Lare Kikkeli

Are you actually arguing a swede, who's very likely been to stockholm multiple times about how it looks? I can vouch for what he says b/c I've been to stockholm it looks exactly like that. Here's central helsinki: The helsinki metropolitan area has 1 million residents at 215 resident per square kilometer. Helsinki although a bit smaller, is very comparable to Stockholm.

I don't think there's anything in the Quran about suicide bombings. In fact I think the Quran, like other abrahamic religions actually says suicide is a sin.

fixed to more accurately represent the poster himself:

Fallout 3 was good on the PC if you modded the gui. The default console GUI was a piece of ****.

finally you can experience the joys of working for the motherland, at home!

could you please take all of our right wing anti immigrant populists? fair trade...

i need this game

I read that some of the Alien comics were written by the guy who invented Judge Dredd aka the best comic ever...really piqued my interest. Has anyone read them, are they any good? Do you consider them canon J.E.?

No one else brought up Al Gore than you and taks because everyone knows his documentary is full of holes. In fact I don't think anyone has tried to use Kilimanjaro as proof of anything in this thread, except maybe taks that since one glacier is receding for other reasons than climate change all other glaciers must be as well...which is stupid. Your water vapour stuff vs. co2 is completely irrevelant. It's just numbers that out of context don't mean anything. It's just your reasoning, not based on anything concrete, just your "common sense", which makes it about as credible evidence for anything as anything The Flat Earth Society says. Most of physics is against common sense, because the universe doesn't work like us humans believe it does, or should for that matter. I agree that we need more evidence, especially in the light of what the ICCP has been doing but common sense or gut feelings have no place in science, because they have been proven wrong over and over again.

OK, physics lesson. CO2 is one carbon atom bonded covalently to two oxygen atoms. One of the basic physical principals is that this type of bond absorbs light in the infrared region of the spectrum ('heat'), the bond vibrates and releases the energy as slightly longer wavelength IR. This is how spectrophotometers and such work in chemical analysis. The emitted IR will, on average, go into space (~<50%) or return to earth (~>50). Without the CO2 (/water /methane /..) 100% goes into space. This is obviously a simplification, but the basic science is, well, basic and irrefutable. May as well argue that the earth is flat as argue that CO2 does not cause warming. OK, physics lesson, repeating, CO2 is .04% of atmosphere, water vapor is 1%, it's reasonable to assume water vapor swamps out any effect of CO2 until proven otherwise. That's before you start talking about any negative feedback mechanisms of the earth or the oceans absorbing extra heat. Also the new Dutch study I linked shows Kilimanjaro melting is mostly due to natural phenomenon. Ok, reality lesson. Your reason has nothing to do with how stuff works in reality. It's reasonable to assume the earth is flat. It's reasonable to assume the sun is a giant lamp hanging above flat earth. It's reasonable to assume that time is separate from matter. I could go on. Also forget about Kilimanjaro, it's not proof of anything else except that it's a natural phenomenon.

you guys can only lose. LoF is a lot smarter than most of you, even if he's completely wrong. he's also an expert troll.

gonna have to split this in two posts... i read your article fine. i said its interior is gaining mass. you should learn to read. let's see now... was your point that greenland is gaining mass at about the same rate as it's losing it? because it seems you said it's gaining mass, which it isn't. yes, because yet again, you posted a reply about the arctic ice in response to a comment about global ice, then somehow made the leap to me being wrong. when someone repeatedly makes such fallacious claims, i begin to surmise they aren't the brightest in the lot. had you actually been more intellectually honest, i would have treated you with more respect, but instead, we get the same old ill-informed alarmist nonsense becuase it is about belief to you, not truth. i'd like to see you dig up a link that shows how much antarctica has gained mass. oh wait, you can't. there is no data on global ice, just regional stuff. pot kettle black. i assumed that antarctica is not gaining enough to offset the global loss. prove your claim. no it hasnt. you haven't proven a thing. in fact i think my side is winning you have a hard time because you don't understand the basics of the physics. there is nothing wrong with that, but making the claim that "the basic physics says so" (paraphrased) is disingenuous at best. i do happen to understand the basics of electromagnetic radiation, and what happens when a molecule absorbs a photon. however, it is much, much deeper than that. for starters, an absorbed photon causes an electron to step up to a higher state, but the electron will step back down abd reradiate another photon almost instantaneously. in order to raise the temperature of a gas, some energy needs to be transferred to kinetic energy, which does not happen in the simple absorption process. something is missing from the description, even in the published literature. what complicates things further is that the atmosphere is extremely dynamic, and stored heat in the atmosphere is dominated by water vapor. this in turn is vastly overwhelmed by the massive amount of water stored in our oceans, which has, as i noted, over 3000 times the capacity. this is the physics that i am currently trying to understand myself, for the record. it needs to be explained in enough detail that someone like me with a rather extensive technical background can analyze, as well as a high enough level for the lay person to understand. so far, what has been proposed does not pass the smell test. lol, you're so arrogant it hurts. i dont claim to be an expert in physics, but i dont think you're an expert either and i have a hard time believing none of the real experts have no real evidence for stuff that has been pretty much universally accepted apart from a few cranks here and there. i could point out a number of typos you made in this thread, and english is your first language. how childish of you, the self proclaimed genius. also you haven't posted any real proof either.

i already admitted, in the first post even that antarctice isn't probably losing mass and could well be gaining some. that wasn't so hard now, was it? no one mentioned al gore before you did. and i never claimed there couldn't be any other glaciers receding for other reasons than global warming, just that your example didn't prove that there is either. not in the antarctic, it is growing. since antarctica is the largest body of ice on the planet, it serves to reason that it could easily balance out the arctic losses. please, back your claims up with real data stop making them. i dont care what your common sense tells you, give me some sort of proof or get out.

link me to it. prove your claims. i meant that i'd like to see these numbers. please show a link that shows the percentage of glaciers have been studied, and that only half of them are melting. you throw around numbers with no sources. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/40473 google glacier melt accelerating and you will find multiple articles that back me up. well you've got one example of a glacier receding that isn't directly caused by global warming. it only proves that one glacier isn't melting because of global warming, nothing else. i couldn't find any data on global sea ice levels, just regional data and it all says it's decreasing. if you have data that backs your claim up please post it. it says it is in mass balance and it's losing coastal ice, not that it's gaining mass like you claimed. you learn how to read. heh, resorting to name calling are we? as i said i couldnt find any data on GLOBAL ice and i already said that the antarctic is probably in balance or gaining mass slightly. if you have that data please post it. no i just think it's funny, you being so arrogant yet having no proof of anything you say at all. i have a hard time believing that there's no concrete evidence that an increase CO2 in the earths atmosphere increases the temperature as well, but i guess i can't disprove it either. however i am very spectical.

wait, so you're not denying it, you just want more proof that an increase in CO2 will cause global warming? CO2 is a greenhouse gas and according to physics an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase it's temperature. its based on math, not opinion. now if you want to know how much CO2 is needed to increase the temperature of earth you'll gonna have to take a pencil and start doing math. or trust people who have. your choice.

i'd like to see the math you used to base your assumption.

what the hell is wrong with you? i played the fallouts when i was 13 or 14 and i loved them.

this is totally non relevant. what does it matter how much of the atmosphere is CO2 if it will warm the climate up? you're not denying that an increase in CO2 will raise the average temperature in earths atmosphere are you? lol best thing you've posted so far. here's an article in a language i dont understand proving my point! classic stuff. edit: alright you ninja edited. anyway i dont think anyone was claiming otherwise.

Irrelevant. The claim that glaciers are melting is used as a basis for climate change theories. If the validity of the the basis is contested (by pointing out how reduced the observed sample is), you don't need to make a counter-claim. first of all, i didn't say he needed to make a counter-claim, it's just that he did. i just want to know what he's basing his claims on. also i'd like to see where those pretty damn exact numbers are from. i suspect his arse. Back to the previous point. Post some data that hasn't been carefully selected to push one theory or another. Again, it's difficult (if not impossible), because of the reduced amount of data available. i'm not sure i understand what you mean. i posted two articles, one by nasa. if you find something wrong with the data in the articles please point it out. Except when they aren't, as I showed. yes, in those cases you are correct. i apologise. Arctic ice masses are seaborne. Floating ice amounts to ~2% of all ice, pretty insignificant. yes, and i'd like to see evidence that while floating ice is decreasing the total mass is increasing. couldn't find any myself.

already addressed, but very misleading and not about the subject at hand i'd like proof of these numbers. also if we're only monitoring 1% of all glaciers worldwide how can you make any counter-arguments to the claim that they're melting either? are you monitoring more glaciers than the scientific community? again misleading. sure the glaciers have been melting since the ice age (maybe because back then all of europe was under a glacier? ). the point is, the melting/receding seems to have accelerated a lot in recent times. deforestation and huge droughts are linked to global warming. weather patterns are changing and becoming more extreme because of global warming. thats the theory anyway. again i'd like to see some proof that either polar cap is gaining more mass than it's losing. i guess it's possible than the antarctice is gaining mass or is at least not losing any, but the north polar region is definitely losing its mass. this is plain false unless you have some solid evidence that contradicts mine. http://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-...gaining-ice.htm http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=7037 from the NSIDC:

Communism: great idea, wrong species.

Only problem is, taks's facts are false or misleading. He's basically talking out of his arse. Unless of course you want to prove those controversial claims, taks? And just saying that the proof is out there isn't enough.

Catholic means universal, so yes, catholics are the only christians. I think you mean Roman Catholics, which as any New Testament teacher will tell you, is quite different from the original meaning of "catholic." Why thank you for this interesting piece of trivia.

Will intelligent machines make communism obsolete?

Prime example of an idiotic post... So Obama is responsible for what Russia does? Is it because he's a commie?