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

[Homoevil]

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/environ...nd-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-]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:-]

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/environ...nd-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]

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:-]

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]

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?