• 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!

Lowest ice cover ever at both poles[W:284]

Phys251 said:
That's a question that is usually answered by about the 8th grade. So try hard, try very hard.
Click to expand...

Stop dodging about and answer my question. Are the shipping companies deliberately pursuing financial policies that will melt ice as you alluded to back in post #4
 
flogger said:
Stop dodging about and answer my question. Are the shipping companies deliberately pursuing financial policies that will melt ice as you alluded to back in post #4
Click to expand...

I will be more than happy to as soon as you prove that you even read the articles. :)
 
flogger said:
The Arctic has had many warmer phases than today over just the last 4000 years and we are still here so I'm pretty sure we will be just fine
Click to expand...

Spikes and fluctuations are normal. Here's a nice cartoon to explain it for you.
 
Northern Light said:
A friend and former colleague is doing work in Russia right now about the permafrost, which has begun to melt more drastically in the past three years. The greenland and polar ice sheet diminishment are well known, but not enough attention is being brought to the permafrost. If the permafrost melts even by 25% we are totally screwed because of the levels of methane that will be released.
Click to expand...

I'm curious.

Do you know what the heat of fusion is? Do you know how much energy it takes to melt 1 gram of it?

Now calculate how much energy it would take to melt 25% of it. Once you have that number, calculate how many years, decades, or centuries it would take at the highest practical forcing increase we can imagine.

Good luck of it fitting your confirmation bias.
 
Cryosphere Today – Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois – Click the pic to view at source​
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
I'm curious.

Do you know what the heat of fusion is? Do you know how much energy it takes to melt 1 gram of it?

Now calculate how much energy it would take to melt 25% of it. Once you have that number, calculate how many years, decades, or centuries it would take at the highest practical forcing increase we can imagine.

Good luck of it fitting your confirmation bias.
Click to expand...

I'm curious, do you even care about journalistic science and scientific consensus? Because your non-sequitur into some calculation as an attempt to trump what the scientific community is saying is quite irrelevant.
 
Northern Light said:
I'm curious, do you even care about journalistic science and scientific consensus? Because your non-sequitur into some calculation as an attempt to trump what the scientific community is saying is quite irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Once scientific fact gets decided on by vote then consensus will matter
 
Northern Light said:
I'm curious, do you even care about journalistic science and scientific consensus? Because your non-sequitur into some calculation as an attempt to trump what the scientific community is saying is quite irrelevant.
Click to expand...

LOL...

Do the math before you speak of consensus.
 
flogger said:
So this is obviously a good thing unless you are fundamentally opposed to business
Click to expand...

You can interpret however you want. I was just providing a link regarding the issue in the event that your comment was intended to express a belief that the story of shipping companies utilizing this was made up. It was a bit ambiguous in that regard.
 
Lord of Planar said:
LOL...

Do the math before you speak of consensus.
Click to expand...

No. I don't have to jump through your hoops. Whether or not I do your arbitrary math equation has zero relevance to scientific consensus on global climate change.

Try again, this time without using such a blatant non-sequitur.
 
Northern Light said:
No. I don't have to jump through your hoops. Whether or not I do your arbitrary math equation has zero relevance to scientific consensus on global climate change.

Try again, this time without using such a blatant non-sequitur.
Click to expand...

That's right.

Don't tread into facts that might bust your faith in the dogma.
 
Good article:

Bad Astronomy | Our planet is melting at both ends: Arctic and Antarctica hit record low ice extents | SyfyWire

"When the ice in the Arctic melts, it adds a lot of fresh water to the Atlantic. From just 2011 to 2014 Greenland alone lost a trillion tons of ice to warming. That’s why this is so concerning. This circulation is the cause of a lot of weather in the northern hemisphere. Screwing with it means screwing with our weather.

The warm Arctic waters also weaken the jet stream, the eastward flow of Arctic air, sometimes called the “polar vortex”. When the stream weakens, deep meanders can occur, dropping air farther south, blasting the US with frigid Arctic temperatures.

It’s weird to think global warming can cause such chilling weather in the US. A better way to think of it is that warming is causing the climate to destabilize. You get extreme weather, and in different places you get droughts, torrential rains, stronger cyclones, increased severe tornado outbreaks, and more.

It’s rare in science you can say something with anything near 100% certainty. And yet, here we are: Climate change due to global warming is real, and it’s because of us. We add 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, into the air every year. This upsets the Earth’s natural heat balance, allowing a small amount of warming sunlight to stick around rather than get radiated out into space."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Just read an article in Science about the impact of orbital geometry, specifically eccentricity, obliquity, and precession, had on climate systems. They called it the "Pacemaker of the Ice Ages". Were are we currently as far as the tilt, orientation, and linear eccentricity?

Haven't we had enough of single tidbits of data being used to explain extremely complex and interrelated concepts?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom