Keira Forums - View Single Post - Global Warming - Fact or Fiction?
View Single Post
Old 17-06-2006, 04:57 AM   Attended an OMGWTFKKWBBQ! Officer #19
Holly Moderator
Kelsey's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Wild Wild West
Posts: 1,188
Originally Posted by Flightfreak
First of all it's pretty important that you have some understanding of the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is the natural process by which the atmosphere traps some of the Sun's energy, warming the Earth enough to support life. Most mainstream scientists believe a human-driven increase in "greenhouse gases" is increasing the effect artificially. These gases include carbon dioxide, emitted by fossil fuel burning and deforestation, and methane, released from rice paddies and landfill sites.
So what is your solution? Cut down all the trees? If Al Gore is to be believed, the problem lies within the carbon dioxide. His argument, which from your above response sounds like you would agree, is that the greenhouse effect is causing the heat from the sun to be trapped within the atmosphere, thus heating up the earth and causing "global warming." This idea has too many holes. One being: what grows when it gets warmer? Algae. What does algae do? It sucks up the CO2. So what's the problem?

Here is a quote from an article that cites Professor Tim Patterson, a paleoclimatologist from Carleton University: when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Something what most people don’t understand is that global warming is not something straight, it is exponential. For that reason, the smallest influence we have on a complex system as the world’s climate has far-reaching consequences.
What scientific study points to that? We can't even control the effects of the coyote-elk population in Yellowstone National Park. How the fuck can scientists accurately predict the temperature in fifty years, or what will happen when and if the average temperature of the earth rises a few degrees.

For example, when the upper water layers of an ocean warm up more, they mix up less good with the layers from below, which means that there will be less feeding substances in the top layer that can take up carbon dioxide (CO2) by photosynthesis.
But the warmer weather means longer growing season, so nature, as it has in the past, can easily balance itself out to make up for the lack of initial nutrients provided to the algae or whatever else on the surface of the water.

For example, the icecaps reflect the light back to the atmosphere, but when the ice melts, what is happening all over the world, decreasing ice cover will mean exposed land absorbs more heat and speeds up warming further.
Melting icecaps can mean more moisture in the air, right? More moisture can mean more clouds.... So isn't it possible that the increased number of clouds will reflect the sunlight? If that's the case, the water won't heat up. We don't know that won't happen any more than we know it will.

The latest reports on increased levels of glacial discharge, in the journal Science, reports the amount of ice being dumped into the ocean from the Greenland Ice Sheet has doubled in the last 5 years. Scientists had thought that global warming did not yet significantly threaten the ice sheet and it would take over a thousand years to break down.
A full breakdown would result in a catastrophic global sea level rise of 7 meters. That's bye-bye most of Bangladesh, Netherlands, Florida and would make London the new Atlantis.
Says Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki: "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier. In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."
He's not the only one who thinks that:
Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."

But Karlén clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karlén concludes.

The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

you're entitled to have your opinion of course but i doubt you'll be able to refute the more and more upcoming evidence provided by scientists all over the world who spent their days and billions of dollars investigating this matter.
Try me. I think if I got enough people with titles and so called status to tell you that the moon is made of cheese, you'd believe that in a heartbeat. Oh, but that's just silly isn't it?

I'll be back later...this topic is awesome, let's keep it going.
~* Kelsey *~

Check out my blog:
Kelsey is offline   Reply With Quote