Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[Angus]

Goes different in Europe though. But while the glaciers there are not big ones, the "hint" is there.
As for Greenland, Moray is dead on there. Has anyone here been there? I have.

[Penguin]

We know that the hydrosphere makes up part of the climate.

If it does, than we can easily have man-made climate change.  All you do is pour fertillzer in.  In fact, it is happening today.  The effect is increased algal blooms, killing fish by sucking out the oxygen in the water.  Your theory of man not being able to change the climate is garbage.  And, hint hint, the only way to change the climate is by adding things in or removing them.  Right now the latter is nearly impossible.

So this means that we can only change our climate via pollution ( adding things in ).  Since I just proved that we can change our climate that way, your argument is bunk.

[MORAY37]

No matter what side of the argument you are on, you always find people on your side that you wish were on the other.
   
    Jascha Heifetz (1901 - 1987)

[Bodhi]

See Rule #4

[Bodhi]

Oh and Moray, I am waiting on your answer to my previous question.

I mean it's not like you are ignoring it as it doesn't suit your agenda, right?

[CAP1]

We know that the hydrosphere makes up part of the climate.

If it does, than we can easily have man-made climate change.  All you do is pour fertillzer in.  In fact, it is happening today.  The effect is increased algal blooms, killing fish by sucking out the oxygen in the water.  Your theory of man not being able to change the climate is garbage.  And, hint hint, the only way to change the climate is by adding things in or removing them.  Right now the latter is nearly impossible.

So this means that we can only change our climate via pollution ( adding things in ).  Since I just proved that we can change our climate that way, your argument is bunk.

you gotta come up with better than that. 

[MORAY37]

Hey wanna-be scientist... this might actually help your supposed global warming "theories" (surpressing laughter)


Take a fairly heavy nut.  Place it on an ice block.  Leave it.

Come back in a day.

What has it done.


Add to that 60 years of sunlight, and you have the reason why the P-38's and 1'17's sank as deep as they did.  The crushing was due to movement.

I'm sorry, but you are very wrong.  

Penetration depth of sunlight into hard packed snow and ice is about 10 feet....and only if the ice is exceptionally clear.  Can you see the ground through 8" of snow?  Greenland gets 3 meters a year.  9 ft, for the hard at math.  In water, in clear tropical seas, 95% of the light spectrum is absorbed by 30 feet, leaving only the blue wavelength.  You're trying to tell me that sunlight pierced hundreds of feet of solid ice and snow, to continually heat an aircraft's surface, and more importantly, it's base, to make it sink 300 feet?  Wow, that's rich even for you sir.

Radiant heating of the aluminum bodies stopped within 2 weeks of them being on the ice.  Those planes were covered, and thermally equal to the ice within a week or less.  In case you're wondering, this is also why Glacier Girl was recovered in such good shape.  The paint wasn't bubbled from thermal expansion and contraction of the plane's airframe, as a last negation of your idea.

The only thing you were right about was the moving.... about a mile in 50 years.  

[MORAY37]

you gotta come up with better than that. 

I would agree with you on our friend the Penguin.  Which is why I quoted.

[MORAY37]

Oh and Moray, I am waiting on your answer to my previous question.

I mean it's not like you are ignoring it as it doesn't suit your agenda, right?

I have no agenda.  I'm a biologist. 

I would say your persistent attacks upon me betray the fact that you have an agenda.

What was your question, though?

[Angus]

What Moray explained is how glaciers work
They're not melting from the top. What is happening is that they are retreating from the bottom. This is easily measured, and ancient movements as well as maxes and minimums are well detectable by the scratches they leave on rocky surface (it even gives the direction) as well as the debris (gravel and such rubble) they push ahead.
Moray, you should see my country. For the geology side it is a paradise!!!!

[Penguin]

I would agree with you on our friend the Penguin.  Which is why I quoted.

Hmm, where'd I go wrong?  Come on, no, I'm not wishing that I'm on the other side.  Playing this one is far too insteresting and fun!

Moray, your logic rings true.

-Penguin

[Widewing]

No matter what side of the argument you are on, you always find people on your side that you wish were on the other.
  
    Jascha Heifetz (1901 - 1987)

Ain't that the truth.

Even at the office..... Trying to prove a point, only to be seconded by a well known numbskull. Yeah, that helped.



My regards,

Widewing

[CAP1]

I have no agenda.  I'm a biologist. 

I would say your persistent attacks upon me betray the fact that you have an agenda.

What was your question, though?

we do need to be careful. there's generally some good conversation going on here.....but there have been a few personal attacks too, and i've noticed in some other threads, that skuzzy seems to be getting a little pissed at the overall childishness that we all manage to show at times.
 it would be a a shame to have this thread locked due to something as simple and childish as name calling.........

[Bodhi]

I'm sorry, but you are very wrong.  

Penetration depth of sunlight into hard packed snow and ice is about 10 feet....and only if the ice is exceptionally clear.  Can you see the ground through 8" of snow?  Greenland gets 3 meters a year.  9 ft, for the hard at math.  In water, in clear tropical seas, 95% of the light spectrum is absorbed by 30 feet, leaving only the blue wavelength.  You're trying to tell me that sunlight pierced hundreds of feet of solid ice and snow, to continually heat an aircraft's surface, and more importantly, it's base, to make it sink 300 feet?  Wow, that's rich even for you sir.

Radiant heating of the aluminum bodies stopped within 2 weeks of them being on the ice.  Those planes were covered, and thermally equal to the ice within a week or less.  In case you're wondering, this is also why Glacier Girl was recovered in such good shape.  The paint wasn't bubbled from thermal expansion and contraction of the plane's airframe, as a last negation of your idea.

The only thing you were right about was the moving.... about a mile in 50 years.  

Actually, you are wrong.  I know it is hard for you, but, you missed the entire premise of what I was saying with regards to the nut and weight.  Those birds sank as far as they did because of their weight.  They weren't built up on by 250 feet of snow.

[Bodhi]

I have no agenda.  I'm a biologist. 

I would say your persistent attacks upon me betray the fact that you have an agenda.

What was your question, though?

I don't attack you, I state the obvious kiddo.  You are backing junk science with a show of hands.  I stated the CRU's nonsense completely ruins the current thinking of GW as a whole.  Their data was what the goracle was using, the UN, and the US.  They lied and fabricated data as well as conspiring to cover it up.

Man made global warming is a farce.  The earth warms and cools in cycles.