Posted on 02/22/2010 7:00:42 AM PST by TonyfromOz
Dont confuse the issue with facts.
This argument works great for the North Pole, but not the South.
The only ice melted up there is by Todd Palin’s awesome snow machine!
And Algore's flame thrower.
Gore better get a few million more to substantiate his thus far failed assertion!
Gore is quite the poet, though (remember his little poem a few months ago which he read to the limousine liberals in Copenhagen?)
The thought of that poem is so bad I feel like I want to look at a picture of Helen Thomas just to feel better.
The only way to save the planet is to launch several million tons of tin foil into space and make a big tin umbrella over the arctic. We’ll have to use a big slingshot to launch the tin foil to avoid increasing the CO2 levels. We’ll need to have some experts in space to assemble the tin foil, so I suggest we start off by launching Al Gore and a some progressive liberals.
75% of the Antarctic ice pack is 8 meters thicker than it was 20 years ago!
Actually, since the 'ice that is on land' is mainly in the south pole, it works specifically for the south pole in that regard ... don't hear of any weather reports saying that area is forcasted to exceedn 32 degrees.
The local Fox weatherman just told us that the artic air mass is as cold as it was in the mid 1970s. So, we can expect the current lousy winter weather pattern to persist at least 3 more weeks.
I wonder how global warming explains a colder artic air mass?
Fortunately, the ice and snow in Antartica is actually growing - not melting.
Exactly why do you say that this arguement does not work for the South Pole?
However, as several other posters have already observed, the South's Ice is growing, and we don't have to worry about it anyway.
The important point here is not whether the ice is growing or shrinking. The critical factor is the water content in any given volume of ice. All ices are not created equal.
I dont agree with it, but the warmists argument is that the Greenland ice sheet is most suceptable. The argument is that when the edges of Greenland are exposed then the darker rocks are exposed. Sunlight hitting darker rocks will warm the rocks above 32F and will thus cause the adjacent ice to melt. This is referred to as “forcing”.
I disagree with this forcing because it only takes one cold winter to stop the process. And we are in the middle of an Artic Oscillation, in which Greenland has been re-covered with snow and ice.
Secondly, the Greenland ice sheet is only a fraction of the Anarctic ice sheet.
Thirdly, this scientist provides pretty good details on how complicated sea level changes are, the fraud associated with reports of sea level changes and how there is no evidence of human influence: http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf
Thanks. You beat me to it!
Another science fact-the 32ºF temperature, the “freezing point” is actually the point at which a given volume of water is as frozen as it is liquid, IOW, it is (oversimplified) 50% solid. Freezing starts at 37ºF and by about 28ºF it should be solid. Now if there is any sea water in the mix, well, that skews temps downward. Sea water frezzes at closer to 28ºF.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.