects on the U.S., some models predict a major eastward movement of the latitude where the rainfall exceeds 20 inches. The current line is at the 100th meridian (near San Antonio), it may move as far east as the Mississippi river. If you look at a map of the U.S., there are no major cities west of the 100th meridian, with the exception of Denver, until you get to the West Coast. The lack of rainfall and water is the major reason. If this model is correct, Texas will not have enough water to support its large cities. [3]



[1] Stroeve, J., M.Serreze, S. Drobot, S. Gearheard, M. Holland, J. Maslanik, W. Meier, and T. Scambos. 2008. Arctic Sea Ice Plummets in 2007. EOS Transactions. Vol 89, No. 2, pp 1-2. January 8, 2008.

[2] Stroeve, J., Holland, M.M., Meier, W., Scambos, T., Serreze, M. (2007). Arctic sea ice decline: Faster than forecast. Geophysical Research Letters, 34(9) DOI: 10.1029/2007GL029703

[3] Campbell, N., Reece, J. (2005). Biology. Pearson.

[4] Nebojsa Nakicenovic, Joseph Alcamo, Gerald Davis, Bert de Vries, Joergen Fenhann, Stuart Gaffin, Kenneth Gregory, Arnulf Grübler, Tae Yong Jung, Tom Kram, Emilio Lebre La Rovere, Laurie Michaelis, Shunsuke Mori, Tsuneyuki Morita, William Pepper, Hugh Pitcher, Lynn Price, Keywan Riahi, Alexander Roehrl, Hans-Holger Rogner, Alexei Sankovski, Michael Schlesinger, Priyadarshi Shukla, Steven Smith, Robert Swart, Sascha van Rooijen, Nadejda Victor, Zhou Dadi (1996). Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. IPCC.

[5] www.epa.gov

[6] Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S., Hughes, M.K. (1998). . Nature, 392(6678), 779-787. DOI: 10.1038/33859

Excellent post. I enjoyed reading it.

7778897ii

Wow! You've really outdone yourself this time, Adrena! The polar bear defense is infallible! How did I not see it before?!

You're looking at the subject with blinders. Polar bear population has increased due to hunting of polar bears being restricted. The loss of the tundra would be a calamity for the polar bear. Again, such parochial views are irresponsibly dangerous.

See:

http://www.iucnredlist.org/search/details.php/22823/all
http://neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov/publica...%20Warming.pdf
http://umanitoba.ca/ceos/files/publications_pdf/058.pdf
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0...f-sea-ice.html
http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/44/2/163
http://amap.no/workdocs/index.cfm?di...CIA%2Foverview
http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?requ...F2006-180&ct=1
http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic52-3-294.pdf
http://dx.doi.org/10.2193%2F2006-180
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special...ast_lowres.pdf
http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/facul...imate_2007.pdf

Your rebuttal to that post is a nitpick on polar bears? Anything else to add...?

Don't be mean to the polar bears, shiznad.

My opinion. Global warming sucks.

As in the phenomenon itself sucks, or that the theory sucks?

Phenomenon, I guess. Theory bullshit, it's happening.

Global warming is real, the new argument is if it's man-made or not. Now, go!

Man-made, if we all died, the world would be healed.

...l...LMFAO.

I don't think adrenachrome will reply :(

Oh my...

http://zelaron.com/forum/showpost.php?p=275406