It's enough to make you cry...

[Guba]

Hi, again, Storm Sorry to take so long, but I needed a couple of hours for experimentation (Just kidding-really!)
I certainly hope you didn't take offense. I was not implying that YOU got your science from movies. However, many people do.
About my "bad science"... (Please, I'm not being testy or sarcastic...just trying to explain) Tried your Achimedes experiment...I did, indeed, put FRESH WATER ice in a container full of SALT WATER. Allowed it to melt. Surprise Surprise...water overflowed the container and I had to clean up water from my counter. The problem is the different densities of the two substances.
As for the the coast of Antarctica...the same principle works there, too, especially since glaciers (100 per cent on land) calve ice into salt water. The pack ice would behave as above.
The statements about your snowfall: Yup, you had a big one...sounds about as local as my statements about the ski resorts.
The person I took my data about global snowfall from is a climatologist with NOAA. If he's wrong, then I'm mis-informed. (It was at a science conference for NSTA.)
Of course, we're only touching the "tip of the iceberg" here. For example, any warming trend that could cause even a partial melting of glacial ice would have much more far reaching effects. If it's enough to melt polar ice, then there would still be an increase in sea levels due to expansion of the trillions of tons of water near the ocean's surface. Hey, we see it happen in the Pacific in every El Nino year, so there is every reason to believe it would happen on a larger scale.
An interesting side note is that global warming could actually increase snowfall in some areas, particularly coastal regions. Smaller ice caps would increase the surface area open to evaporation. That increased atmospheric load of moisture could make it to places that would otherwise have remained dry. If it's a mountainous coastal region, snowfall could definitely be increased.
Still lots to consider. But I'd make a lousy movie writer. My scripts would be way too full of boring details...such as good science.

 

[H2Andy]

my meager 160 IQ

:rofl:

oh dude... here, have fun:

NASA received three messages in a strange language from a distant planet. The scientists studied the messages and found that "Necor Buldon Slock" means "Danger Rocket Explosion" and "Edwan Mynor Necor" means "Danger Spaceship Fire" and "Buldon Gimilzor Gondor" means "Bad Gas Explosion". What does "Slock" mean?

Danger
Explosion
Nothing
Rocket
Gas

 

[Skull]

Kyoto was more about stopping globalization than global warming. I applaud the US for not signing on board, and hope the new Canadian government will drop out of the "treaty".

The accords are more about spreading wealth to the third world than about stop or reducing gas emissions. If not then why can any Country that cannot meet it's quota BUY quota from countries that are not producing green house gasses.

Once of the major gases we are concern about is carbon dioxide, which is produced in mass quantities by both tropical and arboreal rainforests. That be one of the reason why my country, is vastly unpopulated forest and hinterland, is a large scale producer of CO2. Think about it. We have a population of 35 Million, in the second largest land mass country on the globe. We use primarily hydro and nuclear power for electricity and out of our population 1/3 live in 5 cities along the Canada US border. Yet according to Kyoto and GM scientist we are accused of being over quota on our emissions.

Just how does that compute? I've asked several times, and have been told, by some scientist that my meager 160 IQ is insufficient to grasp the math or the concept. They merely smile and say that it’s okay; we just need to send a few hundred million to any number of third world countries and buy up their quota. Please….if Somalia is not producing CO2, and Canada buys up their quota just how, exactly, does this REDUCE the amount of CO2?

This is why I rank GW scientists and activists to right up there with big oil companies; at least the big oil companies are honest about their true intentions.

Not to be the complete antagonist ... but really who benifits most from environmentalism ... Oil companies ... drives up the cost of oil, reduces the amount of the land availible to the middle clases, dives up the cost of that land and of course who funds the environmental groups ...megga wealthy white people who own the majority stocks in the oil companies ..... funny how that works . PETA, Seirra Club et al are a ll fronts of the major oil companies .....

GW is a cash cow for environmentalist , oil companies and those who own oil companies

 

[Guba]

wow...what a thread! And all I thought it was going to do was illicit reports about the state of coral reefs that divers frequent.
Fascinating! Sometimes confrontational (honest, I didn't MEAN to be!) but fascinating just the same.

Just goes to show that GW is definitely a "hot button", and not just among the science community.

 

[Storm]

ah, ignorace, how sweet is thy bliss:

Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Melting Rapidly
New Study Warns Of Rising Sea Levels

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 3, 2006; Page A01

The Antarctic ice sheet is losing as much as 36 cubic miles of ice a year in a trend that scientists link to global warming, according to a new paper that provides the first evidence that the sheet's total mass is shrinking significantly.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/02/AR2006030201712.html

From the same atricle,

But some scientists remain unconvinced. Oregon state climatologist George Taylor noted that sea ice in some areas of Antarctica is expanding and part of the region is getting colder, despite computer models that would predict otherwise.

I too can quote out of context lines, and say they are fact. If have not looked into this report but I can probably spend half an evening to find contrary studies. My whole point was that we elevate these mortals far above their actual place in the world and take everything they tell us as absolute truth.

We accept technology amd the math behind it as absolute. The "computer models" and technoliogy that they use are based on science theory, not fact. We have only been on this planet in an "enlightened" (such as it is) state of being for about 3500 years. A mere blip in the life of this planet, according to those same scientitst.

What we think we are seeing as man's effect on this planet, can equally be argued as a natural cycle...one in which we are mere along for the ride as a passenger, not the driver.

Returning to the aritcle for...

"Richard Alley, a Pennsylvania State University glaciologist who has studied the Antarctic ice sheet but was not involved in the new research, said more research is needed to determine if the shrinkage is a long-term trend, because the new report is based on just three years of data. "One person's trend is another person's fluctuation," he said."

I will give credit where due, at least you included the link, but one study is just that...one study done by, yet again, a cooperative institute that also has its hands firmly in the GW cash pocket, profits by the results of it's own studies, and is also a sells it policy services.

Again I have my doubts about the motivations of the source.

 

[Storm]

:rofl:

oh dude... here, have fun:

NASA received three messages in a strange language from a distant planet. The scientists studied the messages and found that "Necor Buldon Slock" means "Danger Rocket Explosion" and "Edwan Mynor Necor" means "Danger Spaceship Fire" and "Buldon Gimilzor Gondor" means "Bad Gas Explosion". What does "Slock" mean?

Danger
Explosion
Nothing
Rocket
Gas

One question of an on-line IQ test...please.

Rocket

 

[LavaSurfer]

Not to be the complete antagonist ... but really who benifits most from environmentalism ... Oil companies ... drives up the cost of oil, reduces the amount of the land availible to the middle clases, dives up the cost of that land and of course who funds the environmental groups ...megga wealthy white people who own the majority stocks in the oil companies ..... funny how that works . PETA, Seirra Club et al are a ll fronts of the major oil companies .....

GW is a cash cow for environmentalist , oil companies and those who own oil companies

DOH! You Said "OIL"!
Don't get me going

 

[dlndavid]

And if mankind is effecting global warming, isn't this still part of a natural cycle?
Or we don't count as we aren't natural, but in fact manmade.

 

[Storm]

And if mankind is effecting global warming, isn't this still part of a natural cycle?
Or we don't count as we aren't natural, but in fact manmade.

Cute.

GW is a similar argument to species extinction. We loose a species per minute or second, I forget which and don't want to waste the bandwidth to see what the AR guys are preaching today. The argument that the AR activists have is that we can stop extinction...period. They view extinction as an evil thing rather than, as humans and our actions are, merely part of this planet's evolutionary cycle.

Personally I think it’s a control issue. It appears that as a species we need to feel that we are in control. Some seem to want to rationalize this by saying we are the cause of these natural cycles, hence we should be able to control these cycles by controlling our actions. We create theories and models to explain the unexplainable, so we can feel that we can control the uncontrollable.

While I tend to agree that we do have an effect on the well being of this planet, I also believe that our effect is miniscule when compared to the lifecycle of the planet.
For each theory man has come up with, there are contrary theories. This is a healthy balance as it inspires us to continue to learn. When one side bolstered by political and social agendas gets elevated from mere theory to fact, despite the existence contrary theories and a decided lack of solid evidence, then I question it.

I guess I’m too cynical.

 

[Storm]

About my "bad science"... (Please, I'm not being testy or sarcastic...just trying to explain) Tried your Achimedes experiment...I did, indeed, put FRESH WATER ice in a container full of SALT WATER. Allowed it to melt. Surprise Surprise...water overflowed the container and I had to clean up water from my counter. The problem is the different densities of the two substances.

I have to accede to the result your experiment and apologize for not taking into account the various densities and for accusing you of bad science read on…

http://www.physorg.com/news5619.html

“The common misconception that floating ice won’t increase sea level when it melts occurs because the difference in density between fresh water and salt water is not taken into consideration. Archimedes’ Principle states that an object immersed in a fluid is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid it displaces. However, Noerdlinger notes that because freshwater is not as dense as saltwater, freshwater actually has greater volume than an equivalent weight of saltwater. Thus, when freshwater ice melts in the ocean, it contributes a greater volume of melt water than it originally displaced.”

Note: the fear mongers are crying a potential rise of 20 feet, but again do not provide the math to support their claims, The study mentioned above estimated a 4 cm rise…the debate continues.

The person I took my data about global snowfall from is a climatologist with NOAA. If he's wrong, then I'm mis-informed. (It was at a science conference for NSTA.)

Not to question you but your (according to their own studies posted on their web site) source is using data that is using an averaging time period of a mere 38 years (from 1967 to 2005) this isn't even a blip on the global lifespan. The same holds true for the temperature monitoring. (To be fair baseline time period for temperature is a little over 100 years.)

Of course, we're only touching the "tip of the iceberg" here. For example, any warming trend that could cause even a partial melting of glacial ice would have much more far reaching effects. If it's enough to melt polar ice, then there would still be an increase in sea levels due to expansion of the trillions of tons of water near the ocean's surface. Hey, we see it happen in the Pacific in every El Nino year, so there is every reason to believe it would happen on a larger scale.

An interesting side note is that global warming could actually increase snowfall in some areas, particularly coastal regions. Smaller ice caps would increase the surface area open to evaporation. That increased atmospheric load of moisture could make it to places that would otherwise have remained dry. If it's a mountainous coastal region, snowfall could definitely be increased.

Still lots to consider. But I'd make a lousy movie writer. My scripts would be way too full of boring details...such as good science.

Hence my reference to the cyclical nature of the warming/cooling cycle and our lack of influence and control over it. The Study H2Andy brought to us indicated that increase snowfall would add to the glacial base thickness which in turn would mean glaciers grow which cools the planet hence cyclical temperature control. Ain’t mother nature wonderful, she does this all by herself, with or without our interference. Warming period followed by a cooling followed by a warming

LikeI saed before I guess I’m getting too cynical.