Thread: Climate Change is real!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by Ramo

But if the Arctic melts, where will the Russians plant their flag?

I know! I know! Putin's Proctologist can serve us in this very matter. I sure he'll find a great place to put the Soviet's Flag.

Beeend oveeer Valdamieeer...




Ivan

Originally Posted by gunnut

What happens to the sea level if the Arctic ice cap melts completely?

Nothing.

The entire Arctic ice cap floats on water. It has already displaced the water it occupies. In fact, if the Arctic ice cap melts, the sea level will drop. This scenario involves the large amount of cold water (from the ice cap) sinks to the lower level of the Atlantic, disrupts the gulf stream, stops the transference of warmth from the tropics to the north, and plunges the earth into the next ice age.

I think that's the solution to our global warming problem. We melt the polar ice caps. The earth experiences the next ice age. Ice cap reforms. Simple.

Well that's a relief. Instead of boats, we just need to build some igloos to sustain life.

Originally Posted by Julie

Well that's a relief. Instead of boats, we just need to build some igloos to sustain life.

It basically tells you that we know very little about how the earth's climate operate in the long run.

What happens if we do this, or that? We really don't know. Nature responds in surprising ways.

These environmentalists tell us on the one hand that we are insignificant and we don't know enough about the earth, and at the same time state that we can change the earth and we know exactly how the earth behaves, is to me, contradictory at the very least. It is the epitome of egocentrism.

What happens to the sea level if the Arctic ice cap melts completely?

Nothing.

The entire Arctic ice cap floats on water. It has already displaced the water it occupies. In fact, if the Arctic ice cap melts, the sea level will drop.

It's the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets that would raise sea levels.

Newbie here, but I came from "the place that Dale came from".......

Saw that the proverbial climate change thread was still going on, as it ahs in other threads, and other boards.

I have been a long-time AGW skeptic, but some recent observations have forced me to re-evalutate my position.

I have seen Dale's assertion here on "prove it", so I would like to start a step-by-step analysis of what it is that Dale (and potentially others) have problems with in the AGW debate.

So first question in the series:

1) Does anyone have problems with the assertion or theory that C02 absorbs long-band radiation, and re-emits it in the thermal and IR band?

Note that this is a question not on the *amount* of the effect, nor any question on how the saturation of C02 may affect the emissions, nor a question on the efficacy or on *how much* the re-emission is stacked against other components such as H20 or CH4.

Love to hear the answers from the naysayers. But since the overall question og AGW *is* complex, this tends to make many sharp turns in any discussion.

Reading over the skeptic's views, there is a barrage of sometimes non-pertinent reasoning or reasons on why various people do not subscribe to the AGW hypothesis or theory.

Look forward to some interesting discussions here, and thanks in advance.

Originally Posted by Ironduke

It's the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets that would raise sea levels.

Maybe. But there are evidences showing that the south pole is actually getting colder in the middle. The ice sheet is getting thicker as a result.

Besides, Greenland wasn't always covered with that much ice. We have archeological evidences to suggest a good number of farm animals grazed on Greenland for hundreds of years before the climate changed.

Originally Posted by tanq_tonic

Newbie here, but I came from "the place that Dale came from".......

Saw that the proverbial climate change thread was still going on, as it ahs in other threads, and other boards.

I have been a long-time AGW skeptic, but some recent observations have forced me to re-evalutate my position.

I have seen Dale's assertion her on "prove it", so I would like to start a step-by-step analysis of what it is that Dale (and potentially others) have problems with in the AGW debate.

So first question in the series:

1) Does anyone have problems with the assertion or theory that C02 absorbs long-band radiation, and re-emits it in the thermal and IR band?

Note that this is a question not on the *amount* of the effect, nor any question on how the saturation of C02 may affect the emissions, nor a question on the efficacy or on *how much* the re-emission is stacked against other components such as H20 or CH4.

Love to hear the answers from the naysayers. But since the overall question *is* complex, this tends to make many sharp turns in any discussion.

Reading over the skeptic's views, there is a barrage of sometimes non-pertinent reasoning or reasons on why various people do not subscribe to the AGW hypothesis or theory.

Look forward to some interesting discussions here, and thanks in advance.

Welcome to the WAB tang tonic,would you mind heading over to the Membership Introductions forum and posting a thread so the members can get to know you a little better.While you're there why not fill out your profile and tell us a bit about yourself .(Welcome to Wal-Mart,do you need a cart today? )

Originally Posted by Shamus

Welcome to the WAB tang tonic,would you mind heading over to the Membership Introductions forum and posting a thread so the members can get to know you a little better.While you're there why not fill out your profile and tell us a bit about yourself .(Welcome to Wal-Mart,do you need a cart today? )

Good thing I joined this board before you guys came over. I, for the longest time, didn't do the introduction at the intro section. Back then it was at the bottom of the forum page and I rarely read it anyways.

Originally Posted by gunnut

Good thing I joined this board before you guys came over. I, for the longest time, didn't do the introduction at the intro section. Back then it was at the bottom of the forum page and I rarely read it anyways.

It's all glyn's fault....I would have been happy being sullen and withdrawn in the corner if it wasn't for him..... I believe he's just trying to prepare me for my new career in customer service

Originally Posted by Ironduke

It's the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets that would raise sea levels.

But Greenland and Antarctica would also rise from the loss of the weight of the ice.

-dale

Originally Posted by tanq_tonic

Newbie here, but I came from "the place that Dale came from".......

Saw that the proverbial climate change thread was still going on, as it ahs in other threads, and other boards.

I have been a long-time AGW skeptic, but some recent observations have forced me to re-evalutate my position.

I have seen Dale's assertion here on "prove it", so I would like to start a step-by-step analysis of what it is that Dale (and potentially others) have problems with in the AGW debate.

So first question in the series:

1) Does anyone have problems with the assertion or theory that C02 absorbs long-band radiation, and re-emits it in the thermal and IR band?

Note that this is a question not on the *amount* of the effect, nor any question on how the saturation of C02 may affect the emissions, nor a question on the efficacy or on *how much* the re-emission is stacked against other components such as H20 or CH4.

Love to hear the answers from the naysayers. But since the overall question og AGW *is* complex, this tends to make many sharp turns in any discussion.

Reading over the skeptic's views, there is a barrage of sometimes non-pertinent reasoning or reasons on why various people do not subscribe to the AGW hypothesis or theory.

Look forward to some interesting discussions here, and thanks in advance.

Carbon isn't the only variable. Of course the Greenhouse Effect is vital to trapping and maintaining surface heat.

But so what? Against the proposition that man-made Carbon emissions (and only Carbon, not water vapor or anything else) are forcing the planet's temperature higher we have the following:

1) NO tested or confirmed link between amounts of Carbon (again with the Carbon!) and global climate. None. Nothing. Nada. Nichevo.

2) The confirmed fact that the Sun has been extremely active over the last few centuries, and especially the last few decades.

3) Temperatures also rising on Mars and other planetary bodies.

So you have cute theory - what comes out of my tailpipe makes the planet hotter. Prove it.

-dale