Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/27/05 03:29 PM, Jordannguyen wrote: more glaciers have been growing than glaciers that melt -
-from 1986 to 2000 antartica has cooled .7 C per decade
-radar shows antarcic ice is growing at more than 26.8 gigatons per year in the west
im saying all of this because 90% of all the glaciers on the earth are in antarctica...actually....antarctica has been melting for 6000 years.....but recently it has been cooling and creating more glaciers....

Changes within a decade or two are meaningless when talking about this subject. Additionally, you can't just look at temperatures at certain parts of the globe. "Global warming" will create much more than warmer temperatures. It involves more 'extreme' weather overall. Which will mean harder, sometimes colder winters as well.

But, to reiterate, a fourteen year old period is meaningless when talking about general trends.

At 8/27/05 03:54 PM, GWBblows wrote:

At 8/27/05 03:38 PM, Jordannguyen wrote: these arent online sources...they are from books/magazines

Since you can't show links I looked on my own. It seems Antartica's temperature is pretty random Antartica seems to be a terrible example of a place to use to judge what's happening to the temperature of the entire earth...

http://www-das.uwyo...ap03/antarctica.html

See third image down

yes i see that temperature may be a bad example...but what about the growing of glaciers? i think antarctica is very important on determining the amount of ice/glaciers on earth

At 8/27/05 03:55 PM, Jordannguyen wrote: thanks i didnt realize it was an online source i read a secondary source based on that information.

No problem. I still disagree with your argument as a whole, but I like to take the time to find the truth, reguardless if my initial opinions are right or wrong.

Despite whether or not the glaciers are melting (given that I've seen information from both sides, though the info on global warming seems to outweigh those who disagree), I think it is still wise to invest in creating clean air, which is part of what this funding focuses on.

At 8/27/05 04:04 PM, Jordannguyen wrote: yes i see that temperature may be a bad example...but what about the growing of glaciers?

Well, for one.... It's not true.

Hell, I'll quote the applicable section:

The world's glaciers have, on average, lost more ice than they have gained over the past century, so they have a "negative mass balance". This meltwater inevitably makes its way into the oceans, where it contributes to sea level rise. Estimates from thousands of gauges throughout the world suggest that sea level has been rising about 2 mm a year for most of the century. Most of this sea level rise is due to thermal expansion of the ocean as the world warms, but glaciers also make a significant contribution.[8]

While it is clear that overall mountain glaciers are losing mass, some of the Earth's glaciers are growing. However, this is not inconsistent with projections of human-induced climate change because precipitation is expected to increase in the high northern and southern latitudes in response to warming temperatures. High latitude precipitation has increased over recent decades9; in some cases this could have counteracted the loss of glacial mass due to warming.[9]

yeah i would prefer to have cleaner air..... considering i have asthma....but i dont think it affecting the ozone....but i do agree with you that the air should be cleaner....

actually were split between two theories, one is like AM said we just got out of a ice age back in the 1800's, so we are bound for a warm spell, or the fact that the earth can take care of comets, asteriods and other items, so it should be able to take care of our problems.

but my though is that man made temperture differences are actually true and will put some small effect but not a Day after tommorow snearo(sp)

Global warming is a problem, I feel sorry for the Netherlands, they're alread below sea level. They're fucked.

At 8/27/05 07:27 PM, pandaporn wrote: Global warming is a problem, I feel sorry for the Netherlands, they're alread below sea level. They're fucked.

you do realize a lot of the world is below sea level correct.

i just think there's no point in trying to prevent global warming...

its too late now. cant fix the ozone layer can we?

yet...

At 8/27/05 03:47 PM, Jizzlebang wrote: in the past 5 years i have experianced less and less snow... i think its problem.

i mean i would rather have snow than just slush and cold winds

Same here. I remember a October blizzard when I was a little kid that had us walking around trick or treating in waist deep snow. 'couse, my waist was a lot closer to the groud then, but in recent years I haven't seen anything near as deep. And I lived in Minnesota. You can't get too much farther north than that. Some places get more snow though. Montanna for instance. If you go into the park system there you can see little flags mounted to the tree about 20 feet up. Those are trial markers for winter skiers.

At 8/27/05 01:43 PM, Jordannguyen wrote: I think that there is too much funding going into a subject that is ill-informed. Although carbon dioxide levels have increased... there is no evidence that temperature is increasing on a global scale

There is. http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_evd.htm

...temperatures around cities do increase because of the excess concrete and air conditioners but that is only on a local scale...

Not true. Everything we do gets blown by winds.

the melting of glaciers is exagerated to the point of lying...there are about 100 glaciers being monitored while the number of glaciers on the earth numbers in the hundreds of thousands...

Again, not true. See link above. Also, try google.

and even some of the glaciers being monitored are actually GROWING...

Well, it is still below freezing in Antarctica.

methane is supposedly a more potent ozone depleting gas than CO2 but im sure everyone knows that methane comes from poop....and from all the animals on the earth....including insects.... creates a hell of alota methane...which means that we arent the main reason of this so called "problem" and that this "problem" has been going on millions of years before mankind.....

I'm guessing that we are the main problem, because we create all of these toxins that go into the air, AND we poop.

also, the climate changes constantly....and what we are trying to protect may be harming nature because nature is always changing....it isnt natural for it to stay the same..... so to stay on the political side of this topic... so much money and effort is being spent on the atmosphere (which by the way mankind has little knowledge of).... many more lives could be saved by spending this money on a problems that can actually harm people....starvation.....aids.....crime...

Money needs to be spent on every problem. Whether it's harming people now or will harm them in the future. Anyway, the temperature has not always risen like it has been so steadily.

. and hey might as well put the money in research of our strive for knowledge so it is more publicly known that global warming is completely media driven to just create a good story.....like many other false public scares that has been repetative through history.

Sounds to me like you're just listening to Conservative Politicians with no interests other than to line their own pockets with the money they get from the corporations that continue to pollute our earth and air.

and hey im just trying to have an intelligent conversation so there is no need to just start yelling out random things....if you want to prove me wrong then give a straight answer with evidnce behind it

Eh, I put some evidence down, but really, how hypocritical is it if you're demanding evidence from us but won't provide any of your own?

At 8/27/05 02:14 PM, altanese_mistress wrote: We just got out of an ice-age in the 1800s.

R-O-F-L!!!!!

All I have to say.

and hey im just trying to have an intelligent conversation so there is no need to just start yelling out random things....if you want to prove me wrong then give a straight answer with evidnce behind it

Eh, I put some evidence down, but really, how hypocritical is it if you're demanding evidence from us but won't provide any of your own?

i left my sources in an earlier entry on the books i read.... i also said in another entry that as long as for certain that you heard this from a source than you can use it i guess you didnt read all of the comments...its cool though i dont expect everyone to read all of the things left by other people....its tedious

At 8/27/05 11:50 PM, Jordannguyen wrote:

and hey im just trying to have an intelligent conversation so there is no need to just start yelling out random things....if you want to prove me wrong then give a straight answer with evidnce behind it

Eh, I put some evidence down, but really, how hypocritical is it if you're demanding evidence from us but won't provide any of your own?

i left my sources in an earlier entry on the books i read.... i also said in another entry that as long as for certain that you heard this from a source than you can use it i guess you didnt read all of the comments...its cool though i dont expect everyone to read all of the things left by other people....its tedious

I read those posts. I can't examine anything that you have read from books of your own to determine it's results as compared to other findings, I can't study to see if you're selectively quoting anything. I can't decide it the methods used in the publications might be as reliable as other methods.

All I can do is take your word for it. Sorry, don't have much access to a university library or anything like that to study it on my own, and no offense, but just can't take somebody's word for it over the internet.

I read those posts. I can't examine anything that you have read from books of your own to determine it's results as compared to other findings, I can't study to see if you're selectively quoting anything. I can't decide it the methods used in the publications might be as reliable as other methods.

All I can do is take your word for it. Sorry, don't have much access to a university library or anything like that to study it on my own, and no offense, but just can't take somebody's word for it over the internet.

haha....yeah thats actually kinda the reason i dont get my sources online....credability.....there has been many cases where people disguise an article from like BBC news and was actually a fraud

For those of you who don't believe me on the ice-age ending in the 1800s; its true. Look it up if you have to. o_o The world being frozen over ended much longer before then, but like all things with nature, the entire thing isn't gonna end overnight, just like it isn't gonna begin overnight. But I digress. Like I said; it was the ending-period, and it wouldn't be noticable to the common person from any time.

But like I also said; take it as you will. Its still fact that the last ice-age ended then, and since then the world has been steadily warming up. Wether you believe it or not, however, is another matter entirly.

At 8/28/05 12:14 AM, altanese_mistress wrote: For those of you who don't believe me on the ice-age ending in the 1800s; its true. Look it up if you have to. o_o The world being frozen over ended much longer before then, but like all things with nature, the entire thing isn't gonna end overnight, just like it isn't gonna begin overnight. But I digress. Like I said; it was the ending-period, and it wouldn't be noticable to the common person from any time.

But like I also said; take it as you will. Its still fact that the last ice-age ended then, and since then the world has been steadily warming up. Wether you believe it or not, however, is another matter entirly.

yes that is a fact and i dont see why people dont understand that....when people believe in global warming as a fact when that is still a theory ..... but then again..... evalution is still a theory so i could be completely wrong

At 8/28/05 12:24 AM, Jordannguyen wrote: yes that is a fact and i dont see why people dont understand that....when people believe in global warming as a fact when that is still a theory ..... but then again..... evalution is still a theory so i could be completely wrong

Now now, I never said anything either way that stated my own opinionon the matter. It could have ended early because of mankind, after all. I guess you could say I'm a bit of a fence-sitter.

At 8/28/05 01:31 AM, altanese_mistress wrote:

At 8/28/05 12:24 AM, Jordannguyen wrote: yes that is a fact and i dont see why people dont understand that....when people believe in global warming as a fact when that is still a theory ..... but then again..... evalution is still a theory so i could be completely wrong

Now now, I never said anything either way that stated my own opinionon the matter. It could have ended early because of mankind, after all. I guess you could say I'm a bit of a fence-sitter.

Well, some people believe that we are due for another ice age. And that we may have held it off my heating the environment.

But what happens when the earth gets out of the counteracted ice age?

Ahhh...rambling inside my own head.

quik ask the americans! im sure theyll blame this on terrorism someway or another.
It must be the WMDs.

humans are killing this planet

At 8/29/05 01:51 PM, metalmercenary wrote: humans are killing this planet

Good, and I hope we keep on goin.

At 8/29/05 06:45 PM, TimeFrame wrote: Good, and I hope we keep on goin.

You... do realize that you live ON the planet, correct? It's like setting your own house on fire while you're still in it.

At 8/29/05 07:49 PM, night_watch_man18 wrote:

You... do realize that you live ON the planet, correct? It's like setting your own house on fire while you're still in it.

I say that, because even if we're melting the glaciers and whatnot, im not going to over react like it's going to be Judgement day.

That's why ice caps and ice bergs are melting all aroundf the world........

At 8/29/05 08:21 PM, darknezz1 wrote: That's why ice caps and ice bergs are melting all aroundf the world........

Exactly. It's people being apathetic to the situation, and not making efforts to reduce chemical emissions. It's like litter laws. I could sit back and say, "well, the population is getting bigger, thus, more waste will be produced, so why should I not just throw my trash wherever I want to. It's not like it's going to matter." When in fact, it does matter. Hence why we created laws against littering, because we became aware of the damage it causes. So, if we become more aware of the damage we cause towards global warming, the "powers that be" may create laws and regulations to prevent actions that attribute to global warming. In fact, in Canada, our government has recently began this process. We now have television ads being shown, telling people to make a few simple changes in our lifestyle to change the amount of energy we waste... and it's a government advertisement. Maybe laws will soon come about.

1 reason why i dont believe in the whole "OMG, glaciers are melting" thing, is because they're the same people who say we're destroying the environment, when we acually plant more trees than we cut up.

At 8/29/05 10:27 PM, TimeFrame wrote: 1 reason why i dont believe in the whole "OMG, glaciers are melting" thing, is because they're the same people who say we're destroying the environment, when we acually plant more trees than we cut up.

Have you ever flown in an airplane? Then you can see the negative impact that humans have had on the environment. In the Washington DC suburban area, there's more open land then what Mother Nature has intended.

Have you ever been to the Shenandoah River, or even the Chesapeake Bay? Then you can see the negative impact that humans have had on the environment.

Have you ever been to a landfill? How the hell is that beneficial to the environment?

I'm not an extremely green person, but we are definetely affecting our environment in a negative way. The Chesapeak Bay and the Shenandoah River, which so happens to both be less then an hour away from me, are both polluted with mercury, but that is not the only problem. Over-fertilization and the runoff from the fertilization has fueled bacterial growth in the two bodies of water, causing a multitude of infections and diseases for the fish that swim in them. Not only that, in the Chesapeake Bay, oyster harvesting is at 1% of what it used to be! And that was all the way back in 1900. This number is not because of governmental regulation, but it is instead caused by diseases, high mercury content, and bacteria suffocating the oysters. As well as that, over-fishing has taken its toll. How can all of this be brushed to the side and ignored?

So let me ask one question.... how have we not affected the environment?

At 8/29/05 11:14 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote:

So let me ask one question.... how have we not affected the environment?

I never said we didnt affect it. By the way, on average, 19 million acres of forest are cut down each year, and 23 million acres of forest are planted each year in the US. We have more forest than when we did back in the 1940's despite our population growth. And on the plus side, we create jobs in the process.

and...there ya go.