• 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!

Antarctica Turning Green

Threegoofs said:
Odd coming from a guy who is BOTH frequently in error and infamously never in doubt.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I'm not the one whose faith in the orthodox paradigm precludes me from debating the merits of alternatives. I'm not the one whose default tactic is ad hominem.
 
Threegoofs said:
Maybe if you read the paper, you'd find out what they were talking about, and take a look at the references that describe the climate change in the area. Oh, right. You dont have access to the information. But somehow you know more than the authors.

And as all good deniers do, you pretend its the sun (although you throw in words like 'spectra', and eventually 'quantum' someday to make it sound more sciency and less deniery).
Click to expand...
No I looked through the paper, and plants do respond differently based on light spectrum, that is why they sell grow lights.
The title of the original article "Fast-Growing Moss Is Turning Antarctica Green" implies Antarctica is turning green,
when the actual paper refines the geography a bit and says, "Widespread Biological Response to Rapid Warming on the Antarctic Peninsula"
Since the regional temperatures have not change much, the changes must be ether local, or involve some of the other factors mentioned in the paper.
 
longview said:
No I looked through the paper, and plants do respond differently based on light spectrum, that is why they sell grow lights.
The title of the original article "Fast-Growing Moss Is Turning Antarctica Green" implies Antarctica is turning green,
when the actual paper refines the geography a bit and says, "Widespread Biological Response to Rapid Warming on the Antarctic Peninsula"
Since the regional temperatures have not change much, the changes must be ether local, or involve some of the other factors mentioned in the paper.
Click to expand...

Yes. Apparently the words 'Rapid Warming" mean something other than..... rapid warming. :roll:
 
calamity said:
lol...if ever proof of global warning begins staring us in the face, seeing this on Antarctica would be it.

01_greening_antarctica.adapt.590.1.jpg


And, guess what? It's actually happening.

Fast-Growing Moss Is Turning Antarctica Green
Click to expand...

If they haven't opened their minds yet, nothing will ever get through to them.
 
Threegoofs said:
Yes. Apparently the words 'Rapid Warming" mean something other than..... rapid warming. :roll:
Click to expand...
No but the warming could be local, as the regional area had minimal warming.
There are many factors that could cause moss to grow faster, temperature is only one.
 
longview said:
And the first sentence from your cited paper said,
http://www.cell.com/current-biology...m/retrieve/pii/S0960982217304785?showall=true
"Recent climate change on the Antarctic Peninsula is well documented [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], with warming,
alongside increases in precipitation, wind strength, and melt season length [1, 6, 7], driving environmental change [8, 9]. "
Click to expand...

You do realize that the warming is the reason for increased precipitation, wind strength, and melt season length don't you? Greater potential energy is present within a actively warming system. More moisture and steeper baroclinic zones energize weather events, while northerly winds blowing over the warmer south Pacific onto the Peninsula make warm events somewhat warmer.
 
Last edited:
cuban smokes said:
people that do not believe in the phenomena of global climate change will just laugh & tell you that Antarctica is turning green because space aliens recently visited there ........ little green men .......
Click to expand...

Do you think that the temperature data is lying?
 
longview said:
So are you denying that the GISS data set for that zone is accurate?
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/ZonAnn.Ts+dSST.txt
View attachment 67217878
It sure looks like the last 50 years have had not any real warming.
and the numbers do not lie, the 10 year average from 1880 to 1889 was .258 C,
the current 10 year average to 2016 is .556 C, a delta of .3C in 13.6 decades,
for a total warming of .022C per decade.
I suspect that King George Island (KGI) is located as far north as one could possibly get and still be called Antarctica,
and the Island has always had mosses growing on it.
Click to expand...

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place...4cda042e0b:0xf693d8dc3fc05269!8m2!3d-62!4d-58

How did you guess?
 
Russell797 said:
You do realize that the warming is the reason for increased precipitation, wind strength, and melt season length don't you? Greater potential energy is present within a actively warming system. More moisture and steeper baroclinic zones energize weather events, while northerly winds blowing over the warmer south Pacific onto the Peninsula make warm events somewhat warmer.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but it may not be that simple. If the entire zone is not warming much, but a small set of locations like
the Antarctic Peninsula has a higher level of moss growth, then temperature may not be the only factor to consider.
The actual Scientific paper seemed to consider that other factors were involved, but that did not make it into the Nat Geo article.
 
longview said:
Perhaps, but it may not be that simple. If the entire zone is not warming much, but a small set of locations like
the Antarctic Peninsula has a higher level of moss growth, then temperature may not be the only factor to consider.
The actual Scientific paper seemed to consider that other factors were involved, but that did not make it into the Nat Geo article.
Click to expand...

Just to restate... the actual scientific (no reason to capitalize scientific, FYI) paper is entitled:

Widespread Biological Response to Rapid Warming on the Antarctic Peninsula
 
Threegoofs said:
Just to restate... the actual scientific (no reason to capitalize scientific, FYI) paper is entitled:
Widespread Biological Response to Rapid Warming on the Antarctic Peninsula
Click to expand...
I knew what the title of the paper was, are you attempting to deny that within the paper they also state that other
factors were involved as well?
 
cuban smokes said:
people that do not believe in the phenomena of global climate change will just laugh & tell you that Antarctica is turning green because space aliens recently visited there ........ little green men .......
Click to expand...

Just read what those nut jobs at NASA have to say.. But what do they know. Maybe you should call up NASA and set them straight along with the space aliens:

"A new NASA study shows that from 1978 to 2010 the total extent of sea ice surrounding Antarctica in the Southern Ocean grew by roughly 6,600 square miles every year, an area larger than the state of Connecticut. And previous research by the same authors indicates that this rate of increase has recently accelerated, up from an average rate of almost 4,300 square miles per year from 1978 to 2006."
 
calamity said:
Maybe you'll believe once trees start growing on the bottom continent. :roll:
Click to expand...

Sorry to burst your bubble Calamity, but Antarctica ice sheets are growing. At least according to NASA. The pics are either a local phenomena or more fake news to gin up the climate change enthusiasts. I lean toward the latter, since climate changers will believe anything that feeds their agenda.
 
Cvir said:
Sorry to burst your bubble Calamity, but Antarctica ice sheets are growing. At least according to NASA. The pics are either a local phenomena or more fake news to gin up the climate change enthusiasts. I lean toward the latter, since climate changers will believe anything that feeds their agenda.
Click to expand...

But the ice sheets are growing BECAUSE its warming. More warming, more snow.

And eventually, more warming, more melting.

Gains in Antarctic ice might offset losses : Nature News & Comment

As the lead author of the study says:

"The findings do not mean that Antarctica is not in trouble, Zwally notes. “I know some of the climate deniers will jump on this, and say this means we don’t have to worry as much as some people have been making out,” he says. “It should not take away from the concern about climate warming.” As global temperatures rise, Antarctica is expected to contribute more to sea-level rise, though when exactly that effect will kick in, and to what extent, remains unclear."
 
Threegoofs said:
But the ice sheets are growing BECAUSE its warming. More warming, more snow.

And eventually, more warming, more melting.

Gains in Antarctic ice might offset losses : Nature News & Comment

As the lead author of the study says:

"The findings do not mean that Antarctica is not in trouble, Zwally notes. “I know some of the climate deniers will jump on this, and say this means we don’t have to worry as much as some people have been making out,” he says. “It should not take away from the concern about climate warming.” As global temperatures rise, Antarctica is expected to contribute more to sea-level rise, though when exactly that effect will kick in, and to what extent, remains unclear."
Click to expand...

Ok, the Antarctic ice is growing and the Arctic ice is melting and both these phenomena indicate global warming. I guess you guys have all the bases covered. You guys are nuttier than a fruitcake. Threegoofs and your out!
 
Cvir said:
Ok, the Antarctic ice is growing and the Arctic ice is melting and both these phenomena indicate global warming. I guess you guys have all the bases covered. You guys are nuttier than a fruitcake.
Click to expand...

Science is hard for some, I know.

The indication for global warming is this:

3dade502804d096c3069c3da0cc65e3d.png


The ice situation is the consequence.
 
calamity said:
Maybe you'll believe once trees start growing on the bottom continent. :roll:
Click to expand...

Not likely, no matter how warm it gets. I don't think trees can grow somewhere where it's dark for months at a time.
The 24-hr. daylight would grow great pot, though.
 
Good. More plants growing more often and more quickly will reduce CO2 in the atmosphere.
 
Threegoofs said:
Science is hard for some, I know.

The indication for global warming is this:

3dade502804d096c3069c3da0cc65e3d.png


The ice situation is the consequence.
Click to expand...

The earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years without any influence from human. We are actually in a warming period after the most recent ice age, of which there have been at least 4 others over the ages. There is little that humans can do about it. Humans are probably the most adaptive species ever to inhabit the earth. Humans will adapt to any changes in climate if indeed the earth’s temperature rises or falls. This should not be a political issue and we should not let our leaders dupe us into wasting billions of dollars on this nonsense. If the earth is warming, good. That means longer growing seasons, more oxygen producing plants, more oxygen, more food production to feed people, more moisture in the air, and less on the land, perhaps lowering sea levels.
 
Cvir said:
The earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years without any influence from human. We are actually in a warming period after the most recent ice age, of which there have been at least 4 others over the ages. There is little that humans can do about it. Humans are probably the most adaptive species ever to inhabit the earth. Humans will adapt to any changes in climate if indeed the earth’s temperature rises or falls. This should not be a political issue and we should not let our leaders dupe us into wasting billions of dollars on this nonsense. If the earth is warming, good. That means longer growing seasons, more oxygen producing plants, more oxygen, more food production to feed people, more moisture in the air, and less on the land, perhaps lowering sea levels.
Click to expand...

Like I said.... science is hard for some people.

Don't quit your day job.
 
Threegoofs said:
Science is hard for some, I know.

The indication for global warming is this:


The ice situation is the consequence.
Click to expand...
So Goofs when trying to make a point about Antarctica warming, why do you show the global graph?
The GISS has an excellent tool for generating the graphs for the different zones including 90S-64S.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/customize.html
90S-64S.jpg
I am guessing you did not want to show that graph, because it shows very little warming.
 
Threegoofs said:
Because I wasn't making a point about Antarctic warming?

Try to keep up.
Click to expand...
In a thread about Antarctica turning green, you post a graph of global warming,
with the following comment,
"The ice situation is the consequence."
How would that possible be confusing?
 
Threegoofs said:
Like I said.... science is hard for some people.

Don't quit your day job.
Click to expand...

I think you like science only if that “science” supports your rigid ideology. I can accept that the earth may be warming, but there is evidence that it is also a natural occurrence. There have been at least five major ice ages in the earth's past (the Huronian, Cryogenian, Andean-Saharan, Karoo Ice Age and the Quaternary glaciation). The current ice age, the Pliocene-Quaternary glaciation, started about 2.58 million years ago during the late Pliocene, when the spread of ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere began. Outside these ages, the Earth seems to have been ice-free even in high latitudes. These intermittent warm periods are called "interglacials". [1] By this definition, we are in a warming interglacial period—the Holocene—as we recover from the most recent ice age. So the fact the earth is warming is pretty much to be expected based on our earth’s history. And since the phenomenon of ice ages and their intermittent warming periods take place over millions of years, it is difficult to predict future climate based on such miniscule periods of geologic time such as 100, 200 or even a thousand years. Warming or cooling events do not occur in a straight line. There will be periods of warming during cooling stages and cooling during warming stages. If you’d like to see some pretty charts and graphs supporting the evidence of the ice ages and the intermittent warming periods, I could provide it, but it won’t change your already made up mind, since science can be so hard for some people.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom