North Pole could be ice-free this summer, scientists say - Page 3

conservative · 06-29-2008, 01:05 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by conservative

Tell me GW fanatics...what is the perfect temperature for earth?

Answer the question....

Stinger · 06-29-2008, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nerv14

I am sure you know this and you were just making a randome comment, but science is about long term alterations in the enviornment and looking for the cause. Regardless if one day or one year, was warmed or colder you need to look at a graph of a long period of time, and the Earth is warming.

Some people actualy use evidence like this as real proof for or against global warming, when both sides need to understand that such a short observation like, "the sea level rose one day, that earth is warming" or "this one day was the coldest in 5 years, the Earth is not warming" means completely nothing at all.

But do we know that it is that due to CO2? No

I think both sides no this but I said what I said to point out the dire predictions that if the sea ice melted the oceans, seas and bays would rise by enormous heights. Don't see it where I live.

Nerv14 · 06-29-2008, 01:35 PM

Firstly, since humans have adapted to this climate by where they live, their crops and lifestyles, any drastic change hotter or colder is harmful. Even if one temperature is better or worse if we are given hundreds of years to adapt, the most stable temperature is more likely to be the best.

If anyone wants they can label some benefits of a much warmer climate, (or the negative effects of a colder climate) but I already have some guesses about what negative effects would happen if the Earth got warmer.

Firstly, an increased temperature woud cause more evaporation of surface sources of fresh water and would also require the Earth's people to consume more water to stay hydrated and water crops. This would cause damage to our farming in the Midwest which is already experiencing water shortages in the news. This would also be even more harmful to third world countries that are already water deprived because they would lose more water form the easy to gain sources of water.

Increased temperatures would increase the size of deserts which would limit the land that people can live on and cause even more migrations away from deserts in the world.

When a cold climate would lower sea levels and increase the fertile land that countries can live on, a warmer climate would raise sea levels and reduce fertile land.

Nerv14 · 06-29-2008, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stinger

I think both sides no this but I said what I said to point out the dire predictions that if the sea ice melted the oceans, seas and bays would rise by enormous heights. Don't see it where I live.

As I said, it is a long term phenominan and any raising sea levels will be much too slow for you to tell by your own observations. However, just keep your eye on observations of the sea level and I am sure it will be raising.

Stinger · 06-29-2008, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nerv14

As I said, it is a long term phenominan and any raising sea levels will be much too slow for you to tell by your own observations. However, just keep your eye on observations of the sea level and I am sure it will be raising.

Why are you sure? It is where it has been all my 55 years.

Nerv14 · 06-29-2008, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stinger

Why are you sure? It is where it has been all my 55 years.

The 2007 IPCC Report on Climate Change : Weather Underground

Since when? As I said it is too slow for a single person to recognize, but the Earth's sea level is raising while the Earth's temperature is raising.

Unlike Greenhouse Gase global warming, there is evidence for the Earth warming, the sea level of the Earth raising, and ice deposits melting.

Libre · 06-29-2008, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pragmatist

Also funny how your load of shit is also just a "possibility". What makes your explanation any more credible than his?

Hey genius who doesn't understand jack-shit about science. The point is that they are both possibilities. Yet the one article doesn't mention any other possibility. It falsely represents that anthropogenic warming IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE EXPLANATION.

Right away that that pegs the original article as a poor science propaganda piece.

How many times does this have to be explained to people like you.

WAKE THE FUCK UP.

Quote:

Your "basic scientific education" better be free of charge because it's a load of shit.

You obviously have no room to judge as you have proven this is way above your head. You are simply fighting to keep your bias intact, evidence be damned.

Again, to people like you, this is religion.

So I'll keep educating you because you need it.

Libre · 06-29-2008, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Latherty

Thak god for someone who can't read to give us scientific advice!
The eruptions -- as big as the one that buried Pompei -- took place in 1999

Hey genius, the point is there is constant geothermal activity under the Arctic Ice.

WTF is wrong with you people? Shut off your religion for 2 seconds and actually turn your brains on. You never know, you might actually like thinking.

Dr.Knuckles · 06-29-2008, 03:11 PM

Quote:

"Last year, we had sort of a perfect weather pattern to get rid of ice to open up that Northwest Passage," Serreze said. "This year, a different pattern can set up. so maybe we'll preserve some ice there. We're in a wait-and-see mode right now. We'll see what happens."
The brief lack of ice at the top of the globe will not bring any immediate consequences, he said.

Oh my God! Did anybody actually read the article? Apparantly not. So I'll summarize.

A) The Passage actualy melted last year

B) 50 -50 chance of it happening again this year, nobody claims to know.

C) If it does nor not there will be no immediate consequence.

Yes, yes. Clearly these lunatics are deluded with their doomsday cult. See how they rush to ridiculous conclusions. See hoe they prophisize the end of the world.

I'll recap there... like a sports show... I'll show where the game went wrong.

The Scientists said,

Quote:

"The brief lack of ice at the top of the globe will not bring any immediate consequences"

Libre responded liek any sane, articulate person would,

Quote:

"WTF is wrong with you people? Shut off your religion for 2 seconds and actually turn your brains on. You never know, you might actually like thinking."

Quote:

Hey genius who doesn't understand jack-shit about science

Quote:

How many times does this have to be explained to people like you.

WAKE THE FUCK UP.

Quote:

You obviously have no room to judge as you have proven this is way above your head. You are simply fighting to keep your bias intact, evidence be damned.

Again, to people like you, this is religion.

Dr.Knuckles · 06-29-2008, 03:17 PM

I think my point got lost there in my glee.

Nobody ever claimed the North would be ice free this summer, as CNN's unforgivable title suggested. They claimed that there's a 50-50 cahnce that the passage would be clear again this year as IT ALREADY WAS LAST YEAR! Leaving a 50-50 chance that it would not.

Then everyone vomited up all their bile about how ignorent everyone else is, myself included when I refused to read the article based on the silly title. had I or anyone else read it, they would have seen it as a guy saying that since something happened last year, it might happen again this year, or might not, nobody really knows.

Now don't we feel silly!.... oh... oh we still feel morally indignant at other people's stupidity? Really?