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...

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

Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Human activities contribute to global warming by enhancing Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect warms Earth's surface through a complex process involving sunlight, gases, and particles in the atmosphere. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases.

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.

A small number of scientists argue that the increase in greenhouse gases has not made a measurable difference in the temperature. They say that natural processes could have caused global warming. Those processes include increases in the energy emitted (given off) by the sun. But the vast majority of climatologists believe that increases in the sun's energy have contributed only slightly to recent warming.

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 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!

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.

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

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 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.

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..

Don't do drugs, kids.

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

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.

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.