PDA

View Full Version : Effects of Global Warming - [Closes 8/4/08]



Mr.OSH
16-03-2008, 11:03 PM
We've all seen environmentalists all over the news warning governments that we are heading towards the tipping point with global warming and that we need to make dramatic changes to our life styles if we want to prevent this from occurring.

Are we doing enough to stop global warming and will it really have such massive impact on us? Is it too late or will it never even happen?

Happy Debating!

Jordy
19-03-2008, 11:11 PM
It will happen yes, it happens every 50,000 years a so, it's just a large coincidence it comes at the time of an industrial boom, but coincidence's do happen. I believe it's a natural thing, it cannot be stopped at all, and we're just slowly making the natural situation worse than it already is by releasing dangerous gases and CO2 in the atmosphere.

What really annoys me is people think that things like Recycling has stuff to do with Global Warming? Recycling is about re-using world resource's so we don't run out...

-:Undertaker:-
19-03-2008, 11:20 PM
It doesn't exist.

Slowpoke
19-03-2008, 11:28 PM
It will happen yes, it happens every 50,000 years a so, it's just a large coincidence it comes at the time of an industrial boom, but coincidence's do happen. I believe it's a natural thing, it cannot be stopped at all, and we're just slowly making the natural situation worse than it already is by releasing dangerous gases and CO2 in the atmosphere.

What really annoys me is people think that things like Recycling has stuff to do with Global Warming? Recycling is about re-using world resource's so we don't run out...

i'm pretty sure this is the first time we've had an "industrial boom".

PaulMacC
19-03-2008, 11:29 PM
It doesn't exist.
Agreed, Earth is just cooling down from an ice age.

Jordy
19-03-2008, 11:34 PM
i'm pretty sure this is the first time we've had an "industrial boom".Sorry I've badly worded it, I meant this current Global Warming session has just came at the same time as Industrial growth, which is just a coincidence, they don't come hand in hand and your right, it is the first industrial boom, there certainly wasn't one 50,000 years ago.

Around 50 years ago people used to complain the weather was getting worse because of Russian space craft like 'Sputnik' - Your probably laughing at that thinking 'as if'. Human's always believe the world is getting worse and blame it on something, in 50 years time we'll laugh at global warming.

Florx
21-03-2008, 10:02 AM
I don't actually think that humans are causing global warming.

Scientists have built up a detailed map of the temperature over thousands of years by examining ice cores. The temperature has fluctuated greatly even when humans didn't exist.

Global warming is a myth.

mangle
21-03-2008, 10:06 AM
Global warming exists , we just don't cause it. Proved its happend before , we just are using it as an excuse to clean up our act.

Nereo
21-03-2008, 10:54 AM
Global warming is probably happening. But it has nothing to do with us its natural

Frodo13.
21-03-2008, 11:52 AM
Carbon emissions destroy the Ozone layer, which makes the Earth more vunerable to heat, melting the ice caps which will eventually lead to global floods.


Solution: Stop using CO2 gasses

-:Undertaker:-
21-03-2008, 12:52 PM
Carbon emissions destroy the Ozone layer, which makes the Earth more vunerable to heat, melting the ice caps which will eventually lead to global floods.


Solution: Stop using CO2 gasses

Then explain how the other warming/freezing periods occured, because i'm pretty sure the animals millions of years ago didn't have factories. The ice caps will melt yes and they have been melting for thousands of years now as the ice age is coming to an end.

jackass
21-03-2008, 01:31 PM
I heard something on Kerrang or Radio 1 (Can't remember) a while back about global warming. And one thing this scientist said made me think, and he is 100% correct. Global warming won't happen as bad as expected!

Okay, i'll explain... When you're in a bath, the water is quite high, because you're already in it. But when you get out, the water lowers, because you were part of the 'object'. So think of the ice caps, almost all of the ratio of ice is UNDER the water, so its already in there, so when it melts, it will stay the same. But wait, it actually goes lower! Everyone knows that ice is more dense than water, so when the ice melts into water, it drops in density.

:8

Frodo13.
21-03-2008, 01:32 PM
I don't know, but its FACT that our ozone layer is being destroyed by CO2 gasses. Yes, it's going to be destroyed eventually anyway - it is extreamly difficult to live without using CO2 gasses, but if we don't cut down the destruction is going to increase at a rapid rate.

Virgin Mary
21-03-2008, 04:22 PM
It's been happening for ages, a bit stupid to start worrying now.

Ramones
21-03-2008, 05:01 PM
whether it's real or not, people should cut down, something that is real is that the worlds natural resources are going to run out eventually, i don't see a problem with government scaring people into using less.

Oleh
21-03-2008, 05:02 PM
I don't know, but its FACT that our ozone layer is being destroyed by CO2 gasses. Yes, it's going to be destroyed eventually anyway - it is extreamly difficult to live without using CO2 gasses, but if we don't cut down the destruction is going to increase at a rapid rate.


We are only doing around 5% of the damage Example: If we give out 300million tonnes of CO2 gas a year 1 volcano can produce that in a matter of minutes , Theres volcanoes going off all the time (Underwater ones mainly)

Roboevil
21-03-2008, 05:57 PM
Then explain how the other warming/freezing periods occured, because i'm pretty sure the animals millions of years ago didn't have factories. The ice caps will melt yes and they have been melting for thousands of years now as the ice age is coming to an end.
Your lack of knowledge is so unbelievable.

-:Undertaker:-
21-03-2008, 06:17 PM
Your lack of knowledge is so unbelievable.

Actually it's true that the Ice Age hasn't yet ended. If i'm lacking in knowledge then challenge me to a debate because so far all you have done is throw pathetic insults!

-Xiangu-
21-03-2008, 06:19 PM
I don't know, but its FACT that our ozone layer is being destroyed by CO2 gasses. Yes, it's going to be destroyed eventually anyway - it is extreamly difficult to live without using CO2 gasses, but if we don't cut down the destruction is going to increase at a rapid rate.

I beleive it is "Non Renewable Gases" CO2 is one type of gas - Carbon Dioxide so It cannot be used with the phrase "gasses"

Anyway.

Global warming is happening and will continue to happen. we can slow it down but we cannot stop it. One thing is certain though which is that we are not the ones that created global warming. I agree with someone in this thread though, we should try cutting back on the fossil fuels we use because we don't have enough to sustain the way we live.

Pro Nuclear! lol. It will keep us going for a while longer if we all switch to nuclear.

-:Undertaker:-
21-03-2008, 06:36 PM
I beleive it is "Non Renewable Gases" CO2 is one type of gas - Carbon Dioxide so It cannot be used with the phrase "gasses"

Anyway.

Global warming is happening and will continue to happen. we can slow it down but we cannot stop it. One thing is certain though which is that we are not the ones that created global warming. I agree with someone in this thread though, we should try cutting back on the fossil fuels we use because we don't have enough to sustain the way we live.

Pro Nuclear! lol. It will keep us going for a while longer if we all switch to nuclear.

I have been for Nuclear for a while now since I stopped believeing all these liberals on BBC News. Nuclear Power is reliable, safe and efficent. If our country does not go Nuclear countries such as Russia will have total control over us in the future as they can decide when to cut us off. :)

Roboevil
21-03-2008, 06:59 PM
Actually it's true that the Ice Age hasn't yet ended. If i'm lacking in knowledge then challenge me to a debate because so far all you have done is throw pathetic insults!

THE ice age? The one that ended 11,000 years ago? Yeah, that one is coming to an end.
The reason I've thrown insults is because there's no point arguing with you, it would be like arguing with an arrogrant child who has no evidence or, facts to back up his claims. If I did decide to argue with you, there'd be no resolution anyway and we'd go back to where we started.

-:Undertaker:-
21-03-2008, 07:07 PM
THE ice age? The one that ended 11,000 years ago? Yeah, that one is coming to an end.
The reason I've thrown insults is because there's no point arguing with you, it would be like arguing with an arrogrant child who has no evidence or, facts to back up his claims. If I did decide to argue with you, there'd be no resolution anyway and we'd go back to where we started.

It hasn't ended though and that's scientifically proven. Yeah that's right don't argue because the truth is that you get all your opinions from Green Peace & BBC News isn't it? I have read the subject a lot and have made my mind up on it and the facts FOR are peanuts against the facts proving it's not humananitys fault.

The Professor
21-03-2008, 07:20 PM
Then explain how the other warming/freezing periods occured, because i'm pretty sure the animals millions of years ago didn't have factories. The ice caps will melt yes and they have been melting for thousands of years now as the ice age is coming to an end.

Without knowing anything about the subject, I'd say it was CO2 rises caused by volcanoes. If you watched the programme "Power of the Planet" on BBC2 you'll know that the "snowball earth" (when earth was covered in snow) would've carried on forever if it weren't for volcanoes releasing CO2, creating global warming and melting the snow over Xmillion years. Whenever the balance is disturbed, things change. What's happening now seems to fit in with current theory.

Edit: As for all that about ice ages, an ice age is a period of time where there is ice on the earth naturally. We're still in one.

Roboevil
21-03-2008, 07:22 PM
It hasn't ended though and that's scientifically proven. Yeah that's right don't argue because the truth is that you get all your opinions from Green Peace & BBC News isn't it? I have read the subject a lot and have made my mind up on it and the facts FOR are peanuts against the facts proving it's not humananitys fault.

Again, this is why I don't want to argue. You start an argument by assuming I've gotten all my facts from Green Peace and BBC News, criticising me as if I'm some raving hippy. This shows how arrogant and narrow minded you are.

jrh2002
21-03-2008, 07:23 PM
I think it it does exist but we cant do anything about it. 1000s of years ago derbyshire was a desert and if my memory is right also on the coast of great britain. we had alot of vinyards even in newcastle. I think eventually it will get back around to that and no matter what we do there will be no way to stop it. Maybe humans will be wiped out like the dinosaurs?

I think the government make a big issue about it so they have another excuse to hit us with massive taxes. to be honest i dont care if it does exist and we can stop it because i will be dead long before that :8

-:Undertaker:-
21-03-2008, 07:25 PM
Again, this is why I don't want to argue. You start an argument by assuming I've gotten all my facts from Green Peace and BBC News, criticising me as if I'm some raving hippy. This shows how arrogant and narrow minded you are.

Nope. It shows that you can't actually argue the point by avoiding the subject everytime you post and instead arguing over whether you want to debate the subject.

Roboevil
21-03-2008, 07:35 PM
Nope. It shows that you can't actually argue the point by avoiding the subject everytime you post and instead arguing over whether you want to debate the subject.

I really don't think you see how arrogant you are lol. You're acting like a child. I am not scared to have a debate with you, do you not realise how pathetic that sounds? You make yourself sound like an idiot, honestly you do.

Inseriousity.
21-03-2008, 07:36 PM
More like 'global freezing' at the moment not global warming....

Hailstorms, strong winds, rain: Yes, we're really sunbathing in that...

Jordy
21-03-2008, 07:37 PM
I think it it does exist but we cant do anything about it. 1000s of years ago derbyshire was a desert and if my memory is right also on the coast of great britain. we had alot of vinyards even in newcastle. I think eventually it will get back around to that and no matter what we do there will be no way to stop it. Maybe humans will be wiped out like the dinosaurs?

I think the government make a big issue about it so they have another excuse to hit us with massive taxes. to be honest i dont care if it does exist and we can stop it because i will be dead long before that :8Derbyshire is in the centre of the UK and a fair distance from any coast's :P

Roboevil
21-03-2008, 07:40 PM
More like 'global freezing' at the moment not global warming....

Hailstorms, strong winds, rain: Yes, we're really sunbathing in that...

Global warming doesn't mean everyone's going to be partying in medditeranean temperatures. When the sea heats up, it heightens the likliness of storms and hurricanes being created.

-:Undertaker:-
21-03-2008, 07:40 PM
I really don't think you see how arrogant you are lol. You're acting like a child. I am not scared to have a debate with you, do you not realise how pathetic that sounds? You make yourself sound like an idiot, honestly you do.

You are so ignorant. You are just ignoring the debate about Global Warming and instead trying to debate about whether or not you should debate with me. If you don't want to debate then in future don't slander my posts when you haven't got the backbone to put your point of view across.

Frodo13.
21-03-2008, 07:42 PM
Derbyshire is in the centre of the UK and a fair distance from any coast's :P

I know, I live there. We never get floods, strong winds, snow or strong sunshine. Quite boring really, but then again, I wouldn't want my home to be flooded

jrh2002
21-03-2008, 07:54 PM
I know, I live there. We never get floods, strong winds, snow or strong sunshine. Quite boring really, but then again, I wouldn't want my home to be flooded

I never said you were on the coast now lol anyway it turns out it was an inland sea.


Derbyshire is in the centre of the UK and a fair distance from any coast's :P

Article found here ;)
http://www.touristnetuk.com/WM/derby-n/

North Derbyshire
It’s difficult to imagine today, but at one time the northern part of Derbyshire was a desert of drifting sand dunes, much like the modern Sahara. Later it was submerged beneath an inland sea.


Finally it fell victim to the Ice Age which, inch by inch, nurtured its great rocky heights and curvaceous valleys.


Thanks to such geological manipulation it’s an area that can rightly claim to be one of the most varied in Britain, with a landscape that rolls out like a multi-layered carpet.

Roboevil
21-03-2008, 08:04 PM
I think the bigger things that people don't realise is in fact the effects that we will have of Global warming which is in our lifetime. Such as the encouragement of mosquitos to Britain due to higher temperatures, or how hard it is going to be to grow crops. Higher temperatures ensue extreme weather effects of either extreme drought, or mass hurricanes and typhoons.

Some people look at it and go, "well mi mum growz cabbagez in her alotment every year, so wot?" But that has nothing to do with it lol. The world needs masses of land to supply food for its population, it's not even enough as it is. Within our lifetime the population of Earth is going to reach well above 15 billion. We cannot sustain this amount of people and so there is going to be mass starvatio.

Dan2nd
21-03-2008, 08:24 PM
You have a bucket of water you drop a rock into the water what happens?

- The Water rises!

You take the rock out of the water again what happens?

- The water level lowers

The Polar ice caps melts what happens?

The ice is no longer in the water so the water lowers the melted ice causes the water level to rise again meaning the water level will hardly change at all

(thats my theory :P)

Roboevil
21-03-2008, 08:36 PM
Lol Dan2nd that doesn't even make sense but I know what you're getting at. If you put an ice cube into a glass of water, the water level will rise. If the ice cube melts, the water level stays the same because the water from the ice cube is only compensating the water level for itself. If that makes sense lol.
The water level will rise a little though because ice is more dense, but that actually has hardly any effect, it'll raise the water level next to nothing.

But the reason your theory can be disproved is that the ice on antarctica is on land lol. Which means every drop that falls into the ocean, will make the sea levels rise.

Dan2nd
21-03-2008, 08:38 PM
Lol Dan2nd that doesn't even make sense but I know what you're getting at. If you put an ice cube into a glass of water, the water level will rise. If the ice cube melts, the water level stays the same because the water from the ice cube is only compensating the water level for itself. If that makes sense lol.
The water level will rise a little though because ice is more dense, but that actually has hardly any effect, it'll raise the water level next to nothing.

But the reason your theory can be disproved is that the ice on antarctica is on land lol. Which means every drop that falls into the ocean, will make the sea levels rise.

aww crap didn't think about the land part :rolleyes: ah well worth a try your minds are far to advanced for the likes of me :D

jackass
21-03-2008, 08:41 PM
You have a bucket of water you drop a rock into the water what happens?

- The Water rises!

You take the rock out of the water again what happens?

- The water level lowers

The Polar ice caps melts what happens?

The ice is no longer in the water so the water lowers the melted ice causes the water level to rise again meaning the water level will hardly change at all

(thats my theory :P)

Thats not your theory!

You completed copied my post!

Roboevil
21-03-2008, 08:44 PM
Thats not your theory!

You completed copied my post!

I don't know why you're admitting to it when it's wrong lol.

Dan2nd
21-03-2008, 09:23 PM
Thats not your theory!

You completed copied my post!

:O I didn't read the whole thread I guess we're both equally as dumb :D

jackass
22-03-2008, 02:00 PM
I don't know why you're admitting to it when it's wrong lol.

Because its mine. :(

EDIT; I read what you put, I guess you are right. But a lot of the ice is underwater as well you know. ;)


:O I didn't read the whole thread I guess we're both equally as dumb :D

Lol yeah. :P

Roboevil
23-03-2008, 01:23 PM
EDIT; I read what you put, I guess you are right. But a lot of the ice is underwater as well you know. ;)

Do I lol? A lot of ice from where?

-:Undertaker:-
23-03-2008, 03:14 PM
Because its mine. :(

EDIT; I read what you put, I guess you are right. But a lot of the ice is underwater as well you know. ;)



Lol yeah. :P

A lot of the Ice is underwater yes and a lot of it is also on land. The whole Global Warming scare will wear off eventually as people realise it is just to reep even more money from taxes. Greenpeace were also caught lying once. They published pictures of Polar Bears on melting ice and claimed it was Global Warming, it was infact the summer in Antartica.

Roboevil
23-03-2008, 03:19 PM
A lot of the Ice is underwater yes and a lot of it is also on land. The whole Global Warming scare will wear off eventually as people realise it is just to reep even more money from taxes. Greenpeace were also caught lying once. They published pictures of Polar Bears on melting ice and claimed it was Global Warming, it was infact the summer in Antartica.
The ice underwater, wherever this apparently is, it going to have no affect on global Warming.

The government are already watering down the full statistics of global warming, why I don't know, I assume it's because they'd be expected to spend a lot of money on it.

Do you have the article? I've heard of it, however I don't think they made a direct claim, I was sure they were lying with omission and just making it appear to be that it was effects of global warming. I don't know why anyone cares about polar bears anyway, they're doomed to extinction whatever happens.

Virgin Mary
23-03-2008, 07:35 PM
Only the dutch will die anyway

-Xiangu-
24-03-2008, 08:09 PM
Do I lol? A lot of ice from where?

Its always like that, just like ice burgs only about a third of the ice is on the surface.

Roboevil
24-03-2008, 08:30 PM
Only the dutch will die anyway
And then the rest of us will follow.

Its always like that, just like ice burgs only about a third of the ice is on the surface.

Oh is that what's meant? Well that's going to have no affect on global warming anyway. Sea ice is so minimal in comparison to the rest of the ocean, if it melts, it will do nothing.

Land ice is the main concern. Greenland occupies 2.8 million cubic kilometers of ice, which is a collosal amount, when it all melts every ocean around the world is expected to rise 7m meters. Hundreds of cities will be affected because of it.

Dan2nd
24-03-2008, 08:52 PM
Apprently according to the Daily Mail London will flood majorly and theres nothing we can do about it heres a picture of what they think London will look like by 2040

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/03_03/doomed2103_800x355.jpg

They say we are 'doomed'

bo$$
24-03-2008, 08:56 PM
I'm definately one for nature and conserving the earth for future generations, etc. but the thing is;
It's a hot day, you're sweating from outside and all you want to do is get inside and turn on the air conditioner.
It's not the easiest thing to just give up everything bad and start dealing with the issues of global warming. I think that we're at a stage that we can slow it down, but not stop it. There's just too much negativity happening in this world for everything to just change for a brighter future. It is just as easy and turn off the lights when you don't need them on or taking a walk rather then driving but some of these things just make life a hell of a lot more convient.

I think that people who make cars, etc. are doing a good job by creating them so that they are economically friendly but honestly most families would rather go for the $10,000 non eco-friendly car then the $50,000+ eco-friendly car.

WITH ALL THAT BEING SAID: I think the it's too late to stop it but not too late to slow it down.

Roboevil
24-03-2008, 09:06 PM
Apprently according to the Daily Mail London will flood majorly and theres nothing we can do about it heres a picture of what they think London will look like by 2040

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/03_03/doomed2103_800x355.jpg

They say we are 'doomed'

From my own knowledge, I wouldn't have predicted something like that until at least 2070. Which isn't surprising considering the source is the Daily Mail.

However, it's still a likely prediction, and something which is inevitible. One of my college lecturers has said that London is planning a £1 billion project to fight against this. I don't remember what it is, my assumption would be a wall though lol.


I think that people who make cars, etc. are doing a good job by creating them so that they are economically friendly but honestly most families would rather go for the $10,000 non eco-friendly car then the $50,000+ eco-friendly car.

WITH ALL THAT BEING SAID: I think the it's too late to stop it but not too late to slow it down.
I almost agree entirely. I don't believe myself that if I decide to turn the light off when I don't need it on, or take a bus to college instead of the car is going to change much. For anything to change, every country across the world is going to need to change, and the only way to save anything would be to ban cars and planes.

Like you said though, it's far too late. One of the more frightening things about climate change is the amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for 100 years, methane stays in the atmosphere for 8 years (I'm sure) and it's 20 times more lethal. Even if we stop carbon emissions now, we're still going to feel the affects of it for the next 100 years. Which by then, it'll be far too late anyway.

Dan2nd
24-03-2008, 09:09 PM
From my own knowledge, I wouldn't have predicted something like that until at least 2070. Which isn't surprising considering the source is the Daily Mail.

However, it's still a likely prediction, and something which is inevitible. One of my college lecturers has said that London is planning a £1 billion project to fight against this. I don't remember what it is, my assumption would be a wall though lol.

Lol hah they said the thames barrier wouldn't be able to hold off the mass of water but I have an idea which none of the experts have thought of :O MAKE IT BIGGER!!! -_- or yeah build a wall it's quite scary actually I'd hate to think how my home town would be effected being right next to the thames =o

partie2
24-03-2008, 09:14 PM
I think that we seriously need to do something to combat global warming as it is clear to see the effects from it going on. People need to be responsible for there own waste and damaging admissions and I think we need to make a stand against the corporate giants who pump out lots of damaging admissions and waste daily to become more efficient and green.

Roboevil
24-03-2008, 10:01 PM
Lol hah they said the thames barrier wouldn't be able to hold off the mass of water but I have an idea which none of the experts have thought of :O MAKE IT BIGGER!!! -_- or yeah build a wall it's quite scary actually I'd hate to think how my home town would be effected being right next to the thames =o

I've read an article that they're planning to increase the size of it. The current project is only built to withstand sea level rises until 2030.

-Xiangu-
25-03-2008, 01:33 AM
On what you said earlier that the caps would not do anything. If the fresh water goes too much into the gulf stream then the warm water being supplied to the british isles will stop and we will become a much colder country like russia.

Jinc
25-03-2008, 02:11 AM
It doesn't exist.

It can be scientifically proven that some unnatural chemicals cause increased warming in the atmosphere.

There's good basis to argue that Global Warming isn't having an affect as large as is made out, but in some areas, it does exist.

The term 'Global Warming' is far to vague to be used generally. There are many different aspects to the proposed processes.

-Xiangu-
25-03-2008, 02:22 AM
Yes, therefore the different aspects are summed up as global warming which is the most expected theory therefore it is called global warming to generalise.

Jinc
25-03-2008, 02:30 AM
Yes, therefore the different aspects are summed up as global warming which is the most expected theory therefore it is called global warming to generalise.

Maybe its because its 2:30am and i need sleep, or maybe your sentence just doesn't make sense. Either way, I don't understand that.

-Xiangu-
25-03-2008, 04:10 AM
let me rephrase it. Alot of things could happen but the most accepted theory is the the climate warms up. Thats why it is called global warming as a whole.

Homoevil
25-03-2008, 09:22 AM
let me rephrase it. Alot of things could happen but the most accepted theory is the the climate warms up. Thats why it is called global warming as a whole.
I'm not sure what you mean, how about this:

The global climate is heating up, it has raised 0.8 degrees centigrade since 1860. This is a fact, it's proven, and even George Bush realises this, if you disagree then you're a fool.
When described as 1 degree, 2 degrees, it doesn't seem like a lot, but it's a global average. It may rise 8 in the north, 12 in the south, 1 in Japan etc, but it is measured by the average.

The debate is how the warming is happening, some people believe it's a natural cycle (which I can prove otherwise - the climate is supposed to be cooling), and then some believe it's solar activity naturally releasing high amounts of energy. I'm sketchy on this myself, but it's highly unlikely as it wouldn't affect us this much, this fast.
The accepted theory is the greenhouse affect being caused by humans releasing unnaturally high amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, I'm sure you know what this is?

I apologise if it sounds like I'm patronising you, but the explanation is there for others if they're unsure of it.

-Xiangu-
25-03-2008, 12:55 PM
The earth could still cool down if it heats up to melt the fresh water and then that disrupts the gulf stream turning northern europe colder.

Homoevil
25-03-2008, 01:48 PM
The earth could still cool down if it heats up to melt the fresh water and then that disrupts the gulf stream turning northern europe colder.
This was a theory developed during the 60s and 70s, it was taking from evidence of the Gulf Stream collapsing during the Ice Age (don't quote me on that). Now though, there is no compelling evidence that such an event is going to occur, for this to happen, masses of fresh water would need to pour into the Gulf Stream all at once, and there's no natural resevoirs around for this to happen. This theory was used in the Day After Tomorrow, to those who've watched it.
In basic terms, it's not going to happen.

-:Undertaker:-
26-03-2008, 02:26 PM
I think that we seriously need to do something to combat global warming as it is clear to see the effects from it going on. People need to be responsible for there own waste and damaging admissions and I think we need to make a stand against the corporate giants who pump out lots of damaging admissions and waste daily to become more efficient and green.

What effects are these?

The Floods in Britain? - They were caused by building on flood plains. The Antartic 'melting'? - It has always melted bit by bit. The flooding in Bangladesh? - Always has happened, Bangladesh is below sea level. New Orleans? - Hurricanes have always been around, and building a city below sea level isn't a good idea.

-Xiangu-
26-03-2008, 06:26 PM
Those are the effects we need to combat yes, It is no good sitting back and letting things like that happen.

-:Undertaker:-
26-03-2008, 06:28 PM
Those are the effects we need to combat yes, It is no good sitting back and letting things like that happen.

You combat them by not building on flood plains. You don't 'combat' them by cutting emissions as pollution isn't the cause of it all.

Homoevil
26-03-2008, 09:13 PM
What effects are these?

The Floods in Britain? - They were caused by building on flood plains. The Antartic 'melting'? - It has always melted bit by bit. The flooding in Bangladesh? - Always has happened, Bangladesh is below sea level. New Orleans? - Hurricanes have always been around, and building a city below sea level isn't a good idea.
I would like to correct you in saying Bangladesh is at an average of 10 metres above sea level. Even so, if sea levels rise just over a metre, a lot of Bangladesh would be flooded.
None of Antarctica should be melting, the earth should be cooling slightly, I can prove this but it's very complicated.
Was New Orleans where Hurricane Catrina hit? I know Catrina hit land below the equator, on Brazil, where it shouldn't have done. I've read why, and how it's been explained and blamed on global warming but I'm a little sketchy on it.

You combat them by not building on flood plains. You don't 'combat' them by cutting emissions as pollution isn't the cause of it all.
What evidence do you have that suggests pollution isn't the cause of it?

Virgin Mary
27-03-2008, 10:04 AM
Isn't it because heat radiation from the sun isn't able to bounce back into space as easily because we clog up the ozone with carbon dioxide? That's what they told us in science.

-Xiangu-
27-03-2008, 12:21 PM
yes thats why it's lgobal warming because as the heat rays enter only a few can get out which heats the planet.

-:Undertaker:-
27-03-2008, 02:13 PM
I would like to correct you in saying Bangladesh is at an average of 10 metres above sea level. Even so, if sea levels rise just over a metre, a lot of Bangladesh would be flooded.
None of Antarctica should be melting, the earth should be cooling slightly, I can prove this but it's very complicated.
Was New Orleans where Hurricane Catrina hit? I know Catrina hit land below the equator, on Brazil, where it shouldn't have done. I've read why, and how it's been explained and blamed on global warming but I'm a little sketchy on it.

What evidence do you have that suggests pollution isn't the cause of it?

A lot of Bangladesh is below sea level as the land is very lush and fertile and floods often. Antartica should be melting and always has been because it has summertime, the Ice Age hasn't ended and Antartica is supposed to be covered in lush forests.

My evidence is that the Earth has cooled and heated thousands of times before and there were no factorys then. The current weather events over the last century are being blamed on Global Warming when in reality they have always happened, it's fairly simple. Build on flood plains/near rivers + rain = flooding.

Homoevil
27-03-2008, 03:41 PM
A lot of Bangladesh is below sea level as the land is very lush and fertile and floods often.
My apologies sorry, I've re-read what you've written and you are right.

Antartica should be melting and always has been because it has summertime, the Ice Age hasn't ended and Antartica is supposed to be covered in lush forests.
Would you say where you've gotten this from? Anarctica shouldn't melt in the summer time. The North Pole does, and a lot of it during the summer months. More of it has been melting each summer in the last years because of global warming.


My evidence is that the Earth has cooled and heated thousands of times before and there were no factorys then. The current weather events over the last century are being blamed on Global Warming when in reality they have always happened,
You're right in saying that the climate has heated and cooled similarly to today. However, if you look at any decent graph showing CO2 levels, you will see that since 1860, and especially in the last 50 years, CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased faster than any other time period ever recorded.
You will also notice that until only recently, CO2 levels in the atmosphere have breached 300 ppm which hasn't happened in over 600,000 years.

At the time of writing, I found a graph to illustrate this, from it you can see the excellerated rise in CO2 levels in the past century are dramatic.
The graph was taken from the US Environmental Protection Agency, you can criticise its ligitimacy (especially considering they managed to mistype "temperature") but I assure you, find any graph anywhere else, and they will all show the same conclusion.


http://epa.gov/climatechange/science/images/co2-temp.gif

As you can clearly see, the temperature rises and falls at the same rate as the levels of carbon dioxide that's within the atmosphere. If you also notice, the temperatures rise and fall a slight delay, which is why compared to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere present, the temperature hasn't quite caught up.

This URL is an article taken from the Independent, it also illustrates this. The first paragraph is obviously the most important:



Concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are at their highest levels for at least 650,000 years and this rise began with the birth of the Industrial Revolution 250 years ago, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Carbon dioxide is the principal greenhouse gas responsible for global warming and, in 2005, concentrations stood at 379 parts per million (ppm). This compares to a pre-industrial level of 278 ppm, and a range over the previous 650,000 years of between 180 and 300 ppm, the report says.


http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/carbon-dioxide-rate-is-at-highest-level-for-650000-years-434809.html

There is no other larger source in the last 150 years emitting this massive amounts CO2 into the atmosphere than humans.


it's fairly simple. Build on flood plains/near rivers + rain = flooding.
You're very narrow minded in saying it as if it's such a simple solution.
You can't expect people to build away from rivers and seas, it's how economies work. Cities needs to be near water for food/drinking/trade etc. Every major founding city in the world is built next to water because of these reasons. And animals do they same thing, they live near water.

It is however unreasonable to expect people to live near water because of floods, if the floods are caused by us. If floods were always this bad, people wouldn't have built civilisations there in the first place.

-:Undertaker:-
27-03-2008, 07:28 PM
My apologies sorry, I've re-read what you've written and you are right.

Would you say where you've gotten this from? Anarctica shouldn't melt in the summer time. The North Pole does, and a lot of it during the summer months. More of it has been melting each summer in the last years because of global warming.


You're right in saying that the climate has heated and cooled similarly to today. However, if you look at any decent graph showing CO2 levels, you will see that since 1860, and especially in the last 50 years, CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased faster than any other time period ever recorded.
You will also notice that until only recently, CO2 levels in the atmosphere have breached 300 ppm which hasn't happened in over 600,000 years.

At the time of writing, I found a graph to illustrate this, from it you can see the excellerated rise in CO2 levels in the past century are dramatic.
The graph was taken from the US Environmental Protection Agency, you can criticise its ligitimacy (especially considering they managed to mistype "temperature") but I assure you, find any graph anywhere else, and they will all show the same conclusion.


http://epa.gov/climatechange/science/images/co2-temp.gif

As you can clearly see, the temperature rises and falls at the same rate as the levels of carbon dioxide that's within the atmosphere. If you also notice, the temperatures rise and fall a slight delay, which is why compared to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere present, the temperature hasn't quite caught up.

This URL is an article taken from the Independent, it also illustrates this. The first paragraph is obviously the most important:



http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/carbon-dioxide-rate-is-at-highest-level-for-650000-years-434809.html

There is no other larger source in the last 150 years emitting this massive amounts CO2 into the atmosphere than humans.


You're very narrow minded in saying it as if it's such a simple solution.
You can't expect people to build away from rivers and seas, it's how economies work. Cities needs to be near water for food/drinking/trade etc. Every major founding city in the world is built next to water because of these reasons. And animals do they same thing, they live near water.

It is however unreasonable to expect people to live near water because of floods, if the floods are caused by us. If floods were always this bad, people wouldn't have built civilisations there in the first place.

Pollution levels have gone up I never said they didn't. My point is if they have gone up so much then why haven't we witnessed any effects from it? I don't really pay attention to graphs as there is one for everything, I have also seen one where this guy had solar ray effects and they matched the temperature graph.

Floods are only getting 'worse' because of the following factors;


The water has nowhere to sink into, thus sits ontop of the tarmac and will run into lower ground.
The drains we build are not big enough and are overwhelmed when there are floods.
We notice flooding more now as news is easy to access.
We are building closer and closer to rivers and building on more and more flood plains.I have read about the poles being forests and it is quite clear that they were. The remains of animals and tree's are there, thus oil is widespread across the poles.

Homoevil
27-03-2008, 10:06 PM
Pollution levels have gone up I never said they didn't. My point is if they have gone up so much then why haven't we witnessed any effects from it?
Um... we have?
How about ice melting... this isn't just natrual ice that goes and comes every summer or winter, this is ice that's been stable for hundreds of thousands of years, and now mass quantities of it are breaking apart with only one explanation.
Here, an ice shelf has melted, this one recently happened during February. An are of ice over 5,000km squared has broken off and melted, this is the 6th to recently collapse. Here's an important section from the article:

Several ice shelves on the peninsula have retreated in recent years and six of them – the Prince Gustav Channel, Larsen Inlet, Larsen A and Larsen B, the Wordie, Muller and the Jones ice shelves – have collapsed completely.

The Wilkins ice shelf is important because it is farther south on the Antarctic peninsula, where temperatures are generally colder than at the northern tip. "Climate warming in the Antarctic peninsula has pushed the limit of viability for ice shelves further south – setting some of them that used to be stable on a course of retreat and eventual loss," Dr Vaughan said.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cracking-up-the-ice-shelf-as-big-as-northern-ireland-800585.html

The climate has risen far too fast for this to be natural. It takes thousands of years for the climate to naturally change, volcanoes don't even do it. The amount of CO2 put into our atmosphere has happened in the last 150 years, it's done by us, and it's having dramatic effect.


I don't really pay attention to graphs as there is one for everything, I have also seen one where this guy had solar ray effects and they matched the temperature graph.
Well that just makes you ignorant and there's no point debating if you're just going to shun any decent piece of evidence. That's just your problem and you're going to look like a dumb idiot.
Please find some graphs "for everything" that contradict what I'm saying.



Floods are only getting 'worse' because of the following factors;


The water has nowhere to sink into, thus sits ontop of the tarmac and will run into lower ground.
The drains we build are not big enough and are overwhelmed when there are floods.
We notice flooding more now as news is easy to access.

Uh... you think we have floods because it can't sink into the ground because we have tarmac roads lol?
During monsoon seasons, Mumbai has rainfall of 40cm PER DAY. That's gigatonnes of water every day, the floods aren't occuring because it can't sink into earth. It's happening because of the amount of ice melting, rain is occuring so much more, in such masses of quantities.
Right, you're excuses don't exactly include any scientific evidence, or anything that even makes sense.


We are building closer and closer to rivers and building on more and more flood plains.
Could you give me some examples, including facts. I will accept what you're saying as it's possible. Our population has trippled in the last 50 years, so we're obviously expanding into places vunerable to floods. But the floods are not just invading our land, they're getting bigger and more extreme, in places that haven't seen floods for thousands of years.


I have read about the poles being forests and it is quite clear that they were. The remains of animals and tree's are there, thus oil is widespread across the poles.
I still don't understand what you mean about the "the poles" having lush forests.
You've said:

the Ice Age hasn't ended and Antartica is supposed to be covered in lush forests.
And

I have read about the poles being forests and it is quite clear that they were.
Are they supposed to have them now, or in the past? The North Pole is 100% ice, there's no land for the trees to grow on.
It's estimated that 40% of undiscovered oil left on the planet is under Anarctica, there was once foliage there if that's what you mean. I don't see your point though.

It really doesn't seem like you know what you're talking about, or that you've even done any research into this at all, you've supplied no facts or anything, and everything you're saying just seems hear-say to me.

-Xiangu-
28-03-2008, 11:19 PM
Are they supposed to have them now, or in the past? The North Pole is 100% ice, there's no land for the trees to grow on.
It's estimated that 40% of undiscovered oil left on the planet is under Anarctica, there was once foliage there if that's what you mean. I don't see your point though.

if there was once foliage there and there is now oil then your contradicting yourself by saying its 100% ice.

Roboevil
29-03-2008, 12:05 AM
if there was once foliage there and there is now oil then your contradicting yourself by saying its 100% ice.

No.

Anarctica - It's in the SOUTH POLE, it's ice settled on land. If all the Ice on the South Pole melts, then an island will be revealed.

North Pole - The clue is in the name, it's in the NORTH POLE, it's made of pure Ice, there's no land mass.

There's two poles, one could have foliage, the other can't. Undertaker said "poles"; plural, implying both poles would have had foliage. However only one is capable.

Dentafrice
29-03-2008, 12:07 AM
It may sound bad, but I don't really worry about Global Warming that much, I know it is probably going to affect us in the future.

We have a whole in the ozone layer, I don't see how we are going to "fix it", get a big scissor lift and climb up there with a big blue tarp?

I can see conserving things, and using less power, more gas and energy efficient things, but I don't see myself going around daily worrying about it.

Homoevil
29-03-2008, 12:10 AM
It may sound bad, but I don't really worry about Global Warming that much, I know it is probably going to affect us in the future.

We have a whole in the ozone layer, I don't see how we are going to "fix it", get a big scissor lift and climb up there with a big blue tarp?

I can see conserving things, and using less power, more gas and energy efficient things, but I don't see myself going around daily worrying about it.

That's because, you living in Britain I assume, or some other European country/ North American country, it doesn't directly affect. And it's not until it directly slaps you in the face that you'll start worrying about it.

This is one of the main problems about Global Warming, it's not until people really see it that they begin to care about it. And by then it's going to be far too late.

Dentafrice
29-03-2008, 12:12 AM
I am from the United States, I don't see it affecting me, and I guess when it does start to affect me, I will start to care.

Until then, I don't see it as a big concern in my personal life.

-:Undertaker:-
29-03-2008, 02:37 PM
Um... we have?
How about ice melting... this isn't just natrual ice that goes and comes every summer or winter, this is ice that's been stable for hundreds of thousands of years, and now mass quantities of it are breaking apart with only one explanation.
Here, an ice shelf has melted, this one recently happened during February. An are of ice over 5,000km squared has broken off and melted, this is the 6th to recently collapse. Here's an important section from the article:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cracking-up-the-ice-shelf-as-big-as-northern-ireland-800585.html

The climate has risen far too fast for this to be natural. It takes thousands of years for the climate to naturally change, volcanoes don't even do it. The amount of CO2 put into our atmosphere has happened in the last 150 years, it's done by us, and it's having dramatic effect.


Well that just makes you ignorant and there's no point debating if you're just going to shun any decent piece of evidence. That's just your problem and you're going to look like a dumb idiot.
Please find some graphs "for everything" that contradict what I'm saying.


Uh... you think we have floods because it can't sink into the ground because we have tarmac roads lol?
During monsoon seasons, Mumbai has rainfall of 40cm PER DAY. That's gigatonnes of water every day, the floods aren't occuring because it can't sink into earth. It's happening because of the amount of ice melting, rain is occuring so much more, in such masses of quantities.
Right, you're excuses don't exactly include any scientific evidence, or anything that even makes sense.


Could you give me some examples, including facts. I will accept what you're saying as it's possible. Our population has trippled in the last 50 years, so we're obviously expanding into places vunerable to floods. But the floods are not just invading our land, they're getting bigger and more extreme, in places that haven't seen floods for thousands of years.


I still don't understand what you mean about the "the poles" having lush forests.
You've said:

And

Are they supposed to have them now, or in the past? The North Pole is 100% ice, there's no land for the trees to grow on.
It's estimated that 40% of undiscovered oil left on the planet is under Anarctica, there was once foliage there if that's what you mean. I don't see your point though.

It really doesn't seem like you know what you're talking about, or that you've even done any research into this at all, you've supplied no facts or anything, and everything you're saying just seems hear-say to me.

You have yet to give me examples of the effects we are having, give me some effects/disasters that have happened, eg; floods in britain - and i'll tell you what caused them. One of the poles did have vegatation on at it's normal state, therefore if the ice is melting is shouldn't be any suprise to you.

On the point of flooding, yes tarmac DOES stop water draining into the ground. You build on flood plains then it will flood unless you have quality drainage systems which we in the UK don't and our sewers are just overwhelmed with water.

Oh and just because I don't post links to newspaper sites doesn't mean I don't know what i'm talking about. :)

Homoevil
29-03-2008, 07:11 PM
You have yet to give me examples of the effects we are having, give me some effects/disasters that have happened, eg; floods in britain - and i'll tell you what caused them.
I've given you enough evidence. You're just ignoring it all.

One of the poles did have vegatation on at it's normal state, therefore if the ice is melting is shouldn't be any suprise to you.
What do you mean by "normal state"?
The melting ice is catastrophic, I've already explained the amount of ice melting on Anarctica. The dynamics of Earth have stayed exactly the same for almost 11,000 years. Any major change in atmosphere that's happened in the past has taken thousands of years.
How do you explain what's happening now if it isn't human-induce CO2 levels? It's been 150 years and the climate has changed twice and thrice more times dramatically than it ever has, so it can not possibly be part of a natural cycle.

On the point of flooding, yes tarmac DOES stop water draining into the ground. You build on flood plains then it will flood unless you have quality drainage systems which we in the UK don't and our sewers are just overwhelmed with water.
Would you get me some scientific, or any evidence that proves this? It's just your own personal theory otherwise, and I doubt you're a well respected scientist.
Whilst you're there, can you get me any evidence that contradicts anything I'm saying, or supports anything you're saying. So far you've just criticised any evidence I've given with no support, or you've just ignored it
As I said, unless you're a geographical scientist, I'm not going to easily accept everything you say, for all I know you could be making it up.

-:Undertaker:-
29-03-2008, 10:54 PM
I've given you enough evidence. You're just ignoring it all.

What do you mean by "normal state"?
The melting ice is catastrophic, I've already explained the amount of ice melting on Anarctica. The dynamics of Earth have stayed exactly the same for almost 11,000 years. Any major change in atmosphere that's happened in the past has taken thousands of years.
How do you explain what's happening now if it isn't human-induce CO2 levels? It's been 150 years and the climate has changed twice and thrice more times dramatically than it ever has, so it can not possibly be part of a natural cycle.

Would you get me some scientific, or any evidence that proves this? It's just your own personal theory otherwise, and I doubt you're a well respected scientist.
Whilst you're there, can you get me any evidence that contradicts anything I'm saying, or supports anything you're saying. So far you've just criticised any evidence I've given with no support, or you've just ignored it
As I said, unless you're a geographical scientist, I'm not going to easily accept everything you say, for all I know you could be making it up.

You continue to just repeat what greenpeace and the media are saying, as I requested last time; please do give me examples of disasters that have occured due to this 'terrible' melting.

The Earth has changed thousands of times before, so why now when we're having a very small slight change in temperature is it our fault?

Homoevil
30-03-2008, 01:17 AM
Okay then, as you're ignoring everything I've been saying let's start over. I've already presented evidence, to what I feel is sufficient, to conclude that the levels of carbon dioxide that we have put into our atmosphere has amounted to the various effects of global climate change.

It is only fair that the burden of proof shall be laid upon the sceptic, so there we go I am now going to lay the burden of proof on you Undertaker.

Please, with all of your extensive knowledge, present a compelling case against this human-induced climate change, including scientific research and studies, facts and figures, graphs, quotes or any sufficient evidence that you wish to give.

I am disatisfied with the ignorance in this thread so far, it is only just that we hear your side of the story, from there I will review your case and present more evidence of my own for it. Until then, it is down to you to prove me wrong.

Considering you've not had your turn to present any feesable argument yet, I think you should do it now, agreed?

-:Undertaker:-
30-03-2008, 02:18 PM
Okay then, as you're ignoring everything I've been saying let's start over. I've already presented evidence, to what I feel is sufficient, to conclude that the levels of carbon dioxide that we have put into our atmosphere has amounted to the various effects of global climate change.

It is only fair that the burden of proof shall be laid upon the sceptic, so there we go I am now going to lay the burden of proof on you Undertaker.

Please, with all of your extensive knowledge, present a compelling case against this human-induced climate change, including scientific research and studies, facts and figures, graphs, quotes or any sufficient evidence that you wish to give.

I am disatisfied with the ignorance in this thread so far, it is only just that we hear your side of the story, from there I will review your case and present more evidence of my own for it. Until then, it is down to you to prove me wrong.

Considering you've not had your turn to present any feesable argument yet, I think you should do it now, agreed?

You are the one ignoring it. I have asked to not to link me to newspaper propaganda sites or present graphs which are made by the people who believe in it. I want YOU to give me examples of the effects we are experiancing due to the supposed melting of the pole/s. You can mention the summer 2007 flooding, there's loads!

So please do give me examples because it seems so far you can't.

Homoevil
30-03-2008, 07:21 PM
You are the one ignoring it. I have asked to not to link me to newspaper propaganda sites or present graphs which are made by the people who believe in it. I want YOU to give me examples of the effects we are experiancing due to the supposed melting of the pole/s. You can mention the summer 2007 flooding, there's loads!

So please do give me examples because it seems so far you can't.

Okay I can't be bothered now. Why the hell am I going to name some, when you seem to already know them? Why are you focusing on me just telling you some natural disasters? Is it because they're the only things you can actually contradict with real answers for?

You are acting moronic, and idiotic, and it shows through so blindingly. Everything you've been saying is junk, you're denying all evidence because you obviously can't explain it and you have absolutely no idea about how to perceive evidence and apply it to global warming.

Here is a lesson for you (hopefully you'll read it): if you admit you are wrong, and if you accept evidence from the opposing side, you will learn, and you will adapt your own opinion from your own knowledge. Debates like this shouldn't be about who is right/wrong, or who proves who wrong/right. They should be about gaining knowledge from different people to shape and define, or even change your original opinion.
Your immaturity shows through so horrible when you claim that my evidence is nothing by Greenpeace propaganda. I purposely seek out information that contradicts global warming so that I have two sides of the story, otherwise I'll just have a narrow-minded, biased view.

-:Undertaker:-
30-03-2008, 07:32 PM
Okay I can't be bothered now. Why the hell am I going to name some, when you seem to already know them? Why are you focusing on me just telling you some natural disasters? Is it because they're the only things you can actually contradict with real answers for?

You are acting moronic, and idiotic, and it shows through so blindingly. Everything you've been saying is junk, you're denying all evidence because you obviously can't explain it and you have absolutely no idea about how to perceive evidence and apply it to global warming.

Here is a lesson for you (hopefully you'll read it): if you admit you are wrong, and if you accept evidence from the opposing side, you will learn, and you will adapt your own opinion from your own knowledge. Debates
like this shouldn't be about who is right/wrong, or who proves who wrong/right. They should be about gaining knowledge from different people to shape and define, or even change your original opinion.
Your immaturity shows through so horrible when you claim that my evidence is nothing by Greenpeace propaganda. I purposely seek out information that contradicts global warming so that I have two sides of the story, otherwise I'll just have a narrow-minded, biased view.

No you are the one avoiding the questions, giving me lot's of newspaper site links isn't going to make your case right. You refuse point blank to give me examples of natural disasters caused by the global warming idea. I think your refusing to give them because there is an answer for why they happened and it's not Global Warming.

I have defined my opinion on Global Warming, infact I used to believe in it 100% - then I realised reading newspapers/eco friendly sites won't give me a balanced arguement. So I thought to myself if Global Warming is real then why does the pole melting matter when in it's original/normal state it has forests on? - Why did the floods in Britain happen? - We built on flood plains and didn't build good enough drainage. Why does Bangladesh have terrible flooding? - due to most of the country being next to rivers and being below sea level. Why did Hurricane Katrina destroy New Orleans? - due to it being beow sea level and all of the marsh being destroyed.

Josh-H
06-04-2008, 09:47 AM
I heard something on Kerrang or Radio 1 (Can't remember) a while back about global warming. And one thing this scientist said made me think, and he is 100% correct. Global warming won't happen as bad as expected!

Okay, i'll explain... When you're in a bath, the water is quite high, because you're already in it. But when you get out, the water lowers, because you were part of the 'object'. So think of the ice caps, almost all of the ratio of ice is UNDER the water, so its already in there, so when it melts, it will stay the same. But wait, it actually goes lower! Everyone knows that ice is more dense than water, so when the ice melts into water, it drops in density.

:8

Wrong, Ice is LESS DENSE than water.

It's the reason ice floats ;)

AgnesIO
06-04-2008, 10:06 AM
Global Warming is natural and people getting all fussed over it are silly.

They say are world is getting hotter but this has been going on for millions of years.

There was an ice age - Then the ice melted - MEANING IT MUST HAVE WARMED UP. Then it got cold and another ice age came - THEN IT WARMED UP.

This is why Global Warming could be slowed down but by slowing it down 1/4 of the world does NOT help.

Asher
06-04-2008, 10:45 AM
ignorance ignorance ignorance!

Nereo
06-04-2008, 02:39 PM
i think this snow proves global warming is a load of phooey

Oleh
06-04-2008, 03:46 PM
This is natural for the world , were only adding somewhat 7% to the process , When thet say most of the world will be underwater is total rubbish the ice caps are about half a mile under water and ice has a higher density meening when it melts the level will lower like when you go into a bath similar prospect

-:Undertaker:-
06-04-2008, 04:06 PM
This is an interesting article I read.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=557374&in_page_id=1770

Want to hide these adverts? Register an account for free!