ExiledInIllinois Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 Something is bugging me. I would like to get information and opinion from both sides of the argument. Just watched the "Mega Movers" thing on the History channel... A few days ago... They did a thing about the recovery of the planes that were ditched on Greenland during WWII... Over those some 50 years they said that about 270 feet (about 27 stories) of snow and ice have accumulated on the Greenland glacier. Yes, in just 50 years. I was left scratching my head... They never (I think) mentioned "global warming." Now my question to the people who subscribe to the "church of the global warming"... Why didn't they just wait to recover the planes? Or was that before Al Gore took office as VP? Really... What gives? I dug this up with a quick Google search: Greenland Mods... Feel free to move this to PPP if it is considered too "political." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 Not sure what you are asking here. Do you want to know why so much ice has built up in Greenland if Global Warming is in effect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 9, 2009 Author Share Posted March 9, 2009 Not sure what you are asking here. Do you want to know why so much ice has built up in Greenland if Global Warming is in effect? Yes. In 50 years over 27 stories of snow and ice have accumulated on the glacier... Obviously the Greenland glacier is growing... ?? Rate of accumulation is out pacing rate of ablation. Notice in 1992... 1992 they did the extraction... This had to be at a time when they knew about "global warming?" Doesn't one of the main problems associated with global warming revolve around the idea that Greenland is ablating and will add significant water to world's oceans? Also, I was trying to underscore the fact that in just 50 or so years so much ice has accumulated... Obviously this points to how quickly things can change from a warming trend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 EIO, I can't remember where I read it, but recently they were saying while the one shelf in Anarctica is losing ice/calving, the other side is experiencing tremendous ice growth. This is where there are issues with the whole scientific everyone must agree with global warming. I don't know if it's conclusive or not, and I certainly don't know if man has any impact whatsoever. but the fact is what you brought up and the growing of ice shelves on the other side of anarctica points more towards of a shifting of the caps slightly rather than a overall global warming. If you could find a true independant set of research, it'd be better but too many are paid flunkies of the like of Al Gore who has experienced great personal gain in the amount of hundred of millions to their bank accounts. I think that the whole scientific community for the most part is a farse only giving the answers that will benefit them and their continued research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Something is bugging me. I would like to get information and opinion from both sides of the argument. Just watched the "Mega Movers" thing on the History channel... A few days ago... They did a thing about the recovery of the planes that were ditched on Greenland during WWII... Over those some 50 years they said that about 270 feet (about 27 stories) of snow and ice have accumulated on the Greenland glacier. Yes, in just 50 years. I was left scratching my head... They never (I think) mentioned "global warming." Now my question to the people who subscribe to the "church of the global warming"... Why didn't they just wait to recover the planes? Or was that before Al Gore took office as VP? Really... What gives? I dug this up with a quick Google search: Greenland Mods... Feel free to move this to PPP if it is considered too "political." Why don't we move it to the "who gives a !@#$" board? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 ok, I'll bite. Quick google search http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...16_warming.html First and foremost fifty years is different from five or ten years. Second the P-38's were on one part of the glacier, and its possible that factors in that part had to do with ice accumulation. Not that I care or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 9, 2009 Author Share Posted March 9, 2009 I think that the whole scientific community for the most part is a farse only giving the answers that will benefit them and their continued research. It has always been like that. Classic example is John Harrison and his solving of the "longitude problem" for the English Crown in the 1700's... The main scientific community was hell bent that their way was better: The practical methods relied on a comparison of local time with the time at a given place (such as Greenwich or Paris). Many of these methods relied on astronomical observations relying on the predictable, "clockwork" nature of motions of heavenly bodies. While the Lunar Distances method would complement and rival the marine chronometer initially, the chronometer would overtake it in the 19th century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 9, 2009 Author Share Posted March 9, 2009 Why don't we move it to the "who gives a !@#$" board? Exactly my point. Who the eff cares, except that it should be: Who the eff cares about "global warming." It is a non-issue, IMO many people are wrong about it. In a blink of a nanosecond (50 years) one can see how fast things change. There is nothing anybody is going to do about it either way. You just deal with and plug away. Of course I am not saying be insensitive towards the enviro... All I am saying I don't ned to be forced or scared into it (protecting the enviro) by the global warming proponents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marv's Neighbor Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Why don't we move it to the "who gives a !@#$" board? All things considered, with respect to the BILLS, it's amazing that there are any posters who give a " !@#$" anymore. I've been a fan since day 1 of the franchise and there are many days when I have to question my own sanity. Greenland "used to be" Green. Weather cycles changed it to ice, will likely change it back to Green over time, and likewise back to ice over even more time. All this without any Human "help," or "crisis" intervention. They dug the planes out for the same reason we signed TO, they had some old fool to put up the money. When you have that opportunity you take it while it's available and not try to predict future more advantageous weather cycles. If the BILLS were in charge, they likely never would have recovered the entire plane(s). By the way, did anyone bother to check if TO can get thru Canada Customs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Glacier Girl made her way to Teterboro last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Something is bugging me. I would like to get information and opinion from both sides of the argument. Just watched the "Mega Movers" thing on the History channel... A few days ago... They did a thing about the recovery of the planes that were ditched on Greenland during WWII... Over those some 50 years they said that about 270 feet (about 27 stories) of snow and ice have accumulated on the Greenland glacier. Yes, in just 50 years. I was left scratching my head... They never (I think) mentioned "global warming." Now my question to the people who subscribe to the "church of the global warming"... Why didn't they just wait to recover the planes? Or was that before Al Gore took office as VP? Really... What gives? I dug this up with a quick Google search: Greenland Mods... Feel free to move this to PPP if it is considered too "political." "Global Warming" is a simple label that represents something a little more complicated. Something that many opponents like to overlook. Imagine the worlds weather system as an engine. The accelerator is relatively stable. Now imagine stepping on the accelerator and revving the engine. Now weather systems are more energetic. Hurricanes get bigger. Snow storms are bigger. Tornados are more frequent. Hot days are hotter, but cold days are colder. How can that be? The "warming" in global warming refers to the average temperature of the earth's oceans. The added heat, even one degree, causes weather systems to become more powerful and swings in weather to be more extreme. That can mean huge snow storms just as much as searing heat waves. And even you can admit that weather is different all over the world. It doesn't get hot everywhere just like it doesn't snow everywhere at the same time. Also, you never said that the 270 feet of snow and ice in Greenland grew at a constant pace. What if there was 500 feet and half of it melted in the last 10 years? But hey, don't listen to science when Lou Holtz and Sean Hannity know better. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 9, 2009 Author Share Posted March 9, 2009 "Global Warming" is a simple label that represents something a little more complicated. Something that many opponents like to overlook. Imagine the worlds weather system as an engine. The accelerator is relatively stable. Now imagine stepping on the accelerator and revving the engine. Now weather systems are more energetic. Hurricanes get bigger. Snow storms are bigger. Tornados are more frequent. Hot days are hotter, but cold days are colder. How can that be? The "warming" in global warming refers to the average temperature of the earth's oceans. The added heat, even one degree, causes weather systems to become more powerful and swings in weather to be more extreme. That can mean huge snow storms just as much as searing heat waves. And even you can admit that weather is different all over the world. It doesn't get hot everywhere just like it doesn't snow everywhere at the same time. Also, you never said that the 270 feet of snow and ice in Greenland grew at a constant pace. What if there was 500 feet and half of it melted in the last 10 years? But hey, don't listen to science when Lou Holtz and Sean Hannity know better. PTR I agree. I just think there is nothing we can do about it to change it. Who really cares if it is warming or cooling when you can do nothing about it? Prove to me that humans are actually changing those weather pattern and the temps of the oceans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Da Big Man Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 If there is "global warming", how come I am freezing my ballz off in Buffalo in the harshed winter in 30 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsNYC Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 I remember in high school I took an ecology class. The teacher, who now 13 years later I understand to be an ultra liberal, said that in less than 50 years there won't be enough trees in the world to produce enough oxygen for people and we'd all die. Some people are just nuts, and I throw Al Gore into that category. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 If there is "global warming", how come I am freezing my ballz off in Buffalo in the harshed winter in 30 years? You can't derive long-term trends from short-term data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Da Big Man Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 You can't derive long-term trends from short-term data. Touche! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 You can't derive long-term trends from short-term data. But people have been freezing their asses off in Buffalo since the first humans arrived there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 I remember in high school I took an ecology class. The teacher, who now 13 years later I understand to be an ultra liberal, said that in less than 50 years there won't be enough trees in the world to produce enough oxygen for people and we'd all die. Some people are just nuts, and I throw Al Gore into that category. I would not. The teacher is a nut. Al Gore is a thief and a hypocrite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 You can't derive long-term trends from short-term data. Unless you are promoting the religion. Time to up the hysteria So let me get this right; two years ago they drew their conclusions and either a) forgot to factor in melting ice or b) intentionally ignored it. Either way, tends to make you question the validity of their conclusions, no? But I'm sure this time they are spot on. And other thing. All this about millions of people being forced to move. Well even if true, isn't it happening over the course of a century? It's not like a million people are waking up one morning with a foot of water in their house. Populations have been migrating for one reason or another since the dawn of man. Why do people think that man no longer is subject to the same rules of nature that have existed for millions of years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Unless you are promoting the religion. Time to up the hysteria So let me get this right; two years ago they drew their conclusions and either a) forgot to factor in melting ice or b) intentionally ignored it. Either way, tends to make you question the validity of their conclusions, no? But I'm sure this time they are spot on. And other thing. All this about millions of people being forced to move. Well even if true, isn't it happening over the course of a century? It's not like a million people are waking up one morning with a foot of water in their house. Populations have been migrating for one reason or another since the dawn of man. Why do people think that man no longer is subject to the same rules of nature that have existed for millions of years? That article is one of the most ridiculous loads of nonsense I've read in quite some time. "Our earlier estimate only took in to account the thermal expansion of water, now we're including meltwater runoff, because we're no longer seen as crackpots like we were a few years ago, and the 2007 IPCC Report has to be updated because it's years out of date." What the hell kind of bull sh-- is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts