Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/17/07 04:10 PM, da-pope wrote:

The New Top 10 Hottest Years: 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939.

Hahahahahahaha... Hahahahahaha.... Whats Al Gore going to do now?

So why exactly then does the vast majority of the world outside the US understand global warming to be true? Do you have collective GLOBAL data to disprove it?

At 8/17/07 09:04 PM, HandsomePete wrote: So why exactly then does the vast majority of the world outside the US understand global warming to be true? Do you have collective GLOBAL data to disprove it?

The US is a good sample because it ranges from arctic to tropical latitudes. There is also a good sample of just about every type of environment. You don't see that in many countries.

At 8/17/07 07:33 PM, Chris-V2 wrote: The incredibly dramatic tempature change occuring in Europe this summer is evidence enough. It's very easy for you people in the U.S to brush it off, since it isn't really affecting you immediatly. But I can't remember a summer like this, nor can my dad or my grandfather.

Explain the past three months of rain, storms and constant overcast weather for this summer, then I'll consider your side.

HA! That really made me lol! It isn't affecting the US? Oh, it's affecting us alright. We're going through one of the hottest times since the 1930's The western-coastal US is going back into drought like conditions that lasted from the 30's til around 1973. The South-Eastern US is facing a severe drought right now... and you say we're not affected? Get real! Still, the heat is not as bad here as it was last summer. Here on the west coast, we faced approximately a month of temps that went beyond 100F in June... that's right, JUNE!

And to answer the question on ice cubes... just go to http://www.nyu.edu/pages/mathmol/modules /water/density_exp.html for all the revelations you need.

Postscript: And water freezes at O Celsius, just thought I'd add that.

At 8/17/07 04:17 PM, Lil-Jimmy wrote: If thats true, and if that means no global warming, w00t.

God I hope not.

I want to live a full life.

Ok...
first off to everyone that doesnt know that 90% of the time there have been life there has been an ice age. also there have been more then one ice age it has been like i cant count many.
And Ozon layer and the climate changes are not the same problem.

oh ans the global warming will eventually lead to a new ice age and the cycle is beggining again.
besides this process does not destroy the earth or humanity many will die yes but maybe not as many that you think and in wich countries will they die the u countries or the i? I think the answer is obvious. still this is no reason to not care aboute our own home.

Remember Kids:

Reading

Is Always

Fundamental.

At 8/17/07 04:21 PM, da-pope wrote:

At 8/17/07 04:17 PM, Ben wrote: Explain the reduction in the size of the polar ice caps then?

They have been melting since the ice age?
Samething with glaciers. They're going to melt.

Heres my theory on that.

The polar icecaps will melt. Cause mass flooding everywere. then all of a sudden "BOOM!" Another ice age.

Thats just me thinking. But there has already been an ice age. There will be another.

At 8/17/07 10:40 PM, wwwyzzerdd wrote: Fundamental.

....damn you OP!

:next time READ the damn thing

*debunked

http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/0 8/17/125219.shtml

At 8/17/07 04:19 PM, Lil-Jimmy wrote: Explain the reduction in the size of the polar ice caps then?

Ahhh, wrong. Thanks for trying.

Even if it were the case, just who do you think funds NASA?

Consider the source; follow the money.

At 8/17/07 04:25 PM, JimmysCool wrote:

the list above me.

11. more of a reason to stay inside.

At 8/17/07 04:19 PM, Lil-Jimmy wrote:

At 8/17/07 04:17 PM, Ben wrote: Explain the reduction in the size of the polar ice caps then?

And explain why Venus is the hottest planet? (I learned in science class its cuz of CO2,,)

no, Venus just wears a shorter skirt

I've never supported or denied the global warming movement, I've seen way too much evidence supporting both sides. Does this new evidence look pretty damning? Yes.

I do know that its statistical fact the average temperature has fluctuated throughout the centuries, and also the global cooling scare makes me have serious doubts about the current crap going around. Its why I've always leaned a little bit more to the "calm the fuck down already" principal.

Even if the article was written in the opinion section it still points out the fact that Nasa changed it's numbers and the new top 10 hottest years have changed.

Do you realise when the last supervolcano erupted it sent double the CO2 into our atmosphere then humans have in the last century (which is when we actually started too pump carbon dioxide and pollute our planet) yet our planet and mankind (a much more primitave mankind might I add) surived.

At 8/17/07 04:29 PM, pinkfuzzyman wrote: still what do you have to say about the fact that we still have a hole in the ozone layer and where still measuring increased carbon dioxide

Who said that wasn't happening? He merely said that the hottest years for the past 120 years were calculated wrong.

At 8/18/07 05:37 AM, da-pope wrote: Do you realise when the last supervolcano erupted it sent double the CO2 into our atmosphere then humans have in the last century (which is when we actually started too pump carbon dioxide and pollute our planet) yet our planet and mankind (a much more primitave mankind might I add) surived.

There were more carbon sinks then, and less contributory actions on a global scale.

Whilst supervolcanoes may be a point, people constantly factoring in valcanoes as an argument should calm down. http://www.hawaiinews.com/archives/volca no_watch/000440.shtml

At 8/17/07 04:10 PM, da-pope wrote: Whats Al Gore going to do now?

he's gonna keep his end of the bet up, that's what

Oh good, now we can be paranoid about something else! :D

You know we're going to just come up with more crazy doomsday theories either way.

At 8/17/07 04:21 PM, Skybolt-DX wrote:

At 8/17/07 04:17 PM, Ben wrote: Explain the reduction in the size of the polar ice caps then?

It's ice, ice eventually melts no matter how cold you keep it.

Unless its 0 Kelvin.

Or -273,15 celcius

truly a reliable source that 'opinion' section..........its not like you can just claim anything there

You want to know something else?

The larger trend of global warming we're experiencing now (or aren't experiencing) has occurred in similar degree 4 TIMES IN THE LAST 1000 years (pg 16). Periods of abrupt and severe global warming took place as long ago as 900 AD.

Global warming took place before humans had the capability to produce large amounts of greenhouse gases!

So if global warming took place before humans had the ability to cause it, then WHERE THE HELL is the logic in thinking we're causing it now?

... Unless of course, you think people had magical, secret coal plants 1000 years ago.

huh so its all a coincedence

At 8/18/07 07:19 AM, Kronkus wrote: huh so its all a coincedence

You didn't read any of his points, did you. You just read the title and posted. That makes you the worst kind of poster there is.

At 8/18/07 06:00 AM, Mr-Silv3r wrote: Whilst supervolcanoes may be a point, people constantly factoring in valcanoes as an argument should calm down.

Why? Are volcanoes insignificant?

At 8/18/07 12:24 PM, Shark408 wrote:

At 8/18/07 06:00 AM, Mr-Silv3r wrote: Whilst supervolcanoes may be a point, people constantly factoring in valcanoes as an argument should calm down.

Why? Are volcanoes insignificant?

I think that you could argue that reguler volcano's might not be that significant but I just wanted to point out that twice the CO2 was in earths atmosphere before and humanity wasn't even threatened.