• 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

longview said:
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?
Click to expand...

I can see how you would be confused.
 
Cvir said:
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."
Click to expand...

You are confusing sea ice with land based ice. It is the land based ice and the attached ice shelves over water on the Peninsula which have been melting.

The sea ice extent is what has grown over the period of satellite observation. Due to the recent El Nino and other factors, this past year even the sea ice has reached the LOWEST extent in the record, but unlike the obfuscators I will not harp on that as if one year breaks the long term trend.
 
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...

Of course more than one factor is involved in extending the moss growing season on portions of the Antarctic Peninsula. However, those other factors are a consequence of a warming global climate.

Using the Earth girdling zone in question will necessarily result in a lower warming trend than for the whole Earth..That zone entails mostly a maritime climate which warms more slowly than does a continental climate.
 
longview said:
So how is the non warming in Antarctica causing extra moss to grow?
Click to expand...

No warming on the Peninsula?

It warmed there quite rapidly over the course of the 20th century. It has cooled a bit since then (likely due to the diminishing ozone hole), but remains above the 20th century average.
 
Last edited:
Russell797 said:
Of course more than one factor is involved in extending the moss growing season on portions of the Antarctic Peninsula. However, those other factors are a consequence of a warming global climate.

Using the Earth girdling zone in question will necessarily result in a lower warming trend than for the whole Earth..That zone entails mostly a maritime climate which warms more slowly than does a continental climate.
Click to expand...
I am not so sure the 90S-64S zone is mostly a maritime climate, it includes
5,400,000 square miles of Antarctica. The percentage of land to ocean in that zone may be one of the lowest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64th_parallel_south
 
Russell797 said:
No warming on the Peninsula?
Click to expand...

May 5, 2017 in Antarctic.
Oops, Warmists just lost the Antarctic peninsula – it is now cooling

A warming trend of 0.32 °C/decade during 1979–1997 to a cooling trend of − 0.47 °C/decade during 1999–2014. Remember the much ballyhooed paper that made the cover of Nature, Steig et al, “Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year”, Nature, Jan 22, 2009 that included some conspicuously errant Mannian math from the master of making…

April 27, 2017 in Antarctic.
 
Russell797 said:
No warming on the Peninsula?
Click to expand...
I suspect it is warming on the Peninsula, being mostly surrounded by water,
I am mostly taking offense to the title of the article, and it's misleading nature.
"Fast-Growing Moss Is Turning Antarctica Green"
Fast-Growing Moss Is Turning Antarctica Green
and the first sentence does not clarify the title statement.
Rising temperatures have boosted the growth rates of seasonal moss on the southern continent over the last 50 years.
Both the title and the opening sentence are misleading.
Moss growing faster than normal on the Peninsula is not the entire southern continent,
and as I have shown from the GISS the temperatures for that zone have not changed much
since we started keeping records.
 
Threegoofs said:
I can see how you would be confused.
Click to expand...

Longview is confused because any natural phenomena that occurs whether it is ice forming or ice melting, tornados increasing or decreasing, hurricanes increasing or decreasing, droughts increasing or decreasing, volcanic activity, it is all attributed to global warming according global warming enthusiasts. Nearly all “scientists” supporting these claims are paid by a government via government grants and use computer models to compute results. Computer models are based on educated guesses. If the computer models are not formulated correctly, the resulting findings will not be accurate or at least cannot be relied upon. And no one knows for certain if the models are correct. Have you ever seen the various computer models that attempt to track the path of a hurricane? You will see several models each predicting a slightly different path. Obviously who ever created the various models used different “educated guesses” to input into their model. And it’s also obvious that many of the models are often wrong. Likewise scientists use educated guesses to predict global warming. If models to predict the path of a hurricane which is happening in real time are often wrong, how accurate do you suppose the computer models are attempting to predict events 10, 20, 50 or 100 years from now?

And then on top of that you have government paid "scientists" that the government will expect the "correct" results or government grant money goes away. That makes it pretty easy for the "researchers to input data into their model to get the "correct" results.
 
Cvir said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your cut and paste knowledge on the topic is quite impressive.

You just seem to be not getting the concept of geological time vs. human time scales.

Again, that's a tough concept for beginners.
 
Jack Hays said:
May 5, 2017 in Antarctic.
Oops, Warmists just lost the Antarctic peninsula – it is now cooling

A warming trend of 0.32 °C/decade during 1979–1997 to a cooling trend of − 0.47 °C/decade during 1999–2014. Remember the much ballyhooed paper that made the cover of Nature, Steig et al, “Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year”, Nature, Jan 22, 2009 that included some conspicuously errant Mannian math from the master of making…

April 27, 2017 in Antarctic.
Click to expand...

Good morning, Jack. :2wave:

Oops indeed! It will be interesting to see what happens next, explanation wise! :yes:
 
polgara said:
Good morning, Jack. :2wave:

Oops indeed! It will be interesting to see what happens next, explanation wise! :yes:
Click to expand...

Good morning, Polgara.:2wave:

I'm hanging out at the car dealer this morning while I get new tires mounted and aligned.
 
Jack Hays said:
Good morning, Polgara.:2wave:

I'm hanging out at the car dealer this morning while I get new tires mounted and aligned.
Click to expand...

Hmmm - are you going to participate in the Indy 500 race on May 28, or is this just a coincidence? :mrgreen:
 
Jack Hays said:
May 5, 2017 in Antarctic.
Oops, Warmists just lost the Antarctic peninsula – it is now cooling

A warming trend of 0.32 °C/decade during 1979–1997 to a cooling trend of − 0.47 °C/decade during 1999–2014. Remember the much ballyhooed paper that made the cover of Nature, Steig et al, “Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year”, Nature, Jan 22, 2009 that included some conspicuously errant Mannian math from the master of making…

April 27, 2017 in Antarctic.
Click to expand...

I haven't read the article you've linked yet, but there has been a lot of volcanic activity of late under the western portion of Antarctica. If you place a pan of ice cubes on the stove and turn the heat on, the ice generally melts, but that couldn't be a serious contributor to the melting noticed in western Antarctica. Nope. Probably wouldn't be that at all. That only works on the stove. Am I right? :roll:
 
Threegoofs said:
Your cut and paste knowledge on the topic is quite impressive.

You just seem to be not getting the concept of geological time vs. human time scales.

Again, that's a tough concept for beginners.
Click to expand...

Other than inane comments, do you have anything intelligent to add? If not, please don't waste my time.
 
longview said:
I am not so sure the 90S-64S zone is mostly a maritime climate, it includes
5,400,000 square miles of Antarctica. The percentage of land to ocean in that zone may be one of the lowest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64th_parallel_south
Click to expand...

Again, the moss story takes place on the Peninsula, not the bulk of the continent. The continent is a cold desert climate. The Peninsula bathed in moist maritime air.
 
longview said:
I suspect it is warming on the Peninsula, being mostly surrounded by water,
I am mostly taking offense to the title of the article, and it's misleading nature.
"Fast-Growing Moss Is Turning Antarctica Green"
Fast-Growing Moss Is Turning Antarctica Green
and the first sentence does not clarify the title statement.
Rising temperatures have boosted the growth rates of seasonal moss on the southern continent over the last 50 years.
Both the title and the opening sentence are misleading.
Moss growing faster than normal on the Peninsula is not the entire southern continent,
and as I have shown from the GISS the temperatures for that zone have not changed much
since we started keeping records.
Click to expand...

OK, can't argue with that.
 
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...

It's Antarctic moss. scientists have been studying it since at least the '70's. Nothing new here to report.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...ved=0ahUKEwjmssP8n4bUAhWE2SYKHes3BrUQgQMIJDAA
 
Russell797 said:
Again, the moss story takes place on the Peninsula, not the bulk of the continent. The continent is a cold desert climate. The Peninsula bathed in moist maritime air.
Click to expand...
Do you understand how the title and opening sentence, might be construed as misleading?
"Fast-Growing Moss Is Turning Antarctica Green" and
"Rising temperatures have boosted the growth rates of seasonal moss on the southern continent over the last 50 years."
No mention of this being something only on the Peninsula.
It would be like saying, Global warming has warmed things up so much they are now growing oranges in Europe!
Wait a minute, they were already growing oranges in Europe, In Spain!
Attributing some change to an entire continent that only applies to a small portion, is misleading!
 
Cvir said:
Other than inane comments, do you have anything intelligent to add? If not, please don't waste my time.
Click to expand...

Inane comments? LOL.

Protip: when passing off cut and pasted sentences as your own, remember to erase the reference numbers in parenthesis before posting next time.
 
Cvir said:
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.
Click to expand...

Who do you think discovered the ice ages and interglacial periods. They were scientists who research geology, glaciology, oceanography, astronomy, solar physics....in other words the same fields of study which support AGW. Those who study palaeoclimatology and most educated, everyday people are aware of the past history of Earth's climate going back thousands, millions and to some extent even billions of years. Why do you imply that we are so stupid as not to be aware of this? Your last sentence does just that. Maybe it was you who just recently learned of paleoclimate and you project that onto others?

And by the way, the Earth has not been ice free for some 34 million years.
 
Threegoofs said:
Inane comments? LOL.

Protip: when passing off cut and pasted sentences as your own, remember to erase the reference numbers in parenthesis before posting next time.
Click to expand...

I do find it telling that this AGW denial is exclusively a product of the Right. "It's like they are proud of their ignorance over there."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom