Oh my gosh, this exact same thing was on an episode on the TV show Futurama!

In the spirit of fun and humor, I give you this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgE_mkR2oac

Talk about life imitating art!

;-)

LOL, thanks for the snippet. Very funny. It should be a mandate that we get cartoon time every so often to keep everyone's, including mine, emotions in check.

Looked over some of the other ones there too.

The one with Gore and Bender is great also.

Also, saw a montage from the Gorecles' movie. Holy Cow what a crock. Know the best way to tell when a politician, even an out of work one, is fibbing or trying to pull the wool over your eyes....wait for it...

Their lips and hands move.

According to the British Foreign Minister, speaking at the NY Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), there are 17 trillion reasons to support carbon regulation as a solution to so called anthropogenic global warming. Understand how the CFR produced and coordinated the distribution of the Al Gore movie �An Inconvenient Truth�, using the corporate environmental group NRDC; to serve the agenda of a mainly European �Gulf State Oil Cartel. The result will be an accelerated shift of jobs to the slave state China where production is dominated by European joint ventures, continued deprivation of the third world by Anglo-Dutch BP-Shell; and the eventual bankruptcy and defeat of the people of the United States-the last remaining free middle class not completely constrained by �Global Governance.� , i.e. WEF, World Bank, WTO, international cartelism. The film audio excerpts are bolstered by presentation slides documenting the global warming money scam institutional implementation and cross-links.

WATCH THE VIDEO:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1425249672931646464

Nice theory. Only problem is that Antarctica is not warming and the ice mass is increasing.

It might work for Greenland though which has had an increase in icebergs breaking off in previous years, plus the additional negative feedback of cooler water lowering North Atlantic temperatures. Not that the folks back home in the UK want it to be any cooler - as they are suffering their usual miserable, cold, wet summer so far.

Unfortunately for the authors though, Greenland has also been quite cold this spring/summer.
http://www.wunderground.com/history/station/04320/2007/6/28/MonthlyHistory.html

If your were to drop a large chunk of ice into a bowl full of water, two things would happen. The water would get colder (temporarily) but the water level in the bowl would rise. One of the major concerns of global warming is the rise in sea level.

Legacy corporations (Exxon, GM, etc.) and people on their payroll for this legacy corporations keep throwing out side show arguments without substantiated scientific proof. For example, is there any proof that humans have no effect what so ever on the climate? This ice berg thing is just another side show.

Just a question but since there is a UC Irvine study that shows that up to 94% of artic temperature rise is due to dirty snow, not global warming, and another story just out that say the raw satellite measurements show that there has been no sea level rise in the last 10 years, and to add to that that the tree ring proxies don't match the instrumented temperature readings... then I am not sure global warming is happening the way the proponents would have us believe. As was said in an eariler post, the antartic is not melting, but rather it is getting colded if anything and adding more ice.

Now we know that the AGW proponents have pretty much said there is no urban heat islands even though anyone can look at city reports and see that the reported temperatures in the city are 2-5 degrees warmer than the surrounding country side.

I believe that we are having global warming but it is pretty hard to see where man is causing it other than making up numbers and if man is not causing it, should we not be more worried about how we are going to keep it from getting eventually cooler?

"One of the major concerns of global warming is the rise in sea level."

Given that ice mass in Antarctica is increasing, and that most of the world's ice is also in Antarctica - I wouldn't lose any sleep over this. The poles are not melting as Al Gore would have you believe.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg

Vernon:

You are right on. Cold weather stinks. Oh, I mean it is nice at Christmas time and all, but the rest, bleh. Should be easy to fix though, we just have to breathe more.

LOL

Patrick Henry,

Since the ice mass is increasing, one would expect more icebergs to break off, as the increased weight of ice and snow at the upper end of the glacier will tend to push the foot of the glacier further out to sea. The very fact that icebergs are breaking off is proof that the glacier is growing and moving. Otherwise, the glacier would recede out of the ocean and start ablating on land.

Dan,

Icebergs only calve if the glacier is terminated in a body of water. Therefore, the mass of the iceberg is already accounted for.

>> The water would get colder (temporarily) but the water level in the bowl would rise. One of the major concerns of global warming is the rise in sea level.

Dan, based on direct observation then, there is no significant melting going on. If Greenland all melted, there would be a 24 feet rise (temporarily) in sea level. At most, we've seen .1% of that, so only .1% of ice has melted.
Also note, I added "temporarily". You need to understand that all the ice on earth is currently diplacing it's weight in water. The water in the artic is doing so directly. It can all melt with not even a temporary change in sea level. The ice on land (antartic & greenland) is weighing down on the land, displacing water.

If the ice suddenly melted, the land would bounce up. This would cause the sea level to drop again, just like getting out of a bathtub. It's been happening in my native Norway for quite some time. The earth's crust is "floating" in magma.

Gunnar,

If there has been any rise in sea level, and if the oceans really are warming up - one could probably explain the former on thermal expansion due to the latter.

If a lump of ice is floating in a vessel of water, and the ice melts, the water level does not change.

A floating object displaces an amount of water having mass equal to that of the floating object. Ice is less dense than water, which is why it floats in the first place, and when the ice melts its mass does not change, so the water level stays the same.

Dan,

Try this simple experiment. Fill a glass with ice. Fill the same glass to the brim with water. Wait for the ice to melt and the glass to overflow.

It won't happen because water expands when it freezes. Put a bottle of water in the freezer and note how it stretches and sometimes explodes.

>> If there has been any rise in sea level, and if the oceans really are warming up - one could probably explain the former on thermal expansion due to the latter.

Good point.