• 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!

Antarctic thaw quickens, trillions of tonnes of ice raise sea levels

Oceanborn said:
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/05mar_arctic

"The thawing of sea ice covering the Arctic could disturb or even halt large currents in the Atlantic Ocean. Without the vast heat that these ocean currents deliver--comparable to the power generation of a million nuclear power plants--Europe's average temperature would likely drop 5 to 10°C (9 to 18°F), and parts of eastern North America would be chilled somewhat less. Such a dip in temperature would be similar to global average temperatures toward the end of the last ice age roughly 20,000 years ago.

Some scientists believe this shift in ocean currents could come surprisingly soon--within as little as 20 years, according to Robert Gagosian, president and director of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Others doubt it will happen at all. Even so, the Pentagon is taking notice. Andrew Marshall, a veteran Defense Department planner, recently released an unclassified report detailing how a shift in ocean currents in the near future could compromise national security."

Since the ocean currents and the weather are directly connected, it does work like that. Currents influence weather, the salt content of the ocean water influences currents. Everything is connected.
Click to expand...

Yawn.

"possible."

"could."

Well, I could possible win the Powerball too...
 
Aristaeus said:
So how do you explain the fact that Venus, with an atmosphere of around 96% CO2 is hotter than Mercury which is much closer to the sun?
Click to expand...

For the simple reason that it has such a dense atmosphere. Atmospheric pressure on the surface of Venus is 900 times that of Earth surface pressure. It is that much easier for surface thermal energy to couple to the atmosphere.

The atmosphere on Venus is so dense, that despite having such a long day and night on Venus, temperatures between night and day are virtually identical.

Mercury, on the other hand, has very little atmosphere.
 
Oceanborn said:
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/05mar_arctic

"The thawing of sea ice covering the Arctic could disturb or even halt large currents in the Atlantic Ocean. Without the vast heat that these ocean currents deliver--comparable to the power generation of a million nuclear power plants--Europe's average temperature would likely drop 5 to 10°C (9 to 18°F), and parts of eastern North America would be chilled somewhat less. Such a dip in temperature would be similar to global average temperatures toward the end of the last ice age roughly 20,000 years ago.

Some scientists believe this shift in ocean currents could come surprisingly soon--within as little as 20 years, according to Robert Gagosian, president and director of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Others doubt it will happen at all. Even so, the Pentagon is taking notice. Andrew Marshall, a veteran Defense Department planner, recently released an unclassified report detailing how a shift in ocean currents in the near future could compromise national security."

Since the ocean currents and the weather are directly connected, it does work like that. Currents influence weather, the salt content of the ocean water influences currents. Everything is connected.
Click to expand...

As long as there is a difference in water temperatures across the oceans, there WILL be ocean currents.
 
Into the Night said:
For the simple reason that it has such a dense atmosphere. Atmospheric pressure on the surface of Venus is 900 times that of Earth surface pressure. It is that much easier for surface thermal energy to couple to the atmosphere.

The atmosphere on Venus is so dense, that despite having such a long day and night on Venus, temperatures between night and day are virtually identical.

Mercury, on the other hand, has very little atmosphere.
Click to expand...

90.

And the way to think about is to start from the top of the atmosphere. The temperature of the top of the atmosphere of Venus is what you would expect for a body at that distance from the sun. The same is true for the surfacce of the atmosphere free Mercury. Or the Moon or the top of earth's atmosphere. All at the temperature you would expect given the inverse square rule etc.

That you get hotter as you compress the gas of the atmosphere is not surprising.
 
Into the Night said:
As long as there is a difference in water temperatures across the oceans, there WILL be ocean currents.
Click to expand...

Surface ocean currents are predoninently driven by wind. Very little of this circulation is temperature based other than the dropping of water to the deep ocean where warm and cold oceans meet.
 
KerouacJack said:
mmm no, this post is lacking an understanding concerning the properties of electromagnetic waves, chemistry, and the atmosphere.
Click to expand...
Inversion fallacy.
KerouacJack said:
The lower atmosphere allows visible light to pass through to the earth.
Click to expand...
Visible light doesn't cause much heating. Absorption of visible light generally causes chemical reactions instead. Infrared light from the Sun (which is most of the energy from the Sun) is what warms the surface.
KerouacJack said:
The earth radiates energy back at wavelengths that are much longer than the wavelengths that were absorbed (like infrared) back to the atmosphere which absorbs most of this energy which warms it.
Click to expand...
WRONG. CO2, for instance, absorbs only a very narrow spectrum of infrared light. Same with water vapor. Same with methane.

Emitting infrared light means the surface is emitting energy. It is being COOLED by that, not warmed. It is still warmer than the atmosphere it is heating.
KerouacJack said:
The atmosphere radiates energy both upwards and downwards; the part radiated downwards is absorbed by the surface of Earth.*(causing a feedback loop)
Click to expand...
WRONG. You cannot heat a warmer substance with a colder one. You cannot heat a warmer surface with a colder gas. You can't do it by conduction, you can't do it by convection, and you can't do it by radiance. You CAN'T DO IT. You are denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics again.

You are reducing radiance and using that to increase the temperature of the Earth. That violates the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

KerouacJack said:
This leads to a higher equilibrium temperature than if the atmosphere were absent.
Click to expand...
There is no sequence. You can't just ignore these theories of science.
 
Tim the plumber said:
90.

And the way to think about is to start from the top of the atmosphere. The temperature of the top of the atmosphere of Venus is what you would expect for a body at that distance from the sun. The same is true for the surfacce of the atmosphere free Mercury. Or the Moon or the top of earth's atmosphere. All at the temperature you would expect given the inverse square rule etc.

That you get hotter as you compress the gas of the atmosphere is not surprising.
Click to expand...

Quite right.
 
Tim the plumber said:

Surface ocean currents are predoninently driven by wind. Very little of this circulation is temperature based other than the dropping of water to the deep ocean where warm and cold oceans meet.
Click to expand...

The wind is also a factor, but the difference in water temperatures (and land temperatures) drives the wind.
 
Tim the plumber said:
90.

And the way to think about is to start from the top of the atmosphere. The temperature of the top of the atmosphere of Venus is what you would expect for a body at that distance from the sun. The same is true for the surfacce of the atmosphere free Mercury. Or the Moon or the top of earth's atmosphere. All at the temperature you would expect given the inverse square rule etc.

That you get hotter as you compress the gas of the atmosphere is not surprising.
Click to expand...

Venus's atmosphere is not being compressed. Its pressure is roughly constant.
 
Into the Night said:
Oil is not a fossil. You don't get to dictate the market. People are free to buy the fuel of their own choice.

The U.S. supports 80% of its energy production from coal, oil, and natural gas products. Another 9% comes from nuclear power. Only 2% comes from wind power, and only 0.6% comes from solar panels. Oil, coal, and natural gas are cheap and plentiful.

That's why they buy gasoline and diesel fuel distilled from naturally occurring oil.
Click to expand...

The cost to extract oil is increasing on it's own, and at some point the man made fuels will be the lowest cost choice at the pump.
This has nothing to do with AGW, but simple market forces.
How much the man made fuel costs, is what will be determined by how much surplus electricity we have.
 
longview said:
That the sea level is raising is not a effect of CO2 based climate change.
The Sea level has been increasing at the same rate for many decades before the CO2 levels started increasing.
Click to expand...

This is patently false.

Most of this ice loss comes from West Antarctica, where the rate of ice melting tripled over the past quarter century from 58 billion to 175 billion tons per year.

...

In the past, scientists felt glaciers and ocean expansion had a greater influence on sea levels than the ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica. Oppenheimer said the new study confirms Greenland and Antarctica are now equal contributors to sea level rise relative to thermal expansion or glacial melting.

“It’s like a three-slice pie,” Oppenheimer said. “And the ice sheet contribution is expected to grow fastest over the coming decades, so it’s of great concern.”

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/antarctica-is-losing-ice-twice-as-fast-as-anyone-thought
Click to expand...
 
Into the Night said:
Inversion fallacy.

Visible light doesn't cause much heating. Absorption of visible light generally causes chemical reactions instead. Infrared light from the Sun (which is most of the energy from the Sun) is what warms the surface.

WRONG. CO2, for instance, absorbs only a very narrow spectrum of infrared light. Same with water vapor. Same with methane.

Emitting infrared light means the surface is emitting energy. It is being COOLED by that, not warmed. It is still warmer than the atmosphere it is heating.

WRONG. You cannot heat a warmer substance with a colder one. You cannot heat a warmer surface with a colder gas. You can't do it by conduction, you can't do it by convection, and you can't do it by radiance. You CAN'T DO IT. You are denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics again.

You are reducing radiance and using that to increase the temperature of the Earth. That violates the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


There is no sequence. You can't just ignore these theories of science.
Click to expand...

bahahhaaahhaahahhahahaah

i don't even know where to start these are settled scientific facts, you're trying to refute with bizarre interpretations of chemistry and thermodynamics. You just failed your junior science class.
The_green_house_effect.svg
 
I suspect the deniers are more than just a wee bit ignorant. After all, we have seen several comment that CO2 is a harmless gas. :lol:

Also, it's quite clear that they have no idea how catastrophic a change in CO2 ppm and the resulting rise in temperature can be.

This warming is largely driven by increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, particularly carbon dioxide, emitted by the burning of fossil fuels at power plants, by cars and by industry. At the current rate of fossil fuel burning, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will have doubled from pre-industrial times by the middle of this century. A doubling of carbon dioxide would cause an eventual warming of several degrees, Hansen said.


Two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming would make Earth much warmer than during the Eemian, and would move Earth closer to "Pliocene"-like conditions, when sea level was in the range of 25 meters (82 feet) higher than today, Hansen said. In using Earth's climate history to learn more about the level of sensitivity that governs our planet's response to warming today, Hansen said the paleoclimate record suggests that every degree Celsius of global temperature rise will ultimately equate to 20 meters (66 feet) of sea level rise.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/649/secrets-from-the-past-point-to-rapid-climate-change-in-the-future/
Click to expand...

The only mystery to me is how these people can be so ignorant.
 
KerouacJack said:
bahahhaaahhaahahhahahaah

i don't even know where to start these are settled scientific facts, you're trying to refute with bizarre interpretations of chemistry and thermodynamics. You just failed your junior science class.
Click to expand...

calamity said:
I suspect the deniers are more than just a wee bit ignorant. After all, we have seen several comment that CO2 is a harmless gas. :lol:

Also, it's quite clear that they have no idea how catastrophic a change in CO2 ppm and the resulting rise in temperature can be.



The only mystery to me is how these people can be so ignorant.
Click to expand...



Perhaps you both need to take another class.


[FONT=&quot]Using historic variations in climate and the cosmic ray flux, one can actually [/FONT]quantify empirically[FONT=&quot] the relation between cosmic ray flux variations and global temperature change, and estimate the solar contribution to the 20[/FONT][FONT=&quot]th[/FONT][FONT=&quot] century warming. This contribution comes out to be 0.5±0.2°C out of the observed 0.6±0.2°C global warming (Shaviv, 2005).[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
SolarActivityProxies.png
Fig. 5: Solar activity over the past several centuries can be reconstructed using different proxies. These reconstructions demonstrate that 20th century activity is unparalleled over the past 600 years (previously high solar activity took place around 1000 years ago, and 8000 yrs ago). Specifically, we see sunspots and 10Be. The latter is formed in the atmosphere by ~1GeV cosmic rays, which are modulated by the solar wind (stronger solar wind → less galactic cosmic rays → less 10Be production). Note that both proxies do not capture the decrease in the high energy cosmic rays that took place since the 1970's, but which the ion chamber data does (see fig. 6). (image source: Wikipedia)
[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:

Perhaps you both need to take another class.


[FONT="]Using historic variations in climate and the cosmic ray flux, one can actually [/FONT][URL="http://www.sciencebits.com/OnClimateSensitivity%20"]quantify empirically[/URL][FONT="] the relation between cosmic ray flux variations and global temperature change, and estimate the solar contribution to the 20[/FONT][FONT="]th[/FONT][FONT="] century warming. [B]This contribution comes out to be 0.5±0.2°C out of the observed 0.6±0.2°C global warming (Shaviv, 2005).[/B][/FONT][FONT="]
SolarActivityProxies.png
Fig. 5: Solar activity over the past several centuries can be reconstructed using different proxies. These reconstructions demonstrate that 20th century activity is unparalleled over the past 600 years (previously high solar activity took place around 1000 years ago, and 8000 yrs ago). Specifically, we see sunspots and 10Be. The latter is formed in the atmosphere by ~1GeV cosmic rays, which are modulated by the solar wind (stronger solar wind → less galactic cosmic rays → less 10Be production). Note that both proxies do not capture the decrease in the high energy cosmic rays that took place since the 1970's, but which the ion chamber data does (see fig. 6). (image source: Wikipedia)
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

No one cares about your pseudo science bs...
 
Jack Hays said:

Perhaps you both need to take another class.


[FONT="]Using historic variations in climate and the cosmic ray flux, one can actually [/FONT][URL="http://www.sciencebits.com/OnClimateSensitivity%20"]quantify empirically[/URL][FONT="] the relation between cosmic ray flux variations and global temperature change, and estimate the solar contribution to the 20[/FONT][FONT="]th[/FONT][FONT="] century warming. [B]This contribution comes out to be 0.5±0.2°C out of the observed 0.6±0.2°C global warming (Shaviv, 2005).[/B][/FONT][FONT="]
SolarActivityProxies.png
Fig. 5: Solar activity over the past several centuries can be reconstructed using different proxies. These reconstructions demonstrate that 20th century activity is unparalleled over the past 600 years (previously high solar activity took place around 1000 years ago, and 8000 yrs ago). Specifically, we see sunspots and 10Be. The latter is formed in the atmosphere by ~1GeV cosmic rays, which are modulated by the solar wind (stronger solar wind → less galactic cosmic rays → less 10Be production). Note that both proxies do not capture the decrease in the high energy cosmic rays that took place since the 1970's, but which the ion chamber data does (see fig. 6). (image source: Wikipedia)
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

A lot has been learned since 2005, Jack.
 
KerouacJack said:
No one cares about your pseudo science bs...
Click to expand...

calamity said:
A lot has been learned since 2005, Jack.
Click to expand...

Ah. "Pseudo science bs?" The author is the Chairman of the Raccah Institute for Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and an IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study. You may recall that's where Einstein worked after emigrating to the US.

And yes, a lot has been learned since 2005, but it doesn't change the science.


 
calamity said:
I suspect the deniers are more than just a wee bit ignorant. After all, we have seen several comment that CO2 is a harmless gas. :lol:

Also, it's quite clear that they have no idea how catastrophic a change in CO2 ppm and the resulting rise in temperature can be.



The only mystery to me is how these people can be so ignorant.
Click to expand...

Please cite 1 bad thing about a slightly warmer world.

Then explain how this will happen, not the warming but the bad thing due to the warming, the mechanism.

Then cite some sort of science that shows this mechanism. A paper or some such.

Then we can look at it and see how bad it is likely to be.

If the bad aspect of a slightly warmer world is worse for any local council in the world that has traffic lights such that it will cost more to sort out than its' traffic light budget you win.
 
longview said:
That the sea level is raising is not a effect of CO2 based climate change.
The Sea level has been increasing at the same rate for many decades before the CO2 levels started increasing.
Click to expand...

And recent studies show that the water is freezing under the major ice shelves, not thawing. Little chance we'll lose Antarctica ice any time soon. But sooner or later, we will:

. . .The Ross Ice Shelf “has come and gone probably many times in the last million years,” says Scherer. It likely collapsed during a warm period 400,000 years ago. But he believes it could also have collapsed as recently as 120,000 years ago, the last time that temperatures were about as warm as they are today. . .​
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/02/ross-ice-shelf-bore-antarctica-freezing/

Now I am no scientist, but it just seems reasonable to me that if land and sea ice only increases and never melts, sooner or later we would all be up to our ho has in ice. I have grown fond of oranges and green beans and things like that.
 
Ah...I found the culprit. This certainly explains all the hot air.

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2018/06/13/climate-wackos-want-to-control-you-not-co2/

Stupid quote of the year nominee

Now, I’m not a scientist. But this is where my reverence for God enters the picture. I just do not believe that we have this relatively easy way of destroying our planet. I mean, exactly how we doing it? By improving our lives? By raising our standard of living? By increasing the wealth of the human race? This is causing the end of the world? I’m sorry, folks. I believe in a loving God creator, and I do not believe a loving God creator would establish circumstances like that.
Click to expand...

Actually, that would do it, you dip****. More people burning more energy, living longer and consuming all the planet's resources will most definitely impact the earth for the worse. Duh.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
Ah. "Pseudo science bs?" The author is the Chairman of the Raccah Institute for Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and an IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study. You may recall that's where Einstein worked after emigrating to the US.

And yes, a lot has been learned since 2005, but it doesn't change the science.


Click to expand...

Citing a graph correlating solar activity with climate change is a rather ironic as it is analogous to the authors criticism that CO2 is not necessarily causal in global temperature change... the authors lack of understanding and hypocrisy are noted ... the author should not be the chairman of anything.
 
Last edited:
Tim the plumber said:
Please cite 1 bad thing about a slightly warmer world.

Then explain how this will happen, not the warming but the bad thing due to the warming, the mechanism.

Then cite some sort of science that shows this mechanism. A paper or some such.

Then we can look at it and see how bad it is likely to be.

If the bad aspect of a slightly warmer world is worse for any local council in the world that has traffic lights such that it will cost more to sort out than its' traffic light budget you win.
Click to expand...

:roll:

Sea Level Rise and Coastal Development: Science Speaks Directly to Business
 
Tim the plumber said:
About half way through doing this I think you will find that there is no problem
Click to expand...

Still dodging science, I see.

What happened to Houston, LA and NY will happen again, more energy in, energy out.

When we get hammered, it will keep getting worse, which you can already see in the growing cost of weather disasters.

Your schtick has gone way past ridiculous, and deep into farce.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom