If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Live Science)   Antarctic sea ice reaches record high levels. Scientists round up the usual suspect   (livescience.com) divider line 74
    More: Interesting, Antarctica, NASA Earth Observatory, sea ice, Antarctic Peninsula, ice shelfs, weather satellites, Ice Data Center, ozone holes  
•       •       •

2748 clicks; posted to Geek » on 13 Oct 2012 at 4:07 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



74 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-13 10:30:50 AM
So if all the arctic ice is melting and the antarctic ice is building ... if it builds the least bit uneven wouldn't the earth spin pull the antarctic ice to the equator? Then the spin would be uneven and out of balance. Then Crust shift quakes, volcanos, tsunamis, mass hysteria, dogs and cats living together

Sincerely
Mr Cussler
 
2012-10-13 10:43:15 AM
This proves global warming.
 
2012-10-13 11:15:56 AM
in other news, ice tends to melt in the summer, freeze in the winter.

DNRFA
 
2012-10-13 11:17:34 AM

notmtwain: This proves global warming.


Actually, it does. Moisture content increases exponentially with temperature. Since the average temp in Antarctica is still far below freezing, but increasing, snow and ice is building up at a higher rate.
 
2012-10-13 04:12:35 PM

Majick Thise: So if all the arctic ice is melting and the antarctic ice is building ... if it builds the least bit uneven wouldn't the earth spin pull the antarctic ice to the equator? Then the spin would be uneven and out of balance. Then Crust shift quakes, volcanos, tsunamis, mass hysteria, dogs and cats living together

Sincerely
Mr Cussler


encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com

There is a concern that the whole planet could tip over and capsize.
 
2012-10-13 04:13:33 PM

Majick Thise: Then the spin would be uneven and out of balance.


Except the little bit of sea ice doesn't weigh much when compared to the 70 miles of rock under it.
 
2012-10-13 04:21:31 PM
FTFA:The record ice pack is likely due to stronger winds caused by warming temperatures in the Antarctic, according to a NASA statement.

And this, this right here is why people are going to shout shenanigans. It isn't an untrue statement, it's just ambiguous because of the word 'warming'. If the temps are 1 degree higher than last year or 10 degrees higher over a century, say so. Because laymen reading this article are going to think of strong winds at 70 degrees as warming temperatures. "How the hell you gonna tell me that hot wind makes more ice? Huh, answer me that, Scientist!"
 
2012-10-13 04:28:44 PM

GAT_00: notmtwain: This proves global warming.

Actually, it does. Moisture content increases exponentially with temperature. Since the average temp in Antarctica is still far below freezing, but increasing, snow and ice is building up at a higher rate.


strangely enough, the most likely outcome of global warming is an ice age.
wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
 
2012-10-13 04:29:08 PM

WelldeadLink: Majick Thise: Then the spin would be uneven and out of balance.

Except the little bit of sea ice doesn't weigh much when compared to the 70 miles of rock under it.


So you read what he wrote and thought he was serious and felt you needed to correct him. You're special.
 
2012-10-13 04:30:08 PM

namatad: GAT_00: notmtwain: This proves global warming.

Actually, it does. Moisture content increases exponentially with temperature. Since the average temp in Antarctica is still far below freezing, but increasing, snow and ice is building up at a higher rate.

strangely enough, the most likely outcome of global warming is an ice age.
wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee


It is no longer believed that there is enough fresh water melting fast enough to stall the Gulf Stream.
 
2012-10-13 04:34:27 PM

Mayhem of the Black Underclass: FTFA:The record ice pack is likely due to stronger winds caused by warming temperatures in the Antarctic, according to a NASA statement.

And this, this right here is why people are going to shout shenanigans. It isn't an untrue statement, it's just ambiguous because of the word 'warming'. If the temps are 1 degree higher than last year or 10 degrees higher over a century, say so. Because laymen reading this article are going to think of strong winds at 70 degrees as warming temperatures. "How the hell you gonna tell me that hot wind makes more ice? Huh, answer me that, Scientist!"


The most valuable thing these threads have taught me is that laypeople have no intention of actually learning anything about a subject like this. It's just one more completely political issue that exists outside of the rest of reality, used only to score points in a political game. They already have their mind made up about the issue, so why bother to actually learn anything about it? That takes effort. It's much easier to just take any soundbite handed down from a journalist with zero scientific background and use it as ammunition in the endless political dick-waving contest.

There's simply no way to inject actual, topical conversation into the fight, because the fight ultimately isn't about whether or not humans are changing the climate. It's just a surrogate for the same old fight about who belongs in the White House for the next four years. I really wish they would just find some other arena to fight that battle in and leave this one for the people who are actually interested in the subject at hand, but that isn't going to happen.
 
2012-10-13 04:45:33 PM

GAT_00: namatad: GAT_00: notmtwain: This proves global warming.

Actually, it does. Moisture content increases exponentially with temperature. Since the average temp in Antarctica is still far below freezing, but increasing, snow and ice is building up at a higher rate.

strangely enough, the most likely outcome of global warming is an ice age.
wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

It is no longer believed that there is enough fresh water melting fast enough to stall the Gulf Stream.


Strange. I just finished reading the two mile time machine. Seemed clear that we should expect the unexpected. The wild, sudden swings in both directions were probably going to become the norm. Or not.

That was the best thing about the book, that while the historical data is quite clear on what has happened in the past, there is little or no way to predict what will happen in the future.

On the other hand, wont the antarctic ice pack reflect massive amounts of incoming solar energy that wont be absorbed each year? Providing some minimal cooling? If nothing else, the planet has been UNUSUALLY, almost uniquely stable the last 15k years. Isnt it about time that we return to the norm of wild fluctuations??

The best/worst part is that we will probably be living in interesting times.
 
2012-10-13 04:46:51 PM
See, the artic ice cap isn't melting. Gravity is just finally dragging all that ice down to the antartic. It's like the earth's tits are sagging. Anyone want to make the worlds largest bra?
 
2012-10-13 04:50:33 PM

namatad: GAT_00: namatad: GAT_00: notmtwain: This proves global warming.

Actually, it does. Moisture content increases exponentially with temperature. Since the average temp in Antarctica is still far below freezing, but increasing, snow and ice is building up at a higher rate.

strangely enough, the most likely outcome of global warming is an ice age.
wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

It is no longer believed that there is enough fresh water melting fast enough to stall the Gulf Stream.

Strange. I just finished reading the two mile time machine. Seemed clear that we should expect the unexpected. The wild, sudden swings in both directions were probably going to become the norm. Or not.

That was the best thing about the book, that while the historical data is quite clear on what has happened in the past, there is little or no way to predict what will happen in the future.

On the other hand, wont the antarctic ice pack reflect massive amounts of incoming solar energy that wont be absorbed each year? Providing some minimal cooling? If nothing else, the planet has been UNUSUALLY, almost uniquely stable the last 15k years. Isnt it about time that we return to the norm of wild fluctuations??

The best/worst part is that we will probably be living in interesting times.


There is data back and forth on the Gulf Stream, but newer data suggests it will only weaken by half. It will have an impact but it isn't likely to totally collapse.

And I don't think the Antarctic sheet is really expanding that much in terms of volume. The land accumulation doesn't change anything really. And there is little interaction between hemispheres in terms of weather. I don't think the gains in the Antarctic will have a significant impact.
 
2012-10-13 04:50:39 PM

namatad: strangely enough, the most likely outcome of global warming is an ice age.
wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee


No, not even close.

GAT_00: It is no longer believed that there is enough fresh water melting fast enough to stall the Gulf Stream.


The Gulf Stream is a surface boundary current. As long as we have the ocean, wind, and planetary rotation, we'll have a Gulf Stream.

You mean the AMOC (Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation).

More correctly, it is believed that the chance of a significant slowdown happening by the end of century is low (though further out the chances increase), and we don't have the kind of large ice sheets around to cause the kind of rapid cooling seen at the Younger Dryas. Even if we were to melt enough ice to slow down the AMOC, the amount of warming that would take would mean that while the North Atlantic would cool relative to the rest of the globe, it would still be warmer than present.
 
2012-10-13 04:52:22 PM

Jon Snow: You mean the AMOC (Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation).


The Gulf Stream is key to the overturn. The downwelling by Greenland needs the GS for the heat transfer. The downwelling of the Labrador current is inexorably linked to the GS, all the currents are linked.
 
2012-10-13 04:55:04 PM
If the ice sheet had been significantly smaller than normal it would still have been global warming too, right?
 
2012-10-13 05:01:32 PM

namatad: On the other hand, wont the antarctic ice pack reflect massive amounts of incoming solar energy that wont be absorbed each year? Providing some minimal cooling?


No. The change in absorbed solar radiation is far more offset by the loss of summer Arctic sea ice. Both because the loss of Arctic sea ice has been far more significant than the small increase in Antarctic sea ice, and the changes are taking place when the sun is weakest in Antarctic vs. when its strongest in the Arctic.

namatad: f nothing else, the planet has been UNUSUALLY, almost uniquely stable the last 15k years.


No. The past ~15ka are pretty typical of the kind of Milankovitch-driven glaciation cycling we've seen for the past ~2ma, definitely since the mid-Pleistocene transition.

namatad: Isnt it about time that we return to the norm of wild fluctuations??


No. We should be gradually cooling to another glacial maximum, but how long it would take to initiate in the absence of our increase in radiative forcing is still under investigation- anywhere from a few thousand to several tens of thousand years.
 
2012-10-13 05:03:24 PM

GAT_00: The Gulf Stream is key to the overturn


The Gulf Stream would exist if the ocean was made of freshwater. The AMOC would not.

I'm not going to spend any more time arguing about it. If you want to be correct, use AMOC.
 
2012-10-13 05:30:05 PM
img801.imageshack.us
 
2012-10-13 05:32:11 PM

namatad: Strange. I just finished reading the two mile time machine. Seemed clear that we should expect the unexpected. The wild, sudden swings in both directions were probably going to become the norm. Or not.

That was the best thing about the book, that while the historical data is quite clear on what has happened in the past, there is little or no way to predict what will happen in the future.


True, based on one key assumption, that the same drivers of climate which operated in the past will continue to do so in the future. The sudden (in geologic terms) appearance of a new driver forcing temperatures in a particular direction, a driver powerful enough to override even solar activity in recent decades, changes things. The underlying variability will still be present, but instead of fluctuating around a roughly stable long-term mean it will merely be superimposed on the stronger influence of the new primary driving force. As a result, we can make generalized predictions based on rising CO2 levels, but there will always be some error, both because of the underlying variability and because neither the forecast models nor the data entered into them is 100% perfect.

On the other hand, wont the antarctic ice pack reflect massive amounts of incoming solar energy that wont be absorbed each year? Providing some minimal cooling? If nothing else, the planet has been UNUSUALLY, almost uniquely stable the last 15k years. Isnt it about time that we return to the norm of wild fluctuations??

Yes, the increase in Antarctic ice will cause a slight increase in albedo, resulting in some cooling. However, the increase in Antarctic ice is trivial compared to the ongoing decrease in Arctic ice cover. The new Antarctic record beat the old record by some 20,000 square miles, while the new Arctic low-ice record beat the old mark by more than 200,000 square miles.

But the last 15,000 years have been far from stable:

www.sfu.museum

And as I noted above, the wildest ongoing fluctuation is man-made.

The best/worst part is that we will probably be living in interesting times.

Agreed.
 
2012-10-13 05:33:41 PM
Not enough ice? Global warming. Too much ice? Global warming. President Obama takes too much Xanax before debate? Global warming. Al Gore wants more money in his bank account and a larger, energy-consuming mansion? Global warming. Too many mosquitoes? Global warming. Fox News gets high ratings? Global warming. Failed a 5th grade math test? Global warming. I could go on, but I'm tired of it already. The answer to all of the world's questions but the solution to none of them.
 
2012-10-13 05:36:05 PM

SevenizGud: [img801.imageshack.us image 799x752]


www.skepticalscience.com
 
2012-10-13 05:47:44 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: SevenizGud: [img801.imageshack.us image 799x752]

[www.skepticalscience.com image 500x341]


Hush, you're only allowed to view climate in decade-long evaluations, or in 100,000 year increments according to deniers.
 
2012-10-13 05:52:45 PM

notmtwain: This proves global warming.


Well, it doesn't prove it, but it is consistent with what climate models have been predicting.

There's alot of heat that's carried northward by Gulf Stream from the Caribbean to the Arctic. It's what makes those nordic European countries so habitable. So, when there's a buildup of heat around the world thanks to an enhanced greenhouse effect, some of that extra heat moves north from the Caribbean and warms up the Arctic even more. This was one of the first predictions that climate models made (that warming would occur fastest in the Arctic) and it's turning out to be bang on.

Meanwhile, the Antarctic is surrounded by a really strong cold-water current (the Antarctic Circumpolar Current) that blocks this kind of heat transfer from the Caribbean to the south pole. Further, the depletion of the ozone layer over the South Pole has actually counteracted most warming there (ozone is another GHG and, when you remove it, temperatures can cool locally). Thus, overall, the Antarctic has been largely "immune" to global warming so far (though won't stay that way forever). Climate models predicted this too.

mlkshk.com
/hot, like global warming
 
2012-10-13 06:36:52 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: SevenizGud: [img801.imageshack.us image 799x752]

[www.skepticalscience.com image 500x341]


Why show 40 years of a much larger data set?
www.planetseed.com
 
2012-10-13 06:37:23 PM

GAT_00: There is data back and forth on the Gulf Stream, but newer data suggests it will only weaken by half. It will have an impact but it isn't likely to totally collapse.


You can't stop the signal, Mal
 
2012-10-13 06:39:09 PM

GoodHomer: notmtwain: This proves global warming.

Well, it doesn't prove it, but it is consistent with what climate models have been predicting.

There's alot of heat that's carried northward by Gulf Stream from the Caribbean to the Arctic. It's what makes those nordic European countries so habitable. So, when there's a buildup of heat around the world thanks to an enhanced greenhouse effect, some of that extra heat moves north from the Caribbean and warms up the Arctic even more. This was one of the first predictions that climate models made (that warming would occur fastest in the Arctic) and it's turning out to be bang on.

Meanwhile, the Antarctic is surrounded by a really strong cold-water current (the Antarctic Circumpolar Current) that blocks this kind of heat transfer from the Caribbean to the south pole. Further, the depletion of the ozone layer over the South Pole has actually counteracted most warming there (ozone is another GHG and, when you remove it, temperatures can cool locally). Thus, overall, the Antarctic has been largely "immune" to global warming so far (though won't stay that way forever). Climate models predicted this too.

[mlkshk.com image 561x370]
/hot, like global warming


Of course, the warming in the northern hemisphere could trigger another mini ice age to reset the balance
 
2012-10-13 06:42:30 PM

Majick Thise: So if all the arctic ice is melting and the antarctic ice is building ... if it builds the least bit uneven wouldn't the earth spin pull the antarctic ice to the equator? Then the spin would be uneven and out of balance. Then Crust shift quakes, volcanos, tsunamis, mass hysteria, dogs and cats living together

Sincerely
Mr Cussler


Gonwondo says "Wish you were Here!"

Catastrophe Planet -Keith Laumer (1966)
 
2012-10-13 06:45:18 PM
in other news, ice tends to melt in the summer, freeze in the winter.

wake up sheeple, that's what they want you to believe
 
2012-10-13 06:53:07 PM

SevenizGud: [img801.imageshack.us image 799x752]


Oh, youre back again you lying farktard. You are in every global warming thread, lying.
 
2012-10-13 06:59:47 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: SevenizGud: [img801.imageshack.us image 799x752]

[www.skepticalscience.com image 500x341]



I'm curious.. Who is paying you to post this? You have at least moved beyond that fake old graph you used to use, onto this incomprehensible bullshiat one which shows your obvious bias..
 
2012-10-13 07:01:09 PM

bhcompy: GoodHomer: notmtwain: This proves global warming.

Well, it doesn't prove it, but it is consistent with what climate models have been predicting.

There's alot of heat that's carried northward by Gulf Stream from the Caribbean to the Arctic. It's what makes those nordic European countries so habitable. So, when there's a buildup of heat around the world thanks to an enhanced greenhouse effect, some of that extra heat moves north from the Caribbean and warms up the Arctic even more. This was one of the first predictions that climate models made (that warming would occur fastest in the Arctic) and it's turning out to be bang on.

Meanwhile, the Antarctic is surrounded by a really strong cold-water current (the Antarctic Circumpolar Current) that blocks this kind of heat transfer from the Caribbean to the south pole. Further, the depletion of the ozone layer over the South Pole has actually counteracted most warming there (ozone is another GHG and, when you remove it, temperatures can cool locally). Thus, overall, the Antarctic has been largely "immune" to global warming so far (though won't stay that way forever). Climate models predicted this too.

[mlkshk.com image 561x370]
/hot, like global warming

Of course, the warming in the northern hemisphere could trigger another mini ice age to reset the balance


THat has been largely dis proven, the fresh water gulf stream thing probably wont be a problem.
 
2012-10-13 07:07:53 PM

Lt_Ryan: common sense is an oxymoron: SevenizGud: [img801.imageshack.us image 799x752]

[www.skepticalscience.com image 500x341]

Why show 40 years of a much larger data set?
[www.planetseed.com image 600x462]


Why show 400,000 years of data, if not to trivialize the dramatic changes which have occurred over the past few decades? Unless you can correlate any of those temperature changes to contemporary changes in atmospheric CO2, this is all irrelevant to any questions regarding the effects of increased CO2 on climate.

Nobody is denying that climate has changed in the past and will change in the future. What some people are denying is that human activity can effect any environmental change at all, much less that human activity can actually become a dominant factor.
 
2012-10-13 07:11:08 PM

Unknown_Poltroon: common sense is an oxymoron: SevenizGud: [img801.imageshack.us image 799x752]

[www.skepticalscience.com image 500x341]


I'm curious.. Who is paying you to post this? You have at least moved beyond that fake old graph you used to use, onto this incomprehensible bullshiat one which shows your obvious bias..



Are you sure you're not confusing me with someone else?
 
2012-10-13 07:43:11 PM
I wonder if desalination is playing a role. Seems like it would.
 
2012-10-13 07:43:45 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Mayhem of the Black Underclass: FTFA:The record ice pack is likely due to stronger winds caused by warming temperatures in the Antarctic, according to a NASA statement.

And this, this right here is why people are going to shout shenanigans. It isn't an untrue statement, it's just ambiguous because of the word 'warming'. If the temps are 1 degree higher than last year or 10 degrees higher over a century, say so. Because laymen reading this article are going to think of strong winds at 70 degrees as warming temperatures. "How the hell you gonna tell me that hot wind makes more ice? Huh, answer me that, Scientist!"

The most valuable thing these threads have taught me is that laypeople have no intention of actually learning anything about a subject like this. It's just one more completely political issue that exists outside of the rest of reality, used only to score points in a political game. They already have their mind made up about the issue, so why bother to actually learn anything about it? That takes effort. It's much easier to just take any soundbite handed down from a journalist with zero scientific background and use it as ammunition in the endless political dick-waving contest.

There's simply no way to inject actual, topical conversation into the fight, because the fight ultimately isn't about whether or not humans are changing the climate. It's just a surrogate for the same old fight about who belongs in the White House for the next four years. I really wish they would just find some other arena to fight that battle in and leave this one for the people who are actually interested in the subject at hand, but that isn't going to happen.


Sadly, it's even worse than that. Most people become wedded to whatever they currently believe, to the point that they instinctively and forcefully resist conflicting data. It's not impossible to get past this, but it takes more than facts alone. It takes a special kind of persusasion that appeals to people's desire to not be the ego-driven dumbasses they fear being, but instead be the sensible, truth-seeking people we all desire to be. It also, I have to say, demands that the person themselves be ready and willing to set aside their ego and preconceptions, and be ready to accept the possibility of having earlier misunderstood or been misled about facts. Ideally, all citizens should be naturally skeptical, and shrewd about evaluating sources -- yet also not paranoid or unduly cynical about it. (E.g., "Scientists are phonies who are in it for the money, facts be damned.")

But there's also a deeper psychology in some people -- many, actually -- known as 'foreclosure'. Foreclosed people sincerely believe they know the facts, and anyone who disagrees is simply wrong. People predisposed to foreclosure can be foreclosed about anything, but the sort of subject they are determines how their foreclosure characterises itself, and thus how they engage others. The most common forms are not closely related to easily disputed facts, and tend to express as various well-known essentialist ("the way things are") views: e.g., gays are perverts, Islam is false, persons not of my particular faith are doomed, and so on -- super-stereotypes, you might call them. When it comes to more readily debatable facts, such as scientific issues, foreclosure more commonly relies on obfuscation based on the sheer complexity or esoteric nature of whatever subject it is, depedning on particulars. Climate science, for example, is extremely complex, and involves a lot of incomplete knowledge about all the relevant facts involved (including which kinds of facts are most relevant, and how). And because most people have been inadequately schooled in the basics of the scientific method, it's very easy for them to convince themselves -- and argue to others -- that scientists who insist on a perspective that conflicts with what they firmly believe to be the real truth simply *must* be wrong, somehow. Since they don't actually understand how the science really works, they're not burdened with the problem of working through exactly *how* those scientists are wrong. It's enough for them that it "doesn't make sense" to them personally, it "sounds wrong," they may already be suspicious of well-educated people who talk about things and in ways they don't understand, and since they often assume they're about equally smart -- and also routinely conflate intelligence with education -- they find it easy to dismiss those clearly wrong-headed scientists out of hand, as either jelly-headed idiots, or people on the take.

In short, we're dealing with much more than simple *wilful* ignorance. We're dealing with people who are *pathologically* ignorant. And that does not bode well for our future, including as living beings on this tiny speck of cosmic dust. Because natural laws are not sympathetic to any of this, and they will enforce themselves in due course, brutally and without debate.
 
2012-10-13 08:03:03 PM
Ahhrrghhgh!!! The hole on the ozone layer!!!

Oh wait, that was the BS in the 80's. What are we pretending at now? Any hippie types want to make a difference, stop eating red meat. Cow gas is THE major cause. Or is that not 'sexy'...
 
2012-10-13 08:25:52 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: Unknown_Poltroon: common sense is an oxymoron: SevenizGud: [img801.imageshack.us image 799x752]

[www.skepticalscience.com image 500x341]


I'm curious.. Who is paying you to post this? You have at least moved beyond that fake old graph you used to use, onto this incomprehensible bullshiat one which shows your obvious bias..


Are you sure you're not confusing me with someone else?


My apologies, I clicked on the wrong quote bracket. Sevenizgood is the jackass.
 
2012-10-13 09:05:10 PM

Ready-set: Ahhrrghhgh!!! The hole on the ozone layer!!!

Oh wait, that was the BS in the 80's. What are we pretending at now? Any hippie types want to make a difference, stop eating red meat. Cow gas is THE major cause. Or is that not 'sexy'...


Actually, the depletion of the ozone layer is a great example of a problem that was solved through sensible international cooperation and regulation.

It is believed that if the international agreement is adhered to, the ozone layer is expected to recover by 2050.[1] Due to its widespread adoption and implementation it has been hailed as an example of exceptional international co-operation, with Kofi Annan quoted as saying that "perhaps the single most successful international agreement to date has been the Montreal Protocol".[2]
 
2012-10-13 09:06:01 PM

Unknown_Poltroon: common sense is an oxymoron: Unknown_Poltroon: common sense is an oxymoron: SevenizGud: [img801.imageshack.us image 799x752]

[www.skepticalscience.com image 500x341]


I'm curious.. Who is paying you to post this? You have at least moved beyond that fake old graph you used to use, onto this incomprehensible bullshiat one which shows your obvious bias..


Are you sure you're not confusing me with someone else?

My apologies, I clicked on the wrong quote bracket. Sevenizgood is the jackass.


No problem. I've done the same thing myself more than once.
 
2012-10-13 09:46:44 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: Unknown_Poltroon: common sense is an oxymoron: Unknown_Poltroon: common sense is an oxymoron: SevenizGud: [img801.imageshack.us image 799x752]

[www.skepticalscience.com image 500x341]


I'm curious.. Who is paying you to post this? You have at least moved beyond that fake old graph you used to use, onto this incomprehensible bullshiat one which shows your obvious bias..


Are you sure you're not confusing me with someone else?

My apologies, I clicked on the wrong quote bracket. Sevenizgood is the jackass.

No problem. I've done the same thing myself more than once.


Wait a minute here!?! You two are supposed to get in a big feud and call each other all sorts of irrational names. Many disparaging comments with regard to each others character.... What's all this rational and friendly crap? This is FARK frogdammit!
 
2012-10-13 10:12:47 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Mayhem of the Black Underclass: FTFA:The record ice pack is likely due to stronger winds caused by warming temperatures in the Antarctic, according to a NASA statement.

And this, this right here is why people are going to shout shenanigans. It isn't an untrue statement, it's just ambiguous because of the word 'warming'. If the temps are 1 degree higher than last year or 10 degrees higher over a century, say so. Because laymen reading this article are going to think of strong winds at 70 degrees as warming temperatures. "How the hell you gonna tell me that hot wind makes more ice? Huh, answer me that, Scientist!"

The most valuable thing these threads have taught me is that laypeople have no intention of actually learning anything about a subject like this. It's just one more completely political issue that exists outside of the rest of reality, used only to score points in a political game. They already have their mind made up about the issue, so why bother to actually learn anything about it? That takes effort. It's much easier to just take any soundbite handed down from a journalist with zero scientific background and use it as ammunition in the endless political dick-waving contest.

There's simply no way to inject actual, topical conversation into the fight, because the fight ultimately isn't about whether or not humans are changing the climate. It's just a surrogate for the same old fight about who belongs in the White House for the next four years. I really wish they would just find some other arena to fight that battle in and leave this one for the people who are actually interested in the subject at hand, but that isn't going to happen how much and how fast the control freaks will be able to exert totalitarian control over everyone else.


Fixed
 
2012-10-13 10:13:05 PM

Majick Thise: common sense is an oxymoron: Unknown_Poltroon: common sense is an oxymoron: Unknown_Poltroon: common sense is an oxymoron: SevenizGud: [img801.imageshack.us image 799x752]

[www.skepticalscience.com image 500x341]


I'm curious.. Who is paying you to post this? You have at least moved beyond that fake old graph you used to use, onto this incomprehensible bullshiat one which shows your obvious bias..


Are you sure you're not confusing me with someone else?

My apologies, I clicked on the wrong quote bracket. Sevenizgood is the jackass.

No problem. I've done the same thing myself more than once.

Wait a minute here!?! You two are supposed to get in a big feud and call each other all sorts of irrational names. Many disparaging comments with regard to each others character.... What's all this rational and friendly crap? This is FARK frogdammit!


You sound fat.
 
2012-10-13 10:57:18 PM

bhcompy: Of course, the warming in the northern hemisphere could trigger another mini ice age to reset the balance


No.

GoodHomer: So, when there's a buildup of heat around the world thanks to an enhanced greenhouse effect, some of that extra heat moves north from the Caribbean and warms up the Arctic even more. This was one of the first predictions that climate models made (that warming would occur fastest in the Arctic) and it's turning out to be bang on.


That's really not why the Arctic was supposed to and has warmed faster. Amplified Arctic warming is largely due to positive feedbacks relating to changes in albedo, water vapor, and cloudiness.

GoodHomer: the Antarctic is surrounded by a really strong cold-water current (the Antarctic Circumpolar Current) that blocks this kind of heat transfer from the Caribbean to the south pole.


The ACC does isolate the Antarctic from some transfer of heat poleward.

GoodHomer: Further, the depletion of the ozone layer over the South Pole has actually counteracted most warming there (ozone is another GHG and, when you remove it, temperatures can cool locally).


The reason ozone-depletion may be counteracting some otherwise expected warming is more attributable to its impact on the SAM rather than a decrease in radiative forcing.

GoodHomer: Thus, overall, the Antarctic has been largely "immune" to global warming so far (though won't stay that way forever). Climate models predicted this too.


Reconstructions of Antarctic temperature over longer (i.e. millennial) timescales are in decent agreement with simulations. However, many climate models predict too much surface warming over recent decades, possibly due to the aforementioned impact of ozone depletion on the SAM or because of a moist water vapor bias.
 
2012-10-13 11:02:36 PM

WelldeadLink: Majick Thise: Then the spin would be uneven and out of balance.

Except the little bit of sea ice doesn't weigh much when compared to the 70 miles of rock under it.


Really?
Two words: Crustal rebound.

Best example are the Great Lakes. Water levels are dropping as the rock beneath the lakes is rebounding after glacial recession. In fact some rivers that feed it will eventually reverse flow. So, yeah that little bit of ice weighs quite a bit.



However, I think some really huge stick on wheel weights would take care of the imbalance.
 
2012-10-13 11:02:41 PM

namatad: Strange. I just finished reading the two mile time machine. Seemed clear that we should expect the unexpected. The wild, sudden swings in both directions were probably going to become the norm. Or not.


Not. Unlike past instances of melting ice sheets, we're not melting back from a glacial maximum- we're already in an interglacial. We don't have the kind of massive ice sheets that can deliver the amount of meltwater that shutdown the AMOC in the past.

namatad: That was the best thing about the book, that while the historical data is quite clear on what has happened in the past, there is little or no way to predict what will happen in the future.


That's absurd. We can combine theoretical expectations, paleoclimatic evidence, modern observation, and different types of modeling to constrain the likelihood of different future behaviors of the climate system. While some aspects of future climate change are unquestionably uncertain, others are decidedly not.
 
2012-10-13 11:58:45 PM

HighZoolander: Wait a minute here!?! You two are supposed to get in a big feud and call each other all sorts of irrational names. Many disparaging comments with regard to each others character.... What's all this rational and friendly crap? This is FARK frogdammit!

You sound fat.


That's more like it! Now say something bad about my mother...
 
2012-10-14 01:21:40 AM

Majick Thise: HighZoolander: Wait a minute here!?! You two are supposed to get in a big feud and call each other all sorts of irrational names. Many disparaging comments with regard to each others character.... What's all this rational and friendly crap? This is FARK frogdammit!

You sound fat.

That's more like it! Now say something bad about my mother...


You have a mother? I swear I thought that was just a heroin-addicted penguin that your father brought home to molest.

/she was a nice lady though, in her own special way
 
2012-10-14 06:05:45 AM

common sense is an oxymoron: SevenizGud: [img801.imageshack.us image 799x752]

[www.skepticalscience.com image 500x341]


The irony to that is, the fluctuation could easily be accounted for by our SUN. But no, its all our fault. Global warming is 100% human caused and science can prove it.

/sarcasm
 
Displayed 50 of 74 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report