• 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!

The Big Melt

late

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
4,583
Reaction score
1,261
Location
Southern Maine
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
"Even more worryingly, the Arctic also holds large reserves of methane, in the form of clathrates—icy, lattice-shaped chemical structures known as “the ice that burns.” (There's about a million acres in Siberia burning right now)

"Others took even longer to be convinced: Jim Overland, a leading oceanographer at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, finally accepted that humans were changing the Arctic in 2008. Soon thereafter, however, things began happening so fast that only paid lobbyists, and those deluded by them, were denying the facts."

"...in 1980 Arctic summer ice covered an area around the size of the contiguous United States, minus Arizona. By 2012, it covered only 46 percent of that area..."

Looks like Musk Ox are going to be extinct before too long, that's a large part of what the article is about.




https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/08/16/arctic-big-melt/
 
"Even more worryingly, the Arctic also holds large reserves of methane, in the form of clathrates—icy, lattice-shaped chemical structures known as “the ice that burns.” (There's about a million acres in Siberia burning right now)

"Others took even longer to be convinced: Jim Overland, a leading oceanographer at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, finally accepted that humans were changing the Arctic in 2008. Soon thereafter, however, things began happening so fast that only paid lobbyists, and those deluded by them, were denying the facts."

"...in 1980 Arctic summer ice covered an area around the size of the contiguous United States, minus Arizona. By 2012, it covered only 46 percent of that area..."

Looks like Musk Ox are going to be extinct before too long, that's a large part of what the article is about.




https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/08/16/arctic-big-melt/


Who Cares....
 
Nothing is caused by human activity

Posted on 16 Aug 18 by PAUL MATTHEWS 7 Comments
There are some aspects of the climate debate where the arguments taking place seem to be based on nothing at all, when you go back to first principles and try to start from the beginning. Tim Osborn started a long twitter debate by saying that sceptics “haven’t provided a credible explanation for observed warming”. Another … Contin

There are some aspects of the climate debate where the arguments taking place seem to be based on nothing at all, when you go back to first principles and try to start from the beginning. Tim Osborn started a long twitter debate by saying that sceptics “haven’t provided a credible explanation for observed warming”. Another climate scientist, Robert Rhode, followed up on the “no credible explanation” question. I asked them both
Robert Rohde@rarohde

· Aug 13, 2018



Replying to @TimOsbornClim and 3 others
The issue I am getting at is how does one decide that they "offer no credible explanation" in a way that isn't simply the same as saying that most scientists disagree.

Advocates for "natural cycles" or "cosmic rays", etc. are presumably going to believe their ideas are credible.



Paul Matthews@etzpcm



Explanation for what, exactly? pic.twitter.com/ksbyhOZiZE
12:07 PM - Aug 13, 2018



  • and there was a stony silence from both of them. The point is, of course, that this long temperature record for Central England, going back over three centuries, shows that nothing unusual is happening at all. The current rate of warming is no greater than it was at various points in the past. Now of course the CET isn’t global temperature, and unfortunately there isn’t a global record going back that far. But for the global data sets that do exist, the warming in the early 20th century was very similar to the warming in the late 20th century, so the same issue arises (or rather, again, there is no issue to explain). Whatever “caused” the warming that seems to have occurred from about 1700-1740 could also have “caused” the more recent warming. So there is nothing that needs to be explained. . . .



 
I've been following the science since the 80s.

When the climatology community changes it mind, I'll let you know about it.

The CET record is more than 10 times older than that.
 
"Even more worryingly, the Arctic also holds large reserves of methane, in the form of clathrates—icy, lattice-shaped chemical structures known as “the ice that burns.” (There's about a million acres in Siberia burning right now)

"Others took even longer to be convinced: Jim Overland, a leading oceanographer at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, finally accepted that humans were changing the Arctic in 2008. Soon thereafter, however, things began happening so fast that only paid lobbyists, and those deluded by them, were denying the facts."

"...in 1980 Arctic summer ice covered an area around the size of the contiguous United States, minus Arizona. By 2012, it covered only 46 percent of that area..."

Looks like Musk Ox are going to be extinct before too long, that's a large part of what the article is about.




https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/08/16/arctic-big-melt/

There is more Arctic ice this year than last year. In 2014, the Antarctic recorded more ice than they have ever recorded since recordkeeping began.

Did you know there is an active volcanic ridge UNDER the Arctic sea?
 
I've been following the science since the 80s.

When the climatology community changes it mind, I'll let you know about it.

That is not science. You have been following a religion.
 
"Even more worryingly, the Arctic also holds large reserves of methane, in the form of clathrates—icy, lattice-shaped chemical structures known as “the ice that burns.” (There's about a million acres in Siberia burning right now)

"Others took even longer to be convinced: Jim Overland, a leading oceanographer at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, finally accepted that humans were changing the Arctic in 2008. Soon thereafter, however, things began happening so fast that only paid lobbyists, and those deluded by them, were denying the facts."

"...in 1980 Arctic summer ice covered an area around the size of the contiguous United States, minus Arizona. By 2012, it covered only 46 percent of that area..."

Looks like Musk Ox are going to be extinct before too long, that's a large part of what the article is about.




https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/08/16/arctic-big-melt/

Looks like you’re concerned about methane.

So how much is all this methane going to run up global temperature? Your answer should be in degrees.

My answer? Not very much, probably insignificant and unmeasurable. Methane’s increase for what ever reason is in parts per billion, and just isn’t going to have much impact. The IPCC’s Global Warming Potential of 86 times more poewerful than CO2 is just so much misleading BS.
 
I've been following the science since the 80s.

When the climatology community changes it mind, I'll let you know about it.

Given that you have never understood the science and that is also the case for most of the climatology community that you are part of it will take a long time for that to happen, or a new fashio of a different doom cult to come along.
 
Given that you have never understood the science and that is also the case for most of the climatology community that you are part of it will take a long time for that to happen, or a new fashion of a different doom cult to come along.

Thanks, first actual laugh of the day.
 
Given that you have never understood the science and that is also the case for most of the climatology community that you are part of it will take a long time for that to happen, or a new fashio of a different doom cult to come along.

Like the doom cult claiming 20 million people a year are dying of starvation because of corn to ethanol conversion?

Yeah. Those people are real basket cases. Total wackos!
 
Looks like you’re concerned about methane.

So how much is all this methane going to run up global temperature? Your answer should be in degrees.

My answer? Not very much, probably insignificant and unmeasurable. Methane’s increase for what ever reason is in parts per billion, and just isn’t going to have much impact. The IPCC’s Global Warming Potential of 86 times more poewerful than CO2 is just so much misleading BS.

You are correct. Methane's ability to warm the Earth is the same as it is with CO2:

Zero.
 
Last edited:
You are correct. Methane's ability to warm the Earth is the same as it is with CO2:

Zero.

I really wish you would learn the sciences and stop denying reality.

Think of greenhouse gasses like insulation. They slow down the heat from the earth exiting, which increases the average temperature. Just like wearing clothes when it's cold, and a coat when colder. The more insulation you have, the slower the heat escapes. Greenhouse gasses keep the earth warm in a similar manner as clothing keeps us warm. In our case, our bodies generate the heat. In the case of the greenhouse gasses, the sun generates the heat.
 
Nothing is caused by human activity

Posted on 16 Aug 18 by PAUL MATTHEWS 7 Comments
There are some aspects of the climate debate where the arguments taking place seem to be based on nothing at all, when you go back to first principles and try to start from the beginning. Tim Osborn started a long twitter debate by saying that sceptics “haven’t provided a credible explanation for observed warming”. Another … Contin

There are some aspects of the climate debate where the arguments taking place seem to be based on nothing at all, when you go back to first principles and try to start from the beginning. Tim Osborn started a long twitter debate by saying that sceptics “haven’t provided a credible explanation for observed warming”. Another climate scientist, Robert Rhode, followed up on the “no credible explanation” question. I asked them both
Robert Rohde@rarohde

· Aug 13, 2018



Replying to @TimOsbornClim and 3 others
The issue I am getting at is how does one decide that they "offer no credible explanation" in a way that isn't simply the same as saying that most scientists disagree.

Advocates for "natural cycles" or "cosmic rays", etc. are presumably going to believe their ideas are credible.



Paul Matthews@etzpcm



Explanation for what, exactly? pic.twitter.com/ksbyhOZiZE
12:07 PM - Aug 13, 2018



  • and there was a stony silence from both of them. The point is, of course, that this long temperature record for Central England, going back over three centuries, shows that nothing unusual is happening at all. The current rate of warming is no greater than it was at various points in the past. Now of course the CET isn’t global temperature, and unfortunately there isn’t a global record going back that far. But for the global data sets that do exist, the warming in the early 20th century was very similar to the warming in the late 20th century, so the same issue arises (or rather, again, there is no issue to explain). Whatever “caused” the warming that seems to have occurred from about 1700-1740 could also have “caused” the more recent warming. So there is nothing that needs to be explained. . . .



"Nothing" :lamo
 
Your guess.

It’s not a guess. If methane and CO2 both increase by a few parts per billion, methane will run the temperature up way more than CO2. It’ just that in either case the increase is nearly nothing and way more than nearly nothing is still nearly nothing.
 
Back
Top Bottom