• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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: New study slashes estimate of icecap loss

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Huh? What you are saying is basically the same as asking why it is not half as dark when you dive 15 feet deep instead of 10 feet deep since there is 50 percent more water to block the sunlight.

No, what I'm saying is that the theory that man is driving global temperature trends is an absurd hubris affected by people desperate to have a religion.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
79,217
Reaction score
35,335
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Like the reduction in the longwave radiation leaving Earth?

Maybe the atmosphere contains some OTHER type of gas that we've somehow never discovered before, and THAT gas is absorbing all the longwave infrared radiation!
 

marduc

don't panic
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
5,331
Reaction score
3,589
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
No, what I'm saying is that the theory that man is driving global temperature trends is an absurd hubris affected by people desperate to have a religion.

This response is nothing but a fall back to a generic rhetorical spiel about how you think the AGW religion is absurd, and is no way shape or form what you were saying unless I suffer from the same reading comprehension you accuse others of.

You made a specific statement regarding there not being a 40% rise in temperature as a result of 40% more CO2.

I have no clue how the hell one is supposed to interpret "And yet, temperatures haven't gone up "40%" in response to "CO2 has gone up about 40%" to be the same as the generic canned message I quoted above.

That was a good canned red meat response though, although it had nothing to do with what you were being called on.
 
Last edited:

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
79,217
Reaction score
35,335
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This response is nothing but a fall back to a generic rhetorical spiel about how you think the AGW religion is absurd, and is no way shape or form what you were saying unless I suffer from the same reading comprehension you accuse others of.

You made a specific statement regarding there not being a 40% rise in temperature as a result of 40% more CO2.

I have no clue how the hell one is supposed to interpret "And yet, temperatures haven't gone up "40%" in response to "CO2 has gone up about 40%" to be the same as the generic canned message I quoted above.

That was a good canned red meat response though, although it had nothing to do with what you were being called on.

He's also ignoring that nobody ever argued that CO2 was the only driver of temperature, or that the effects of CO2 were linear. No, 40% increase in CO2 did not create a 40% increase in temperature. Why would you ever expect that it would? What on earth gave you the idea that any scientist had ever argued this?

Then there's the "oh it's just ARROGANT to think we can affect temperatures" nonsense. No, arrogant is thinking your actions have no consequences.
 

RobCeres

New member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Location
Boalsburg, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
When fakes talk about ice melting in the Arctic, they pretend that the 0.6°C claimed increase in global average air temperature is the cause. Supposedly, the warm air is melting the ice. Such a miniscule temperature increase does not have the slightest ability to melt a slight amount of Arctic ice. Air has little heat capacity compared to water, and a massive amount of heat is needed to change the state of ice to water. And heat does not go downward, it goes upward. For these reasons, only warm ocean water could be responsible for the Arctic ice melting. None of these basic principles of science are evaluated by the charlatans—on either side of the issue.
CO2 Charlatanism.

This statement is demonstrably false. Anyone can have their middle or high school student run a science fair experiment that will prove the statement to be untrue (and probably win the fair!) Here is how: Take two identical bowls with equal amounts of ice. Transfer the bowls into and out of your freezer such that the average air temperatures work out to 32 degrees F and 32.6 degrees F. For instance, if your freezer is 0 degrees F and your house is at 68 degrees F you could keep the first bowl in the freezer for 32 minutes and then on the counter for 27 minutes (average temp = 32), and keep the second bowl in the freezer for 32 minutes and on the counter for 28 min (average temp = 32.66). Do this for several hours, measuring average ice mass for each bowl and you will discover that the small difference in average temperature has a big difference in the total ice mass. Alternatively you could measure liquid volume. Now, use much bigger bowls (say Arctic Ocean sized) and longer time spans (measured in seasons) and see if the experiment corresponds to observational actual data.
 

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This statement is demonstrably false. Anyone can have their middle or high school student run a science fair experiment that will prove the statement to be untrue (and probably win the fair!) Here is how: Take two identical bowls with equal amounts of ice. Transfer the bowls into and out of your freezer such that the average air temperatures work out to 32 degrees F and 32.6 degrees F. For instance, if your freezer is 0 degrees F and your house is at 68 degrees F you could keep the first bowl in the freezer for 32 minutes and then on the counter for 27 minutes (average temp = 32), and keep the second bowl in the freezer for 32 minutes and on the counter for 28 min (average temp = 32.66). Do this for several hours, measuring average ice mass for each bowl and you will discover that the small difference in average temperature has a big difference in the total ice mass. Alternatively you could measure liquid volume. Now, use much bigger bowls (say Arctic Ocean sized) and longer time spans (measured in seasons) and see if the experiment corresponds to observational actual data.


you'd get laughed at for junk science. your method of attaining "average" temp is fundamentally flawed. same situation taken to an extreme, instead of leaving #2 on the counter 28 minutes, stick it in an oven at 100 degrees for about 18.5 minutes. you still get an "average" temperature of around 32.6 but your melt rate is going to be different.

when it comes to ice melt, average temperatures are almost meaningless. it is the highs and lows and the durations that affect ice melt
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
79,217
Reaction score
35,335
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
you'd get laughed at for junk science. your method of attaining "average" temp is fundamentally flawed. same situation taken to an extreme, instead of leaving #2 on the counter 28 minutes, stick it in an oven at 100 degrees for about 18.5 minutes. you still get an "average" temperature of around 32.6 but your melt rate is going to be different.

when it comes to ice melt, average temperatures are almost meaningless. it is the highs and lows and the durations that affect ice melt

Yes, and a higher average temperature means it spends more time at those warmer temperatures...

Also, I don't think MrV realizes that ocean temperatures are absolutely paid very close attention to.
 

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yes, and a higher average temperature means it spends more time at those warmer temperatures...

not necessarily. it could mean that the highs are just higher. point is, as a means of describing global climate, "average temp" is pretty meaningless. for example, one day in Basrah the "average temp" for the day was 78 F. seems pretty pleasant until you realize that the high for the day was 110 F and it dropped down to 45 F that night.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
79,217
Reaction score
35,335
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
not necessarily. it could mean that the highs are just higher. point is, as a means of describing global climate, "average temp" is pretty meaningless. for example, one day in Basrah the "average temp" for the day was 78 F. seems pretty pleasant until you realize that the high for the day was 110 F and it dropped down to 45 F that night.

Not necessarily, but when you're talking about an annual average temperature... yes, pretty much necessarily :)
 

RobCeres

New member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Location
Boalsburg, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
you'd get laughed at for junk science. your method of attaining "average" temp is fundamentally flawed...

"junk science"? How so? the experiment absolutely disproves the earlier statement in this thread - Such a miniscule temperature increase (.6 degrees) does not have the slightest ability to melt a slight amount of Arctic ice.

It would be junk science if I maintained that I have somehow contributed in any way to our understanding of climate. I have not. Nor has anyone posting the numerous statements here that can be disproved by the average 6th grader. Why do we pay attention to such arguments?
 
Top Bottom