Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 35 of 35

Thread: 4 feet / 24 hrs Lake Effect Snow in Buffalo NY; 2+ feet more forecast

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    The unit is in area not perimeter so we are talking volume here.
    Everything you cited is in km^2; that is area; aka "extent"

    This is not volume; aka km^3




    Yes... the AREA of the sheet of ice covering the oceans is INCREASING (just slightly mind you)

    However, the VOLUME of ice on the oceans is DECREASING (quite significantly)


    I dunno why you are asking me this question or what it has to do with the link I gave you. But my answer is computer paper having more wood with area of at least 93.5 inch cube of wood. Now can you please tell me what this got to do with the link I gave you.

    I feel like we're missing some fundamentals.

    Volume is a cubic dimension. Length x Width x Height

    Extent is a square dimension. It is the Length x Width (AREA) of the largest side of an object.








    Copy paper is about 0.004 inches thick
    http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/JuliaSherlis.shtml

    lets calculate EXTENT

    paper: 8.5*11 = 93.5 square inches (you called this cube)
    block of wood: 6x6 = 36 square inches

    The paper has more EXTENT

    93.5/36 = 2.59

    The paper has an EXTENT 2.59 times greater than the block of wood






    Now lets calculate the volume in each product:

    paper = 8.5*11*0.004 = 0.374 cubic inches

    block of wood = 6*6*6 = 216 cubic inches

    The block of wood has more VOLUME

    216/0.374 = 577.5

    The block of wood has a VOLUME 577.5 times greater than the paper





    Which then brings us to the data from your links:







    So the Northern Hemisphere is showing -6.9% EXTENT loss per decade and the Southern Hemisphere is showing a measly 1.2% EXTENT gain per decade.


    Meanwhile...


    If we refer back to our VOLUME chart:








    We see October VOLUME was 17 in 1979 and is only 5 in 2012.


    That's 70% loss of VOLUME in 33 years.



    30% VOLUME loss per decade




    In summary per decade:

    30% VOLUME loss in all oceans
    1.2 % AREA gain in southern hemisphere
    6.9 % AREA loss in northern hemisphere


    It seems quite cherry picked to focus on the 1.2% area gain in this context:


    While the surface area (EXTENT) covered by ice is just slightly larger, in just the southern hemisphere, each decade... the THICKNESS (third dimension of volume) of the ice on the oceans is significantly less everywhere.

    Further... the AREA loss in the northern hemisphere is greater than the AREA gain in the southern hemisphere. So as a whole... there is a net loss in VOLUME AND AREA in the world's oceans.
    Last edited by presence; 11-23-2014 at 01:51 PM.

    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...




  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by brushfire View Post
    At some point, "man" needs to quit being so arrogant and realize there are things that we cannot stop. I think this whole man-made climate change is a ruse put on by those who have money to make on it. Its a shame so many people are buying into it without questioning.
    The arrogance argument is an appeal to incredulity. If the facts point to humans having more of an impact on our environment than you or I could imagine, then that is simply how it is. It is never arrogant to believe whatever the evidence leads to as the most reasonable conclusion, and our feelings about humility or arrogance should have nothing to do with how we analyze and draw conclusions from the data. Skepticism is fine (and science welcomes skepticism), but skepticism needs to be based on science not emotions.
    Last edited by Crashland; 11-23-2014 at 01:33 PM.
    Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. -Douglas Hofstadter

    Life, Liberty, Logic



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by presence View Post
    Everything you cited is in km^2; that is area; aka "extent"

    This is not volume; aka km^3




    Yes... the AREA of the sheet of ice covering the oceans is INCREASING (just slightly mind you)

    However, the VOLUME of ice on the oceans is DECREASING (quite significantly)





    I feel like we're missing some fundamentals.

    Volume is a cubic dimension. Length x Width x Height

    Extent is a square dimension. It is the Length x Width (AREA) of the largest side of an object.









    http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/JuliaSherlis.shtml

    lets calculate EXTENT

    paper: 8.5*11 = 93.5 square inches (you called this cube)
    block of wood: 6x6 = 36 square inches

    The paper has more EXTENT

    93.5/36 = 2.59

    The paper has an EXTENT 2.59 times greater than the block of wood






    Now lets calculate the volume in each product:

    paper = 8.5*11*0.004 = 0.374 cubic inches

    block of wood = 6*6*6 = 216 cubic inches

    The block of wood has more VOLUME

    216/0.374 = 577.5

    The block of wood has a VOLUME 577.5 times greater than the paper





    Which then brings us to the data from your links:







    So the Northern Hemisphere is showing -6.9% EXTENT loss per decade and the Southern Hemisphere is showing a measly 1.2% EXTENT gain per decade.


    Meanwhile...


    If we refer back to our VOLUME chart:








    We see October VOLUME was 17 in 1979 and is only 5 in 2012.


    That's 70% loss of VOLUME in 33 years.



    30% VOLUME loss per decade




    In summary per decade:

    30% VOLUME loss in all oceans
    1.2 % AREA gain in southern hemisphere
    6.9 % AREA loss in northern hemisphere


    It seems quite cherry picked to focus on the 1.2% area gain in this context:


    While the surface area (EXTENT) covered by ice is just slightly larger, in just the southern hemisphere, each decade... the THICKNESS (third dimension of volume) of the ice on the oceans is significantly less everywhere.

    Further... the AREA loss in the northern hemisphere is greater than the AREA gain in the southern hemisphere. So as a whole... there is a net loss in VOLUME AND AREA in the world's oceans.
    Thanks for the correction, I had a feeling what I was looking at was wasn't volume but I really wanted to believe km squared was somehow representing area but I was wasn't. But again, the earth has been warming up since the last ice age, it would make more sense if the total volume got smaller every year not bigger.

    +rep

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Crashland View Post
    The arrogance argument is an appeal to incredulity. If the facts point to humans having more of an impact on our environment than you or I could imagine, then that is simply how it is. It is never arrogant to believe whatever the evidence leads to as the most reasonable conclusion, and our feelings about humility or arrogance should have nothing to do with how we analyze and draw conclusions from the data. Skepticism is fine (and science welcomes skepticism), but skepticism needs to be based on science not emotions.
    Agreed, but I think some people are pretty emotional about their so called science. In fact, so emotional that they fail to look around once in a while.

    My point about the arrogance is when one considers the history of the earth, and the extremes in climate fluctuation, its pretty arrogant to assume that human beings came along and then started changing the temperature of the earth. There is some very compelling evidence that shows climate change has been around far longer than people have - that is a fact. Extreme climate change, and the evidence resides right in my back yard.

    Another example of arrogance is chasing down a hybrid or electric vehicle, or the promise of some kind of fuel cell hydrogen technology, while ignoring low hanging fruit such as diesel technology. If the world was ending, and we needed to do something now, why aren't people chasing bio-diesel, or even conventional diesel vehicles? Diesels are more efficient than the hybrid or electric (which is a joke, most of the electricity comes from a power plant that has nowhere near the emissions regulation that most cars have). Diesel can use the same infrastructure and is ready to go today, but there is an arrogance that somehow "science" will come and save us. Meanwhile, one has to wonder who is driving (please forgive the pun) the new technology? Yes, the hydrogen fuel cell is amazing science, but its arrogant to ignore diesel because its not some flashy new science.

    I grew up during the days when acid rain was the eco-catastrophe du jour. Also, the ozone was being depleted, and we were all going to die of cancer in a few decades. Now it is said that ozone is a greenhouse emission, and will kill the planet. (where are my R12 and R22 then? We had to change over everything to save the ozone and the planet - more science at work reinventing the wheel). Did I read something about sulfur dioxide being used to combat global warming? Oh, and as I think about it, I think it was as recently as 2009 that power plants in the USofA had ZERO mercury emissions standards. Meanwhile, pseudo-science tells us that we should upgrade all of our bulbs to CFL's, which contain mercury. Who cares about global warming if our kids cant even eat a meal without getting poisoned.

    Forgive the rant, I'm tired and cranky... For some reason I took your post as telling me that my thought process was based upon emotion, but then you might have thought I was calling you arrogant. Its a risk I often take, but it was not my intention to insult anyone. The science on this topic reminds me of the manipulation of the CPI, and how there's always some way to make the numbers sing the tune one desires - and one will always get away with it until people start looking around. The guy at work tells me inflation is ~2 percent, and I have to break out the same "take a look around" speech - but I digress.

    Gulag Chief:
    "Article 58-1a, twenty five years... What did you get it for?"
    Gulag Prisoner: "For nothing at all."
    Gulag Chief: "You're lying... The sentence for nothing at all is 10 years"



  7. #35
    Supposedly, we're in the beginnings of a little ice age. Or so some say. Could be...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-19-2014, 12:59 PM
  2. Ron Paul Billboards (48 feet by 14 feet) need mockups!
    By JoshLowry in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 219
    Last Post: 12-14-2011, 01:16 PM
  3. 25 FEET of Recent Snow Near Yellowstone
    By tpreitzel in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 05-31-2011, 11:36 PM
  4. LOL...global warming....DC area under record 3 feet of snow
    By devil21 in forum Stop Global Warming Fraud
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 02-07-2010, 03:26 PM
  5. Selling pair Billboard POSTERS 22 feet x 10.5 feet
    By piersonjef in forum Advertising Projects
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-21-2008, 10:28 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •