Remember me
▼ Content

Arctic ice hit one of its lowest points on record


Arctic ice hit one of its lowest points on record27-09-2018 18:37
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
...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
27-09-2018 19:04
Gamul1
☆☆☆☆☆
(35)
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


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.
27-09-2018 19:20
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
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.



..You're off because from your context the people in Fiji who are trying to grow coral to protect against erosion should consider how their islands were 100, 200 and even 300 million years ago before deciding if erosion is a problem.
..All you can Trump-et is we have to consider things from so long ago that they have no bearing on the events of today. If they do which is your opinion, simply show us what we're missing in your opinion.

..And once again you resort to personal attacks. In your own words;
>> Why do people who dont understand something always resort to personal attacks to make themselves feel smarter? I've never understood that because it only amplifies their ignorance. <<
Edited on 27-09-2018 19:21
27-09-2018 20:01
spot
★★★★☆
(1017)
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


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
27-09-2018 20:16
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
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.


The Parrot Killer
27-09-2018 20:58
spot
★★★★☆
(1017)
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.


And you are an absurdist troll.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
04-10-2018 13:19
AK_User
☆☆☆☆☆
(25)
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.
Edited on 04-10-2018 13:32
05-10-2018 19:04
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
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.


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.


The Parrot Killer
05-10-2018 19:11
Gamul1
☆☆☆☆☆
(35)
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. 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

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.
05-10-2018 19:49
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
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.


The Parrot Killer
05-10-2018 20:52
Gamul1
☆☆☆☆☆
(35)
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.
05-10-2018 22:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
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.


Science is not data, dude. Neither is manufactured data 'data'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate Arctic ice hit one of its lowest points on record:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
New Little Ice Age3726-11-2018 21:13
Brief history of ice ages, and how that might relate to our future12408-10-2018 23:50
Ice sat 2 launches2228-09-2018 03:17
Antarctic ice melting faster than ever, studies show3218-06-2018 22:14
"Freakishly Warm" Arctic Weather Has Scientists Reconsidering Worst-Case Scenarios on Climate1104-06-2018 20:50
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact