• 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,’

Nickyjo said:
And who is quarreling with that? The point is that unregulated fossil fuels are also poison. Would you not have regulated just a bit after thousands died in London?
Click to expand...

They are highly regulated already, and nobody is asking to reduce necessary regulations.
 
longview said:
To do this kind of balanced evaluation, we would need to understand the actual risks, not the hypothetical ones.
Comparing the convenience of cars to Florida to remaining above water, is a false risk cause analysis.
The Sea levels have been steadily increasing since long before CO2 emissions started to rise.
Our society has benefited enormously from hydrocarbon based fuels, the only real problem is we do not have
enough of them to allow everyone alive to live a first world lifestyle for very long.
We ether have to make our own hydrocarbon fuels, or find some other way to carry around energy in an equally dense package.
Click to expand...

Why not, as Mao was supposed to have said, "let a hundred flowers bloom?" Use fossil fuels and all the alternatives.

Not saying yours is the case, but if people on the left get overwrought describing enviornmental problems, people on the right do the same when faced with potential solutions. AOC and others present a comprehensive plan for dealing with the problem, with ideas good, bad, impractical and possible, and instead of engaging the proposal, people start screaming about her banning cow farts and air travel, the equivalent of the left claiming that the only conservative plan is "drill baby drill."
 
Nickyjo said:
Why not, as Mao was supposed to have said, "let a hundred flowers bloom?" Use fossil fuels and all the alternatives.

Not saying yours is the case, but if people on the left get overwrought describing enviornmental problems, people on the right do the same when faced with potential solutions. AOC and others present a comprehensive plan for dealing with the problem, with ideas good, bad, impractical and possible, and instead of engaging the proposal, people start screaming about her banning cow farts and air travel, the equivalent of the left claiming that the only conservative plan is "drill baby drill."
Click to expand...
The , Why Not? likely leads to the heart of the problem.
It is unclear if the entire AGW movement has less to do with CO2 and is more about control of how people live.
If they really wanted to lower CO2 emissions, the plan would be to enable and encourage very fast solar growth.
This would generate very large seasonal surpluses, which could be used to make carbon neutral fuels in existing refineries.
This type of plan would likely already be economically viable with the European fuel price structures, but the governments
would loathed give up the revenue from those fuel taxes.
In the US that would take a little longer, but the price of oil generally increases over time.
 
longview said:
The , Why Not? likely leads to the heart of the problem.
It is unclear if the entire AGW movement has less to do with CO2 and is more about control of how people live.
Click to expand...
:roll:


If they really wanted to lower CO2 emissions, the plan would be to enable and encourage very fast solar growth.
Click to expand...
Uhhhh hello, McFly? What part of constantly pushing sustainable energy did you miss?


This would generate very large seasonal surpluses, which could be used to make carbon neutral fuels in existing refineries.
Click to expand...
Uhhhh hello, McFly? What part of constantly working on energy storage did you miss?

By the way, you do understand that energy generation is only 25% of the source of CO2? We can't fix this issue solely by phasing out coal, y'know.

global_emissions_sector_2015.png



This type of plan would likely already be economically viable with the European fuel price structures, but the governments
would loathed give up the revenue from those fuel taxes.
Click to expand...
Oh, really? Is that why European governments have offered big subsidies for electric cars? Why Germany set a target for 1 million EVs on the roads by 2020?


In the US that would take a little longer, but the price of oil generally increases over time.
Click to expand...
Try again.

Global Brent Crude Indexed.jpg
 
Nickyjo said:
And who is quarreling with that? The point is that unregulated fossil fuels are also poison. Would you not have regulated just a bit after thousands died in London?
Click to expand...

Of course. "And who is quarreling with that?"
 
Visbek said:
:roll:



Uhhhh hello, McFly? What part of constantly pushing sustainable energy did you miss?



Uhhhh hello, McFly? What part of constantly working on energy storage did you miss?

By the way, you do understand that energy generation is only 25% of the source of CO2? We can't fix this issue solely by phasing out coal, y'know.




Oh, really? Is that why European governments have offered big subsidies for electric cars? Why Germany set a target for 1 million EVs on the roads by 2020?








Try again.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you have missed the discussions about why net metering is an unsustainable concept!
We need a plan that allows both solar homeowner and the utility required for grid tied operations to survive.
Energy storage in the key, and we need to be considering all type of energy storage.
We are wasting money on CO2 centered plans, when CO2 is not the problem, energy is.
By the way Europe's electrical grid is no more prepared to handle the load of charging all those electric cars than ours.
The fastest adoption path would be to provide carbon neutral fuels at the pump, that are less expensive than the fuels made from oil.
And YES oil prices over the long term have been steadily increasing, this trend will continue
as oil becomes more difficult to find and extract.
 
Heh heh. Just like Jim Steele predicted.

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Inconvenient: NASA says a Greenland glacier did an about-face – growing again[/h][FONT=&quot]“…scientists were so shocked to find the change.” From NASA JPL: Cold Water Currently Slowing Fastest Thinning Greenland Glacier NASA research shows that Jakobshavn Glacier, which has been Greenland’s fastest-flowing and fastest-thinning glacier for the last 20 years, has made an unexpected about-face. Jakobshavn is now flowing more slowly, thickening, and advancing toward the ocean…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
Visbek said:
:roll:



Uhhhh hello, McFly? What part of constantly pushing sustainable energy did you miss?



Uhhhh hello, McFly? What part of constantly working on energy storage did you miss?

By the way, you do understand that energy generation is only 25% of the source of CO2? We can't fix this issue solely by phasing out coal, y'know.

global_emissions_sector_2015.png




Oh, really? Is that why European governments have offered big subsidies for electric cars? Why Germany set a target for 1 million EVs on the roads by 2020?



Try again.

View attachment 67253375
Click to expand...

Nice pie chart. Really demonstrates the same REAL challenges that mankind is confronted with. And in reality, the slice that shows "Electricity and Heat Production" should really be 2 different slices. They are two separate problems that require two separate solutions. Probably more like 200 separate solutions.

I noticed the usual off-topic responses.
 
Busted!

German Analyses: Bevis et al 2019 Misrepresents Greenland Ice Melt Data, Falsely Claims Accelerating Ice Melt

By P Gosselin on 20. April 2019
When Greenland ice melt data are correctly presented, Greenland it has in fact decelerated recently, thus contradicting alarmist claims by a new paper’s authors.
The “Illi omnia experti“ climate science

By Uli Weber
(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)
Result: From the diagrams A to D by Bevis et al. (2019) it can be deduced that, contrary to the predicted trend, the loss of Greenland ice mass has decreased considerably since 2013.”
​
There a peculiar time axis jump in diagram “D” to support the alarmist statement in question had become apparent:
“In diagram ‘D’ it is also noticeable that the residuals are shown on a shortened time scale only until mid-2014, instead of showing the complete data set until mid-2015.”
​
The questionable depiction looks like this, paying particular attention to the black arrows between illustrations (B) and (D) in the area of the time axis of (B):
gr1.jpg


Figure: Diagram B to D from Fig. 1 of Bevis et al. (2019). Source: Michael Bevis et al.: Accelerating changes in ice mass within Greenland, and the ice sheet’s sensitivity to atmospheric forcing, PNAS published ahead of print January 22, 2019 [url]https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1806562116[/URL] (Open access article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND))​
We also stated at the time: “The residuals in diagram “D” are therefore missing for a whole year, although the corresponding data for the period from mid-2014 to mid-2015 have already been shown in diagram “B”. This circumstance was compensated for by stretching the time axis in diagram “D” to the time axis of diagram “B” and marking the time jump between the two diagrams of about one year with black arrows.”. . . .
If one scales the time axis of the residuals (D) to that of the ice loss curve (B) and adds the missing data in a separate overlay, there is no “pause” for the period 2013/2014, but rather a clear mass increase since 2013 for the glacier ice, which is supposedly melting more and more.
gr2.jpg

​
Figure: Overlay of the authors diagram plus original diagram (D) from Fig. 1 of Bevis et al. (2019) [url]https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1806562116[/URL] (Merely changing the format never creates a derivative). Note: The red bordered overlay is an own work of the author, which shows the data missing from diagram (B) of Bevis et al. (2019) but only graphically.​
The arbitrary shortening of a comparative time series while simultaneously stretching the relevant time scale, from which a decisive argumentative conclusion is then derived, is no coincidental technical oversight. It is clearly a targeted data manipulation to support an alarming statement, which, if the underlying data had been correctly presented, would show the opposite:
No more alarm: the ice melt on Greenland has slowed significantly since 2013.
Conclusion: . . . they as well are doing everything they can to help a global climate religion achieve a breakthrough. So they are not climate scientists at all, but climate climate religious missionaries – and they are cleverly misusing the credibility of science as a vehicle for spreading their climate ideology. Modern natural sciences, of all things, were once an essential instrument of the Enlightenment, which finally freed us from a strictly religious absolutism.
 
[h=2]Arctic Ice Gain Embarrasses Global Warming Scientists. 40-Year Meteorologist: “Don’t Be Surprised Over What Happens Next 10 -15 Years![/h]By P Gosselin on 21. April 2019
Yesterday I wrote here how some scientists misrepresent the observed data concerning Greenland ice melt in order to get the alarming results they want. There we see that Greenland has been melting, but recently much more slowly than what we are often led to believe.
Looking at the latest Greenland ice volume data from the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI), we see that currently the ice volume is below normal, but well within the range of the past 17 years:

Data source: Danish Meteorological Institute. Chart by Kirye.​
Also Tony Heller at Real Science here plotted Arctic ice volume for the past 12 years in succession. Here’s how all the media-claimed rapid Arctic melting really looks like:

Chart source: Real Science.​
Surprise! Arctic sea ice hasn’t been melting at all. Instead it has been gaining in mass 12 years now. This is quite embarrassing to the global warming alarmists. And, believe it or not, things might even get a whole lot more embarrassing when we look at natural cycles.
Natural oceanic cycles behind the trend?

Likely natural oceanic cycles, possibly with a link to solar activity, have inconveniently reversed the trend.
At a recent Weatherbell Saturday Summary, 40-year veteran meteorologist Joe Bastardi brought up the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) factor. Bastardi shows how in 2005 the North Atlantic sea surface temperatures (SSTs) were above normal, and they led to melting ice.

Image cropped from Weatherbell Saturday Summary, April 13, 2019.​
North Atlantic cooling
But today the picture has flipped to colder than normal North Atlantic SSTs, which naturally put the brakes on melting, or even reverse the trend and cause ice mass to increase just as it has done over the past 12 years.
“Don’t be surprised over what happens in 10 – 15 years”
Joe noted in the video:
It’s funny. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, this whole missive about Arctic ice and hurricanes – don’t be surprised over what happens over the next 10 to 15 years. […] We are now cooling in the Northwest Atlantic.”
​
Happy Easter everybody!
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Basic Science: 4 Keys to Melt Fears About Ice Sheets Melting[/h][FONT=&quot]William Ward, April 18, 2019 The world is drowning in articles about catastrophic sea level rise (SLR), reminding us that if the ice sheets melt, 260 feet of water will flood our coastal cities. We know that sea level today is 20-30 feet lower than it was at the end of the last interglacial period…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/25/basic-science-4-keys-to-melt-fears-about-ice-sheets-melting/"]
fig01-460x260.png
[/URL][/FONT]
[h=1]Basic Science: 4 Keys to Melt Fears About Ice Sheets Melting[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]William Ward, April 18, 2019 The world is drowning in articles about catastrophic sea level rise (SLR), reminding us that if the ice sheets melt, 260 feet of water will flood our coastal cities. We know that sea level today is 20-30 feet lower than it was at the end of the last interglacial period…[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/25/basic-science-4-keys-to-melt-fears-about-ice-sheets-melting/"]Continue reading →[/URL][/FONT]
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Pseudoscientific gibberish. You don't measure heat in °C, you measure it in joules. The whole article makes no sense.
 
Make Greenland green again.

MGGA

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 
OrphanSlug said:
We all knew it was coming. Not to worry conservatives, the Koch Brothers are coming up with a counter to all this shortly.
Click to expand...

Yeah I am sure. The answer is: more guns!

You got nuthin' to worry about if you got your AR15. No stinkin' drought, flood, fire, hurricane, and rising water level will mess with you then! It's only those libs who think big bad gubmint needs to step in and protect you when all good patriotic Americans know you can buy your own AR15 and take care of yourself! Amiright? :lamo
 
Surface Detail said:
Pseudoscientific gibberish. You don't measure heat in °C, you measure it in joules. The whole article makes no sense.
Click to expand...

It appears you did not read.

[FONT=&quot]Where E is thermal energy (Joules), m is the mass (kg), c is the “specific heat” constant (J/kg/°C), ∆T is the change in temperature (°C), and L is the latent heat constant (J/kg). Specific heat is the amount of heat energy that we must add (or remove) from a specified mass to increase (or decrease) the temperature of that mass by 1 °C. Latent heat is the thermal energy released or absorbed during a constant temperature phase change. If we know the mass of the ice, water or atmosphere, it is easy to calculate the amount of energy it takes to change its temperature, melt it or freeze it.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Understanding that energy is conserved when melting ice, the equations above can be used to calculate the temperature effects that must be observed in the oceans or atmosphere to support an ice melt scenario. We can provide reasonable bounds and reduce the uncertainty.[/FONT]
 
Surface Detail said:
Pseudoscientific gibberish. You don't measure heat in °C, you measure it in joules. The whole article makes no sense.
Click to expand...

There you go, making ignorant assumptions again and proving you didn't read the link. Proving you don't understand science, and how variables are used in the formulas of physics.

One of the paragraphs:

(1) E = mc∆T

(2) E = mL

Where E is thermal energy (Joules), m is the mass (kg), c is the “specific heat” constant (J/kg/°C), ∆T is the change in temperature (°C), and L is the latent heat constant (J/kg). Specific heat is the amount of heat energy that we must add (or remove) from a specified mass to increase (or decrease) the temperature of that mass by 1 °C. Latent heat is the thermal energy released or absorbed during a constant temperature phase change. If we know the mass of the ice, water or atmosphere, it is easy to calculate the amount of energy it takes to change its temperature, melt it or freeze it.
​

Please note the use upper case "C" for Celsius, and lower case "c" for heat.

Have you ever done any practical science?
 
Eriech said:
Make Greenland green again.

MGGA

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I can get on board with that.

They would have to rebuild where I work, since it's near sea level. I'm right about 300 ft. in elevation where I live.

I'm prepared!
 
Lord of Planar said:
I can get on board with that.

They would have to rebuild where I work, since it's near sea level. I'm right about 300 ft. in elevation where I live.

I'm prepared!
Click to expand...

Your house and all of Southeast Asia.

https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/29657/economics-climate-change-se-asia.pdf

As one of the world’s most dynamic regions, the study shows that rapid economic growth in past
decades has raised large numbers of people out of the extreme poverty trap in Southeast Asia. But
incidence of income and non-income poverty is still very high, and achieving Millennium Development
Goals (MDG) remains a daunting task. If not addressed adequately, climate change would have serious
negative consequences for the region’s sustainable development and poverty eradication policies and
agenda.
The study observed that climate change is already affecting Southeast Asia, with rising temperature,
decreasing rainfall, rising sea levels, increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events leading
to massive flooding, landslides and drought causing extensive damage to property, assets, and human life.
Climate change is also exacerbating the problem of water stress, affecting agriculture production, causing
forest fires, degrading forests, damaging coastal marine resources, and increasing outbreaks of infectious
diseases.
 
Media_Truth said:
Your house and all of Southeast Asia.

https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/29657/economics-climate-change-se-asia.pdf

As one of the world’s most dynamic regions, the study shows that rapid economic growth in past
decades has raised large numbers of people out of the extreme poverty trap in Southeast Asia. But
incidence of income and non-income poverty is still very high, and achieving Millennium Development
Goals (MDG) remains a daunting task. If not addressed adequately, climate change would have serious
negative consequences for the region’s sustainable development and poverty eradication policies and
agenda.
The study observed that climate change is already affecting Southeast Asia, with rising temperature,
decreasing rainfall, rising sea levels, increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events leading
to massive flooding, landslides and drought causing extensive damage to property, assets, and human life.
Climate change is also exacerbating the problem of water stress, affecting agriculture production, causing
forest fires, degrading forests, damaging coastal marine resources, and increasing outbreaks of infectious
diseases.
Click to expand...

You know, the sea is rising with or without our help. We only make it rise a small amount faster.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Your link in post 443 is not a study.
Click to expand...

First 2 paragraphs:

The Economics of Climate Change in Southeast Asia: A Regional Review is the result of a 15-month
long Asian Development Bank (ADB) technical assistance project, funded by the Government of the United
Kingdom, which examines climate change issues in Southeast Asia, with a particular focus on Indonesia,
Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam.
The study is intended to enrich the debate on the economics of climate change that includes the
economic costs and benefits of unilateral and regional actions.

Oops!
 
Media_Truth said:
First 2 paragraphs:

The Economics of Climate Change in Southeast Asia: A Regional Review is the result of a 15-month
long Asian Development Bank (ADB) technical assistance project, funded by the Government of the United
Kingdom, which examines climate change issues in Southeast Asia, with a particular focus on Indonesia,
Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam.
The study is intended to enrich the debate on the economics of climate change that includes the
economic costs and benefits of unilateral and regional actions.

Oops!
Click to expand...

Why doesn't it say "this study?"

OK, call it a study if you like. It isn't a peer reviewed paper.
 
Last edited:
Surface Detail said:
Pseudoscientific gibberish. You don't measure heat in °C, you measure it in joules. The whole article makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Lord of Planar said:
There you go, making ignorant assumptions again and proving you didn't read the link. Proving you don't understand science, and how variables are used in the formulas of physics.

One of the paragraphs:

(1) E = mc∆T

(2) E = mL

Where E is thermal energy (Joules), m is the mass (kg), c is the “specific heat” constant (J/kg/°C), ∆T is the change in temperature (°C), and L is the latent heat constant (J/kg). Specific heat is the amount of heat energy that we must add (or remove) from a specified mass to increase (or decrease) the temperature of that mass by 1 °C. Latent heat is the thermal energy released or absorbed during a constant temperature phase change. If we know the mass of the ice, water or atmosphere, it is easy to calculate the amount of energy it takes to change its temperature, melt it or freeze it.
​

Please note the use upper case "C" for Celsius, and lower case "c" for heat.

Have you ever done any practical science?
Click to expand...

Surface... I wonder if you will ever get to that point on the D-K curve that says "it's more complicated than I thought," or if you will always stay to the left of it.

It appears you don't even know what you don't know. Is that why you think you know more than you do?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Why doesn't it say "this study?"

OK, call it a study if you like. It isn't a peer reviewed paper.
Click to expand...

I just reviewed it, and I have a Bachelor of Science degree. So now it's peer-reviewed - at least moreso than your criticism of it :mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom