Global Warming

Crusaders said:
Water expands as it warms. That’s cause of most of the sea level rise at this time, not land water runoff.
Click to expand...
Water is very unique in that it expands as it freezes. Almost every other material/compound contracts during cooling and expands under heat. Water is the exact opposite. This is one of the major destroyers of pavements as the asphalt/concrete contracts in Winter, creating voids and cracks. Water gets in the cracks (thanks road salt!) and expands as it re-freezes.... causing pot holes.

If you’re still in denial, fill a glass with as much ice as you can cram in it. Top it off with tap water to the brim. If you’re right, as it warms, the glass will overflow and you’ll have a small mess. If you’re wrong, the water level will decrease. Condensation on the outside doesn’t count as that’s a function of water vapor outside the ice/water mix.
 
I have been wearing shorts over the past few days....anyone not looking at climate change is not paying attention or over 60 so like the debt can just laugh it off as an issue for other.
 
BGFalcons82 said:
Water is very unique in that it expands as it freezes. Almost every other material/compound contracts during cooling and expands under heat. Water is the exact opposite. This is one of the major destroyers of pavements as the asphalt/concrete contracts in Winter, creating voids and cracks. Water gets in the cracks (thanks road salt!) and expands as it re-freezes.... causing pot holes.

If you’re still in denial, fill a glass with as much ice as you can cram in it. Top it off with tap water to the brim. If you’re right, as it warms, the glass will overflow and you’ll have a small mess. If you’re wrong, the water level will decrease. Condensation on the outside doesn’t count as that’s a function of water vapor outside the ice/water mix.
Click to expand...

Well we can confirm you don’t know how water works
 
Crusaders said:
Water expands as it warms. That’s cause of most of the sea level rise at this time, not land water runoff.
Click to expand...
Water is very unique in that it expands as it freezes. Almost every other material/compound contracts during cooling and expands under heat. Water is the exact opposite. This is one of the major destroyers of pavements as the asphalt/concrete contracts in Winter, creating voids and cracks. Water gets in the cracks (thanks road salt!) and expands as it re-freezes.... causing pot holes.

If you’re still in denial, fill a glass with as much ice as you can cram in it. Top it off with tap water to the brim. If you’re right, as it warms, the glass will overflow and you’ll have a small mess. If you’re wrong, the water level will decrease. Condensation on the outside doesn’t count as that’s a function of water vapor outside the ice/water mix.
Crusaders said:
Well we can confirm you don’t know how water works
Click to expand...
Swing and a miss. You didn’t do it, cause it takes over 30 mins to melt. Give it a go. You just might learn something.
 
Water expands when it's heated. This is like elementary school chemistry.

Put water in a measuring cup and note how far you've filled it. Place it in front of a space heater and let it sit for 15 minutes. Then remeasure.
 
Last edited:
Yappi said:
I think that is the problem. Every catastrophe is a climate crisis. Venice floods and Australian wildfires are both presented as clearly climate related.

Read another article about prescribed burns that were not taking place in Australia that the author believed was the major reason for the wildfires. So it technically was a man-made problem but not the way the media was presenting it. Humans changing the environment can be real but there are other variables that are not being presented.
Click to expand...
On one hand, we have a global warming trend that is certainly real, and we also have the concept of anthropogenic global warming, which is probably real. The fact is, however, that no one has yet been able quantify human influence on global warming, much less demonstrate that changing anything in our own behavior will slow the trend in any significant degree.

Then on the other hand, we have a whole lot of people screaming gloom and doom. They tell outright lies in some cases, they manipulate data to get their next pile of grant money in the name of science in others. Some - in significant numbers - misrepresent natural events and human failures in such superficial and easily discounted ways as those noted itt. They are bold-faced liars, demanding to be trusted. Ridiculous.

All these demands in the name of controlling us and our behavior here. Demands. A lot of money is to be made in different corners any time a market shift is forced. I’m sure it would make a great PoliSci project to connect the dots between the climate crusaders, their political partners, and their contributors, full circle.

We’ve had decades of political hacks telling us the virtues of leading by example in spreading Democracy, and the world beyond Western Europe laughs at us when we suggest and hate us when we push it. The climate agenda in goof jobs like the Paris Accord is the same thing, and they know it. But that’s fine by them. The planet will be in even worse shape when more of our goods are produced double-dirty half a world away and shipped here, but it’s a win/win for some. They make more money even as the dependency class is increased and they gain greater control. It’s a joke.
 
JcksnPlrBrs2002 said:
I'm not exactly sure what you're asking.

In the context of the subject of the thread, supporting politicians and policies that are centered around a sustainable future, regardless of whether or not they benefit me personally in my own lifetime. I think an attitude of "if it all falls apart, it'll be after I'm dead, so whatever" is ethically abhorrent.

In a more general sense, I do take the time to volunteer, working with children. That's completely outside the scope of politics though - I just think that's something that people should consider doing if they have the time on hand, and that's probably not what you had in mind.
Click to expand...

policies that are centered around a sustainable future. What does that mean? The actual limits needed on human behavior is never in black and white. It’s all vague using terms like sustainable.
7 billion people and still climbing. There is no catastrophic climate event. If there was then the world pop would be on the decline. Nothing is going to happen in 2030. Nothing happened when the calendar turned 2020. Prediction after prediction nothing... no glaciers gone in 2020, no super hurricanes wiping Florida off the map.
 
cabezadecaballo said:
On one hand, we have a global warming trend that is certainly real, and we also have the concept of anthropogenic global warming, which is probably real. The fact is, however, that no one has yet been able quantify human influence on global warming, much less demonstrate that changing anything in our own behavior will slow the trend in any significant degree.

Then on the other hand, we have a whole lot of people screaming gloom and doom. They tell outright lies in some cases, they manipulate data to get their next pile of grant money in the name of science in others. Some - in significant numbers - misrepresent natural events and human failures in such superficial and easily discounted ways as those noted itt. They are bold-faced liars, demanding to be trusted. Ridiculous.

All these demands in the name of controlling us and our behavior here. Demands. A lot of money is to be made in different corners any time a market shift is forced. I’m sure it would make a great PoliSci project to connect the dots between the climate crusaders, their political partners, and their contributors, full circle.

We’ve had decades of political hacks telling us the virtues of leading by example in spreading Democracy, and the world beyond Western Europe laughs at us when we suggest and hate us when we push it. The climate agenda in goof jobs like the Paris Accord is the same thing, and they know it. But that’s fine by them. The planet will be in even worse shape when more of our goods are produced double-dirty half a world away and shipped here, but it’s a win/win for some. They make more money even as the dependency class is increased and they gain greater control. It’s a joke.
Click to expand...

Cabe, please. Once the capitalists are overthrown and the government is sufficiently large, pollution and poverty will be eliminated
 
Happygoluckky said:
I have been wearing shorts over the past few days....anyone not looking at climate change is not paying attention or over 60 so like the debt can just laugh it off as an issue for other.
Click to expand...

I wear shorts 18/365. Location, location, location. What's your point?
 
JcksnPlrBrs2002 said:
It's closer to "I already heard this, and it wasn't at all the least bit compelling the first few dozen times. Kindly go find someone who cares."
Click to expand...

You obviously love to reply no matter what. If we agree with you what else would you have to do?
There are still no catastrophic disasters, cause by man made warming, that are contributing to world wide extinction of man.
I’ll wait in suspense for your next clever ad hominem. Because that is all you and your side ever has in the AGW debate.
 
Last edited:
JcksnPlrBrs2002 said:
Marxists fully reject my position, and if they were actually present in this forum, you'd see them emphatically say as much. I advocate for a "mixed economy" approach that uses both social and market solutions in tandem. A Marxist doesn't see capitalism as a "tool that has it's uses" - they reject it. I think that's ridiculous, not to mention impractical.
Click to expand...

Marxists and Neo-Marxists often play that game, but the reality is: you are a Marxist, or more accurately, a Neo-Marxist. And like most Neo-Marxists, who call themselves Progressives, you've been indoctrinated into it without it being explicitly revealed to you as such, but by proxy through various other ideas. You buy into concepts like critical race theory, intersectionality, and the classic proletariat/bourgeoisie social structure. You believe people do not make themselves but fall into luck of one form or another, therefore their success is not their own. Thus by extension, all production belongs to society at large. This is a socialist idea, a Marxian idea.

Democratic Socialism is Socialism and it is Marxist. The only difference is, it tries to subvert the Democratic process to instill the classic Socialist bureaucracy instead of outright revolution. The end result and goals remain the same.
 
It turns out the ice caps have been melting since the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago. Amazing breakthrough in Science to discover this!

earth-surface.gif
 
eastisbest said:
I presume you mean "you" generically as opposed to me because I didn't mention anything about that. I don't give a rat's . I'd just move. I'll be dead long before the poop hits the windmill, if indeed poop is being thrown. I was simply thanking you for the new information. BTW: now the canals are empty. Tide giveth and the tide taketh away.
Click to expand...
Yes, "you" in the generic sense. Lol.

If "you" make an argument, say, that climate change is the primary or sole source of Venetian flooding, then the search for truth involves others asking "you" questions that "you" need to answer in order to honor a search for truth. When "you" respond to the questions by ignoring, distorting, deflecting, ridicule, name-calling, etc., etc., then we are not talking about a scientific search for truth but we are in the realm of political polemics. My biggest problem with the climate change alarmists is that they shroud their polemics in science - which has nothing to do with what one believes, only what can be proven by test and reproduction of test results.

Openness to scrutiny, criticism and skepticism is an essential element of science. When scrutiny is not allowed, and criticism or skepticism is met with name-calling, that's one sure way to know you are dealing with pseudo-science. Otherwise, when the questions come, you say "here is the answer based on reproduced scientific method results" or "we are still studying it, but here is what we think at this point" or "there is no adequate scientific answer to your question at this point". I can accept any of those answers. I do not accept, as scientific, what is coming out of the climate change advocates, regardless of what initials they attach to their name. No matter how much sophistry is undertaken, science is science and politics is politics.
 
JcksnPlrBrs2002 said:
Ah, there it is, the "slippery slope" argument that pulls in a bunch of silly games with semantics. Better worded than I would have guessed (+1 point for you!), but right on schedule.
Click to expand...

Per usual, a Progressive attempts to completely avoid what has been said by incorrectly applying a fallacy and stomping away. At least you didn't call me racist. Points for that.
 
JcksnPlrBrs2002 said:
What you posted was absurd, but humorously, it occurs to me that Marxists would try to make essentially the exact same sort of argument about people like me, only in the opposite direction and swapping out some terms. It's a funny world.
Click to expand...

There was nothing absurd about it. You’ve exhibited everything I mentioned.

Having arguments with Marxists doesn’t mean anything. It’s like a Libertarian having an argument with a Conservative. Fundamentally, they agree on 9/10 of the issues.
 
Happygoluckky said:
I have been wearing shorts over the past few days....anyone not looking at climate change is not paying attention or over 60 so like the debt can just laugh it off as an issue for other.
Click to expand...

The record high temperature for Cincinnati on January 15 was 66 degrees F in 1932. I wonder if they were worried about "global warming" then?
 
  • Like
Reactions: y2h
BGFalcons82 said:
Crusaders said:
Well we can confirm you don’t know how water works
Click to expand...
Water is very unique in that it expands as it freezes. Almost every other material/compound contracts during cooling and expands under heat. Water is the exact opposite. This is one of the major destroyers of pavements as the asphalt/concrete contracts in Winter, creating voids and cracks. Water gets in the cracks (thanks road salt!) and expands as it re-freezes.... causing pot holes.

If you’re still in denial, fill a glass with as much ice as you can cram in it. Top it off with tap water to the brim. If you’re right, as it warms, the glass will overflow and you’ll have a small mess. If you’re wrong, the water level will decrease. Condensation on the outside doesn’t count as that’s a function of water vapor outside the ice/water mix.

Swing and a miss. You didn’t do it, cause it takes over 30 mins to melt. Give it a go. You just might learn something.
Click to expand...

Cru is right. We're discussing Global WARMING. I don't think what happens below freezing point is the discussion. At 25-30C, water has expanded about 0.5% (if I recall correctly) from the freezing point volume. Moving molecules and all that.

The upper layer runs about 20C on average and is a couple hundred metres thick with fairly consistent temperature. Below that is the thermocline which decreases in temp until it reaches the lower, also a fairly consistent temp. Sonar people know this. Causes sound to curve. Angle it down, the temp-pressure battle results in the sound bending up forming a detection ring (convergence zone) around the ship.
 
Last edited:
irish_buffalo said:
All that info come from tree ring data and ice core samples? :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

See IB there's this thing about Glaciers moving thousands of miles - it's NOT a subtle process.

No need to use tree rings or ice cores to see the effects - they're geological in their breadth & intensity! Hell, the Great lakes are pretty compelling evidence that massive ice sheets first moved over that land and then retreated back through those same areas.

As an aside a friend of mine had a cool Research assignment in grad school in which he would spend every summer collecting ice core samples from the Greenland ice sheet. He then would aid in their analysis back in the lab. One of the most interesting AND terrifying things they found was that natural climate change could happen fast - real fast.

And we're not talking about the impact of volcanic eruptions or continent wide forest fires, things that their technique could readily see. What they were finding were cold snaps that lasted much longer. We're talking about 1,000 year long mini ice ages. Their cause remains unknown but likely resulted from some yet undefined variation in the suns output. The thing is the onset of these mega cold snaps was fast.

You know how they found the evidence of these massive & fast changes? Spore counts. It seems that during times of warmth there was a very diverse and high density of spores in each ice core layer. When abrupt cooling occurred the diversity was almost wiped out and very few spores were found. And while this technique was very reliable at seeing GROSS changes in temperature it was deemed an inadequate technique for seeing more subtle changes (less then 10 degree changes).

Bottom line is that in the face of data like this - where a substantial period of NATURAL global cooling or warming had occurred - the Climate Change scientists have NOT demonstrated that the current warming is historically out of the ordinary.
 
eastisbest said:
Cru is right. We're discussing Global WARMING. I don't think what happens below freezing point is the discussion. At 25-30C, water has expanded about 0.5% (if I recall correctly) from the freezing point volume. Moving molecules and all that.

The upper layer runs about 20C on average and is a couple hundred metres thick with fairly consistent temperature. Below that is the thermocline which decreases in temp until it reaches the lower, also a fairly consistent temp.
Click to expand...
Ugh. When water freezes, it expands. This is a fact that has existed since the big bang. The mere fact that anyone believes it doesn’t is an intellectual idiot. ... Google it if you can type it.

Regarding global warming, no one knows how much ice is below the surface. There are many who argue there is more below the surface of the water than is above it... see Antarctica for exhibit A. If there is more ice below than above, then it can be logically argued the overall water level will go down when ice melts, as it takes up less volume than water. Since no one knows, it’s impossible to state the sea will rise as the oceans warm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top