Arctic ice hit one of its lowest points on record

James___ wrote:
...This isn't surprising. If anyone notices where sea ice has retreated it's where the Gulf Stream/North Atlantic current as well as the trade winds go. And if this is one of the mechanisms our atmosphere uses to dissipate heat then it's not surprising.
..Of course if I said that this is in agreement with the Laws of Thermodynamics (https://courses.lumenlearning.com/introchem/chapter/the-three-laws-of-thermodynamics/) someone might say that I am ignoring what happened 100 million years ago when the continents were in a different position altogether. Then again maybe I would rather concern myself with what is relevant about the current climate change.
..One question that could be asked is if a sufficient amount of heat energy in the northern hemisphere flows into the Arctic and raises it's temperature anywhere from 1L C. to 1.5° C. would it have much of an impact over the long term ? Could this have other causations which could increase it's effect ?
...But we can't make an argument for about 11.5 terrawatts of energy consumption as producing heat. That's because it ignores the Earth's climate from millions of years ago. And after all, that's what we should really be considering.

https://mashable.com/article/arctic-ice-minimum-2018-climate-change/#6BwusUGRYPqn

https://phys.org/news/2011-09-arctic-ice-historic-scientists.html

Gamul1 wrote:


Is the climate changing? It sure appears to be changing from what humans are used to.

It's not that your 11.5 terra watts argument is not worth considering. You being offended or angry by people wanting to look at the larger history is a huge part of the problem. Is human impact worth studying? Absolutely! But unless you understand the full range of history of climate change and as long as people like you insist at only taking into consideration a tiny fraction of the history - people like me cant take people like you seriously enough.

The analogy to what you want to consider would be like picking 1 single grain of sand up and declaring you can predict what the future of the beach will be because you studied that grain of sand and know all you need to know.

spot wrote:
The climate is changing because of land use changes and but mainly due the the fact that vast reserves of CO2 are being released into the atmosphere.

https://skepticalscience.com/97-v-3-how-much-global-warming-humans-causing.html

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:
The climate is changing because of land use changes and but mainly due the the fact that vast reserves of CO2 are being released into the atmosphere.

https://skepticalscience.com/97-v-3-how-much-global-warming-humans-causing.html

CO2 does not have the capability to warm the Earth. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

You are still denying the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

James___ wrote:
...This isn't surprising. If anyone notices where sea ice has retreated it's where the Gulf Stream/North Atlantic current as well as the trade winds go. And if this is one of the mechanisms our atmosphere uses to dissipate heat then it's not surprising.
..Of course if I said that this is in agreement with the Laws of Thermodynamics (https://courses.lumenlearning.com/introchem/chapter/the-three-laws-of-thermodynamics/) someone might say that I am ignoring what happened 100 million years ago when the continents were in a different position altogether. Then again maybe I would rather concern myself with what is relevant about the current climate change.
..One question that could be asked is if a sufficient amount of heat energy in the northern hemisphere flows into the Arctic and raises it's temperature anywhere from 1L C. to 1.5° C. would it have much of an impact over the long term ? Could this have other causations which could increase it's effect ?
...But we can't make an argument for about 11.5 terrawatts of energy consumption as producing heat. That's because it ignores the Earth's climate from millions of years ago. And after all, that's what we should really be considering.

https://mashable.com/article/arctic-ice-minimum-2018-climate-change/#6BwusUGRYPqn

https://phys.org/news/2011-09-arctic-ice-historic-scientists.html

AK_User wrote:

James___ wrote:
...This isn't surprising. If anyone notices where sea ice has retreated it's where the Gulf Stream/North Atlantic current as well as the trade winds go. And if this is one of the mechanisms our atmosphere uses to dissipate heat then it's not surprising.
..Of course if I said that this is in agreement with the Laws of Thermodynamics (https://courses.lumenlearning.com/introchem/chapter/the-three-laws-of-thermodynamics/) someone might say that I am ignoring what happened 100 million years ago when the continents were in a different position altogether. Then again maybe I would rather concern myself with what is relevant about the current climate change.
..One question that could be asked is if a sufficient amount of heat energy in the northern hemisphere flows into the Arctic and raises it's temperature anywhere from 1L C. to 1.5° C. would it have much of an impact over the long term ? Could this have other causations which could increase it's effect ?
...But we can't make an argument for about 11.5 terrawatts of energy consumption as producing heat. That's because it ignores the Earth's climate from millions of years ago. And after all, that's what we should really be considering.

https://mashable.com/article/arctic-ice-minimum-2018-climate-change/#6BwusUGRYPqn

https://phys.org/news/2011-09-arctic-ice-historic-scientists.html

You don't have to go back 100 million years. Just 12,900 years or so. That was the beginning of the Younger Dryas. Just as things were beginning to warm up the mean surface temperature suddenly plummeted by between 2°C and 6°C. That is also when the mega-fauna around the world, and the Clovis people in North America, went extinct.

There is evidence to suggest that this was caused by the melting ice sheets covering what is now Canada in North America, combined with a blocking off of the Mississippi River drainage. Instead, the melt-off flowed down the St. Lawrence River directly into the northern Atlantic, shutting down the Atlantic Conveyor.

It is the Atlantic Conveyor that brings the heat from the Gulf of Mexico all the way into the North Sea. Which is why Norway is able to have warm-water ports above the Arctic Circle.

If something were to happen that shuts down that Atlantic Conveyor, then Ireland, England, Norway, and all of northern Europe east to Poland and the Czech Republic is going to get significantly colder. As would the east coast of North America.

There is a similar current in the Pacific known as the Kuroshio Current. It brings the heat from the equatorial seas around the Philippines northeast across the Pacific. The Kuroshio Current warms the southern coast of Alaska and all the way down to Oregon. It is not as strong as the Atlantic Conveyor, so it doesn't bring as much heat with it, but it still makes winters along the west coast of North America very mild.

Into the Night wrote:

It is not possible to shut off either the 'Atlantic conveyor' or the 'Pacific conveyor'. The combination of currents you refer to (it's not just one) flow because of temperature differences, not because of whether there is melted ice or not flowing into them.

As long as the equator is warmer, there WILL be these currents.

Gamul1 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

It is not possible to shut off either the 'Atlantic conveyor' or the 'Pacific conveyor'. The combination of currents you refer to (it's not just one) flow because of temperature differences, not because of whether there is melted ice or not flowing into them.

As long as the equator is warmer, there WILL be these currents.

This is somewhat true, but not the full picture.

Gamul1 wrote:
Woods Hole has shown that the Atlantic currents are impacted by that fresh cold water and that:
a) They "slow down", and
b) They may not go as far north as they have been

Gamul1 wrote:
In the north Atlantic, the temperature differences are impacted by glacial melt from Greenland. Their website has plenty of research going back to at least the 70s around this very topic.

Into the Night wrote:

Gamul1 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

It is not possible to shut off either the 'Atlantic conveyor' or the 'Pacific conveyor'. The combination of currents you refer to (it's not just one) flow because of temperature differences, not because of whether there is melted ice or not flowing into them.

As long as the equator is warmer, there WILL be these currents.

This is somewhat true, but not the full picture.

It is the full picture.

Gamul1 wrote:
Woods Hole has shown that the Atlantic currents are impacted by that fresh cold water and that:
a) They "slow down", and
b) They may not go as far north as they have been

They do not slow down. They do not move at all due to fresh water. You are listening to propaganda from the government, which funds Woods Hole.

Gamul1 wrote:
In the north Atlantic, the temperature differences are impacted by glacial melt from Greenland. Their website has plenty of research going back to at least the 70s around this very topic.

Yup. That's when the government started claiming this particular propaganda.

Gamul1 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Gamul1 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

It is not possible to shut off either the 'Atlantic conveyor' or the 'Pacific conveyor'. The combination of currents you refer to (it's not just one) flow because of temperature differences, not because of whether there is melted ice or not flowing into them.

As long as the equator is warmer, there WILL be these currents.

This is somewhat true, but not the full picture.

It is the full picture.

Gamul1 wrote:
Woods Hole has shown that the Atlantic currents are impacted by that fresh cold water and that:
a) They "slow down", and
b) They may not go as far north as they have been

They do not slow down. They do not move at all due to fresh water. You are listening to propaganda from the government, which funds Woods Hole.

Gamul1 wrote:
In the north Atlantic, the temperature differences are impacted by glacial melt from Greenland. Their website has plenty of research going back to at least the 70s around this very topic.

Yup. That's when the government started claiming this particular propaganda.

Now you're just demonstrating your complete ignorance..... again. We can all take comfort in knowing that basic science does not become false in the face of ignorance.