0
   

Global Warming: Junk Mathematics

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 06:15 am
Well, since we Europeans lack of the advantage to own a Judeo-Christian heritage, I think, it all started with Sibyl, Aesir, and Thor, etc.

And the earth is formed from slain body of the giant Ymir, the first living creature. (I really should re-read the Edda to find out moret about the water, I admit.)
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 08:10 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Well, since we Europeans lack of the advantage to own a Judeo-Christian heritage, I think, it all started with Sibyl, Aesir, and Thor, etc.

And the earth is formed from slain body of the giant Ymir, the first living creature. (I really should re-read the Edda to find out moret about the water, I admit.)


One interpretation of the Prose Edda you might have missed:

http://www.abacci.com/msreader/ebook.aspx?bookID=5937
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 08:40 am
Well, when you start interpretating the sources ...
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 09:21 am
gsnake..................how many teeth are in a horse's mouth?
0 Replies
 
Magus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 11:33 am
Actually, gsnake, geological research indicates that sea levels WERE quite a bit lower at one time... because a great deal of the water was locked into polar icecaps and glaciers.
The presence of eskers and moraines indicates that the glaciation extended all the way down to Long Island Sound here in the American northeast.

All that changed when the climate underwent a radical shift... and grew WARMER.

GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE.

It probably took a bit longer than the 40 days cited in Genesis, and the sea level change was nowhere near 2000 feet.

But the water didn't magically appear as in a dramatic sudden event from Outer Space...

at least that's how the SCIENTISTS interpret the DATA from their RESEARCH.

The SAME scientists that are drawing our attention to the effects atmospheric carbon dioxide has upon global climate... the "Greenhouse Effect".
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 12:23 pm
Magus wrote:
Actually, gsnake, geological research indicates that sea levels WERE quite a bit lower at one time... because a great deal of the water was locked into polar icecaps and glaciers.
The presence of eskers and moraines indicates that the glaciation extended all the way down to Long Island Sound here in the American northeast.

All that changed when the climate underwent a radical shift... and grew WARMER.

GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE.



Yeah, but not by the hand of man, unless you're claiming that Alley Oop and all his friends were causing all of that by driving around in SUVs...

Quote:


It probably took a bit longer than the 40 days cited in Genesis, and the sea level change was nowhere near 2000 feet.


You're claiming that the Cubans got on their diving suits and swam down there 2000' below the waves and BUILT that city, just to prove to themselves they could do it??

Quote:


But the water didn't magically appear as in a dramatic sudden event from Outer Space...



In fact, it did...

Quote:


at least that's how the SCIENTISTS interpret the DATA from their RESEARCH.

The SAME scientists that are drawing our attention to the effects atmospheric carbon dioxide has upon global climate... the "Greenhouse Effect".


Carl Sagan was the guy who originated the idea of greenhouse and supergreenhouse effects. According to Carl, in theory at least, we're all dead from the greenhouse and nuclear winter caused by the oil fires of the Gulf war in 91.

The easiest way to picture it is looking at WW-II. Every oil facility and resource in the axis world was targetted, fires, smoke rising thousands of feet into the air, the entire Japanese merchant marine sunk, thousand-plane raids every day for four years, contrails arcing across the sky, high explosives, fire bombs, cities going up in smoke, and the entire war effort being accomplished with diesal and gasoline engines which were vastly less efficient and/or clean than modern ones, and the basic reality is that if all that didn't create Carl Sagan's great ecological and atmospheric catastrophy, it ain't gonna happen.

As Rush Limbaugh puts it, mankind could burn every drop of gasoline on the planet, smoke every cigar, light off every nuclear and thermonuclear weapon, and it would not effect the planet's weather an iota. There is nothing we could do which would cause that. We could make it our national purpose and goal in life for ten years to cause a 1 degree change in the planet's weather, and it would never happen. Claims to the contrary are junk science.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 12:39 pm
gungasnake wrote:
Carl Sagan was the guy who originated the idea of greenhouse and supergreenhouse effects. According to Carl, in theory at least, we're all dead from the greenhouse and nuclear winter caused by the oil fires of the Gulf war in 91.


I was taught about the 'greenhouse effect' at school.

Now, I might be indeed 40 years younger than everyone thinks.
Since, however, my wife as well my documents convinced me that this isn't true ... I took a look at some encyclopedias ...

Rupert Wildt propounded the greenhouse effect for the first time in the 40's of last century. (He thaught, it was due to the high temperatures of Venus.)
In the early 1960's, his theory was revived and championed by Carl Sagan - and thus entered German grammar school schoolbooks.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 12:45 pm
Would you science types explain something to me? When water is in frozen form at my house, it takes up more space than it does when it is melted. Water in a bowl, when ice cubes are also present, will come up higher on the sides of the bowl than it will once the ice melts.

How is it then that the ocean levels will rise should the polar ice caps melt?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 12:56 pm
I think, this from the BBC answeres your question better than I ever could:

Quote:
Near the poles, in parts of Alaska, Canada, Siberia and the Antarctic, temperatures are rising faster than elsewhere. The permafrost is melting and plants, animals and the people that live there are already being affected.

Arctic sea ice is melting at a faster rate than previously thought. A report by NASA (December 2002) warned that it might disappear completely by the end of the century. Melting sea ice doesn't raise sea levels but it could threaten ocean productivity, change current systems and disrupt global weather still further (because heat that would be reflected off the ice will be absorbed instead).

Sea ice also plays an important role in keeping the ice and snow covering the Antarctic continent in place. With nothing to stop it, the Antarctic ice sheet may slide into the ocean and melt. In this extreme case, sea levels would rise by an estimated 65 to 70 metres.

Evidence suggests that land glaciers are retreating at an unprecidented rate. Some scientists estimate that the impact of glacial melt water, together with other factors, such as the thermal expansion of sea water, will cause a significant change. The IPCC currently predicts a sea level rise of between 11 and 88cm this century.

Some 50 million people a year already have to deal with flooding caused by storm surges. If the sea rises by half a metre, this number could double. A metre rise would inundate 1% of Egypt's land, 6% of the Netherlands and 17.5% of Bangladesh. Only 20% of the Marshall Islands would be left above water.

Although the ice sheets in Greenland have been thinning, analysis of long-term climate information (presented in the journal Geophysical Review Letters) has shown that temperatures in the southern part of the island and the Labrador Sea have fallen over the last 40 years, not risen. Scientists associate this cooling with the North Atlantic Oscillation, a natural and recurring pressure pattern that has a profound impact on the weather experienced in the North Atlantic region.
0 Replies
 
Joe Republican
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 01:02 pm
gungasnake wrote:
Some believe that there'd always been a water canopy over the Earth and that it collapsed. Another possibility would be the oceans of Mars getting dumped on this planet in some sort of a near miss between the two planets, since whatever happened to Mars' oceans now appears to be a big mystery. There ARE possibilities.


Gunga, first you say that you aren't a biblical literast, then you go off and make the literasts sound sane when compared to your ramblings.

"Some" believe. . . Who would these "some" people be, are you one of them?

The Oceans of Mars got dumped on our planet??? WOW, dillusional and devoid of scientific knowledge, no wonder you vote republican.

Here's a little hint for you, before you start to go off on some ridiculous rant about how our oceans came from a cataclysmic closeness of two planets, take a Physics course and invest some of your time into REAL science and an education, maybe then your view of the world won't be so acute. You need to look at what real science is, you know, the stuff you can PROVE with experiments.

Maybe then you'll stop posting outrageous claims of a large asteroid hitting the earth and flooding it, or that Mars passed "close" to earth and gave us their oceans?

You know what, we have a word for those people you calll "some". Yep, that word is crackpot. How does it feel to align yourself with the David Koresh's and the Timmothy McVeighs of the world? Oceans came from Mars, god I have got to remember that one.

Bookmark!!!
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 01:06 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:


Rupert Wildt propounded the greenhouse effect for the first time in the 40's of last century. (He thaught, it was due to the high temperatures of Venus.)
In the early 1960's, his theory was revived and championed by Carl Sagan - and thus entered German grammar school schoolbooks.


Wildt had proposed a much more modest greenhouse effect than those proposed by Sagan. According to Wildt if memory serves, Venus should be asbout 150 degrees warmer than Earth at a given lattitude. In actual fact, Venus is about 900 degrees F over most of its surface.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 01:07 pm
Since years I have the strong feeling that some little green men are watching me through my computers monitor, and evrytime, when I believe that all runs smoothly - Woooms!

My screensaver and desktop picture(s) are all ocena/water related ....

Mars, he said .... hmmm ....
0 Replies
 
Joe Republican
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 01:08 pm
Magus wrote:
Actually, gsnake, geological research indicates that sea levels WERE quite a bit lower at one time... because a great deal of the water was locked into polar icecaps and glaciers.
The presence of eskers and moraines indicates that the glaciation extended all the way down to Long Island Sound here in the American northeast.

All that changed when the climate underwent a radical shift... and grew WARMER.

GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE.

It probably took a bit longer than the 40 days cited in Genesis, and the sea level change was nowhere near 2000 feet.

But the water didn't magically appear as in a dramatic sudden event from Outer Space...

at least that's how the SCIENTISTS interpret the DATA from their RESEARCH.

The SAME scientists that are drawing our attention to the effects atmospheric carbon dioxide has upon global climate... the "Greenhouse Effect".


100% right about everything, good post.

Don't bother replying to gunga, unless you're doing it for your own enjoyment. Hell, I can see how somebody could have fun debating with him. The only problem is it's like beating up a blind man. Anyone can do it, hell my 4 year old nephew could make a better case of this. You see, when you listen to warped religious viewpoints all of your life, you actually believe the crap.

The funny part is while he calls it faith, I call ignorance. I usually hate to jump on peoples beliefs, but when you start toting thinks like "the oceans rose because of a large asteroid" or "They rose because Mars passed too close to Earth" you're just asking for it.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 01:21 pm
Let's let gunga describe the sequence of events that might allow a transfer of oceans from Mars to Earth.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 01:22 pm
Joe Republican wrote:
Magus wrote:
Actually, gsnake, geological research indicates that sea levels WERE quite a bit lower at one time... because a great deal of the water was locked into polar icecaps and glaciers.
The presence of eskers and moraines indicates that the glaciation extended all the way down to Long Island Sound here in the American northeast.

All that changed when the climate underwent a radical shift... and grew WARMER.

GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE.

It probably took a bit longer than the 40 days cited in Genesis, and the sea level change was nowhere near 2000 feet.

But the water didn't magically appear as in a dramatic sudden event from Outer Space...

at least that's how the SCIENTISTS interpret the DATA from their RESEARCH.

The SAME scientists that are drawing our attention to the effects atmospheric carbon dioxide has upon global climate... the "Greenhouse Effect".


100% right about everything, good post.

Don't bother replying to gunga, unless you're doing it for your own enjoyment. Hell, I can see how somebody could have fun debating with him. The only problem is it's like beating up a blind man. Anyone can do it, hell my 4 year old nephew could make a better case of this. You see, when you listen to warped religious viewpoints all of your life, you actually believe the crap.

The funny part is while he calls it faith, I call ignorance. I usually hate to jump on peoples beliefs, but when you start toting thinks like "the oceans rose because of a large asteroid" or "They rose because Mars passed too close to Earth" you're just asking for it.


Scientists have also shown that water levels were considerable higher based on fossils found at high elevations and throughout portions of the world. I think that the change in sea levels are part of cyclical changes the Earth goes through to keep itself healthy.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 01:22 pm
Walter I've seen articles like you post. And then there are a plethora of articles like this:

Quote:
Two studies melt Antarctic hype

Data reveal cooler air, thickening ice sheets, near South Pole

Monday, February 04, 2002
by David Rothbard and Craig Rucker


"Higher average temperatures result in the melting of glaciers, in ice being discharged into the oceans from the ice caps of Antarctica."

So chimed Al Gore in his famous (or infamous) book, Earth in the Balance. Indeed for years environmentalists have been echoing similar alarms about the state of the Antarctic, claiming that rising temperatures are causing a melting of the polar cap and a rise in sea levels.

Such rising sea levels, of course, could cause all manner of mayhem - as coastal cities and tropical islands would be covered in ever-rising ocean waters and whole ecosystems and urban populations would be threatened.

Now comes two new studies putting a chill on such alarmist claims.

The first comes from the journal Science which notes that new measurements taken in the West Antarctic show the ice sheet is actually thickening, not melting, reversing earlier estimates about its condition. The new measurements, taken from the Ross ice streams using special satellite-based radars, indicate the ice streams in the region have slowed or halted altogether. And this is good news, so say researchers Ian Joughin and Slawek Tulaczyk of the University of California, Santa Cruz, because if the thickening is not merely part of some short-term fluctuation, it represents a major reversal of the long retreat of ice.
This finding comes less than a week after another astonishing revelation published in the prestigious journal Nature, which reports that Antarctica's harsh desert valleys - long considered a bellwether for global climate change - have grown noticeably cooler since 1986. Indeed, air temperature readings taken continuously over the region indicate a significant cooling of over 1 degree Fahrenheit - and this defies a worldwide land-based warming trend spanning the past 100 years.

No doubt these Antarctic findings are continuing to put the deep freeze on the prospects of catastrophic manmade global warming!
http://www.cfact.org/site/view_article.asp?idCategory=4&idarticle=244


So who do you believe? And I'm still not sure why melting ice raises ocean level unless the ice all formed on land.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 01:30 pm
fox

Well, for a start, one might choose to grant senior credence to objective scientific journals over that of a web site begun by a BA grad and a Masters of Administration grad whose stated function is to argue against environmental groups.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 01:36 pm
The sources they cite aren't objective scientific journals?
0 Replies
 
Joe Republican
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 01:55 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
The sources they cite aren't objective scientific journals?


Fox, there are two prominant scientists who wrote a paper on the climatological changes of earth. I see it often used as a debunking for global warming. I actually confronted them on the issue of global warming.

BOTH of them AGREE with global warming and it wasn't the focus of their paper. They BOTH wanted to give new data to the science community on their study of global temperatures. Unfortunately, MANY republican sites have cited their paper as "debunking" global warming. This is counter to their position, yet is doesn't stop any crackpot from debating global warming.

The only journal I read which evenly remotely tried to debunk global warming was ripped apart. The author even states that global warming DOES exist, we just don't know how the effects will be.

As for the water, gunga is full of crap about the 2000 ft under the water city.

First off, there are not many areas in the ocean which are 2000 ft deep. The continental shelf is around 600 ft, then it dropps off to around 5000 ft, on average. Second, the only way to explore the area would be by sub. Third, civilization has not been around long enough to have a city that deep. Estimates are that the oceans were about 350ft. shallower because of the ice age, not 2000.
0 Replies
 
Joe Republican
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 01:59 pm
[quote="McGentrix]
Scientists have also shown that water levels were considerable higher based on fossils found at high elevations and throughout portions of the world. I think that the change in sea levels are part of cyclical changes the Earth goes through to keep itself healthy.[/quote]

Well the water level wasn't "consederable" higher, that's not why they found fossils on mountains, it was because of platetechtonics. The earth's plates move, they're like the skin on a chicken pie. When two masses collide, you get mountains from the upheaval of the land.

Do you know what the youngest mountains in the world are? How about the oldest? The youngest are the Hymalayas, the oldest are the Applalachians. Just a little FYI.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/19/2024 at 08:47:02