Global Warming w/o Tiggy

[Challenger Grim]

Its unlikely, taking the Sears tower as an example (and using a height per floor of 2.5 metres, which is likely too low) it has a total size of about 1 million cubic metres and a weight of about 225,000 tons, a similar volume of ice sheet would have a mass of nearly 1 million tons (all using metric tons). That gives the Sears tower about 1/4 the ground pressure of a similar block of ice.

The Greenland ice sheet is 2-3km thick in most places, to get a similar ground pressure from construction you would have to pack Sears towers side by side and 4 high over a vast area. That's far beyond any construction that we have.

Any effect from construction is likely to be negilgible.

I already admitted we had the concept backwards (which makes even less sense).

Plus, as pointed out in links, even the ice volume is negligible on impact.

And i'm curious how they weighed the sears tower. Is that just as a hollow building using materials or are they also accounting for it filled with people, supplies, furniture, etc etc.

Also, I point out that the Hoover dam is calculated to be around 6.6 million tons, which would be close to 6 times the weight of the ice sheet. Pyramids in egypt are also estimated around that size I believe. Was there a corresponding drop in volcanic activity in the area once they got built?

[Augustine2004]

Volcanoes in Egypt?

[Challenger Grim]

Volcanoes in Egypt?

Exactly!

[Jet Black]

Pyramids in egypt are also estimated around that size I believe. Was there a corresponding drop in volcanic activity in the area once they got built?

I already told you this is talking about areas of volcanic activity. Please pay attention so that we don't have to repeat oursleves.

[Challenger Grim]

I already told you this is talking about areas of volcanic activity. Please pay attention so that we don't have to repeat oursleves.

Hey, there appears to be a plate running right next to egypt so it could erupt any time the mummy gets angry...
http://www.rain.org/homeschool/scien...-the-world.gif

However, seriously for a minute (sorta), the list of volcanoes I can find under ice is an extremely short one.
http://geology.com/press-release/glaciovolcanoes/

(and there's apparently one under the artic)

Which makes the idea that losing ice causing them to erupt (unless the ice is supposed to be acting like a cork) even sillier. But wait! Volacnoes have apparently erupted under ice at the extreme south and north.
http://www.financialexpress.com/news...rctica/264896/

Which again, contradicts this stupid theory.

[Jet Black]

Hey, there appears to be a plate running right next to egypt so it could erupt any time the mummy gets angry...
http://www.rain.org/homeschool/scien...-the-world.gif

not all faults have volcanoes.

However, seriously for a minute (sorta), the list of volcanoes I can find under ice is an extremely short one.
http://geology.com/press-release/glaciovolcanoes/

(and there's apparently one under the artic)

so what?

Which makes the idea that losing ice causing them to erupt (unless the ice is supposed to be acting like a cork) even sillier. But wait! Volacnoes have apparently erupted under ice at the extreme south and north.
http://www.financialexpress.com/news...rctica/264896/

Which again, contradicts this stupid theory.

how? nobody is saying that ice means no volcanoes. Nobody is saying that losing ice causes them to erupt, just that changes in pressure can lead to increased volcanism, and you've seen that is the case from your own links. You do read the links you post, right?

[grmorton]

that's quite impressive. can you tell us how that works given the angle subtended by the distance between the US and Europe with the Sun, which I calculate here to be a fairly small fraction of a degree.

It is a matter of timing of the reading which is once per day at any location. If the spot hasn't formed when the Europeans look at the sun, but it has formed 6-10 hours later when Americans read it, then there can be a difference in the spot count

Remember, Europe and the Americas don't all look at the sun simultaneously.

[David M]

I already admitted we had the concept backwards (which makes even less sense).

Plus, as pointed out in links, even the ice volume is negligible on impact.

And i'm curious how they weighed the sears tower. Is that just as a hollow building using materials or are they also accounting for it filled with people, supplies, furniture, etc etc.

Also, I point out that the Hoover dam is calculated to be around 6.6 million tons, which would be close to 6 times the weight of the ice sheet. Pyramids in egypt are also estimated around that size I believe. Was there a corresponding drop in volcanic activity in the area once they got built?

I replied before reading the subsequent post.

I'd guess it was just from the weight of materials used in its construction.

The Sears tower is about 70m by 70m at ground level from what I can find out, that gives it a ground pressure of 46 tones per square metre, the Hoover dam has an area at ground level of 75,800 sq metres so that gives an average ground pressure of 87 tons per sq metre, a 220m high glacier has a ground pressure of 220 tons per sq metre. So even the Hoover dam (when considered alone) produces less ground pressure than the water it holds back.

The density of concrete is 2.4 metric tons per cubic metre, so you are still talking about a huge amount of solid concrete to match the weight of a glacier or ice sheet. For every 100m height of ice you would need just over 40m of solid concrete.

[USIncognito]

It's hot, in Dallas, in June.

By the spurious thinking of deniers per this winter, that must mean Global Warming is vindicated.

[Augustine2004]

It's hot, in Dallas, in June.

By the spurious thinking of deniers per this winter, that must mean Global Warming is vindicated.

Why did you mention the weather in Dallas in early June? If it were extraordinarily hot for this early in Dallas, that would be something to consider. But you didn’t use an adjective like ‘extraordinarily.’

I think maybe part of your point is that it’s wrong for us skeptics to seize on periods of extraordinary cold to discredit the anthropogenetic global warming hypothesis. I do not think we should ignore data, especially what may discomfit you.

[USIncognito]

Why did you mention the weather in Dallas in early June? If it were extraordinarily hot for this early in Dallas, that would be something to consider. But you didn’t use an adjective like ‘extraordinarily.’

Because I didn't feel the need to add hyperbole to parody. We have been running 3-10 degrees above average (and getting closer to it as we move into June) since it warmed after a cold winter.

I think maybe part of your point is that it’s wrong for us skeptics to seize on periods of extraordinary cold to discredit the anthropogenetic global warming hypothesis. I do not think we should ignore data, especially what may discomfit you.

Really? Should I scroll back and see if any deniers pointed out the record heat the upper-midwest saw in May as much as they trumpeted the snowfalls this winter?
http://climate.umn.edu/doc/journal/w...stormy1005.htm
"The Twin Cities tied a record high of 88 degrees on May 23, tieing the old record of 88 in 1874. The maximum temperature on May 24 was 95 degrees, easily breaking the old record high of 88 degrees set back in 1875. St. Cloud also set a record maximum temperature on May 24 with 94 degrees, breaking the old record of 88 set back in 1980."

I'd hate to think you ignored that particular data.

[Augustine2004]

Good grief. What detailed procedure can we agree on, to determine what the climate of the world is now? Climate change, when it occurs? No handwaving generality.

:genial smiley: (not a :denial smiley:)

[USIncognito]

Good grief. What detailed procedure can we agree on, to determine what the climate of the world is now? Climate change, when it occurs? No handwaving generality.

:genial smiley: (not a :denial smiley:)

I think you just took my parody post in the wrong vein. It was meant purely as satire and a comment on the debate rather than a serious comment on the science.

That said, any comment on the record heat in Minnesota breaking 125 year old records? Surely if the record snowfalls Glenn was trumpeting during the winter warrented discussion, these record heat deserve consideration too.

Or are selective data points embraced by deniers but handwaved away when they contradict their narrative?

[Augustine2004]

Or are selective data points embraced by deniers but handwaved away when they contradict their narrative?

To be sure, by definition some deniers would do that. Possibly, though, you meant that anyone who has the least bit of doubt would do that also.

[USIncognito]

To be sure, by definition some deniers would do that. Possibly, though, you meant that anyone who has the least bit of doubt would do that also.

Sorry it's taken me almost a month to reply. I was waiting for record heat in the same locations that were having record snowfalls just 3 months ago.

Look, leave the mind reading to the professional hucksters. I was referring specifically to those deniers that glommed on to cold temps this winter - which weren't global, the Southern hemisphere saw some really warm temps and drought conditions - in North America and Europe as definative evidence that global warming was a hoax. My comments were a parody of their selective data mining and I was trying to elicit a response from them when we saw record warm temps just 2 and now 3 months after we saw these record snowfalls.

Heck Aug, I'm not even a AGW true believer myself. I'm more of an anti-denialist. The cold this winter sucked for someone who has lived in the South since he was 16 and the heat and Gulf moisture contributing to an oppressively humid summer still sucks - you never get used to it.

I've just noticed that on 2 particular forums, this one and Christianforums, there were numerous threads and posts by deniers over the winter when it was cold and snowy, but there's hardly a post, much less a thread on climate change since the late spring when it started getting hot - record breakingly so in many locations.

Why is that?