|
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice
this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:27:05 GMT, "CRM" wrote:
I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 Interesting. I wonder if it'll make the news on NBC. |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
On Jan 5, 12:27*pm, "CRM" wrote:
I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 Did you see the reason why?: Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Cyclical weather patterns have nothing to do with global warming. And to be honest, the ice had less snow cover, which could quite possibly be because of global warming. |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
On Jan 5, 1:32*pm, wrote:
On Jan 5, 12:27*pm, "CRM" wrote: I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 Did you see the reason why?: Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Cyclical weather patterns have nothing to do with global warming. And to be honest, the ice had less snow cover, which could quite possibly be because of global warming. Less snow is a cyclical weather patten itself, so by your definition, it has nothing to do with GW. :-) |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
On Jan 5, 2:02*pm, wrote:
On Jan 5, 1:32*pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 12:27*pm, "CRM" wrote: I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 Did you see the reason why?: Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Cyclical weather patterns have nothing to do with global warming. And to be honest, the ice had less snow cover, which could quite possibly be because of global warming. Less snow is a cyclical weather patten itself, so by your definition, it has nothing to do with GW. *:-)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Not so fast! IF the amount of snow is because of just a cyclical weather pattern, then yes, it has nothing to do with global warming. BUT, if the snow isn't a cyclical event then it very well COULD have something to do with global warming. |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
On Jan 5, 2:12*pm, wrote:
On Jan 5, 2:02*pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 1:32*pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 12:27*pm, "CRM" wrote: I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 Did you see the reason why?: Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Cyclical weather patterns have nothing to do with global warming. And to be honest, the ice had less snow cover, which could quite possibly be because of global warming. Less snow is a cyclical weather patten itself, so by your definition, it has nothing to do with GW. *:-)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Not so fast! IF the amount of snow is because of just a cyclical weather pattern, then yes, it has nothing to do with global warming. BUT, if the snow isn't a cyclical event then it very well COULD have something to do with global warming. If, but, could... bottom line is that no one has proven that GW even exists. Many of the so-called indicators are vanishing as the weather and climate follow their natural cycles. More and more scientist are coming out against the IPCC report and the idea of GW at all. Including a large number that were used by name in the IPCC report that now say they disagree with it's findings. GW was (and is) a very successful money-making scheme. Algore is laughing all the way to the bank in his monster house and private jet. |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
On Jan 5, 2:26*pm, wrote:
On Jan 5, 2:12*pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 2:02*pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 1:32*pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 12:27*pm, "CRM" wrote: I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 Did you see the reason why?: Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Cyclical weather patterns have nothing to do with global warming. And to be honest, the ice had less snow cover, which could quite possibly be because of global warming. Less snow is a cyclical weather patten itself, so by your definition, it has nothing to do with GW. *:-)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Not so fast! IF the amount of snow is because of just a cyclical weather pattern, then yes, it has nothing to do with global warming. BUT, if the snow isn't a cyclical event then it very well COULD have something to do with global warming. If, but, could... *bottom line is that no one has proven that GW even exists. *Many of the so-called indicators are vanishing as the weather and climate follow their natural cycles. *More and more scientist are coming out against the IPCC report and the idea of GW at all. Including a large number that were used by name in the IPCC report that now say they disagree with it's findings. GW was (and is) a very successful money-making scheme. *Algore is laughing all the way to the bank in his monster house and private jet.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The number of scientists who think that global warming IS occuring is massive compared to the number who don't believe it. It's plain and simple. Let's say you have a bomb sitting in your yard. A few scientists tell you that it's okay to go hit it with a shovel, nothing will happen, it's inert, those damned liberals think everything is dangerous. Another much, much larger group of scientists tell you that if you hit the bomb with a shovel, it will kill you, and everyone else in town. Which do you do? And here's quite a simple question. Do you think that all of the millions of pounds of pollutants poured into the air every day, including green house gases, poisons, etc. is good for the environment and good for your children to breath? |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
On Jan 5, 2:55*pm, John H wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:12:46 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Jan 5, 2:02*pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 1:32*pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 12:27*pm, "CRM" wrote: I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 Did you see the reason why?: Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Cyclical weather patterns have nothing to do with global warming. And to be honest, the ice had less snow cover, which could quite possibly be because of global warming. Less snow is a cyclical weather patten itself, so by your definition, it has nothing to do with GW. *:-)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Not so fast! IF the amount of snow is because of just a cyclical weather pattern, then yes, it has nothing to do with global warming. BUT, if the snow isn't a cyclical event then it very well COULD have something to do with global warming. Loogy, how would you define 'cyclical' when we're talking millions of years. Hell, Gore's stuff was only for the past couple hundred. *That* is cyclical in the big scheme of things. No?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Going up steadily corresponding to the industrial revolution isn't a cycle. |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
On Jan 5, 3:05*pm, wrote:
On Jan 5, 2:26*pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 2:12*pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 2:02*pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 1:32*pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 12:27*pm, "CRM" wrote: I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 Did you see the reason why?: Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Cyclical weather patterns have nothing to do with global warming. And to be honest, the ice had less snow cover, which could quite possibly be because of global warming. Less snow is a cyclical weather patten itself, so by your definition, it has nothing to do with GW. *:-)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Not so fast! IF the amount of snow is because of just a cyclical weather pattern, then yes, it has nothing to do with global warming. BUT, if the snow isn't a cyclical event then it very well COULD have something to do with global warming. If, but, could... *bottom line is that no one has proven that GW even exists. *Many of the so-called indicators are vanishing as the weather and climate follow their natural cycles. *More and more scientist are coming out against the IPCC report and the idea of GW at all. Including a large number that were used by name in the IPCC report that now say they disagree with it's findings. GW was (and is) a very successful money-making scheme. *Algore is laughing all the way to the bank in his monster house and private jet.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The number of scientists who think that global warming IS occuring is massive compared to the number who don't believe it. That is very debatable, and what quality scientists are we talking about. NASA and NOAA, two pretty credible orginazations of scientists do not adhere to Global Taxing... It's plain and simple. Let's say you have a bomb sitting in your yard. A few scientists tell you that it's okay to go hit it with a shovel, nothing will happen, it's inert, those damned liberals think everything is dangerous. Another much, much larger group of scientists tell you that if you hit the bomb with a shovel, it will kill you, and everyone else in town. Which do you do? And here's quite a simple question. Do you think that all of the millions of pounds of pollutants poured into the air every day, including green house gases, poisons, etc. is good for the environment and good for your children to breath?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:53 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com