Azalin Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 I think the sun will burn out in 60 years. If it does, we won't see it happen until 60 years, eight minutes, and 20 seconds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 I think the sun will burn out in 60 years. Just about the time I'll be done with it. Well I'll be done a bit earlier than that but you get my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 So if Texas was once covered by a sea (~300 million years ago), why did that sea dry up? And why would it be my fault if the water rose and covered it again? http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/ancient-mega-shark-unearthed-texas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 If it does, we won't see it happen until 60 years, eight minutes, and 20 seconds. Will we see and hear it at the same time? This is in reference to an age old TBD thread involving the speeds of sound and light in space. Yes seriously there was a thread on that very topic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Will we see and hear it at the same time? This is in reference to an age old TBD thread involving the speeds of sound and light in space. Yes seriously there was a thread on that very topic No, there was not a "thread." Just a couple of posts. (And side note: meazza - who asked the question "does sound travel faster than light in space?" - took my response - "You're an idiot." - to heart and successfully worked to not be an idiot anymore. Let him be an example to the rest of you idiots.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Some left wing hoaxer chick in Mexico named "Patricia" is claiming that higher moisture content in the atmosphere coupled with higher ocean temperatures consistent with GW may cause higher volatility in local weather conditions. I believe another Hoaxer "Nicky" from South Carolina noticed the same..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Some left wing hoaxer chick in Mexico named "Patricia" is claiming that higher moisture content in the atmosphere coupled with higher ocean temperatures consistent with GW may cause higher volatility in local weather conditions. I believe another Hoaxer "Nicky" from South Carolina noticed the same..... "Weather" is not climate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 "Weather" is not climate. "Whether I'm right or whether I'm wrong" Sammy Davis jr - I've Gotta be me - YouTube A little Friday afternoon entertainment for the Climate Control Crowd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 (edited) With the big Hurricane this weekend, Climate changeology will get a big boost. Edited October 23, 2015 by keepthefaith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 "Weather" is not climate. That is an original observation! - Give yourself a trophy for participation!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 That is an original observation! - Give yourself a trophy for participation!! It was a necessary one, given that you keep posting examples of weather in a climate thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 That is an original observation! - Give yourself a trophy for participation!! It weakened during the day. Global warming must be over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 When our sun begins to die it will heat the earth and its water. This will create a permanent blanket of clouds that will trap heat and create an upward spiraling cycle of evaporation that couldn't be reversed if Marie Osmond dropped another fifty lbs. We're doomed I tells ya. Doomed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 Good news, everyone! NASA scientists just figured out that Antarctica is actually adding to its ice-pack despite all of the man-made global warming! NASA NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning... View on web 49 49 Retweets From the study: A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers. According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008. It’s NASA so it must be true. This discovery, however, makes the IPCC (and others) wrong: A new NASA study found that Antarctica has been adding more ice than it’s been losing, challenging other research, including that of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that concludes that Earth’s southern continent is losing land ice overall. And this NASA study also found that Antarctica is actually decreasing sea levels: Marc Morano @ClimateDepot NASA Shock Study: 'Antarctica not currently contributing to sea level rise' http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/10/30/nasa-study-antarctica-is-not-currently-contributing-to-sea-level-rise-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses/ … 4:40 PM - 30 Oct 2015 NASA Study: 'Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise' - 'Mass Gains of Antarctic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 (edited) Good news, everyone! NASA scientists just figured out that Antarctica is actually adding to its ice-pack despite all of the man-made global warming! From the study: It’s NASA so it must be true. This discovery, however, makes the IPCC (and others) wrong: And this NASA study also found that Antarctica is actually decreasing sea levels: Marc Morano @ClimateDepot NASA Shock Study: 'Antarctica not currently contributing to sea level rise' http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/10/30/nasa-study-antarctica-is-not-currently-contributing-to-sea-level-rise-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses/ … 4:40 PM - 30 Oct 2015 NASA Study: 'Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise' - 'Mass Gains of Antarctic... Do you ever read past the title? "But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.” So pretty much: Increased temps = increased water content in air = more snow but also more ice melt.... I am sure the cod fisherman in the gulf of Maine find these reports comforting..... Edited November 2, 2015 by baskin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 So pretty much: Increased temps = increased water content in air = more snow but also more ice melt.... Does this mean we have to return to calling it Global Cooling until it gets warm again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 (edited) Do you ever read past the title? I am sure the cod fisherman in the gulf of Maine find these reports comforting..... Always. The article is presented for informational purposes as usual. That you choose to continuously assign a false message behind each post................is your problem and an obvious one at that. Added: Please note the qualifier in your post ......"But it might " not exactly the "disproving' of the title of the article that you are stating. . . Edited November 2, 2015 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 Do you ever read past the title? "But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.” So pretty much: Increased temps = increased water content in air = more snow but also more ice melt.... I am sure the cod fisherman in the gulf of Maine find these reports comforting..... You really don't understand what you're reading. That entire article's nothing more than long-winded doubletalk that boils down to "We have no idea what's going on." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 Global warming is so last week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts