• 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,’

iguanaman said:
Jack is invested in creating doubt and it really does not matter how he does it.

6f5b64c997206cb52ff18a239e3079cb.jpg
Click to expand...

CO2 was in cigarette smoke.

That's about the only connection between one campaign and the other.
 
calamity said:
Amazing. I haven't been to this thread in...weeks? but yet I see all of the exact same silly arguments being presented in the same desperate attempt to deny the obvious.
Click to expand...

What is the obvious that is being denied?

That CO2 is the primary cause of Global Warming?

That need not be denied. It is something that needs to be proven and it is unprovable.

However, with that said, you are free to try.

You might start with the Scientific Hypothesis presented on Global Warming with the test to falsify included.
 
Media_Truth said:
I'm not going to spend time looking at your organizations. Usually, when you quote from Scientists, it turns out that they are actually man-made climate change advocates. But you usually grab some sensationalist headline from the high schooler Watts, with your disassociated link. When your deception is called out, you simply dismiss it. You are tasked with the chore of explaining who these organizations are, and what their underlying viewpoints are... There's only two of them - it shouldn't be hard. After all, you quoted from them.
Click to expand...

Why is it that you continuously dismiss all of Jacks references, present none yourself using actual empirical data and then declare your loss a victory.

Your's is an interesting delusion.
 
Media_Truth said:
I'm not going to spend time looking at your organizations. Usually, when you quote from Scientists, it turns out that they are actually man-made climate change advocates. But you usually grab some sensationalist headline from the high schooler Watts, with your disassociated link. When your deception is called out, you simply dismiss it. You are tasked with the chore of explaining who these organizations are, and what their underlying viewpoints are... There's only two of them - it shouldn't be hard. After all, you quoted from them.
Click to expand...

My goodness. I'm afraid you misunderstand your position. You're not in a position to "task" anyone.
The organizations are named in the posts. Both are well known.
Your challenge was that the organizations did not support the "reasoning" of my posts. That is self-evidently false because they sponsored the research I cited.
 
Threegoofs said:
Odd how the phrase ‘sank into the ice’ was used, yet somehow deniers think that the ice built up on top of the plane.

Deniers gonna deny
Click to expand...

Well, yes. From further in the link:

[h=4]I. Emergency Landing In 1942[/h]In July, 1942, a squadron of six U.S. P-38 fighter planes and two B-17 bombers embarked on a flight mission to England when they were suddenly bombarded by severe weather.
All 8 planes were consequently forced to emergency-land on the southeastern corner of the Greenland ice sheet, about 29 kilometers from the coastal edge.
While all 25 of the occupants were ultimately rescued, the 8 planes had to be abandoned atop the surface of Greenland as it existed in 1942. Eventually the planes were buried beneath decades of ice and snow accumulation.
[h=4]II. The first “Lost Squadron” plane rescued in 1992…buried under 268 feet of ice[/h]Over the course of the next several decades, nostalgic interest in a search-and-recovery effort grew. After all, the Lost Squadron planes were effectively new when they were abandoned and, if preserved well enough, they could potentially be restored to flying condition .
The first several attempts to locate the planes during the 1980s were unsuccessful, as the search crews had underestimated how deep beneath the surface the planes were after 40-plus years of ice sheet growth. It ultimately took 12 tries before the first plane was spotted.
In 1988 the search crews were finally able to pinpoint the location of a P-38 that was ultimately named “Glacier Girl”. She was buried 260 feet (79.2 meters) below the surface of the ice sheet as it existed in 1988.
By 1992 the 260-foot depth had grown to 268 feet (81.7 meters), and “Glacier Girl” was slowly (piece-by-piece) retrieved from the ice.
 
Carleen said:
I talked to someone today about the 50 degree temp in NJ yesterday and the 7 degree temp this morning. I said shows you climate change is real. His response, yeah so much for global warming. So frustrating!!
Click to expand...

That's called weather, not climate change. If you're going to talk about it, it pays to understand the difference.
 
Nickyjo said:
Don't understand. What is wrong with taking steps to reduce coal burning and other contributers to pollution? As McCain said, even if the science is wrong, most of the prescriptions have other beneficial effects. We are better off less dependent on oil, with higher gas mileage, less acid rain.
Click to expand...

Define pollution.

That's the response I got from someone when talking about the same subject, fossil fuels. Define pollution. What do you say to a person that will ever change that kind of approach to solving a problem?
 
bongsaway said:
Define pollution.

That's the response I got from someone when talking about the same subject, fossil fuels. Define pollution. What do you say to a person that will ever change that kind of approach to solving a problem?
Click to expand...

Well have you tried to say what you count as pollution?

It is a real question. CO2 has massive good impacts on the world. Any bad impacts don't seem to be real to me. Can you explain any bad things from a slightly warmer world?
 
jimbo said:
That's called weather, not climate change. If you're going to talk about it, it pays to understand the difference.
Click to expand...

I understand, he does not and apparently you don’t either.
 
[h=2]Comprehensive Study: Glacier Melt Estimates In Tropics Of South America OVERSTATED BY 10 TIMES![/h]By P Gosselin on 12. February 2019
[h=2]Geographers from FAU investigating glaciers in South America in more detail than ever[/h]If you compare historical photos of glaciers with those taken more recently, you can see that where there was formerly ice there is now very often nothing but rock. Geographers, however, are less interested in the area covered by a glacier, and more interested in its mass. Researchers from FAU have now investigated all glacial areas in South America in more detail than ever before, from the tropical areas of Venezuela to the subpolar regions of Tierra del Fuego.
Their two major findings are that the highest rate of mass loss is in the Patagonian ice sheet, and that the glaciers in the tropics have lost considerably less mass than previously projected, although this is not the good news which it might appear at first sight. The researchers’ findings have been published in the journal Nature Climate Change.*
 
code1211 said:
The Claim is that CO2 is the PRIMARY cause of global warming and that we must act now to stop the various calamities this increased warming will cause by reducing CO2 concentrations.

However, the globe has been much, much warmer in the last half million year and even within this interglacial at much, much lower concentrations of CO2.

How does your understanding of this problem reconcile this obvious and glaring contradiction?

The last four glacial periods and interglacial periods are shown in the diagram below (Fig.2), covering the last 420,000 years in Earth's climatic history.


VostokTemp0-420000%20BP.gif

Fig.2. Reconstructed global temperature over the past 420,000 years based on the Vostok ice core from the Antarctica (Petit et al. 2001). The record spans over four glacial periods and five interglacials, including the present. The horizontal line indicates the modern temperature. The red square to the right indicates the time interval shown in greater detail in the following figure.
Click to expand...

What caused the CO2 increases? That's the problem with any of these analyses. Nobody knows what was going on. But if somehow that reinforces your denier fallacy, so be it.
 
code1211 said:
What is the obvious that is being denied?

That CO2 is the primary cause of Global Warming?

That need not be denied. It is something that needs to be proven and it is unprovable.

However, with that said, you are free to try.

You might start with the Scientific Hypothesis presented on Global Warming with the test to falsify included.
Click to expand...

Every major scientific organization disagrees with your denier rhetoric. The proof burden is for the deniers. And none of the ones on this forum provide any proof. They just talk about conspiracies of tens of thousands of scientists.
 
Media_Truth said:
What caused the CO2 increases? That's the problem with any of these analyses. Nobody knows what was going on. But if somehow that reinforces your denier fallacy, so be it.
Click to expand...

Generally the increased temperatures will cause the CO2 to increase as the oceans realease it as they warm.

Cold water is good at holding CO2 in it warm not so much. Try a warm Coke.
 
Media_Truth said:
Every major scientific organization disagrees with your denier rhetoric. The proof burden is for the deniers. And none of the ones on this forum provide any proof. They just talk about conspiracies of tens of thousands of scientists.
Click to expand...

We talk about the science and the evidence.
 
Media_Truth said:
What caused the CO2 increases? That's the problem with any of these analyses. Nobody knows what was going on. But if somehow that reinforces your denier fallacy, so be it.
Click to expand...

Prior to the use of Fossil Fuels, it is thought that CO2 increased as an effect of warming. It is happening today in the same way.

During warmer periods, plants grow and die as is the natural order of things. In Northern areas like Siberia, these dead plants and the carbon they contain fall on the ground and are subsequently trapped in the permafrost terrain.

When warming thaws the Permafrost, CO2 outgasses from the Permafrost. The warming causes the rise in CO2 in nature.

Conversely, when the ice age cooling begins, it causes atmospheric CO2 concentrations to drop.

All of this is published by scientists. Why do you deny science?

When permafrost melts, what happens to all that stored carbon?
 
Media_Truth said:
Every major scientific organization disagrees with your denier rhetoric. The proof burden is for the deniers. And none of the ones on this forum provide any proof. They just talk about conspiracies of tens of thousands of scientists.
Click to expand...

Then this should be easy to link to.

Please link to the Published Scientific Hypothesis for AGW and also contains the test to falsify.

Without that, all you are quoting is propaganda.

Again, what is it that you think I have denied?
 
code1211 said:
Prior to the use of Fossil Fuels, it is thought that CO2 increased as an effect of warming. It is happening today in the same way.

During warmer periods, plants grow and die as is the natural order of things. In Northern areas like Siberia, these dead plants and the carbon they contain fall on the ground and are subsequently trapped in the permafrost terrain.

When warming thaws the Permafrost, CO2 outgasses from the Permafrost. The warming causes the rise in CO2 in nature.

Conversely, when the ice age cooling begins, it causes atmospheric CO2 concentrations to drop.

All of this is published by scientists. Why do you deny science?

When permafrost melts, what happens to all that stored carbon?
Click to expand...

I'd like to know why they are deniers of science too.
 
code1211 said:
Then this should be easy to link to.

Please link to the Published Scientific Hypothesis for AGW and also contains the test to falsify.

Without that, all you are quoting is propaganda.

Again, what is it that you think I have denied?
Click to expand...

You committed a most serious crime. You committed blasphemy against the holy dogma. If this were that days of the medieval past... Off with your head maybe!

Burned at the stake?
 
Lord of Planar said:
You committed a most serious crime. You committed blasphemy against the holy dogma. If this were that days of the medieval past... Off with your head maybe!

Burned at the stake?
Click to expand...

Those Medieval guys were very creative with ghastly and torturous methods of killing.

I guess I'm glad that today's elites just torture us with blunt stupidity.

It doesn't scar or leave bruises. :)
 
[h=2]Data Show Polar Sea Ice Stable 12 Years, Cause Global Warming Alarmists To Melt Down[/h]By P Gosselin on 23. February 2019
By Kirye
and P. Gosselin
A look at the real observed data on polar sea ice shows that the situation has been surprisingly stable for more than one decade, now, despite the cult-like doomsday prophecies that much more ice would be gone by now.
For the climate change cultists who have been banking on climate system collapse and a rescue by global socialists, these are indeed depressing times.
Arctic sea ice volume stable 12 years
What really has been frustrating the climate alarmists is the Arctic, which many “experts” promised 10 years ago that the late summer Arctic ice would be gone by now. What follows is a chart of the data from the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) that shows that nothing of the sort is happening.

Data source: DMI​
As we can see, Arctic sea ice volume maximum, which occurs in early spring, still reaches the levels seen 10 years ago. Moreover the all-important summer minimum — considered a “tipping point” by doomsday climate alarmists — is even higher than it was 10 years ago. The linear trend for sea ice volume has stood steady for 12 years. . . .
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Strong Arctic sea-ice growth this year[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest Post by Javier February is not over, and Arctic sea-ice extent is already over half a million square kilometers higher than last year at this day. The growing season has not ended, and 2019 Arctic sea-ice extent is already higher than the previous four years and six out of the last 14 years. …
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom