If all the ice in the ocean melted the sea level wouldn't rise!

[Oldschool Flip]

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.

[Oldschool Flip]

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]

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.

[bjorn_fairhair]

A typical Johnny/Tyrone comeback. Hey do you know what a TUETE is?

Minun ei tarvitse tietää. Olen joka tapauksesa paljon älykkäänpi kuin sinnä.

[dkf360]

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?

[bjorn_fairhair]

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

[ARTI]

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!

[bjorn_fairhair]

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.

[ARTI]

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.

[bjorn_fairhair]

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.

[ARTI]

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?

[a_joker10]

Time out.

For future reference you can't claim you own owned someone. It must be from a second source.

Time in.

[ARTI]

TOO LATE! His comeback Sucked too bad! He's Owned.

[bjorn_fairhair]

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.

[Hugo Chavez]

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...

[bjorn_fairhair]

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.