• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Global Warming and the Rise of Sea level

CanadianGuy

Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
217
Reaction score
0
Location
Canada eh!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Global warming is no new topic but is truly a huge one. We have been told to use our cars less cut down on the emmisions of industrial parks and even lightbulbs are a problem. But it is defiantly more then that. Take this fact: "Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas. In the atmosphere there is over a hundred times the concentration of water vapour, which is the dominant greenhouse gas." Now that has nothing to do with cars or industrial plants.
The Kyoto agreement would have a devistating effect on the world economy but would barely effect global warming. But global warming is out there. The Sea level is rising 1/10 of an inch each year and 75% of that has to do with melting glaciers. There is also another problem with the world heating up and the sea level rising. As the temperature increases so does the water. If you know anything about the particle model of matter it explains it. But it is not really connected to us but nature itself and there has been up and down temperature shifts since the begining of time. Also volcano's cause alot of carbondioxide to enter the atmosphere. But still carbondioxide is not a major threat. What do you guys think of global warming, the Kyoto agreement and the rise of sea level?
 

Missouri Mule

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
1,406
Reaction score
48
Location
Hot Springs, Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I see this as a win-win situation. Let's convert the ocean's water to its component parts, oxygen and hydrogen. We can run our vehicles on hydrogen and reduce the ocean level at the same time. Nuclear energy is non-polluting and we ought to get with it.

I remember in 1954 when it got up to 115 degrees in southeast Missouri. It was so hot it would burn the tires off your cars. That was 51 years ago. I don't think it has gotten that hot since. But I think the jury is still out on this subject. Carbon dioxide can actually be pumped back into the earth's core. Some companies are doing this right now. The one thing that won't work and will never work is the Kyoto treaty. It penalized the developed nations and let the developing nations off relatively scott free. No nation worthy of the status is gong to commit national suicide.

It is a potentially a serious problem but we need to dispense with the politics (all of it) and look at the actual provable data. I'm not convinced that we are yet at that point. We may also have insufficient data. Several centuries ago didn't Greenland become much "greener" than it is today? What was that all about?
 

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I think "Global Warming" is a ploy to destroy OPEC and "Oil industries" though we get many products from crude oil. Such as plastics and rubber, which we use and re-use (recycle). Also since the whole debate of "Global Warming" car makers have made prototypes of cars that run internal combustion engines , through unconventional energy.

These are the ideas I've heard so far:
Hydrogen (Fuel Cell) cars: Though the car combines H and O2 molecules to create power for the car and produce a safe "water" out of the exost pipe, Pumping hydrogen in your car could potentially make it explode. Besides the obvious they have yet to have a way to safely contain Hydrogen, and it is more expensive that gas to purchase.
Solar Powered cars: Though they drive really slow, you can't take the car out on cloudy or rainy days.
Battery Powered cars: They plug into to your house just like any appliance, the only pollution being produced is the power for your house that is being used to charge the car, Also car batteries contain a highly toxic lead and explode if they get overheated. A battery powered car example "Think Golf Cart".
Hybrid Cars: I call these cars "Hybrid Hype" because they don't really do much different than a regular conventional internal combustion engine already does. The cars still runs on gas and still puts out the same quote "Pollution", they only difference is that the car doesn't run gas when you stop at a stop light, THATS IT! They just made the Alternator bigger and attached a generator to it to charge the battery in which the car ALREADY has.

Read more from people who actually know cars, Greenies aren't engineers so I leave to people who actually know what there talking about like the guys of "Car and Driver". Read they Hype on Hybrids it will show you what the treehuggers don't want you to know! Hybrid hype, and miscellaneous ramblings.
BY BROCK YATES
June 2005
:mrgreen: :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:

Missouri Mule

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
1,406
Reaction score
48
Location
Hot Springs, Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
stsburns said:
I think "Global Warming" is a ploy to destroy OPEC and "Oil industries" though we get many products from crude oil. Such as plastics and rubber, which we use and re-use (recycle). Also since the whole debate of "Global Warming" car makers have made prototypes of cars that run internal combustion engines , through unconventional energy.

These are the ideas I've heard so far:
Hydrogen (Fuel Cell) cars: Though the car combines H and O2 molecules to create power for the car and produce a safe "water" out of the exost pipe, Pumping hydrogen in your car could potentially make it explode. Besides the obvious they have yet to have a way to safely contain Hydrogen, and it is more expensive that gas to purchase.
Solar Powered cars: Though they drive really slow, you can't take the car out on cloudy or rainy days.
Battery Powered cars: They plug into to your house just like any appliance, the only pollution being produced is the power for your house that is being used to charge the car, Also car batteries contain a highly toxic lead and explode if they get overheated. A battery powered car example "Think Golf Cart".
Hybrid Cars: I call these cars "Hybrid Hype" because they don't really do much different than a regular conventional internal combustion engine already does. The cars still runs on gas and still puts out the same quote "Pollution", they only difference is that the car doesn't run gas when you stop at a stop light, THATS IT! They just made the Alternator bigger and attached a generator to it to charge the battery in which the car ALREADY has.

Read more from people who actually know cars, Greenies aren't engineers so I leave to people who actually know what there talking about like the guys of "Car and Driver". Read they Hype on Hybrids it will show you what the treehuggers don't want you to know! Hybrid hype, and miscellaneous ramblings.
BY BROCK YATES
June 2005
:mrgreen: :mrgreen:
I've read Car and Driver for decades and agree with Brock Yates on virtually everything but I don't happen to believe that hydrogen is not a viable concept. Yes, it is horribly expensive but in point of fact there are actually some experimental vehicles using it and in normal driving cannot be distinguished from gasoline powered car. If we were able to convert the ocean's water to hydrogen and oxygen (somehow), I think it is a viable concept that ought to be thoroughly investigated.

The other area of investigation should be more use of advanced diesel engines that are inherently more efficient than gasoline engines and we should look at other engines such as the Stirling Engine. Ford looked at that some time ago and abandoned that idea but that is before we got the prices we now see. So it might be put back on the table. Variable valve timing; certainly weight reduction, more advanced transmissions (hasn't Mercedes just released a 7 speed auto transmission?) I know for a certainty that we can get 35-40 mpg from normal sized vehicles. But we have gotten too hung up on too many large vehicles (I'm guilty as the next person having a full sized pickup) and their gas mileage stinks to be blunt about it.

Solar is a dead end IMV. Mass transit certainly needs to be vastly expanded. We can insulate better. We can plant more trees and should do so immediately. This is where the "environmentalists" have spoken with forked tongue. Their utterly stupid "no burn" policy in our national forests has led to a lot of this problem.

This problem won't really be solved (if it is indeed a problem) until politics is put on the back burner and real science is put on the table. Until that happens it will be the SOS.
 

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Missouri Mule said:
I've read Car and Driver for decades and agree with Brock Yates on virtually everything but I don't happen to believe that hydrogen is not a viable concept. Yes, it is horribly expensive but in point of fact there are actually some experimental vehicles using it and in normal driving cannot be distinguished from gasoline powered car. If we were able to convert the ocean's water to hydrogen and oxygen (somehow), I think it is a viable concept that ought to be thoroughly investigated.
Actually they would have to store it, also salt in the ocean water would carrode whatever container it would be put in. Yes splitting water into H and O2 would produce energy, but salt would still remain and carrode engine parts, potentially turning your car into a 2.5 ton paperweight.

The other area of investigation should be more use of advanced diesel engines that are inherently more efficient than gasoline engines and we should look at other engines such as the Stirling Engine. Ford looked at that some time ago and abandoned that idea but that is before we got the prices we now see. So it might be put back on the table. Variable valve timing; certainly weight reduction, more advanced transmissions (hasn't Mercedes just released a 7 speed auto transmission?) I know for a certainty that we can get 35-40 mpg from normal sized vehicles. But we have gotten too hung up on too many large vehicles (I'm guilty as the next person having a full sized pickup) and their gas mileage stinks to be blunt about it.
I drive a 4-person, 2-door coupe and it gets 33 mpg most weeks on a full tank, or 333 miles on a full tank of gas. Also I have added an APC intake and it drove smoother for my 2.0 liter 4-cylinder engine.
Solar is a dead end IMV. Mass transit certainly needs to be vastly expanded. We can insulate better. We can plant more trees and should do so immediately. This is where the "environmentalists" have spoken with forked tongue. Their utterly stupid "no burn" policy in our national forests has led to a lot of this problem.
Yes the burning of forests is done to keep the brush from overgrowing and aiding a out of control buring fire.

This problem won't really be solved (if it is indeed a problem) until politics is put on the back burner and real science is put on the table. Until that happens it will be the SOS.
Yes people have to put asside their biases and work with engineers to come up with new ideas. Though we all use petrolium products, I mean if you like plastic I don't see what all the fuss is about?
 

CanadianGuy

Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
217
Reaction score
0
Location
Canada eh!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Sorry but I think we got off topic and started talking about how cars harm the enviromnet. I just said the Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas and that is what cars release. I know that it is environmentalists who want to get gas burning cars off the road but it won't help we need to do something else and some what fast it is a slow process but we have to stop it before parts of LA are under water.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
CanadianGuy said:
Sorry but I think we got off topic and started talking about how cars harm the enviromnet. I just said the Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas and that is what cars release. I know that it is environmentalists who want to get gas burning cars off the road but it won't help we need to do something else and some what fast it is a slow process but we have to stop it before parts of LA are under water.
And where does the "bad part" come in?
 

CanadianGuy

Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
217
Reaction score
0
Location
Canada eh!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
cnredd said:
And where does the "bad part" come in?
when the economy of the US and the World starts to go down the tubes and buildings are under water!
 

FiremanRyan

Active member
Joined
Jun 24, 2005
Messages
283
Reaction score
1
Location
Chico, CA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
just a question....if water expands as it freezes, wouldn't the melting of our polar caps, in theory, lower the sea level?
 

CanadianGuy

Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
217
Reaction score
0
Location
Canada eh!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
FiremanRyan said:
just a question....if water expands as it freezes, wouldn't the melting of our polar caps, in theory, lower the sea level?
No the water expands in heat. Search the partical model of matter it will help you out. :mrgreen:
 

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Actually in thoery if water was flooding the earth because of polar icecaps, or the MTV promoted idea glaciar's melting (MTV show "Trippin"), then the condominiums at my local beach would been under water years ago? I mean I live 20 miles from the beach, and if the theory were true it would have already have happened. I could post a picture of the beach if you need my reference! ;) I see this as a transportation problem than an "Earth" problem, besides we all know the genious that figures out how to produce a renewable "earth friendly" resource to run our cars off of, you know their going to be in the dollars! :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:

ncallaway

Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
108
Reaction score
0
Location
Pacific Northwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
FiremanRyan said:
just a question....if water expands as it freezes, wouldn't the melting of our polar caps, in theory, lower the sea level?
Water expands as it freezes because, as it moves into the solid state, it forms small crystals which take up more volume that the otherwise solid "ice" normally would. This is fairly unique to water (I assume some other things also do this, but I don't know what). Most things usually do shrink as the freeze, and expand as they get warmer. Sorry for not being more specific, but I'm working off information I got in a bio class 2 years ago from a terrible teacher.

But even so, the water, as it's frozen is all in one place. As it melts, that water is put into all the oceans. Sorry for not explaining this better, but, you can see what I mean:
Take a glass of water, and toss a few ice cubes in it. Mark where the liquid comes up to. Wait until the ice all melts, and again mark how high up the liquid comes. Not sure how well this would work (it might be too small a scale, to notice a difference or something), but it would be interesting to see...

If I got anything wrong let me know.
 

FiremanRyan

Active member
Joined
Jun 24, 2005
Messages
283
Reaction score
1
Location
Chico, CA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
CanadianGuy said:
No the water expands in heat. Search the partical model of matter it will help you out. :mrgreen:
i know that molecules expand as they get hot, but water in a solid state takes up more volume that it does when liquid. where my theory is flawed is that, while its volume is greater, it becomes less dense.

still. its a personal judgement, but i havent seen enough really solid evidence that says that, a. global warming is happening at a pace we should worry about and b. that humans contribute. its not like i have some anti-global warming agenda, i just dont see it happening the way many people make it out to be.
 

Alastor

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
645
Reaction score
45
Location
Reality
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
just a question....if water expands as it freezes, wouldn't the melting of our polar caps, in theory, lower the sea level?
Frozen water contains the same density and mass as liquid water. However, when frozen naturally as others have said, it collects oxygen and forms crystals that don't mesh perfectly.

If done in a controlled environment, water does not change density, volume or mass in the course of freezing - the problem is the real world is not a controlled environment.

Also bear in mind that as the ice collects tiny pockets of air, its density decreases, forcing it to float. Otherwise it would be similar to water in density and would easily move up and down in the water below the surface, to the bottom, back up... wherever fate took it. But it... doesn't. Ice floats (in nature).

We've all seen the pictures by now of huge chunks of ice, and while they show that a good 3/4ths or 4/5ths of the ice is below the surface, that means that 1/5th or 1/4th of it is not. It's above the water level, so as it melts it can indeed raise the total amount of water on the Earth's surface.
 

Zebulon

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
59
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Global "warming" is a crock. :mrgreen:

Heat is energy. Putting more energy into a system as chaotic (in the mathematical sense) as our Earth's biosphere has UNKNOWN results. Scientists believe they can tell what the Earth's climate will be like 20 years from now, when they can't tell me if it's going to RAIN over the weekend with any sense of accuracy???

I can show all sorts of data that just as easily shows that Earth will cool down as warm up. Enviornmentalists are just fixated on the "warming" data, because it's been parroted like mantra for so long, that they choose to ignore the other possibilities.

I will freely admit that global "warming" will do SOMETHING. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so it'll have to go SOMEWHERE. Where is anyone's guess.
 

Alastor

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
645
Reaction score
45
Location
Reality
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I can show all sorts of data that just as easily shows that Earth will cool down as warm up.
Then would you please? I've yet to see any credible reports of this possibility. I'd love to be more well-educated on the matter.

That's not to say that I buy into the tree-hugging line either. Just that I haven't ever seen a credible source of the information you're offering here, while I've at least seen studies from credible schools and scientific associations on the concept of "global warming."

I'm someone you can sway if your sources are sound and rational. Here's your chance, come and get me.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
How many documented temperature cycles has the earth been through?
 

teacher

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
5,980
Reaction score
30
Location
Nomad.Got a couch,beer,meat,cute daughters,Batman
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
CanadianGuy said:
No the water expands in heat. Search the partical model of matter it will help you out. :mrgreen:
Water increases in volume as it heats. Because the valence shell gains electrons. Water also grows in volume as it freezes. The closely packed molecules attaining a crystalline structure. So....your both right.

Ooops, sorry ncallaway, didn't see you post there.
 
Last edited:

CanadianGuy

Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
217
Reaction score
0
Location
Canada eh!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
teacher said:
Water increases in volume as it heats. Because the valence shell gains electrons. Water also grows in volume as it freezes. The closely packed molecules attaining a crystalline structure. So....your both right.

Ooops, sorry ncallaway, didn't see you post there.
Oh ok but nothing was ever said about water freeze it had nothing ot do with the topic
 

teacher

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
5,980
Reaction score
30
Location
Nomad.Got a couch,beer,meat,cute daughters,Batman
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Since no one has put this out there yet. Consider the greatest influencer of the Earths temperature. The sun. And we have no control over that.

For the question of how many cycles of cooling/warming in the Earths history. Might want to go search the boys in Greenland taking core samples of the ice. Goes back like hundreds of thousands of years.

For the ozone question that will surely pop up. With the cry, "The hole in the ozone is growing". Consider this (it's been a while). Artic animals have a very high tolerance to UV light. Indicating that the ozone at the poles is variable given that evolution has taken that into account.

The greatest particle polluter yearly on Earth? Volcanoes. Mount Pinatubo put out more matter in it's eruption than three years worth of what we do.

To the hacks a while back that said that because of the measured decrease in atmospheric particulate matter would end in the increased temperature of the earth due to more sunlight striking the ground. Consider whether that matter is on the ground or in the air the sunlight is still hitting something. No change. Again the deciding factor is how much energy from the sun hits us.

Earths water has been rising and falling due to the amount of ice for millenia. At one time the whole of United states was covered in an ice sheet. Many times. And now we think the change in weather is because of our emissions over the last one hundred years? Please.

The greatest producer (Beside the Earth her self I think) of Methane? Cow flatulence.

Consider that China has more than 1.25 billion people. The majority of whom use the dirty burning coal to heat and cook. And the tree-huggers what you to worry about you Expedition's emissions? With cleaner gas than ever, EGR valves and smog pumps and cars that stay tuned up for a hundred thousand miles? Next time someone tries to make you feel bad about driving. Just punch them in the friggin face.


Hydrogen gas can be made using electricity to separate the Hydrogen and Oxygen molecules in water. Products=Hydrogen gas and Oxygen. When you burn Hydrogen gas the products are heat and water. The problem is we use electricity to separate the molecules. We produce electricity mostly from fossil fuels. Zero sum gain in the overall scheme of things. Every building in America should be using solar power to produce Hydrogen gas stored in tanks much the same as Propane. The problem? The big oil companies lose profits. So you say why doesn't our government mandate it? Democrats and Republicans alike are beholden to their money. And we dicker between the two parties like one or the other has our interest in mind. They've for the most part just chosen their particular path to power, and money. It's all about the money. Wake up America. Class dismissed.
 

FiremanRyan

Active member
Joined
Jun 24, 2005
Messages
283
Reaction score
1
Location
Chico, CA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
obviously global warming will happen, but a lack of strong scientific proof that its humans that are causing it makes me think that none of us should be so strong in our convictions that its true or false.
 

Zebulon

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
59
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Alastor said:
Then would you please? I've yet to see any credible reports of this possibility. I'd love to be more well-educated on the matter.

That's not to say that I buy into the tree-hugging line either. Just that I haven't ever seen a credible source of the information you're offering here, while I've at least seen studies from credible schools and scientific associations on the concept of "global warming."

I'm someone you can sway if your sources are sound and rational. Here's your chance, come and get me.
Will do. Let me dust off my AAAS login.

Oh, and expanding on teacher's post, google how much CO2 Mt. Etna lets off in a year, as compared to how much CO2 humans put out. It'll surprise you.

I really do think people are worried about global warming because people are ARROGANT, and think that they have a MUCH greater impact on the Earth than they actually do. Even if we set off every nuclear weapon we have, every conventional weapon we have, and every germ we have in our stockpiles of biologics, we STILL wouldn't put a dent in the Earth. Sure, SOME things would die. Possibly even MOST things. But the Permian Extinction killed off over 90% of ALL species on the planet, and yet, here we are.
 

Alastor

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
645
Reaction score
45
Location
Reality
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Zebulon said:
But the Permian Extinction killed off over 90% of ALL species on the planet, and yet, here we are.
That's actually kind of a good point.

Thanks for looking into the records for me Zebulon, I'll be anxious to read what you find.

Is your inspiration for your name Zebulon Pike by chance?
 

frankguy

New member
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Location
Shanghai, China
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
ncallaway said:
Water expands as it freezes because, as it moves into the solid state, it forms small crystals which take up more volume that the otherwise solid "ice" normally would. This is fairly unique to water (I assume some other things also do this, but I don't know what). Most things usually do shrink as the freeze, and expand as they get warmer. Sorry for not being more specific, but I'm working off information I got in a bio class 2 years ago from a terrible teacher.

But even so, the water, as it's frozen is all in one place. As it melts, that water is put into all the oceans. Sorry for not explaining this better, but, you can see what I mean:
Take a glass of water, and toss a few ice cubes in it. Mark where the liquid comes up to. Wait until the ice all melts, and again mark how high up the liquid comes. Not sure how well this would work (it might be too small a scale, to notice a difference or something), but it would be interesting to see...

If I got anything wrong let me know.
From the physics theory, if the ice floats in the water, when it melts the water level won't get higher. But the Antarctic is not a huge ice floating on the ocean, it's really a continent. If the ice of the continent melts the ocean will definitely get higher.
 

ncallaway

Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
108
Reaction score
0
Location
Pacific Northwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Zebulon said:
Global "warming" is a crock. :mrgreen:

Heat is energy. Putting more energy into a system as chaotic (in the mathematical sense) as our Earth's biosphere has UNKNOWN results. Scientists believe they can tell what the Earth's climate will be like 20 years from now, when they can't tell me if it's going to RAIN over the weekend with any sense of accuracy???
I imagine a general simulation that doesn't need to take in every detail is probably easier to do.

It's like predicting that it's going to be cold in the winter, versus trying to pinpoint the temperature right now (assuming you don't have something to cheat with...like a thermometer).

Not saying they're right, just pointing out why they might well be able to predict the generic climate 20 years from now, without being able to be right about whether there's rain coming in...
 
Top Bottom