quote:

Originally posted by dirtpimp:
"proved to be unrepresentative, Cogley thinks that the group managed to reconcile the conflicting estimates."
in other words , we really do not know WTF . but we think

I think your quote was just a bit out of context, don’t you? No, of course you don’t.

See that little bit at the beginning the part you chose to disregard, "I think there really was a consensus", that is the guy you chose to put your ignorant statements into the mouth of. He is pointing out that all the experts now agree, including him. 16 of the most knowledgeable people in the world have more accurately worked out the science. They understand the data better, and have made a more accurate picture of world glacial decline. So then a gibbering buffoon like you comes along and says they don’t know WTF is going on, how did you come to that conclusion, stick your finger up your ars and give it a good snif.

~260 Gigatons, no small number that, which is roughly 57 cubic miles of ice, each and every year.

If you could directly transfer all of the energy of the Hiroshima bomb into that 57 cubic mile chunk of ice (you can’t) it would take roughly the energy of about 1250 bombs to melt that much ice, each and every year, year after year. That is JUST to melt it, not even warm it a single degree! ZERO degree ice to Zero degree water. This also neglects that much of that ice would be colder than 0 degree ice, so even more energy is required, to warm it to the point it would melt.

~6.3 × 10^13 joules per Hiroshima bomb
~333.55 kJ/kg (Heat of fusion of ice)

Now WTFUDA!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Larry Heath,

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Koski:
A bunch of voodoo (scientists?), that are fat and sassy on the government dole, concoct a half-as$ed theory and then form a CONCENSUS that it is in deed a fact without an iota of scientific proof or documentation!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Jerry Mock:

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Heath:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Koski:
These duped boob IMBECILES all have the same response when they are backed into a corner with no rational response!!!!!
In fact this duped boob IMBECILE is rapidly approaching duped boob RETARD status!!!!!

Well "lookie" here Little Larry Heath has a picture of his Messiah...Where is it hanging Little Larry, on the ceiling over your bed????????

I see you are still trying to figure out how we are all going to be falling off the planet. Do get back with me on that, OK?

"stick your finger up your ars and give it a good snif." now we know what the little man fantasizes about ....obammie and stinky fingers . little man , a copy and paste queen with a inferiority complex demeanor that crutches his EXPERT opinions off of 'chicken little the sky is falling' science . next thing you know he , obammie and gore will be staring in gay porno movies

"Little Larry" reminds me of his Messiah...if you talk about global warming, you don't have to worry about being questioned about unemployment, Beghazi(sp), Fast and Furious etc.
Smoke and Mirrors regime and its "sac sucking" followers!!!

Explain precisely how the position of the poles, north or otherwise, magnetic or rotational, or the movement of same, have anything to do with the “gravitational attraction” of the earth? Which is by the way what keeps us from, as you so colorfully put it, “falling off the planet”. I think you were having an “Are you smarter than a fifth grader moment”, when you wrote that Krap you posted, and by the way the fifth grader won this round.

You haven’t been reading the krap on the net from a while back that said we’d all go flying off the planet if the magnetic poles swapped polarity have you? Sounds like it to me.
==========================

Mr. Muck has only a truck driving mentality.

Would you expect anything different??????

He gets all his scientific data off the walls of the Truckstops of America for his information.

Come on Mr. Muck, answer Larrys question and quit sukking on your mic........

Hot air and butt sucker in love which each others posts?

Maybe Mr. Muck drove off the planet.....

Lost little boy.

• Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

• The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies. And the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850.

• The Arctic is feeling the effects the most. Average temperatures in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia have risen at twice the global average, according to the multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report compiled between 2000 and 2004.

• Arctic ice is rapidly disappearing, and the region may have its first completely ice-free summer by 2040 or earlier. Polar bears and indigenous cultures are already suffering from the sea-ice loss.

• Glaciers and mountain snows are rapidly melting—for example, Montana's Glacier National Park now has only 27 glaciers, versus 150 in 1910. In the Northern Hemisphere, thaws also come a week earlier in spring and freezes begin a week later.

• Coral reefs, which are highly sensitive to small changes in water temperature, suffered the worst bleaching—or die-off in response to stress—ever recorded in 1998, with some areas seeing bleach rates of 70 percent. Experts expect these sorts of events to increase in frequency and intensity in the next 50 years as sea temperatures rise.

• An upsurge in the amount of extreme weather events, such as wildfires, heat waves, and strong tropical storms, is also attributed in part to climate change by some experts.

quote:

Originally posted by Bob H:
Explain precisely how the position of the poles, north or otherwise, magnetic or rotational, or the movement of same, have anything to do with the “gravitational attraction” of the earth? Which is by the way what keeps us from, as you so colorfully put it, “falling off the planet”. I think you were having an “Are you smarter than a fifth grader moment”, when you wrote that Krap you posted, and by the way the fifth grader won this round.

You haven’t been reading the krap on the net from a while back that said we’d all go flying off the planet if the magnetic poles swapped polarity have you? Sounds like it to me.
==========================

Mr. Muck has only a truck driving mentality.

Would you expect anything different??????

He gets all his scientific data off the walls of the Truckstops of America for his information.

Come on Mr. Muck, answer Larrys question and quit sukking on your mic........

Typical "Sac Sucking" response!!!!!!!

Big climate change in the desert this week...its going to be over one hundred degrees!! No wait that's been happening for over 400 years

quote:

Originally posted by dirtpimp:
"stick your finger up your ars and give it a good snif." now we know what the little man fantasizes about ....obammie and stinky fingers . little man , a copy and paste queen with a inferiority complex demeanor that crutches his EXPERT opinions off of 'chicken little the sky is falling' science . next thing you know he , obammie and gore will be staring in gay porno movies

Oh how extraordinarily childish!

A man (supposedly) with the social mentality of a 12 year old is trying to abrade me with sexual innuendo, get it, get it, in your end OH! How cute.

So care to hazard a guess how all that extra energy seems to have been sequestered in the biosphere? Enough energy to melt roughly 57 Cubic Miles of ice every year. No, it wasn’t extra energy from the Sun; during the period in the paper the solar irradiance was decreasing toward a low.

The answer is CO2. Acts just like the glass windows of a hot house, or car, energy gets in but less gets back out. Why the he11 do you think your car gets hot as heck on a nice sunny day, heat gets in but can’t get back out. Think CO2 doesn’t work that way, try this. Take an IR gun and measure the inside temps of a few cars or trucks in the parking lot at the track on a nice sunny day. Now take a 10 oz. bottle of CO2 and crack it open and put it in your car or truck and close the vehicle up, give it an hour or so, then measure the temp inside your vehicle. Here is a tip though, don’t wait too long, because some of the plastic parts inside your vehicle might just start melting.

CO2,cows ****. Better ban them stinking cows.



Mock, you'd better grow up.lol

2411 Laurie Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89102

HERE YA GO STINKY ya musta stayed up late watching obammaie gay porn on this one
" ZERO degree ice to Zero degree water "
dipshnitz

The laws of physics don't seem to allow CO2 it's currently assumed place as a significant "greenhouse gas" based on present concentrations. The other "greenhouse gases" such as methane, nitrous oxide, tetrafluoromethane, hexafluoroethane, sulfur hexafluoride, trifluoromethane, 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane, and 1,1-difluoroethane exist only in extraordinarily smaller amounts and aren't even up for serious discussion by any segment of the scientific community. And, since the other components of the atmosphere (oxygen, nitrogen, and water vapor) aren't materially affected by human activity, the "greenhouse effect" is essentially a totally natural phenomenon, unaffected by human activity. We could repeat the spectral analysis and calculations for Oxygen, or O2 ( The percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere remains exactly the same at all heights up to about 85 km, and is about 20.9% by volume ) and Nitrogen (N2) which is the whopper at 78.1% - but we won't. We'll leave that as your homework problem now that you know how to do it. Just look up the atomic absorption spectra for both, and do the math. You'll discover that Oxygen and Nitrogen aren't even "greenhouse gases", so that leaves the principal greenhouse gas... you guessed it.... Water Vapor. Curiously enough, the UN IPCC reports don't even mention water vapor, since it is technically not a "gas" in the atmosphere. Dr. Roy W. Spencer has one of the best comments we've read on this subject:

"Al Gore likes to say that mankind puts 70 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every day. What he probably doesn't know is that mother nature puts 24,000 times that amount of our main greenhouse gas -- water vapor -- into the atmosphere every day, and removes about the same amount every day. While this does not 'prove' that global warming is not manmade, it shows that weather systems have by far the greatest control over the Earth's greenhouse effect, which is dominated by water vapor and clouds."

We can safely ballpark water vapor as being responsible for more than 95% of all the greenhouse effect, with oxygen and nitrogen playing no role and carbon dioxide being relatively insignificant... particularly the even smaller human-produced part.
Side note: Both Oxygen and Nitrogen don't like to live alone. They prefer to find another and stick together into a diatomic ( 2 atom ) molecule. Thus the molecular weight of atmospheric oxygen or nitrogen is approximately twice that of one of them alone. We say "approximately", because it takes energy to bind them together, and mass and energy are equivalent stuff, as our good friend Dr. Einstein explained with his famous equation E=MC2.
Now, you can sit back and give yourself a pat on the back, because you now know more pure physics of the atmosphere than a lot of so-called "climate scientists", and likely know more than almost all of the non-scientist Popular Journalists and other writers churning out panic-stricken books and newspaper articles on the subject.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 67TSCHEVY2,

I don't think i have ever run across ignorant ppl as bad as english and muck.

Muck cannot reply with an answer to his ignorant mentality statement.

English is just a "Tag-Along" with a mentality of a zombie......

Wow, all 3 share their wisdom with us.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bill Koski:
Some of the whack job hoaxers are blaming the flurry of tornadoes in the midwest on man-made global warming? Apparently they're so excited they forgot they renamed their HOAX topic!!!!!
These same whack job hoaxers blamed a flurry of tornadoes on GLOBAL COOLING in 1975!!!!![/QUOTE
]

And they got how much snow in the Adorodeck (sp)Mtns in New York last night???????

quote:

Originally posted by Mike English:
CO2,cows ****. Better ban them stinking cows.



Mock, you'd better grow up.lol

Hey Mike I appreciate the correct spelling of my last name...I guess some people can read and write after all