The ice shelves in that quote are ~10Kyrs old and have all collapsed in recent years, except for the Wilkins shelf which is collapsing as we speak.
Well great - since that's likely due to massive ice buildup on the continent. You know, calving glaciers are a sign of them growing, not shrinking.
"According to the University of Illinois, Antarctic sea ice area is nearly 30% above normal and the anomaly has reached 1,000,000 km2. You could almost fit Texas and California (or 250 Rhode Islands) inside Antarcticaâ(TM)s excess sea ice."
There might be a connection, although through a third cause. There's evidence (yes, even according to the IPCC) that solar cycles play a part in the global climate. There are also some correlation between solar minima and crust issues (volcanic action, earthquakes etc).
We're currently in what seems to be a very deep solar minimum.
No, he's a sea level specialist. Now, remind me again, what was the subject?
(If you want, I can add diagrams showing that the sea levels aren't rising. I'd expect you to have done a bit of searching yourself before posting such a reply though)
"if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel MÃrner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr MÃrner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story"
[---]
"When I spoke to Dr MÃrner last week, he expressed his continuing dismay at how the IPCC has fed the scare on this crucial issue. When asked to act as an "expert reviewer" on the IPCC's last two reports, he was "astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist: not one". Yet the results of all this "deliberate ignorance" and reliance on rigged computer models have become the most powerful single driver of the entire warmist hysteria"
Please read the comments to the article for more insight into that question. Humans aren't the only ones producing "halogenated molecules", and the natural ones are enough for the CR reaction to cause the (fully natural) ozone "hole".
Nowhere in the parent to you post, nor in your own, is ID mentioned. The only theory named is evolution. It's also named in the parent in the context of being "questioned", which is then the topic of your post.
You should be embarrassed. Getting caught like this.
No, sorry to say, but there is no way to misunderstand your misconceptions on what more "substantial proof" the theory of evolution would need to be presented to grade school students.
In science, a theory is something that already has passed a lot of scrutiny.
Words have precise meanings in science. For example, 'theory', 'law', and 'hypothesis' don't all mean the same thing. Outside of science, you might say something is 'just a theory', meaning it's supposition that may or may not be true. In science, a theory is an explanation that generally is accepted to be true.
Slashdot Mirror
Twitter is similar to Myspace in about the same way as a frog is similar to World of Warcraft.
Yes.
1) correct
2) some, and some are delayed (trade winds, ocean currents, heat redistribution)
3) see 2 - then the correlation is incredibly high ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/25/warming-trend-pdo-and-solar-correlate-better-than-co2/ )
4) absolutely no. on the contrary, the correlation for CO2 models and observed climate over the last decade are next to nil
5) Percentages of percentages
6) absolutely no
7) absolutely no
The ice shelves in that quote are ~10Kyrs old and have all collapsed in recent years, except for the Wilkins shelf which is collapsing as we speak.
Well great - since that's likely due to massive ice buildup on the continent. You know, calving glaciers are a sign of them growing, not shrinking.
"According to the University of Illinois, Antarctic sea ice area is nearly 30% above normal and the anomaly has reached 1,000,000 km2. You could almost fit Texas and California (or 250 Rhode Islands) inside Antarcticaâ(TM)s excess sea ice."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/08/polar-ice-worries-north-and-south/
Oh you do get a lot out of the occupation. Basically your country needs to go to war on a regulary basis.
There never was an Iraqi threat. Just an excuse.
If you're unsure of the history, feel free to look it up. You do know that there are UN resolutions on practically everything, right?
Saddam was a known sponsor of terrorism and was documented to have paid for or provided training for the terrorists who attacked the US on 9/11
No.
Now, you might want to spend a few minutes researching how come you've fallen for untrue propaganda.
There might be a connection, although through a third cause. There's evidence (yes, even according to the IPCC) that solar cycles play a part in the global climate. There are also some correlation between solar minima and crust issues (volcanic action, earthquakes etc).
We're currently in what seems to be a very deep solar minimum.
How could Blix have known if there were weapons there or not with all that going on?
Read his reports.
There was good reason for suspicion
No. Bush wanted to invade and just needed something that could fool enough of the populace.
He succeeded - in the US. In the rest of the civilized world we just shake our heads time and time again.
Buy a history book not written in the US, please.
Remember Hans Blix - stating for the record that Saddam did not hide anything?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix#Iraq_disarmament_crisis_.282002-2003.29
You know he was right?
You understand that the US invasion had absolutely nothing to do with any "Iraqi threat"?
CO2 has caused sea level rise which has been accelerating lately
No, and no.
(Reference links in the same order)
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html ... and this debunking of one of the major "omg sea level rise!"-sources is an absolute must:
http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/hobart-msl.htm
No, he's a sea level specialist. Now, remind me again, what was the subject?
(If you want, I can add diagrams showing that the sea levels aren't rising. I'd expect you to have done a bit of searching yourself before posting such a reply though)
sea levels are already rising
No, they're not.
"if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel MÃrner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr MÃrner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story"
[---]
"When I spoke to Dr MÃrner last week, he expressed his continuing dismay at how the IPCC has fed the scare on this crucial issue. When asked to act as an "expert reviewer" on the IPCC's last two reports, he was "astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist: not one". Yet the results of all this "deliberate ignorance" and reliance on rigged computer models have become the most powerful single driver of the entire warmist hysteria"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html
... and that is relevant, how?
(Since we know about the levels through proxies, they're "recorded")
Please read the comments to the article for more insight into that question. Humans aren't the only ones producing "halogenated molecules", and the natural ones are enough for the CR reaction to cause the (fully natural) ozone "hole".
I'm sorry, I think you need to re-read the link and the included citations. You've obviously not understood the contents.
(And neither has anyone who's moderated your post positively. Please verify before claiming someone is "informative")
It is. The name of the domain of a site that quotes sourced information is totally irrelevant as to the quality of the information itself.
Why is it so important for you to spread alarmist misinformation? What good does that do?
They are dealing with the very real effects of ricing sea levels NOW
I'm sorry, what rising sea levels?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/19/despite-popular-opinion-and-calls-to-action-the-maldives-is-not-being-overrun-by-sea-level-rise/
Maybe you and Dr. Happer are just among those who don't believe CFSs and such had anything to do with ozone depletion
Which, of course, would be true.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/26/galactic-cosmic-rays-may-be-responsible-for-the-antarctic-ozone-hole/
CO2 levels have never been so high as they are now throughout recorded history
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/historical_CO2.html
We emit more than ten times the CO2 emitted by volcanoes on average ... but what about the oceans?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/24/study-hemispheric-co2-timing-suggests-that-annual-increases-may-be-coming-from-a-global-or-equatorial-source/
The conveyor is not shutting down.
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/20505/Gulf_Stream_Will_Not_Shut_Down_Science_Magazines_Admit.html
Nowhere in the parent to you post, nor in your own, is ID mentioned. The only theory named is evolution. It's also named in the parent in the context of being "questioned", which is then the topic of your post.
You should be embarrassed. Getting caught like this.
No, sorry to say, but there is no way to misunderstand your misconceptions on what more "substantial proof" the theory of evolution would need to be presented to grade school students.
In science, a theory is something that already has passed a lot of scrutiny.
Words have precise meanings in science. For example, 'theory', 'law', and 'hypothesis' don't all mean the same thing. Outside of science, you might say something is 'just a theory', meaning it's supposition that may or may not be true. In science, a theory is an explanation that generally is accepted to be true.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm
You need to brush up on what "theory" and "proof" means in science.
And the same goes for the ones who moderated your post "Insightful".
Troll? lol - disagree with facts please.
What on earth had that reply to do with what I posted?