How AGW Theory defies physics

a reply to: LittleByLittle

Not at all but the concept is simple.

At night in a humid environmental the over night temperatures will not experience nearly as much of a temperature drop than would be experienced in a dry environment.

a reply to: swanne

So what about the Greenland ice sheet then. The one that's actually positioned on a land mass. When that melts will there be no impact on sea level?

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: LittleByLittle

Not at all but the concept is simple.

At night in a humid environmental the over night temperatures will not experience nearly as much of a temperature drop than would be experienced in a dry environment.

You are oversimplyfying.

There is more energy stored in a H2O molecule to heat it up than O2, N2, CO2. H2O slows down both heating and cooling. In a cold environment humidity keeps the surrounding gases cool since it need more energy to heat up. And H2O both traps and reflect away sunlight.

a reply to: LittleByLittle

You are absolutely wrong. More water vapor means more radiative forcing. Also when clouds are formed, heat is released as a direct result of condensation.

a reply to: jrod

Still takes more energy to heat up H2O than O2, N2, C02 for it to become gas form instead of liquid. It is not heat is released due to condensation. It is condensations happens because heat (energy level) has dispersed enough for H20 to change from gas from to liquid form.

heat is released as a direct result of condensation

Above is like to say that when Ice melts it lets of Cold. H2O melt from solid to liquid since it have more energy. Energy level changes what form water takes (Solid/Liquid/Gas/Plasma).

Cause and effect backwards.

a reply to: LittleByLittle

Actually melting and evaporation cause cooling effects, that is they absorb heat.

Condensation and freezing release heat.

Understanding Chemistry 101 is a good start for anyone who thinks AGW is a hoax. Time and again those who scream hoax also do not understand the basic principles behind atmospheric chemistry.

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, more water vapor means a warmer atmosphere. There is a feedback loop as clouds do reflect sunlight, however by all accounts it does not 'cancel out' the extra heat from the greenhouse effect.

A hurricane for example is like a giant heat engine that gets its energy from the condensation of water....it essentially takes heat from the tropics and brings it to higher latitudes.

a reply to: jrod

ok

I suggest we need real studies and the only way to do that is to vote in a leader who will make the changes required to reverse the carbon levels in our atmosphere, that would be the only way to study the effects and debunk, or not, that we are causing these climate change problems.

a reply to: InTheLight

It's already been debunked. You know how? Every single prediction made by climate alarmists has been mete out as false and or a gross exaggeration.

Debate over.

Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: InTheLight

It's already been debunked. You know how? Every single prediction made by climate alarmists has been mete out as false and or a gross exaggeration.

Debate over.

Jaden

It can only be debunked by reversing the huge amounts of carbon being pumped into our atmosphere and gauging the results, otherwise everyone is just guessing, as usual.

a reply to: Masterjaden

You know arbritrarily declaring victory is a dis-info tactic.

You are right the debate is over. It is clear that human activity is changing the atmospheric chemistry, thus having an effect on the climate.

It will be up to my generation to fix the mess. Unfortunately the US recently has elected a president who does not care about the environment. This will make the future clean up much more difficult.

Michigan has been rebounding since the last big glacier retreated, er I mean melted. Guess all those neolithic campfires must have caused the last ice age to melt. Currently, even though the higher global temperatures and rebound should be causing lower great lakes levels, they are record highs lately.

Thing is, regardless of what causes these changes, change is always occurring. For humans to actively seek to stabilize and create a static climate is an effort that will fail and ultimately make things worse. We should adapt to what the climate does rather than try to control the climate.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

For humans to actively seek to stabilize and create a static climate is an effort that will fail and ultimately make things worse. We should adapt to what the climate does rather than try to control the climate.

That's the heart of the issue. A ludicrous idea that climate should be static...somehow, even though we know, it was never static. We damn well know that some areas that are desolate now, were once in history inhabited by humans. We know there are cities now submerged that were once thriving. Climate change did that. We adapted. Its the rule of nature. Change is a constant.

a reply to: ManFromEurope

Oh, dear, oh dear.

There is about 2,600,000 km³ of ice on Greenland.

Oh, and right now, there are 2 km³ of ice already melting in Greenland. Per day.

Wait a minute... so you're saying that we could see 6.5 m of ocean rise in only 1,300,000 days? OMG! What have I been thinking! We only have until the year 6920! Whatever shall we do?

That's right. 1,300,000 days is just a hair over 4901 years. It works out to a breathtaking 1.3 mm per year. I feel sorry for those poor people who can't outrun a 1.3 mm sea level rise per year. They're doomed.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm glad you chose the handle "Red Neck". You are doing a good job of changing the connotation of that word from a ignorant hay seed to someone who actually has some brains and uses them. Star of course.

a reply to: swanne

The premise of you OP is wrong. Antarctica is a continent unlike the Arctic. Glacial ice melting in Antarctica which is happening will add to sea level rise.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: swanne

I think he meant that..1 km3 of ice that is above ground, when melted will yield 0.9 km3 of water to the body.

That is the key. And I can tell you from personal observation that there is a LOT of ice above sea level. Some people seem to regard Iceland as just a big floating ice cube. It's not. I have flown over Greenland many times. It is a huge chunk of bedrock, varying in elevation from close to sea level in a North- South trough in the interior to about 4500 on the central East coast. The top of the ice runs from 8,000 to 10,000 feet in the interior and from 6,000 to 10,000 along the East coast, and from 5,000 to 8,000 along the West coast. It is one scary place to land. Hell, I had trouble pronouncing their names, much less flying down narrow fjords trying to find snow covered runways against a background of white glaciers. Some, like Thule, don't even have instrument approach procedures. Others, like Narsarsuaq or Kangerlussuaq border on ludicrous procedures. So the ice is not like cubes in your cocktail glass. It is like 3 million cubic kilometers of ice cubes in your freezer that you are going to dump in your cocktail glass. Now ask whether that will raise the level of water in your cocktail glass. I would invite people to go to Greenland to try their reallly good local beers, like Godthaab Bryghus beers from Nuuk, Grønland Ice Cap Beer from Ilulissat or Nanoq Beers from Qaqortoq.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Thank you. Been doing that most of my life. Hell, I was redneck when Jeff Foxworthy was still trying to be a suburbanite.

TheRedneck