Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => General Topics => Topic started by: ARTI on September 07, 2006, 07:16:34 AM
-
If the entire Arctic ice cap and all the Glaciers melt the sea level WON'T rise!
Think about ice in a glass of water. When you drop a cube in, the level rises and stays there as it melts.
The volume of the ice cube is displaced in the water. So, the mass in the tip of an iceberg is already accounted for.
I argued with two friends about this yesterday. Fuckers! ???
-
ummmmm the arctic, antarctic etc. arnt simply 'floating' on the ocean like an ice cube (sexy)
did you consider that in your discussion?
-
if much of the glaciers are not in the water and melted then yes it would rise.
-
Lets do our part and kill the green house effect.
-
Lets do our part and kill the green house effect.
Okay alexxx, quit driving, using electricity to a minimum for only essentials in your house (that means misxing all your shakes by hand), don't cut your lawn (it causes co2 when it decomposes), set up a windmill in your backyard to make electricity, by only recycled items including clothes (IMO recycling CAUSES more energy use) and sell your computer. :)
-
Okay alexxx, quit driving, using electricity to a minimum for only essentials in your house (that means misxing all your shakes by hand), don't cut your lawn (it causes co2 when it decomposes), set up a windmill in your backyard to make electricity, by only recycled items including clothes (IMO recycling CAUSES more energy use) and sell your computer. :)
I would do all that if thats what it takes. Me and computer can part our ways no problem. Instead I will be hunting little twunts like you down in person and intimidate them with my quality huge physique.
-
alexxx definitely sell your computer!
But, I don't think any of those other things are the problem. If we created the hole in the ozone,
Why is in over Antarctica? And scientists are now saying it is getting smaller.
The air is alot cleaner today then 50 years ago.
We have more forest in the USA today then ever. Because we put out the massive forest fires the occur every
year out west. Methane gas and all kinds of other harmful substances have been released into are atmosphere naturally forever! To think that we caused all the environmental problems today is absurd.
I think everyone needs to hear the other side of the story and not just listen to the media blow everything out of proportion.
-
alexxx definitely sell your computer!
But, I don't think any of those other things are the problem. If we created the hole in the ozone,
Why is in over Antarctica? And scientists are now saying it is getting smaller.
The air is alot cleaner today then 50 years ago.
We have more forest in the USA today then ever. Because we put out the massive forest fires the occur every
year out west. Methane gas and all kinds of other harmful substances have been released into are atmosphere naturally forever! To think that we caused all the environmental problems today is absurd.
I think everyone needs to hear the other side of the story and not just listen to the media blow everything out of proportion.
Interesting I never though about it that way.
-
If the entire Arctic ice cap and all the Glaciers melt the sea level WON'T rise!
Think about ice in a glass of water. When you drop a cube in, the level rises and stays there as it melts.
The volume of the ice cube is displaced in the water. So, the mass in the tip of an iceberg is already accounted for.
I argued with two friends about this yesterday. Fuckers! ???
Could be right there - Archimedes' Theory of Displacement has proved this.
-
I would do all that if thats what it takes. Me and computer can part our ways no problem. Instead I will be hunting little twunts like you down in person and intimidate them with my quality huge physique.
Lol, it is all it takes acoording to conservationists. You and your computer part ways..............dude you can't even stay OFF the computer for a week without being in time out. And if you come to hunt me down, I live in the Washington DC area, but remember not to drive because you will contribute to co2 in the atmosphere. You must walk, and by the time you get here from Canada your physique will be shrunken to that of a 150lb stick. ;)
-
alexxx definitely sell your computer!
But, I don't think any of those other things are the problem. If we created the hole in the ozone,
Why is in over Antarctica? And scientists are now saying it is getting smaller.
The air is alot cleaner today then 50 years ago.
We have more forest in the USA today then ever. Because we put out the massive forest fires the occur every
year out west. Methane gas and all kinds of other harmful substances have been released into are atmosphere naturally forever! To think that we caused all the environmental problems today is absurd.
I think everyone needs to hear the other side of the story and not just listen to the media blow everything out of proportion.
And because it it cleaner, it's being blamed for not reducing sunlight hitting the Earth and warming it up. Shouldn't we have left it "dirty" then?
-
Lol, it is all it takes acoording to conservationists. You and your computer part ways..............dude you can't even stay OFF the computer for a week without being in time out. And if you come to hunt me down, I live in the Washington DC area, but remember not to drive because you will contribute to co2 in the atmosphere. You must walk, and by the time you get here from Canada your physique will be shrunken to that of a 150lb stick. ;)
I have put on my mass the natural way so my awesome physique will never detoriate. As for walking who ever said anything about that? I will ride the most powerfull stallion (horse yeah I know you have a sick mind), track you down and squash you like the little bug you are. hahaha
-
I have put on my mass the natural way so my awesome physique will never detoriate. As for walking who ever said anything about that? I will ride the most powerfull stallion (horse yeah I know you have a sick mind), track you down and squash you like the little bug you are. hahaha
Lol, by the time you get here, you'll be so hungry you'll have had the stallion for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
-
Lol, by the time you get here, you'll be so hungry you'll have had the stallion for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
That would make for a tasty treat. ;D I will continue on foot!
-
If the entire Arctic ice cap and all the Glaciers melt the sea level WON'T rise!
Think about ice in a glass of water. When you drop a cube in, the level rises and stays there as it melts.
The volume of the ice cube is displaced in the water. So, the mass in the tip of an iceberg is already accounted for.
I argued with two friends about this yesterday. Fuckers! ???
water levels worldwide would rise about 65m. Goodbye Fla.
-
...
-
That would make for a tasty treat. ;D I will continue on foot!
Then my son you will be HUGE!
-
According to some scientists, the Earth is more likely, based on history, to go into a "freeze" again before the caps would melt.
-
Then my son you will be HUGE!
and powerfull like a horse.
-
and powerfull like a horse.
I'd rather be hung like one.
-
I'd rather be hung like one.
haha don't all the orientals? I am looking I was blessed. ;D
-
haha don't all the orientals? I am looking I was blessed. ;D
Uh yea!
-
Uh yea!
lol I meant lucky! ;D
-
water levels worldwide would rise about 65m. Goodbye Fla.
Question Everything.
For every scientist that believes in "Global Warming" you can find one that says it's full of shit.
There isn't a shred of proof that we're in any state of global warming right now. It's a theory and I
wish the media would treat it as such. The temperature of the ocean has dropped alittle over the last 10 years.
Every reason for global warming can be explained and argued why it is just part of a natural occurrence in the
Earth's cycle. How can we be expected to trust any measurement that was taken over 100 years ago?
They were riding around on horses for Christ's sake!
The planet rotates about it's axis but it also wobbles on it slightly over many years.
Right now it's in a position where the north pole is getting hotter and the south pole is getting colder.
No one ever talks about the fact that the Southern ice cap is growing. Besides that the earth is always
changing. The continents are always moving and volcanos are always erupting under the ocean
creating islands. Don't you think that will cause changes in the sea level?
The fact that sea ice doesn't affect sea level when it melts doesn't mean that the sea levels won't rise.
I'm not arguing that ice over land melting won't effect anything. That WILL cause sea level to rise,
from sliding into the sea and increasing the volume of water. But, it's not going to be that significant.
-Art
-
my argument wasn't about global warming. It was about the volume of water currently sitting above sea level in the form of grounded ice.
Anyone can argue global warming... who knows if they're right or wrong. This is simply a breakdown of all the water which is currently frozen on land which would enter the ocean upon melting. Water levels would rise a little over 65 meters. I'm not sure it's disputed:
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html
-
...
Pretty pictures but no one is saying "all the ice is going to melt" even with global warming as it's worst.
-
hey, i think both sides are little bitches about this problem which is nothing more than a distraction for the real issues of the world.
also your thread title didn't clarify. Is it just the ice in the ocean melting? or is it the ice sitting on land also? I don't think one can completely melt without the other deteriorating greatly.
-
Yes, this is a very Gay thing to argue about. But, when one of your retarded friends starts talking stupid
you have to set him straight. My point was about a floating iceberg with a 200 foot peak sticking out of
the water, not effecting the sea level when it melted.
Yes, if all the floating ice melted the ice on land would too. But, that's not the point.
If all the floating ice melted, We would have all kinds of other problems.
I'm so sick and tired of hearing about how bad the envoriment is from all these tree hugging fag hippies.
I feel like smoking a cigarette in their face like Dennis Leary and I don't even smoke.
-
dat nonsens yo.
thats BS yo.
Yo, Da naturel levels of greenhous emisions wear nottin compered to da levels of greenhous gases before the industrial revolution. yo.
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051121/full/051121-14.html
Teh other side of teh story be teh 'big business' and oil companies who try to make ya think dat global warming aint real, yo.
listen to teh scientists not teh oil companies.
Johnny you are lame.
-
neewayz teh ice caps wont melt cause god alredy sayd dat he wuldent flood teh earth again.
despite what teh massive amount of scientists say.
teh icecaps wont melt.
that settles it.
-
lol "neewayz"
You're a window-licker aren't you?
Come on, Did you ride the short-short bus?
-
Everyone knows that the oil companies won't lie and that the scientists funded by the oil companies don't have a 'conflict of interest'.
So be positive!
No need to cut back on CO2 emissions. No need to recycle. No need to use alternative fuels. No need to sacrifice anything. Why should we? After all there are still some scientists who disagree with global warming. And that means it probably isn't happening!
Maybe if we ignore the 99% of scientists who support global warming and listen to the 1% of crackpots and listen to the totally unbiased scientists working for the oil companies and tap our toes three times chanting "It's not really 110 degrees, It’s not really 110 degrees, It’s not really 110 degrees." then everything will be OK.
We're still in Kansas.
-
Hey, that was much better typing! Did you ask your white girlfriend to take over for you? HA ha.
I live in NY and everyone is saying that this was the hottest summer in almost 100 years
because of Global Warming.
If that's the case what made it SO hot a hundred years ago? We didn't have all the oil companies then.
What caused all the hurricanes, flooding and tornados then?
In the same point, We were in an Ice age and the earth warmed up. What caused that?
It must've been all the harmful gases from my truck.
-
Hey, that was much better typing! Did you ask your white girlfriend to take over for you? HA ha.
I live in NY and everyone is saying that this was the hottest summer in almost 100 years
because of Global Warming.
If that's the case what made it SO hot a hundred years ago? We didn't have all the oil companies then.
What caused all the hurricanes, flooding and tornados then?
In the same point, We were in an Ice age and the earth warmed up. What caused that?
It must've been all the harmful gases from my truck.
Hey, You've got a point!
Everyone knows that single anomalies are totally relevant in long-term statistical studies. The tempeture might be steadly rising all over the world, But hey..It was pretty hot back in 1902! Explain that scientists!
Hurricanes? It doesn't matter if their average strength is continually getting stronger and their incidence of occurrence more often. None of that matters because hurricanes existed hundreds of years ago! Forget that they are 'natural occurrences'. That little detail doesn't matter.
Carbon dioxide is causing a massive greenhouse effect that is heating the earth up? Nonsense...The earth heated up before. It doesn't matter if it's past increases in temp were all natural. That doesn't matter. Neither does the fact that we are releasing billions of tons of co2 every year and that co2 is a proven greenhouse gas. Those are pesky little details and facts that we can't let ruin our big conspiracy!
Global warming? Nah, It isn't happening.
-
Hey, You've got a point!
Everyone knows that single anomalies are totally relevant in long-term statistical studies. The tempeture might be steadly rising all over the world, But hey..It was pretty hot back in 1902! Explain that scientists!
Hurricanes? It doesn't matter if their average strength is continually getting stronger and their incidence of occurrence more often. None of that matters because hurricanes existed hundreds of years ago! Forget that they are 'natural occurrences'. That little detail doesn't matter.
Carbon dioxide is causing a massive greenhouse effect that is heating the earth up? Nonsense...The earth heated up before. It doesn't matter if it's past increases in temp were all natural. That doesn't matter. Neither does the fact that we are releasing billions of tons of co2 every year and that co2 is a proven greenhouse gas. Those are pesky little details and facts that we can't let ruin our big conspiracy!
Global warming? Nah, It isn't happening.
Yeah we've got so many hurricanes this year (don't forget last year was an "omen" for global warming) and they are so strong, much stronger than last year. ::) We have a record number of hurricanes (anomally) and the scientists go "SEE I TOLD YOU". But they are pretty quiet this year. Can't wait for the big freeze though. Got this killer ski outfit.
-
alexxx definitely sell your computer!
But, I don't think any of those other things are the problem. If we created the hole in the ozone,
Why is in over Antarctica? And scientists are now saying it is getting smaller.
The air is alot cleaner today then 50 years ago.
We have more forest in the USA today then ever. Because we put out the massive forest fires the occur every
year out west. Methane gas and all kinds of other harmful substances have been released into are atmosphere naturally forever! To think that we caused all the environmental problems today is absurd.
I think everyone needs to hear the other side of the story and not just listen to the media blow everything out of proportion.
the air in DEVELOPED nations is maybe cleaner than it was 50 years ago. but that doesnt mean that 1. the smog from 50 years ago's consequences have simply 'gone away' and 2. developed nations are still putting out millions of tons annually, its pretty much unavoidable considering our ways of life.
the air in developING nations is a million times worse today than 50 years ago. back then, china and india, and pretty much every other non-western nation had virtually zero significant industry. these places have more than made up for the reductions we've made and will continue to do so for at least a generation or 2.
the 'we have more forests now than ever before' claim is straight up bullshit. all you have to do is look at out population growth numbers...these people need to live somewhere, and need more space for food production. my city alone, in the past 10 years, has leveled probably thousands of acres of forest to put up tract housing and lots of more all-important storage facilities and all that other desperately needed stuff( ::)). when we moved to this house it was at the outskirts of the city and now the the woodland we were next to has been replaced by miles of urban sprawl. and again, in developing nations, land is being cleared recklessly as usual, dont let anyone fool you, there is CERTAINLY FAR LESS forest cover now than ever before worldwide. which sucks cause as the emissions continue to skyrocket we need more trees to balance it out, yet we are reducing them just as quickly. makes for a bad situation, the natural balance has been COMPLETELY overthrown, thus creating problems such as low air quality, holes in atmosphere, warming temps, ect....its not rocket science. we tip the balance, things get fucked up.
-
the air in DEVELOPED nations is maybe cleaner than it was 50 years ago. but that doesnt mean that 1. the smog from 50 years ago's consequences have simply 'gone away' and 2. developed nations are still putting out millions of tons annually, its pretty much unavoidable considering our ways of life.
the air in developING nations is a million times worse today than 50 years ago. back then, china and india, and pretty much every other non-western nation had virtually zero significant industry. these places have more than made up for the reductions we've made and will continue to do so for at least a generation or 2.
the 'we have more forests now than ever before' claim is straight up bullshit. all you have to do is look at out population growth numbers...these people need to live somewhere, and need more space for food production. my city alone, in the past 10 years, has leveled probably thousands of acres of forest to put up tract housing and lots of more all-important storage facilities and all that other desperately needed stuff( ::)). when we moved to this house it was at the outskirts of the city and now the the woodland we were next to has been replaced by miles of urban sprawl. and again, in developing nations, land is being cleared recklessly as usual, dont let anyone fool you, there is CERTAINLY FAR LESS forest cover now than ever before worldwide. which sucks cause as the emissions continue to skyrocket we need more trees to balance it out, yet we are reducing them just as quickly. makes for a bad situation, the natural balance has been COMPLETELY overthrown, thus creating problems such as low air quality, holes in atmosphere, warming temps, ect....its not rocket science. we tip the balance, things get fucked up.
Lol bro, it's called "FIREFIGHTING". The statement was made because until the last century, forests just burned. Which of course meant "less trees". Try this. Go to Montana and check their tree growth. They don't have a large population boom.
-
alexxx definitely sell your computer!
But, I don't think any of those other things are the problem. If we created the hole in the ozone,
Why is in over Antarctica? And scientists are now saying it is getting smaller.
The air is alot cleaner today then 50 years ago.
We have more forest in the USA today then ever. Because we put out the massive forest fires the occur every
year out west. Methane gas and all kinds of other harmful substances have been released into are atmosphere naturally forever! To think that we caused all the environmental problems today is absurd.
I think everyone needs to hear the other side of the story and not just listen to the media blow everything out of proportion.
Where's the info to back up your claims? For example, I can easily refute this statement:
We have more forest in the USA today then ever. Because we put out the massive forest fires the occur every
By stating that we have less forest in the USA today than ever because we're tearing it down to build new communities.
-
Lol bro, it's called "FIREFIGHTING". The statement was made because until the last century, forests just burned. Which of course meant "less trees". Try this. Go to Montana and check their tree growth. They don't have a large population boom.
im talking on a global scale. try looking outside the united states ::)
-
Yeah we've got so many hurricanes this year (don't forget last year was an "omen" for global warming) and they are so strong, much stronger than last year. ::) We have a record number of hurricanes (anomally) and the scientists go "SEE I TOLD YOU". But they are pretty quiet this year. Can't wait for the big freeze though. Got this killer ski outfit.
True. True...One year free of strong hurricanes and that completely negates the 30+ years of hurricanes increasing in strength and frequency year after year.
psst...Don't tell those "Global warming" believers this, But the wind shear has been killing the Hurricanes before they could strengthen this year.
That little detail could definitely hurt our credibility.
-
Where's the info to back up your claims? For example, I can easily refute this statement:
We have more forest in the USA today then ever. Because we put out the massive forest fires the occur every
By stating that we have less forest in the USA today than ever because we're tearing it down to build new communities.
(http://nonjohn.com/Virgin%20Forests%201620%201850%201920%20Today.gif)
:o
-
True. True...One year free of strong hurricanes and that completely negates the 30+ years of hurricanes increasing in strength and frequency year after year.
psst...Don't tell those "Global warming" believers this, But the wind shear has been killing the Hurricanes before they could strengthen this year.
That little detail could definitely hurt our credibility.
You mean 50 years ago there were no strong hurricanes? ::)
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001443.html
Hope that helps.
-
You mean 50 years ago there were no strong hurricanes? ::)
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001443.html
Hope that helps.
That was an awesome strawman!
Contorting what I said into something easily refutable...
You rock dude!
-
You've been Doped into thinking this!
The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reports, which have become bibles for bureaucrats, environmentalist fanatics and you "global warming believers", accuse modern civilization of being responsible for global warming, and repeatedly state that they reflect a true "consensus" of the scientific community.
Opinions critical of the IPCC reports have been expressed by many prominent, competent scientists. For example, Dr. Frederick Seitz, (a past president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society) President Emeritus, (Rockefeller University, former Chairman of the Defense Science Board and former Science Adviser to NATO) stated: "I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report."
Climate warming caused by man-made greenhouse gases, is usually presented as a gloomy catastrophe that will induce the mass extinction of animals and plants, epidemics of contagious and parasitic diseases, droughts and floods, and even invasions of mutated insects resistant to insecticides. Melting glaciers are predicted to raise sea level by 6 meters, flooding islands, densely inhabited coastal areas, and great metropolises. There will be mass migrations and a host of other social and environmental effects.
According to one American climatologist, the "scare-them-to-death" approach seems to be the best way to get money for climate studies. Dr. Stephen Schneider, a leading prophet of man-made climate warming, stated this bluntly:
"To capture the public imagination... we have to... make simplified dramatic statements, and little mention of any doubts one might have.... Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest".
About half of the scientists who took part in preparing the IPCC report of 1996
do not agree with its conclusions – hardly a consensus
Everyone knows that single anomalies are totally relevant in long-term statistical studies. The tempeture might be steadly rising all over the world, But hey..It was pretty hot back in 1902! Explain that scientists!
Satellite measurements of the temperature of the lower troposphere provide us with evidence against the theory of man-made global warming. Between 1979 and 1997, these measurements (270,000 readings per day over 95 percent of the Earth’s surface) revealed a slight cooling trend of – 0.04°C per decade. In the same time period, ground-level measurements over land and sea were showing a warming of +0.15°C per decade, and computer models projected a warming of+0.18°C per decade. The difference between satellite and balloon measurements on the one hand, and ground-level measurements on the other, is usually explained as the result of ground-level mea-surements being influenced by local heating of the atmosphere by cities, and changes in methods in sea-surface measurements. (figure 1)
Carbon dioxide is causing a massive greenhouse effect that is heating the earth up? Nonsense...The earth heated up before. It doesn't matter if it's past increases in temp were all natural. That doesn't matter. Neither does the fact that we are releasing billions of tons of co2 every year and that co2 is a proven greenhouse gas. Those are pesky little details and facts that we can't let ruin our big conspiracy!
The most important greenhouse gas is water vapor, which is responsible for about 96 to 99 percent of the greenhouse effect. A reader of the IPCC 1990 report (the bible of the man-made global warming adherents) might incorrectly believe that CO2 causes 25 percent of the entire greenhouse effect.
What is striking in this IPCC report, is that water was not even mentioned in any of its eight tables comparing the greenhouse effect of different atmospheric components! If the corresponding values for water had been presented in these tables, the unimportance of the contribution from CO2 produced by man, in the thermal balance of the atmosphere, would have been very clear. If CO2 were the only greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, it would contribute about 22 percent of the present greenhouse effect.
It is the existence of oceans, which emit water vapor, and not the presence of CO2, that we can thank for a temperature well above 14º C at Earth’s surface, that is stable in a range of only a few degrees, which has enabled the existence of life. To the total CO2 flux into the global atmosphere of 169 gigatons (Gt) of carbon per year, human industrial and agricultural activity adds about 6 Gt of Carbon per year.
Natural Annual Fluxes into Atmosphere
Ocean 106
Land 63
TOTAL 169
Man-made Annual Fluxes into Atmosphere
Fossil fuels and land use 6
Hence, man's addition to the total natural greenhouse effect may be about 0.05 to 0.25 percent. But even this tiny addition is doubtful.
-
I'm sorry but I don't have the time to respond to responses plagiarized from crackpot websites, ARTI.
http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Warm.html
http://www.oism.org/news/s49p1523.htm
-
That's Right. You got the website, it's all there man READ-IT, that's why this issue is under debate
and NOT proven. I didn't claim to write it, I just agree with it. All I have to do is type
Global warming and I'll find dozens of websites saying the same shit you are.
You didn't come up with any of your theories. You're just regurgitating what you've heard and agree with.
I'm sure you drew and scanned in those pretty pictures.
You have to here both sides.
-
That's Right. You got the website, it's all there man READ-IT, that's why this issue is under debate
and NOT proven. I didn't claim to write it, I just agree with. All I have to do is type
Global warming and I'll find dozens of websites saying the same shit you are.
You didn't come up with any of your theories. You're just regurgitating what you've heard and agree with.
I'm sure you drew and scanned in those pretty pictures.
You have to here both sides.
I can find dozens of websites saying Bigfoot and UFO's exist.
What's your point?
The only scientists 'skeptical' of global warming are those funded by the Oil companies and quack pots. That's it.
All of the arguments denying global warming or anthropogenic global warming have been refuted. So my refuting them on this little bodybuilding forum would be a waste of my time. Especially since less than 1% of the members on this forum would actually read and comprehend my rebuttal and I wouldn't change your mind anyway.
If you want to read a site then read this one..
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_change_sceptics
It details the conflicts of interest of those who deny anthropogenic global warming. Massive donations from Oil companies, Oil company employees, Political alliances. etc.
-
(http://nonjohn.com/Virgin%20Forests%201620%201850%201920%20Today.gif)
:o
Interesting, is there anyway I can expand it so I can actually see what it says? Also, based on the four pics, if I make the assumption that the dark patches represent forests, then it seems that our forests in the US has actually decsreased over time?
Anyways, it'll be great if you can provide a larger view of your attachment or point me to the origin of this proof.
-
I would do all that if thats what it takes. Me and computer can part our ways no problem. Instead I will be hunting little twunts like you down in person and intimidate them with my quality huge physique.
HAHAHAHAHAHAH Skunt!!! :P 8)
-
bjorn_fairhair,
Just because the majority believes something doesn't make it true. Especially with something that cannot be proved. People are sheep and believe what is told to them. In the 70's scientists believed we were going into a mini ice age. I can say that through fossil rock testing the Earth's temperature was an average of 5 degrees cooler, 1000 years ago and no one could prove me wrong. They're all theories and opinions; and forgive me for not just believing what a scientist has come up with. We can't even accurately tell what the weather is going to be today. How do you expect to create a weather model for the next 100 years with any certainty at all? You say the temperature has been steadily rising I say it's been steadily falling. Who's right? Neither of us know for sure. You think your right because you have the majority on your side. You don't know, you didn't do any testing, you didn't prove anything. But, you draw a line through the information you want to believe and what you don't. Then you argue the opposition strongly when you don't even know what you're talking about. You talk alot about the Oil companies agendas. What do think Al Gore is in this for? Because he loves the planet?
-
Interesting, is there anyway I can expand it so I can actually see what it says? Also, based on the four pics, if I make the assumption that the dark patches represent forests, then it seems that our forests in the US has actually decsreased over time?
Anyways, it'll be great if you can provide a larger view of your attachment or point me to the origin of this proof.
It's area of Virgin forest. Not Replanted or protected ones. ::) It's nice to have Johnny/Tyrone back AGAIN though. Nice to see you again Johnny.
-
That was an awesome strawman!
Contorting what I said into something easily refutable...
You rock dude!
A typical Johnny/Tyrone comeback. Hey do you know what a TUETE is?
-
bjorn_fairhair,
Just because the majority believes something doesn't make it true. Especially with something that cannot be proved. People are sheep and believe what is told to them. In the 70's scientists believed we were going into a mini ice age. I can say that through fossil rock testing the Earth's temperature was an average of 5 degrees cooler, 1000 years ago and no one could prove me wrong. They're all theories and opinions; and forgive me for not just believing what a scientist has come up with. We can't even accurately tell what the weather is going to be today. How do you expect to create a weather model for the next 100 years with any certainty at all? You say the temperature has been steadily rising I say it's been steadily falling. Who's right? Neither of us know for sure. You think your right because you have the majority on your side. You don't know, you didn't do any testing, you didn't prove anything. But, you draw a line through the information you want to believe and what you don't. Then you argue the opposition strongly when you don't even know what you're talking about. You talk alot about the Oil companies agendas. What do think Al Gore is in this for? Because he loves the planet?
It can be proven. You just need to examine the actuall studies done on it.
-
A typical Johnny/Tyrone comeback. Hey do you know what a TUETE is?
Minun ei tarvitse tietää. Olen joka tapauksesa paljon älykkäänpi kuin sinnä. ;)
-
It's area of Virgin forest. Not Replanted or protected ones. ::) It's nice to have Johnny/Tyrone back AGAIN though. Nice to see you again Johnny.
Can you add context to your post? Are you saying the black patch is the area of Virgin forest and that is has decreased over time? If so, doesn't it contradict ARTI's statement?
-
To think the U.S. has more forest than it EVER has or has had pre-industrial age is absurd. Millions of tons of tember and forest are cut down every day to make room for urban spraw. 100 years ago there was thousands of square miles more Forest and woodland than there currently is.
Americans are producing "regenerated" forest which is known as "secondary" forest cover. Primary forest is virgin forest via the Pictorial I posted previously. Re-planted forest has less biodiversity and is considered inferior to primary forest. This means that simply replanting what we destroy isn't enough.
http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1116-forests.html
-
But we ARE re-planting it. For every tree that is cut down we are planting one in it's place and in 50-100 years they will grow into a normal "biodiverse" forest.
The website states: Last year the US lost 831 square miles of old-growth forests and gained 614 square miles of planted forest. Now, if you add in all the old-grown forest we saved from forest fires last year, I'd say we're gaining forest every year.
Thanks for proving my point!
You rock dude!
-
But we ARE re-planting it. For every tree that is cut down we are planting one in it's place and in 50-100 years they will grow into a normal "biodiverse" forest.
The website states: Last year the US lost 831 square miles of old-growth forests and gained 614 square miles of planted forest. Now, if you add in all the old-grown forest we saved from forest fires last year, I'd say we're gaining forest every year.
Thanks for proving my point!
831-614=217 square miles of lost forest a year.
100 years is far too long for a replanted forest to biodiversify. Numerous species are lost in that time it takes.
-
831-614=217 square miles of lost forest a year.
I thought I explained this in my last post.
300 (Avg forest saved) -217=83 square miles of Gained forest a year.
-
I thought I explained this in my last post.
300 (Avg forest saved) -217=83 square miles of Gained forest a year.
That isn't what it says but it doesn't even matter.
Secondary forest is ecologically inferior to primary forest.
-
That isn't what it says but it doesn't even matter.
Secondary forest is ecologically inferior to primary forest.
AH HA! You have nothing! You just got OWNED ! HAHAHAhahahahahahaha!
Well, that was fun. So, for now on I will refer to you as "My Bitch" or "born_tobe_myBitch".
Which do you prefer?
-
Time out.
For future reference you can't claim you own owned someone. It must be from a second source.
Time in.
-
TOO LATE! His comeback Sucked too bad! He's Owned.
-
AH HA! You have nothing! You just got OWNED ! HAHAHAhahahahahahaha!
Well, that was fun. So, for now on I will refer to you as "My Bitch" or "born_tobe_myBitch".
Which do you prefer?
You owned me because I didn't want to bother with pointing out the fact that you made up that past comment?
::)
Anyway...
Between 2000 and 2005, the United States lost an average of 831 square miles (215,200 hectares, 2,152 square kilometers or 531,771 acres) of "primary forest" -- defined by FAO as forests with no visible signs of past or present human activities. These forests, often termed "old-growth forests," have the highest number of plant and animal species and are generally considered a top priority for conservation by environmentalists and government agencies.
Despite the drop in primary forest cover, America still managed to post a gain in total forest cover due to the regeneration of previously cut forests and new forest plantations. These forests are generally considered ecologically inferior to primary forests for their reduced biodiversity but now make up major of American -- and world -- forests.
-
If the entire Arctic ice cap and all the Glaciers melt the sea level WON'T rise!
Think about ice in a glass of water. When you drop a cube in, the level rises and stays there as it melts.
The volume of the ice cube is displaced in the water. So, the mass in the tip of an iceberg is already accounted for.
I argued with two friends about this yesterday. Fuckers! ???
Fucking Dumbass of the Century Award
I guess you're just figuring, in your "the entire arctic ice cap" could melt scenario that the same wouldn't happen in Antarctica which has a large portion of ice over land... Approx 38% over land http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica Or did you have some master plan to keep Antarctica frozen and only allow the arctic cap to melt? Melting ice doesn't raise the sea level... Really you say.... No shit huh lol.... Wow... I bet nobody knew that ::) I suggest you listen to your friends next time... They might be able to teach you something so you don't get hung up on one little fact and miss the actual reality of it...
-
Fucking Dumbass of the Century Award
I guess you're just figuring, in your "the entire arctic ice cap" could melt scenario that the same wouldn't happen in Antarctica which has a large portion of ice over land... Approx 38% over land http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica Or did you have some master plan to keep Antarctica frozen and only allow the arctic cap to melt? Melting ice doesn't raise the sea level... Really you say.... No shit huh lol.... Wow... I bet nobody knew that ::) I suggest you listen to your friends next time... They might be able to teach you something so you don't get hung up on one little fact and miss the actual reality of it...
38% is over land. How much is above sea level? When you have a cup of ice most of the ice is already submerged. Antarctica, Most of the ice is above sea level meaning that when it melts the displacement will be several times what it currently is.