NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello folks,

I was reading a debate about Nazi Bush, that got derailed by a Global Warming argument, so I thought I would start a debate here, though it's probably already been done about a million times before.

http://pics.livejournal.com/quelconque/pic/000026dg
(I'm getting so much use out of this picture.)

We just had one of these threads!

http://pics.livejournal.com/quelconque/pic/000026dg
(I'm getting so much use out of this picture.)

We just had one of these threads!

You could do this with any thread in the past few days! It seems all of them are being steered to global warming...by someone...

You could do this with any thread in the past few days! It seems all of them are being steered to global warming...by someone...

By whom? Come on, you can tell uncle Fass! ;)

this is going to be great...

None of the above (you really could use an "other" option).

Global warming exists, as part of a naturally occurring cooling/warming cyclical process.

Plain Fact... as recognised now by any scientist with half a brain, of course the Republicans would have you believe it's a liberal lie because otherwise their cronies' oil companies might be in danger...

Plain Fact... as recognised now by any scientist with half a brain, of course the Republicans would have you believe it's a liberal lie because otherwise their cronies' oil companies might be in danger...

Couldn't have said it better.

http://pics.livejournal.com/quelconque/pic/000026dg
(I'm getting so much use out of this picture.)

We just had one of these threads!

You sure look ugly in that picture.

You sure look ugly in that picture.

Maybe because it's a picture of an American.

None of the above (you really could use an "other" option).

Global warming exists, as part of a naturally occurring cooling/warming cyclical process.
Right. And if humans are having any effect, its not because of CO2 emission, but because of land use. That is localized, though, and caused by asphalt in cities. The same place all the nanny-staters want you to move to so you don’t pollute with your car.

Maybe because it's a picture of an American.

Wow. I'm an American. Guess that makes me and the thousands of other people on this forum ugly too.

None of the above (you really could use an "other" option).

Global warming exists, as part of a naturally occurring cooling/warming cyclical process.

Not according to the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. While we may be experiencing a natural warming trend, we are most definitely accellerating it.

You forgot my favorite: Global Warming exists, but there's far more to it than human action, warming trends are natural and have occured throughout the history of the earth.

Now admittedly, I do believe from my laymans studies on the subject that human action has indeed had some effect on global warming. And I am all for phasing out our more traditional combustion based systems and integrating other alternatives (hydrogen in cars, nuclear and hydroelectric in power plants, nuclear in large ships) But we need no panic, sure, we'll lose some icecap, but the world could do a whole hell of a lot worse.

But we need no panic, sure, we'll lose some icecap, but the world could do a whole hell of a lot worse.

Famous last words.

Wow. I'm an American. Guess that makes me and the thousands of other people on this forum ugly too.

I wouldn't know - I haven't seen most Americans here, but call someone ugly, be prepared to be called the same.

I wouldn't know - I haven't seen most Americans here, but call someone ugly, be prepared to be called the same.


Come on Fass, you're better than that.

Come on Fass, you're better than that.

I don't know - I liked the play on the stereotype of the "ugly American," but I guess that reference may be lost on some.

To make things clear: I don't think Americans in general are ugly at all. It was just an available quip to make at Armed Military States for this. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9497270&postcount=9) You may untwist your panties now.

If global warming is a myth, Jimmy Hoffa is living in my root cellar, and I don't have a root cellar.
My city had its hottest summer ever this year, with temperatures ranging between 35 and 50 degrees (that's celsius). To put that in perspective, the average heat we normally have every summer is between 20 and 35 degrees. This increase has been steady (about one or two degrees increase) every year since around 1999, which also happens to be the same year we got our very first smog alert.

I wouldn't know - I haven't seen most Americans here, but call someone ugly, be prepared to be called the same.

Derail a thread, expect to be called ugly.

Derail a thread, expect to be called ugly.

Honey, if you call that derailing a thread, then, really, you ain't seen anyone derail a thread, but thanks for ironically participating in it! :)

If global warming is a myth, Jimmy Hoffa is living in my root cellar, and I don't have a root cellar.
My city had its hottest summer ever this year, with temperatures ranging between 35 and 50 degrees (that's celsius). To put that in perspective, the average heat we normally have every summer is between 20 and 35 degrees. This increase has been steady (about one or two degrees increase) every year since around 1999, which also happens to be the same year we got our very first smog alert.

While global warming is very well established, using a single season in a single location is no proof at all.

Hello folks,

I was reading a debate about Nazi Bush, ...
Way to start a garbage thread about garbage science.

Global warming exists, as part of a naturally occurring cooling/warming cyclical process.
Right. And if humans are having any effect, its not because of CO2 emission, but because of land use. That is localized, though, and caused by asphalt in cities. The same place all the nanny-staters want you to move to so you don’t pollute with your car.

so what evidence are you two sitting on that makes you so confident in rejecting the scientific consensus? especially when those two things have been specifically addressed in numerous scientific articles, including the ipcc report.

While global warming is very well established, using a single season in a single location is no proof at all.
Single location, yes. Single season, no
While using only my town as an example location doesn't exactly concrete my argument, the fact that there has been a steady increase in the average yearly temperature since 1999 AND 1999 is also the first year we had smog at dangerous levels helps the argument at least a little bit.

I won't vote, as none of the options suit me. In reality, I don't think Global Warming matters. It will be a blessing even, at least for many people. Spend a winter in Siberia, and tell me if it's not a bad idea. The Russians are anxious to exploit all the vast resources and till the rich soils burried under hundreds of feet of ice and permafrost.

I won't vote, as none of the options suit me. In reality, I don't think Global Warming matters. It will be a blessing even, at least for many people. Spend a winter in Siberia, and tell me if it's not a bad idea. The Russians are anxious to exploit all the vast resources and till the rich soils burried under hundreds of feet of ice and permafrost.
And I'm anxious to die horribly when the polar ice caps melt and I drown.

Wait a second...

And I'm anxious to die horribly when the polar ice caps melt and I drown.

Wait a second...
Silly little boy. The most the earth may heat up in the next century is 10 degrees farenheit. If that happens, sea ice will virtually disapear, raising sea levels that may flood some small islands with no sea walls. But the real danger is if the continental glaciers of Greenland or Antartica melt, which isn't expected to happen for at least the next century, if ever. Some parts of the ice shelf are actually thickening.

so what evidence are you two sitting on that makes you so confident in rejecting the scientific consensus? especially when those two things have been specifically addressed in numerous scientific articles, including the ipcc report.
I have already expressed my lack of faith in the scientific community many times on this forum.

I have already expressed my lack of faith in the scientific community many times on this forum.

indeed. that doesn't really help present a positive, evidence-based case for your position though. if you have some specific criticisms of the estimates of carbon emissions from land use as summarized in the ipcc (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/109.htm#342) report (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/116.htm) and some evidence for different estimates, i'm sure the scientific community would love to hear them. so would i, for that matter.

:headbang:
Look, global warming is obviously all George Bush's fault. It is primarily caused by the chemtrails he orders his planes to spray all over the sky.

indeed. that doesn't really help present a positive, evidence-based case for your position though. if you have some specific criticisms of the estimates of carbon emissions from land use as summarized in the ipcc (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/109.htm#342) report (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/116.htm) and some evidence for different estimates, i'm sure the scientific community would love to hear them. so would i, for that matter.
Well, for one, there were years that CO2 emissions rose and temperature fell, and the fact that some parts of the world are getting colder. I’ll post them tomorrow, I’ve got to get to bed.

My city had its hottest summer ever this year, with temperatures ranging between 35 and 50 degrees (that's celsius). To put that in perspective, the average heat we normally have every summer is between 20 and 35 degrees. This increase has been steady (about one or two degrees increase) every year since around 1999, which also happens to be the same year we got our very first smog alert.

This is most likely due to a penomonon known as Urban Heat Island Effect (UHIE). Basically beacuse of all the heat retaining materials within the cities, it raises the local temperature beyond what they would be if there was no city there. Smog it self will also trap heat underneath it adding to the effect. But that doesn't mean that the entire globe is warming.

Besides Global warming has been occuring for years now (or so they say) but your city didn't start till 1999? Why were you so late in getting started? Memo not get there on time?

Silly little boy. The most the earth may heat up in the next century is 10 degrees farenheit. If that happens, sea ice will virtually disapear, raising sea levels that may flood some small islands with no sea walls. But the real danger is if the continental glaciers of Greenland or Antartica melt, which isn't expected to happen for at least the next century, if ever. Some parts of the ice shelf are actually thickening.

From http://www.glacier.rice.edu/land/5_glaciersandtheir2.html :

How quickly an ice body responds to an environmental change is called the response time.

In general, the smaller the ice mass, the faster the response to a change in its environment. Valley glaciers will shrink much faster than a continental ice sheet if the climate warms and all other factors are equal. In fact, a large ice sheet might not react at all to temperature or precipitation changes that happen over the period of a year or even a decade. In effect, they do not "feel" the small-scale climate changes. Some response times of land-based glaciers to consistent climatic changes:
Glacial Type.............................Response Time
(land-based)

ice sheet...............................100,000 to 10,000 years

large valley glacier................10,000 to 1,000 years

small valley glacier..................1,000 to 100 years

All factors being equal, if an ice mass is going to respond to a climatic change, the size of the ice mass is probably the dominant control on the response time.

There is also the fact that if the temperature rises in the polar regions then the air will have a capacity to hold more moisture.

In 1995 the group that originated the Kyoto Treaty had predicted the warming rate at .2°C (.36°F) per decade. (BTW they originally predicted it at .8°C (1.44°F) per decade in 1988 and then lowered it in 1990 to .3°C (.54°F) per decade and then lowered it again in 1995.) Now the average temperature in the Antarctic region is -56°F. A the 1995 rate it would take 2440 years before the freezing point was reached. Over that time while the temperature was rising the increase capacity for moisture would cause more percipitation to fall in the region thus increasing the size of the ice shelf. Even at their original predicted rate, it would take over 610 years.

So there is no reason to believe that the ice shelves will melt within several lifetimes. And by the time it would reach that point we will have long outgrown the processes by which Global Warming is proported to occur.

At which point I'm sure there will be another source "discovered"

BTW Greenpeace also supports the idea that warming will increase the ice shelves.

http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/database/records/zgpz0774.html

For those that don't want to wait to read:

GLOBAL WARMING MAY INCREASE ANTARCTICA'S ICE CAPS IN FUTURE.
Domack and colleagues present the first east Antarctic chronology for the Holocene (last ten thousand years) based on radiocarbon dates. The chronology suggests that the expansion of several glaciers took place in the mid-Holocene in climatic conditions that were warmer than they are now. The results from the new data suggest strongly that Antarctica's response to future warming will be an increase in mass balance.
(E.W. Domack, A.J.T. Jull and S. Nakao, "Advance of East Antarctic outlet glaciers during the hypsithermal: implications for the volume set of the Antarctic ice sheet under global warming," Geology , v. 1033, 1059_1062, 1991).
GREENPEACE Climate Impacts Database

Of course, now they can't claim that the sea level is rising since expansion lowers the level. Nevertheless, environmental groups still make contradictory claims about apocalyptic sea level rises in their haste to mobilize public opinion to stop greenhouse gas emissions.

Some other points that weren't part of my responses to other posts.

Most proponents of Global Warming take the temperature basis from ground readings. Indeed from such sources, it would seem that our world is getting warmer.

But if one looks at the satellite data, a diffrent picture emerges. Satellite are immune from UHIE and take readings up to 40,000 times a day. Plus they take reading in 3 dimentions and thus obtain a fuller picture.

Projected vs. Actual Deep Layer Temperature Measurements
IPCC Projection 0.23 degree C (0.41 degree F) per decade
Satellite Trend -0.01 degree C (-0.018 degree F) per decade*
Weather Balloon Trend (National Oceanic & Space Administration) -0.07 degree C (-0.126 degree F) per decade
Weather Balloon Trend (U.K. Met Office) -0.02 degree C (-0.036 degree F) per decade
Source: Dr. Roy Spencer, "Measuring the Temperature of Earth From Space," NASA Space Science News, August 14, 1998
*Satellite figure includes correction for orbital decay

Given this I have to wonder if all that worry about a comming mini Ice Age in the '70's might have something to it after all.

I won't vote, as none of the options suit me. In reality, I don't think Global Warming matters. It will be a blessing even, at least for many people. Spend a winter in Siberia, and tell me if it's not a bad idea. The Russians are anxious to exploit all the vast resources and till the rich soils burried under hundreds of feet of ice and permafrost.
You really should read more about this. Yes, there actually are people living in Siberia who may benefit from it but most of people live in areas which will suffer.

Do you know that the Siberian permfrost has started to melt. About 1/4 of globe's methane resources are in swamps beneath the permafrost. The ice covering those areas has kept the methane in the ground but soon it will be unleashed into atmosphere. Methane is 20 times worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide and there's 70 billion tons of it trapped in Siberian permafrost and ground (there's a more specific term but I can't remember it)

Well, for one, there were years that CO2 emissions rose and temperature fell, and the fact that some parts of the world are getting colder. I’ll post them tomorrow, I’ve got to get to bed.
It's not that simple. Yes some areas are getting colder. E.g. Scandinavia can become as cold as Siberia is today. The melting water from Arctic may change the course of the Golf stream and that would drop the average temperature in Scandinavia dramatically. Iceland would be like Greenland etc.

Of course, now they can't claim that the sea level is rising since expansion lowers the level. Nevertheless, environmental groups still make contradictory claims about apocalyptic sea level rises in their haste to mobilize public opinion to stop greenhouse gas emissions.
Interesting. Now read this. This research was so alarming that even Bush administration started to worry.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1109_041109_polar_ice.html

I've seen a documentary about thickening glaciers. Yes there are areas where it happens but it's not enough. Have you seen pictures from Alps or Himalayas?
About Alps:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1507646.stm
Himalaya:http://www.spacedaily.com/news/iceage-05h.html

But if one looks at the satellite data, a diffrent picture emerges. Satellite are immune from UHIE and take readings up to 40,000 times a day. Plus they take reading in 3 dimentions and thus obtain a fuller picture.


Ever heard of global dimming?

Interesting. Now read this. This research was so alarming that even Bush administration started to worry.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1109_041109_polar_ice.html

I've seen a documentary about thickening glaciers. Yes there are areas where it happens but it's not enough. Have you seen pictures from Alps or Himalayas?
About Alps:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1507646.stm
Himalaya:http://www.spacedaily.com/news/iceage-05h.html

I don't know about you guys, but that article from The National Geographic is pretty fucking scary. Granted, I won't be around, and probably none of us for that matter, by 2099, but still...this is our earth we're talking about. We need to start doing something now, so that we can extend the life of this planet a little longer than 100 years.

The whole report can be downloaded from here
http://www.acia.uaf.edu/

Ever heard of global dimming?

I'm sorry, but just leaving it at just the question is plain wrong. Even if I had doesn't mean everyone reading this thread has.

As is no I haven't, so please enlighten me.

Interesting. Now read this. This research was so alarming that even Bush administration started to worry.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1109_041109_polar_ice.html

I've seen a documentary about thickening glaciers. Yes there are areas where it happens but it's not enough. Have you seen pictures from Alps or Himalayas?
About Alps:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1507646.stm
Himalaya:http://www.spacedaily.com/news/iceage-05h.html


Excellant referances. Much better than most I see trying to argue things in these forums.

However, given what I referenced from Rice University, these effects we're seeing now would have been from events anywhere from 100 to 10,000 years ago.

Also, noting that the ice shelves are increasing would be evidance for global warming. While I don't necessarily believe in Global Warming, at least not as a man derived event (Medieavel warming period and all that), I was showing that you can't have Global Warming and shrinking polar caps at the same time.

But we need no panic, sure, we'll lose some icecap, but the world could do a whole hell of a lot worse.

Yeah, and the more icecap we lose, the more diluted the oceans get and the greater chance I'll be stuck in the middle of an ice age in the next few years. Yeah, no need to panic.

Yeah, and the more icecap we lose, the more diluted the oceans get and the greater chance I'll be stuck in the middle of an ice age in the next few years. Yeah, no need to panic.
From what I've been told, the end of the world is scheduled for 2012. That gives you about 7 years. There really is no need to panic. Just calmly prepare to die.

By the way, what do you mean the oceans will get diluted? Those big icebergs aren't frozen sea water? Did God throw some fresh water ice cubes out there?

Someone said something about sea levels rising. When you melt a chunk of ice in a bucket of water, the water level stays the same the whole time. I know that's on a much smaller scale than oceans and ice caps, but doesn't it still work pretty much the same?

I don't know this stuff. That's why I'm asking questions instead of making claims.

“In my more than three decades in government, I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it is now,” James Hansen told a University of Iowa audience. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6341451/

"Climate expert Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, lead author of one of the papers, says that those fairly steady measurements in the tropics have been a key argument "among people asking, 'Why should I believe this global warming hocus-pocus?' "

After examining the satellite data, collected since 1979 by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather satellites, Carl Mears and Frank Wentz of Remote Sensing Systems in Santa Rosa, Calif., found that the satellites had drifted in orbit, throwing off the timing of temperature measures. Essentially, the satellites were increasingly reporting nighttime temperatures as daytime ones, leading to a false cooling trend. The team also found a math error in the calculations.

Mark Herlong of the George C. Marshall Institute declined to comment. The group, financed by the petroleum industry, has used the data disparities to dispute the views of global-warming activists." http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-08-11-global-warming-data_x.htm
Scientists, for the most part, all agree that global climate change is occuring. Scientists. You know... the people that have a job trying to figure this stuff out. They do it all day. Not much else to do when you're a scientist except be a scientist. So, they do their science thing. Doing the science. Making the calculations. Doing... science stuff. You know? Science.

Most of the groups trying to tell you that Global Warming is not happening: You might do yourself a favor and see who is financing their studies.

Then again, I might not. Maybe I'll look at who is financing the other guys.

Its a conspiracy to scare us. Its terrorism. :mp5:

Then again, I might not. Maybe I'll look at who is financing the other guys.

Its a conspiracy to scare us. Its terrorism. :mp5:
I hope you do look at who is financing the other guys.
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619
an important page

By the way, what do you mean the oceans will get diluted? Those big icebergs aren't frozen sea water? Did God throw some fresh water ice cubes out there?

Well, the ice caps melting will raise water levels slightly, but it's the ice that's currently on land that I'm worried about. That on Greenland, Scandinavia and Russia. All this fresh water that's going to come from there will work its way into the North Sea, reducing the amount of salt in the water and increasing the likelihood that the ocean currents will slow down or cut off entirely. In which case we lose our warm climate for the next few thousand years.


Someone said something about sea levels rising. When you melt a chunk of ice in a bucket of water, the water level stays the same the whole time. I know that's on a much smaller scale than oceans and ice caps, but doesn't it still work pretty much the same?

As I say, not all the ice is under the ocean. The tops of ice caps, Greenland, Scandinavia, Russia, Canada and Antarctica will all increase sea levels. If it all melts it will raise sea levels by about 11 metres.

Global warming will happen, it’s going to happen and there is nothing we can do to stop it. Why? As it’s natural. The Earth is actually cooler than it should be, we need to be a good ten degrees warmer at least.

But the evidence is a little sketchy right now, people say how glaciers are retreating, yes but lots are also growing.

People are saying how its warmer this year, well it is summer and the climate is a pretty random thing.

The bottom line is, all we know is that the climate goes up and down, partly due to the astronomical cycle, and partly due to Earth events.

Well, the ice caps melting will raise water levels slightly,




As I say, not all the ice is under the ocean. The tops of ice caps, Greenland, Scandinavia, Russia, Canada and Antarctica will all increase sea levels. If it all melts it will raise sea levels by about 11 metres.


Actually, due to the nature of ice and water when the North Ice caps melt sea levels should pretty much fall a little due to the nature of Ice. When water is frozen it expands, when it melts there should in fact be room for extra, which will be your ice on Greenland etc etc. Now when all this Ice melts the Gulf stream will either stop or move southwards to the coast of Spain, either way the North will get colder due to the salinity crisis in the North Atlantic and the ice will stop melting.

By the way, what do you mean the oceans will get diluted? Those big icebergs aren't frozen sea water? Did God throw some fresh water ice cubes out there?

The crystalline nature of ice forces much of the salt out.

Actually, due to the nature of ice and water when the North Ice caps melt sea levels should pretty much fall a little due to the nature of Ice. When water is frozen it expands, when it melts there should in fact be room for extra, which will be your ice on Greenland etc etc. Now when all this Ice melts the Gulf stream will either stop or move southwards to the coast of Spain, either way the North will get colder due to the salinity crisis in the North Atlantic and the ice will stop melting.

Ice expands when it freezes, yes. Therefore it becomes less dense. Which is why it floats. When ice suspended in water melts, water levels remain identical. The volume of water the ice displaces is identical to the amount it contains. Try it sometime with a glass of water. Mark the side. The level won't change.

The problem is with the amount of ice that is on land. When that melts, it raises water levels.

I do believe that Global warming is a fact. Given there is substantial proof that the Polar ice caps are melting and all of that. I used to think that it was a problem that would effect future generations not my own generation until I noticed the weather patterns changing significantly about 2.5 years ago. Winters and summers are warmer, far more storms etc. I know that geologically climate patterns are susceptible to change but not this much in such a short space of time....we're doomed ahhhhh(have been watching the day after tomorrow too much)

But we need no panic, sure, we'll lose some icecap, but the world could do a whole hell of a lot worse.
oh yer sure, ice cap melts, water levels rise, thousands upon thousands of miles of coastline "move" inwards, millions homeless worldwide .... nah not a big deal! :rolleyes:

Global warming is a fact, and it is inevitable. It would happen even if mankind had not industrialised -- however, it would have happened a lot less sooner than it is going to. All we can do is try to stop accelerating it even more.

And when the time comes, we'll need our lovely machines more than ever. Ironic, really.

Yes the world would warm up eventually anyway, as our orbit to the sun brought us closer. But that wasn't scheduled for about 10,000 years. They're predicting a 5 degree increase in global temperatures by 2040. That is much too quick to be a natural event.

Incidentally, there was a 5 degree increase in temperatures 210 million years ago, which melted the methane hydrates at the bottom of the oceans, and the resulting further increase in temperature of 5 degrees was responsible for killing off 95% of all life on earth.

People who deny that humans have had an impact on the environment need a reality check. Global warming IS natural, global warming at the accelerated rate we are experiencing is NOT natural. There is a hole in the ozone layer because of the gases we have been pumping into the atmosphere that do not occur naturally at such levels. If the sea level rises many nations will be lost entirely, the Maldives are predicted to be entirely submerged within twenty years, the Carribean won't be far behind. Unless you're already 90 this is most likely within your lifetime. Britain will lose significant proportions of coastline as will all other coastal countries, this means loss of homes at the very least. Where will all the refugees go? Will America or Europe take them in? I doubt it.

Humans are selfish things, while I am obviously concerned with our survival, I am infinately more concerned about the delicate balance of the planet's ecosystem. What about the other species of the world that are set for enhiliation due to global warming? All animals and plants depend upon the temperature changing gradually enough for them to evolve along side it, but it is changing so fast that species are becoming extinct every day.

As I said, we are selfish beings, many people accept global warming as fact but don't see it as their problem as it may be 100 years before any extreme changes. What about your kids? Your future grandchildren even? You don't give a damn about them, obviously. You don't care about people in countries that will see extreme changes within your lifetime and I'm sorry if this seems harsh, but that is a repugnant attitude.

A teacher of mine when I was about 9 once said that "the planet doesn't belong to us, we are just looking after it for the next generation". That kind of stuck with me.

Well, the ice caps melting will raise water levels slightly, but it's the ice that's currently on land that I'm worried about. That on Greenland, Scandinavia and Russia. All this fresh water that's going to come from there will work its way into the North Sea, reducing the amount of salt in the water and increasing the likelihood that the ocean currents will slow down or cut off entirely. In which case we lose our warm climate for the next few thousand years.




As I say, not all the ice is under the ocean. The tops of ice caps, Greenland, Scandinavia, Russia, Canada and Antarctica will all increase sea levels. If it all melts it will raise sea levels by about 11 metres.
How does diluting the salt content of the water stop the movement of the water?

If it is warm enough on a global scale to melt all the ice in the world, how is it cold enough at the same time to bring on a global ice age?

How does stopping the movement of water affect the temperature of the air enough to cause the water to freeze?

How does diluting the salt content of the water stop the movement of the water?

If it is warm enough on a global scale to melt all the ice in the world, how is it cold enough at the same time to bring on a global ice age?

How does stopping the movement of water affect the temperature of the air enough to cause the water to freeze?

It's a big deal here in Britain, we are kept unusually warm by the Gulf Stream, which is caused by the flow of salt and water in the Atlantic. If the Gulf Stream is disrupted, the water around the UK will cool down and so will the air - which has water in it, it's a whole percipitation cyclical thing that connects the water in the air and the bodies of water on the surface. We could see a temperature drop of several degrees very quickly, which would devastate many forms of plant and animal life both in water and on land.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/impact/gulf_stream.shtml
This explains it a bit better.

I'm sorry, but just leaving it at just the question is plain wrong. Even if I had doesn't mean everyone reading this thread has.

As is no I haven't, so please enlighten me.
Sorry, I didn't have enough time. And I don't have enough time now either, just came to check the newest. I'll write about it another time or you can just google it. It's not even an answer to your post, just thought you might find it interesting.

Very very shortly, not as much direct sunlight hit the ground as before because (two biggest reasons) polluted raindrops (as clouds) reflect more sunlight back into space than "normal clouds". Also jet tracks (contrails?) reflect the light back.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

Global Warming is real and obvious. The "debate" is over whether human activities are speeding up the process.

Here's the TalkOrigins of Global Warming: http://www.realclimate.org/

By the way, what do you mean the oceans will get diluted? Those big icebergs aren't frozen sea water? Did God throw some fresh water ice cubes out there?
The water in iceberg is not salty. Icebergs mainly(?) form of snow and on ground, not by sea water. Glacier flows outward and when reaches the waterline, pieces of it will break off and those pieces are called icebergs.
[QUOTE]

How does diluting the salt content of the water stop the movement of the water?

The Gulf Stream carries warm water up from the tropics up past the US, across to western Europe and on towards the top of the Atlantic. As the current gets further north it sinks into the deep sea and goes back the other way. The sinking is caused by the salt in the water. When the salty water cools near Greenland it becomes so dense that it plummets to the bottom of the ocean. The water then heads back south to where the Gulf Stream began. And the whole process begins again. The sinking off Greenland is vital. More and more fresh water is arriving in that sinking zone from the Greenland ice sheets and Siberian rivers which dilutes the salt. And so if the salt is diluted too much the current wouldn’t sink, and therefore wouldn’t go back the other way. The Greenland ice sheet is moving twice as fast into the sea than it was just a few years ago and in the coming century there's expected to be an extra 1000 cubic km a year of fresh water coming from Siberia. So, I'd say it's going to shut down eventually, it's just a matter of when.


If it is warm enough on a global scale to melt all the ice in the world, how is it cold enough at the same time to bring on a global ice age?

Well, for starters it wouldn’t be a global ice age anyway. Certainly all the countries around the northern Atlantic would be affected. The current carries the heat of a million power stations, which means that we can swim in the sea at the same latitudes that Canada has polar bears. As for the rest of the world it’s going to be no better. They might not get colder, but the disruption of the ocean current will affect rainfall along the equator. Central America will lose 40% of its rainfall and the monsoons in Asia would frequently fail, leading to mass drought and famine.



How does stopping the movement of water affect the temperature of the air enough to cause the water to freeze?

The ocean currents and the weather patterns are interlinked. We’ll have blizzards and ice storms as a regular occurrence.

People who deny that humans have had an impact on the environment need a reality check. Global warming IS natural, global warming at the accelerated rate we are experiencing is NOT natural. There is a hole in the ozone layer because of the gases we have been pumping into the atmosphere that do not occur naturally at such levels. If the sea level rises many nations will be lost entirely, the Maldives are predicted to be entirely submerged within twenty years, the Carribean won't be far behind. Unless you're already 90 this is most likely within your lifetime. Britain will lose significant proportions of coastline as will all other coastal countries, this means loss of homes at the very least. Where will all the refugees go? Will America or Europe take them in? I doubt it.

Humans are selfish things, while I am obviously concerned with our survival, I am infinately more concerned about the delicate balance of the planet's ecosystem. What about the other species of the world that are set for enhiliation due to global warming? All animals and plants depend upon the temperature changing gradually enough for them to evolve along side it, but it is changing so fast that species are becoming extinct every day.

As I said, we are selfish beings, many people accept global warming as fact but don't see it as their problem as it may be 100 years before any extreme changes. What about your kids? Your future grandchildren even? You don't give a damn about them, obviously. You don't care about people in countries that will see extreme changes within your lifetime and I'm sorry if this seems harsh, but that is a repugnant attitude.

A teacher of mine when I was about 9 once said that "the planet doesn't belong to us, we are just looking after it for the next generation". That kind of stuck with me.

Go your teachers for her excellent education for sustainable development - why did that stick with you? Were they just lecturing you, or were they allowing you to roleplay/have a discussion/make a project or did they make it relevent to you through use of local examples?

A lot of people get the environmental knowledge (global warming, climate change, greaanhouse gases) however not a lot of them are motivated toward environmentally responsible attitudes, behaviour and actions.

Why - well disempowerment definitely has a big role. people get bombarded by negative environmental imagery all the time - it's rare the media pick up on some environmental initiatives that waork and other success stories.

Also a lot of people find it hard to make the leap to environmentally responsible behaviour if they didn't get reinforced for positive environmental behaviour as children. One of the best ways to do this is to get the students involved in a local environmental issue and have them come up with a solution and get the whole community behind it - typically it can be something like "installing recycling facilities in a village" or "cleaning up a derelict area" or "making a wildlife garden", but if the students get involved in a local issue they gain ownership of the issue (i.e. they put in a personal investment into it) and if they see positive results it will show them that they can make a difference and they will be motivated toward similar environmentally friendly activities in the future.

At least that's the theory.... :D

Although it is working well enough in green schools and such - the problem is that there needs to be community support and teachers need to know how to teach sustainable practices

Well it's the UN decade for education for sustainable development so hopefully the next generation will at least care about the environment, and if we're really lucky, the one after that will do something about it!

Global Warming is real and humans are accelerating the process. Everyone agree?

Yes, there is such a thing as global warming. But, despite what lefties (into which category we can include university staff) would have you believe, this is not caused by people going about their lawful business. The world has been warming up for the past ten thousand years. Unless you are suggesting that they had cars and factories in 7995 BC, the argument falls apart.

*b*u*m*p*

To any serious proponent of global warming, read Michael Crichton's State of Fear...if not the excellent story itself...read the forward and afterthoughts in the front and the back of the book. It'll definately open some eyes.

Global Warming is real and humans are accelerating the process. Everyone agree?

No. For the past 20 years, the earth has been cooling down in many locations.

To any serious proponent of global warming, read Michael Crichton's State of Fear...if not the excellent story itself...read the forward and afterthoughts in the front and the back of the book. It'll definately open some eyes. Uh-huh, and Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" is an honest work of genius. :rolleyes:

OK. Those of you who are advocating the position that human activity is not a major cause of global warming, I'd like your evidence to be cited with a reputable source. And the Republican Party or the ExxonMobil Climate Research group do not count as reputable sources. If you would like evidence corroborating the theory that humans are a major cause, simply pick up a copy of Nature or Science, or any other peer-reviewed journal, and you'll find plenty.

To any serious proponent of global warming, read Michael Crichton's State of Fear...if not the excellent story itself...read the forward and afterthoughts in the front and the back of the book. It'll definately open some eyes.

and crichton's strange misconceptions and out of context quotes and odd citations have been dealt with:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=76
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/02/06/checking_crichtons_footnotes/

OK. Those of you who are advocating the position that human activity is not a major cause of global warming, I'd like your evidence to be cited with a reputable source. And the Republican Party or the ExxonMobil Climate Research group do not count as reputable sources. If you would like evidence corroborating the theory that humans are a major cause, simply pick up a copy of Nature or Science, or any other peer-reviewed journal, and you'll find plenty.

If the Republican Party is not a reputable source, how can the Democratic Party be one? Do they not also have an agenda? If ExxonMobil can't be trusted...how can the National Wildlife Foundation or whoever? Aren't they just the other side of the fight?

and crichton's strange misconceptions and out of context quotes and odd citations have been dealt with:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=76
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/02/06/checking_crichtons_footnotes/

Like I said, are you telling me that "realclimate.org" doesn't have an eco-friendly agenda that they're trying to defend?

Like I said, are you telling me that "realclimate.org" doesn't have an eco-friendly agenda that they're trying to defend?

realclimate.org is a site run by actual climate scientists (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?cat=10) who publish actual climate research in actual peer-reviewed science journals. their 'agenda' is to defend science against the idiocy of the creationists turned 'climate skeptics' who pretend there is a scientific controversy in spite of an utter lack of evidence for their position and while doing absolutely no science to attempt to support their claims.

that this 'agenda' happens to include the idea that anthropogenic climate change is real is not a product of some vast conspiracy, unless you think reality itself is conspiring against you.

Indeed, Free Soviets. Outside of conservative circles, everyone has pretty much accepted that global warming is a real phenomenon and we are at least partly involved. As far as I know, it's mostly the capitalist élites who try to claim that global warming is a myth, for obvious reasons....

As far as I know, it's mostly the capitalist élites who try to claim that global warming is a myth, for obvious reasons....

as far as anybody knows, really. what's sad is how little work they actually have to put in to it to invent a controversy. the entirety of their argument amounts to "nuh-uh, is not", followed by "whaaaaaa, what about my god-given right to make money by raping your environment? whaaaaaaa!"

it's stupid and it's obvious, and fuck if it doesn't seem to work on some level.

Everyone should read Ross Gelbspan's books 'The Heat is On' and 'Boiling Point'.

He puts everything in perspective. When he started writing the books he wasn't coming from either side of the argument, but after seeing all the evidence out there it was clear that we are in trouble and that the Bush government is doing its best to confuse the issues.

realclimate.org is a site run by actual climate scientists (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?cat=10) who publish actual climate research in actual peer-reviewed science journals. their 'agenda' is to defend science against the idiocy of the creationists turned 'climate skeptics' who pretend there is a scientific controversy in spite of an utter lack of evidence for their position and while doing absolutely no science to attempt to support their claims.

that this 'agenda' happens to include the idea that anthropogenic climate change is real is not a product of some vast conspiracy, unless you think reality itself is conspiring against you.

Bullshit. "Actual Climate Scientists" have political opinions just like a garbage man does. Everyone does. Everyone, however, does not have either pro- or anti-eco people funding their research. I am in no way a creationist...so your rant in that direction is unnecessary. I don't think reality itself is conspiring against me, miss drama queen, I think, and I know, that people can be easily compromised with a few figures following a dollar sign. That's hardly conspiracy, it's reality.

Bullshit. "Actual Climate Scientists" have political opinions just like a garbage man does. Everyone does. Everyone, however, does not have either pro- or anti-eco people funding their research. I am in no way a creationist...so your rant in that direction is unnecessary. I don't think reality itself is conspiring against me, miss drama queen, I think, and I know, that people can be easily compromised with a few figures following a dollar sign. That's hardly conspiracy, it's reality.

ok, let's assume that their findings are biased by all that money that they are getting from people with a vested interest in the existence of anthropogenic climate change. what i want to know is why the people getting paid by the polluters to drum up a controversy don't ever publish a goddamned thing in a peer-reviewed science journal. several people have published reviews of the literature and they haven't found a single published paper that disputes the consensus in the past decade (for example, here (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686)). of course, there may be some that they missed in journals they didn't check. but we would be talking about one or two papers against thousands.

so how does the taint of money from pro-environmental groups cause scientists to actually do some science, while the taint of money from environmental rapists causes them to not publish a god-damned thing? surely if they were just faking things or drawing bad conclusions it would be trivially easy for a pro-earth raping scientist to demonstrate that in a peer-reviewed article. and think of all the money they could make by doing it, and the fame. but they don't do it. why the hell not?

Um here's a list of climate change articles in a very well respected British journal - New Scientist (it's the business!)

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change

No. For the past 20 years, the earth has been cooling down in many locations.
An effect of Global Warming... It really does need a different name.

Bullshit. "Actual Climate Scientists" have political opinions just like a garbage man does. Everyone does. Everyone, however, does not have either pro- or anti-eco people funding their research. I am in no way a creationist...so your rant in that direction is unnecessary. I don't think reality itself is conspiring against me, miss drama queen, I think, and I know, that people can be easily compromised with a few figures following a dollar sign. That's hardly conspiracy, it's reality.
Where would this money come from? Why the conspiracy? Who the hell would fund something like this? Hemp Rope Makers United?
We have a culprit for who would distort the facts. The major companies which pollute the most. Exxon Mobil, for one.
Who and for what reason would people fund such an extremely elaborate campaign? To what gain? Where would this money be coming from and what instances in the past can you refer to where the ENTIRE Scientific Community was so open to such a massive deception?

Global warming is as much a fiction as this post of mine you are reading doesn't actually exist.

Global warming is as much a fiction as this post of mine you are reading doesn't actually exist.
Fair 'nuff!

*nailing Jell-O to the wall*

Where would this money come from? Why the conspiracy? Who the hell would fund something like this? Hemp Rope Makers United?
We have a culprit for who would distort the facts. The major companies which pollute the most. Exxon Mobil, for one.
Who and for what reason would people fund such an extremely elaborate campaign? To what gain? Where would this money be coming from and what instances in the past can you refer to where the ENTIRE Scientific Community was so open to such a massive deception?
This entity probably doesn't understand what the ENTIRE Scientific Community thinks, knows, understands, researches, DOCUMENTS, and espouses, so instead they rely on Rush Limbaugh, the Bush Administration and ID proponents like Michael Crichton.
Then they expect an arrogant swagger to do the rest for them!
I wonder where they got the idea that works ... Fox news perhaps?

It is nothing more than the natural and normal cycle of the earth called Glacial-pluvial periods.

It is nothing more than the natural and normal cycle of the earth called Glacial-pluvial periods.
How do you account for the acceleration of this cycle?

It is nothing more than the natural and normal cycle of the earth called Glacial-pluvial periods.

natural climate forcing factors are actually cooling the global climate currently. the fact that we are still warming up should tell you something. the rate at which the warming is happening should be rather alarming, given that chilling fact.

or maybe you have some peer-reviewed scientific evidence to present to back up your wild assertion?

natural climate forcing factors are actually cooling the global climate currently. the fact that we are still warming up should tell you something. the rate at which the warming is happening should be rather alarming, given that chilling fact.

or maybe you have some peer-reviewed scientific evidence to present to back up your wild assertion?
Bibles are not peer-reviewed scientific evidence, by the way. Not even a really old one.