Vast Antarctic ice shelf on verge of collapse. Latest sign of global warming?s impact shocks scientists!

[jjones]

"We believe the Wilkins has been in place for at least a few hundred years..."

So, a few hundred years ago it didn't even exist?

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: bignateyk
The best thing about all these global warming nuts is that they pray to god that something like this happens every day just so they can say "SEE I TOLD YOU SO". I don't think any of them actually care (or know much of anything) about history and the environment.

Especially when some of them stand to profit from it.

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: Electric Amish
This stuff is so stupid.

To investigate they do a bunch of fly-by's in a plane....whose exhaust produces greenhouse gasses....which (based on their science) contributes to "global warming".

I really find it hard to believe that anything man does or does not do has any impact on the life-cycle of a planet. The planet is going to do what it's going to do. We're just along for the ride.

yep.

even if fossil fuels have a slight impact, when they run out we will promptly return to the next regularly scheduled ice age.

so I'm actually helping the earth by driving my F150 crew cab to hasten this process.

 

[randay]

Guess we need to stop harvesting all the lettuce out of those icebergs.

 

[MrPickins]

Originally posted by: Vic
Ice shelfs calving icebergs?? Unpossible!

:thumbsup:

Makes for a nice picture, though.

 

[Perknose]

We OT'ers argue even more stupidly and superficially about issues such as this than we P&N'ers do.

Yeah, I'm a proud marching zombie soldier in both groups.

 

[sutahz]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert
A desert is a landscape form or region that receives very little precipitation
Antartica doesn't get much snowfall per year, but what does fall doesn't melt hence why the ice is so thick.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: bignateyk
The best thing about all these global warming nuts is that they pray to god that something like this happens every day just so they can say "SEE I TOLD YOU SO". I don't think any of them actually care (or know much of anything) about history and the environment.

Wonderful leap of faith you have made - at the very least, I appreciate that you have demonstrated to the flock that you lack the skills to at least refute this story on it's merits.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: bignateyk
The best thing about all these global warming nuts is that they pray to god that something like this happens every day just so they can say "SEE I TOLD YOU SO". I don't think any of them actually care (or know much of anything) about history and the environment.

Wonderful leap of faith you have made - at the very least, I appreciate that you have demonstrated to the flock that you're about as informed as a Lima bean on this topic.

Not to pick a side, but the vast majority of the mountain of evidence still points in the same direction....

well you've convinced me! where do i sign?!

 

[0roo0roo]

oh noes...ban plastic bags!

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: bignateyk
The best thing about all these global warming nuts is that they pray to god that something like this happens every day just so they can say "SEE I TOLD YOU SO". I don't think any of them actually care (or know much of anything) about history and the environment.

Wonderful leap of faith you have made - at the very least, I appreciate that you have demonstrated to the flock that you're about as informed as a Lima bean on this topic.

Not to pick a side, but the vast majority of the mountain of evidence still points in the same direction....

well you've convinced me! where do i sign?!

I just don't understand where the foundation of the "global warming is not man made/occurring" argument comes from. I see people arguing about the scientific method, and have found that some schism happens when people discover that the information in science is indeed fluid, and subject to change. Global warming, like weather, is just too complex of a system for us to predict with 100% accuracy, or even fully understand at this point - too many billions of changing parameters/measurements to take into account. We can piece together what information we do have - and it points in the direction that the Earth is indeed warning up, we just need to know the extent we have caused. What is the harm in limiting the amount of CO2 we release into the air until we have determined our impact, or taking any measures to lessen the impact WE have on earth?

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: venkman
Once New York and the other major east coast cities are flooded, the displaced will head to the midwest and house price should rebound.

Where will you get the funding if Wall St is underwater? Pun intended.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Ryan
What is the harm in limiting the amount of CO2 we release into the air until we have determined our impact, or taking any measures to lessen the impact WE have on earth?

Hmm. Okay, so then what is the harm in going to church every Sunday? Will I see you there? Afterall, there's no harm in it. I'll pick you up around 9:15, k?

 

[compman25]

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: bignateyk
The best thing about all these global warming nuts is that they pray to god that something like this happens every day just so they can say "SEE I TOLD YOU SO". I don't think any of them actually care (or know much of anything) about history and the environment.

Wonderful leap of faith you have made - at the very least, I appreciate that you have demonstrated to the flock that you're about as informed as a Lima bean on this topic.

Not to pick a side, but the vast majority of the mountain of evidence still points in the same direction....

well you've convinced me! where do i sign?!

I just don't understand where the foundation of the "global warming is not man made/occurring" argument comes from. I see people arguing about the scientific method, and have found that some schism happens when people discover that the information in science is indeed fluid, and subject to change. Global warming, like weather, is just too complex of a system for us to predict with 100% accuracy, or even fully understand at this point - too many billions of changing parameters/measurements to take into account. We can piece together what information we do have - and it points in the direction that the Earth is indeed warning up, we just need to know the extent we have caused. What is the harm in limiting the amount of CO2 we release into the air until we have determined our impact, or taking any measures to lessen the impact WE have on earth?

Maybe it's because your own post states it is subject to change and too complex to predict. You have no proof one way or the other. Just your belief that we humans are destroying this planet faster than it destroys itself on it's own.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfro.../2008/02/19/73798.html

Also, the North Pole cant turn into a desert, its all Ice.

Ok, good point. That leaves the south pole, then.

And also, its already a desert. A frozen desert.

No, you are confusing this with a frozen DESSERT. Nice try, though.

Actually you are wrong

Oh, am I, Disgruntled? DESSERT

Unless you meant this part from your link

Antarctica ? the interior of the continent is the world's largest desert, freezing cold weather/south pole/snowy mountains

which is then confusing at best. How can a desert have frozen water in it? Go figure.

You are incorrect, he used "desert" not "dessert". He states "And also, its already a DESERT. A frozen desert.", which is a correct statement which per wikipedia desert means landscape form or region that receives very little precipitation. That means you can have a hot desert (the Sahara) or a frozen desert (Antarctica) as long as it does not receive 10+ inches of precipitation. Also per wikipedia on Antarctica the second paragraph states:

On average, Antarctica is the coldest, driest and windiest continent, and has the highest average elevation of all the continents.[1] Since there is little precipitation, except at the coasts, the interior of the continent is technically the largest desert in the world.

So we have established that Antarctica is a desert. We also have established that he did not say "dessert" meaning the after dinner snack, and in fact said "desert" meaning the low rainfall places I believe you sir have been served.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfro.../2008/02/19/73798.html

Also, the North Pole cant turn into a desert, its all Ice.

And also, its already a desert. A frozen desert.

That article mentions that there has been a recovery of the Arctic ice sheet, however, it doesn't mention that the ice is much thinner and is just seasonal.

Arctic ice thinning, glacier melt accelerates

Arctic ice cap still at risk: NASA

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Ryan
What is the harm in limiting the amount of CO2 we release into the air until we have determined our impact, or taking any measures to lessen the impact WE have on earth?

Hmm. Okay, so then what is the harm in going to church every Sunday? Will I see you there? Afterall, there's no harm in it. I'll pick you up around 9:15, k?

Ah - but the road to damnation can at least be adverted at any time in the Christian fables, but if we are indeed on the road to global warming, and are causing it, we will most not likely be afforded such an easy salvation.

 

[MrPickins]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfro.../2008/02/19/73798.html

Also, the North Pole cant turn into a desert, its all Ice.

Ok, good point. That leaves the south pole, then.

And also, its already a desert. A frozen desert.

No, you are confusing this with a frozen DESSERT. Nice try, though.

Actually you are wrong

Oh, am I, Disgruntled? DESSERT

Unless you meant this part from your link

Antarctica ? the interior of the continent is the world's largest desert, freezing cold weather/south pole/snowy mountains

which is then confusing at best. How can a desert have frozen water in it? Go figure.

You are incorrect, he used "desert" not "dessert". He states "And also, its already a DESERT. A frozen desert.", which is a correct statement which per wikipedia desert means landscape form or region that receives very little precipitation. That means you can have a hot desert (the Sahara) or a frozen desert (Antarctica) as long as it does not receive 10+ inches of precipitation. Also per wikipedia on Antarctica the second paragraph states:

On average, Antarctica is the coldest, driest and windiest continent, and has the highest average elevation of all the continents.[1] Since there is little precipitation, except at the coasts, the interior of the continent is technically the largest desert in the world.

So we have established that Antarctica is a desert. We also have established that he did not say "dessert" meaning the after dinner snack, and in fact said "desert" meaning the low rainfall places I believe you sir have been served.

Looks to me like a joke that went right over your head...

Oh, did you really say "you got served"?
Is it "on"?

Might as well tell him he got "F'd in the A"... :laugh:

 

[The Boston Dangler]

the evidence is incontrovertible. any doubters can simply look at google images -> carbon dioxide per year

http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.u...houghton/lecture2.html

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: MrPickins

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfro.../2008/02/19/73798.html

Also, the North Pole cant turn into a desert, its all Ice.

Ok, good point. That leaves the south pole, then.

And also, its already a desert. A frozen desert.

No, you are confusing this with a frozen DESSERT. Nice try, though.

Actually you are wrong

Oh, am I, Disgruntled? DESSERT

Unless you meant this part from your link

Antarctica ? the interior of the continent is the world's largest desert, freezing cold weather/south pole/snowy mountains

which is then confusing at best. How can a desert have frozen water in it? Go figure.

You are incorrect, he used "desert" not "dessert". He states "And also, its already a DESERT. A frozen desert.", which is a correct statement which per wikipedia desert means landscape form or region that receives very little precipitation. That means you can have a hot desert (the Sahara) or a frozen desert (Antarctica) as long as it does not receive 10+ inches of precipitation. Also per wikipedia on Antarctica the second paragraph states:

On average, Antarctica is the coldest, driest and windiest continent, and has the highest average elevation of all the continents.[1] Since there is little precipitation, except at the coasts, the interior of the continent is technically the largest desert in the world.

So we have established that Antarctica is a desert. We also have established that he did not say "dessert" meaning the after dinner snack, and in fact said "desert" meaning the low rainfall places I believe you sir have been served.

Looks to me like a joke that went right over your head...

Or I didn't find it a funny joke and instead went a different route....

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfro.../2008/02/19/73798.html

Also, the North Pole cant turn into a desert, its all Ice.

Ok, good point. That leaves the south pole, then.

And also, its already a desert. A frozen desert.

No, you are confusing this with a frozen DESSERT. Nice try, though.

Actually you are wrong

Oh, am I, Disgruntled? DESSERT

Unless you meant this part from your link

Antarctica ? the interior of the continent is the world's largest desert, freezing cold weather/south pole/snowy mountains

which is then confusing at best. How can a desert have frozen water in it? Go figure.

You are incorrect, he used "desert" not "dessert". He states "And also, its already a DESERT. A frozen desert.", which is a correct statement which per wikipedia desert means landscape form or region that receives very little precipitation. That means you can have a hot desert (the Sahara) or a frozen desert (Antarctica) as long as it does not receive 10+ inches of precipitation. Also per wikipedia on Antarctica the second paragraph states:

On average, Antarctica is the coldest, driest and windiest continent, and has the highest average elevation of all the continents.[1] Since there is little precipitation, except at the coasts, the interior of the continent is technically the largest desert in the world.

So we have established that Antarctica is a desert. We also have established that he did not say "dessert" meaning the after dinner snack, and in fact said "desert" meaning the low rainfall places I believe you sir have been served.

As you can clearly see, 20 or so posts above, this was already covered. Better late than never?

But I bet if I jiggled that popsickle stick stuck up your ass, sir, we would all be served some frozen desserts known as fudgesickles.

 

[MrPickins]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Or I didn't find it a funny joke and instead went a different route....

The wet blanket route? :laugh:

 

[MrPickins]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
the evidence is incontrovertible. any doubters can simply look at google images -> carbon dioxide per year

http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.u...houghton/lecture2.html

Mr Gore, is that you?

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: compman25

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: bignateyk
The best thing about all these global warming nuts is that they pray to god that something like this happens every day just so they can say "SEE I TOLD YOU SO". I don't think any of them actually care (or know much of anything) about history and the environment.

Wonderful leap of faith you have made - at the very least, I appreciate that you have demonstrated to the flock that you're about as informed as a Lima bean on this topic.

Not to pick a side, but the vast majority of the mountain of evidence still points in the same direction....

well you've convinced me! where do i sign?!

I just don't understand where the foundation of the "global warming is not man made/occurring" argument comes from. I see people arguing about the scientific method, and have found that some schism happens when people discover that the information in science is indeed fluid, and subject to change. Global warming, like weather, is just too complex of a system for us to predict with 100% accuracy, or even fully understand at this point - too many billions of changing parameters/measurements to take into account. We can piece together what information we do have - and it points in the direction that the Earth is indeed warning up, we just need to know the extent we have caused. What is the harm in limiting the amount of CO2 we release into the air until we have determined our impact, or taking any measures to lessen the impact WE have on earth?

Maybe it's because your own post states it is subject to change and too complex to predict. You have no proof one way or the other. Just your belief that we humans are destroying this planet faster than it destroys itself on it's own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations"[1] via the greenhouse effect. Natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950 and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward.[2][3] These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least thirty scientific societies and academies of science,[4] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.[5][6][7] While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some findings of the IPCC,[8] the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.[9][10]

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
the evidence is incontrovertible. any doubters can simply look at google images -> carbon dioxide per year

http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.u...houghton/lecture2.html

Ah - but you have to understand, it's perfectly acceptable/logical to decide that the whole body of science is wrong, because it does not claim to be 100% accurate.