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
7,001 - 7,020 of 7,942 Comments Last updated Aug 14, 2013

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Level 1

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7311
Dec 12, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

1

ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
Not all the ice in the Artic is landbound. In fact most of it is floating.

Nice to see that you are capable of learning.

http://www.athropolis.com/map9.htm
PHD

Overton, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7312
Dec 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Not all the ice in the Artic is landbound. In fact most of it is floating.
Nice to see that you are capable of learning.
http://www.athropolis.com/map9.htm
You have proved to all that you are incapable of learning. Oh it's Arctic see why you are Less than a Box of Rocks? So do tell all how much of the Arctic ice is floating and how much is landbound.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7313
Dec 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Not all the ice in the Artic is landbound. In fact most of it is floating.
Nice to see that you are capable of learning.
http://www.athropolis.com/map9.htm
Not only am I capable of learning, I'm also capable of comprehending and extrapolating. Try it.
Greenland is not the only north polar land area.
The southern ARCTIC pole is completely land bound.
Water vapor is a major part of the greenhouse mechanism.
Water that falls on land is not forever bound to stay on land - and pay attentions to this: Even if it falls as snow and becomes glacial ice, it can and probably will eventually melt and flow into an ocean.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7314
Dec 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

ChromiuMan wrote:
Not only am I capable of learning, I'm also capable of comprehending and extrapolating.
Extrapolate this:
We've been trying to teach tina anne(tiny-minded anne) obvious knowledge for years. She will not learn.

Wait! I did teach her about the advantages of 100% pure(ethanol-free) gasoline! She did transfer my knowledge to her husband, who confirmed what I had posted about 100% pure gasoline. Now she believes in 100% pure gasoline.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7315
Dec 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Extrapolate this:
We've been trying to teach tina anne(tiny-minded anne) obvious knowledge for years. She will not learn.
Wait! I did teach her about the advantages of 100% pure(ethanol-free) gasoline! She did transfer my knowledge to her husband, who confirmed what I had posted about 100% pure gasoline. Now she believes in 100% pure gasoline.
The purpose of putting ethanol in gas is to increase its oxygenation during combustion and environmentally it is a better option than MTBE, but its hygroscopic properties brings its own issues, and long-term exposure of aluminum can be problematic. I've never considered using food (corn, sugar beets, cane) to feed machines as a great idea.

That said, 100% pure gasoline" itself is a blend of xxxtane petrochemicals and additives.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7316
Dec 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

ChromiuMan wrote:
100% pure gasoline" itself is a blend of xxxtane petrochemicals and additives.
That's why I defined my definition of '100% pure gasoline' as 'ethanol-free'.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7317
Dec 12, 2012
 
Using MTBE is morally better than ethanol because you don't burn food grain.

Ethanol fuel additives are drive by starvation of the poor by the environmentalist.
PHD

Overton, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7318
Dec 13, 2012
 
Pure electric save all of the above are concerned about. Now stop the argument and go purchase an elect auto.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7319
Dec 13, 2012
 
Brian_G wrote:
Using MTBE is morally better than ethanol because you don't burn food grain.
Ethanol fuel additives are drive by starvation of the poor by the environmentalist.
MTBE doesn't break down in soils and is far, far more toxic than ethanol. You do not want MTBE in your aquifer. A better alternative to alcohol or MTBE would be to move toward biofuels that don't originate from food stocks and to break from traditional reciprocating engine technology.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7320
Dec 13, 2012
 
PHD wrote:
Pure electric save all of the above are concerned about. Now stop the argument and go purchase an elect auto.
Electric autos just move the pollution source to a remote location. You still have to feed the dynamos with something. Whether it is wind, water, coal, gas or nuclear, the losses in generation, transmission, storage and conversion to torque make electric vehicles inherently inefficient. Even fuel cells require fossil gasses to provide the amounts of hydrogen needed, and that process releases large amounts of c02 itself.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7321
Dec 13, 2012
 
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Electric autos just move the pollution source to a remote location. You still have to feed the dynamos with something. Whether it is wind, water, coal, gas or nuclear, the losses in generation, transmission, storage and conversion to torque make electric vehicles inherently inefficient. Even fuel cells require fossil gasses to provide the amounts of hydrogen needed, and that process releases large amounts of c02 itself.
Getting automobile pollution out of cities is not a bad thing. I would question that electric vehicles are more inefficient than internal combustion engines. Stationary generating plants can be less polluting than myriads of mobile sources. Hydrogen can be provided by the electrolysis of water that releases NO CO2 if solar or wind energy is used to dissociate the H2 and O2.
bahaha

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7322
Dec 13, 2012
 
bahaha

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7323
Dec 13, 2012
 
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Getting automobile pollution out of cities is not a bad thing. I would question that electric vehicles are more inefficient than internal combustion engines. Stationary generating plants can be less polluting than myriads of mobile sources. Hydrogen can be provided by the electrolysis of water that releases NO CO2 if solar or wind energy is used to dissociate the H2 and O2.
Electrics would be good for reducing urban emissions, agreed.
Electrolysis cannot supply the demand. Even with the low numbers of hydrogen fueled cars now in use they have to strip hydrogen from hydrocarbon gasses. Unfortunately, a step toward the most effective solution is the least attractive - mass transit.
Similarly, the health care crisis would shrink to become a mere health care problem if people would only eat right and exercise.
Inconvenient is not the American Way.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7324
Dec 13, 2012
 
zoroaster wrote:
I love how climate change and global warming are synonymous in these statements.
I don't know if we will truly ever know the real answer on this subject.People say that we had this type of warming hundreds of years ago and that its just a cycle.My answer to that is we didn't have cars and factories back then!!!
PHD

Overton, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7325
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Electric autos just move the pollution source to a remote location. You still have to feed the dynamos with something. Whether it is wind, water, coal, gas or nuclear, the losses in generation, transmission, storage and conversion to torque make electric vehicles inherently inefficient. Even fuel cells require fossil gasses to provide the amounts of hydrogen needed, and that process releases large amounts of c02 itself.
Sorry you’re a little behind but my solar panels do an excellent job charging my batteries. Wind the jury is still out but the new tech should make a big change in efficiency.Heck my solar panel works well with a full moon.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7326
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Electrics would be good for reducing urban emissions, agreed.
Electrolysis cannot supply the demand. Even with the low numbers of hydrogen fueled cars now in use they have to strip hydrogen from hydrocarbon gasses. Unfortunately, a step toward the most effective solution is the least attractive - mass transit.
Similarly, the health care crisis would shrink to become a mere health care problem if people would only eat right and exercise.
Inconvenient is not the American Way.
Unfortunately, you are correct. Sometimes, it needs to be legislated. All government regulations are not all bad.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7327
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

954Classifieds wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know if we will truly ever know the real answer on this subject.People say that we had this type of warming hundreds of years ago and that its just a cycle.My answer to that is we didn't have cars and factories back then!!!
People?

The science says this warming is unprecedented for a thousand years or more, and that the known causes of past temperature change do not explain this warming.
naw

Newport, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7328
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

naw
PHD

Overton, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7329
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

The more things change the more they remain the same. Scientist corrects an issue than discover more issues that show their corrected issue is incorrect. Ask Einstein.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7330
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

phdudd wrote:
Scientist corrects an issue than discover more issues that show their corrected issue is incorrect.
Should have stayed with the flat-Earth concept.......'here be dragons' beyond.......

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

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.

Orlando Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 12 min CUT TO THE CHEESE 1,099,222
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr litesong 46,275
CASEY: Does the State Have the Goods to Convict? (Mar '10) 1 hr HELL ON EARTH 486,495
Missing 5-year-old Florida girl likely was abdu... (Feb '09) 6 hr zazz 96,382
Let's Chat (Jan '12) 7 hr The Real Missyfit 17,608
The alphabet (Jun '06) 9 hr Doug77 1,048
UCF's Corrupt Residency Reclassification Policy 9 hr ddsmorton 1
•••
•••
•••

Orlando Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Orlando People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Orlando News, Events & Info

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

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••