B. Max Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 Seems like they found global warming, missing. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070312/ap_on_sc/polar_trek_1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 Seems like they found global warming, missing. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070312/ap_on_sc/polar_trek_1 That's totally unscientific and absolutely hilarious. I want more. As serious as the loser left takes itself on saving the world, stories like that are just superb irony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunsettommy Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 "Then there was the cold — quite a bit colder, Atwood said, then Bancroft and Arnesen had expected. One night they measured the temperature inside their tent at 58 degrees below zero, and outside temperatures were exceeding 100 below zero at times, Atwood said." BWAHAHAHAHA!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunsettommy Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 Try this: http://www.wunderground.com/global/Region/...emperature.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunsettommy Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 The State of Alaska is below freezing for the HIGH. http://www.wunderground.com/US/Region/Alas...emperature.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbie Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 Seems you folks never read the last line in the article: "...But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 But one of the things we see with weather is unpredictability fixed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 fixed Stupid. Tell me, will it be colder in January or July? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 Why don't you consult your handy farmers almanac and tell me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunsettommy Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 Seems you folks never read the last line in the article:"...But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability" How about this Newbie? But one of the things we see with global cooling is unpredictability. I read that last line and it is stupid. Another dumb last line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunsettommy Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 fixed Stupid. Tell me, will it be colder in January or July? The point of the article was that THEY did not expect it to be so cold. "Then there was the cold — quite a bit colder, Atwood said, then Bancroft and Arnesen had expected. One night they measured the temperature inside their tent at 58 degrees below zero, and outside temperatures were exceeding 100 below zero at times, Atwood said." I then posted those links showing that Alaska and northern canada is colder than usual for this time of year. Admit it that you missed it. He he..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. Max Posted March 14, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 Seems you folks never read the last line in the article:"...But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability" Global warming is responsible for everything these days If it rains that's global warming, if it doesn't that's global warming. It's been credited with everything except blowing up the football at NFL games. The people in this story are lucky they weren't killed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drea Posted March 14, 2007 Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 On some other global climate thread someone mentioned the pollution in (and above) Mexico City. One cannot dismiss the fact that this pollution (added to the thousands of other cities across the earth) does not have an impact. The atmosphere is not a purifier that strains out all of our man-made pollutants. I am not saying that the earth is going to shrivel up in the next 10 years -- I am saying that you cannot deny that humans are impacting the atmosphere. Yes, the global climate is changing naturally, but it is also being heavily impacted by us. The atmosphere is finite. It does not go on forever and ever and is not able to absorb pollution infinitely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbie Posted March 14, 2007 Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 Seems you folks never read the last line in the article: "...But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability" How about this Newbie? But one of the things we see with global cooling is unpredictability. I read that last line and it is stupid. Another dumb last line. So discounting it as stupid is your response? Then I suppose I could discount the entire article as irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted March 17, 2007 Report Share Posted March 17, 2007 Seems like they found global warming, missing. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070312/ap_on_sc/polar_trek_1 It's so hot it's cold!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunsettommy Posted March 17, 2007 Report Share Posted March 17, 2007 Seems you folks never read the last line in the article: "...But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability" How about this Newbie? But one of the things we see with global cooling is unpredictability. I read that last line and it is stupid. Another dumb last line. So discounting it as stupid is your response? Then I suppose I could discount the entire article as irrelevant. Did you imply that global cooling climate is NOT unpredictable? You missed it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 17, 2007 Report Share Posted March 17, 2007 The atmosphere is not a purifier that strains out all of our man-made pollutants. Correct. however the trees and plantlife out there, and even the oceans purify the air. More deforestation and more pollution can have an impact on our environment. Urban sprawl takes up valueble natural land to build us nice cozy polluting houses. (pollution in forms of garbage, other environmental hazards from the car in yourn driveway ect) Overall I don't buy into the global warming thing. But I will say pollution is making us sick and that is what really needs to be adressed here. So what they really mean to say is that they need to control pollution (akak your governmental friendly term 'greenhouse gases' which sounds soo much nicer). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leonardcohen Posted March 19, 2007 Report Share Posted March 19, 2007 There seems to be little doubt that climate change is real, i mean on a earth wide scale it is hard to believe that climate is static, we wouldn't need weather forecasts if it were not. The belief that humans have an impact on climate,to me at least is arrogant despite what Gorsuki tells us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guthrie Posted March 19, 2007 Report Share Posted March 19, 2007 There seems to be little doubt that climate change is real,i mean on a earth wide scale it is hard to believe that climate is static, we wouldn't need weather forecasts if it were not. The belief that humans have an impact on climate,to me at least is arrogant despite what Gorsuki tells us. hardly arrogant in light of the history of earth's climates and climate changes -- autotrophs were very simple ocean organisms who mostly killed themselves off and forever changed the climate of earth with a bi-product of their feeding - the byproduct was oxygen - one can safely assume that these creatures, guilty of destroying their own species, were likely even dumber than a modern right wing capitalist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. Max Posted March 20, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 hardly arrogant in light of the history of earth's climates and climate changes -- autotrophs were very simple ocean organisms who mostly killed themselves off and forever changed the climate of earth with a bi-product of their feeding - the byproduct was oxygen - one can safely assume that these creatures, guilty of destroying their own species, were likely even dumber than a modern right wing capitalist I don't think they died out. http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377..._autotroph.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guthrie Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 hardly arrogant in light of the history of earth's climates and climate changes -- autotrophs were very simple ocean organisms who mostly killed themselves off and forever changed the climate of earth with a bi-product of their feeding - the byproduct was oxygen - one can safely assume that these creatures, guilty of destroying their own species, were likely even dumber than a modern right wing capitalist I don't think they died out. http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377..._autotroph.html your source is the best I've seen from a right winger - congrats Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. Max Posted March 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 I don't think they died out. http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377..._autotroph.html your source is the best I've seen from a right winger - congrats It all sounds like something that should have made it into the goracles science fiction move for scaring little kids and gullible adults. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted March 22, 2007 Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 Umm... just to let you guys know, a tree is an autotroph. There is plenty of them around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guthrie Posted March 22, 2007 Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 Umm... just to let you guys know, a tree is an autotroph. There is plenty of them around. but not the ones that occupied a carbon dioxide filled oceans and first began producing oxygen, which had been quite rare - these were the first autotrophs nor did I say they died out entirely --- there is quite a genetic distance between them and modern autotrophs. A group which includes all chlorophyll producing life forms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.