Change in sea volume due to sea ice melting

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Explanations > Change in sea volume due to sea ice melting

Page 1 of 2

Change in sea volume due to sea ice melting29-06-2017 10:38
ProHuman ☆☆☆☆☆ (1)	Are there any published calculations on the net change in sea volume due to the melting of sea ice? It has always seemed counter-intuitive to me that sea volume would increase due to melting ice. Seeing as ice displaces more volume than water, my understanding of physics tells me that when sea ice (ice floating in the sea) melts, the melted water displaces less volume than it had done when it was ice. So this would result in the volume dropping, ie a fall in sea levels. The melting of the antarctic continental ice seems to be a non-issue - it's never going to melt. It would take a massive temperature increase (65 Degrees or more) to permanently melt that ice, right? By the time the Earth was that hot, the oceans will have mostly evaporated, you would think. So where is all the extra volume coming from that will cause the sea level to rise? Can someone break it down for me? (as an amusing side note, we had major coastal uplift here in the south island of New Zealand last year due to a massive earthquake - the high tide mark moved about 50 meters out to sea in Kaikoura. The coast rose by up to 5.5 meters in some bays. So we don't have to worry about rising sea levels here anymore. Problem solved!)
29-06-2017 11:04
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	The melting of sea ice causes virtually no change in the level of the sea. The sea level is rising because of two other factors: thermal expansion of sea water as it warms, and melting land ice from Antarctica, Greenland and other glaciers.
29-06-2017 20:18
still learning ★★☆☆☆ (244)	ProHuman wrote: .....Seeing as ice displaces more volume than water, my understanding of physics tells me that when sea ice (ice floating in the sea) melts, the melted water displaces less volume than it had done when it was ice..... When floating, ice displaces an amount of water that equals the weight of the ice. Ice being a little less dense than liquid water, a little ice will be above water, that amount not displacing water (does displace a little air). Melt the ice, the density increases a little, the volume decreasing to the amount of water displaced by the ice when floating. So melted water does displace less overall volume than ice, volume of water and air. Thought experiment: Start with a liter of water, a kilogram. Freeze 1/10 of it, 100 milliliters, 100 grams. That 100 ml will expand a little to about 109 ml of ice, but will still have 100 grams of mass. Floating, that 100 grams of ice will displace 100 grams of water, 100 ml of water, the amount of water frozen in the first place. A little ice will be above water, about 9 ml. So the volume of water and submerged ice is still 1 liter, but the total volume occupied, of water and air is 1009 ml. Melt the ice, and back to 1 liter of water. Freshwater ice floating in seawater changes things only a tiny bit.
29-06-2017 20:29
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	still learning wrote: ProHuman wrote: .....Seeing as ice displaces more volume than water, my understanding of physics tells me that when sea ice (ice floating in the sea) melts, the melted water displaces less volume than it had done when it was ice..... When floating, ice displaces an amount of water that equals the weight of the ice. Ice being a little less dense than liquid water, a little ice will be above water, that amount not displacing water (does displace a little air). Melt the ice, the density increases a little, the volume decreasing to the amount of water displaced by the ice when floating. So melted water does displace less overall volume than ice, volume of water and air. Thought experiment: Start with a liter of water, a kilogram. Freeze 1/10 of it, 100 milliliters, 100 grams. That 100 ml will expand a little to about 109 ml of ice, but will still have 100 grams of mass. Floating, that 100 grams of ice will displace 100 grams of water, 100 ml of water, the amount of water frozen in the first place. A little ice will be above water, about 9 ml. So the volume of water and submerged ice is still 1 liter, but the total volume occupied, of water and air is 1009 ml. Melt the ice, and back to 1 liter of water. Freshwater ice floating in seawater changes things only a tiny bit. A good, detailed explanation! The freshwater / seawater business was the reason that I included a "virtually" in my reply, but I'm guessing the effect would be miniscule.
30-06-2017 03:58
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	Surface Detail wrote:The sea level is rising because of two other factors: thermal expansion of sea water as it warms, and melting land ice from Antarctica, Greenland and other glaciers. You're still gullible. As far as you or anyone knows, the ocean could be lowering. You'll believe any warmizombie propaganda if you read it on the internet. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

30-06-2017 10:29
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	IBdaMann wrote: Surface Detail wrote:The sea level is rising because of two other factors: thermal expansion of sea water as it warms, and melting land ice from Antarctica, Greenland and other glaciers. You're still gullible. As far as you or anyone knows, the ocean could be lowering. You'll believe any warmizombie propaganda if you read it on the internet. Physical evidence obtained by documented techniques shows that the sea level is rising. See, for example, CU Sea Level Research Group. If you choose to label such evidence as propaganda, then you are destined to remain ignorant.
30-06-2017 22:32
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Surface Detail wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Surface Detail wrote:The sea level is rising because of two other factors: thermal expansion of sea water as it warms, and melting land ice from Antarctica, Greenland and other glaciers. You're still gullible. As far as you or anyone knows, the ocean could be lowering. You'll believe any warmizombie propaganda if you read it on the internet. Physical evidence obtained by documented techniques shows that the sea level is rising. See, for example, CU Sea Level Research Group. If you choose to label such evidence as propaganda, then you are destined to remain ignorant. It is propaganda. Radar altimeters are not capable of measuring absolute sea level. You believe any crap you hear on the internet. Guess that makes you ignorant in detecting the fallacy of an argument. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
01-07-2017 04:48
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Surface Detail wrote:The sea level is rising because of two other factors: thermal expansion of sea water as it warms, and melting land ice from Antarctica, Greenland and other glaciers. You're still gullible. As far as you or anyone knows, the ocean could be lowering. You'll believe any warmizombie propaganda if you read it on the internet. Physical evidence obtained by documented techniques shows that the sea level is rising. See, for example, CU Sea Level Research Group. If you choose to label such evidence as propaganda, then you are destined to remain ignorant. It is propaganda. Radar altimeters are not capable of measuring absolute sea level. You believe any crap you hear on the internet. Guess that makes you ignorant in detecting the fallacy of an argument. Because you give no evidence or reasoning to support your claims, what you write on the internet is unbelievable crap, which, of course, I do not believe. Your premise that I believe any crap I hear on the internet is therefore false, as is your deduction based on that premise.
01-07-2017 11:44
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	ProHuman wrote: Are there any published calculations on the net change in sea volume due to the melting of sea ice? It has always seemed counter-intuitive to me that sea volume would increase due to melting ice. Seeing as ice displaces more volume than water, my understanding of physics tells me that when sea ice (ice floating in the sea) melts, the melted water displaces less volume than it had done when it was ice. So this would result in the volume dropping, ie a fall in sea levels. The melting of the antarctic continental ice seems to be a non-issue - it's never going to melt. It would take a massive temperature increase (65 Degrees or more) to permanently melt that ice, right? By the time the Earth was that hot, the oceans will have mostly evaporated, you would think. So where is all the extra volume coming from that will cause the sea level to rise? Can someone break it down for me? (as an amusing side note, we had major coastal uplift here in the south island of New Zealand last year due to a massive earthquake - the high tide mark moved about 50 meters out to sea in Kaikoura. The coast rose by up to 5.5 meters in some bays. So we don't have to worry about rising sea levels here anymore. Problem solved!) That is where I started 5 or so years ago. And yes you are entirely correct. The volume of the melt required to get any significant (significant to humans) sea level rise is huge and not going to happen. The IPCC was aware of this back in 2008 or so and so blamed the sea level rise on thermal expansion. So they paid some mechanical engineers to llok into it. The result was that for each degree c of temperature rise over the next 100 years you will get a 7cm rise. F-all. So now they talk up the ice melt. That is plain lying. To get a 1mm sea level rise you need 360 cubic kilometers or gigatonnes of ice to melt. Land based ice not the floating stuff. They point to Greenland. They say that Greenland is losing around 300Gt/yr. That it is due to increased temperatures. So it must be doing so in it's summer. That's 4 weeks in Greenland when there are temperatures abover zero for the general ice sheet. That flow rate is about 50 times the Mississippi to get that out of the place allowing for the high levels of snow fall on it. Have a look on Google maps for how big the rivers are coming out of Greenland. Greenland is gaining ice.
01-07-2017 20:02
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Surface Detail wrote: Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Surface Detail wrote:The sea level is rising because of two other factors: thermal expansion of sea water as it warms, and melting land ice from Antarctica, Greenland and other glaciers. You're still gullible. As far as you or anyone knows, the ocean could be lowering. You'll believe any warmizombie propaganda if you read it on the internet. Physical evidence obtained by documented techniques shows that the sea level is rising. See, for example, CU Sea Level Research Group. If you choose to label such evidence as propaganda, then you are destined to remain ignorant. It is propaganda. Radar altimeters are not capable of measuring absolute sea level. You believe any crap you hear on the internet. Guess that makes you ignorant in detecting the fallacy of an argument. Because you give no evidence or reasoning to support your claims, what you write on the internet is unbelievable crap, which, of course, I do not believe. Your premise that I believe any crap I hear on the internet is therefore false, as is your deduction based on that premise. What a typical statement from a Religious nut to an Outsider. Still doesn't make radar altimeters able to read an absolute sea level. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
02-07-2017 01:06
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Surface Detail wrote:The sea level is rising because of two other factors: thermal expansion of sea water as it warms, and melting land ice from Antarctica, Greenland and other glaciers. You're still gullible. As far as you or anyone knows, the ocean could be lowering. You'll believe any warmizombie propaganda if you read it on the internet. Physical evidence obtained by documented techniques shows that the sea level is rising. See, for example, CU Sea Level Research Group. If you choose to label such evidence as propaganda, then you are destined to remain ignorant. It is propaganda. Radar altimeters are not capable of measuring absolute sea level. You believe any crap you hear on the internet. Guess that makes you ignorant in detecting the fallacy of an argument. Because you give no evidence or reasoning to support your claims, what you write on the internet is unbelievable crap, which, of course, I do not believe. Your premise that I believe any crap I hear on the internet is therefore false, as is your deduction based on that premise. What a typical statement from a Religious nut to an Outsider. Still doesn't make radar altimeters able to read an absolute sea level. The educated folks at Colorado University say they can measure absolute sea level, and they explain exactly how they do so. You, an anonymous internet nutcase, say they can't, but give no reasons for your doubts. As a rational person, I choose to believe those who are able to explain their reasoning rather than those who make unsupported statements.
02-07-2017 15:42
Glitch ☆☆☆☆☆ (22)	Actually, what NOAA's data shows is that sea levels are both rising in some areas and falling in other areas. For example, NOAA shows a 9.09mm/year rise in sea levels at Grand Isle, Louisiana, and a 17.63mm/year drop in sea levels at Skagway, Alaska. Not surprisingly those pushing the Climate Change Marxist scam, and not the least bit interested in the actual science, will always fail to mention the decreasing sea levels in certain areas. The sea levels are not changing by any significant amount. Yes, the volume of water will increase as it warms (that is basic physics), but that amount of increased volume is not significant. What is actually happening is the ground is continuing to rebound in the northern latitudes from the last period of glaciation that ended some 15,000 years ago. As the ground above ~45°N latitude (that was once under more than a mile of ice) continues to rebound, it will appear as if the sea levels are dropping in the northern latitudes, and rising the closer you are to the equator. In order for Greenland and/or Antarctica to be responsible for the sea level rise (someone will have to explain how Greenland and/or Antarctica could also be responsible for the decreasing sea levels, because I can't) both would be completely devoid of ice by now. Clearly that is not the case. If the oceans are relatively static - or only changing by a very small margin, then an increase in sea levels in one area will be compensated by a decrease in sea levels in another area. Which is what the data shows. Source: NOAA Sea Level Trends Edited on 02-07-2017 15:50
02-07-2017 17:12
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	Surface Detail wrote: Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Surface Detail wrote:The sea level is rising because of two other factors: thermal expansion of sea water as it warms, and melting land ice from Antarctica, Greenland and other glaciers. You're still gullible. As far as you or anyone knows, the ocean could be lowering. You'll believe any warmizombie propaganda if you read it on the internet. Physical evidence obtained by documented techniques shows that the sea level is rising. See, for example, CU Sea Level Research Group. If you choose to label such evidence as propaganda, then you are destined to remain ignorant. It is propaganda. Radar altimeters are not capable of measuring absolute sea level. You believe any crap you hear on the internet. Guess that makes you ignorant in detecting the fallacy of an argument. Because you give no evidence or reasoning to support your claims, what you write on the internet is unbelievable crap, which, of course, I do not believe. Your premise that I believe any crap I hear on the internet is therefore false, as is your deduction based on that premise. What a typical statement from a Religious nut to an Outsider. Still doesn't make radar altimeters able to read an absolute sea level. The educated folks at Colorado University say they can measure absolute sea level, and they explain exactly how they do so. You, an anonymous internet nutcase, say they can't, but give no reasons for your doubts. As a rational person, I choose to believe those who are able to explain their reasoning rather than those who make unsupported statements. Can you measure by looking at google maps/earth what the flow rate out of Greenland is in mid summer when the satilite images were made to the nearest 2 Mississippis? I recon I can. I get 1/2 a Mississippi. Can you calculate the amount of flow rate that would be needed to get all the last years snow fall out of Greenland? Yes, you can, you are decent at maths. How much more would have to be flowing out of Greenland to break even?
06-07-2017 14:47
Flill ☆☆☆☆☆ (7)	Guys, did you think about the future challenges? To be serious, we have to focus on our global problems in order to be able to change something. Most often people even don't think about it. Climate change is already beginning to transform the life on the Earth. Here are interesting thoughts - http://planetaryproject.com/global_problems/future/analytics/major-future-challenges/
06-07-2017 20:49
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Flill wrote: Guys, did you think about the future challenges? To be serious, we have to focus on our global problems in order to be able to change something. Most often people even don't think about it. Climate change is already beginning to transform the life on the Earth. Here are interesting thoughts - http://planetaryproject.com/global_problems/future/analytics/major-future-challenges/ Define 'climate change' without using circular arguments, links, or quotes. What exactly IS 'climate change'? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

06-07-2017 21:01
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2935)	Flill wrote: Guys, did you think about the future challenges? To be serious, we have to focus on our global problems in order to be able to change something. Most often people even don't think about it. Climate change is already beginning to transform the life on the Earth. Here are interesting thoughts - http://planetaryproject.com/global_problems/future/analytics/major-future-challenges/ It's gone farther than I thought. Here's a quote from Flills link. A comprehensive approach alone to the problems of the environment and development can contribute to accommodating basic needs, improving the standard of living of the entire world population, ensuring more effective protection, and rational management of the world's ecosystems for a safer and prosperous future. No individual country can do it alone: only through global partnership can we achieve this goal. Again, this speaks to the need for humanity to integrate in order to solve global problems and save the planet. Global warming is now the vehicle for 1 world government. This is scary excrement people. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan Edited on 06-07-2017 21:05
07-07-2017 01:43
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	Flill wrote: Guys, did you think about the future challenges? To be serious, we have to focus on our global problems in order to be able to change something. Most often people even don't think about it. Climate change is already beginning to transform the life on the Earth. Here are interesting thoughts - http://planetaryproject.com/global_problems/future/analytics/major-future-challenges/ Select a single aspect of a warmer world that would be bad. Then explain how that bad thing, not the temperature rise but the bad thing due to it, would happen. The mechanism, in your own words. Then cite some sort of supporting science so we can look at the detail and see how much of a trouble it would be. Then if it is going to cost more for any local council that has traffic lights than it's traffic light budget I will consider it to be of some inportance. Nobody has managed this so far.
07-07-2017 01:44
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	GasGuzzler wrote: Flill wrote: Guys, did you think about the future challenges? To be serious, we have to focus on our global problems in order to be able to change something. Most often people even don't think about it. Climate change is already beginning to transform the life on the Earth. Here are interesting thoughts - http://planetaryproject.com/global_problems/future/analytics/major-future-challenges/ It's gone farther than I thought. Here's a quote from Flills link. A comprehensive approach alone to the problems of the environment and development can contribute to accommodating basic needs, improving the standard of living of the entire world population, ensuring more effective protection, and rational management of the world's ecosystems for a safer and prosperous future. No individual country can do it alone: only through global partnership can we achieve this goal. Again, this speaks to the need for humanity to integrate in order to solve global problems and save the planet. Global warming is now the vehicle for 1 world government. This is scary excrement people. Green is the colour the communists wear these days.
27-07-2017 07:29
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' AGW denier liar whiner tim the leaky plunger" plugged: Green is the colour the communists wear these days. Since Nixon let business send amer. tech & companies to chinese communists (always small letters), americans pay chinese communists (always small letters) with green.
04-03-2018 19:24
BugABoo ☆☆☆☆☆ (1)	It's true that the sea level is rising. It may not be very noticeable, but it is happening. There is no denying the fact. And with all of these tropical storms, we are losing land. Especially in the United States. "Hurricane Harvey dumped around 33 trillion gallons of water" all over the south. Climate change is the cause of all of this. Climate change is making natural disasters like tornados, flooding, severe weather, drought, hailstorms, wildfires, and hurricanes more frequent. "Tropical storms are the deadliest and most destructive natural disasters in the United States over the past 30 years." Last year, there was over $306 billion in total damage just in the United States for natural disasters! Read the article Disaster Readiness: http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2018011202 We have an idea of when natural disasters will happen, but we have no idea how bad they can be. There is no way to measure it. For example, with hurricanes, scientists have developed "floats" that measure the temperature of the water. But these floats don't make measurements frequently enough to help improve the data. To figure the intensity of a hurricane, you need to look at the temperature of the air and of the water. That is why scientists developed these "floats." If we could come up with a system that provides accurate measurements, we might be able to prepare for the actual intensity of a natural disaster. Being prepared is one thing, but knowing how bad the intensity of a storm will be is another thing. Read the following article, Blue holes hurricanes: Geological marvels are gold mines for climate history: http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A503310007/OVIC?u=nwmosu_owens&xid=064970f2 "If the ice caps [in Greenland] melt completely, the global sea level would rise 220 feet." Of course, it would take over a hundred years for that to happen, but it is going to happen. This is because the global surface air temperature is rising. The following table lists the global combined land and ocean annually averaged temperature rank and anomaly for each of the 12 warmest years on record. From the article Global Climate Report – Annual 2016: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201613 If the air temperature continues to rise, and the ice caps continue to melt, flooding will be our primary concern. "Annual flooding worldwide could cause $1 trillion in losses by 2100 and submerge areas now home to more than 150 million people." Cities keep increasing their exposure to risk because developers can make money building near rising coastal waters. In the United States, the most populated areas are by coastal waters. Since we know that there is no way to stop the icecaps from melting (there are ways to slow it down, but we cannot stop it completely), we need to take into consideration that we will be losing land, and that we need to stop developing on coastal cities. Read the following article: Rising seas: http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2018021600
05-03-2018 04:24
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	BugABoo wrote: It's true that the sea level is rising. It may not be very noticeable, but it is happening. There is no denying the fact. And with all of these tropical storms, we are losing land. Especially in the United States. "Hurricane Harvey dumped around 33 trillion gallons of water" all over the south. Climate change is the cause of all of this. Climate change is making natural disasters like tornados, flooding, severe weather, drought, hailstorms, wildfires, and hurricanes more frequent. "Tropical storms are the deadliest and most destructive natural disasters in the United States over the past 30 years." Last year, there was over $306 billion in total damage just in the United States for natural disasters! Read the article Disaster Readiness: http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2018011202 We have an idea of when natural disasters will happen, but we have no idea how bad they can be. There is no way to measure it. For example, with hurricanes, scientists have developed "floats" that measure the temperature of the water. But these floats don't make measurements frequently enough to help improve the data. To figure the intensity of a hurricane, you need to look at the temperature of the air and of the water. That is why scientists developed these "floats." If we could come up with a system that provides accurate measurements, we might be able to prepare for the actual intensity of a natural disaster. Being prepared is one thing, but knowing how bad the intensity of a storm will be is another thing. Read the following article, Blue holes hurricanes: Geological marvels are gold mines for climate history: http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A503310007/OVIC?u=nwmosu_owens&xid=064970f2 "If the ice caps [in Greenland] melt completely, the global sea level would rise 220 feet." Of course, it would take over a hundred years for that to happen, but it is going to happen. This is because the global surface air temperature is rising. The following table lists the global combined land and ocean annually averaged temperature rank and anomaly for each of the 12 warmest years on record. From the article Global Climate Report – Annual 2016: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201613 If the air temperature continues to rise, and the ice caps continue to melt, flooding will be our primary concern. "Annual flooding worldwide could cause $1 trillion in losses by 2100 and submerge areas now home to more than 150 million people." Cities keep increasing their exposure to risk because developers can make money building near rising coastal waters. In the United States, the most populated areas are by coastal waters. Since we know that there is no way to stop the icecaps from melting (there are ways to slow it down, but we cannot stop it completely), we need to take into consideration that we will be losing land, and that we need to stop developing on coastal cities. Read the following article: Rising seas: http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2018021600 The usual crap from the Church of Global Warming. It's not possible to measure sea level. There is no reference point of any use. It's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth either. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
05-03-2018 06:10
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: BugABoo wrote: It's true that the sea level is rising. It may not be very noticeable, but it is happening. There is no denying the fact. And with all of these tropical storms, we are losing land. Especially in the United States. "Hurricane Harvey dumped around 33 trillion gallons of water" all over the south. Climate change is the cause of all of this. Climate change is making natural disasters like tornados, flooding, severe weather, drought, hailstorms, wildfires, and hurricanes more frequent. "Tropical storms are the deadliest and most destructive natural disasters in the United States over the past 30 years." Last year, there was over $306 billion in total damage just in the United States for natural disasters! Read the article Disaster Readiness: http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2018011202 We have an idea of when natural disasters will happen, but we have no idea how bad they can be. There is no way to measure it. For example, with hurricanes, scientists have developed "floats" that measure the temperature of the water. But these floats don't make measurements frequently enough to help improve the data. To figure the intensity of a hurricane, you need to look at the temperature of the air and of the water. That is why scientists developed these "floats." If we could come up with a system that provides accurate measurements, we might be able to prepare for the actual intensity of a natural disaster. Being prepared is one thing, but knowing how bad the intensity of a storm will be is another thing. Read the following article, Blue holes hurricanes: Geological marvels are gold mines for climate history: http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A503310007/OVIC?u=nwmosu_owens&xid=064970f2 "If the ice caps [in Greenland] melt completely, the global sea level would rise 220 feet." Of course, it would take over a hundred years for that to happen, but it is going to happen. This is because the global surface air temperature is rising. The following table lists the global combined land and ocean annually averaged temperature rank and anomaly for each of the 12 warmest years on record. From the article Global Climate Report – Annual 2016: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201613 If the air temperature continues to rise, and the ice caps continue to melt, flooding will be our primary concern. "Annual flooding worldwide could cause $1 trillion in losses by 2100 and submerge areas now home to more than 150 million people." Cities keep increasing their exposure to risk because developers can make money building near rising coastal waters. In the United States, the most populated areas are by coastal waters. Since we know that there is no way to stop the icecaps from melting (there are ways to slow it down, but we cannot stop it completely), we need to take into consideration that we will be losing land, and that we need to stop developing on coastal cities. Read the following article: Rising seas: http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2018021600 The usual crap from the Church of Global Warming. It's not possible to measure sea level. There is no reference point of any use. It's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth either. ITN, I hope litesong isn't watching this. Once again you are showing your frustrations with Europeans. The reality is times have changed. Everything you said is wrong. I could discuss with you Native American history but I doubt you want to know it. There are the Powahatns then Tecumseh. Pocahontas was meant to unite the Powahatns with the British. This is because of the threat that Spaniards posed to them. They knew what happened to the Seminoles. With Tecumseh, he predicted the earthquakes of 1806. Native Americans did not listen to him because of his brother. This is possibly the most important event in American history because it didn't happen.
05-03-2018 07:25
Glitch ☆☆☆☆☆ (22)	BugABoo wrote: It's true that the sea level is rising. It may not be very noticeable, but it is happening. There is no denying the fact. And with all of these tropical storms, we are losing land. Especially in the United States. "Hurricane Harvey dumped around 33 trillion gallons of water" all over the south. Climate change is the cause of all of this. Climate change is making natural disasters like tornados, flooding, severe weather, drought, hailstorms, wildfires, and hurricanes more frequent. "Tropical storms are the deadliest and most destructive natural disasters in the United States over the past 30 years." Last year, there was over $306 billion in total damage just in the United States for natural disasters! Read the article Disaster Readiness: http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2018011202 I don't think anyone disputes that overall the sea level is rising, but that is to be expected during an interglacial period. In the last 2.58 million years, since the fifth ice-age began, there have been approximately 50 interglacial periods. We just happen to be ~15,000 years into the Holocene Interglacial Period. Which means less ice and more ocean. As far as hurricanes being more frequent, you are mistaken. There have been far fewer hurricanes during the last decade than in the previous decades. Tropical storms (including hurricanes and typhoons) are indeed the most deadly of all the natural disasters on the planet. That is primarily due to the fact that they occur far more often than other major natural disasters, like major volcanic eruptions and earthquakes. The last major volcanic eruption was Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991. That eruption killed 722 people, but its effects were felt world-wide for almost two years. The last major earthquake (that resulted in deaths) was the 2011 Japanese earthquake and tsunami that resulted in 15,894 deaths and an estimated cost of $309 billion in total damages. None of these natural disasters are new, nor are they more frequent than before, and certainly none of them are man-made. BugABoo wrote: We have an idea of when natural disasters will happen, but we have no idea how bad they can be. There is no way to measure it. For example, with hurricanes, scientists have developed "floats" that measure the temperature of the water. But these floats don't make measurements frequently enough to help improve the data. To figure the intensity of a hurricane, you need to look at the temperature of the air and of the water. That is why scientists developed these "floats." If we could come up with a system that provides accurate measurements, we might be able to prepare for the actual intensity of a natural disaster. Being prepared is one thing, but knowing how bad the intensity of a storm will be is another thing. Read the following article, Blue holes hurricanes: Geological marvels are gold mines for climate history: http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A503310007/OVIC?u=nwmosu_owens&xid=064970f2 One small problem, the intensity of a storm can change in a matter of hours. Hurricane Katrina, for example, strengthened to a category 5 storm just before it made landfall. We knew that before the storm hit, but having that information does not mean we are able to act on it. What could anyone have done differently, knowing that the hurricane increased from a category 4 to a category 5 just a few hours before hitting New Orleans? Nothing. So having that information is pretty useless as far as saving lives is concerned. BugABoo wrote: "If the ice caps [in Greenland] melt completely, the global sea level would rise 220 feet." Of course, it would take over a hundred years for that to happen, but it is going to happen. This is because the global surface air temperature is rising. The following table lists the global combined land and ocean annually averaged temperature rank and anomaly for each of the 12 warmest years on record. From the article Global Climate Report – Annual 2016: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201613 Closer to thousands of years, and that is assuming the Holocene Interglacial Period does not come to an end, which interglacial periods have a tendency to do. It is the melting that causes the glaciers to recede, but the glaciers and their advance are the result of an abundance of snow. All glaciers originate from snow fields. After several years of accumulating snow glaciers will begin advancing down mountains from these snow fields. During interglacial periods you can expect glaciers to recede. During the even longer periods of glaciation you can expect the glaciers to advance. When the ice-age eventually ends, many millions of years from now, there will be no glaciers anywhere on the planet, including the poles. BugABoo wrote: If the air temperature continues to rise, and the ice caps continue to melt, flooding will be our primary concern. "Annual flooding worldwide could cause $1 trillion in losses by 2100 and submerge areas now home to more than 150 million people." Cities keep increasing their exposure to risk because developers can make money building near rising coastal waters. In the United States, the most populated areas are by coastal waters. Since we know that there is no way to stop the icecaps from melting (there are ways to slow it down, but we cannot stop it completely), we need to take into consideration that we will be losing land, and that we need to stop developing on coastal cities. Read the following article: Rising seas: http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2018021600 We started a cooling cycle in 2010 which should last until approximately 2045. This is very similar to the cooling cycle we experienced between 1945 and 1980, and the cooling cycle between 1880 and 1915. Each 35-year cooling cycle is followed by a 30-year warming cycle. One thing we can say with absolute certainty about the climate, it is never static. You've been listening to too much propaganda. The ice caps are actually increasing. There is now more ice in the antarctic than there has been in the last 40 years. https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum Edited on 05-03-2018 07:39
05-03-2018 10:45
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	Well said. Edited on 05-03-2018 10:45
05-03-2018 16:48
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Tim the plumber wrote: Well said. You should've read his link. He omitted this piece of information when he said Glitch wrote: You've been listening to too much propaganda. The ice caps are actually increasing. What his link said; NASA wrote: Studies show that globally, the decreases in Arctic sea ice far exceed the increases in Antarctic sea ice. http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/change-in-sea-volume-due-to-sea-ice-melting-d10-e1448.php#post_29578 Talk about spreading disinformation. And yet you congratulated him for it. What NASA said agrees with what ice core researchers say, when the Arctic warms Antarctica cools but not by the same amount. The temperature change in Antarctica will always be less than the opposing change in temperature in the Arctic.
05-03-2018 19:35
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	James___ wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: Well said. You should've read his link. He omitted this piece of information when he said Glitch wrote: You've been listening to too much propaganda. The ice caps are actually increasing. What his link said; NASA wrote: Studies show that globally, the decreases in Arctic sea ice far exceed the increases in Antarctic sea ice. http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/change-in-sea-volume-due-to-sea-ice-melting-d10-e1448.php#post_29578 Talk about spreading disinformation. And yet you congratulated him for it. What NASA said agrees with what ice core researchers say, when the Arctic warms Antarctica cools but not by the same amount. The temperature change in Antarctica will always be less than the opposing change in temperature in the Arctic. 1, You belive NASA when I can show you the situation is not how they say it is? 2, Even using their numbers what the hell do you think is the problem?
05-03-2018 19:47
Glitch ☆☆☆☆☆ (22)	Tim the plumber wrote: James___ wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: Well said. You should've read his link. He omitted this piece of information when he said Glitch wrote: You've been listening to too much propaganda. The ice caps are actually increasing. What his link said; NASA wrote: Studies show that globally, the decreases in Arctic sea ice far exceed the increases in Antarctic sea ice. http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/change-in-sea-volume-due-to-sea-ice-melting-d10-e1448.php#post_29578 Talk about spreading disinformation. And yet you congratulated him for it. What NASA said agrees with what ice core researchers say, when the Arctic warms Antarctica cools but not by the same amount. The temperature change in Antarctica will always be less than the opposing change in temperature in the Arctic. 1, You belive NASA when I can show you the situation is not how they say it is? 2, Even using their numbers what the hell do you think is the problem? You will notice that the URL he cites is not from NASA, nor is it the URL I referenced. Despite his claims to the contrary. Clearly "James___" likes to make up complete BS and then attribute them to others. So consider the source. This is what NASA actually said: Sea ice surrounding Antarctica reached a new record high extent this year, covering more of the southern oceans than it has since scientists began a long-term satellite record to map sea ice extent in the late 1970s. Source: https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum Edited on 05-03-2018 19:49
06-03-2018 00:25
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	[b]Glitch wrote:This is what NASA actually said: [quote]Sea ice surrounding Antarctica reached a new record high extent this year..... https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum Quoting 4 year old info as new data, is a post designed to deceive. Actually, in 2002 AGW scientists surmised that Antarctica would have increased snowfall (& sea ice extent) due to AGW. This info was confirmed in 2005. AGW denier liar whiners have been chortling about increased Antarctic sea ice, as if it wasn't an AGW consequence. Glitch is just late (& in error) to the AGW denier liar whiner show. Edited on 06-03-2018 00:27
06-03-2018 00:49
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Glitch, You are simply lying. It was your link that I quoted. You ignored the disclaimer at the TOP of the page. Search NASA.gov Search Topics Missions Galleries NASA TV Follow NASA Downloads About NASA Audiences Ice Oct. 7, 2014 Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum Editor's note: Antarctica and the Arctic are two very different environments: the former is a continent surrounded by ocean, the latter is ocean enclosed by land. As a result, sea ice behaves very differently in the two regions. While the Antarctic sea ice yearly wintertime maximum extent hit record highs from 2012 to 2014 before returning to average levels in 2015, both the Arctic wintertime maximum and its summer minimum extent have been in a sharp decline for the past decades. Studies show that globally, the decreases in Arctic sea ice far exceed the increases in Antarctic sea ice. The url is NASA and is the same url that you are quoting. It was ingenious how you posted textbook information to make it seem that you knew what you were talking about. IMO you were hoping no one would take the time to cut and paste the url that you referenced so they could read the source information for themselves. Yet the debate about climate change is not if it happens but if man is influencing it. when you skipped the editors note it was IMO to mislead people. https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum @Tim the plumber, I've said it before. Some of it is complex, some of it's a matter of doing the math. All of these numbers can be converted into w/m^2 in the northern hemisphere. It is not all countries in the northern hemisphere but would show actual KwH per capita of energy consumed in those countries into the heat they are releasing into the atmosphere. And w/m^2 is what helps to determine how warm it is because solar radiation that heats the Earth is usually measured in w/m^2. I'm just not sure why someone hasn't done this before. The energy consumption in KwH per capita for the world has increased by about 2,000 KwH per person from 1960 to 2014. 2014 KwH per Capita Sample of Northen hemisphere Countries Country KwH Population U.S.,....................12,987..........318.6 million Belgium............... 7,709............11.21 million Canada.................15,546..........35.54 million United Kingdom.......5,130..........64.61 million Russia....................6,603..........143.8 million France....................6,938...........66.33 million Germany.................7,035...........80.98 million Spain......................5,356...........46.77 million This does not include the heat generated in producing energy. Coal and Nuclear power plants both emit about the same amount of heat. Natural gas plants also emit heat. Still, if calculated at 100% efficiency then power plants that use a fuel can be said to generate as much heat as the energy in KwH they produce. This total could then be added. Edited on 06-03-2018 01:25
06-03-2018 08:43
Glitch ☆☆☆☆☆ (22)	James___ wrote: Glitch, You are simply lying. It was your link that I quoted. You ignored the disclaimer at the TOP of the page. You are absolutely right, I must have missed your disclaimer that you were going to make-up complete BS and pull it out of your posterior. After all, that is what all you anti-human communist POS love to do. Reality is obviously not one of your strong suits.

06-03-2018 16:11
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	Glitch wrote:....that is what all you anti-human communist POS love to do. Reality is obviously not one of your strong suits. Glitch spouts off with old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' AGW denier liar whinerisms. Earlier in this thread, "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' AGW denier liar whiner tim the leaky plunger" plugged: Green is the colour the communists wear these days. In answer, I stated, "Since Nixon let business send amer. tech & companies to chinese communists (always small letters), americans pay chinese communists (always small letters) with green. Glitch is late to the party, & all its accusations have been spouted before..... & in error. It tries to avoid the truth that rich conservatives sent american tech & riches to communist chinese(always small letters), allowing an instant & obvious imbalance in trade in favor of communist chinese (always small letters).
06-03-2018 17:45
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Glitch wrote: James___ wrote: Glitch, You are simply lying. It was your link that I quoted. You ignored the disclaimer at the TOP of the page. You are absolutely right, I must have missed your disclaimer that you were going to make-up complete BS and pull it out of your posterior. After all, that is what all you anti-human communist POS love to do. Reality is obviously not one of your strong suits. Glitch, Is that all you have ? I thought it was funny when Tim the plumber ridiculed me for quoting your NASA link. This individual is not with the IPCC, NASA or the EPA or NOAA; Icecore researcher Jørgen Peder Steffensen, Ph.D. Center for Ice and Climate, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen wrote: Climate ripples between north and south There is however another, more dramatic climate variation: The abrupt climate shifts in the ice age. The climate, especially in the high northern latitudes has, so to say, gone into overdrive. We have counted up to 30 such sudden shifts in Greenland. These shifts cannot be explained by solar radiation. The shifts are much stronger in the north with a temperature change of 10-18 degrees; but in the south they are between 3-5 degrees. The changes are not simultaneous either: When it is cold in the north it is warmer in the south and when it is warmer in the north is colder in the south. http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/ And now if we consider Glitch's link to NASA's information about "Ice Oct. 7, 2014 Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum" According to Dr. Steffensen the Arctic having a greater warming effect has been observed. @All, this character is also "Glitch"; http://oz.wikia.com/wiki/Glitch Glitch, with me I stick with discussing climate change. Nothing in what you posted considered the reason why there is a debate over global warming. It happens and if you look at what I have posted I started with the natural warming that occurred from 1910 to about 1945. If you ask litesong I have my own pet theory about this. I do. I also think that if my pet theory is right then it would be difficult to believe that we are not having a negative impact on climate change. I'll clue you in since you only know what is common knowledge. The warming period of 1910 started after a rare super moon at that time. It was the moon's closest position to the earth in over 1,000 years. It has been shown that the the moon can influence earthquakes in California as well as the earth's gravity can crack the surface of the moon. And since there was excessive glacial calving around 1910 and the warming of the waters below the Arctic Circle around Greenland earthquake monitoring began in earnest in the 1920's. And if you consider what Dr. Steffensen had to say about climate ripples then it is possible that something in the far north can cause extreme temperature swings in a short period of time. Still, Tim the plumber was right. What you wrote was well written but ignored the fact that the Arctic and Antarctica behave differently. Just a small, teeny, tiny detail that you "accidentally" omitted.
06-03-2018 17:53
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	litesong wrote: Glitch wrote:....that is what all you anti-human communist POS love to do. Reality is obviously not one of your strong suits. Glitch spouts off with old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' AGW denier liar whinerisms. Earlier in this thread, "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' AGW denier liar whiner tim the leaky plunger" plugged: Green is the colour the communists wear these days. In answer, I stated, "Since Nixon let business send amer. tech & companies to chinese communists (always small letters), americans pay chinese communists (always small letters) with green. Glitch is late to the party, & all its accusations have been spouted before..... & in error. It tries to avoid the truth that rich conservatives sent american tech & riches to communist chinese(always small letters), allowing an instant & obvious imbalance in trade in favor of communist chinese (always small letters). Am not sure if you know what is sad about this. Both the Korean War and the police action in Vietnam were to defend the world against the spread of communism. North Korea and the Republic of Vietnam were supported by China. To me this makes no sense why we've always have been supportive of China. China's MFN (Most Favored Nation) staus was made permanent in 2001. This reduces the cost for Chinese companies to export their goods to the U.S. This in turn gives Chinese companies and unfair advantage over American companies. Why I avoid politics. Edited on 06-03-2018 17:54
06-03-2018 21:55
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	James___ wrote: Into the Night wrote: BugABoo wrote: It's true that the sea level is rising. It may not be very noticeable, but it is happening. There is no denying the fact. And with all of these tropical storms, we are losing land. Especially in the United States. "Hurricane Harvey dumped around 33 trillion gallons of water" all over the south. Climate change is the cause of all of this. Climate change is making natural disasters like tornados, flooding, severe weather, drought, hailstorms, wildfires, and hurricanes more frequent. "Tropical storms are the deadliest and most destructive natural disasters in the United States over the past 30 years." Last year, there was over $306 billion in total damage just in the United States for natural disasters! Read the article Disaster Readiness: http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2018011202 We have an idea of when natural disasters will happen, but we have no idea how bad they can be. There is no way to measure it. For example, with hurricanes, scientists have developed "floats" that measure the temperature of the water. But these floats don't make measurements frequently enough to help improve the data. To figure the intensity of a hurricane, you need to look at the temperature of the air and of the water. That is why scientists developed these "floats." If we could come up with a system that provides accurate measurements, we might be able to prepare for the actual intensity of a natural disaster. Being prepared is one thing, but knowing how bad the intensity of a storm will be is another thing. Read the following article, Blue holes hurricanes: Geological marvels are gold mines for climate history: http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A503310007/OVIC?u=nwmosu_owens&xid=064970f2 "If the ice caps [in Greenland] melt completely, the global sea level would rise 220 feet." Of course, it would take over a hundred years for that to happen, but it is going to happen. This is because the global surface air temperature is rising. The following table lists the global combined land and ocean annually averaged temperature rank and anomaly for each of the 12 warmest years on record. From the article Global Climate Report – Annual 2016: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201613 If the air temperature continues to rise, and the ice caps continue to melt, flooding will be our primary concern. "Annual flooding worldwide could cause $1 trillion in losses by 2100 and submerge areas now home to more than 150 million people." Cities keep increasing their exposure to risk because developers can make money building near rising coastal waters. In the United States, the most populated areas are by coastal waters. Since we know that there is no way to stop the icecaps from melting (there are ways to slow it down, but we cannot stop it completely), we need to take into consideration that we will be losing land, and that we need to stop developing on coastal cities. Read the following article: Rising seas: http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2018021600 The usual crap from the Church of Global Warming. It's not possible to measure sea level. There is no reference point of any use. It's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth either. ITN, I hope litesong isn't watching this. Once again you are showing your frustrations with Europeans. The reality is times have changed. Everything you said is wrong. I could discuss with you Native American history but I doubt you want to know it. There are the Powahatns then Tecumseh. Pocahontas was meant to unite the Powahatns with the British. This is because of the threat that Spaniards posed to them. They knew what happened to the Seminoles. With Tecumseh, he predicted the earthquakes of 1806. Native Americans did not listen to him because of his brother. This is possibly the most important event in American history because it didn't happen. Your usual strawman. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-03-2018 22:59
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: The usual crap from the Church of Global Warming. It's not possible to measure sea level. There is no reference point of any use. It's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth either. [/quote] ITN, ..I don't understand you. Yet you will tell people that if they listen to you then they will be thinking for themselves. ..You do know that I have mentioned before about asking the citizens of the United Kingdom if because of their Chivalry that they could return Pocahontas to her family. This would help to highlight that there is no longer a Powhatan tribe. ..At the same time there might be women in America who would find that to be romantic. You know, a what ? 16th generation grandson turns out to be an intelligent environmentalist, shows things over looked in science and then makes such a request. And if it helps the Powhatan tribe to come back into existence then there are some gals that might take a strong liking to me because of how many women in the U.S. admire her. ..Still, if I did that, would I be thinking for myself ? I think you would say no I am not. With me, I might ask that question. It would give people of the United Kingdom a chance to show that they do have character to be admired for. ..I do have other reasons but will not go into those. And I will need more surgery and want to finish my other project. I did read some about the Seminoles and the Spaniards and almost wonder if everyone heard what happened in Central and South America. That happened about 100 years before the Spaniards ventured into North America. ..I think it was around 1500 (1521) when the Spaniards were wiping out the Aztecs. This could have made Native Americans in North America fearful of their arrival. And once again disease did help the Spaniards. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/aztec-capital-falls-to-cortes You might be right ITN. Might be best to not mention Pocahontas. Trying to discuss climate change is difficult enough. Edited on 06-03-2018 23:46
06-03-2018 23:55
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	James___ wrote: Into the Night wrote: The usual crap from the Church of Global Warming. It's not possible to measure sea level. There is no reference point of any use. It's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth either. ITN, ..I don't understand you. Yet you will tell people that if they listen to you then they will be thinking for themselves. ..You do know that I have mentioned before about asking the citizens of the United Kingdom if because of their Chivalry that they could return Pocahontas to her family. This would help to highlight that there is no longer a Powhatan tribe. ..At the same time there might be women in America who would find that to be romantic. You know, a what ? 16th generation grandson turns out to be an intelligent environmentalist, shows things over looked in science and then makes such a request. And if it helps the Powhatan tribe to come back into existence then there are some gals that might take a strong liking to me because of how many women in the U.S. admire her. ..Still, if I did that, would I be thinking for myself ? I think you would say no I am not. With me, I might ask that question. It would give people of the United Kingdom a chance to show that they do have character to be admired for. ..I do have other reasons but will not go into those. And I will need more surgery and want to finish my other project. I did read some about the Seminoles and the Spaniards and almost wonder if everyone heard what happened in Central and South America. That happened about 100 years before the Spaniards ventured into North America. ..I think it was around 1500 (1521) when the Spaniards were wiping out the Aztecs. This could have made Native Americans in North America fearful of their arrival. And once again disease did help the Spaniards. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/aztec-capital-falls-to-cortes You might be right ITN. Might be best to not mention Pocahontas. Trying to discuss climate change is difficult enough.[/quote] Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions. Discussing buzzwords is not productive either. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 06-03-2018 23:55
07-03-2018 01:09
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions. Discussing buzzwords is not productive either. This is about all you have, isn't it ? Since you accept no definition then there can be no discussion about what does not exist. You have nullified your own existence because you are without definition.
07-03-2018 01:14
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	[b]James___ wrote: Into the Night wrote: Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions. Discussing buzzwords is not productive either. This is about all you have, isn't it ? Since you accept no definition then there can be no discussion about what does not exist. You have nullified your own existence because you are without definition. Oh, james.... ya got it!!
07-03-2018 04:03
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	litesong wrote: [b]James___ wrote: Into the Night wrote: Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions. Discussing buzzwords is not productive either. This is about all you have, isn't it ? Since you accept no definition then there can be no discussion about what does not exist. You have nullified your own existence because you are without definition. Oh, james.... ya got it!! Thank You litesong. He does need to realize that even the Om (Great Spirit) is defined. Otherwise how could there be life ?
07-03-2018 05:27
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	James___ wrote: Into the Night wrote: Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions. Discussing buzzwords is not productive either. This is about all you have, isn't it ? Since you accept no definition then there can be no discussion about what does not exist. You have nullified your own existence because you are without definition. You have not given one. So far it's just a buzzword. Care to try to define it without using circular definitions? I am defined by Proof of Identity. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Page 1 of 2

Join the debate Change in sea volume due to sea ice melting:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Actor Jamie Foxx is now blind and paralyzed due to the covid vaccine that he was forced to take	10	11-02-2024 01:28
The new President elect of Haagen Dazs, demonstrating an ice cream filled donut	0	17-11-2023 14:07
Jamie Foxx blind and paralyzed due to covid vaccine for Netflix	39	12-07-2023 20:11
LOL, Anheuser Busch is shutting down plants and laying off employees due to the woke fag bud light ads	0	03-07-2023 03:36
FASTER GLACIER MELTING MECHANISM COULD CAUSE HUGE SEA LEVEL RISES	4	20-05-2023 19:54