44,000 years ago last time Canadian arctic this warm

[BeeGuy]

Seriously though, is it warmer in the arctic now than when greenland last contained settlements?

[Ken07AOVette]

Originally Posted by great white whaler

yes

no


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzUqhOT3LKo

[great white whaler]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

no


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzUqhOT3LKo

yes

[Red Bullets]

Originally Posted by tri777

Where do you magicians come up with these numbers..?

The chinese culture has been documented to 6000 years. Think that's where the number 6000 came up by someone.

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by Red Bullets

The chinese culture has been documented to 6000 years. Think that's where the number 6000 came up by someone.

No, This belief is what is called Young Earth Creationism and it is based on Genesis.

[Red Bullets]

Odd that no one has mentioned "The Little Ice Age", from the 1770's to 1850's with the 1880's being the tail end of that cooling trend. The winter of 1887-88 killed hunderds of people and thousands of animals. And yet, a mere 40 years later, there were heat waves and drought in the same areas. Go figure



It is interesting that archeological divers on he west coast have found firepits and remnants of campsites several hundred feet underwater from the surface of the pacific ocean along queen charlotte island shorelines. This would either mean the islands are sinking or the ocean has risen. If ice is melting , must mean the oceans have risen. When the water levels rise this makes the contenental land masses smaller. With more water comes more reflection of heat. Less land mass, less area to absorb heat. The planet starts to cool off. Might be the start of the next ice age.

Global warming, hell, I 'm getting ready for the next ice age instead.

[Red Bullets]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

No, This belief is what is called Young Earth Creationism and it is based Genesis.

Oh.Thanks for the clarification.

[Ryry4]

Originally Posted by Red Bullets

Odd that no one has mentioned "The Little Ice Age", from the 1770's to 1850's with the 1880's being the tail end of that cooling trend. The winter of 1887-88 killed hunderds of people and thousands of animals. And yet, a mere 40 years later, there were heat waves and drought in the same areas. Go figure

That's weather, not climate. They have nothing to do with each other.

[nekred]

ok here is a test.....

take a glass put some ice in it.... let it melt... does the water level go up or down....

the weight of the water displaced is equal to the weight of the ice and the difference in density is accounted for by how much of the ice cube is above the surface!.... Minus the amount that evaporated from the surface which would be negligible....

So if the polar ice cap melted..... the equivelent ocen level would not change as the ice cap is over water!.....

Now if the Antarctica ice all melted into the ocean

I love how something that is taken as "evidence" is so misconstrued....

So we have ice melting over a CURRENTLY uninhabitable area revealing plant remains to show that it used to be habitable in past and thus warmer and this is a huge reason to panic.... OMG we are all going to die because areas of the Earth that were uninhabitable are becoming inhabitable again!....

Models have been done and the net effect of global warming would be actually BENEFICIAL..... As earth warms... more water in atmosphere, thus stabler temperatures and the taiga area of ASIA EUROPE and NORTH AMERICA becomes more fertile and less extreme in temperature how can this be bad.... imagine having farmland in Whitehorse!....

when you look at Canada's landmass used for food production and most if it is well south of the midlines of the provinces and realise the potential of the North....

Reminds me to light a briquette BBQ to do my part!...

[Red Bullets]

Originally Posted by nekred

ok here is a test.....

take a glass put some ice in it.... let it melt... does the water level go up or down....

The area the water displaced is larger. Ice cube may have the same volume of water but if you place that ice cube in a dish, it only occupies a small area of the dish. When it melts the water occupies a much larger area of the dish.

I do agree that there becomes more land available for land use life.

[jungleboy]

Originally Posted by nekred

ok here is a test.....

take a glass put some ice in it.... let it melt... does the water level go up or down....

the weight of the water displaced is equal to the weight of the ice and the difference in density is accounted for by how much of the ice cube is above the surface!.... Minus the amount that evaporated from the surface which would be negligible....

So if the polar ice cap melted..... the equivelent ocen level would not change as the ice cap is over water!.....

Now if the Antarctica ice all melted into the ocean




I love how something that is taken as "evidence" is so misconstrued....

So we have ice melting over a CURRENTLY uninhabitable area revealing plant remains to show that it used to be habitable in past and thus warmer and this is a huge reason to panic.... OMG we are all going to die because areas of the Earth that were uninhabitable are becoming inhabitable again!....

Models have been done and the net effect of global warming would be actually BENEFICIAL..... As earth warms... more water in atmosphere, thus stabler temperatures and the taiga area of ASIA EUROPE and NORTH AMERICA becomes more fertile and less extreme in temperature how can this be bad.... imagine having farmland in Whitehorse!....

when you look at Canada's landmass used for food production and most if it is well south of the midlines of the provinces and realise the potential of the North....

Reminds me to light a briquette BBQ to do my part!...

Shhhhhhhhhh not so loud ,how are the enviros going to justify their chicken little dance if people start thinking the end isn't near

[nekred]

Originally Posted by Red Bullets

The area the water displaced is larger. Ice cube may have the same volume of water but if you place that ice cube in a dish, it only occupies a small area of the dish. When it melts the water occupies a much larger area of the dish.

I do agree that there becomes more land available for land use life.

No take a glass of water place ice cubes in it till it floats video the results and post.

[nekred]

http://chemistry.about.com/u/sty/che...s-of-Water.htm

or click this link!....

[Red Bullets]

Originally Posted by nekred

No take a glass of water place ice cubes in it till it floats video the results and post.

I guess I am looking at land based glaciers melting. Not the floating ice in the Arctic ocean.

'Till it floats' does not apply to ice melting off of land.

Take an ice cube and place it on the ground. The water from the melted ice cube affects more ground than just where the ice cube stood.

If ice melts over impervious ground, the water will run to the lowest point. Similar to how a river is born around any icefield. That water does eventually flow into some ocean typically.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by avb3

Once again confusing weather with climate?

It was an unseasonably hot 97 degrees down in Florida this past week.

So, which one is indicative of climate?

So the next 14 days is Calgary is to be below seasonal and that proves global warm is false.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by avb3

So you agree that the Arctic ice is less?

BTW the Antarctic ice has increases in area, BUT decreased in volume. It is not as thick anymore.

Not true. There are no accurate volume measurement over time... Just a compilation of data over 50 years to make an estimate. Future satellite data may help.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21692423

[Sundancefisher]

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/techn...394/story.html

So did Danielle Smith sell out for votes just like any other politician?

[smartypants]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/techn...394/story.html

So did Danielle Smith sell out for votes just like any other politician?

.....certainly, WR changed their policy a year ago or so to be more friendly to the carbon-delusion, this is just an evolution of that sentiment.....politicians will say or do anything to get elected or reelected, why should she be any different?

[Bushrat]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

So did Danielle Smith sell out for votes just like any other politician?

You don't become a successful politician until you sell your soul.

[mudbug]

So someone asked a person that lived 44,000 years ago how the water temp was for swimming?

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/techn...394/story.html

So did Danielle Smith sell out for votes just like any other politician?

Good to see the WR leave the denier camp behind them. Lead by a very smart leader. I'd love to be able to say Premier Smith after the next election.

[Red Bullets]

Everyone laughed at the NaySayers when they were so concerned about the melting at the Sahara Icefields.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Red Bullets

Everyone laughed at the NaySayers when they were so concerned about the melting at the Sahara Icefields.

LMFAO

Uggg. Me see more sand Grog. Uggg. Me thinks camel and large animal farts melt glacier. We should kill them all before Sahara becomes desert. Uggg.

[sageone]

It's all about perspective. Mans time on earth almost dosen't register
But some think the climate we have experienced in our short lives should
Never change. I strongly disagree.


http://astronomy.uconn.edu/lectures/...aperLesson.pdf

[gunmum]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

No, This belief is what is called Young Earth Creationism and it is based on Genesis.

lol.
nope, but nice try


Young-earth creationists believe that the creation days of Genesis 1 were six literal (24-hour) days, which occurred approx. 6,000 years ago.
1 They believe that about 2,300–3,300 years before Christ, the surface of the earth was radically rearranged by Noah’s Flood. All land animals and birds not in Noah’s Ark (along with many sea creatures) perished, many of which were subsequently buried in the Flood sediments. Therefore, creationists believe that the global, catastrophic Flood was responsible for most (but not all) of the rock layers and fossils (i.e., some rock layers and possibly some fossils were deposited before the Flood, while other layers and fossils were produced in postdiluvian localized catastrophic sedimentation events or processes)...

...continues in the link I posted that wasn't written by a non-young earth creationist trying to explain...

and I just have to add (before this turn into a worldview thread) that many of you have already mentioned that science is just the observation, documentation and speculation of what we have actually seen or experienced, so no haters cause we all agree that we weren't there, so no one really knows...unless you're me, cause I know lol...

ok, sorry to derail, just had to fix that for ya BeeGuy, continue on