• 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!

Arctic Ocean and Greenland ice sheet see record June melting

Tim the plumber said:
1 billion liters is 1 Gt, or one cubic kilometer of ice.

You need 360 of them to make the ocean rise by 1mm.
Click to expand...

You must have missed this...

"Every year, billions of liters of meltwater are released into the ocean."
 
Media_Truth said:
You must have missed this...

"Every year, billions of liters of meltwater are released into the ocean."
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I am talking about.

As LoP has pointed out my initial working of it being 1/360th of a mm sea level rise was wrong, it is actually 1/360,000th of a mm.

Maybe you will come back with how many billions of such liters are released.
 
Tim the plumber said:
That is exactly what I am talking about.

As LoP has pointed out my initial working of it being 1/360th of a mm sea level rise was wrong, it is actually 1/360,000th of a mm.

Maybe you will come back with how many billions of such liters are released.
Click to expand...

Since you are the one head-butting with the Scientific community, it's your onus to research the data. Also warmer ocean waters expand, also causing sea level rise. Maybe you should further educate yourself on the subject. Here's a good link --->

Lessons in Sea-Level Rise Activity | NASA/JPL Edu
 
Media_Truth said:
Since you are the one head-butting with the Scientific community, it's your onus to research the data. Also warmer ocean waters expand, also causing sea level rise. Maybe you should further educate yourself on the subject. Here's a good link --->

Lessons in Sea-Level Rise Activity | NASA/JPL Edu
Click to expand...

Oh you who is lost to thinking...........

The are of the oceans is such that you need 360 Gt, or cubic kilometers of water, same thing, to cause a 1mm sea level rise.

If only billions of liters are flowing in it is a microscopic, actually even smaller, amount of sea level rise.

This is because of the way maths (or math if you are American) works.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Oh you who is lost to thinking...........

The are of the oceans is such that you need 360 Gt, or cubic kilometers of water, same thing, to cause a 1mm sea level rise.

If only billions of liters are flowing in it is a microscopic, actually even smaller, amount of sea level rise.

This is because of the way maths (or math if you are American) works.
Click to expand...

You are not 100% remiss in your arguments. Yearly sea level rise is in the mm (1,2,3,4) range, and can vary from area to area. The link addresses this. I've already shown you the mathematical formula for ice melting in warmer water. The link talks about the effects of sea level, even if it's only millimeters, compounded over decades. It talks about tidal salt water incursion. It also discusses thermal expansion, an issue which seems to be totally devoid from your arguments.

And of course, with warmer ocean waters, there is always the danger of a large land mass calving, especially in Antarctica, where the signs are plentiful. This can cause a major instantaneous sea level rise.
 
Media_Truth said:
You are not 100% remiss in your arguments. Yearly sea level rise is in the mm (1,2,3,4) range, and can vary from area to area. The link addresses this. I've already shown you the mathematical formula for ice melting in warmer water. The link talks about the effects of sea level, even if it's only millimeters, compounded over decades. It talks about tidal salt water incursion. It also discusses thermal expansion, an issue which seems to be totally devoid from your arguments.

And of course, with warmer ocean waters, there is always the danger of a large land mass calving, especially in Antarctica, where the signs are plentiful. This can cause a major instantaneous sea level rise.
Click to expand...

Thermal expansion is of the order of 7cm per degree rise over the century. That is if the temperature in 100 years is +1c there will be 7cm of thermal expansion.

The total thus expected by the IPCC etc. is about 21cm max.

They hired some mechanical engineers to work this out. Paid them a couple of million. Because, as an engineer you know that you don't want to give the result the client does not want they put this result on about page 3743 of a 5,000 page report. Fortunately those of us who speak engineer understood how to find it.

That was after the 3rd IPCC report (I think) and before the 4th. The 3rd had 70% of sea level rise due to thermal expansion and a total of 1m the 4th had a 56cm rise and now we are back to 1m in the 5th report.

I had not discussed this with you as you are not up to understanding any of it.

Edit 59cm.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Thermal expansion is of the order of 7cm per degree rise over the century. That is if the temperature in 100 years is +1c there will be 7cm of thermal expansion.

The total thus expected by the IPCC etc. is about 21cm max.

They hired some mechanical engineers to work this out. Paid them a couple of million. Because, as an engineer you know that you don't want to give the result the client does not want they put this result on about page 3743 of a 5,000 page report. Fortunately those of us who speak engineer understood how to find it.

That was after the 3rd IPCC report (I think) and before the 4th. The 3rd had 70% of sea level rise due to thermal expansion and a total of 1m the 4th had a 56cm rise and now we are back to 1m in the 5th report.

I had not discussed this with you as you are not up to understanding any of it.

Edit 59cm.
Click to expand...

I realize you think you are an expert, and that you know more than the folks at NASA. I linked to a scientific report. If you disagree with that, you should reference the disagreed portion, and provide your link to a peer-reviewed counter-study. I am not questioning your data, which itself can be quite damaging to worldwide coastal cities, but it's best to show the actual source references.
 
Tim the plumber said:
That is exactly what I am talking about.

As LoP has pointed out my initial working of it being 1/360th of a mm sea level rise was wrong, it is actually 1/360,000th of a mm.

Maybe you will come back with how many billions of such liters are released.
Click to expand...

LOL.

The only claim you ever trumpet is your ability to do simple maths.

And when you do, you’re off by a factor of 1000.

But... you know more than all the experts.
 
Media_Truth said:
I realize you think you are an expert, and that you know more than the folks at NASA. I linked to a scientific report. If you disagree with that, you should reference the disagreed portion, and provide your link to a peer-reviewed counter-study. I am not questioning your data, which itself can be quite damaging to worldwide coastal cities, but it's best to show the actual source references.
Click to expand...

I am not an expert.

I might know that some things are wrong with the NASA report but that would be in the real of the bleeding obvious.

I do not read links when the person posting them has obviously never read the thing themselves, as evidenced by the inability to quote the relevant bit from it.
 
Tim the plumber said:

I do not read links when the person posting them has obviously never read the thing themselves, as evidenced by the inability to quote the relevant bit from it.
Click to expand...

This is my position.

It's obvious these alarmists just copy and past links, without knowing their true content, or the true content of the source material.

I wonder if they realize how stupid it makes them look.

But then... They don't need any help in that department.
 
Lord of Planar said:
This is my position.

It's obvious these alarmists just copy and past links, without knowing their true content, or the true content of the source material.

I wonder if they realize how stupid it makes them look.

But then... They don't need any help in that department.
Click to expand...

I argue, as an atheist, with the religious types, I have been banned form several Islamic forums etc. The style of debate is exactly the same.

The tactic of plastering loads of too long to read drivel in the hope that in there some where there is the answer they need. Given they are too lazy to read it and think that every body else is the same, they presume this will send you away.
 
Tim the plumber said:
I argue, as an atheist, with the religious types, I have been banned form several Islamic forums etc. The style of debate is exactly the same.

The tactic of plastering loads of too long to read drivel in the hope that in there some where there is the answer they need. Given they are too lazy to read it and think that every body else is the same, they presume this will send you away.
Click to expand...

All it does is want to make me put them back on IGNORE. I took everyone off, because this forum doesn't properly go to the first unread when you have people in a thread on IGNORE.
 
Lord of Planar said:
All it does is want to make me put them back on IGNORE. I took everyone off, because this forum doesn't properly go to the first unread when you have people in a thread on IGNORE.
Click to expand...

Well, as I have said I consider 3goofs to be the most effective persuader for the Skeptic cause.
 
Theyre all terrible- their arguments are either appeal to authority, moving the goalpost or ad homs- all fallacies.

I was sitting on the fence with this issue for a number of years until I finally saw through all the BS. Freeman Dyson's stance was the icing on the cake.
 
PoS said:
Theyre all terrible- their arguments are either appeal to authority, moving the goalpost or ad homs- all fallacies.

I was sitting on the fence with this issue for a number of years until I finally saw through all the BS. Freeman Dyson's stance was the icing on the cake.
Click to expand...

If you are referring to pointing toward the consensus of climate scientists as an appeal to authority fallacy, you may want to look up what that means. You clearly do not know its definition.
 
calamity said:
If you are referring to pointing toward the consensus of climate scientists as an appeal to authority fallacy, you may want to look up what that means. You clearly do not know its definition.
Click to expand...

No, the consensus argument is the argumentum ad populum fallacy, thanks for reminding me.

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia
 
PoS said:
No, the consensus argument is the argumentum ad populum fallacy, thanks for reminding me.

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

You called it "appeal to authority." So, you admit that was wrong.

OK.

By the way, you're wrong about the "argumentum ad populum fallacy" as well. Shall we go 3 for 3?
 
calamity said:
You called it "appeal to authority." So, you admit that was wrong.

OK.
Click to expand...

Lie- show the quote I made that the consensus argument was appeal to authority.
 
PoS said:
Lie- show the quote I made that the consensus argument was appeal to authority.
Click to expand...

Appeal to expert opinion is not an appeal to authority. Hence, your post below is incorrect.

PoS said:
Theyre all terrible- their arguments are either appeal to authority, moving the goalpost or ad homs- all fallacies.

I was sitting on the fence with this issue for a number of years until I finally saw through all the BS. Freeman Dyson's stance was the icing on the cake.
Click to expand...

Oh, and it's also ironic as ****, given this op of yours:

Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer rips NYT claim of hottest "years on record"
 
PoS said:
Theyre all terrible- their arguments are either appeal to authority, moving the goalpost or ad homs- all fallacies.

I was sitting on the fence with this issue for a number of years until I finally saw through all the BS. Freeman Dyson's stance was the icing on the cake.
Click to expand...

So you think evolution is not real because of expert consensus too?

You think AIDS is not caused by HIV because Dr Peter Deusenberg is a well known scientist who says there’s no causal relationship?

You think rocks inserted into a vagina will heal cancer because somebody on Goop has a solid argument on it?

I find it hilarious that you can combine a criticism of ‘appeal to authority’ in the same post as saying Freeman Dyson is correct. Hilarious.
 
calamity said:
If you are referring to pointing toward the consensus of climate scientists as an appeal to authority fallacy, you may want to look up what that means. You clearly do not know its definition.
Click to expand...

That is exactly an appeal to authority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom