Forget, for the moment, the arctic sea ice. Let’s look at the ground leading up to the ice. This is the Tundra, with its layer of permafrost. You can walk on this, and observe the various shrubs and animal life. The permafrost is shrinking. Period. Here’s a link from that pinko mouthpiece, The National Geographic:
http://environment.nationalgeographic.co...
Do a search on arctic tundra and you will find a multitude of web sites with the exact same information. The tundra is thawing out. There are many photos taken over the ages that show a dramatic change in the land leading up to the ice. With that, you are seeing different animal species either increasing their domain, or being forced out. People who live and/or work on the tundra have also raised their voices over this fact. I could not find a single report where a long time resident came to an opposing view.
Now, lets look at what is causing global warming. From high school chemistry, you learned the definition of Specific Heat. This is the amount of heat required to increase the temperature of a material. Carbon Dioxide has a higher Specific Heat than the other components of air. No theory, pure fact that you can demonstrate in a high school lab.
Now, look around. There are more people, more cars, more industry, more factories, and they are all emitting Carbon Dioxide. No theory, again, cold hard facts. Just these 2 facts, things you can see with your own eye, will tell you that something is changing.
That is global warming. If the ground leading up to the sea is warmer, it is apparent that the sea will do likewise.
Edit -rebuttal
So, per your experiment, as smoke dissipates, the molecules are destroyed? (Rather than being so dilute you can’t see it?)
I’ve got an experiment for you now. Eat a can of beans then go into a closet and close the door. According to your theory, the farts will dissipate “into nothingness” and leave no odor. Let me know how you make out.
You are sufficiently incoherent that even some of the denialists are calling you on your BS. This should tell you something...
I'm not even sure what you think you're saying re: "all non-solids that rise into the upper atmosphere separate into nothingness". What is the mechanism for this?
And are you trying to say that atmospheric CO2 levels haven't been rising? Because they have, this is a thing we can and have measured.
Your additional details seem to suggest that you think things dispersing in the air means that they are no longer present. But all it means is that they're diluted enough that you cannot easily detect them by casual methods such as sight. Science has advanced well beyond "If I can't see it, it's not there"...
You might try learning, well, *anything*, then coming back here. Start here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
http://aip.org/history/climate/summary.h...
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;... (a while back, I asked people to post links to sources at various experience levels)
OK - I gots to know. What the Hell is the "nothingness" you keep talking about::
>>All non solids that rise into the upper atmosphere separate into nothingness naturally <<
You know, it's that whole E=mc^^2 thing.
That's a stupid statement "all non solids that rise into the atmosphere separate into nothingness" that goes against the law of conservation of matter.
I am a skeptic, please stop making skeptics look stupid.
Sure all it takes is money. Then more money. Then more money. You naturally milk a cow as long as it keeps giving milk. Al Gore and his ilk know the score.
Joseph Goebbels,
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
links, links, links
It will cost a great deal of money to fix the environment and like a couple hundred years.
Your lack of knowledge is overwhelming
Have you thought about professional help, or perhaps running for office as a Tea Party member?
Bad drugs?
With your logic, we should not have air to breathe.
???
I was reading where scientist say its going to cost $1.8 Billion to fix the environment, when Nature controls the environment, by its chemicals in the upper atmosphere. All non solids that rise into the upper atmosphere separate into nothingness naturally so the sun's ray's can warm earth and keep all plants growing for food and oxygen so all species from earth can survive naturally. I proved this with an experiment to 350 million people and all the scientists that ex President Bush hired to find the cause and solution/ all Scientists concurred. A Television Station out of Ohio hired people with degrees to investigate the upper atmosphere and they concurred with my facts, now others are trying to scam people out of money that nature eliminates naturally. Mike
