• 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

Tim the plumber said:
Yeah, you cannot trust your eyes, you must rely on what others say that the sceintists say.
Click to expand...

Yep. Us silly people who listen to scientists.

Not like you, who can figure all this stuff out on your own, because you took a physics class in high school once.
 
Russell797 said:
The radiation imbalance of +.5Wm-2 is going more than 90% into the oceans.
Click to expand...

If more than 90% is going into the oceans, then this imbalance is primarily from solar changes in the under 700 nm wavelengths. Not from CO2 spectra which are over 14,000 nm. If such imbalance is still accumulating, then it proves that the TCS of solar changes are even longer than I claim, since the sun peaked in 1958.
 
Lord of Planar said:
If more than 90% is going into the oceans, then this imbalance is primarily from solar changes in the under 700 nm wavelengths. Not from CO2 spectra which are over 14,000 nm. If such imbalance is still accumulating, then it proves that the TCS of solar changes are even longer than I claim, since the sun peaked in 1958.
Click to expand...

There we go again misunderstanding the dynamics of greenhouse warming. The Sun does ALL THE WARMING. The greenhouse effect slows the loss of that energy to space. An object which loses constantly absorbed energy more slowly becomes a warmer object.

The energy imbalance is at all wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. You must integrate all wavelengths along the Planck Curve.

Also, there is no delay to equilibrium with solar changes if the change does not persist.
 
Last edited:
Russell797 said:
There we go again misunderstanding the dynamics of greenhouse warming. The Sun does ALL THE WARMING. The greenhouse effect slows the loss of that energy to space. An object which loses constantly absorbed energy more slowly becomes a warmer object.

The energy imbalance is at all wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. You must integrate all wavelengths along the Planck Curve.

Also, there is no delay to equilibrium with solar changes if the change does not persist.
Click to expand...

You fail to consider all the facts and science, and I don't feel like writing several paragraphs to explain it. Suffice it to say that the sun is still more intense than 400 years ago. The mass and movement of the oceans have never reached a new equalization to the higher levels now, even though we are past the peak.
 
Why would it be a bad thing for Antarctica to be not so cold? Why does everything need to stay the same? Who says that the way Earth is now is "perfect" and any deviation is cause for panic?
 
Josie said:
Why would it be a bad thing for Antarctica to be not so cold? Why does everything need to stay the same? Who says that the way Earth is now is "perfect" and any deviation is cause for panic?
Click to expand...

1) it has a direct correlation with sea level.
2) it doesnt have to stay the same if you dont care about ecosystems at all.
3) who says that its cause for panic? Our grandkids will have a measurably worse world and genetic diversity will continue to take a nosedive. Concern is warranted, but you cant panic in a hundred year long event for the entire time.


The questions you raise tell us much more about your misunderstanding of the issue than your insight on it. You probably should read some more.

I suggest the National Academy of Science website:

Climate Change at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
 
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 can't warm fast enough. The Antarctica is a desert.

I've been to California and Florida both of which have different climates than Southeastern Wisconsin. Wisconsin still freezes to lethal temperatures for humans during its winter seasons. If life in Florida, Southern California, and the Bahamas are so bad for humans then why aren't more of them moving to Northern Canada and the Antarctica?

The Amazon rain forest produces more life and varying species of life, even of single celled bacteria, than the cold desert of the Antarctica does. Even if the human species did not exist on earth.

As for all the catastrophic predictions (they are only ever catastrophic which evidences a social and political motive) I have doubts. I'd be happy if no polar icebergs exist. And that's usually the state of planet throughout most of its history. We are in one of the earth's rare ice ages or mini-ice ages.

The human species was not meant for the freezing cold. Even the authors of genesis were smart enough to realize that and that's why they placed Adam and Even not in a frozen, snowy desert, but in a green garden naked. Key word naked. Because humans are animals and meant to walk around naked. If you can't walk around and sleep naked outside then its an environment not conducive to the survival of the evolutionary design of the human physiological system. What might be good for polar bears might not be good for a human.
 
FastPace said:
It can't warm fast enough. The Antarctica is a desert.

I've been to California and Florida both of which have different climates than Southeastern Wisconsin. Wisconsin still freezes to lethal temperatures for humans during its winter seasons. If life in Florida, Southern California, and the Bahamas are so bad for humans then why aren't more of them moving to Northern Canada and the Antarctica?

The Amazon rain forest produces more life and varying species of life, even of single celled bacteria, than the cold desert of the Antarctica does. Even if the human species did not exist on earth.

As for all the catastrophic predictions (they are only ever catastrophic which evidences a social and political motive) I have doubts. I'd be happy if no polar icebergs exist. And that's usually the state of planet throughout most of its history. We are in one of the earth's rare ice ages or mini-ice ages.

The human species was not meant for the freezing cold. Even the authors of genesis were smart enough to realize that and that's why they placed Adam and Even not in a frozen, snowy desert, but in a green garden naked. Key word naked. Because humans are animals and meant to walk around naked. If you can't walk around and sleep naked outside then its an environment not conducive to the survival of the evolutionary design of the human physiological system. What might be good for polar bears might not be good for a human.
Click to expand...

Apparently middle schools have let out for the year.

Get back to us when you've taken a more advanced population biology class sometime, kid.
 
Threegoofs said:
Apparently middle schools have let out for the year.

Get back to us when you've taken a more advanced population biology class sometime, kid.
Click to expand...

Have no idea what that comment is supposed to mean. I want it to warm. Period. I'm not very fond of the cold. I've lived in California, Virginia, Florida, and Nevada and been to a number of other states. I've lived mostly in Wisconsin. The dry heat climate in the portion of California I was in is more to my preference. Or even the humid Florida heat. That is to say relative to Southeast Wisconsin in late January.

I don't believe in all the fear tactics about flooding.

More importantly I'm persuaded climate change is to little understood (in science). I'm also persuaded the bulk of the nonsense is envy of Noah and priests by some scientists and more importantly a p;political motivation to project liberals as saviors of the world. We went through this during the Eugenics Movement. Same smart mouthed comments were launched at anyone that doubted eugenics crowds. More recently I went through this in the early 2000s with all the brain washed people that were certain homosexuality as a complex human behavior was genetically heritable, back when genetic determinism was the paradigm in the life science. But yet I was right as the paradigm has now switched to epigenetics. Kind of helps when you see things that contradict some of your views rather than seeing everything only confirm your views. Genetic determinist fanatics made that mistake. And climate change fanatics that hail only CO2, only human activity, is the cause or causes behind climate change today.
 
Lord of Planar said:
If such imbalance is still accumulating, then it proves that the TCS of solar changes are even longer than I claim, since the sun peaked in 1958.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should look up what TCS means :roll:

Lord of Planar said:
You fail to consider all the facts and science, and I don't feel like writing several paragraphs to explain it. Suffice it to say that the sun is still more intense than 400 years ago. The mass and movement of the oceans have never reached a new equalization to the higher levels now, even though we are past the peak.
Click to expand...

Only if you believe that there is neither movement of air in the tropopause nor ocean-atmosphere energy exchanges. This has been explained to you many times before - in fact you understood it yourself once, until you realised that it didn't show the solar warming over the past 50+ years that you so desperately desire.

SolarResponseA.jpg
 
Josie said:
Why would it be a bad thing for Antarctica to be not so cold? Why does everything need to stay the same? Who says that the way Earth is now is "perfect" and any deviation is cause for panic?
Click to expand...

Because living things are finely adapted to current conditions. If those conditions change enough and fast enough many life forms will not be able to adapt. I don't know about you, but I don't like being complicit in a mass extinction event. I don't like the fact that we are causing sea levels to rise above what they would naturally be, eventually flooding out large stretches of human coastal communities and natural ecosystems.

Humans are doing this. For much of the period of human expansion and industrialization we were unaware of the negative consequences of our actions....but for the past several decades we have known and we could be doing a lot more to reduce the effects but collectively we have chosen not to. At least I know my mind and heart are in the right place.
 
Russell797 said:
Because living things are finely adapted to current conditions. If those conditions change enough and fast enough many life forms will not be able to adapt. I don't know about you, but I don't like being complicit in a mass extinction event. I don't like the fact that we are causing sea levels to rise above what they would naturally be, eventually flooding out large stretches of human coastal communities and natural ecosystems.

Humans are doing this. For much of the period of human expansion and industrialization we were unaware of the negative consequences of our actions....but for the past several decades we have known and we could be doing a lot more to reduce the effects but collectively we have chosen not to. At least I know my mind and heart are in the right place.
Click to expand...
Do you have any indication that temperatures in Antarctica are raising any faster than they would without Humans on the planet?
The entire zone around Antarctica has barely change temperature in over a century.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/ZonAnn.Ts+dSST.txt
The sea level is raising, but has been raising for many centuries, Humans may have trouble adapting (unlikely) but ecosystem will do just fine,
with a few mm rise per year of sea level rise. You need to understand, most of the coastal critters evolved with tides bouncing around several feet per day.
 
Lord of Planar said:
You fail to consider all the facts and science, and I don't feel like writing several paragraphs to explain it. Suffice it to say that the sun is still more intense than 400 years ago. The mass and movement of the oceans have never reached a new equalization to the higher levels now, even though we are past the peak.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what science I have considered.

Yes the Sun's total radiance increased by as much as 1W/m^2 since the Maunder Minimum. If that much it would impart about .3C of black body warming over that time frame. However, all wavelengths of solar radiation do not reach the surface to warm it, and most of the solar increase is in the ultraviolet which does not reach the surface. So, of the TSI increase since the Maunder Minimum, only a fraction can warm the surface such that the radiative forcing is estimated to be (0.07 - .30W/m^2). That will produce about 0.1C of black body warming at equilibrium and before feedback.

Now, unless you call upon some unsupported science such as galactic cosmic rays influencing low cloud formation, that's what is going on with regard to solar induced warming.

Yes, the Sun seems to be past the peak, which is like turning down the burner under a pot of water. The water will warm to the new equilibrium, not to equilibrium with the once higher input.
 
Russell797 said:
You have no idea what science I have considered.

Yes the Sun's total radiance increased by as much as 1W/m^2 since the Maunder Minimum. If that much it would impart about .3C of black body warming over that time frame. However, all wavelengths of solar radiation do not reach the surface to warm it, and most of the solar increase is in the ultraviolet which does not reach the surface. So, of the TSI increase since the Maunder Minimum, only a fraction can warm the surface such that the radiative forcing is estimated to be (0.07 - .30W/m^2). That will produce about 0.1C of black body warming at equilibrium and before feedback.

Now, unless you call upon some unsupported science such as galactic cosmic rays influencing low cloud formation, that's what is going on with regard to solar induced warming.

Yes, the Sun seems to be past the peak, which is like turning down the burner under a pot of water. The water will warm to the new equilibrium, not to equilibrium with the once higher input.
Click to expand...

So ultraviolet light from the sun, does not reach the earth's surface? I did not know that!
 
longview said:
Do you have any indication that temperatures in Antarctica are raising any faster than they would without Humans on the planet?
The entire zone around Antarctica has barely change temperature in over a century.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/ZonAnn.Ts+dSST.txt
The sea level is raising, but has been raising for many centuries, Humans may have trouble adapting (unlikely) but ecosystem will do just fine,
with a few mm rise per year of sea level rise. You need to understand, most of the coastal critters evolved with tides bouncing around several feet per day.
Click to expand...

Tides bouncing around several feet per day is not equal to being permanently submerged.

The southern hemisphere warms less than the northern because there is more open ocean and less land surface. The SH is going to warm slower than the global average for that reason alone. Sea level has been rising because the world has been and is still warming. Sea level will continue to rise to equilibrium with warming, and if warming continues so will sea level rise. If we cause the warming, then the portion of warming we bring about will cause a response in sea level rise.

A higher sea level is a warmer ocean as well. Warmer water is relatively depleted in oxygen. The oceans are also absorbing atmospheric CO2 and becoming more acidic. Dead zones due to nitrogen pollution, oxygen starvation and warmer water are expanding. The big picture is very discouraging to environmental scientists. You can deny all you wish. Just so long as the GDP increases all is well though right?
 
Russell797 said:
Tides bouncing around several feet per day is not equal to being permanently submerged.

The southern hemisphere warms less than the northern because there is more open ocean and less land surface. The SH is going to warm slower than the global average for that reason alone. Sea level has been rising because the world has been and is still warming. Sea level will continue to rise to equilibrium with warming, and if warming continues so will sea level rise. If we cause the warming, then the portion of warming we bring about will cause a response in sea level rise.

A higher sea level is a warmer ocean as well. Warmer water is relatively depleted in oxygen. The oceans are also absorbing atmospheric CO2 and becoming more acidic. Dead zones due to nitrogen pollution, oxygen starvation and warmer water are expanding. The big picture is very discouraging to environmental scientists. You can deny all you wish. Just so long as the GDP increases all is well though right?
Click to expand...
The diurnal and seasonal tides are such that a few mm per year will not change how the estuary thrives.
areas that get flooded, quickly become new habitat.
I know the earth is warming, and I know Human activity is at some level involved, so what am I denying?
The current politicization of Science should be discouraging to all Scientist, as it undermines the core principals of the Scientific process.
I understand you have a much truncated vision of the future, but I see a bright future for humanity.
I see a world where every Human alive can live a first would lifestyle in a sustainable energy future.
I do not see the current IPCC proposals as part of the path to achieve that future.
 
longview said:
So ultraviolet light from the sun, does not reach the earth's surface? I did not know that!
Click to expand...

Most of UV-C is absorbed within the stratosphere by ozone destruction and production. Some UV-B reaches the surface, about 5%(sunburns), and much of UV-A does reach the surface.

The Sun's faculae are very hot and emit most strongly UV-C and UV-B.

Regardless, the total energy difference from Maunder Minimum to mid 20th century = 0.07W - 0.30W/m^2
 
Russell797 said:
Most of UV-C is absorbed within the stratosphere by ozone destruction and production. Some UV-B reaches the surface, about 5%(sunburns), and much of UV-A does reach the surface.

The Sun's faculae are very hot and emit most strongly UV-C and UV-B.
Click to expand...
Just checking, because your statement,
"and most of the solar increase is in the ultraviolet which does not reach the surface."
does not sub define the UV, and plenty of UV reaches the surface.
 
longview said:
Just checking, because your statement,
"and most of the solar increase is in the ultraviolet which does not reach the surface."
does not sub define the UV, and plenty of UV reaches the surface.
Click to expand...

But not as a percentage of the total UV energy. Good thing too you must admit!
 
longview said:
The diurnal and seasonal tides are such that a few mm per year will not change how the estuary thrives.
areas that get flooded, quickly become new habitat.
I know the earth is warming, and I know Human activity is at some level involved, so what am I denying?
The current politicization of Science should be discouraging to all Scientist, as it undermines the core principals of the Scientific process.
I understand you have a much truncated vision of the future, but I see a bright future for humanity.
I see a world where every Human alive can live a first would lifestyle in a sustainable energy future.
I do not see the current IPCC proposals as part of the path to achieve that future.
Click to expand...

I see a bright future for humanity only if we learn to conform to the laws of nature, rather than attempting to defy her as the current system demands that we do. We are dependent upon never ending growth in so many ways, yet continuous never ending growth is a physical impossibility in this universe. It comes down to entropy. The natural order is to always trend toward the lowest possible energy state, unless work is done to prevent it and energy is used at the expense of something else.

So yes, I am a pessimist. If we don't learn to live sustainably in balance with nature we are doomed. Every problem we complain about is due to systemic failure of a society trying to constantly grow with the expectation that all supporting systems can keep up. They can not and will not keep up indefinitely. Human growth comes at the expense first to the Sun and then the biosphere we are part of. The Sun is essentially limitless, but the biosphere is not and we have pushed it beyond the bounds of sustainability on many fronts. Pollution, global warming, habitat destruction, resource depletion and borrowing against the future are killing us.
 
Russell797 said:
But not as a percentage of the total UV energy. Good thing too you must admit!
Click to expand...
I am not confident we have a good understand of the amount and type of UV reaching the earth surface over time.
 
Russell797 said:
I see a bright future for humanity only if we learn to conform to the laws of nature, rather than attempting to defy her as the current system demands that we do. We are dependent upon never ending growth in so many ways, yet continuous never ending growth is a physical impossibility in this universe. It comes down to entropy. The natural order is to always trend toward the lowest possible energy state, unless work is done to prevent it and energy is used at the expense of something else.

So yes, I am a pessimist. If we don't learn to live sustainably in balance with nature we are doomed. Every problem we complain about is due to systemic failure of a society trying to constantly grow with the expectation that all supporting systems can keep up. They can not and will not keep up indefinitely. Human growth comes at the expense first to the Sun and then the biosphere we are part of. The Sun is essentially limitless, but the biosphere is not and we have pushed it beyond the bounds of sustainability on many fronts. Pollution, global warming, habitat destruction, resource depletion and borrowing against the future are killing us.
Click to expand...
It must be a dark world you live in!
I see a bright and sustainable future, with some growth, but history has shown us that once people reach a first world lifestyle, the population growth slows down.
Energy storage is the key. More than enough solar energy hits the earth, but it's form and density is too low to be directly useful.
Photovoltaics and storage, will allow that energy to be accumulated and stored in a usable form, hydrocarbon fuels.
These man made fuels will likely be carbon neutral, so guilt free fuels.
Storing energy in hydrocarbons is how nature does it, so we would be emulating nature!
 
Mithrae said:
Maybe you should look up what TCS means :roll:
Click to expand...
My mistake, I meant ECS. I'm sure you know that though.

Mithrae said:
Only if you believe that there is neither movement of air in the tropopause nor ocean-atmosphere energy exchanges. This has been explained to you many times before - in fact you understood it yourself once, until you realised that it didn't show the solar warming over the past 50+ years that you so desperately desire.

View attachment 67218141
Click to expand...
I do understand it. You simply are assuming I am set on response percentage of the imbalance. In my post I said "then it proves that the TCS ECS of solar changes are even longer than I claim"

What happens if you run my formula you generated that graph with with an even smaller annual equalization percentage? Maybe around 0.2% to 0.5%?

I haven't run it yet. I have a basic idea of what it will do.

Consider also that the response percentage likely is faster under cooler conditions that warmer conditions, due to evaporation changes.

It is impossible to get accurate modeling with the limited knowledge we have on this science. This science is still in its infancy.
 
Russell797 said:
You have no idea what science I have considered.

Yes the Sun's total radiance increased by as much as 1W/m^2 since the Maunder Minimum. .
Click to expand...
That is only if you discount other studies, and cherry pick the lowest. There are studies out there that claim far more than that of a change.

If you wish to deny science... then go ahead. Deny the other studies.

Russell797 said:
If that much it would impart about .3C of black body warming over that time frame. However, all wavelengths of solar radiation do not reach the surface to warm it, and most of the solar increase is in the ultraviolet which does not reach the surface. So, of the TSI increase since the Maunder Minimum, only a fraction can warm the surface such that the radiative forcing is estimated to be (0.07 - .30W/m^2). That will produce about 0.1C of black body warming at equilibrium and before feedback.
Click to expand...
I see you ignore, or are ignorant of how the various spectra does different things. And please, when the shortwave reaching the surface over the oceans are absorbed so deep because of transparency to them, and opacity to longwave, just how can you justify simple black body formulas?

Russell797 said:
Now, unless you call upon some unsupported science such as galactic cosmic rays influencing low cloud formation, that's what is going on with regard to solar induced warming.
Click to expand...
I don't think cosmic rays are a significant factor. I could be wrong, I just don't see it as a major variable. I do accept they have a small influence.

Russell797 said:
Yes, the Sun seems to be past the peak, which is like turning down the burner under a pot of water. The water will warm to the new equilibrium, not to equilibrium with the once higher input.
Click to expand...
That's what I'm saying, and that we may not have reached the equilibrium from the 1958 peak. I have assumed by calculations it to be around 2004. Maybe we still haven't reached that equilibrium.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom