It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ice chunk size of New York City breaks off Antarctica, blamed of Global Warming

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by finemanm
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 


From your source:


The first, a 190 million-year-old plant-eater from the early Jurassic period, was found by chance on December 7—13,000 feet (3,900 meters) up a mountain. A mountaineer accompanying paleontologists turned up the animal's huge pelvis in an informal search only a few miles from the South Pole.
Emphasis added.

From my source:


By the end of the Jurassic Period, water separated South America from Africa, and the Australian and Antarctic continents were clearly articulated. The Antarctic continent began a slow southward migration toward the south polar region.
www.enotes.com...

Isn't it funny that the people who doubt man-made global warming are also the ones that don't understand high school science.


Edit to add:

Since I doubt that my post is self explanatory to a man of your intellect, I thought I would explain further. The world did not look the same back then as it does now. There was once only one continent called Pangaea. So the dinosaurs found on Antarctica got there when the land mass was much further north and still connected to Africa and the Americas.

[edit on 28-4-2009 by finemanm]

[edit on 28-4-2009 by finemanm]



...and you are so sure that "high school science" is good science? You are so sure in correctness of "carbon dating" method? Everything they taught you at high school is true, right? Have you ever verified that? Ever? Anything? Or you just accepted all of that, no questions asked?




posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   
greshnik, don't sink to their level. They know there are gigantic holes in their 'manmade global warming' story championed by their hero, Al Gore. It's a lot better to point out the holes and let them call you names, rather than sink to their level.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Could someone post a link to a science-based thread on global warming? From many things I've seen, from various places, I assume it is happening (getting warmer), although it may be a standard tendancy for earth.

I'm certainly not saying I'm right, could just be ignorance, but I'd love to see some threads that allow someone to be educated by scientific facts and empirical evidence, and not banter and name-calling.

thanks in advance!



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by finemanm
reply to post by TH3ON3
 


All I am going to say is WOW. North is North? Have you ever seen a globe?


I have never seen such dense matter in my whole life. What are the government puttin in your food?


Go back and re-read the post. See if you can figure out why I posted what I did.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 


I'm just glad to find a Right winger who acknowledges the existence of dinosaurs. j/k



Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
It's a lot better to point out the holes and let them call you names, rather than sink to their level.


The way things are going, sinking to new levels is exactly what's gonna happen.


[edit on 28 Apr 2009 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
The way things are going, sinking to new levels is exactly what's gonna happen.


Yup. Just like all these threads do.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by audas

Because you have just made a fool of yourself twice in a row - obviously if you don't know what you are talking about, people will ridicule you as is being done here, however if you don't mind being looked upon with contempt and borderline sympathy for your intellectual mundaneness - then by all means continue to batter your low self esteem.


And you are the one to talk?... The same person who claims that "books"
from a Mammologist have more weight cncerning evidence than "peer-reviewed research"?

Look at the increased volcanic activity all over the world. The same, and much worse is happening with underwater volcanoes which there are many more than those on land.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by greshnik
 


I'm sorry, you are right. The world was created in six days, the earth is 6000 years old, and by the way, its flat.

I feel so much better.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Can someone please explain the argument that because natural cycles of temperature and weather change occur that means that man-made global warming isn't occurring or is negligible? Hopefully there aren't many that still think it isn't occurring at all.

I think it is simply undesirable for most to consider that climate change is occurring because of what we are doing. Even if you only think that our emissions might be a risk, is the risk really worth the convenience? Especially in the current economy and all the jobs that could be created going green.

If you want to keep driving your Hummer, then you could at least acknowledge that we should preserve the rain forest (as even if we aren't causing climate change, we are destroying many species of animals). And it should be acknowledged that air pollution is a bad thing regardless if climate change could cause an ice age which leads to the extinction of humankind.

Not only that, but we are well aware that oil is a finite resource.

No matter what, we should be going green. So why bother arguing against human-induced climate change?

By the way, it sucks that everyone that believes in global warming gets lumped in with Al Gore now. I haven't heard a single thing he has said about it to be honest. I don't follow the guy and I don't live in the USA.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by greshnik
 


I don't believe in man made global warming. I just don't like when people with little knowledge are laughed at, and ridiculed. This is a place to learn, I have learned a lot here.
If the person is ignorant and rude, then they probably deserve adequate treatment, but if they are just not informed well, we all should be patient.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Look at the increased volcanic activity all over the world. The same, and much worse is happening with underwater volcanoes which there are many more than those on land.


Yeah, and all you can show is that they might help glaciers melt and flow in some areas, lol.

Estimates of heat flow from the earth are of the order of 0.08ish watts/m^2. Given the sun provides over 1300 watts/m^2 and the current climate forcings are about 1.5watts/m^2, we are talking about a 17-18x increase in volcanic activity/internal heat release to provide sufficient energy to account for those forcings.

For instance, on average, you could light a 75 watt bulb by the energy flowing flow of 1000m^2 of land. Whereas you are proposing that since 1750, volcanic activity has increased to enable the powering of a 1300 watt bulb from the same area, lol.

Heat flow from the earth is a minimal influence on climate, and you have absolutely no evidence that it has contributed even an iota to current climate change. Just ridiculous babblings.

More here on global heat flow, but will require some nous

[edit on 29-4-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 05:41 AM
link   
Guys, do you know that it has been proved that the south ice cap is growing by 100,000 square kilometres a decade?

Check the thread I've created about it.
www.abovetopsecret.com



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Yeah, and all you can show is that they might help glaciers melt and flow in some areas, lol.
............


Yeah, and I showed what SCIENTISTS say and not what a nobody who only responds by insults, derailing threads and lol...

Jebus, you really are pathetic.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 02:08 AM
link   
*Ahem*


Just an intervention, of sorts.

Was watching a Science Channel program in my hotel room the other day --- was focused on the Country of Iceland. AND how the glaciers have been, via GPS devices, calculated to be moving at about 2-feet PER DAY!!!! Yes, 2-feet PER DAY!

Now, considering that Iceland, as a landmass, is formed as a consequence of sitting squarely amid the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, as it wends its way Northward. Iceland, as a landmass, actually owes its existence to the tectonic plate movements, as the North American and EurAsian/African Plates drift apart.

How does this relate? It involves a very complicated juxtaposition of factors.

(Compare to the island of Hawai'i. Similar, but for different reasons. The Hawai'ian Chain is actually a series of undersea mountains, being formed from the seabed. AND, this 'chain' is relatively young, geologically)... compared to Iceland.

When one contemplates the effects of ice breaking away and melting, one must firstly ask IF the ice mass involved was already floating.

Just as, to simplify, you have a glass of ice water, when the ice melts (ignore for the moment evaporation) the level in the glass actually goes down slightly. Because, as water freezes, it expands (trapped air molecules). Fine, as to Sea Level Rises, for now. BUT, consider IF enough ice currently ON the landmasses melts....NOW we will see a difference in World Wide sea levels.

However, prior to rising sea levels, we must consider the influx of 'fresh water' from the melting ice, even if it's already floating...the change in salinity, depending on where in the Oceans, can have a significant impact on the dynamics of how the currents behave, and their effect on weather systems, as a result. Remember, salty water is heavier. Salinity changes will result in surface temperature changes. AND that will affect the atmosphere, ABOVE the sea, along with Solar Radiation inputs.

A thorough discussion of the facts usually lack all of these elements, in the discourse. They should all be taken into consideration.



[edit on 5/2/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nickmare
Can someone please explain the argument that because natural cycles of temperature and weather change occur that means that man-made global warming isn't occurring or is negligible? Hopefully there aren't many that still think it isn't occurring at all.

I think it is simply undesirable for most to consider that climate change is occurring because of what we are doing. Even if you only think that our emissions might be a risk, is the risk really worth the convenience? Especially in the current economy and all the jobs that could be created going green.

If you want to keep driving your Hummer, then you could at least acknowledge that we should preserve the rain forest (as even if we aren't causing climate change, we are destroying many species of animals). And it should be acknowledged that air pollution is a bad thing regardless if climate change could cause an ice age which leads to the extinction of humankind.

Not only that, but we are well aware that oil is a finite resource.

No matter what, we should be going green. So why bother arguing against human-induced climate change?

By the way, it sucks that everyone that believes in global warming gets lumped in with Al Gore now. I haven't heard a single thing he has said about it to be honest. I don't follow the guy and I don't live in the USA.




I can answer some of your questions. First, let's assume that human activity IS contributing to climate change, and that many scientists, at least those embraced by the main stream media, are correct. Now, how do we know exactly how much is caused by humans and how much is caused by natural cycles? 10%? 15%? 50%? Or more - or less?

Imagine this analogy: a man goes to his doctor, and his doctor says he has a serious disease. The doctor hesitates to prescribe medication, because the side effects can be severe and difficult to deal with. So the doctor tells the man that his disease *could* be caused by diet, weight, lack of exercise and other lifestyle habits. In order to avoid the medication, the doctor suggests that the man modify his lifestyle.
So, a few months later, the man returns to his doctor, and has done all the modifications asked of him. But unfortunately he still has the disease, and now has to go on a medication with nasty side effects to remedy it and save his life.

The point is that you have to be careful when treating something in a situation where you do not know what the cause is, and if there is something simple to remedy it, or if it's something that is only treated with a unpalatable remedy, or if it's something that can't be treated at all and has no cure. I'm not a doctor, this is just common sense. Bad things happen when you jump to conclusions and act in haste.

You are right in saying that we do need to reduce pollution, get off oil if at all possible, and in general protect and preserve the environment. I have no arguments with that one at all.

But, there is one thing that really rubs people (myself included) the wrong way - this "cap and trade" bullhockey legislation that the US gov't is poised to bring down on the backs of all US citizens. Honestly I don't really care that X amount of scientists back the idea of AGW, and X amount don't. But what I do care about is any sort of legislation that affects me.

I guess you've heard the old saying that you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar. Twisting people's arms and legally forcing them into giving up oil and paying a lot more for utilities is the wrong way to go about getting people to go green. You can get a dog to do what you want by rewarding it or by abusing and beating it. You can also enslave a human being and force him to work, or you can hire him and pay him to work for you...



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Now which is going to get the best results in the end? Which is going to get you a
loyal dog that loves you and an employee who happily does his best? Which is going to
get you a dog that one day will bite back, and slaves that will revolt?

All I know is that looking down thru history, when governments force draconian laws,
regulations and taxes on people nothing good comes of it. The Revolutionary War is an
extreme example of what can happen...

Now I don't think for a minute there will be war in the US, but for sure there will be
plenty in congress who will lose their jobs in 2010, and there may be people protesting
in the streets because they can't heat their homes and fuel their cars (unless they
are wealthy, of course - but not the mid-low income folk that this legislation will
crush). And this re-distribution crap is just that - when have you ever known politicians
to keep such promises? And worse yet, the income threshold will be so low that only
homeless people would qualify for this "assistance".

This is what makes people mad as hell (except for those AGW advocates who make good money!)
- the idea that this carbon cap crap will be forced down their throats and we will go
from a recession into a full-blown depression. Or at very least, it will prolong the recession
that we are currently in - for a very long time. I don't know about you, but I'm
not going to live by having one lightbulb burning in my house at one time and keeping
my heat at 55 degrees and having no A/C here in the ultra-humid mid-Atlantic summer!



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   
A single volcano eruption probably spews more sulpher, CO2, nitrous oxide, and a plethora of other gases and chemicals in a day than humans can produce in a decade.

The one variable that Gore's minions fail to account for in their calculations is - precipitation.

Think about it. The warmer an environment, the greater the evaporation, the greater the precipitation, the greater the cooling from the precipitation and the absorption of heat from the increased cloud cover.

It would appear that the current (over the past several millennium) state of climactic condition rides upon periodic variations in both temperature and sea levels. This has been an ongoing variation long before man figured out how to wipe his butt.

Global warming? That will pass, and it' much easier to live with global warming than with a few degrees of global cooling.

Which is coming. Just as before.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by finemanm
reply to post by greshnik
 


I'm sorry, you are right. The world was created in six days, the earth is 6000 years old, and by the way, its flat.

I feel so much better.


No, you did not get it. It's good that you are having fun, though. Keep it up.



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
.......................
Heat flow from the earth is a minimal influence on climate, and you have absolutely no evidence that it has contributed even an iota to current climate change. Just ridiculous babblings.


The only "babbling" comes from you, I have quoted scientists, but instead "melatonin" wants to create his own conclusions by twisting what scientists say...

Humm, who to believe "melatonin the clown" or real scientists... i'll take the words and studies of real scientists over "melatonin the clown' any day of the week.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join