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

Full story: Hartford Courant

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.
Comments
7,461 - 7,480 of 7,946 Comments Last updated Aug 14, 2013

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7781
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
And your claim that I cannot understand basic math and science about things like the volume of water in the Greenland Ice Sheet. Funny thing is I doubt you have ever done the math in how much water is in the Greenland Ice Sheet.
It is also funny how you talking about weeding. When you are guilty of pruning the facts to fit your beliefs. Many of those who are trying to take me to task are only doing so because I am bring up those uncomfortable ugly truths.
Been there done that and don't see a reason to do it again. Flip back a few pages. You either forgot through convenience or it is beyond your comprehension. I suspect the latter, though it completely baffles me how such a simple thing could be.
Why don't you stop before (the unlikely event that) it dawns on you why you should be embarrassed?
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.
CM wrote:
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.
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.
CM wrote:
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

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7782
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Nothing to say about my post?
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
ChromiuMan wrote:
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7783
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Brian_G wrote:
Nothing to say about my post?
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
<quoted text>
Well try something different.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7784
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

ChromiuMan wrote:
You watch FOX News a lot, don't you?
You can throw out half of that common sense model of supply and demand when you consider: 1) supply and distribution is held by a relatively small number of entities.
Throw out half? Go off half cocked, I think not. Supply and demand rules, all the government does is get in the way.

.
ChromiuMan wrote:
2) Domestic oil is traded on the world market. Increasing the amount of US oil production merely puts more oil up for sale. It has a minimal impact on the amount of gasoline available at the pump.
We need more refineries, more pipelines, more infrastructure and more production and use of energy and fuel.

.
ChromiuMan wrote:
3) The world market prices are heavily influenced by speculators and investment factors creating market fluctuations.
The world market prices are heavily influenced by speculators, investors, producers and consumers. There is a market psychology, an equilibrium. I'm for growth, increasing production but reducing prices.

Climate change mitigators don't support fossil fuel growth; this is where we differ.

.
ChromiuMan wrote:
4) Domestic resources are being drilled by foreign companies through leases. Comparatively, US leases are more favorable to foreign countries than foreign leases are to American drillers. We only receive 13%- 23% of our oil from Persian/African wells. By far most of the oil we consume is from the US, S.A. and Canada.
I don't care who takes advantage to create energy, fuel and jobs; foreign investors are welcome too. I'm for growth.

.
ChromiuMan wrote:
Closing an onshore factory does reduce its pollution. It also creates a demand for cheap products, since job losses decrease the average wage. Naturally, the primary reason for outsourcing is to increase profit margins - and creating new facilities in countries that have few to no minimum wages, environmental controls and labor protection laws should certainly do that, barring gross mismanagement.
This is the problem with the green movement; they kill domestic jobs then blame the greedy. Sweet!

.
ChromiuMan wrote:
To infer that government regulations and unions are the cause of making increased profits desirable to executives and shareholders is irrational.
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7785
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

No, they are greedy.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7787
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Brian_G wrote:
Nothing to say about my post?
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
<quoted text>
Okay, I'll say something.
"Drill baby, drill" is neither a sustainable economic nor an effective energy policy unless you are an Alaskan housewife who should have stayed home.
And then there's this,
"Don't try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7788
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, I'll say something.
"Drill baby, drill" is neither a sustainable economic nor an effective energy policy unless you are an Alaskan housewife who should have stayed home.
And then there's this,
"Don't try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."
That sound you hear is applause for your post. Let me add that the pigs will fly first. Maybe a shout out is in order.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7789
Feb 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

PHD wrote:
<quoted text>There you go again making an ASSumption of your---self. One could say based on your various word choices you have less than a K level education. Its not trash its fact they spew scientific science fiction and nothing more.
Actually, given the words I tend to use I could not have less than a pre K level of education. In fact, the best pre K schools are only teaching simple words. Many schools do not teach words like education until about the third grade if not later.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7790
Feb 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Here's something tina missed a long time ago:

Here's the short version of everything you need to know about global warming. First, the consensus of the scientific community has shifted from skepticism to near-unanimous acceptance of the evidence of an artificial greenhouse effect. Second, while artificial climate change may have some beneficial effects, the odds are we're not going to like it. Third, reducing emissions of greenhouse gases may turn out to be much more practical and affordable than currently assumed.

Its title was "Case Closed: The Debate about Global Warming Is Over." The year was 2006, yet tina still claims it was disproven in 2007 or 2008 etc.

A lot of catching up to do, tina!

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7791
Feb 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Been there done that and don't see a reason to do it again. Flip back a few pages. You either forgot through convenience or it is beyond your comprehension. I suspect the latter, though it completely baffles me how such a simple thing could be.
Why don't you stop before (the unlikely event that) it dawns on you why you should be embarrassed?
<quoted text>
CM wrote:
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.
<quoted text>
CM wrote:
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
Did you actually do the math or just rely on someone else's work. I know I have done the math and discovered that if Greenland Ice was to melt all this second that you might get a few waves but the end result would be no visible change in the ocean levels. There just ins't enough water there. While the amount of water in the Greenland Ice Sheet looks impressive it is barely a minor fraction of the water in just one of the world's oceans let alone all of the oceans. You talk about how thick the ice sheet is but failed to notice how deep the ocean is. Also you had your shore line gradient backwards. It according to research is about 14 degrees not 76 degress. Even if you added the Antartic to the total you would still be a little short to reach 6 meters.

You seem to forget that the oceans cover 70.9% of the earths surface. That your 21.5 feet has to add to something that covers approx 139,400,000 square miles. Even more telling is just looking at the map of Greenland. Yours ins't the first time I have had to visit this subject and later many discovered that the numbers for Greenland were just not adding up so they trotted out the thermal expansion idea without thinking about how much heat it would take to change deep ocean temperatures.

Also, when the ice is float in water like a sailboat it displaces only the amount of water that it would occupy when it melted.

http://ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/global/etopo1_ocean_...

http://www.examiner.com/article/new-evidence-...

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7792
Feb 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

PHD wrote:
<quoted text>There you go again making an ASSumption of your---self. One could say based on your various word choices you have less than a K level education. Its not trash its fact they spew scientific science fiction and nothing more.
Tina admits to at least a 3rd grade education. Now, who's eating crow, PHD? LOL!
litesong

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7793
Feb 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

tiny-minded anne wrote:
Did you actually do the math or just rely on someone else's work. I know I have done the math and discovered that if Greenland Ice was to melt all this second that you might get a few waves but the end result would be no visible change in the ocean levels.
'tiny-minded anne' can't apply math properly to come with an accurate result. Not in this post, but in the past,'tiny-minded anne' gave a website that actually countered her own argument & confirmed what AGW advocates have stated.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7794
Feb 7, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

SpaceBlues wrote:
Here's something tina missed a long time ago:
Here's the short version of everything you need to know about global warming. First, the consensus of the scientific community has shifted from skepticism to near-unanimous acceptance of the evidence of an artificial greenhouse effect. Second, while artificial climate change may have some beneficial effects, the odds are we're not going to like it. Third, reducing emissions of greenhouse gases may turn out to be much more practical and affordable than currently assumed.
Its title was "Case Closed: The Debate about Global Warming Is Over." The year was 2006, yet tina still claims it was disproven in 2007 or 2008 etc.
A lot of catching up to do, tina!
Oh please bring up the consensus argument. I have tons a prepared information to bury that in. But just to keep it simple the word consensus is not a scientific but a political and often has been used to support concepts that were later discovered to be wrong. At one point the consensus of all the learned men on earth was that the earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe.

The entire consensus took a major hit when climate scientist started publishing studies that disproved AGW. It also took hits when it was discovered that the IPCC had published opinions as fact in the AR4 and Climate Gate and the CRU added another hit.

Of course at one time the consensus was that man was going to cause an ice age. The truth is that the consensus was nothing more than an attempt by a few to try and end the discussion before they lost it. That your consensus is only backed by a smalled and shrinking handful of climate scientist.

Funny when you say I have a lot of catching up to do that it appears that you have several times the catching up to do. In fact a few people noticed that while the CO2 levels rose between the 40's and 70's in the US that temperatures actually decreased.

The problem with your short version is it leaves out all those little annoying facts. You talk about one article that declared case close without remembering that later it was discovered that some of the sources used to declare case close were later discovered to be more fiction than fact. Things like the IPCC AR4 and the CRU's work. Your case close was written by Gregg Easterbrook, who has never had a peer reviewed paper on the subject published and only seem to write for the Atlantic Monthy, New York Times, and others that are not normally sources for peer reviewed publications but have a history of leaning one way. Or in other words, he is a journalist.

Instead of worrying about me you should try to catch up if possible. After all, right now all you can see ahead of you is my dust disappearing over the horizon. Consensus has been a dead subject for a while now.

http://owenstrachan.com/2010/03/09/weekly-sta...

http://www.informationliberation.com/...

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/...

http://www.danling.com/earthling/Docs/Climate...

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7795
Feb 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Tina admits to at least a 3rd grade education. Now, who's eating crow, PHD? LOL!
Actually I hold two degrees and have a third in progress.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7796
Feb 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Those are the global warming degrees tina is lying about?

She does not have a degree called BA or BS. Period.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7797
Feb 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you actually do the math or just rely on someone else's work. I know I have done the math and discovered that if Greenland Ice was to melt all this second that you might get a few waves but the end result would be no visible change in the ocean levels. There just ins't enough water there. While the amount of water in the Greenland Ice Sheet looks impressive it is barely a minor fraction of the water in just one of the world's oceans let alone all of the oceans. You talk about how thick the ice sheet is but failed to notice how deep the ocean is. Also you had your shore line gradient backwards. It according to research is about 14 degrees not 76 degress. Even if you added the Antartic to the total you would still be a little short to reach 6 meters.
You seem to forget that the oceans cover 70.9% of the earths surface. That your 21.5 feet has to add to something that covers approx 139,400,000 square miles. Even more telling is just looking at the map of Greenland. Yours ins't the first time I have had to visit this subject and later many discovered that the numbers for Greenland were just not adding up so they trotted out the thermal expansion idea without thinking about how much heat it would take to change deep ocean temperatures.
Also, when the ice is float in water like a sailboat it displaces only the amount of water that it would occupy when it melted.
http://ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/global/etopo1_ocean_...
http://www.examiner.com/article/new-evidence-...
The complete melt of the Greenland ice sheet is hypothetical. I obviously found the numbers and did the math, and provided explanation of how and where those numbers applied. The depth of the ocean is meaningless. If you add an ounce of water to a test tube the water will rise the same amount no matter how tall the test tube is. The addition to the oceans of Greenland melt water wouldn't be 21.5 feet - it would be 4,500 feet x 836,300 SQUARE MILES.(Gawd... yer denser than iridium.) The shoreline gradient is certainly a factor, but your numbers come from a study of waveform dynamics and have NOTHING to do with area of the oceanic surface. If the Greenland ice sheet melts, as you point out there will also be melt of permanent ice in other areas - and the addition of those waters will easily offset your shoreline gradient issue, anyway.
If you weren't so preoccupied with disproving me, you would be able to recognize the ballpark validity of the results. If you have done the math yourself and come up with significantly different results, all I can add is ALWAYS be sure you use a tax service. The IRS doesn't forgive on the grounds of incompetence.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7798
Feb 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually I hold two degrees and have a third in progress.
And yet there is so much you are utterly incapable of comprehending. Pray tell, what field(s) are these degrees in?

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7799
Feb 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
The complete melt of the Greenland ice sheet is hypothetical. I obviously found the numbers and did the math, and provided explanation of how and where those numbers applied. The depth of the ocean is meaningless. If you add an ounce of water to a test tube the water will rise the same amount no matter how tall the test tube is. The addition to the oceans of Greenland melt water wouldn't be 21.5 feet - it would be 4,500 feet x 836,300 SQUARE MILES.(Gawd... yer denser than iridium.) The shoreline gradient is certainly a factor, but your numbers come from a study of waveform dynamics and have NOTHING to do with area of the oceanic surface. If the Greenland ice sheet melts, as you point out there will also be melt of permanent ice in other areas - and the addition of those waters will easily offset your shoreline gradient issue, anyway.
If you weren't so preoccupied with disproving me, you would be able to recognize the ballpark validity of the results. If you have done the math yourself and come up with significantly different results, all I can add is ALWAYS be sure you use a tax service. The IRS doesn't forgive on the grounds of incompetence.
And you left out some very important factors in your calculations. You forgot the very oceans which you are claiming that would rise. The fact that you referred to test tube tells that you had not really considered all the facts. In this case you test tube needs to be replaced with a pie pan. There is a reason why so many dropped this for thermal expansion. In fact if you were to run the numbers on evaporation that the oceans are loosing a similar mass of water as the Greenland Ice sheet every day.

Also, some of the experts are expecting that the Greenland Ice Sheet will stop melting and start growing in a decade.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7800
Feb 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet there is so much you are utterly incapable of comprehending. Pray tell, what field(s) are these degrees in?
Computer science. I write computer models for a living along with other minor tasks.
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7801
Feb 7, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
'tiny-minded anne' can't apply math properly to come with an accurate result. Not in this post, but in the past,'tiny-minded anne' gave a website that actually countered her own argument & confirmed what AGW advocates have stated.
And you think topix doesn’t know what you publish? Attacks on me won't delete or erase what you are and what you do. You should stop making an ASSumption of your---self before you know the facts. Do contact topix to satisfy your accusations of the reprint BS your posting of what I said. You are a dumbASSumption of your---self again.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

9 Users are viewing the Hartford Forum right now

Search the Hartford Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 13 min DEM Idiots 1,082,722
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 1 hr Carriers 18,587
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr SpaceBlues 45,857
Cher Calvin (Nov '08) 1 hr Ron Wells 19
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 2 hr Eric 68,427
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 4 hr TRD 68,054
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 5 hr The_Box 305,164
•••
•••
•••
Hartford Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Hartford Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Hartford People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Hartford News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Hartford
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••