• 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!

Climate Change Evidence Mounts

Tim the plumber said:
So you think an event which happened 55million years ago will happen during this ice age in the next few thousand years?

You surely understand that the reason we are in an ice age period is that there is land over the South pole and a land locked sea over the North pole. This has allowed temperatures there to decend such that ice can survive a summer. It will only end when the conditions change. Untill them the earth will see intense glacial periods and interglacials such as now. Is this news for you?
Click to expand...

Prove it
 
vegas giants said:
Prove it
Click to expand...

You never went to school did you?

Cold facts
Into the deep freeze…

So how and why did Antarctica go into the deep freeze? From the discussion above, you will know that the continent’s gradual movement towards the South Pole had something to do with it. However, this is not the whole story: a polar position may be necessary for a continent to accumulate an ice sheet; but this alone does not explain why the continent is so cold and the ice cover so large. A full explanation requires consideration of other large-scale changes that took place involving Earth’s topography and atmosphere that helped to isolate the continent’s climate and to reduce the amount of warmth transferred to Antarctica from the lower latitudes.
Click to expand...

Tectonic history: into the deep freeze - Discovering Antarctica

The effect of having a continent at the pole means that the weather patern of a high pressure zone over it cannot be displaced during the summer as it is too entrnched. This combined with the high albedo makes warming very difficult. Thus ice survives and thus the next summer is even colder. Repeat.

It will end only when the continent moves suficently away from the pole.
 
Tim the plumber said:
You never went to school did you?

Cold facts
Into the deep freeze…



Tectonic history: into the deep freeze - Discovering Antarctica

The effect of having a continent at the pole means that the weather patern of a high pressure zone over it cannot be displaced during the summer as it is too entrnched. This combined with the high albedo makes warming very difficult. Thus ice survives and thus the next summer is even colder. Repeat.

It will end only when the continent moves suficently away from the pole.
Click to expand...

When I went to school I learned the value of peer reviewed studies. You present none. Lol
 
vegas giants said:
Its garbage data. It even says so in the reference. Lol
Click to expand...

Global sea level rose by about 120 m during the several mil-lennia that followed the end of the last ice age (approximately 21,000 years ago), and stabilised between 3,000 and 2,000 years ago. Sea level indicators suggest that global sea level did not change significantly from then until the late 19th century. The instrumental record of modern sea level change shows evidence for onset of sea level rise during the 19th century. Estimates for the 20th century show that global average sea level rose at a rate of about 1.7 mm yr–1.
Click to expand...

https://aamboceanservice.blob.core....rod/education/pd/climate/factsheets/issea.pdf

That any better for you?
 
Tim the plumber said:
So you think an event which happened 55million years ago will happen during this ice age in the next few thousand years?

You surely understand that the reason we are in an ice age period is that there is land over the South pole and a land locked sea over the North pole. This has allowed temperatures there to decend such that ice can survive a summer. It will only end when the conditions change. Untill them the earth will see intense glacial periods and interglacials such as now. Is this news for you?
Click to expand...

And substantially increasing the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is one way of changing conditions. That's why the ice will melt despite the different configuration of continents. There is very little doubt about this. The only contentious issue is the rate at which it will happen, which depends strongly on glacier dynamics.
 
[h=2]Since 1981 74% Of The Globe Greened And Crop Production Swelled By 95% Due To Rising CO2, Warming[/h]By Kenneth Richard on 21. October 2019
In two new papers (Chen et al., 2019, Gao et al., 2019), scientists identify an expansive greening trend for nearly 3/4ths of the globe’s land area as well as a 12.4% carbon sink increase, a 39% crop yield increase, and a 95% crop production increase since the early 1980s. The scientists attribute these trends to climate warming and rising CO2 concentrations.
74-percent-of-the-globe-is-greening-due-to-CO2-and-climate-change-Chen-2019.jpg

[h=6]Image Source: Chen et al., 2019[/h]
Global-greening-in-agricultural-areas-Gao-2019.jpg

[h=6]Image Source: Gao et al., 2019[/h]
 
Surface Detail said:
And substantially increasing the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is one way of changing conditions. That's why the ice will melt despite the different configuration of continents. There is very little doubt about this. The only contentious issue is the rate at which it will happen, which depends strongly on glacier dynamics.
Click to expand...

How much temperature rise do you think will be needed to start any net melting of Antarctica SMB?
 
Quaestio said:
Yeah, I have. See my posts below. LOP hasn't even got 10% of the way. How about you explain it yourself in your own words and calculations to show you understand the concept? Go for it.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/envi...change-evidence-mounts-38.html#post1070773465
https://www.debatepolitics.com/envi...-warning-has-come-true-12.html#post1070677674
https://www.debatepolitics.com/envi...rature-ever-could-fall-17.html#post1069638588
Click to expand...
Noted. I see you have the basic logarithmic formula for CO2 concentration which is usually glossed over. What you have managed to show is that in the most simplistic of models, doubling of CO2 has a 1.1° delta. It is worth noting that redoubling will produce a far smaller result.
 
Surface Detail said:
You question doesn't make sense. How can a mass balance melt? Ice melts. Abstract quantities don't.
Click to expand...

In order for there to be a net negative SMB you need the ice there to melt.

How much warming do you think will cause a SMB to be negative in Antarctica.

For the rest of us; The SMB apparently only refers to the change at the the surface of the ice not the whole lot of it, that is it excludes changes due to glacial movement of ice.
 
Tim the plumber said:
In order for there to be a net negative SMB you need the ice there to melt.

How much warming do you think will cause a SMB to be negative in Antarctica.

For the rest of us; The SMB apparently only refers to the change at the the surface of the ice not the whole lot of it, that is it excludes changes due to glacial movement of ice.
Click to expand...

Well done, you have managed to phrase your question so that it makes sense! But I don't see why it is relevant, given that the SMB is unlikely to ever be negative in Antarctica. The Antarctic ice will continue to diminish in that same way that it is currently diminishing: as a consequence of ice loss through glacial flow exceeding the SMB.
 
Quaestio said:
I already did. Read my posts.

I'm waiting for you to do a bit of textbook reading yourself then explain it in your own words. Hint: you could read my posts, it's not that hard.

You claim you're an "expert", but you don't know something this basic? LOL!
Click to expand...

About feedback?

The H2O feedback that there is no empirical evidence of quantification for?

I never said it exists. You guys hold on to the fear of a 4 degree temperature increase from the doubling of CO2. I have seen no estimates out there by you as to what the no feedback response is, and I used 5.25 W/m^2 at the surface for a 3.71 W/m^2 at the TOA. Then I showed what a 4 degree increase would require, which is a total of 28 W/m^2 of an increase at the surface.

Can you explain how we would get a four degree increase? Do you really think a doubling can cause that much surface change in forcing?

The ball is in your court. But maybe you already know you lost, and cannot admit it.
 
Quaestio said:
You still don't even get the basic concept of the theoretical Planck response to a doubling of CO2. It's pretty funny.
Click to expand...

Please elaborate on my ignorance.
 
Quaestio said:
LOL! You keep squirming and trying to change the subject, while showing more and more that you still don't understand what the theoretical Planck response to a doubling of CO2 is.
It's textbook stuff. Haven't you ever read any textbooks on this topic? (Rhetorical question- I know you haven't)
Click to expand...

Why am I wrong?

Please tell us. Show us the math.
 
Surface Detail said:
Well done, you have managed to phrase your question so that it makes sense! But I don't see why it is relevant, given that the SMB is unlikely to ever be negative in Antarctica. The Antarctic ice will continue to diminish in that same way that it is currently diminishing: as a consequence of ice loss through glacial flow exceeding the SMB.
Click to expand...

OK, some progress.

Given that the ice flow rate for any place is simply a function of the thickness of the ice vs gradient with modification for the constrictions and truns of the outflow glaciers, not a problem over most of Antarctica but significant in Greenland.

How is the ice meant to get to the sea quicker if the ice is not going to get thicker?
 
To the rest;

You might want to review today's exchanges. It is quite spectacular.

The whole of the world's ice will melt according to Surface detail.
 
Tim the plumber said:
To the rest;

You might want to review today's exchanges. It is quite spectacular.

The whole of the world's ice will melt according to Surface detail.
Click to expand...

He mist know since he details the surface...
 
Quaestio said:
Not 'dancing around anything'. If you hadn't already noticed, my interest is the science, not the politics.

There are plenty of reports by experts for you to read re plans for reducing carbon emissions. Why not read them- instead of posting silly hysterical alarmist strawman statements?
Click to expand...

I have read what your supposed experts write about, and the drastic cuts they want to make with regards to it is laughable, especially if not every single country abides by it. The only ones who believe in making a difference are the net zero advocates who want to go full stop on using fossil fuels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom