tipsgnob
New Member
have you ever smelled a turtle fart....?Don't worry, the government spent a ton of cash years ago on a study to prove that cows farting is the cause of global warming. I doubt your fart did much.
have you ever smelled a turtle fart....?Don't worry, the government spent a ton of cash years ago on a study to prove that cows farting is the cause of global warming. I doubt your fart did much.
I wasnt implying they were 'abnormal', I was however implying that they are becoming unpresidented in recent recorded history.Much of England was warm enough to produce excellent wine a number of times throughout history. The wine was considered better than that accross the channel.
Some of your points are right on, but I just disagree that temp fluctuations are abnormal.
have you ever smelled a turtle fart....?
... word up!Global warming is real. One must only look at the reduction of the glacial ice fields as photographed from space to see that. The glaciers are calving at an unprecedented rate since records have been kept. The waters are raising in the pacific islands and some of them are actually under water in low lying spots. With all the human action on the planet, how can one not believe we are contributing to it. I think all you naysayers need to look elsewhere from Fox News.
You mean like the 193,000 SQUARE MILES of ice that were missed...Global warming is real. One must only look at the reduction of the glacial ice fields as photographed from space to see that. The glaciers are calving at an unprecedented rate since records have been kept. The waters are raising in the pacific islands and some of them are actually under water in low lying spots. With all the human action on the planet, how can one not believe we are contributing to it. I think all you naysayers need to look elsewhere from Fox News.
Where is your proof? I also find it hard to believe. Who missed it and where? It's not so tricky measuring the oveans height when you live on an island that your ancestors lived on for thousands of years and now you have water in the streets at high tide.You mean like the 193,000 SQUARE MILES of ice that were missed...
And as far as the variance in the ocean. Tricky thing measuring the ocean's height. The problem is that the Earth is not nearly a perfect sphere, meaning that gravity changes in spots, especially over valleys, trenches, mountains, and near those geological items.
Trying to measure a dynamic fluctuating value with out knowing what a base value should be is idiotic.
I'm still trying to figure out how it's possible to MISS 193,000 SQUARE MILES of anything.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/021809.htmlWhere is your proof? I also find it hard to believe. Who missed it and where?
Figure 2. Daily total Arctic sea ice extent between 1 December 2008 and 12 February 2009 for Special Sensor Microwave/Imager SSM/I compared to the similar NASA Earth Observing System Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (EOS AMSR-E) sensor.
Well of course they're disappearing, it's spring again.Figure 2. Daily total Arctic sea ice extent between 1 December 2008 and 12 February 2009 for Special Sensor Microwave/Imager SSM/I compared to the similar NASA Earth Observing System Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (EOS AMSR-E) sensor.
Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
High-resolution image
Data error sources
As discussed above, near-real-time products do not undergo the same level of quality control as the final archived products, which are used in scientific research published in peer-reviewed journals. However, the SSM/I sensors have proven themselves to be generally quite stable. Thus, it is reasonable to use the near-real-time products for displaying evolving ice conditions, with the caveat that errors may nevertheless occur. Sometimes errors are dramatic and obvious. Other errors, such as the recent sensor drift, may be subtler and not immediately apparent. We caution users of the near-real-time products that any conclusions from such data must be preliminary. We believe that the potential problems are outweighed by the scientific value of providing timely assessments of current Arctic sea ice conditions, as long as they are presented with appropriate caveats, which we try to do.
Now that we have cleared this up, this nitpicking redress, lets get on with disproving the dissapearing ice fields.
Actually you might see a decrease in the level depending on the volume of ice in your drink, and how much has melted. Water expands when frozen...As I said earlier melting sea ice does not effect sea levels. It is melting glaciers on land that cause the issue. If you have an ice cube in a drink and it melts the level of your drink is unaffected.
True that... I remember reading somewhere that GLACIERS melt. I don't know, I mean I seem to also remember that Yosemite was once a glacier and it melted. I still contend "global warming" is a natural trend and is followed by an ice age, which in itself a natural trend. Do I think we should take measures for renewable resources to be used instead of limited resources? YES, it only makes sense. Using renewable resources was the trend until the "INDUSTRIAL AGE" came about... coal and fossil fuels are renewable, it just takes mass extinction and an ice age to renew it. We could easily fix these problems, but remember the people that make the money do not want cheap inexpensive renewable energy unless it is controlled by them, not for monetary purpose, but for the simple fact that those POWERS that make the money want not money, but CONTROL.Actually you might see a decrease in the level depending on the volume of ice in your drink, and how much has melted. Water expands when frozen...
Ironically most renewable sources of electricity are less economical than the so called non-renewable sources.True that... I remember reading somewhere that GLACIERS melt. I don't know, I mean I seem to also remember that Yosemite was once a glacier and it melted. I still contend "global warming" is a natural trend and is followed by an ice age, which in itself a natural trend. Do I think we should take measures for renewable resources to be used instead of limited resources? YES, it only makes sense. Using renewable resources was the trend until the "INDUSTRIAL AGE" came about... coal and fossil fuels are renewable, it just takes mass extinction and an ice age to renew it. We could easily fix these problems, but remember the people that make the money do not want cheap inexpensive renewable energy unless it is controlled by them, not for monetary purpose, but for the simple fact that those POWERS that make the money want not money, but CONTROL.