Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I think the sun will burn out in 60 years.

 

If it does, we won't see it happen until 60 years, eight minutes, and 20 seconds.

  • Replies 7.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

 

If it does, we won't see it happen until 60 years, eight minutes, and 20 seconds.

Will we see and hear it at the same time?

 

 

This is in reference to an age old TBD thread involving the speeds of sound and light in space. Yes seriously there was a thread on that very topic

 

Posted

Will we see and hear it at the same time?

 

 

This is in reference to an age old TBD thread involving the speeds of sound and light in space. Yes seriously there was a thread on that very topic

 

 

No, there was not a "thread." Just a couple of posts. (And side note: meazza - who asked the question "does sound travel faster than light in space?" - took my response - "You're an idiot." - to heart and successfully worked to not be an idiot anymore. Let him be an example to the rest of you idiots.)

Posted

Some left wing hoaxer chick in Mexico named "Patricia" is claiming that higher moisture content in the atmosphere coupled with higher ocean temperatures consistent with GW may cause higher volatility in local weather conditions. I believe another Hoaxer "Nicky" from South Carolina noticed the same.....

Posted

Some left wing hoaxer chick in Mexico named "Patricia" is claiming that higher moisture content in the atmosphere coupled with higher ocean temperatures consistent with GW may cause higher volatility in local weather conditions. I believe another Hoaxer "Nicky" from South Carolina noticed the same.....

"Weather" is not climate.

Posted

 

That is an original observation! - Give yourself a trophy for participation!!

 

It weakened during the day. Global warming must be over.

Posted

When our sun begins to die it will heat the earth and its water. This will create a permanent blanket of clouds that will trap heat and create an upward spiraling cycle of evaporation that couldn't be reversed if Marie Osmond dropped another fifty lbs.

 

We're doomed I tells ya. Doomed!

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

Good news, everyone! NASA scientists just figured out that Antarctica is actually adding to its ice-pack despite all of the man-made global warming!

 

 

From the study:

A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.

It’s NASA so it must be true.

This discovery, however, makes the IPCC (and others) wrong:

A new NASA study found that Antarctica has been adding more ice than it’s been losing, challenging other research, including that of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that concludes that Earth’s southern continent is losing land ice overall.

And this NASA study also found that Antarctica is actually decreasing sea levels:

climatedepot_normal.jpg Marc Morano @ClimateDepot

Posted (edited)

 

Good news, everyone! NASA scientists just figured out that Antarctica is actually adding to its ice-pack despite all of the man-made global warming!

 

 

 

 

From the study:

It’s NASA so it must be true.

 

This discovery, however, makes the IPCC (and others) wrong:

 

 

 

And this NASA study also found that Antarctica is actually decreasing sea levels:

 

 

climatedepot_normal.jpg Marc Morano @ClimateDepot

 

 

Do you ever read past the title?

 

"But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”

 

So pretty much: Increased temps = increased water content in air = more snow but also more ice melt....

 

I am sure the cod fisherman in the gulf of Maine find these reports comforting.....

 

:thumbsup:

Edited by baskin
Posted

So pretty much: Increased temps = increased water content in air = more snow but also more ice melt....

 

Does this mean we have to return to calling it Global Cooling until it gets warm again?

Posted (edited)

 

Do you ever read past the title?

 

 

I am sure the cod fisherman in the gulf of Maine find these reports comforting.....

 

:thumbsup:

 

 

Always.

 

The article is presented for informational purposes as usual.

 

That you choose to continuously assign a false message behind each post................is your problem

 

and an obvious one at that.

 

 

 

Added: Please note the qualifier in your post ......"But it might "

 

not exactly the "disproving' of the title of the article that you are stating.

 

 

 

.

 

 

.

Edited by B-Man
Posted

 

Do you ever read past the title?

 

"But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”

 

So pretty much: Increased temps = increased water content in air = more snow but also more ice melt....

 

I am sure the cod fisherman in the gulf of Maine find these reports comforting.....

 

:thumbsup:

 

You really don't understand what you're reading. That entire article's nothing more than long-winded doubletalk that boils down to "We have no idea what's going on."

×
×
  • Create New...