Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Funny, but I didn't see anywhere in this piece anything contributing this to George Bush.
1 posted on 02/27/2010 5:44:38 AM PST by bayliving
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last
To: bayliving

This event is the result of antiwhaling wacko action in the Antarctic region


2 posted on 02/27/2010 5:46:34 AM PST by bert (K.E. N.P. +12 . Tax the poor. Taxes will give them a stake in society)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bayliving
Let me help you out: BUSH'S FAULT!!!!!!!!!!!

BTW, it's summer down there.

3 posted on 02/27/2010 5:49:02 AM PST by cowboyway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bayliving

Unless an ice berg the size of Australia breaks off I won’t worry.


4 posted on 02/27/2010 5:49:52 AM PST by luvbach1 (Worse than we could have imagined.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bayliving

Oh, noes!!! It’s the beginning of the end of the world. We’re all going to die, penguins first.


5 posted on 02/27/2010 5:51:04 AM PST by Clara Lou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bayliving
Glaciers and Icebergs have been feuding for centuries.

What's the big deal?

6 posted on 02/27/2010 5:51:33 AM PST by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bayliving

Who was driving the other iceberg?


7 posted on 02/27/2010 5:51:45 AM PST by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bayliving

They keep trying, don’t they?

Was this the writer that got an F in science, or was it the one that got multiple Fs in science?


14 posted on 02/27/2010 5:55:26 AM PST by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bayliving

Global Warming will melt it before it becomes a threat.


16 posted on 02/27/2010 5:57:43 AM PST by umgud (I couldn't understand why the ball kept getting bigger......... then it hit me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bayliving

People don’t kill glaciers, iceburgs kill glaciers!


17 posted on 02/27/2010 5:57:51 AM PST by DC Packfan (Hi, I'm Jimmah, and I'm a dumbass!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bayliving
An iceberg the size of Luxembourg has broken off from a glacier in Antarctica after being rammed by another giant iceberg ...

Stupid giant iceberg. Doesn't it realize it is helping to cause more Global Warming?

18 posted on 02/27/2010 5:59:10 AM PST by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bayliving

The area of the world’s oceans is roughly 140 million square miles.

The area of Luxembourg is roughly 0.001 million square miles.

I don’t think it’s going to have any measurable effect.


19 posted on 02/27/2010 5:59:35 AM PST by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bayliving
Ice breaks off all the time. It must. If it didn't, the ice field would eventually grow to cover the whole planet.
Why is it the end of the world every time? It's the usual environut alarmist crap.
For the ocean salinity it's the same effect as if the snow that made the ice had landed directly in the ocean.
Which is where it came from in the first place.
Net effect: Zero.
22 posted on 02/27/2010 6:00:25 AM PST by BitWielder1 (Corporate Profits are better than Government Waste)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bayliving

I can just imagine this Hollywood future film, major ice plateau breaks off of continent, massive Tsunami from earthquake sends it hurtling towards Australia where its driven inland to the interior and creates an inland sea.


24 posted on 02/27/2010 6:01:34 AM PST by Eye of Unk ("Either you are with us or you are for the terrorists." ~~George W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bayliving

Someone should tow it really fast up the IO and sell it to some arabs.


27 posted on 02/27/2010 6:03:40 AM PST by stuartcr (Everything happens as God wants it to...otherwise, things would be different)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bayliving
THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE
by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD

ABSTRACT:

"Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere [historically] is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well-known but under-appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters. Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2-rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere. Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation.

Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase.

If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere."

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html
_______________________________________________________________

The graph above represents temperature and CO2 levels over the past 400,000 years. It is the same exact data Al Gore and the rest of the man-made global warmers refer to. The blue line is temps, the red, CO2 levels. The deep valleys represent 4 separate glaciation/ice-age periods, approximately 100,000 years apart. Look carefully at the historical relationship between temps and CO2 levels (the present is on the right hand side of the graph) and keep in mind that Gore claims this data is the 'proof' that CO2 has warmed the earth in the past. But does this data indeed show this? Nope. In fact, rising CO2 levels all throughout this 400,000-year period actually *followed* temperature increases, lagging behind by an average of 800 years! So it couldn't have been CO2 that got Earth out of these past glaciations. Yet Gore continually and dishonestly uses this same data as "evidence" of a *positive* historical correlation between CO2 and temps. Furthermore, and importantly, the subsequent CO2 level increases (due to dissolved CO2 being released from warming oceans) never did lead to additional warming, the so-called "run-away greenhouse effect" that Al Gore and company continue warning us about. In short, there is little if any evidence that CO2 had ever led to any significant global warming when the levels were within 10-15 times of what they are today. -etl
_______________________________________________________________


"The above chart shows the range of global temperature through the last 500 million years. There is no statistical correlation between the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere through the last 500 million years and the temperature record in this interval. In fact, one of the highest levels of carbon dioxide concentration occurred during a major ice age that occurred about 450 million years ago [Myr]. Carbon dioxide concentrations at that time were about 15 times higher than at present." [also see 180 million years ago, same thing happened]:
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010405M
_______________________________________________________________

So, greenhouse [effect] is all about carbon dioxide, right?

Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds [clouds of course aren't gas, but high level ones do act to trap heat from escaping, while low-lying cumulus clouds tend to reflect sunlight and thereby help cool the planet -etl]. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere.

In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, 'Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,' Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).

The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other 'minor greenhouse gases.' As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
_______________________________________________________________

Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many 'facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
_______________________________________________________________

Water Vapor Confirmed As Major Player In Climate Change

ScienceDaily (Nov. 18, 2008) — Water vapor is known to be Earth's most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081117193013.htm

29 posted on 02/27/2010 6:04:23 AM PST by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bayliving

Was the first iceburg a Toyota?


30 posted on 02/27/2010 6:04:31 AM PST by Fido969 ("The hardest thing in the world to understand is income tax." - Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bayliving

Quick, to the BatBoat.


31 posted on 02/27/2010 6:06:12 AM PST by Professional Engineer (Petroleum, oil, lubricants. Add liquid oxygen. What could go wrong?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bayliving
A vast iceberg that broke off eastern Antarctic earlier this month could disrupt marine life in the region, scientists have warned.
We have reached the point when every natural event under the sun is a threat and every scientific story reported in the MSM is a drastic dire emergency.

The movie title was correct, but being stupid themselves the writers incorrectly identified the source in this AGE OF STUPID we find ourselves in.

32 posted on 02/27/2010 6:06:28 AM PST by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bayliving
Could it be that Algore (Where’s Algore?) is hiding out on one of these glaciers?

I’m reminded of an episode toward the end of Michael Crighton’s novel, “State of Seige” involving global warmist/sabateurs and a southern hemisphere glacier. Eerie similarities.

33 posted on 02/27/2010 6:09:06 AM PST by Mobties
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bayliving
....an event that could affect ocean circulation patterns.

Or not. I love it when alleged "news stories" engage in open speculation.

But the speculation only goes in one political direction. You'll never see lines like "London's largest mosque opened today but it could become a breeding ground for terrorists."

34 posted on 02/27/2010 6:09:17 AM PST by denydenydeny ("I'm sure this goes against everything you've been taught, but right and wrong do exist"-Dr House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson