Effects of Global Warming - [Closes 8/4/08]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nakumuri

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by partie2

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.

Those are the effects we need to combat yes, It is no good sitting back and letting things like that happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nakumuri

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

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?

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.

yes thats why it's lgobal warming because as the heat rays enter only a few can get out which heats the planet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homoevil

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

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...s/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:

Quote:

---

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/environ...rs-434809.html

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homoevil

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...s/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/environ...rs-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.