TweetI`m sorry to chime in on this but frankly Ice cubes and global polar caps are NOT THE SAME THING.

If you believe that global warming is not real then Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and every other part of the matrix did it`s job. Period.

Gentlemen, we must be careful to destinguish real science from courtroom science. Real science is detailed and difficult to understand and impossible to refute because it is based on physical law. Courtroom science tries to confuse the juror by giving non-applicable examples that sound right but aren`t scientifically applicable to the origional case.

Ice cubes in a glass of water and glaicers on a mountain side ARE NOT REMOTELY CONNECTED except for that ice is involved in both.

Does Co2 react with our atmosphere in a negative manner? Yes
Can ozone levels be tracked? Yes
Are ozone holes growing in size? Yes
Does the burning of carbon based fuels (gasoline, etc.) create Co2? Yes


I`m sorry to say it so stongly but science proved global warming about 30 years ago. The only stuff that`s come out since has been industry comercials (desigused as science). If you believed the commercials, I could hardly blame you, they paid millions to make them work. But the fact remains: global warming is real.

SD

Tweet

Originally Posted by pigmeat

Point proven The last warm spell? What caused that? Coal fired generators, smog from vehicles. NO...There were none then!!!!..It is natures own way. Why are we blaming it on emisions now, when the earth does this on its own

its called compounding damage

so lets say, as you said, this is natures own way. if nature alone caused these problems 125,000 years ago, how bad do you think it will be now?

natures way + human abuse = global warming

does that make sense? the point is we're abusing nature. we're compounding the problem

now let me go hose off my V8 Escalade off with some fresh water

we're all guilty!

Tweet

Originally Posted by superdog

I`m sorry to chime in on this but frankly Ice cubes and global polar caps are NOT THE SAME THING.

dont be sorry to express your views

Tweet

Originally Posted by superdog

I`m sorry to chime in on this but frankly Ice cubes and global polar caps are NOT THE SAME THING.

If you believe that global warming is not real then Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and every other part of the matrix did it`s job. Period.

Gentlemen, we must be careful to destinguish real science from courtroom science. Real science is detailed and difficult to understand and impossible to refute because it is based on physical law. Courtroom science tries to confuse the juror by giving non-applicable examples that sound right but aren`t scientifically applicable to the origional case.

Ice cubes in a glass of water and glaicers on a mountain side ARE NOT REMOTELY CONNECTED except for that ice is involved in both.

Does Co2 react with our atmosphere in a negative manner? Yes
Can ozone levels be tracked? Yes
Are ozone holes growing in size? Yes
Does the burning of carbon based fuels (gasoline, etc.) create Co2? Yes


I`m sorry to say it so stongly but science proved global warming about 30 years ago. The only stuff that`s come out since has been industry comercials (desigused as science). If you believed the commercials, I could hardly blame you, they paid millions to make them work. But the fact remains: global warming is real.

SD

No one ever said ice cubes and land top gladiers were the same. However, if you go back and check the links I posted, it's a proven fact that ice and the polar caps are similar. Polar caps in the artic are NOT over land, they are over water and therefore they function just like ice and ice bergs beaining that 80 to 90% of the mass is below water. This is a fact that has been proven beyond doubt. The ice cube example was just shown to prove that the boyance of ice is the same as a iceberg. The reason the ice cube in fresh water was about level with the surface is because fresh water is less dense than salt water and therefore the denser ice cube will sink more. If this had been an ice cube in salt water, such asan iceberg or polar cap, it woul have onlybeen 1/10 to 1/5 above the water level. Don't forget, polar caps, glaciers and ice bergs are the exact same as an ice cube because they are all made from fresh water. Look for yourself, these things are NOT made from salt water, just fresh water, and therefore are the exact same as an ice cube. Go check the links bro, it's been scientifically proven that there are no differents in the density of ice wether it's a ice cube, and iceberg or a polar glacier. Ice is ice and this is a scientific fact. They only difference is that when you get down into the blue ice, the crystals have become slightly large, which is why it melts slower, but the density is the exact same do to the natural sapcing between the atoms when water freezes. When water freezes the spacing between the atoms is ALWAYS the same and therefore the density is ALWAYS the same.

Now, as to glaciers over land, if you look at the link that Fit posted you will see how the glacier over Greenland is responding. They (NASA) has proven using thermo scanning that the outer ice of the land glacier is in fact melting. However, just as I've been arguing the whole time, the increase is moisture is causing more moisture to come up through evaporation and it is being dumped on the middle of Greenland. Go check the link. Even though the outer ice is indeed melting, the inner ice is actulaly getting thicker. This is a proven scientific fact. And, according to this fact, the elevation of sea level is actually only .33 millimeters a year. That's 1/3 of a millimeter per year. The reason for this discrepancy, as I have been stating all along, is because the lab coat guys were not taking into consideration the evaporation of the water or the fact that the exposed land, which there is more of now, will absorb water. I've said it once and I will say it again, nature will find a way to keep things in balance and these thermo images from NASA are a proven fact of that.

TweetHere we go with the icecube theory again, lol! Fact is Glaciers are melting quicker than the buildup of ice, and it is happening not only in Greenland. How about the impact of these thermo temprature changes when colder bodies of water when they meet warmer ones?, and temp changes in places where dif species of living organizims die off because of these environment changes. Do not think this is going to have an impact of other echo systems? I really hope 007 that you are right, but with these kinds of attitudes, it is why things aren't getting done. Ppl blow it of .."Oh its all nature's cycles, etc." All these groups that are connected with the gov will shell out anything to prove its all based on little to do with nothing, and ppl will believe it. We will find out only when its too late, and then the gov will be acting like they didn't know anything, just like with what happened in LA, and they knew for yrs about it being and eminet threat. We live in a country where it is all media hype and politics and ppl believe what they hear as fact. Companies like Exon and BP will put out ads like they really care about the environment, lol..what a joke! So they spend 5MM on green fuel technologies, lol. That is like me saying i gave 5 cents to charity! These ppl don't care, all they care about is their image. Whatever happened to fuel cell tech like Bush talked about? I guess that was just to get polls up.

Tweet

Originally Posted by DJDIGGLER

So in other words your saying that all of the pollution caused by coal engines, and smog from vehicles is not damaging to our planet?? That point has already been proven. It's very damaging to our planet! Why do you think such strict emissions laws are in place in some states?

Here's another argument to your point. Humans are from nature. And smog and pollution can kill humans (if you hook a hose to the tailpipe of a running vehicle it would kill you). So wouldn't it be fair to say that since humans are part of nature that pollutants could probably equally damage nature as it does humans? And being that Earth is connected with nature don't you think that earth also would be damaged equally?

were did i say that pollution wasnt bad for the earth...i dont think i did...all i said is the earth went through a warm spell before pollution existed, so how can the icebergs melting be blamed on it this time...just something for the tree huggers to point the finger at

Tweet

Originally Posted by superdog

Does the burning of carbon based fuels (gasoline, etc.) create Co2? Yes




SD

Very very small amounts. co2 is the result of complete combustion, and hardly any fuel other than propane and some kerosene units are capable of complete combustion, therefore they put off co.

Tweet

Originally Posted by pigmeat

were did i say that pollution wasnt bad for the earth...i dont think i did...all i said is the earth went through a warm spell before pollution existed, so how can the icebergs melting be blamed on it this time...just something for the tree huggers to point the finger at

Actually this is what you said.......

"Point proven The last warm spell? What caused that? Coal fired generators, smog from vehicles. NO...There were none then!!!!..It is natures own way. Why are we blaming it on emisions now, when the earth does this on its own"

......


You were incinuating that nature was the cause of the last warm spell not coal fired generators, or smog from vehicles. That means that you are saying that it's not pollution that is causing any of the detrimental effects to our planet and ecosystem. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I am merely reading what you write and that is what it is implying.

So which is it are you trying to say pollution does destroy our planet or it doesn't?

Tweetpollution is bad...no doubt, but it cant be blamed for the global warming that is happening...sure, it may add to it, but to blame warm temps and shit on coalk fired generators is bs.it hapeened many times before, and will happen many more times in the future

Tweet

Originally Posted by DJDIGGLER

......


You were incinuating that nature was the cause of the last warm spell not coal fired generators, or smog from vehicles.

thats exactly what i was incinuating....nothing more nothing less. pollution does have bad effects. Never said it didnt. But is it the reason for global warming...absolutely not. It goes through cycles, since the beggining of time

TweetI do agree that the planet goes through cycles. But why add to the problem if we have the technology to fix things?

TweetActually Co2 is created from any fire coming from a carbon based fuel. The percentatge of that fuel being completely consumed is different depending on the source of fuel and the type of fire (a cigarette and car`s engine differer in how efficently they burn... etc.)

Do you have any idea of how many coal fired electric power plants there are?
China alone puts TONNES of Co2 into the air every minute.


Plus you can wave the ice cube example around but the fact still remains, ocean levels are rising. Documented irrefutable fact, the ocean is already hitting a few inches higher than it was a century ago.

TweetI'm surprised this is such a "hot" topic here at Fitness Geared. Shows the diversity of interests we all have.