71
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 11:38 am
okie wrote:
By the way, how come the Antarctic is growing ice?


Let's see.. you have a continent that probably averages temperatures of -40c and then you warm it up by .78 degrees.

Hmm.. I wonder why the ice isn't melting? Oh. that's right. Ice melts at 0c.



I just checked and it seems Antarctica averages -30c with highs of a balmy -22c in the Summer. http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/weather/climate.shtml
The coastal areas are warmer. The more open ocean there is the more snow we can expect it looks like. It seems you would expect there to be increased ice in the middle of the continent. More snow but still below freezing temperatures.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 12:09 pm
Wassamadda folks-

Can't you face up to the fact that it is people who pollute.

And people who not only expect to go on polluting at a 3% growth rate but are bringing new polluters into the world at an alarming rate and educating and encouraging them to do the same and to expect the same.

Generating and trading contradictory statistics is merely a way of pretending to be serious whilst not being. I should think that stuff is a source of pollution in its own right. Part of the problem. An evasive distraction.

There is something quaintly disgusting about rich Americans, the world's No 1 polluters by a wide margin, preaching about this subject to the billions who live a simple life and when one remembers that they do this preaching on land they took by violence off native aboriginals who left no carbon footprint for many generations it is sick.

And the chance of these rich Americans voting for anyone who is going to do something serious about GW is a big fat zero.

If I was you I would just shut up about it and "go shopping". You're pissing into a hurricane.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 12:14 pm
spendius wrote:
Wassamadda folks-

Can't you face up to the fact that it is people who pollute.

And people who not only expect to go on polluting at a 3% growth rate but are bringing new polluters into the world at an alarming rate and educating and encouraging them to do the same and to expect the same.

Generating and trading contradictory statistics is merely a way of pretending to be serious whilst not being. I should think that stuff is a source of pollution in its own right. Part of the problem. An evasive distraction.

There is something quaintly disgusting about rich Americans, the world's No 1 polluters by a wide margin, preaching about this subject to the billions who live a simple life and when one remembers that they do this preaching on land they took by violence off native aboriginals who left no carbon footprint for many generations it is sick.

And the chance of these rich Americans voting for anyone who is going to do something serious about GW is a big fat zero.

If I was you I would just shut up about it and "go shopping". You're pissing into a hurricane.


The 'simple life' generates as much waste as anything else. If we all lived the 'simple life' the enviornment would be worse; it only works until your populations explode, and then you're screwed. Viz China's pollution problems.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 12:19 pm
Sophistry.

Reassure yourself Cyclo.

I'll bet your personal carbon footprint is deeper than that of the whole Sioux nation in its whole existence.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 12:21 pm
In past millennia, volcanoes, earthquakes, and fluctuations in the sun's radiation have sometimes caused earth cooling, and sometimes caused earth warming. With all these fluctuations, increases and decreases in CO2 ppm in the atmosphere, sometimes occurred when the earth cooled and sometimes occurred when the earth warmed. Consequently, historically there is no real correlation between the occurrence of CO2 ppm changes in the atmosphere and changes in the earth's average temperature.

Yes, CO2 ppm increases in the atmosphere over the last 100 years do coincide with increases in the earth's average temperature. But the increase in the earth's average temperature is far more likely caused by the occurrence of volcanoes, earthquakes, and increases in the sun's radiations to the earth over the same period, than it is caused by increases in human produced CO2.

Also coincidentally, the number of democracies around the earth has increased dramatically over the last 100 years. Why not blame that--or any other increase over the same 100 years--for causing earth warming over the same period? Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 12:22 pm
spendius wrote:
Sophistry.

Reassure yourself Cyclo.

I'll bet your personal carbon footprint is deeper than that of the whole Sioux nation in its whole existence.


As I've planted 45 trees this year and don't drive, I'd take that bet. In a flash. Wanker.

The Sioux nation only had such a low carbon footprint b/c their numbers were so tiny. If you extrapolated American Indians' lifestyle to 300 million people, the environment wouldn't be capable of supporting it.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 12:22 pm
Quote:
You're pissing into a hurricane.

I've already related the facts of the "pissing on a volcano" story to you. Go to the corner and do not talk until lunch break.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 12:23 pm
ican711nm wrote:
In past millennia, volcanoes, earthquakes, and fluctuations in the sun's radiation have sometimes caused earth cooling, and sometimes caused earth warming. With all these fluctuations, increases and decreases in CO2 ppm in the atmosphere, sometimes occurred when the earth cooled and sometimes occurred when the earth warmed. Consequently, historically there is no real correlation between the occurrence of CO2 ppm changes in the atmosphere and changes in the earth's average temperature.

Yes, CO2 ppm increases in the atmosphere over the last 100 years do coincide with increases in the earth's average temperature. But the increase in the earth's average temperature is far more likely caused by the occurrence of volcanoes, earthquakes, and increases in the sun's radiations to the earth over the same period, than it is caused by increases in human produced CO2.

Also coincidentally, the number of democracies around the earth has increased dramatically over the last 100 years. Why not blame that--or any other increase over the same 100 years--for causing earth warming over the same period? Rolling Eyes


http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.gif

Found the cause!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 12:31 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.gif

Found the cause!

Cycloptichorn



Well, even when joking, use credible figures. These are largely underestimated, as well as many others in this thread.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 12:31 pm
parados wrote:
okie wrote:
By the way, how come the Antarctic is growing ice?


Let's see.. you have a continent that probably averages temperatures of -40c and then you warm it up by .78 degrees.

Hmm.. I wonder why the ice isn't melting? Oh. that's right. Ice melts at 0c.



I just checked and it seems Antarctica averages -30c with highs of a balmy -22c in the Summer. http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/weather/climate.shtml
The coastal areas are warmer. The more open ocean there is the more snow we can expect it looks like. It seems you would expect there to be increased ice in the middle of the continent. More snow but still below freezing temperatures.

Excellent! Now explain why over the last ten years the arctic ice is on average decreasing, while the antarctic ice is on average increasing.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 12:47 pm
spendius wrote:
Wassamadda folks-

Can't you face up to the fact that it is people who pollute.

And people who not only expect to go on polluting at a 3% growth rate but are bringing new polluters into the world at an alarming rate and educating and encouraging them to do the same and to expect the same.

Generating and trading contradictory statistics is merely a way of pretending to be serious whilst not being. I should think that stuff is a source of pollution in its own right. Part of the problem. An evasive distraction.

There is something quaintly disgusting about rich Americans, the world's No 1 polluters by a wide margin, preaching about this subject to the billions who live a simple life and when one remembers that they do this preaching on land they took by violence off native aboriginals who left no carbon footprint for many generations it is sick.

And the chance of these rich Americans voting for anyone who is going to do something serious about GW is a big fat zero.

If I was you I would just shut up about it and "go shopping". You're pissing into a hurricane.

Meteorites, earthquakes, and vocanoes also pollute. Some of us recognize they pollute worse than 6 billion plus people have all together polluted.

Whoops! I've failed to consider the possibility that people by their behavior now cause meteorites, earthquakes, and volcanoes.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 12:56 pm
spendius wrote:
Sophistry.

Reassure yourself Cyclo.

I'll bet your personal carbon footprint is deeper than that of the whole Sioux nation in its whole existence.

LOL. nice one spendius.. in case you didn't realize it the Sioux nation still exists, all 7 tribes. I would bet that one of their casinos far exceeds Cyclo when it comes to the carbon footprint.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 12:58 pm
It's supposed to snow here tomorrow.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 01:08 pm
cjhsa wrote:
It's supposed to snow here tomorrow.


Oh, my favorite time of the year for this debate.

NOW we get to hear "If GW was real, then why is there 2 feet of snow in my front yard?".

and...

"I'd take a little GW over this Chicago winter any day!"



I love the predictibility.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 02:27 pm
ican wrote-

Quote:
Meteorites, earthquakes, and vocanoes also pollute. Some of us recognize they pollute worse than 6 billion plus people have all together polluted.


A lot more of us recognise what a silly argument that is.

mappie wrote-

Quote:
"I'd take a little GW over this Chicago winter any day!"


Ditto.

para wrote-

Quote:
in case you didn't realize it the Sioux nation still exists, all 7 tribes. I would bet that one of their casinos far exceeds Cyclo when it comes to the carbon footprint.


Ditto.

Bernie wrote-

Quote:
I've already related the facts of the "pissing on a volcano" story to you. Go to the corner and do not talk until lunch break.


Ditto.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 02:39 pm
In the 1970s the big hysteria was over alleged human caused global cooling.

Watchout! That hysteria is due to return by the 2010s.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 03:26 pm
cjhsa wrote:
It's supposed to snow here tomorrow.


Is your mother-in-law in town?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 03:28 pm
Quote:
I've already related the facts of the "pissing on a volcano" story to you. Go to the corner and do not talk until lunch break.


Ditto.


See you there. One of my favorite places.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 04:27 pm
I've never stood in corners muttering quietly with a special friend. Well- not one of the gender I presume you belong to anyway.

I've knocked around with shysters long enough to know that open dealing works best. And what their principle weakness is.

I suppose that you could put me in the corner but, as Mr Gibbon said, " ....it is unworthy of a philosopher to wish that any opinions and arguments the most repugnant of his own should be concealed from the knowledge of mankind."

A clause in a constitution caries little weight set against the authority of Mr Gibbon. The former is the word that can be washed out. You would need Orwell's vision to wash out the latter.

From what I've seen of the "left" it could be done though with a big heave.

I would be mildly surprised if Mrs Clinton makes it through the convention.

I would be astounded if she won the race.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 04:28 pm
ican711nm wrote:
parados wrote:
okie wrote:
By the way, how come the Antarctic is growing ice?


Let's see.. you have a continent that probably averages temperatures of -40c and then you warm it up by .78 degrees.

Hmm.. I wonder why the ice isn't melting? Oh. that's right. Ice melts at 0c.



I just checked and it seems Antarctica averages -30c with highs of a balmy -22c in the Summer. http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/weather/climate.shtml
The coastal areas are warmer. The more open ocean there is the more snow we can expect it looks like. It seems you would expect there to be increased ice in the middle of the continent. More snow but still below freezing temperatures.

Excellent! Now explain why over the last ten years the arctic ice is on average decreasing, while the antarctic ice is on average increasing.


Gee.. let's see. The arctic ice mainly floats on water. Water by its very nature can't be colder than the ice on it and can't reach a temperature tens of degrees below the freezing point of water. Where the water and the ice meet the temperature has to be right at that freezing point. Any colder and more water would freeze. Any warmer and ice would melt. Now what happens if you warm the water that ice is floating on by about one degree?

The Antarctic ice is on land. Land can be colder than the freezing point for water. Air can be colder than the freezing point for water and is in the interior of Antarctica.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 09/30/2024 at 01:24:58