Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-05-2011, 12:46 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,882 posts, read 33,280,580 times
Reputation: 4269

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
I sure don't my information from the same place you do. I prefer legitimate science sites like this one... CU Sea Level Research Group | University of Colorado

Or this one... SOTC: Sea Level

All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880. Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years. Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.

The authors' analysis shows ice loss in the study area of at least 11.2 gigatons per year from 2001 to 2006. Their ongoing work shows ice loss from 2006 to 2010 was almost as large, averaging 10.2 gigatons per year.
Researchers provide detailed picture of ice loss following the collapse of Antarctic ice shelves

This is not for you sanrene, because you seem to prefer lies, but others will read it and make their own decisions about what is true and what is not.

Do any of your sources report that the east side of Antarctica has seen an increase in the amount of ice that is greater than the loss on the west side? I bet none of them even talk about that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-05-2011, 12:52 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,882 posts, read 33,280,580 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by PITTSTON2SARASOTA View Post
How about some discrete Science for a change instead of finding the few "conspiracy theorists"!



FROM.......N.A.S.A.>>>>>

Global Ice Viewer

CAUTION>>>>>>>This is an interactive viewer...you must have an I.Q. above 100 to comprehend how to use it.
Did you notice that even your maps show that the increase in ice on Antarctica is greater than the decrease of tiny parts of the west. Antarctica is a continent and that means thousands of miles from one side to the other. I think that most of you people with the high IQs manage to misread all those maps and manage to do just what left leaners all over the world want you to do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2011, 12:57 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,882 posts, read 33,280,580 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling View Post
Regardless of the greenhouse aspect, which most people will only believe once they are directly affected, what worries me as well is the reason behind the rise, namely that the developing world is dramatically increasing its use of fossil energies. If that trend goes on like that, energy and other resources will become scarce much faster and/or much more expensive than expected And since so many people are incapable of thinking of an alternative, low-profile life-style, I guess I am happy to neither be around anymore a few decades from now, nor have kids...
Not to mention that just a few days ago the 7 billionth human was born...
Do you know of anybody from the UN or any NASA and others who are pushing disuse of fossil fuel who are actually working on those replaceable replacements for fossil fuel? Somehow I don't see any of those people funding or actually working on what can replace our use of fossil fuel.

Well we have seen a number of companies who tried to replace that use going down the chit chute lately. I wonder why that is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2011, 01:48 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
33,548 posts, read 37,151,051 times
Reputation: 14001
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
Do any of your sources report that the east side of Antarctica has seen an increase in the amount of ice that is greater than the loss on the west side? I bet none of them even talk about that.
Really now? The East Antarctic ice sheet has been losing mass for the last three years, according to an analysis of data from a gravity-measuring satellite mission. Try to keep up... BBC News - East Antarctic ice sheet may be losing mass

Antarctic ice loss was 11.2 gigatons a year from 2001 to 2006 and 10.2 gigatons from 2006 to 2010. Do you even know what a gigaton is?
NASA, researchers: Antarctic ice loss at least 10 gigatons a year for last decade | SmartPlanet
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2011, 03:03 PM
 
2,514 posts, read 1,987,736 times
Reputation: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
Shhhhh..... don't upset the AGW lemmings.... they have already made their decision to follow blindly.
But with global cooling we need more CO2 not less so this is a good thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2011, 03:06 PM
 
Location: France, that's in Europe
329 posts, read 267,319 times
Reputation: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retired Marine 1967 View Post
false




sea level has been decreasing
That is supposed to be a projection of sea level in 80 million years time! Cretaceous sea levels were 550 feet higher than today

Quote:
Figure 2 (bottom) illustrates what the world may look like 80 million years into the future, with sea level being 120 m lower than today (exposed land shown in dark green). This is what we expect as the ocean basin volume will continue increasing, as it has for the previous 80 million years, due to the aging and deepening of the oceans. If, however, the current inland ice caps partially or entirely melt, then this projected long-term sea level drop will be alleviated by up to about 50 m. However, even in an ice-free world 80 million years into the future, we would see a net projected sea level drop of about 70 meters. Image courtesy of R. Dietmar Müller
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2011, 08:37 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
45,983 posts, read 53,506,965 times
Reputation: 15184
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Yeah, I looked at it, but have no idea what it means...Does it say that the global temperature has not risen in the last decade?
This is what I was trying to show:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics...Realistsv3.gif
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2011, 08:45 AM
 
2,514 posts, read 1,987,736 times
Reputation: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
put all the blue lines together and it goes the other way.

I read a website that had a bunch of things refuting other causes of global warming besides CO2. Together they made a convincing argument for global cooling.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2011, 09:16 AM
 
Location: Boston, MA
14,483 posts, read 11,287,685 times
Reputation: 9002
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
No, I'm one of the people that is not hiding my head in the sand...I don't know how you guys can stand all that grit in your eyes and ears...I guess that is why you don't see of hear all that well, huh?

Can you see this? Climate Change: Evidence
It's not that I don't agree with AGW but the "indisputable evidence" that organizations like NASA use to prove it include language along the lines of:

The heat trapping gas Carbon Dioxide is increasing + The Earth is currently getting warmer = Man is causing the Earth to warm.

If AGW went to trial based on this evidence it would walk out of the courtroom a free man and the prosecutor's reputation would be in shambles.

Tell me how we are supposed to throw out all past standards of proof and believe in this. I'm being earnest here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2011, 09:35 AM
 
19,226 posts, read 15,326,750 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by newonecoming2 View Post
put all the blue lines together and it goes the other way.

I read a website that had a bunch of things refuting other causes of global warming besides CO2. Together they made a convincing argument for global cooling.
We need to fight global cooling.

I say we build more gold smelters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:04 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top