Not to mention the ocean IS rising. Oh wait.
1. I am not caring that there is much less continental ice than there is oceanic ice. That doesn't change anything.
2. I never said anything about glaciers I don't think.
3. What of it? It'll still affect sea levels regardless.
And quacks who believe in global warming? Care to show some evidence that it doesn't exist?
It does change everything. Continental ice contribution would be nothing compared to the amount that oceanic ice would. In other words the sea level will fall more than it could rise.
So are you saying glaciers do not contribute?
It does indeed affect sea levels. The less dense ice takes up less space than sea water, thus when melted the new water added to the sea would have less volume than the ice thus causing sea levels to fall due to a reduced overall volume in the oceans.
Former Vice President Al Gore. 'nough said. The rise in temperatures is just a unique and temporary phenomena that has been observed over the last two centuries. It is not significant enough to affect polar ice caps on a global scale. I remember one time scientists believed that the earth was experiencing global cooling.
It doesn't matter. Displacement is dependant on weight, which is in turn dependant on mass. The water will still have the same mass regardless of whether it is frozen or not. Thus displacement will be the same. The fact that ice expands when it freezes is the reason why ice floats on water in the first place. It has nothing to do with how much water is displaced.
Try this simple experiment and see for yourself. Get a large glass and fill it almost to the brim with water. Then drop five or six ice cubes into the glass. Then fill the glass all the way to the brim, just until it's almost overflowing. Carefully put the glass into the microwave and heat it for about thirty to forty seconds. You'll notive that despite the ice melting the water level in the glass is exactly the same as when you put it in the microwave.
You've also forgotten about another major component of sea level rise: thermal expansion. Water expands as it heats up.
No, I'm saying I never mentioned glaciers.
See above. Volume doesn't affect the displacement of the water. Just how much ice is exposed at the surface.
Former Vice President Al Gore. 'nough said. The rise in temperatures is just a unique and temporary phenomena that has been observed over the last two centuries. It is not significant enough to affect polar ice caps on a global scale. I remember one time scientists believed that the earth was experiencing global cooling.
That's the worst theory in the history of anything ever. You forgot about the ice that isn't floating on the ocean. What about all that ice covering Antarctica, eh? When the ice sheets around the edges melt (and they're melting much faster than expected) there'll be nothing to stop the ice covering the southern continent's surface from sliding into the ocean as well. And that will result in a sea level rise. Just drop a few ice cubes into a full glass of water and you'll see what I mean. Buoyancy and all that.
So you = fails at logics.
materials contract in low temperatures, therefore as temperatures rise, water expands resulting in flooding
Also warmer temperatures will evaporate more of the earth's oceans, where a significant amount will precipitate back on ice caps, glaciers and on land.
So those quack proponents of global warming do not believe melting glaciers have no effect on water level?
Your key word here is trend. Those quacks like extrapolating the temperature trend, despite any their lack of evidence that it will happen. Extrapolation does not count as fact. The current trend does not affect the polar ice caps significantly. If the trend would continue over time or if the trend rate increases then yes, it would.
Not to mention the ocean IS rising. Oh wait.
Have any proof from sources that do not receive their funding from the Conspiracy or who are not quacks that believe in global warming.
If you want to read Sir James Clarke Ross' "Voyages", by all means do so. But remember, Tom Bishop has misquoted that book so many times, he got a beating at the "Voyage of James Clarke Ross" thread and elsewhere. Every claim Tom Bishop has made about James Clarke Ross has been shown to be false except the one about a 150 ft. wall all around Antartica. And he has not produced a single quote about this.
Actually Geo, the vast majority of the of the ice within the ice shelves are already below sea level. As we should know by now, this being the Flat Earth Society, the Ice Shelves rises only about 150 feet above sea level, terminating as a vertical front of ice at the coast. It's the Ice Wall described in the FAQ. Consult the expeditions of Sir James Clark Ross for a reference.
lol at this topic.
Here is an easy experiment for everybody to do. Get a glass and put an ice block (or even several) in it. Fill the glass exactly to the rim of the glass. Put it in a warm spot, and leave it for the ice to melt. Easy way of seeing which way the water goes.
The fact is that 100 ml of ice is the equivalent of 92 ml of water.
The fact is that 97% of Earth's water is in the oceans, and only 2% is in icecaps and glaciers. Warm water expands, and that 97% of water expanding has a much more significant effect than that 2% of water decreasing in size by 8%, especially when not all of that 2% is below water anyway.
edit; In fact ice is typically 90 percent below water, which means that when it melts, the water level doesn't change (based purely on the volume), because it floats at the same ratio as its density (obviously).
Point 1. Global warming is bullshit, get over it. It isn't real.
Point 2. If you really are FE'ers, shouldn't the warming cause falling sea levels, because the ice wall will melt and the oceans will flow off the side of the planet?
Maybe there is hope for the forum after all...
Maybe he can single handedly disprove all of physics, thus making a flat earth possible.Maybe there is hope for the forum after all...
Don't get your hopes up.
*yawn*Yeah I got tired of waiting for that to happen too.
Yes, 100ml of ice would melt into 92ml, but sea water is denser than pure water, which renders oceanic thermal expansion insignificant.
Hes saying icebergs don't have salt in them.Yes, 100ml of ice would melt into 92ml, but sea water is denser than pure water, which renders oceanic thermal expansion insignificant.
That doesn't make sense.
Hes saying icebergs don't have salt in them.Yes, 100ml of ice would melt into 92ml, but sea water is denser than pure water, which renders oceanic thermal expansion insignificant.
That doesn't make sense.
Maybe there is hope for the forum after all...
Yes, 100ml of ice would melt into 92ml, but sea water is denser than pure water, which renders oceanic thermal expansion insignificant.
That doesn't make sense.
Come on, Communist. Where's that evidence I asked for? You can't barge around calling other people quacks when you can't find any evidence to back yourself up with.
Yes, 100ml of ice would melt into 92ml, but sea water is denser than pure water, which renders oceanic thermal expansion insignificant.
That doesn't make sense.
Sea water: more denser than fresh water (what ice melts into) = makes sense
100mL of ice melts into 92mL = makes sense
Oceanic thermal expansion is insignificant because global temperatures only affects the surface of oceans
= makes sense
Not to mention the ocean IS rising. Oh wait.
New Scientist reported recently that the ocean temperatures over 1000m underwater appeared to be warming.
My experiment from above is proof for the ice cap situation, which is one claim from Golbal Warming quacks. The other point (thermal expansion of sea water) shows no bearing of evidence supporting sea level rise is due to an increase in atmospheric temperature. Also, like I explained before, the Global Conveyor maintains the stability of oceanic temperature.
My experiment from above is proof for the ice cap situation, which is one claim from Golbal Warming quacks. The other point (thermal expansion of sea water) shows no bearing of evidence supporting sea level rise is due to an increase in atmospheric temperature. Also, like I explained before, the Global Conveyor maintains the stability of oceanic temperature.
Global warming theory doesn't live or die based on rising or falling sea levels. What I want you to give me is some evidence that shows that global warming is either not happening (which you implied was your belief earlier), or that it is not anthropogenic in nature. That's the sort of information I want to discuss here. I think we've pretty much settled that global warming is going to cause a rise is sea levels now.
Overwhelming acceptance in the scientific community? Any sources for this opinion? Obviously you did not pay attention to me when I said GW is still in debate amongst the scientific community. Short-term climate change supports GW but not long-term change. GW is only able to predict short term increases in temperature. However, these predictions were still not able to predict the effects of El Nino and La Nina weather phenomena. Current GW predicts exorbitant increases by short-term data extrapolation using short-term data.
1. You are all forgetting the fact that there is much less continental ice and glaciers existing over terrain than there are over water.
2. Glaciers are continuously replenished due to precipitation. A large source of this percipitation comes from oceans.
3. Compact ice is still less dense then arctic and antarctic temperatures then sea water at those temperatures.
The purported reality "Humans cause Global Warming" is just a device to give people something to fret about without having to stand up to the government. In other words, people worried about the wars but too afraid to defy the government gratefully accept Global Warming as their cause because it gives them something to take action against while staying safe.
..And it is utterly pathetic.
1. You are all forgetting the fact that there is much less continental ice and glaciers existing over terrain than there are over water.
2. Glaciers are continuously replenished due to precipitation. A large source of this percipitation comes from oceans.
3. Compact ice is still less dense then arctic and antarctic temperatures then sea water at those temperatures.
1. You forgot Antarctica.
2. Completely irrelevant. There's plenty already there, and global warming will increase rainfall due to increased evaporation rates.
3. What they meant is that the seawater is also more compact, so that will become less dense as temperatures increase.
Disregarding frequent contamination from drilling, ice core samples are contaminated by localized events (nearby volcanic activity). Besides these discrepancies, ice core samples make adequate indicators for only long-term data. This long term data shows the varying cycles of climate change including our current temperature rise (and not the astronomical rate predicted by GW).
It is true that GW cannot seem to link human emissions with temperature accurately. Afterall, correlation does not equate to causality. A myriad of factors contribute to global change (e.g. global conveyor disturbances, volcanic activity, solar activity, etc.). Aerosols are a small factor to temperature increases but no where close to the affect of other variables.
My salt ice water experiment was intriguing. The water level hardly rose or fell. It stayed the same at 400mL. I will do a larger scale experiment.
1. Though I hardly doubt the Ice Wall can contain land, the RE Antarctica shows no increases in temperature, like in other parts in the world, but has in fact cooled in the past 30 years.
2. More evaporation will result in more rainfall over terrain, resulting in the Earth absorbing more of this water source. Another portion of this evaporated water will condense upon reaching the icewall (attracted to Earth's edge to achieve thermal equilibrium). Though a good portion of water evaporated from the seas eventually return to the sea (overall no effect on sea level), some portions condense in other areas thus reducing sea level.
3. This is quite dense compared to fresh water, but evaporation (via temperature increase) would increase the salinity in the water (being less water and the same amount of salt). Water with higher salinity is more dense than water of less salinity.
There are several reasons why the sea level will fall rather than rise when the polar ice caps melt:
1. Ice is less dense than water, especially sea water, thus the ice displaces more space than the sea water.
2. 90% of ice is located below the sea level line, which supports point 1
Is this something you've read or are you just making stuff up? Volcanic eruptions leave identifiable ash layers. They don't contaminate anything. In fact, ice core data helps scientists reconstruct the volcanic history of the region where the core was taken.
Anyway, why would it matter? Even if we assume that all ice core data in contaminated beyond usability, we are still left with a number of different and independent analyses all showing a definite and rapid warming trend. Satellite and radiosondes, direct surface temperature analysis, glacial melt observations, sea ice melt, sea level rise, Proxy Reconstructions, and a rising ocean temperature all unanimously agree that the climate is warming. Scientists don't just rely on one line of evidence to form a theory.
Sure correlation doesn't prove causation, but it sure gives us a bloody good hint!Hints do not equal causation, sorry.
And so far GW theory has done a marvelously good job of linking temperatures to human emissions of GHG's. And of course human activities are not the only drivers of climate, no one ever said they were. Scientists are well aware of the many different variables that affect climate and always account for them in climate models.
1. Seriously?
2.The greatest contributor to river water is groundwater.
Would it not do anything else? I don't think it'll just sit there.
3.How would there be less water if heat makes it less dense? Is there no saturation limit in FET?
Has anyone noticed the Ice Wall should be melting? Since it's 150m/50,000 feet tall, that could drown the world, then drain away completely, taking all life with it.
Yes, I am serious.
No, I do not make this stuff up. You can search the details yourself. Not all volcanic eruptions are strong enough to deposite ash throughout the globe yet still contribute to temperature change. It can also deposit other chemicals such as sulfuric acid.
Yes, there are various sources but none are conclusive in giving an accurate prediction. We are experiencing a slight global temperature increase but not as astronomical as GW quacks believe.
Hints do not equal causation, sorry.
Obviously these scientists do not know by how much human activities/emissions contribute to GW compared with other sources. Otherwise their 1 to 6 degree Celsius prediction would not be such a large figure.
Quote1. Seriously?
2.The greatest contributor to river water is groundwater.
Would it not do anything else? I don't think it'll just sit there.
3.How would there be less water if heat makes it less dense? Is there no saturation limit in FET?
Has anyone noticed the Ice Wall should be melting? Since it's 150m/50,000 feet tall, that could drown the world, then drain away completely, taking all life with it.
1. Yes, I am serious. You can search for sources yourself.
2. River water can also evaporate and seep into the land and even underneath bedrock, which contributes to underground reservoirs.
3. Heat does make it less dense but the seawater becomes more dense due to evaporation causing greater salinity. There is a limit to salinity but the ocean water has not reached it and will not reach it for a long while.
There are several reasons why the sea level will fall rather than rise when the polar ice caps melt:
1. Ice is less dense than water, especially sea water, thus the ice displaces more space than the sea water.
2. 90% of ice is located below the sea level line, which supports point 1
When you pull out something from the water, the water level drops.
Yes, I am serious.
Sure you are, Tom. ::)
I think we're experiencing exactly what the models predicted. They predicted an average increase of approximately 1.5 degrees warming and that's exactly what we got. And yes, all the sources are virtually in accord on what the temperature record shows. (notice again that I'm following your lead and not bothering with any sources or other such nonsense. But I can provide them if need be).
The figure has nothing to do with uncertainty in the physics of climate change. And they aren't predictions, they're projections based on a range of outcomes based on a variety of emissions scenarios. The only unknowns in these scenarios are what future anthropogenic emissions might be, as well as other semi-random factors like degree of volcanic activity and so forth. The higher end projections are based on higher emissions scenarios, and the lower are based on the lowest possible emissions scenario, with the middle range being the most likely.
Oh and by the way, let's stop chopping each other's paragraphs into tiny little bite sized pieces before we get too carried away OK? It's all fun and games at first but soon becomes annoyingly tedious to wade through.
Quote1. Seriously?
2.The greatest contributor to river water is groundwater.
Would it not do anything else? I don't think it'll just sit there.
3.How would there be less water if heat makes it less dense? Is there no saturation limit in FET?
Has anyone noticed the Ice Wall should be melting? Since it's 150m/50,000 feet tall, that could drown the world, then drain away completely, taking all life with it.
1. Yes, I am serious. You can search for sources yourself.
2. River water can also evaporate and seep into the land and even underneath bedrock, which contributes to underground reservoirs.
3. Heat does make it less dense but the seawater becomes more dense due to evaporation causing greater salinity. There is a limit to salinity but the ocean water has not reached it and will not reach it for a long while.
If the ocean ever reaches it's limit for salinity saturation we have bigger problems than higher tides, such as all ocean life dying.
Yes, I am serious.
Sure you are, Tom. ::)
I actually take that as a compliment. :-*
1.5 degrees of warming? When did we get that? GW predicts 1.1 to 6.4 °C from 1990 to 2100*
*Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Sorry, but we haven't reached 2100 yet.
Also, temperature records show current and past data but not temperatures for the future without margins for error.
Our knowledge on the degree to emissions effect the climate is still too early to make adequate projections of the future. That's why it is necessary to further examine each chemical emission within an isolated system (e.g. small geographical area, biosphere, etc.) before jumping to outrageous conclusions.
Whoops, didn't read this part until it was too late. However, I seperate the prargraphs to make certain points easier to read... at least for me.
Quote1. Seriously?
2.The greatest contributor to river water is groundwater.
Would it not do anything else? I don't think it'll just sit there.
3.How would there be less water if heat makes it less dense? Is there no saturation limit in FET?
Has anyone noticed the Ice Wall should be melting? Since it's 150m/50,000 feet tall, that could drown the world, then drain away completely, taking all life with it.
1. Yes, I am serious. You can search for sources yourself.
2. River water can also evaporate and seep into the land and even underneath bedrock, which contributes to underground reservoirs.
3. Heat does make it less dense but the seawater becomes more dense due to evaporation causing greater salinity. There is a limit to salinity but the ocean water has not reached it and will not reach it for a long while.
If the ocean ever reaches it's limit for salinity saturation we have bigger problems than higher tides, such as all ocean life dying.
Possibly. Or perhaps a greater variety of life that thrive in the new high-saline ecosystem. Of course the ecosystem will be pretty much destroyed by the toxic emissions released by red tide (which curiously thrive from the human waste emissions).
I wasn't talking about expected future warming. The 1.5 ºF (.6 ºC) figure was the warming we've already experienced. And it was exactly what the models predicted. Models don't have to be run to just show future climate you know. Scientists can test their accuracy by hind-casting with them and see how they compare to the actual temperature record. They're spot on. Which means that models are, in fact, accurate enough to predict the future.
You will be surprised what adaptation can do.
(http://www.friendlyplanet.com/images/dead-sea-swimming-big.jpg)
Wlaruspineapples love high-saline waters too.
(http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/98939e3f84.jpg)
TEH EATHZ IZ FLATTNING!!!!!!111 W00T1!!!!!!!!!!!11111
Proof why CO2 isn't all what scientisitst are porposing it could do:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm)
Why do we want to produce more CO2?: Increased plant life, especially since certain parts of the world are suffering from famine.
If carbon monoxide is supposedly acting as an insulator to trap radiated heat from the sun, a greater temperature differential will exist between the atmosphere and space. With a increase in temperature differential, an increase in the flow rate of radiated heat from the atmosphere into space ensues (thus a more stabilized temperature). This is proof that temperature increase is not significantly linked to carbon dioxide, as GW proponents believe. Also, the ensuing plant growth do to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide will absorb more of this carbon dioxide and produce more oxygen (so we can breath and burn more stuff) and fuel (also burn more stuff). Also, such high predictions of carbon dioxide concentrations in the by GW would result large quantities of fuel (via more plant life) and thus gradually decreasing fuel prices (which are not occurring).
Presumably you haven't actually solved the heat equation. Presumably also, you don't actually know much about dynamical systems. Or logic. Let's simplify your argument:
-CO2 reduces heat loss, causing less heat to be transferred from Earth to space
-Hence, more heat will be transferred from Earth to space
"Predictions of global warming are based on computer climate modeling, a branch of science still in its infancy. The empirical evidence actual measurements of Earth's temperature shows no man-made warming trend. Indeed, over the past two decades, when CO2 levels have been at their highest, global average temperatures have actually cooled slightly."
"The current increase in carbon dioxide follows a 300-year warming trend: Surface and atmospheric temperatures have been recovering from an unusually cold period known as the Little Ice Age. The observed increases are of a magnitude that can, for example, be explained by oceans giving off gases naturally as temperatures rise. Indeed, recent carbon dioxide rises have shown a tendency to follow rather than lead global temperature increases."
"In the troposphere, greenhouse-gas-induced temperature changes are expected to be at least as large as at the surface...While tropospheric temperatures have trended downward during the past 19 years by about 0.05 ºC per decade, it has been reported that global surface temperatures trended upward by about 0.1 ºC per decade (21, 22). In contrast to tropospheric temperatures, however, surface temperatures are subject to large uncertainties for several reasons, including the urban heat island effect."
Proof why CO2 isn't all what scientisitst are porposing it could do:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm)
It's true that the science of climate modeling is still somewhat young. But we cannot infer from this, as the quote wishes us to, that it is therefore not to be trusted. As I've mentioned before, scientists can test the accuracy of any given climate model by running it against past climate data. If the model doesn't match the observed changes during that time, it's scrapped.
And the claim that global average temperatures have cooled slightly is a complete fabrication. This becomes painfully obvious when you look at any temperature record of the past few decades. The climate has been warming exactly as predicted.
But even if we assume for a moment that there has been a recent cooling trend in global mean temperatures, the quote is still very misleading. It implies that global warming theory assumes that CO2 is the only driver of climate. Which is again completely and utterly false. There are a great many things, anthropogenic and otherwise, that could result in a cooling trend. A rise in aerosol use and other particulate pollutants, as well as a rise in volcanic activity briefly overwhelmed the CO2 signal and was responsible for the slight cooling trend seen from the 1940's through the early 70's, for example.
The argument is simply faulty mathematical reasoning:
Set A intersects set B
Set B does not intersect set C
Therefore Set A cannot intersect set C.
Ignoring for the moment the fact that it is nearly nine years old (which is well before the IPCC AR 3 and 4 were released), and based on old and faulty data, the Oregon Petition is mostly irrelevant. A sample of the scientists who signed it, taken by Scientific American (http://www.sciam.com/page.cfm?section=sidebar&articleID=0004F43C-DC1A-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21), found that out of the 26 subjects reviewed, "11 said they still agreed with the petition, one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages." They also roughly calculated that, of the 17,000 who signed the report, less than 200 were climate scientists. According the American Geophysical Union, ("If you ain't a member of the AGU you ain't no damn climate scientist in the US!" -Eli Rabett (http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/01/stern-gang-eli-has-noted-that-there-are.html)), there are approximately 20,000 climate scientists working worldwide, so the number in the OP represents a very small fraction of the climate science community.
http://homeharvest.com/carbondioxideenrichment.htm (http://homeharvest.com/carbondioxideenrichment.htm)
Finally, your claims that an increase in CO2 will increase plant production are false as well. The simple fact is that carbon dioxide is not the limiting factor to plant growth. There is more than enough of it in the air already. Adding more isn't going to do a bloody thing. Any small effect it might have would be completely eclipsed by other, more important, factors such as climate, geography, soil quality, etc.
If troposphere temperatures are subject to discrepancies by such a large magin, then the techniques used to measure surface atmosphere would have large discrepancies too. These discrepancies are magnified using computer models for predicting.
Also, If GW quacks do believe in other factors, than why do these people propose to governments to reduce GHG emissions, even though they contribute very minimally to climate change, especially anthropogenic GHG emissions.
It did not suggest A (temperature) cannot intersect C (climate), when we know temperature does intersect climate. Its just stating how an increase in temperature, which affects climate change, raises the amount of CO2, which minimally affects climate.
If there are 20,000 climate scientists, presumably who all beliveve in GW, they are not a large proportion compared to the 17,200 scientists that signed the petition as well as others who believe GW is discredited. Despite being 9 years old it is still active and updating.
http://homeharvest.com/carbondioxideenrichment.htm (http://homeharvest.com/carbondioxideenrichment.htm)
Oh come on now Hara, my post was, like, four paragraphs long. If you can't handle that you fail at the readings.
Oh come on now Hara, my post was, like, four paragraphs long. If you can't handle that you fail at the readings.
Keep posts short and to the point if you want them read.
I posit that my post was short and to the point. You two, having not taken the minute or so required to read it, are in no position to say. So you both fail. At success. I hope you're pleased with yourselves.
I do not care whether you are bored or not. I am not responsible for keeping you entertained. This is an Internet forum. Its sole purpose is to provide a place for people to express their opinions. If you do not wish to read them then I suggest you leave.
And by the way, start responding to me in six words or less before I loose interest.
Fuck, what's with the anti intellectuals on this forum? The post that Hara Taiki and Raist lacked the attention span to read was less than 500 words. That's not an essay, and if you can't concentrate for the 90 seconds it takes to read that post, what the fuck are you doing discussing an issue like global warming?
I believed in global warming until I saw Al Gore on the flagship. At that moment, I realized I had been had.
Fuck, what's with the anti intellectuals on this forum? The post that Hara Taiki and Raist lacked the attention span to read was less than 500 words. That's not an essay, and if you can't concentrate for the 90 seconds it takes to read that post, what the fuck are you doing discussing an issue like global warming?
I believed in global warming until I saw Al Gore on the flagship. At that moment, I realized I had been had.
At this moment, I have realized that you fail at logics. Dismissing a theory because someone you dislike supports it is highly irrational.
That's why its called "alternative" science. Schools should teach both GW and non-GW theories in calsses, since they are both still theories.
That's why its called "alternative" science. Schools should teach both GW and non-GW theories in calsses, since they are both still theories.
That's why its called "alternative" science. Schools should teach both GW and non-GW theories in calsses, since they are both still theories.
Al Gore theories should not be taught in schools.
Thats a motto that could help many school
Well, after careful consideration, I have noticed the weather getting warmer over the last several months. I hope the ice caps are okay.
Well the northwest is having a freezing summer.
and as for global warming, when i only have to drive a hundred miles to the beach i'll believe it.
That's why its called "alternative" science. Schools should teach both GW and non-GW theories in calsses, since they are both still theories.
There are no 'theories'. There's just the one. You skeptics have yet to provide a more plausible one, so until that time AGW is the only theory there is to teach.QuoteAl Gore theories should not be taught in schools.
Thats a motto that could help many school
As far as I know, Al Gore had precisely nothing to do with the formulation of AGW theory. (That is, unless he's over a century old, which I doubt.) So you have nothing to worry about.
And still, the water is rising.
Well, after careful consideration, I have noticed the weather getting warmer over the last several months. I hope the ice caps are okay.
I'm afraid I have to deduct 97 victory points from you for trying to extrapolate a long term trend from short term data. I hope you're pleased with yourself.
Well the northwest is having a freezing summer.
Is it? According to the NOAA (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/jun/jun07.html) temperatures in the US have been above average this summer.
There is another theory besides GW: non-GW and GW-not-that-much-affected-by-human-emissions. The latter has much larger support then GW itself.
The method in bold is the method used in GW. By your logic, narc should receive positive victory points.
Obviously their data recording figures must be completely off. This year alone has faced frigid ocean temperatures in the NE US and 95+ degree temperatures are less often occurred in the US. Also, less forest fires have occurred in the SW US. Also, warmer temperatures would prompt larger infestations of African honeybees to spread throughout the NE and expand further north through Canada; which did not occur.
edit - I let out a huge chuckle when they mentioned it the driest season despite less forest fires and tremendous precipitation over the midwest and northeast.
That's the worst theory in the history of anything ever. You forgot about the ice that isn't floating on the ocean. What about all that ice covering Antarctica, eh? When the ice sheets around the edges melt (and they're melting much faster than expected) there'll be nothing to stop the ice covering the southern continent's surface from sliding into the ocean as well. And that will result in a sea level rise. Just drop a few ice cubes into a full glass of water and you'll see what I mean. Buoyancy and all that.
So you = fails at logics.
Well the northwest is having a freezing summer.
Is it? According to the NOAA (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/jun/jun07.html) temperatures in the US have been above average this summer.
But that's beside the point. It doesn't matter whether one summer or one winter in one place was particularly warm or cold. What we're looking for here is a long term global trend. Small regional trends mean little in the overall scheme of things. And the global mean temperature has been doing exactly as predicted this year, with temperatures so far being the second warmest on record (with the anomalously warm 1998 still being the first).Quoteand as for global warming, when i only have to drive a hundred miles to the beach i'll believe it.
That's stupid. The entire point of this sort of science is to give us advanced warning before the facts become obvious to everyone. If we waited around for a few years we'd no doubt be absolutely certain whether or not GW was real, but it'd be too late. So for now I'm afraid you'll just have to settle for 95% certainty (http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html) instead.
Your case is generally that 'global warming is not caused by humans', yet you have given no other mechanism which explains the observed 20th century warming.
It's caused due to sweating to the oldies! But seriously, its caused by bovine flatulence, solar activity, volcanic activity, natural gas venting, internal energy increase, entropy, chaos theory, numerous other sources. Think about it...we have faced cycles of ice ages and warm periods. What makes this current trend an area odf grave concern to all civilization?
Your case is generally that 'global warming is not caused by humans', yet you have given no other mechanism which explains the observed 20th century warming.
It's caused due to sweating to the oldies! But seriously, its caused by bovine flatulence, solar activity, volcanic activity, natural gas venting, internal energy increase, entropy, chaos theory, numerous other sources. Think about it...we have faced cycles of ice ages and warm periods. What makes this current trend an area odf grave concern to all civilization?
Your case is generally that 'global warming is not caused by humans', yet you have given no other mechanism which explains the observed 20th century warming.
It's caused due to sweating to the oldies! But seriously, its caused by bovine flatulence, solar activity, volcanic activity, natural gas venting, internal energy increase, entropy, chaos theory, numerous other sources. Think about it...we have faced cycles of ice ages and warm periods. What makes this current trend an area odf grave concern to all civilization?
Because these previous ice ages have resulted in mass extinctions. That quite literally is a grave concern.
And it's rising at a rate of about 3.1+/-0.7 mm per year, I might add. What's your point?
Global warming theory was created in the late 19th century. Gore may be getting up there in years but he isn't that old. So I have to deduct 46 victory points from you for failing at the histories.
LOL, I just posted the image cause I thought it was funny. :-X
last time i peed in the ocean it raised close to that.
And it's rising at a rate of about 3.1+/-0.7 mm per year, I might add. What's your point?
Your case is generally that 'global warming is not caused by humans', yet you have given no other mechanism which explains the observed 20th century warming.
It's caused due to sweating to the oldies! But seriously, its caused by bovine flatulence, solar activity, volcanic activity, natural gas venting, internal energy increase, entropy, chaos theory, numerous other sources. Think about it...we have faced cycles of ice ages and warm periods. What makes this current trend an area odf grave concern to all civilization?
Because these previous ice ages have resulted in mass extinctions. That quite literally is a grave concern.
And it's rising at a rate of about 3.1+/-0.7 mm per year, I might add. What's your point?
It's caused due to sweating to the oldies! But seriously, its caused by bovine flatulence, solar activity, volcanic activity, natural gas venting, internal energy increase, entropy, chaos theory, numerous other sources. Think about it...we have faced cycles of ice ages and warm periods. What makes this current trend an area odf grave concern to all civilization?
Making crap up: not a crime in 52 states. (But it maybe should be. I mean, chaos theory? For real?)
I can respond to each of those claims in kind, but I'm not going to bother with any thought or content if you won't do the same. At least give some sources, please. (Note: Junkscience.com does not count as a source.)
Whether or not it is "natural" is completely moot. If we have some capacity to impact the environmental changes that will ultimately spell our demise then we should fucking do what we can.
It's caused due to sweating to the oldies! But seriously, its caused by bovine flatulence, solar activity, volcanic activity, natural gas venting, internal energy increase, entropy, chaos theory, numerous other sources. Think about it...we have faced cycles of ice ages and warm periods. What makes this current trend an area odf grave concern to all civilization?
-----------------------------
These factors do contribute to climate change. Look it up yourself. Cow flatulence is major factotr in methane production, which even GWists admit to climate contribution.
That figure is not enough for anyone to worry about. More attention should be placed in preventing land erosion rather than preventing coastal flooding. Once again GW quacks like to create a panic.
It's caused due to sweating to the oldies! But seriously, its caused by bovine flatulence, solar activity, volcanic activity, natural gas venting, internal energy increase, entropy, chaos theory, numerous other sources. Think about it...we have faced cycles of ice ages and warm periods. What makes this current trend an area odf grave concern to all civilization?
-----------------------------
These factors do contribute to climate change. Look it up yourself. Cow flatulence is major factotr in methane production, which even GWists admit to climate contribution.
Emissions from livestock raised for human consumption is considered an anthropogenic source. There wouldn't be all those cows belching and farting if we didn't want to eat them.
Change in solar activity can and has influenced climate change in the past, but it's not doing so now. According to research done by the PMOD at the World Radiation Center (http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant) there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978 (which is when accurate satellite measurements of solar activity began). And research done by the Max Planck Institute (http://www.mps.mpg.de/en/projekte/sun-climate/) indicates that there may have been no increase since around 1940. So it's highly unlikely that the sun is the cause of the warming trend.
Volcanic activity has been pretty much average for quite some time now. And since volcanoes emit mostly aerosols in the form of dust, sulfates, and ash, the net effect of a volcanic eruption is a cooling one. (Source: RealClimate.org (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/current-volcanic-activity-and-climate/)
Entropy, internal energy increase(?), and Chaos theory have nothing to do with anything, and were seemingly pulled from your ass.
What makes this current trend so consternating is the fact that these other past changes you speak of had an annoying tendency to cause mass extinctions; especially changes as rapid as the one we're currently undergoing. Also of note is the fact that our entire civilization is tailored to the way the climate is now; changes in sea level, more frequent and severe droughts, floods, storms, etc. Plus a complete disruption of many ecosystems upon which we depend isn't exactly going to be a picnic.
The only explanation for rising sea levels is via water vapor emissions from volcanic eruptions. Either there are a lot of venting and eruptions not documented (and also comets) or scientists are falsifying numbers in their water-level measurements.
In regards to aersol emissions and sulfates, why does the government apply regulations on production if they help "impede GW"?
What about buffalo flatulence, there used to be millions of buffalo roaming the planes producing methane. Why didn't this cause global warming but now our having cows does raise it?
I think the main reason for rising sea levels can be contributed to abundance of dihydrogen monoxide in the seas.
What about buffalo flatulence, there used to be millions of buffalo roaming the planes producing methane. Why didn't this cause global warming but now our having cows does raise it?
Uh... what? Methane emissions from animals not raised for human consumption are not considered an anthropogenic source; that doesn't mean they aren't a source. Atmospheric methane always acts as a greenhouse gas, regardless of where it comes from. Presumably the methane emissions from pre-colonial bison were not great enough to cause a shift in Earth's radiation balance.
But given the amount of wildlife mankind has destroyed in the name of colonizing the world, wouldn't you expect the effect of the cows that are farting now to be offset by all the animals that farted in the past that aren't farting anymore?
Since 1978, overall global temperatures have increased by .8 degrees Celsius per decade.
Since 1978, overall global temperatures have increased by .8 degrees Celsius per decade. Thats less than .8 degrees by 2100, which is not much a threat.
If the oceans theoretically increase in elevation, they would comprise a larger surface area which not only increases the rate of evaporation but also increases the rate of carbon dioxide absorption. Thus, a balanced system.
I just thought of a question pertaining to 'rising water' that, although seemingly mentally barren on the surface, I feel merits deep thinking and discussion. Perhaps it fits another thread, and I will make it if I see interest, and no one bothers...
Would the rising water level impact plate tectonics at all? I am of course referring to the volume, mass of the water (in relation to the planetary scale), etc.
Water does some pretty weird, unexpected things in large amounts. I am really deep into this thinking now...Anyone?
I just thought of a question pertaining to 'rising water' that, although seemingly mentally barren on the surface, I feel merits deep thinking and discussion. Perhaps it fits another thread, and I will make it if I see interest, and no one bothers...
Would the rising water level impact plate tectonics at all? I am of course referring to the volume, mass of the water (in relation to the planetary scale), etc.
Water does some pretty weird, unexpected things in large amounts. I am really deep into this thinking now...Anyone?
The surface area of the water does not impact the pressure increase (hydrostatic paradox). An increase in the water level of approxiametely 34 ft raises the pressure by only 1 atmosphere, so I don't think that is a significant factor.
Oh noes.
http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger%2Bfinds%2BY2K%2Bbug%2Bin%2BNASA%2BClimate%2BData/article8383.htm (http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger%2Bfinds%2BY2K%2Bbug%2Bin%2BNASA%2BClimate%2BData/article8383.htm)
Mountains always start out as mole hills. Thus is the term 'consequences'.
Oh noes.
http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger%2Bfinds%2BY2K%2Bbug%2Bin%2BNASA%2BClimate%2BData/article8383.htm (http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger%2Bfinds%2BY2K%2Bbug%2Bin%2BNASA%2BClimate%2BData/article8383.htm)
Mountains always start out as mole hills. Thus is the term 'consequences'.
I wonder what other bugs are riddled within climate data?
Mountains always start out as mole hills. Thus is the term 'consequences'.
Reality: Mountains never start as mole hills
Saying: Despite all your trying to make a mountain, or even your ability to convince others you have a mountain, it's still a mole hill.
Either way, you're wrong as usual.
Mountains always start out as mole hills. Thus is the term 'consequences'.
Reality: Mountains never start as mole hills
Saying: Despite all your trying to make a mountain, or even your ability to convince others you have a mountain, it's still a mole hill.
Either way, you're wrong as usual.
That made absolutely no sense whatsoever
Well, the data are all available for anyone to see. Why don't you have a look and tell us what you think?
Despite all your trying to make a mountain, or even your ability to convince others you have a mountain, it's still a mole hill.
Despite all your trying to make a mountain, or even your ability to convince others you have a mountain, it's still a mole hill.
Is this a hidden insult about the size of Midnights penis?
I just thought of a question pertaining to 'rising water' that, although seemingly mentally barren on the surface, I feel merits deep thinking and discussion. Perhaps it fits another thread, and I will make it if I see interest, and no one bothers...
Would the rising water level impact plate tectonics at all? I am of course referring to the volume, mass of the water (in relation to the planetary scale), etc.
Water does some pretty weird, unexpected things in large amounts. I am really deep into this thinking now...Anyone?
The surface area of the water does not impact the pressure increase (hydrostatic paradox). An increase in the water level of approxiametely 34 ft raises the pressure by only 1 atmosphere, so I don't think that is a significant factor.
And your thinking this about hydrostatic paradox came from...a source that exists...where?
You have a lot to say on the matter.
You have a lot to say on the matter.
I have a lot to say about everything. Ask my friends.
You have a lot to say on the matter.
I have a lot to say about everything. Ask my friends.
Friends? Are they Muffs' "friends?"
You have a lot to say on the matter.
I have a lot to say about everything. Ask my friends.
Friends? Are they Muffs' "friends?"
nope they aren't her fingers.
Best friends means i pull the triggerYou have a lot to say on the matter.
I have a lot to say about everything. Ask my friends.
Friends? Are they Muffs' "friends?"
nope they aren't her fingers.
If Muff's fingers were real friends they would have strangled her by now.
Best friends means i pull the triggerYou have a lot to say on the matter.
I have a lot to say about everything. Ask my friends.
Friends? Are they Muffs' "friends?"
nope they aren't her fingers.
If Muff's fingers were real friends they would have strangled her by now.
Best friends means you get what you deserve.
Emo is youth culture.
Even preppy kids?
QuoteI wonder what other bugs are riddled within climate data?Well, the data are all available for anyone to see. Why don't you have a look and tell us what you think?
Yup, riddled with errors.
Yup, riddled with errors.
I insist that that the errors are not statistically significant, however.
I was refering to you.
As stated by the Commie, climate data predicted global cooling for some time shortly before the 1970s.
Maybe, but Midnight doesn't seem like the type to open multiple accounts.
Based on Darth's posts I think he is someone familiar with this forum and the people on it. It might be Vauxhall, or I was thinking maybe Hara, or possibly even TGIL, but something about the style just reminds me of Midnight.
It's just speculation, of course. ;D
Maybe, but Midnight doesn't seem like the type to open multiple accounts. If it isn't a new member, I say it's someone who's been posting in this thread before. Perhaps Raist or Communist.
Lol at all of this. Mids has opened multiple accounts. I on the other hand only have this 1 account. I feel no need to be anything i wouldn't be in real life. I may change my posting style slightly as i spend more time here but that is to be expected.
Maybe, but Midnight doesn't seem like the type to open multiple accounts. If it isn't a new member, I say it's someone who's been posting in this thread before. Perhaps Raist or Communist.
I was refering to you.
As stated by the Commie, climate data predicted global cooling for some time shortly before the 1970s.
As stated by me, right here and now, there was cooling some time shortly before the 1970's. Looks like the models were spot on.
Clicky (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/)
The models before 1940 predicted continued temperature rises. This did not happen as you can see from the temperatures after 1940 and prior to the 1970s. The model was spot off.
I wouldn't put it passed Midnight to make multiple accounts.
He has admitted to it on multiple occasions. Please pay attention.
I wouldn't put it passed Midnight to make multiple accounts.
He has admitted to it on multiple occasions. Please pay attention.
I think Darth is Midnight.
Lol at all of this. Mids has opened multiple accounts. I on the other hand only have this 1 account. I feel no need to be anything i wouldn't be in real life. I may change my posting style slightly as i spend more time here but that is to be expected.
Ah, so The Communist is the culprit, eh? I suspected as much.
I wouldn't put it passed Midnight to make multiple accounts.
RLY!I wouldn't put it passed Midnight to make multiple accounts.
orly?
Maybe, but Midnight doesn't seem like the type to open multiple accounts. If it isn't a new member, I say it's someone who's been posting in this thread before. Perhaps Raist or Communist.
Someone posted that before. The Communist is known for hilarious typos with Freudian slips. My favorite is where he meant to say 'insist' and typed 'incest'.
it's interesting to me that the entire nation (United States that is) is experiencing one of the more drastic temperature drops over the whole year... and the winters are increasingly colder, longer lived, and creeping south over the last decade or so. (with the every few years being more 'normal' or even higher temperatures... just like any other time frame like this)
It's also interesting that as this trend evolves - there is less and less attention in the media about global warming, aside from the few big conferences here and there, where ironically, there are more private jets and inefficient automobiles at than many other big events. You'd think the greeners would want to be more green with their crusades.
Just a very few interesting facts:
Even with the horrid and slow decimation of the rain forests... there are more trees on this planet than there have been in the last 1000 years. Just think about it for a sec.
Within the last 500 years, some parts of the Earth have experienced 'little ice ages', then returned to a more moderate climate.
For some reason, nobody is griping about the hole in the ozone layer... could be because it's reduced in size (again) to it's "normal" state before the hype began... yet again proving one of the Earth cycles.
- For an interesting watch, check out this video: http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/ozone_maps/movies/OZONE_D2007-07-01%25P1D_G%5e720X486.LSH.mp4
(http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/ozone_maps/movies/OZONE_D2007-07-01%25P1D_G%5e720X486.LSH.mp4) - notice that just over the last 6 months or so... the hole has gone from dispersed, to noticeable and able to cause some degree of temperature increase perhaps, back to dispersed and ineffectual. Interesting isn't it?
Plenty more to ponder, but those are the main ones I can think of.
Enjoy!
- Optimus
Even with the horrid and slow decimation of the rain forests... there are more trees on this planet than there have been in the last 1000 years. Just think about it for a sec.
(rainforests aren't the only places that there are trees)Even with the horrid and slow decimation of the rain forests... there are more trees on this planet than there have been in the last 1000 years. Just think about it for a sec.
I'd like you to explain this one to me.
Even with the horrid and slow decimation of the rain forests... there are more trees on this planet than there have been in the last 1000 years. Just think about it for a sec.
I'd like you to explain this one to me.
Ice floats because it is less dense than water.Classic, and it has nothing to do with buoyancy caused by trapped air within the ice?
Ice floats because it is less dense than water.Classic, and it has nothing to do with buoyancy caused by trapped air within the ice?
Cold things contract, they do not expand as heated things do, it's been a pleasure rambling to the FES brick wall.
Ice floats because it is less dense than water.Classic, and it has nothing to do with buoyancy caused by trapped air within the ice?
Cold things contract, they do not expand as heated things do, it's been a pleasure rambling to the FES brick wall.
Except water.
Someone needs to learn something about polar molecules. Water expands when frozen. Though it does contract as it cools. Cool water sinks, Ice floats.Ice floats because it is less dense than water.Classic, and it has nothing to do with buoyancy caused by trapped air within the ice?
Cold things contract, they do not expand as heated things do, it's been a pleasure rambling to the FES brick wall.