• 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!

Greenland’s Melting Ice Nears a ‘Tipping Point,’

jmotivator said:
For every valid cause for concern there are a million false alarms. I mean, hell, it's now believed that one of the contributors to global warming is the shrinking Ozone hole! :lamo
Click to expand...

People are saying that? What's the theory?
 
Nickyjo said:
Quite naturally what we do to deal with the problem will go in fits and starts, including wrong directions. We're human. We may find out the problem is not as severe as thought. Welcome news if/when it comes. Ozone hole, acid rain, and tobacco dangers presumably had different levels of proof supporting action at different times. Tobacco seems to have grown in concern, thus more limits. What is dangerous is when we go in Trumps "Chinese hoax" direction and ignore our own agencies' opinions.
Click to expand...
It first becomes necessary to identify the correct problem. The problem is not CO2, but energy.
CO2 is a symptom of how we currently extract energy from historically accumulated sunlight.
Solving our energy problem, will solve any issues with CO2 as a side effect.
 
Nickyjo said:
People are saying that? What's the theory?
Click to expand...

The Ozone layer blocks high energy UV light from escaping the atmosphere. When there is a whole it allows UV to escape, as the whole shrinks, more UV in trapped and absorbed at the surface and converted to heat.

Also, the Ozone hole has now been linked back to climate, where hotter temperatures generate more ozone, and colder temps produce less. There is little to no ozone contributed by Antarctica, so that is why the hole sits there.

Also, in the opposite direction, there have been theories that CFCs were responsible for post 1970 warming trends.

"The climate in the Antarctic stratosphere has been completely controlled by CFCs and cosmic rays, with no CO2 impact. The change in global surface temperature after the removal of the solar effect has shown zero correlation with CO2 but a nearly perfect linear correlation with CFCs - a correlation coefficient as high as 0.97."

Underscoring.. we just don't know enough to even determine a reasonable value of various mitigation plans... or if mitigation is even beneficial.
 
jmotivator said:
For every valid cause for concern there are a million false alarms. I mean, hell, it's now believed that one of the contributors to global warming is the shrinking Ozone hole! :lamo
Click to expand...

That does have an impact on global temperatures. Why is that funny?
 
jmotivator said:
It's a balancing act. The issue is you have to reject all of the down sides in order to reach the position of "benefit". An example wold be wind turbines. Is wind generated electricity worth more than the hundreds of thousands of soaring birds killed by them? The noise pollution? It's that kind of honest analysis that CAGW panic specifically fights against to preserve the "DO IT NOOOOOW!" hysteria.
Click to expand...

We have wind parks all over our area. Nobody is complaining about noise. Very few birds are killed by wind turbines. The industry has done numerous studies, and taken steps to drastically minimize the harm to our feathered friends. Compared to the mining industries disruption of habitat to all species, it's nothing.
 
Lord of Planar said:
You should read DOI: 10.1029/2012WR011986 and see if that changes your mind on the cause.
Click to expand...

You should read what the polar bears have to say. Seriously, if you have a link to share, cite it and post the relative information.
 
longview said:
It first becomes necessary to identify the correct problem. The problem is not CO2, but energy.
CO2 is a symptom of how we currently extract energy from historically accumulated sunlight.
Solving our energy problem, will solve any issues with CO2 as a side effect.
Click to expand...

Hot damn. Thousands and thousands of Climatologists around the world are scratching their head at the problem, and you solve it in two short sentences.
 
Media_Truth said:
You should read what the polar bears have to say. Seriously, if you have a link to share, cite it and post the relative information.
Click to expand...

I gave you the DOI number, because as time passes, and links change, it can still be found. All you have to do is copy and past "DOI: 10.1029/2012WR011986" in your favorite search engine. If you actually read peer reviewed papers, you would know that.

Here:

Dust radiative forcing in snow of the Upper Colorado River Basin: 2. Interannual variability in radiative forcing and snowmelt rates
 
I've been slow at compiling this, but so far:

zPvSeQP.png


So busy doing more important things. These show what I have spoken of before. The one on the left, how the snow albedo changes with all the soot and aerosols we emit and stir up. Note that it is at 0.37 parts per Trillion of weight. The one on the right is how the skies are continuing to clear, after our EPA rules in the 70's. Did you know it takes over 60 years for aerosols to fall out of the sky, at... I forget, maybe a 70% point? Our skies are still clearing except for what Asia is emitting, and yes, this graph is old and likely flattened out or rising again.

Anyone who understands these sciences enough to intelligently debate them, should only need to see the graphs without explanation.

The papers can be found with the DOI number.
 
We shouldn't forget that the earths response to solar has most likely finally come to peak, and if the next solar cycle is a weak one too, we should see less heat in the earth system from the sun, even though it peaked in 1958.

The thermal inertia is long. Decades long. The individual curves by years is how long it takes to equalize to 70% of equalization.

tYXaTbJ.png
 
Media_Truth said:
Hot damn. Thousands and thousands of Climatologists around the world are scratching their head at the problem, and you solve it in two short sentences.
Click to expand...
Not really, but it goes to the heart of the error with the alarmist perspective.
The focus on CO2 is mostly about taxation, and control, not global warming.
 
longview said:
Not really, but it goes to the heart of the error with the alarmist perspective.
The focus on CO2 is mostly about taxation, and control, not global warming.
Click to expand...

Yes, scientists will be wrong as long as they focus only on CO2. But... CO2 is where their finding is at. There is almost no grant money for other causes.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I've been slow at compiling this, but so far:

zPvSeQP.png


So busy doing more important things. These show what I have spoken of before. The one on the left, how the snow albedo changes with all the soot and aerosols we emit and stir up. Note that it is at 0.37 parts per Trillion of weight. The one on the right is how the skies are continuing to clear, after our EPA rules in the 70's. Did you know it takes over 60 years for aerosols to fall out of the sky, at... I forget, maybe a 70% point? Our skies are still clearing except for what Asia is emitting, and yes, this graph is old and likely flattened out or rising again.

Anyone who understands these sciences enough to intelligently debate them, should only need to see the graphs without explanation.

The papers can be found with the DOI number.
Click to expand...
WOW, I had no idea that such a small amount of dust could change albedo of the visible and near IR by that much!
 
longview said:
WOW, I had no idea that such a small amount of dust could change albedo of the visible and near IR by that much!
Click to expand...

I have been saying this for years and years. I finally found a study that definitively measure such an effect at such low levels. This is with no doubt in my opinion, the primary cause of our melting sheet and arctic ice.

How many times have I spoke of aerosols and land use changes being the primary cause of observed warming and melting?
 
Lord of Planar said:
I gave you the DOI number, because as time passes, and links change, it can still be found. All you have to do is copy and past "DOI: 10.1029/2012WR011986" in your favorite search engine. If you actually read peer reviewed papers, you would know that.

Here:

Dust radiative forcing in snow of the Upper Colorado River Basin: 2. Interannual variability in radiative forcing and snowmelt rates
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Dust and soot definitely cause melting. I've said this before. The IPCC incorporates that into their criteria. Quaestio posted this IPCC graph earlier.

AR5 Radiative forcing_Fig8.15_Pg697.JPG
 
Media_Truth said:
Absolutely. Dust and soot definitely cause melting. I've said this before. The IPCC incorporates that into their criteria. Quaestio posted this IPCC graph earlier.

View attachment 67252086
Click to expand...

They don't give it enough merit, just like they don't give solar enough merit.
 
longview said:
It first becomes necessary to identify the correct problem. The problem is not CO2, but energy.
CO2 is a symptom of how we currently extract energy from historically accumulated sunlight.
Solving our energy problem, will solve any issues with CO2 as a side effect.
Click to expand...

There are no issues with CO2. We don't have an energy problem.
 
jmotivator said:
The Ozone layer blocks high energy UV light from escaping the atmosphere.
Click to expand...
UV light isn't being generated by the Earth. There is nothing to 'trap'. It is not possible to trap light. The Magick Bouncing Photon argument doesn't work.
jmotivator said:
When there is a whole (hole?) it allows UV to escape,
Click to expand...
What UV? Earth doesn't generate UV!
jmotivator said:
as the whole shrinks, more UV in trapped and absorbed at the surface and converted to heat.
Click to expand...
UV is never converted to heat upon absorption. It converts to chemical reactions.
jmotivator said:
Also, the Ozone hole has now been linked back to climate,
Click to expand...
Only by twits in the 'climate' division of NASA.
jmotivator said:
where hotter temperatures generate more ozone, and colder temps produce less.
Click to expand...
Air temperature has nothing to do with ozone production, at least not until you get to a few thousand degrees.
jmotivator said:
There is little to no ozone contributed by Antarctica, so that is why the hole sits there.
Click to expand...
The hole doesn't always sit there. There is only a 'hole' in the winter of a pole. The North pole has one too.
jmotivator said:
Also, in the opposite direction, there have been theories that CFCs were responsible for post 1970 warming trends.
Click to expand...
CFCs don't affect ozone. You can put them both in a common tank and nothing will happen.
jmotivator said:
"The climate in the Antarctic stratosphere has been completely controlled by CFCs and cosmic rays,
Click to expand...

What CFC's? Did you know that cosmic rays occur EVERYWHERE ON EARTH?
jmotivator said:
with no CO2 impact.
Click to expand...
There is CO2 in Antarctica, just like everywhere else.
jmotivator said:
The change in global surface temperature
Click to expand...
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
jmotivator said:
after the removal of the solar effect
Click to expand...
Buzzword fallacy. What do you mean by 'solar effect'?
jmotivator said:
has shown zero correlation with CO2 but a nearly perfect linear correlation with CFCs - a correlation coefficient as high as 0.97."
Click to expand...
Argument from randU fallacy. CFC's do not affect either ozone or CO2.
jmotivator said:
Underscoring.. we just don't know enough to even determine a reasonable value of various mitigation plans... or if mitigation is even beneficial.
Click to expand...
Mitigation of what? Void argument.
 
Deuce said:
That does have an impact on global temperatures. Why is that funny?
Click to expand...

Nope. Ozone does not change the temperature of the Earth. No gas or vapor is capable of changing the temperature of the Earth.
 
Media_Truth said:
We have wind parks all over our area. Nobody is complaining about noise. Very few birds are killed by wind turbines. The industry has done numerous studies, and taken steps to drastically minimize the harm to our feathered friends. Compared to the mining industries disruption of habitat to all species, it's nothing.
Click to expand...

Typically it gets hawks, buzzards, and a few eagles. These birds are soaring birds. They fly by circling and looking for thermals and updrafts. The upper arc of the propeller on a windmill produces updrafts, which attracts these birds. I one circles too close while still at low altitude, THWACK!

The industry has done nothing for these birds.
 
Media_Truth said:
You should read what the polar bears have to say. Seriously, if you have a link to share, cite it and post the relative information.
Click to expand...

Polar bears generally don't say much. They just growl (I assume that means something to another polar bear). You don't care about links. You just discount them anyway.
 
Media_Truth said:
Hot damn. Thousands and thousands of Climatologists around the world are scratching their head at the problem, and you solve it in two short sentences.
Click to expand...

Argument from randU fallacy. Redefinition fallacy (consensus->science). Climate 'scientists' deny science. False Authority fallacy. Redefinition fallacy (religion->science).
 
Lord of Planar said:
I have been saying this for years and years. I finally found a study that definitively measure such an effect at such low levels. This is with no doubt in my opinion, the primary cause of our melting sheet and arctic ice.

How many times have I spoke of aerosols and land use changes being the primary cause of observed warming and melting?
Click to expand...

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom