Global Warming: Junk Mathematics

Why would the oceans be shallower because of the ice age?

Again I look at a glass of water. Freeze it and there will be more bulk in the glass--in fact water freezing inside a glass bottle can break it. So is all the ice cap currently resting on solid land above sea level? Or is most of it actually frozen sea water. If the latter is the case, I still don't see how melting it will raise the ocean levels as less dense (therefore bulkier) ice is replaced by more dense (less bulky) liquid water.

McGentrix wrote:

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.

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.

Foxfyre wrote:

Why would the oceans be shallower because of the ice age?

Again I look at a glass of water. Freeze it and there will be more bulk in the glass--in fact water freezing inside a glass bottle can break it. So is all the ice cap currently resting on solid land above sea level? Or is most of it actually frozen sea water. If the latter is the case, I still don't see how melting it will raise the ocean levels as less dense (therefore bulkier) ice is replaced by more dense (less bulky) liquid water.

Fox, if more water is tied up in the form of glaciers, there is less available in liquid form. Most of the glaciers during the ice age were on land and this would greatly effect the levels of sea water around the world.

Antartica is mostly above sea level with some of the glaciers and ice shelves floating on the water, but a great portion of it is also on land. If that ice were to melt, sea levels would raise.

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

Let's let gunga describe the sequence of events that might allow a transfer of oceans from Mars to Earth.

It's not complicated. All it would take would be for Mars to fly too close to our planet for whatever reason, and the larger planet would snatch water from the smaller if there were any there to be snatched..

Like a big dog taking a bone from a little one.

With U.S. kids already lagging well behind other countries in math and science and no doubt are losing at least some of their edge in new innovations, advertising,and marketing, I think we have to wake up and smell the rust in our education system and insist that our children be educated.

I don't think religion was ever a factor or consideration in this discussion until you brought it up ebrown.

Foxfyre wrote:

I don't think religion was ever a factor or consideration in this discussion until you brought it up ebrown.

It clearly does Foxfyre,

Christians disagree with scientists on several scientific questions: evolution and the Big Bang for example.

I dunno. Maybe Christians are smarter than scientists?[/quote[

That must be it. That has been true since the time of Gallileo.
[/quote]

Quote:

My religion plays zero part in my views on global warming. I look at the data/opinions of those scientists who don't depend on government grants/salaries and those who do. A large majority of those who don't NEED there to be global warming in order to continue their funding say there is no conclusive evidence of global warming and some think no credible evidence at all. And by a large majority, those who NEED for there to be global warming in order to continue their funding somehow mostly agree there is global warming.

That is bull. You look at the data/opinions of those scientists who agree with your opinions. Anyone with a real background in science can see right throught this.

There are three facts here.

1. The scientific process has been very successful. It is designed to be based on reason and it is peer reviewed. This process has had real impact in every aspect of our society. Its predictions have led to great discoveries from cloning to computers to space flight.

Christianity has had little positive impact on the fields of science, mathematics or technology.

2. The vast majority of scientists disagree with you on global warming (and evolution). This means that the people who have taken the time to study, look at the evidence have come to a different conclusion than you (and your so-called scientists who don't get grants).

Your confidence based on ignorance is akin to my firm belief that I could be a NFL quarterback. The successful athlete are those who take the time to train and build on what those before them did.

Your armchair dogmatic science would be laughable if it your ideas weren't causing so much damage.

3. You can not deny that people with your scientific ideas are almost exclusively Christian. I am just pointing out that since Gallileo muttered "but it moves" this has usually been the case. Science makes progress and the religious opposed it.

This just bothers me a little bit.

Maybe you can explain this to me.