70 Trillion cubic feet of New Arctic Ice

• Spartaaaaa wrote on 2011-01-27 11:47

  Quote from Phunkie;306399:

  Global warming is real. We humans are affecting the world.
  
  We just have to pay attention to how we affect the world instead of being completely ignorant of the fact.

  
  
  If it's such a well established fact, then why must scientists fake the data? (http://mabination.com/threads/15710-Global-Warming-Alarmists-Fabricated-Data-to-Support-Theory)
  
  

  Also, infowars isn't a great website to go for sources, Sparta. I thought we went over that months ago. I don't know why you continue to quote from that site.

  
  
  I admit that infowars isn't perfect (due to the presence of weirdos like David Icke), but it isn't nearly as bad as you think it is. Half the articles on there aren't even written by the infowars staff, but rather are articles gathered up from other blogs and news sources.
  
  

  The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is occurring. Every scientist can pretty much agree with that. The debate is whether this warming is dangerous and if it can have a powerful impact.

  
  
  Have you seen the article about the Oxford undergraduates yet?
• Tatsu wrote on 2011-01-27 12:05

  Quote from Spartaaaaa;306406:

  If it's such a well established fact, then why must scientists fake the data?

  
  
  There are infinite amount of reasons to lie, but not many reasons to tell the truth.
  
  In my guess, it's to scare the general human population to take care of Earth better and make them more self-conscious. It's working, somewhat. I do find CO2 regulations on automobile companies odd though. "Your CO2 emission average cannot be that high!" "Oh. Okay. We'll just make a new line of cars that don't spew out as much CO2." /facepalm
• Osayidan wrote on 2011-01-27 12:14
  The climate is changing but we're not causing it.
  The entire solar system is having climate change. Go yell at the sun, not the guy who didn't want to recycle.
• Selithia wrote on 2011-01-27 15:38
  Winters are colder than ever, summers are hotter than ever, weird weather is affecting the whole world more frequently, there's a hole in the ozone layer, AND none of the most major contributors to pollution are really doing anything about it, and we're still going to sit here and play the "lol global warming whatevs" game? Despite nigh universal scientific support?
  
  Seriously why is it that every time one or two people out of millions of scientists say something, we give them equal or even MORE weight than, say, I dunno, the entire scientific community? Are we that desperate to 'stick it to the man'?
• Sleeperdial wrote on 2011-01-27 15:41

  Quote from Selithia;306471:

  Winters are colder than ever, summers are hotter than ever, weird weather is affecting the whole world more frequently, there's a hole in the ozone layer, AND none of the most major contributors to pollution are really doing anything about it, and we're still going to sit here and play the "lol global warming whatevs" game? Despite nigh universal scientific support?
  
  Seriously why is it that every time one or two people out of millions of scientists say something, we give them equal or even MORE weight than, say, I dunno, the entire scientific community? Are we that desperate to 'stick it to the man'?

  
  
  Why dont't you shut up and learn to read the whole thread.
• Phunkie wrote on 2011-01-27 15:45

  Quote from Sleeperdial;306473:

  Why dont't you shut up and learn to read the whole thread.

  
  
  We need to be a little kinder.
  
  The last time you had an argument in Bean Rua with Byte, it was not acceptable. I am usually lenient, but this is also not acceptable.
  
  Please don't let it happen again.
• Lan wrote on 2011-01-27 16:04
  As long as the majority of trees are not cut down we'll be mostly fine.
• Sleeperdial wrote on 2011-01-27 16:11

  Quote from Lan;306481:

  As long as the majority of trees are not cut down we'll be mostly fine.

  
  
  This. and I didn't argue with byte, I've never argued with a mod. :what:
• Athde wrote on 2011-01-27 16:11
  Personally I'd rather have it get much colder than much warmer so yay for ice-caps! And yay to no more Animal Donation commercials with Sarah McLauchlan! Polar Bears are saved, as is my wallet!
• Sleeperdial wrote on 2011-01-27 16:15

  Quote from Athde;306487:

  Personally I'd rather have it get much colder than much warmer so yay for ice-caps! And yay to no more Animal Donation commercials with Sarah McLauchlan! Polar Bears are saved, as is my wallet!

  
  
  I thought those were to stop animal cruelty?
• Taycat wrote on 2011-01-27 16:45
  Didn't the earth do this during the Ice Age?
  
  When that meteor fell?
  
  It went through a climate change and it all became icy....
• Sleeperdial wrote on 2011-01-27 17:21
  There never was a meteor.
  The entire earth would be different if there was. Basic physics tells you that for it to wipe out all the dinosaurs it would have to touch nearly the whole earth, and to do so there would need to be enough leftover energy from the main impact directed into the earth that it could create some sort of wave, similar to what happens when craters are formed, large enough to kill all the dinosaurs. A meteor of such power would have easily shattered the earth.
  And even if the meteor itself didn't kill the dinosaurs, explain to me how it changed the climate?
  On top of that, if it wiped out the dinosaurs, how the heck did everything else survive?
• Taycat wrote on 2011-01-27 17:31
  All the ash from the crashing into the earth, well it was a meteor SHOWER I should say, that shifted tectonic plates. Thus, volcanos all around were either shooting off or staying dormant. Once they released their full load, the ash and CO2 blocked out the sun....supposedly.
• Sleeperdial wrote on 2011-01-27 17:40
  That seems like a thought out theory somewhat, but if a meteor shower of that size hit then, why hasn't it happened again at SOME point of time.
• Kueh wrote on 2011-01-27 17:56

  Quote from Spartaaaaa;306406:

  If it's such a well established fact, then why must scientists fake the data? (http://mabination.com/threads/15710-Global-Warming-Alarmists-Fabricated-Data-to-Support-Theory)
  
  Have you seen the article about the Oxford undergraduates yet?

  
  
  Have you seen what I posted yet? I said before that the DATA wasn't faked. The analysis of the data, as performed by people who were not the ones who gathered the data, manipulated the numbers unfairly.
  
  And the Oxford Undergraduate (whether or not they can be considered an authority on the matter aside) have largely supported "global extremism" and have only been against it once before this time.
  
  

  Quote from Sleeperdial;306530:

  There never was a meteor. The current scientific consensus is that there was a meteor. What evidence do you have that there was no meteor? (There is more evidence that there was a meteor than I could go through in several months, but you can wiki it if you don't believe me.)
  The entire earth would be different if there was. The entire earth IS different. See any dinosaurs around?
  Basic physics tells you that for it to wipe out all the dinosaurs it would have to touch nearly the whole earth, Basic Physics tells you what about the conditions needed to support life and the amount of change needed to be instigated by a meteor to push it off balance enough to cause mass extinctions?
  and to do so there would need to be enough leftover energy from the main impact directed into the earth that it could create some sort of wave, similar to what happens when craters are formed, large enough to kill all the dinosaurs. A meteor of such power would have easily shattered the earth.
  And even if the meteor itself didn't kill the dinosaurs, explain to me how it changed the climate?
  On top of that, if it wiped out the dinosaurs, how the heck did everything else survive?

  
  
  Aside from what I put in teal, what is the currently supported theory is that a meteor landed in the gulf of mexico. It isn't about the force of the impact. I think you have the wrong idea.
  
  The impact was not what caused the mass extinction (well it definitely was the cause at the impact location), the effects of the impact was the cause.
  
  The impact caused a lot of chemicals to be kicked up, and caused a lot of volcanoes to become active due to a sudden increase in tectonic activity. A high amount of silicates both from the meteor impact and from the volcanoes formed a layer in the upper atmosphere that reflected a lot of sunlight. Plants died, dinosaurs who ate plants died, dinosaurs who ate dinosaurs who ate plants died. That's the currently supported model.
  
  And about the last comment you made, not everything was dependent on a large amount of sun. Much of the sea life was fine with decreased amounts of light. Phytoplankton don't use massive amounts like plants, rather there is a massive amount of them, and they each do a little. Also, small plants like bryophytes and the small mammals that fed on them were similarly non-affected. In-fact, with a sudden decrease in competition, these kinds of life thrived.