• 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 Roof is on Fire

I see I made some errors, mostly spelling in my previous post. I will correct it, and elaborate in blue:

You made more than spelling errors.

Lord of Planar said:
You read into my words with your confirmation bias.

No... that actually is what you are doing.

Lord of Planar said:
It is both. The albedo of ice decreases with age. Aerosols also affect it. It is both. One again, you, a champion of the dogma, failing to see it is both. You chose albedo as being a sign of natural and unnatural changes, which it is, but refuse to acknowledge it is decreased farther by aerosols.

Don't you see how complicated this field is? You can't reduce it down like your pundits say, and claim one view without acknowledging the other, and maintain any integrity for the truth. Refusing to talk about the inconvenient facts shows you are one to be ignored, along with anyone else who denies the inconvenient science aspects.

What the heck are you talking about? I didn't say anything that even suggests that I don't understand that black carbon is an important factor in how well the surface absorbs solar radiation. To suggest that I said anything like that is a good reason to ignore intellectually dishonest people like you.

Lord of Planar said:
The capacity for heat transfer between the air and ice is very small compared to radiant absorption. Aerosol increases by man increase the heat absorbed by radiant energy by a significant amount, like 5% to 20% and greater, above natural albedo changes.

You're missing the point. The reason that albedo has been changing so much has more to do with ice and snow becoming darker due to the melting than with how much soot is on the surface. And I have seen studies that confirm this fact.

You, on the other hand... believe that soot is the larger factor. Problem is... as far as I have seen you are completely unable to back this up.
 
You're missing the point. The reason that albedo has been changing so much has more to do with ice and snow becoming darker due to the melting than with how much soot is on the surface. And I have seen studies that confirm this fact.

The level of albedo change due to melting and aging is not a variable that has changed between before industrialization, and now. Aerosols however have.
 
The level of albedo change due to melting and aging is not a variable that has changed between before industrialization, and now. Aerosols however have.

prove it.
 
prove it.

OMG, you serious?

LOL....

What makes you think that melting and aging ice is different now than before?

LOL...

Sure, it might get to the greatest albedo loss ever so slightly quicker, but it still stops at a certain point.

Can you show otherwise?

You are the guys making unfounded claims. You prove it.
 
The level of albedo change due to melting and aging is not a variable that has changed between before industrialization, and now. Aerosols however have.

You are very wrong on this point. Read the NSIDC link in #159.
 
OMG, you serious?

Of course, I am!

Lord of Planar said:
What makes you think that melting and aging ice is different now than before?

Because lots of the snow and ice mass up north is in decline in many places. This leads to lowered albedo and more warming. Not a hard thing to understand.

Lord of Planar said:
Sure, it might get to the greatest albedo loss ever so slightly quicker, but it still stops at a certain point.

??

Lord of Planar said:
Can you show otherwise?

You are the guys making unfounded claims. You prove it.

Yes, and I have shown you a peer-reviewed and published study that backs this up before. Not my problem you denialists have selective memories.
 
And here is where I quoted and linked to a study that said this:

It is important to point out that variation in impurity content of snow is not the major cause of surface-albedo variation in the Arctic spring. The major variable affecting snow albedo is the effective grain size (Wiscombe and Warren, 1980), which for a nonspherical snow grain is proportional to the volume-to-area ratio (Grenfell and Warren, 1999). The effective grain radius for new snow is 50–100 μm, and for old melting snow it is ∼ 1000 μm; the corresponding broadband albedo reduction in pure deep snow is ∼ 0.12 (Fig. 1 of Warren and Wiscombe, 1985). This difference is much larger than the albedo difference caused by the typical concentrations of impurities we find in Arctic snow.
 
The level of albedo change due to melting and aging is not a variable that has changed between before industrialization, and now. Aerosols however have.

You still can't back this belief of your's up... can you? I can back up mine.
 
You still can't back this belief of your's up... can you? I can back up mine.

I have becaked it up before.

Again, for the umpteenth millionth time, I'm not going to look up papers that have been shown before, every time you forget.
 
I have becaked it up before.

Again, for the umpteenth millionth time, I'm not going to look up papers that have been shown before, every time you forget.

I don't believe you have shown any such papers. I have been on this forum paying very close attention to this section for 5 years now and don't remember you ever coming up with anything.

I think you are lying again.

Besides... if all you're ever going to do on this forum is make statements and then refuse to back them up then you really are just trolling.

So tell me Lord, are you here to debate or just troll?
 
I don't believe you have shown any such papers. I have been on this forum paying very close attention to this section for 5 years now and don't remember you ever coming up with anything.

I think you are lying again.

Besides... if all you're ever going to do on this forum is make statements and then refuse to back them up then you really are just trolling.

So tell me Lord, are you here to debate or just troll?
Not my problem. Other here know I have.

Some say the definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over expecting different results.

I know better. Why should I keep posting the same material, when you guys will still deny the science?

Perhaps, you should understand things the first time, instead of being a denier of science.
 
Not my problem. Other here know I have.

Some say the definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over expecting different results.

I know better. Why should I keep posting the same material, when you guys will still deny the science?

Perhaps, you should understand things the first time, instead of being a denier of science.

Yeah... well it is your problem because you lose credibility when you constantly refuse to back up your statements.

And it is hypocritical when you are frequently demanding that others have to back themselves up with nothing but peer-reviewed studies.

Why don't you just admit it... you just can't back yourself up on this.
 
Yeah... well it is your problem because you lose credibility when you constantly refuse to back up your statements.

And it is hypocritical when you are frequently demanding that others have to back themselves up with nothing but peer-reviewed studies.

Why don't you just admit it... you just can't back yourself up on this.

I don't let pundits like you waste my time. It's not me losing credibility, it's you.
 
I don't let pundits like you waste my time. It's not me losing credibility, it's you.

:lamo

I'm the one who can(and did) back up my belief. You didn't(and likely can't) back up your belief. You even told me I should back myself up. Why can't you?

So who is the pundit and who is engaging in debate?
 
Back
Top Bottom