• Sections
Scientists say they have proved clima...

# Scientists say they have proved climate change is real, now mus...

There are 7942 comments on the Hartford Courant story from Dec 9, 2008, titled Scientists say they have proved climate change is real, now mus.... In it, Hartford Courant reports that:

Scientists studying the changing nature of the Earth's climate say they have completed one crucial task - proving beyond a doubt that global warming is real.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Hartford Courant.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#7291 Dec 8, 2012
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet when you do the math yourself you will discover that those estimates were way off. While the amount of ice seems to be massive, yet when you compare it to the volume of the world's oceans you will notice it isn't nothing but a drop in the bucket. That the amount of water trapped in the Greenland Ice Sheet isn't enough to cause the rise that some estimate.
Oh, remember when doing your calculations that when water freezes it expands. Which means that the volume of ice in Greenland will equal less water. I even included a few links to help you get started. Of course your numbers might be a little off if you don't include shore line gradient so I included that link as well.
http://bprc.osu.edu/wiki/Greenland_Factsheet
http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/people/faculty/M...
Your Physlink link is irrelevant. As was previously pointed out, the volume or ice on land does not in any way decrease the volume of meltwater that reaches the oceans. Your feeble attempts at deflection are akin to the old riddle, "Which is heavier, a ton of lead or a ton of feathers?" (FYI, Tina - don't bother to look it up. A ton is a ton, they weigh the same.)

Your Duke link is irrelevant. How waves behave on or at coastal rise has NOTHING to do with global warming.

Your Hypertextbook link points out that there is over 4 times as much water locked up in ice than in ALL OTHER NON-OCEANIC WATER SOURCES COMBINED.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#7292 Dec 8, 2012
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Your Physlink link is irrelevant. As was previously pointed out, the volume or ice on land does not in any way decrease the volume of meltwater that reaches the oceans. Your feeble attempts at deflection are akin to the old riddle, "Which is heavier, a ton of lead or a ton of feathers?" (FYI, Tina - don't bother to look it up. A ton is a ton, they weigh the same.)
Your Duke link is irrelevant. How waves behave on or at coastal rise has NOTHING to do with global warming.
Your Hypertextbook link points out that there is over 4 times as much water locked up in ice than in ALL OTHER NON-OCEANIC WATER SOURCES COMBINED.
In other words it is an inconvient truth that you need to avoid. Dispite the fact that it is proven fact that water when freezing expands, that ice floats as the result of that expansion. That you could fill a glass with ice and then water all the way to the rim. Come back later and you will discover the level of water has gone down.

Judged:

2

2

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#7293 Dec 8, 2012
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
And you didn't do the math yourself. Could it be that you are afraid that when you do you will discover that the estimate on that fact sheet isn't a fact but fiction. Or did you run the numbers and discover that the truth is that the rise is less than a couple of millimeters.
Time to try thinking for yourself instead of getting thoughts that support your beliefs. Find out the truth for yourself by doing the math yourself. Also notice after many of those estimate were discovered to be wrong that they had to trot out thermal expansion which fell flat when math proved that for the amount of heat needed the land would all be barren with every creature on the land well cooked.
Again, I quoted DIRECTLY from the factsheet YOU provided. Personally, I question the math that the Greenland ice sheet alone contains enough water to raise sea levels 20 feet over an area of 140,000,000 square miles. However, I do not at all find it difficult to believe that the current trend of GLOBAL ice loss can raise sea levels to a degree that would inundate large areas of coastal settlement.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#7294 Dec 8, 2012
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
In other words it is an inconvient truth that you need to avoid. Dispite the fact that it is proven fact that water when freezing expands, that ice floats as the result of that expansion. That you could fill a glass with ice and then water all the way to the rim. Come back later and you will discover the level of water has gone down.
Your discussion with me has not been about sea ice, but about glacial ice. Please stop insulting yourself by not recognizing the difference.
As for your experiment with displacement of water, the correct analogy here would be to suspend an ice cube over a glass of water and see how much higher the level rises as the cube melts.

Judged:

2

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#7295 Dec 8, 2012
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
In other words it is an inconvient truth that you need to avoid. Dispite the fact that it is proven fact that water when freezing expands, that ice floats as the result of that expansion. That you could fill a glass with ice and then water all the way to the rim. Come back later and you will discover the level of water has gone down.
Both an 8.35 lb block of ice and an 8.35 lb block of styrofoam will displace the same amount of water (1 gallon) and still, this is irrelevant to glacial melt.

Judged:

2

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
litesong
#7296 Dec 8, 2012
tina anne wrote:
Even one of sources by 'tiny-minded anne' indicates that the melting of all Greenland Ice Sheets would raise the sea level by many meters:

The ice sheet would add between 6 and 7.4 meters to the global sea level (Warrick et al. 1996).

Judged:

2

2

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#7297 Dec 8, 2012
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Even one of sources by 'tiny-minded anne' indicates that the melting of all Greenland Ice Sheets would raise the sea level by many meters:
The ice sheet would add between 6 and 7.4 meters to the global sea level (Warrick et al. 1996).
A simple back-of-an-envelope calculation:
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
OK.
Volume of ice in Greenland ice sheet: 2.85x10^15m^3.
Area of oceans: 3.35x10^14m^2.
If all the ice melts, you get 2.85x10^15/3.35x10^14 = 8.5m sea level rise, not taking into account extra land swallowed up.
http://www.topix.com/forum/world/TI8DR7KA8NGK...

tina charmingly thinks maths might have changed since the last time she posted so now she might be right- ever optimistic.

Judged:

4

3

3

Report Abuse Judge it!
PHD
#7298 Dec 8, 2012
The Less than a Box of Rocks AKA "tinaÂ” is irrelevant. You would be in a better position to speak to an empty chair. Yes the empty chair has a purpose.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#7299 Dec 10, 2012
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, I quoted DIRECTLY from the factsheet YOU provided. Personally, I question the math that the Greenland ice sheet alone contains enough water to raise sea levels 20 feet over an area of 140,000,000 square miles. However, I do not at all find it difficult to believe that the current trend of GLOBAL ice loss can raise sea levels to a degree that would inundate large areas of coastal settlement.
Don't quote, calculate. Do the math yourself, think for yourself. That is if you can. Instead of quoting others who are wrong you should do the calculations and quote yourself instead of quoting predictions that are obviously wrong after only a few years.

Judged:

2

2

2

Report Abuse Judge it!

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#7300 Dec 10, 2012
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Both an 8.35 lb block of ice and an 8.35 lb block of styrofoam will displace the same amount of water (1 gallon) and still, this is irrelevant to glacial melt.
Yet a 8.35 block of ice will occupy less volume and a equal weight in water will occupy even less volume.

The question discuss is about volume not mass. And the fact is that phyics has already proved that a gallon's worth of frozen water will not occupy the same volume once it returns to a liquid form.

If I am wrong then show me a creditable source that proves that an equal mass of water will occupy the same amount of volume in both the solid and liquid state. I managed to find one creditable link that proves me right.

Judged:

2

2

2

Report Abuse Judge it!
PHD
#7301 Dec 10, 2012
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't quote, calculate. Do the math yourself, think for yourself. That is if you can. Instead of quoting others who are wrong you should do the calculations and quote yourself instead of quoting predictions that are obviously wrong after only a few years.
You make demands that you can't answer your---self. When are you going to answer that eight grade question? See why your a Less than a Box of Rocks.Oh asking what the question was and asking me to answer it for you is old and dosen't support your useless babble.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#7302 Dec 10, 2012
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
A simple back-of-an-envelope calculation:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/world/TI8DR7KA8NGK...
tina charmingly thinks maths might have changed since the last time she posted so now she might be right- ever optimistic.
Not bad, but you left off shore line gradient. Of course others did the same numbers and arrived at a much different answer. Which is why thermal expansion was offered. It failed when they missed how much heat would be required to heat that mass of water. They also missed the effect of evaporation as the result of the increased surface area and warmer air. Some of which would not return to the ocean but end up filtering into aquafir or even end up sitting in a bottle on a store shelf.

They have sense added Antartic ice mass to the latest attempt.

Judged:

3

2

2

Report Abuse Judge it!
PHD
#7303 Dec 10, 2012
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet a 8.35 block of ice will occupy less volume and a equal weight in water will occupy even less volume.
The question discuss is about volume not mass. And the fact is that phyics has already proved that a gallon's worth of frozen water will not occupy the same volume once it returns to a liquid form.
If I am wrong then show me a creditable source that proves that an equal mass of water will occupy the same amount of volume in both the solid and liquid state. I managed to find one creditable link that proves me right.
"tina anne" Said
"that phyics has already proved that a gallon's worth"

Gallon's worth would represent more than one. What is PHYICS?
WOW with someone that boasts about a higher education needs links to support answer's. Why don't yo do the math your---self and post it so everyone would get the same valuable education that you boast about.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#7304 Dec 10, 2012
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Not bad, but you left off shore line gradient.
No I didn't.
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is why the actual estimate is 7m rather than my ballpark 8.5m.
http://www.topix.com/forum/world/TI8DR7KA8NGK...
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Even if the ice had to cover 100% of the Earth's surface, it would still raise sea level by 5m (and that includes the ice/water volume factor).
So no, it's still you who's got it wrong.
http://www.topix.com/forum/world/TI8DR7KA8NGK...

The same nonsense over and over again. What a grotesque troll you are.

Judged:

3

3

2

Report Abuse Judge it!

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#7305 Dec 10, 2012
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>"tina anne" Said
"that phyics has already proved that a gallon's worth"
Gallon's worth would represent more than one. What is PHYICS?
WOW with someone that boasts about a higher education needs links to support answer's. Why don't yo do the math your---self and post it so everyone would get the same valuable education that you boast about.
Would you take my word if I just said it was so. Somehow I doubt it and your friend would doubt it even with the link.

As for the math, I did do it myself, and I noticed that even with you demanding I do so that you did not. Care to lead by example?

Judged:

2

2

2

Report Abuse Judge it!
PHD
#7306 Dec 10, 2012
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you take my word if I just said it was so. Somehow I doubt it and your friend would doubt it even with the link.
As for the math, I did do it myself, and I noticed that even with you demanding I do so that you did not. Care to lead by example?
That would be your position to lead by example. Your the only one that boasts about a higher education and yet you display something Less than a Box of Rocks. Now show all your work.

Judged:

2

2

2

Report Abuse Judge it!

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#7307 Dec 10, 2012
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't quote, calculate. Do the math yourself, think for yourself. That is if you can. Instead of quoting others who are wrong you should do the calculations and quote yourself instead of quoting predictions that are obviously wrong after only a few years.
Alright, then. The Greenland ice sheet is about 1/210 the area of the global water surface and averages 5000 feet thick. Reduce that by 10%(water also varies in density according to its temperature) for the volume of ice compared to the volume of water gives you "water thickness" of about 4500 feet. 210 divided into 4500 = 21.4 feet.(I'll grant that as seawater level rise, the continental slope increases the area of the ocean surface, so I'll go with the 6 meter vs. the 7 meter approximation.) Do you suffer from some infirmity that prohibits you from those same simple calculations?
And again, that does not at all address the rest of the landbound ice - just the Greenland Ice sheet.
Now, I believe I have been entitled to a quote.

"SHADDUP, numbskull!" - Moe Howard

Judged:

3

2

2

Report Abuse Judge it!

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#7308 Dec 10, 2012
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet a 8.35 block of ice will occupy less volume and a equal weight in water will occupy even less volume.
The question discuss is about volume not mass. And the fact is that phyics has already proved that a gallon's worth of frozen water will not occupy the same volume once it returns to a liquid form.
If I am wrong then show me a creditable source that proves that an equal mass of water will occupy the same amount of volume in both the solid and liquid state. I managed to find one creditable link that proves me right.
Not only are you barking up the wrong tree, you have the tree confused with a sailboat. Landbound ice displaces ZERO ZILCH NADA NO water until it enters a body of water. Even so, if you float a bucket containing either a lb of ice or a lb. of water, both will displace EXACTLY the same volume of water. 2 ships can weigh the same and have a completely different densities - but they still DISPLACE THE SAME tonnage. This is ELEMENTARY, so I'll provide you with a simple link even a grade schooler should be able to understand.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-m...

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
PHD
#7309 Dec 10, 2012
The Less than a Box of Rocks AKA "tina" is a product of the one child left behind program.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#7310 Dec 12, 2012
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Alright, then. The Greenland ice sheet is about 1/210 the area of the global water surface and averages 5000 feet thick. Reduce that by 10%(water also varies in density according to its temperature) for the volume of ice compared to the volume of water gives you "water thickness" of about 4500 feet. 210 divided into 4500 = 21.4 feet.(I'll grant that as seawater level rise, the continental slope increases the area of the ocean surface, so I'll go with the 6 meter vs. the 7 meter approximation.) Do you suffer from some infirmity that prohibits you from those same simple calculations?
And again, that does not at all address the rest of the landbound ice - just the Greenland Ice sheet.
Now, I believe I have been entitled to a quote.
"SHADDUP, numbskull!" - Moe Howard
Better but you have the shore line gradient backwards. The average shore line gradient I found was 14 degrees not 74 degrees.

And I already did those simple calculations and even wrote a model that I tested using data from the end of the ice age to now. Something many of those predictions have not.

Also, don't forget something called evaporation as all that warmer air pulls water out of the oceans and deposit it on the land. More surface area equals more evaporation and some of your friends use that same factor to link more snows with global warming. That the warmer water allows more evaporation and results in more snow.

Judged:

3

2

2

Report Abuse Judge it!

#### Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min VetnorsGate 1,405,628
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 18 min Raydot 219,712
Chicago has the Worst Women 43 min Chiraq 40
What's the point of War 1 hr Anonymous 1
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr El Padre 60,664
last post wins! (Apr '13) 4 hr They cannot kill ... 1,265
Police involved in fatal Summit shooting (Apr '06) Jul 12 Rip 549