Posted on 05/15/2007 3:11:17 PM PDT by Islander7
Keep notes, my friend. You may be compiling a best seller.
You're welcome.
Shame they can't put LOGIC in a can where you could just spray it and rid the immediate area of all leftists.
Of course leaving out the logic and just filling the can with chlorofluorocarbons might work. Worth a try anyway.
I like warm better than cold, if the seas rise I dont have to drive as far to the beach, what is the problem?
Oooops! I am soooo chagrined.
Dateline: 2007
ICE MELTS OUTSIDE DURING THE SUMMER!
What about this one? If we are creating more CO2 and trees love CO2 and need it to survive aren't we actually creting more trees and making it easier for them to thrive so that they can absorb the CO2?
No net lose of water to rise the oceans levels.
No. It depends where it originally melted and subsequently refrozen.
How do they figer western Antarctica??? Like, you keep walking raund and round in the westerly direction till you drop and freeeeeze???
Like, the thing is sitting on the Pole! More lies from environutzies! Yo, Nutzies, it's the Sun stupid with it's 11 year menstrual sunspot cycle.
While I understand your skepticism of global warming, there is no reason to spout of half-truths and lies. The vast bulk of the ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland (the only ones that can reasonably affect sea level rise) are far below freezing so increases in planetary temperatures will not suddenly cause them to lose mass. This means you need to look at dynamic processes and precipitation patterns. The IPCC models say that snowfall in Antarctica and Greenland will increase in the short term before planetary temperature rises overwhelm them in the long term. And they were not able to well quantify dynamic processes. This is why the recent report marked sea level increases as 1-3 ft over the next 50 years or so compared to Gore's hyperbole of 30 ft with most of that coming from the melting of glaciers.
Contrary to your view, Antarctica and Greenland are behaving as the climatologist expect due to the warming of the planet.
Note: before you flame me (as I'm sure somebody will), I didn't say that I agreed with or disagreed with the theory of human induced climate change. But I did read the IPCC report which is enough for me to debunk any claims that you had that the global warming supporters said one thing versus another. Ok, commence flaming.
The same thing is happening on Mars. Why is that, Mr. Gore?
A solid can "sublimate" from solid directly to vapor. There is a vapor pressure associated with that process as well. Mothballs are a common example of a solid that sublimates.
It is a bit too coincidental that what these socialists say is killing the planet is what they hate the most, namely capitalism ( CO2 coal power plants, CO2 emissions from industry, automobiles etc.) Communists say Capitalism is killing our planet with global warming
You wouldn’t think these scoundrels would actually create a hoax called global warming or fudge results to further their anti-American and socialist agenda would you? Well I do . I’ll never believe a single thing these communists or the other communists the Democrats say. I only believe real events like if I would witness rising sea levels not some predictions by agenda-driven socialists on what will happen decades in the future when they can’t even predict what will happen next week.
I don’t mind debating issues but you do realize that this is conservative site and you are using the IPCC as a source? How does your post advance conservatism?
Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God’s great Judgment Seat;
But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
When two strong men stand face to face,
tho’ they come from the ends of the earth!
Hang the wet clothes out and let 'em freeze solid ... leave 'em that way for a couple of hours and when you bring them in, they're almost completely dry ... tumble for about 10 minutes and VOILA !
Saves on dryer electricity.
So the cold evaporated the water.
I don't know where the water went, but my skivvies didn't melt.
The sun can scarcely be described as “an uncontrolled nuclear reaction”. Hydrogen fusion proceeds at a very slow rate in the sun. It generates less heat per unit mass than the human body. The suns high temperature is due to its size. Before hydrogen fusion was understood, it was presumed that the source of the sun’s energy was gravitational contraction. The problem was that this could only account for a solar age of some millions of years, not the several billion that seemed to be required for earth’s history. So it was nuclear physics to the rescue! How about that?
You are thinking about this in too complex a manner. Consider the following: ice melts from a glacier or any other location where ice may form that is not floating on water. The melt goes into the ocean and refreezes as a floating ice sheet. The sea level rises due to the net addition of water into the oceans.
As a converse, consider water evaporating from the oceans and falling as snowfall on a mountain. The sea level would fall due to the net subtraction of water from the oceans.
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.