• Official Q&A 2007 AAR League

    I found this interesting article and thought Jermo, U-505, Smacktard and others might also find it interesting.

    Wilkins Ice Shelf set to collapse.

    There is also a short video.

    (edit: shorten title of thread)


  • I think AGW negationists is not an accurate word. They don’t negate the climatic change, their point is that the man has no effect on it.

    They have no idea of how clima works. It’s a mix of various factors that, combinated, create a balance. That balance is fragile and can be broken easily when a specie as ours change even a lone factor in that balance slightly.

    We are changing many factors in a supershort amount of time. In geological scale, 100 years are less than a second.

    And many resources are not eternal. We should change our economic sistem or they will end, climatic change or not.

    Oh, this will get politics pretty soon  😛

  • Official Q&A 2007 AAR League

    I am simply pointing out an interesting story about ice.

    I’ve found other interesting photos relating to this- http://www.esa.int/esaEO/SEMYBBSTGOF_index_0.html

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    This newly discovered planet is also facing global warming also caused by its sun.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/01/090128-exoplanets-hot-flashes.html

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    You all know where I stand on the issue.

    BTW, ice shelves fall into the ocean on a pretty regular basis.  Kind of the planetary equivalent of a man losing an eye lash.  Yea, it happens.  Yea, you lost a wish if you didn’t catch it.  So what?

    Simple fact most AGW proponents (most of which are not scientists) refuse to accept is that the climate of earth is not static.  December 23rd is not always 24 degrees F with 35% chance of snow in the midwest, USA.  It changes.  In fact, the midwest USA used to be a tropical forest and it used to be the bottom of the ocean.  It’s been covered under miles of ice and those miles of ice left the Great Lakes.  The sun is also not static.  It’s got a very active surface and flares as well as solar storms and other solar events can increase or decrease the temperature of our planet.  And our planetary orbit is also not static, we get closer and farther from the sun periodically.  And finally, all 9 (and yes, I refuse to disregard Pluto as a planet because some idiot council wanted to refuse status to Xena and Gabrielle as planets) of the planets are going to be lining up pretty as you please and we know that’s going to play havoc with our climate as well.  You think a speck of dust like the moon can cause changes, just imagine the damage that will be inflicted as the gravitational pull of the sun is contested by Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus and Pluto!

    PS:  There are photos of ice shelves falling into the ocean from around the time of the invention of the camera as a self contained unit.

  • Official Q&A 2007 AAR League

    @Cmdr:

    PS:  There are photos of ice shelves falling into the ocean from around the time of the invention of the camera as a self contained unit.

    Cool. Could you find some links for me?

    @Cmdr:

    You think a speck of dust like the moon can cause changes, just imagine the damage that will be inflicted as the gravitational pull of the sun is contested by Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus and Pluto!

    Sarcasm right? You’re not trying to say the sun orbits the planets right? But that is as off topic as this:

    @Imperious:

    This newly discovered planet is also facing global warming also caused by its sun.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/01/090128-exoplanets-hot-flashes.html

    Ummmm….  :?  What does a planet with an eccentric orbit have to do with ice shelves in Antarctica?  :?

  • 2021 2020 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '13 '12 '11 '10

    I have bad news for you Frim.  😞

    If you hadn’t heard Ricardo M just passed away.  😢

    He did play Kahn well!

  • Official Q&A 2007 AAR League

    @JWW:

    I have bad news for you Frim.   😞

    If you hadn’t heard Ricardo M just passed away.   😢

    He did play Kahn well!

    Yes, I’d heard. I was much saddened.

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    I have bad news for you Frim.  sad

    If you hadn’t heard Ricardo M just passed away.  cry

    He did play Kahn well!

    Did he die because of global warming?  Rather the sun?

  • Official Q&A 2007 AAR League

    @Imperious:

    I have bad news for you Frim.   sad

    If you hadn’t heard Ricardo M just passed away.   cry

    He did play Kahn well!

    Did he die because of global warming?  Rather the sun?

    I believe he passed on due to old age. According to this at any rate.

    I also found this interesting photo of the Wilkins Ice Shelf in 1992.

    Compared to this one from the 28th of Jan, 2009.

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Well w/o that ice shelf they should be able to locate some new dinosaur bones that died from the climate changes also caused by the sun.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    IL, one shelf collapses while three others grow.  But growing shelves don’t support the religion, so they are not broadcast like the one that has grown too large and is now falling off.

    Remember, these shelves are not over the land mass of Antarctica, they’re dangling off the end precariously.

    And Frim:  I never hinted the sun moved anywhere.  But the planets ARE aligning and they WILL be pulling on the earth with compounded force contesting the sun’s pull on us. (Likewise earth pulls on them, but I daresay the mass of the earth is hardly comparable to the mass of Mars+Jupiter+Saturn+Uranus+Neptune+Pluto nor is it comparable to the mass of SOL+Mercury+Venus.)

    I am drawing a comparison, however, to all those compounded effects to the relatively insignificant affects of the moon which is able to raise and lower the ocean in far greater magnitudes than the one or two inches prostelitized by Albert Gore Junior and his merry band of ministers if the ice caps melt.

    If something as insignificantly small as the moon can cause such havoc on the earth, imagine the power of the sun alone and then imagine that power magnified by the planets aligning.  Oh, we are surely doomed!  DOOOMED!  Run for the hills, bury your heads in the sand, for the world will end!  The Mayans predicted it, the Inca’s predicted it, the Egyptians, Nostradamas and others have all predicted it!  Woe, woe, woe!

    wink

    BTW, if you buy all that tripe, please send your life savings to:

    Community Activists for the Socialization of Humans
    c/o Jennifer Christman-Honeycutt
    274 East Plank Road
    Burlington, IL 60109

    Feel free to make the check out to the initials of the organization. (C.A.S.H.)  It’s for the PEOPLE!


  • I would rather folks not discuss global warming here at A&A.org because I like the folks here and I appreciate what I learn about the games and all that.  I fear that your differences of opinion will manifest itself in other threads and then I won’t enjoy those other topics as much.

    Jen, I think you know I am no fan of “man made global warming” or what ever it is called, but I don’t think your argument that the planets alignment will cause phenomenal destruction is sound.  As I recall, the effect of a mass on another mass is proportional to the mass, but inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.  The moon has a profound effect on earth because it is extremely close by the standards of space where most distances are measured in light-years.  The sun also has a profound effect on us because its mass is greater than we can really comprehend.  The mass of the other planets combined with their distances away from us probably cause very little net effects on us.  I haven’t studied this carefully, but I do recall most of my basic physics and I just don’t think this is as big a deal as some would claim.  If you have a source that counters my opinion, I would like to check into it.

    Anyway, I hope everyone here can be amicable in the other fora even if we have such strongly held views elsewhere.

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    I never hinted the sun moved anywhere.  But the planets ARE aligning and they WILL be pulling on the earth with compounded force contesting the sun’s pull on us. (Likewise earth pulls on them, but I daresay the mass of the earth is hardly comparable to the mass of Mars+Jupiter+Saturn+Uranus+Neptune+Pluto nor is it comparable to the mass of SOL+Mercury+Venus.)

    I heard this too on AM coast to Coast with George Noory. I think the date is in 2012 Mayan Calendar thing that remains the next tour stop for the Y2K crowd and Martian A*** probe types. 😄


  • Actually, a majority of scientists believe man-made global warming is real: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html

    “Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists. However there remains divisions between climatologists and scientists from other areas of earth sciences as to the extent of human responsibility.”

    "Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

    About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.  The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

    Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement."

    The only group that was not a majority were petroleum geologists, who do not study climate or the weather.

    The kindest thing that could be said against man-made global warming is that our climate models are not accurate enough to pinpoint the cause. Maybe it’s a purely natural phenemenon. Even assuming that to be true, it doesn’t follow that we should do nothing. If it IS a purely natural phenemenon, and we reduce pollution, the worst that could be said is we sacrificed some worldwide GDP to make the world a cleaner place. If it is MAN-MADE, and we do nothing, the worst that could be said is we failed to prevent a potentially catastrophic change in climate. Do we really want to gamble with something as all-encompassing as the climate of the Earth? Are a few percentage points of GDP really that important?

  • 2007 AAR League

    @Cmdr:

    BTW, ice shelves fall into the ocean on a pretty regular basis.  Kind of the planetary equivalent of a man losing an eye lash.

    Yes, ice shelves that have existed for 10,000 years falling off Antarctica are the planetary equivalent of a man losing an eyelash. But, when nine ice shelves that have existed for 10,000 years fall off within 50 years of each other it’s the planetary equivalent of both of a man’s eyebrows completely falling off. Slight difference.

    @Cmdr:

    IL, one shelf collapses while three others grow.  But growing shelves don’t support the religion, so they are not broadcast like the one that has grown too large and is now falling off.

    Did you just say that ice shelves are growing everywhere and that the reason that the Wilkins ice shelf is about to break off is because it grew too large?!

    Are you playing a game where you try to post the most outrageously smelly load of garbage just to see if you can get it past us?

    Remember, these shelves are not over the land mass of Antarctica, they’re dangling off the end precariously.

    Being connected to the land ice by a 2km strip IS precarious. Being connected to the land ice 50 years ago by a 100km strip IS NOT precarious. 98km of Antarctic ice eroding in 50 years isn’t the planetary equivalent of anything. It’s unnatural.

    @Smacktard:

    Are a few percentage points of GDP really that important?

    To the people who would profit from that GDP, absolutely. Human greed knows no bounds and, sadly, is much more powerful than wisdom and common sense.

  • Official Q&A 2007 AAR League

    @Cmdr:

    IL, one shelf collapses while three others grow.  But growing shelves don’t support the religion, so they are not broadcast like the one that has grown too large and is now falling off.

    Remember, these shelves are not over the land mass of Antarctica, they’re dangling off the end precariously.

    According to my first linked story the ice shelf in question has exsisted for 10,000 years which hardly suggests precarious.

    @Cmdr:

    And Frim:  I never hinted the sun moved anywhere.  But the planets ARE aligning and they WILL be pulling on the earth with compounded force contesting the sun’s pull on us. (Likewise earth pulls on them, but I daresay the mass of the earth is hardly comparable to the mass of Mars+Jupiter+Saturn+Uranus+Neptune+Pluto nor is it comparable to the mass of SOL+Mercury+Venus.)

    I am drawing a comparison, however, to all those compounded effects to the relatively insignificant affects of the moon which is able to raise and lower the ocean in far greater magnitudes than the one or two inches prostelitized by Albert Gore Junior and his merry band of ministers if the ice caps melt.

    Okay, on the planets but you certainly seem to be trying to fudge or obfuscate both Einstein’s and Newton’s theories of gravity. I would be content to let that drop as dinosaur addressed it and I was pointing out an interesting story about an Ice Shelf.

    The moon creates the tides which are different than sea level. The tide will come in and go out regardless of sea level. Organisms living near oceans will of course find that high tide comes up the beach further and that low tide won’t be as low as sea level rises.

    According to the articles I linked earlier this particular Ice shelf won’t bring sea level up because it is already floating or was floating on the sea. I have looked at many stories about the Wilkins Ice Shelf. It began collapsing during the Antarctic summer in 2008 (the height summer 2009 in the Antarctic has not yet arrived) and continued breaking up even in the Antarctic winter.

    It seems quite unlikely it will last till the end of March. I expect if we watch the ESA site providing several of the photos I’ve linked the next photo we see will be of the ice bridge having broke off completely.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I was trying to be as funny as man-made global warming conspiracists guys.  For instance, when all 9 planets align with the sun and the black hole in the middle of the Milky Way Galaxy a door will be opened to another dimension and demons will poor out of it like locusts inflicting pain and suffering on all man kind.


    BTW, I find it hilarious that Mr. Smacktard yet again shows up only after I’ve posted and not in a game or discussion about a game but in a pseudo-political thread….if I didn’t know better, I’d think he was trolling.

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Well at least he didn’t just quote you like he does in 99% of his posts. He tried to just put out his idea even if its kinda political.

    I don’t know about trolling, but if thats the case don’t feed the bears

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Anyway, why does it seem any day in Winter that gets into the low 40s is heralded as proof positive that man-made global warming is real but entire months in the summer that used to be in the upper 90s, lower 100s that don’t even get into the 90s anymore is not proof positive that man-made global warming does not exist?

    Hmm, interesting that….

  • Official Q&A 2007 AAR League

    @Cmdr:

    Anyway, why does it seem any day in Winter that gets into the low 40s is heralded as proof positive that man-made global warming is real but entire months in the summer that used to be in the upper 90s, lower 100s that don’t even get into the 90s anymore is not proof positive that man-made global warming does not exist?

    Hmm, interesting that….

    When you don’t know the difference between climate and weather it can be very difficult to put aside confirmation bias.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    The Environment and Public Works Committee published a US Senate Minority Report on Dec. 11, 2008, stating that 650 international scientists have united to debunk global warming claims. Some previously supported the Kyoto Treaty or were members of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author states, “The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water, and soil.” He says that those people summarizing scientific reports for the UN IPCC have distorted the science.

    Another UN IPCC Scientist, Japan’s Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist states, Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”

    “Many (scientists) are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined,” states atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

    Carbon dioxide (CO2) built up in the atmosphere lags about eight centuries behind the rise of atmospheric temperatures, just the opposite of what Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth” preaches.

    If Al Gore had superimposed the CO2 and temperature graphs on each other it would have been apparent that the build up of CO2 in our atmosphere lagged behind the rise of atmospheric temperatures. I wonder why he didn’t superimpose them?

    The temperatures of the earth’s oceans have risen by less than a half degree Celsius in more than a century. Research by MIT’s Dr. Carl Wunsch shows that slightly heating oceanic water releases tremendous quantities of CO2. Conversely, slightly cooling oceanic waters turns the oceans into CO2 sinks, absorbing vast quantities of CO2.

    Analysis of ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica give us the temperature and CO2 content of the earth’s atmosphere for the last 400 thousand to 600 thousand years.

    When worldwide atmospheric temperatures decline, it takes centuries for the oceans to cool thus creating a CO2 sink that absorbs CO2. It is obvious that temperature controls the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere. Al Gore had it exactly backwards.

    CO2 in our atmosphere, especially CO2 attributable to man, is negligible as a green-house gas as it comprises only three percent of earth’s greenhouse gases, and man generates only 1.9 percent of this 3 percent. This is less than six hundreds of one percent of the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.

    Our atmosphere contains 764 billion metric tons (BMT’s) of CO2, soils and vegetation 2,100 BMT’s, fossil fuels 4,000 BMT’s, oceans 39,000 BMT’s and sedimentary rocks such as limestone 80,000 BMT’s of CO2. The oceans contain more than fifty times as much CO2 as the earth’s atmosphere.

    It is apparent that if oceanic waters release even one percent of their dissolved CO2 it would raise atmospheric CO2 by more than fifty percent.

    The oceans are earth’s buffer and reservoir for CO2. From this, it is quite apparent that man’s contribution to global warming or change is nonexistent.

    There is a correlation between solar activity (sunspots) and earth’s temperature. We see an increase in earth’s temperature with an increase in sunspots. A lack of sunspots sees the earth cool.

    Presently, the sun is quiescent and during this time of few to no sunspots the earth’s temperature has been decreasing. Some climatologists and astronomers including some top Russian scientists believe we are entering an Ice Age.

    Henrik Svensmark’s book, “The Chilling Stars—A New Theory of Climate Change,” is a major player in the evolving science as it explains why solar variability is the prime driver of earth’s climate.

    Solar storms or sunspots expel electrons and protons creating slow speed cosmic rays. They in turn form a magnetic field deflecting high-speed cosmic rays away from the earth decreasing lower level clouds.

    Conversely, a quiescent sun creates a much smaller magnetic field letting high speed cosmic rays bombard our atmosphere increasing electrons in earth’s lower atmosphere helping water molecules to agglomerate creating more lower level clouds which in turn reflect the suns radiation away cooling the planet.

    Antarctica is the exception, as more clouds will moderate its temperature.

    Even the UN IPCC is saying Man-Made global warming does not exist!  Our CO2 emissions are “insignificant”

    epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9


    @frimmel:

    @Cmdr:

    Anyway, why does it seem any day in Winter that gets into the low 40s is heralded as proof positive that man-made global warming is real but entire months in the summer that used to be in the upper 90s, lower 100s that don’t even get into the 90s anymore is not proof positive that man-made global warming does not exist?

    Hmm, interesting that….

    When you don’t know the difference between climate and weather it can be very difficult to put aside confirmation bias.

    Exactly what I am blaming your side of not knowing.  They cherry pick a few days that support their claim and make a big whoop-de-do about it while entire months that refute their claims are ignored and brushed under the rugs!

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    There goes your “consensus” bunk and with a significantly large portion of the world’s scientists now saying that the evidence supporting the theory that man’s actions are significant enough to cause any portion of environmental change, what will the religion of man-made, global warming do next? (PS just because it is a religion does not mean I am necessarily calling followers fools or dunces.  I believe religion is a very good thing for man.  In the case of the Global Warming Religion, your actions can lead to restoration of wet lands and conservation of forests, both of which make the world a shinier, prettier place.  However, as with all religions, you should be barred from practicing your faith in the public schools.)

    I should mention that it was the senate as controlled by the dominant political party in 2007 that wrote the initial report that was just modified and released for the 2008 year (ending 12/11/2008.)  That party is the one most credited as being full fledged supporters and believers in the concept of man-made global warming and the opposing party had little or no ability to stop them from releasing said reports.

    Also, it seems pretty obvious, but for those who failed to notice the big, bold, black letters this is a report from the Senate thus the Judicial and Executive Branches had no say in the releasing of this report, so any attempt to make a political statement that “Dubya” or “B.Hussein” had undue influence is likewise bunk.


    Funny, the IPCC that is so highly touted as creating a consensus is not even in consensus with itself!  Some of the LEADERS of the IPCC say the entire thing is a hoax!

    That’s akin to finding a diary written by Saint Matthew that Jesus was laughing it up and making up the whole story about being the Son of God.  Or finding the remains of Mohamed or finding research that Buddha was a warmonger!

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    And the hits just keep on coming!

    On 2 January 2009, the Wall Street Journal wrote one of a series of articles apparently co-ordinated throughout the generally alarmist news media throughout the holiday season, trying to overcome the problem posed for “global warming” alarmists by the fact that global mean surface temperatures have been on a downtrend for eight straight years.

    Gee, I think I said that in another thread, global temperatures AS A WHOLE (that would be not the weather, Mr. Frimmel, the entire global climate!) has been DECREASING on average!

    Eight straight years’ global temperature downtrend: The authoritative SPPI composite index of global mean surface temperature anomalies, taking the mean of two surface and two satellite datasets and updated through November 2008, shows a pronounced downtrend for eight full years. Not one of the climate models relied upon by the IPCC had predicted this downturn.

    Gee, another thing I’ve been saying for a decade, the models only produce accurate information if they are programmed correctly to begin with!  Obviously the British Government was correct when they said all the data from the IPCC models was inaccurate!  Even NASA admitted that the data used was accidentally incorrect, they had used September’s data for October’s numbers!

    http://www.baltische-rundschau.eu/?p=3989


    Photographic Evidence of Compromised Data Recording Stations.  These stations are thermometers hung over Air Conditioners, over Blacktop, etc.  All methods to artificially INCREASE recorded temperatures despite the actual temperatures of the area.

    http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm

    More documentation of data that was included in the original IPCC reports but was definitely engineered to skew the data and show specific results which are untrue:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/07/25/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-24/

  • Official Q&A 2007 AAR League

    Well you know Jennifer, the last time I spent time and effort to refute your ‘claims’ it ended with you suggesting those who think the scientists have their facts in order should blow their brains out.

    Subsequently the thread was deleted.

    Your continued mischarcterisation of science as religion strongly indicates nothing I have said or will say will change your mind.

    I shared an interesting story I found about an ice shelf.

    A 10,000 year old 6000 square mile sized (in 1950) ice shelf is collapsing into the ocean.

Suggested Topics

  • 7
  • 1
  • 13
  • 5
  • 9
  • 2
  • 25
  • 26
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

36
Online

15.6k
Users

37.0k
Topics

1.6m
Posts