• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The IPCC is Wrong

Lord of Planar said:
I don't think you will find sich a thing. Without man's involvement, the partial pressure of the CO2 in the oceans change with the temperature. The warmer the water, the less CO2 the waters absorb. warmer waters and ice met lead to the rising sea in these cases, along with rising CO2. Cooler waters and earth have more ice staying on land, lowering the sea level and atmospheric CO2.

The oceans absorb CO2 in the cold polar regions, and release it in the warm equatorial regions. During the ice ages, the oceans hold more CO2, so the atmospheric levels drop to around 180 ppm, give or take a bit. The natural values we see during the warm periods are around 280 ppm give or take.


Then stop believing what the pundits say. Consider his actual words and the actual science.
Click to expand...




https://twitter.com/search?q=climate,+OR+warming+from:realdonaldtrump&ref_src=twsrc^tfw

Mostly Trump just seems to joke about Global Warming.




//
 
Lord of Planar said:
So?

I joke about it too.
Click to expand...


It may be in the interests of the US economy to not have overly stringent regulations on CO2 emissions. Russia and China are competing with the US to try to gain more countries to befriend them.

Trade and Climate deals can be based on Science, and Scientists can tell lies with statistics.

Maybe there are a lot of countries hat are looking for economic advantages from the US, so it may be wise for Trump to check the statistics, before giving away the store.



//
 
Gladiator said:
It may be in the interests of the US economy to not have overly stringent regulations on CO2 emissions. Russia and China are competing with the US to try to gain more countries to befriend them.

Trade and Climate deals can be based on Science, and Scientists can tell lies with statistics.

Maybe there are a lot of countries hat are looking for economic advantages from the US, so it may be wise for Trump to check the statistics, before giving away the store.
//
Click to expand...
I could see the statement being made about Obama, but what store would Trump be giving away?
As near as I can tell, Trump is not a proponent of the idea that AGW is even a problem, so why would he do any regulations?
 
Deuce said:
No, you kept shouting VOLCANOES. You think they're being ignored. I even explained to you how they affect climate. Then I gave you a link with further detail.
Click to expand...

Don't mind bubba, he gets everything backwards.

Besides, his knowledge of climate stops at the Fox News coverage of 'Climategate'.
 
Jack Hays said:
The Collapse of the Global Warming Scare
Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian
Click to expand...

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

It's about time! When countries like China are building more coal burning plants as we speak, but state they will look at emissions sometime in the 2030s, they aren't serious about global warming. Time will tell how the global elitists will handle this financial setback...
 
Lord of Planar said:
First off, the solar variation at shortwave is greater than longwave, and even more at UV levels, than the TSI change.

Second of all, nearly all forcing variables other than the sun, are a feedback from the sun.

CO2 for example has a total forcing of around 32 W/m^2 by itself. It's hard to get a consensus on H2O, but it is probably around 300 W/m^2. Now, any changes to the heat from the sun, will be have an effect on these levels. If we add the two together, for 332 W/m^2, then a 0.1% increase in the solar radiation, if linear, would change this 332 W/m^2 to 332.3 W/m^2. Not much of an increase, but some papers claim the sun's TSI from 1750 to 2000 have increased by more than 0.4%. This would make 1713 to 1958 more link 0.5% or 0.6%, and the solar/ocean/atmosphere coupling takes hundreds of years to equalize.

Think about that for a few before being a denier of science like normal.
Click to expand...


So the question is not how does the total impact of the sun affect the earth.

The better question is how are the Solar short waves being absorbed/reflected by the atmosphere, and how much short wave arming is actually warming the ocean?


Will the amount of solar short wave absorption by the oceans increase as time marches on?

Why is Co2 actually a small player in the scheme of global warming?



"In computer modeling of Earth’s climate under elevating CO2 concentrations, the greenhouse gas effect does indeed lead to global warming. Yet something puzzling happens: While one would expect the longwave radiation that escapes into space to decline with increasing CO2, the amount actually begins to rise. At the same time, the atmosphere absorbs more and more incoming solar radiation; it’s this enhanced shortwave absorption that ultimately sustains global warming.


" Sea ice and snow cover melt, turning brilliant white reflectors of sunlight into darker spots. The atmosphere grows moister because warmer air can hold more water vapor, which absorbs more shortwave radiation. Both of these feedbacks lessen the amount of shortwave radiation that bounces back into space, and the planet warms rapidly at the surface.

Meanwhile, like any physical body experiencing warming, Earth sheds longwave radiation more effectively, canceling out the longwave-trapping effects of CO2. However, a darker Earth now absorbs more sunlight, tipping the scales to net warming from shortwave radiation.

“So there are two types of radiation important to climate, and one of them gets affected by CO2, but it’s the other one that’s directly driving global warming — that’s the surprising thing,” says Armour, who is a postdoc in MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences.

Out in the real world, aerosols in air pollution act to reflect a lot of sunlight, and so Earth has not experienced as much warming from shortwave solar radiation as it otherwise might have. But the authors calculate that enough warming will have occurred by midcentury to switch the main driver of global warming to increased solar radiation absorption."






The missing piece of the climate puzzle | MIT News

//
 
Arctic Ice Perdentage coverage:


Charctic Interactive Sea Ice Graph | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis


Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag


https://www.google.com/?#q=north+pole+ice+cover+percentage


"Arctic sea ice was at a record low wintertime maximum extent for the second straight year. At 5.607 million square miles, it is the lowest maximum extent in the satellite record, and 431,000 square miles below the 1981 to 2010 average maximum extent.

Credits: NASA Goddard's Scientific Visualization Studio/C. Starr



Every year, the cap of frozen seawater floating on top of the Arctic Ocean and its neighboring seas melts during the spring and summer and grows back in the fall and winter months, reaching its maximum yearly extent between February and April. On March 24, [2016] Arctic sea ice extent peaked at 5.607 million square miles (14.52 million square kilometers), a new record low winter maximum extent in the satellite record that started in 1979. It is slightly smaller than the previous record low maximum extent of 5.612 million square miles (14.54 million square kilometers) that occurred last year. The 13 smallest maximum extents on the satellite record have happened in the last 13 years."


https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...ice-wintertime-extent-hits-another-record-low















//
 
Gladiator,

The direct heating effect of solar variability is one thing. The feedback effects from increased absorbsion due to the retreat of ice is another. The effects of soot or high level pollutants either natural or man made are another. And the effect of cosmic rays as initiators of cloud formation may be another. I don't know but I do know that the models the IPCC use do not seem to be working well.

However, the focus of this discussion is, in my opinion, wrong headed. The predicted effects of warming that the IPCC gives are that it will be at worst 3.2c above now by 2100. This shows no sign of happeneing and was predicted in 1998. Given that's 18 years ago we can surely discount the top half of the predictions and say that we are looking at a mximum of 1.6c above now. Even that would require the climate temperatures to get a determined shimmy on.

If we consider what +1.6c will do we get the answer "nothing bad and some good". Well bring it on!
 
Ocean water is coursing under the Antarctic ice sheets. The ice sheets in water do not raise the ocean level much, because the ice sheet is already under water. The Calving point is where the ice sheet comes form land support, and as the ice sheet moves into the ocean, it plops into the ocean and breaks off from the support of the land. Previous to this report, it was only a theory that ocean water circulated significantly in the Calving are. Salt water can melt ice at lower temperatures than freezing, with salinity. The water temperatures in the calving area, are warm enough to melt ice. As oceans warm, the melting speed will increase. The oceans currents flowing into the calving are indicates that oceans may be providing lubrication for ice movement into the sea, from the land, which raises ocean levels, faster..

"Velocity measurements collected by a lowered acoustic Doppler current profiler (LADCP) confirm that the warm water at the bottom of stations 35 and 36 flows strongly (>0.2 m s−1) into the sub–ice shelf cavity (Fig. 3B). The velocity profile is highly sheared, with weak flow in the cold water above the thermocline near 600 m depth and maximum inflow near the seafloor, where the warmest water is found. The deep flow in the eastern trough (station 41) also flows into the cavity but is substantially weaker



"Therefore, several lines of evidence support the conclusion that rapid basal melt of the TIS (19, 24, 25) is driven by the flux of warm mCDW into the cavity: the presence of warm water at the ice front, the existence of a deep trough providing access of this warm water to the cavity, direct measurements of mass and heat transport into the cavity, the signature of glacial meltwater in the outflow, and exchange rates inferred from the heat budget and satellite-derived basal melt rates. Observations of recent change in some East Antarctic glaciers and ice shelves (16–19) and studies of past (12–14, 28, 29) and future (20, 21) sea levels support the hypothesis of a dynamic EAIS. Our observations confirm the existence of a pathway allowing for communication of ocean anomalies to the TIS cavity, highlighting variation in ocean-driven basal melt as a plausible mechanism to explain past and projected changes in the TIS and the ice sheet it buttresses."

Ocean heat drives rapid basal melt of the Totten Ice Shelf | Science Advances
//
 
Last edited:
Gladiator said:
Ocean water is coursing under the Antarctic ice sheets. The ice sheets in water do not raise the ocean level much, because the ice sheet is already under water. The Calving point is where the ice sheet comes form land support, and as the ice sheet moves into the ocean, it plops into the ocean and breaks off from the support of the land. Previous to this report, it was only a theory that ocean water circulated significantly in the Calving are. Salt water can melt ice at lower temperatures than freezing, with salinity. The water temperatures in the calving area, are warm enough to melt ice. As oceans warm, the melting speed will increase. The oceans currents flowing into the calving are indicates that oceans may be providing lubrication for ice movement into the sea, from the land, which raises ocean levels, faster..

"Velocity measurements collected by a lowered acoustic Doppler current profiler (LADCP) confirm that the warm water at the bottom of stations 35 and 36 flows strongly (>0.2 m s−1) into the sub–ice shelf cavity (Fig. 3B). The velocity profile is highly sheared, with weak flow in the cold water above the thermocline near 600 m depth and maximum inflow near the seafloor, where the warmest water is found. The deep flow in the eastern trough (station 41) also flows into the cavity but is substantially weaker



"Therefore, several lines of evidence support the conclusion that rapid basal melt of the TIS (19, 24, 25) is driven by the flux of warm mCDW into the cavity: the presence of warm water at the ice front, the existence of a deep trough providing access of this warm water to the cavity, direct measurements of mass and heat transport into the cavity, the signature of glacial meltwater in the outflow, and exchange rates inferred from the heat budget and satellite-derived basal melt rates. Observations of recent change in some East Antarctic glaciers and ice shelves (16–19) and studies of past (12–14, 28, 29) and future (20, 21) sea levels support the hypothesis of a dynamic EAIS. Our observations confirm the existence of a pathway allowing for communication of ocean anomalies to the TIS cavity, highlighting variation in ocean-driven basal melt as a plausible mechanism to explain past and projected changes in the TIS and the ice sheet it buttresses."

Ocean heat drives rapid basal melt of the Totten Ice Shelf | Science Advances
//
Click to expand...

I see you have no understanding of physics. This is why you are buying this drivel.

Floating ice will not raise sea level at all when it melts.

Ice that is grounded will, if the water melts the floating stuff, have a bit of a tumble but then be far harder to melt as only the front of it is exposed to the ocean.

Once the ice has melted back to be on the land then the ocean will not melt it at all directly.
 
Tim the plumber said:

I see you have no understanding of physics. This is why you are buying this drivel.

Floating ice will not raise sea level at all when it melts.

Ice that is grounded will, if the water melts the floating stuff, have a bit of a tumble but then be far harder to melt as only the front of it is exposed to the ocean.

Once the ice has melted back to be on the land then the ocean will not melt it at all directly.
Click to expand...

How fast does the ice move from land, into the sea?

How thick is the layer of water under the ice, on top of the land, 1 Mile back from the Calving edge??


//
 
Last edited:
Gladiator said:
How fast does the ice move from land, into the sea?

How thick is the layer of water under the ice, on top of the land?


//
Click to expand...

1, The ice moves fairly slowly. The speed of it's movement will determined by the thickness of it, the slope of the land, the friction caused by irregularities in the land, the force exerted by the sea ice pushing back against the land ice if this is happening generally due to wind forces amongst other factors.

2, Where? The depth of the ocean water below the ice depends on the depth of the ice and the depth of the ocean floor. Neither are constants. Depends where you are.
 
I wonder how the Antarctic sheets are affected by the larger tides of the Supermoons? I would think a great deal, since these sheets of ice will break from their land anchors more readily than from normal tidal forcing.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I wonder how the Antarctic sheets are affected by the larger tides of the Supermoons? I would think a great deal, since these sheets of ice will break from their land anchors more readily than from normal tidal forcing.
Click to expand...

Let me add that our latest supermoon is happened while the obliquity of the earth has the south pole in nearly full tilt to the sun, and at almost the closest proximity to the sun due to the eccentricity of the orbit as well.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Let me add that our latest supermoon is happened while the obliquity of the earth has the south pole in nearly full tilt to the sun, and at almost the closest proximity to the sun due to the eccentricity of the orbit as well.
Click to expand...

While it may make attention grabbing headlines, that there is some newly documented decrease in arctic or Antarctic ice, the reality is that there is only an incremental change, at this time, of which CO2 is a small percentage of the cause. So expending significant resources to curb CO2 emissions, does not make as much sense as it did at the start of the Obama administration. The IPPC models have not, in reality, produced the projected results in global temperature increase. Global warming is real, but not very significant or sudden.


People in low lying areas of the world have time to install bigger pumps, or move to higher ground.

Is this what Trump is saying?
 
Last edited:
Gladiator said:
While it may make attention grabbing headlines, that there is some newly documented decrease in arctic or Antarctic ice, the reality is that there is only an incremental change, at this time, of which CO2 is a small percentage of the cause. So expending significant resources to curb CO2 emissions, does not make as much sense as it did at the start of the Obama administration. The IPPC models have not, in reality, produced the projected results in global temperature increase. Global warming is real, but not very significant or sudden.


People in low lying areas of the world have time to install bigger pumps, or move to higher ground.

Is this what Trump is saying?
Click to expand...

IPPC models might not be right, but the IPCC models have been pretty good at predicting warming, and there are lots of published articles that have confirmed this.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...odels-are-even-more-accurate-than-you-thought

Global warming slowdown: No systematic errors in climate models

Forcing, feedback and internal variability in global temperature trends : Nature : Nature Research



And, of course, the IPCC itself looked into the performance.

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

Some of the findings from the executive summary:

There is very high confidence that models reproduce the general
features of the global-scale annual mean surface temperature
increase over the historical period, including the more rapid
warming in the second half of the 20th century, and the cooling
immediately following large volcanic eruptions.
Click to expand...

The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5)
model spread in equilibrium climate sensitivity ranges from
2.1°C to 4.7°C and is very similar to the assessment in the AR4
Click to expand...
 
Gladiator said:
People in low lying areas of the world have time to install bigger pumps, or move to higher ground.

Is this what Trump is saying?
Click to expand...

I don't know what Trump is saying in most matters. I choose not to watch the M$M's. However, what you just said has been my view. That we have time to make changes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom