Global Cooling Chills Summer

[Old Rocks]

Considering they are completely ignoring water displacement formulas, ice displaces a lot more water. So when it thaws there is more room than when it's frozen. There is so much science they are ignoring to make this con more believable.

First time i've heard that argument guys. I'll have to go look into it but it makes sense on the surface.

When H2O molecules are frozen they form crystaline structures with a LOT of air trapped, smaller molecules. Since the molecule itself doesn't change size liquid H2O can't fill in the empty space, and the ice itself becomes 30% (somewhere around there) larger in volume. It's why when you take a bottle of water and freeze it it explodes (or expands if it's stretchable enough).

No, sweet little kitten, the figure is much more like 9%. And how would water get air into it if it is not in contact with air, as in when in a bottle? I suggest the you look up basic science before you start blathering and making a fool of yourself.

WikiAnswers - Why does water expand when it freezes


Molecular Geometry and Polarity
Water expands when it freezes due to molecular geometry and the fact that it is a very polar molecule. The water molecule is shaped like an upside-down "v". Due to this shape, when water freezes it make a hexagonal shape such that the slightly negatively charge oxygen atoms are aligned with the slightly positively charge hydrogen atoms -- this is the most stable configuration. (Less polar molecules do not configure themselves in this way because there is less of a reduction in energy if the molecule is not as polar) This orientation leaves space in the middle of the frozen water molecules. That is why water expands when it freezes.

 

[L.K.Eder]

First time i've heard that argument guys. I'll have to go look into it but it makes sense on the surface.

When H2O molecules are frozen they form crystaline structures with a LOT of air trapped, smaller molecules. Since the molecule itself doesn't change size liquid H2O can't fill in the empty space, and the ice itself becomes 30% (somewhere around there) larger in volume. It's why when you take a bottle of water and freeze it it explodes (or expands if it's stretchable enough).

No, sweet little kitten, the figure is much more like 9%. And how would water get air into it if it is not in contact with air, as in when in a bottle? I suggest the you look up basic science before you start blathering and making a fool of yourself.

WikiAnswers - Why does water expand when it freezes


Molecular Geometry and Polarity
Water expands when it freezes due to molecular geometry and the fact that it is a very polar molecule. The water molecule is shaped like an upside-down "v". Due to this shape, when water freezes it make a hexagonal shape such that the slightly negatively charge oxygen atoms are aligned with the slightly positively charge hydrogen atoms -- this is the most stable configuration. (Less polar molecules do not configure themselves in this way because there is less of a reduction in energy if the molecule is not as polar) This orientation leaves space in the middle of the frozen water molecules. That is why water expands when it freezes.

yeah, ice traps the little bitty air molecules in its crystaline structure, hehe.

the air is trapped when snow is pressed to ice. but that is just basic science, something KittenKoder read about somewhere and is now an expert in, but can't find the bookmark to take a refresher.

 

[KittenKoder]

Fourth grade science fails the environuts again, air condenses when it cools.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Fourth grade science fails the environuts again, air condenses when it cools.

sooner or later you will drown in your own bullshit.

 

[KittenKoder]

Fourth grade science fails the environuts again, air condenses when it cools.

sooner or later you will drown in your own bullshit.

Naw, I won't be joining you any time soon.

Now, address the more important question:

What purpose does the ice serve in nature?

 

[jreeves]

Of course, but you knew that before you made your stupid post. How else would you have known the Earth cooled and warmed in the past!!!
Ice core data have shown that the interglacial warm periods have been 10,000 years or less but this warm period is already 12,000 years long. So the next Ice Age, which probably should have begun with the "Little Ice Age" is clearly overdue according to the natural cycle of the last 400,000+ years.

SEED - Temperature Change History

Notice on your graph, how temperatures fluctuated up and down over the last 400k or so years? Isn't it funny how consistent the peaks and valleys are all throughout that time, even the current time. Wow, that would be just a tad contradictory to the whole notion of AGW.

Quite the opposite. The consistant nature of the cycles would indicate that we should be well into a new Ice Age by now, but we are measuring a 100 year warming trend which is contrary to the established cycle shown in the chart implying something unnatural is involved which therefore does not rule out the possibility of AGW. It doesn't prove AGW but it does not rule it out either as you have done.

Look back at about 125,000 years ago on your graph, higher temperatures than are being recorded currently....hmm...

I'm sure that just proves the AGW theory though...
If you look at the warming periods over time they look pretty consistent with the current trend.

 

[KittenKoder]

Notice on your graph, how temperatures fluctuated up and down over the last 400k or so years? Isn't it funny how consistent the peaks and valleys are all throughout that time, even the current time. Wow, that would be just a tad contradictory to the whole notion of AGW.

Quite the opposite. The consistant nature of the cycles would indicate that we should be well into a new Ice Age by now, but we are measuring a 100 year warming trend which is contrary to the established cycle shown in the chart implying something unnatural is involved which therefore does not rule out the possibility of AGW. It doesn't prove AGW but it does not rule it out either as you have done.

Look back at about 125,000 years ago on your graph, higher temperatures than are being recorded currently....hmm...

I'm sure that just proves the AGW theory though...
If you look at the warming periods over time they look pretty consistent with the current trend.

What they are using is the amount of time the heat is up ... but if you go back to the completely opposite end, extend it a bit more, you will see a pattern that makes this "trend" normal actually.

 

[Old Rocks]

Notice on your graph, how temperatures fluctuated up and down over the last 400k or so years? Isn't it funny how consistent the peaks and valleys are all throughout that time, even the current time. Wow, that would be just a tad contradictory to the whole notion of AGW.

Quite the opposite. The consistant nature of the cycles would indicate that we should be well into a new Ice Age by now, but we are measuring a 100 year warming trend which is contrary to the established cycle shown in the chart implying something unnatural is involved which therefore does not rule out the possibility of AGW. It doesn't prove AGW but it does not rule it out either as you have done.

Look back at about 125,000 years ago on your graph, higher temperatures than are being recorded currently....hmm...

I'm sure that just proves the AGW theory though...
If you look at the warming periods over time they look pretty consistent with the current trend.

Like hell they are. But you will deny reality even when it starts killing your children.

 

[Old Rocks]

What purpose does sweet little kitten serve on this board, other than to demonstrate her deplorable lack of scientific knowledge.

 

[KittenKoder]

What purpose does sweet little kitten serve on this board, other than to demonstrate her deplorable lack of scientific knowledge.

If you had any scientific knowledge you would have answered the question instead of failing at flaming me.

What purpose does the ice serve in nature?

 

[jreeves]

Quite the opposite. The consistant nature of the cycles would indicate that we should be well into a new Ice Age by now, but we are measuring a 100 year warming trend which is contrary to the established cycle shown in the chart implying something unnatural is involved which therefore does not rule out the possibility of AGW. It doesn't prove AGW but it does not rule it out either as you have done.

Look back at about 125,000 years ago on your graph, higher temperatures than are being recorded currently....hmm...

I'm sure that just proves the AGW theory though...
If you look at the warming periods over time they look pretty consistent with the current trend.

Like hell they are. But you will deny reality even when it starts killing your children.

I guess you have failed to look at the right end of the graph which shows the current trend of being -delta temperature? But it doesn't surprise me that you would have overlooked that 'complex' detail...

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh my, here we go again, asking such deep and penetrating questions.

I answered this already. Nature has no purpose. Nature follow physical laws, ice is formed when the local conditons of temperature and pressure reach the freezing point of water for those conditions. No purpose, just simple laws of physics.

 

[Old Rocks]

Look back at about 125,000 years ago on your graph, higher temperatures than are being recorded currently....hmm...

I'm sure that just proves the AGW theory though...
If you look at the warming periods over time they look pretty consistent with the current trend.

Like hell they are. But you will deny reality even when it starts killing your children.

I guess you have failed to look at the right end of the graph which shows the current trend of being -delta temperature? But it doesn't surprise me that you would have overlooked that 'complex' detail...

Yes, I would expect a dumb fuck like you to repeat that idiocy.

 

[KittenKoder]

Oh my, here we go again, asking such deep and penetrating questions.

I answered this already. Nature has no purpose. Nature follow physical laws, ice is formed when the local conditons of temperature and pressure reach the freezing point of water for those conditions. No purpose, just simple laws of physics.

Everything in nature does serve a purpose, the ecology is a balance (the only part environuts got right but you deny this when it doesn't suit you, how odd). So again I ask:

What purpose does the ice serve in nature?

 

[jreeves]

Like hell they are. But you will deny reality even when it starts killing your children.

I guess you have failed to look at the right end of the graph which shows the current trend of being -delta temperature? But it doesn't surprise me that you would have overlooked that 'complex' detail...

Yes, I would expect a dumb fuck like you to repeat that idiocy.

Who's the dumb fuck that doesn't understand a simple graph? -temp=a drop in temperature for the brain deficient....

 

[Chris]

Oh my, here we go again, asking such deep and penetrating questions.

I answered this already. Nature has no purpose. Nature follow physical laws, ice is formed when the local conditons of temperature and pressure reach the freezing point of water for those conditions. No purpose, just simple laws of physics.

Everything in nature does serve a purpose, the ecology is a balance (the only part environuts got right but you deny this when it doesn't suit you, how odd). So again I ask:

What purpose does the ice serve in nature?

Why is the ice melting?

 

[KittenKoder]

Oh my, here we go again, asking such deep and penetrating questions.

I answered this already. Nature has no purpose. Nature follow physical laws, ice is formed when the local conditons of temperature and pressure reach the freezing point of water for those conditions. No purpose, just simple laws of physics.

Everything in nature does serve a purpose, the ecology is a balance (the only part environuts got right but you deny this when it doesn't suit you, how odd). So again I ask:

What purpose does the ice serve in nature?

Why is the ice melting?

Why do we need it? If we don't need it then there is no concern at all.

 

[Chris]

Everything in nature does serve a purpose, the ecology is a balance (the only part environuts got right but you deny this when it doesn't suit you, how odd). So again I ask:

What purpose does the ice serve in nature?

Why is the ice melting?

Why do we need it? If we don't need it then there is no concern at all.

Why is the ice melting?

 

[KittenKoder]

Why is the ice melting?

Why do we need it? If we don't need it then there is no concern at all.

Why is the ice melting?

You don't have the answer to your own question, but even if you did it's meaningless without knowing the one simple fact:

Why is the ice important in nature?

Science is steps, if you skip steps then you are not using science, you are just being a politician. Now, if you like science so much, answer this question and give anyone a reason to care, otherwise there is no need to care.

 

[Chris]

Why do we need it? If we don't need it then there is no concern at all.

Why is the ice melting?

You don't have the answer to your own question, but even if you did it's meaningless without knowing the one simple fact:

Why is the ice important in nature?

Science is steps, if you skip steps then you are not using science, you are just being a politician. Now, if you like science so much, answer this question and give anyone a reason to care, otherwise there is no need to care.

Why is the ice melting?