Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Ice in Antarctica proves Global Cooling!

Page 6 of 18 [ 286 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 18  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

07 Jan 2014, 2:14 am

zer0netgain wrote:
91 wrote:
It strikes me as strange that people doubt the reality of Climate Change....


Nobody doubts "climate change." The climate is ALWAYS changing. The debate is over the laughable contention that man plays a significant and controlling factor.

We can't significantly increase or decrease the planet's temperatures. We are insignificant.

It's one thing to not deliberately pollute the environment. It's another to believe that our activity is having a catastrophic effect on the world ecosystem.

This is basic physics, and has been known for decades. Carbon dioxide preferentially absorbs and retains energy in the lower end of the electromagnetic spectrum, meaning that visible light (and other high wavelengths) pass through, and heat is absorbed by it and trapped. When there is more CO2, there is more trapping of heat. It's physics.

people on the British Isles were amazed that they could largely deforest the British Isles, and then Europeans were amazed that they could largely deforest Europe, and then Europeans thought that they'd never run out of trees in the New World, and they Californians thought that they'd never run out of redwoods. 'Nature is too big,' they said. 'Humans couldn't possibly have an impact like that on all that wilderness.'



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

07 Jan 2014, 2:41 am

LKL wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
91 wrote:
It strikes me as strange that people doubt the reality of Climate Change....


Nobody doubts "climate change." The climate is ALWAYS changing. The debate is over the laughable contention that man plays a significant and controlling factor.

We can't significantly increase or decrease the planet's temperatures. We are insignificant.

It's one thing to not deliberately pollute the environment. It's another to believe that our activity is having a catastrophic effect on the world ecosystem.

This is basic physics, and has been known for decades. Carbon dioxide preferentially absorbs and retains energy in the lower end of the electromagnetic spectrum, meaning that visible light (and other high wavelengths) pass through, and heat is absorbed by it and trapped. When there is more CO2, there is more trapping of heat. It's physics.

people on the British Isles were amazed that they could largely deforest the British Isles, and then Europeans were amazed that they could largely deforest Europe, and then Europeans thought that they'd never run out of trees in the New World, and they Californians thought that they'd never run out of redwoods. 'Nature is too big,' they said. 'Humans couldn't possibly have an impact like that on all that wilderness.'

Yes but what about when all that ice melts? What about all the coldness trapped in that ice? What happens to it? It's going to cool things off, right? Where is all this coldness that's here now freezing us half to death coming from? See, it's not so simple as you think. Climate is complex.



AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

07 Jan 2014, 2:50 am

Shau wrote:
AspieOtaku wrote:
Random pictures and websites.


So are you going to produce some scientific articles or not? Last time I checked, random websites I've never heard of aren't considered scientific articles, let alone credible scientific sources.
So you never heard of the USGS? http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/s02aerosols.php or NOAA? http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/ ... lcome.html Like i said before the Earths Oceans ans well as volcanoes play a major role in our climate. Even if we do not pollute whatsoever the climate is indeed going to change, the smog might play somewhat of a factor and imitate that of Vog but the earth will continue to change its climate. It has gone through warming and cooling periods all the time hence the end of the ice age and there was another ice age before. The world experienced a global warming period during the dark age and also a mini ice age. There is some speculation to be a link with global warming and iceages. Lets say the polar icecaps melt sending large amounts of cold water into the earths oceans it can indeed cause a cooling period.


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


Last edited by AspieOtaku on 07 Jan 2014, 6:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

07 Jan 2014, 3:16 am

The fact that the climate can and does change naturally has no bearing on whether the current change in anthropogenic. Climate models take volcanism and oceans into account; the scientists who study climate change would be pretty goddamn stupid if they left that out. They also take into account clouds, and the solar cycle, and cosmic rays, and whatever other red herrings the denialists care to throw out.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

07 Jan 2014, 3:22 am

LKL wrote:
The fact that the climate can and does change naturally has no bearing on whether the current change in anthropogenic. Climate models take volcanism and oceans into account; the scientists who study climate change would be pretty goddamn stupid if they left that out. They also take into account clouds, and the solar cycle, and cosmic rays, and whatever other red herrings the denialists care to throw out.


Our scientific understanding of the world is very rarely correct, the world is a complex place there is so much we don't know. Scientists are not all knowing sages.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

07 Jan 2014, 3:29 am

Jacoby wrote:
LKL wrote:
The fact that the climate can and does change naturally has no bearing on whether the current change in anthropogenic. Climate models take volcanism and oceans into account; the scientists who study climate change would be pretty goddamn stupid if they left that out. They also take into account clouds, and the solar cycle, and cosmic rays, and whatever other red herrings the denialists care to throw out.

Our scientific understanding of the world is very rarely correct, the world is a complex place there is so much we don't know. Scientists are not all knowing sages.

of course not, but they generally know a hell of a lot more about their own fields of expertise than hack bloggers afraid of having to turn the heat down to 72F. FFS, claiming that current climate change theory 'doesn't take volcanism into account' goes beyond ignorance and into stupidity. It's like a creationist claiming that 'there are no transitional fossils.'



beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

07 Jan 2014, 3:52 am

Jacoby wrote:
LKL wrote:
The fact that the climate can and does change naturally has no bearing on whether the current change in anthropogenic. Climate models take volcanism and oceans into account; the scientists who study climate change would be pretty goddamn stupid if they left that out. They also take into account clouds, and the solar cycle, and cosmic rays, and whatever other red herrings the denialists care to throw out.


Our scientific understanding of the world is very rarely correct, the world is a complex place there is so much we don't know. Scientists are not all knowing sages.


It may not be 100% correct, but it's often pretty durn accurate. Look at Newtonian mechanics, for example. It was disproved and replaced by better models, but for most practical purposes, Newtonian mechanics still suffices.

It's like comparing the models that the earth is a perfect sphere and that the earth is flat, both of which are wrong. However, I would say this, paraphrasing Isaac Asimov, if you think they are both equally wrong, then you are wronger than wrong.

The same goes for other areas of science.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

07 Jan 2014, 6:19 am

LKL wrote:
The fact that the climate can and does change naturally has no bearing on whether the current change in anthropogenic. Climate models take volcanism and oceans into account; the scientists who study climate change would be pretty goddamn stupid if they left that out. They also take into account clouds, and the solar cycle, and cosmic rays, and whatever other red herrings the denialists care to throw out.
Yout tend to forget and ignore El Nino and La Nina as well? http://www.elnino.noaa.gov/ http://www.elnino.noaa.gov/lanina.html


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,811
Location: London

07 Jan 2014, 6:31 am

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Yes but what about when all that ice melts? What about all the coldness trapped in that ice? What happens to it? It's going to cool things off, right? Where is all this coldness that's here now freezing us half to death coming from? See, it's not so simple as you think. Climate is complex.

Surely you are trolling?

In the unfortunate, almost incredible case that you are not... there is no such thing as "coldness", only heat. If extra heat melts ice, it isn't as cold as it used to be, there's no need for the "coldness" to go anywhere (well, except for the negligible impact on the Sun). It will probably cool the oceans somewhat, but the bigger impact is on the decreased ocean salinity, which will probably disrupt some ocean currents.

In any case, other people are not as stupid as you think. Reasonably informed people know better than you do about how complex the climate is, and climate scientists know far better. If you go up to a climate scientist and say "humans aren't causing global warming because the climate is complex", she isn't going to be shocked that she didn't think of that, because she is well aware of just how complex it is.



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

07 Jan 2014, 6:58 am

AspieOtaku wrote:
LKL wrote:
The fact that the climate can and does change naturally has no bearing on whether the current change in anthropogenic. Climate models take volcanism and oceans into account; the scientists who study climate change would be pretty goddamn stupid if they left that out. They also take into account clouds, and the solar cycle, and cosmic rays, and whatever other red herrings the denialists care to throw out.
Yout tend to forget and ignore El Nino and La Nina as well? http://www.elnino.noaa.gov/ http://www.elnino.noaa.gov/lanina.html

Despite having significant effects in the short run, the EL Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is basically irrelevant to the global warming trend, since it is an oscillation.

Image

There is - however - a tendency for ENSO variation to increase, resulting in more extreme weather patterns.

Sources:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=67
http://www.clim-past.net/9/2269/2013/cp-9-2269-2013.pdf



UnLoser
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Mar 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 655

07 Jan 2014, 1:01 pm

Jacoby wrote:
LKL wrote:
Our scientific understanding of the world is very rarely correct, the world is a complex place there is so much we don't know. Scientists are not all knowing sages.

Let's suppose your right, that we can't predict long-term climate change with any sort of accuracy. In that case, it's still ridiculous that the climate deniers in this thread are so quick to dismiss man-caused global warming as complete bunk despite only being able to provide weak and underwhelming evidence. If it's impossible to accurately predict the long-term effects of greenhouse gas pollution on the climate, then that's all the more reason to tread cautiously. We don't want to risk screwing up the planet for future generations.

However, I think getting society to cut down it's CO2 emissions is a lost cause, anyway. All we can really do is hope that the doomsday predictions don't come true.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

07 Jan 2014, 2:00 pm

UnLoser wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
LKL wrote:
Our scientific understanding of the world is very rarely correct, the world is a complex place there is so much we don't know. Scientists are not all knowing sages.

Let's suppose your right, that we can't predict long-term climate change with any sort of accuracy. In that case, it's still ridiculous that the climate deniers in this thread are so quick to dismiss man-caused global warming as complete bunk despite only being able to provide weak and underwhelming evidence. If it's impossible to accurately predict the long-term effects of greenhouse gas pollution on the climate, then that's all the more reason to tread cautiously. We don't want to risk screwing up the planet for future generations.

However, I think getting society to cut down it's CO2 emissions is a lost cause, anyway. All we can really do is hope that the doomsday predictions don't come true.


I tread cautiously around the Malthusian death cultists and those that advocate world communism, they are far more dangerous to the safety of mankind than CO2, beyond that we can actually have a conversation about environmentalism. By all means preach conservation, end all energy subsidies, enforce property rights and actually hold polluters accountable for damage they do the environment. Global government, global taxation, and global redistribution will never be the answer. One should know that it is our own government that is the biggest polluter of them all and they have the power to end all life on this Earth, they cannot be the answer.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

07 Jan 2014, 2:17 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Yes but what about when all that ice melts? What about all the coldness trapped in that ice? What happens to it? It's going to cool things off, right? Where is all this coldness that's here now freezing us half to death coming from? See, it's not so simple as you think. Climate is complex.

Surely you are trolling?

In the unfortunate, almost incredible case that you are not... there is no such thing as "coldness", only heat. If extra heat melts ice, it isn't as cold as it used to be, there's no need for the "coldness" to go anywhere (well, except for the negligible impact on the Sun). It will probably cool the oceans somewhat, but the bigger impact is on the decreased ocean salinity, which will probably disrupt some ocean currents.

In any case, other people are not as stupid as you think. Reasonably informed people know better than you do about how complex the climate is, and climate scientists know far better. If you go up to a climate scientist and say "humans aren't causing global warming because the climate is complex", she isn't going to be shocked that she didn't think of that, because she is well aware of just how complex it is.

Why do you accuse people asking legitimate questions of trolling? I don't accuse you of it just because you are expressing your point of view. It is just easier to accuse someone of trollery than looking at the situation realistically. You are skipping steps.
The coldness escapes the glacier as it melts. Yes it warms up but it effects the climate first.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,157
Location: temperate zone

07 Jan 2014, 2:32 pm

Coldness is not a thing. Its the absence of something. Namely heat (like darkness is the absence of light).

So if you put an ice cube into a hot drink it will lower the temperature of the drink-not because its 'putting coldness into the drink" but because its causing heat to leave the drink into the ice cube. The temperatures will even out- the ice cube will melt- and the hot coffee will get lukewarm (the water from the melted ice cube will also dilute the coffee- but heat will also transfer between the two things).



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

07 Jan 2014, 2:55 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
Coldness is not a thing. Its the absence of something. Namely heat (like darkness is the absence of light).

So if you put an ice cube into a hot drink it will lower the temperature of the drink-not because its 'putting coldness into the drink" but because its causing heat to leave the drink into the ice cube. The temperatures will even out- the ice cube will melt- and the hot coffee will get lukewarm (the water from the melted ice cube will also dilute the coffee- but heat will also transfer between the two things).

It depends on how much. It's just like in winter. Let's say you have one of these polar vortexes and it snows in some locations where the vortex is situated. The places with the snow are going to take much longer to warm up than the places affected by the vortex alone. If this vortex area is large enough and there's enough snow, it can create it's own micro climate. This is the scenario I am referring to. Regional climatic change that can create ice ages. I do not believe the earth is destined for heat. The past has been the exact opposite. Just look at history, man.



AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

07 Jan 2014, 3:23 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Coldness is not a thing. Its the absence of something. Namely heat (like darkness is the absence of light).

So if you put an ice cube into a hot drink it will lower the temperature of the drink-not because its 'putting coldness into the drink" but because its causing heat to leave the drink into the ice cube. The temperatures will even out- the ice cube will melt- and the hot coffee will get lukewarm (the water from the melted ice cube will also dilute the coffee- but heat will also transfer between the two things).

It depends on how much. It's just like in winter. Let's say you have one of these polar vortexes and it snows in some locations where the vortex is situated. The places with the snow are going to take much longer to warm up than the places affected by the vortex alone. If this vortex area is large enough and there's enough snow, it can create it's own micro climate. This is the scenario I am referring to. Regional climatic change that can create ice ages. I do not believe the earth is destined for heat. The past has been the exact opposite. Just look at history, man.
I sure have and have majored in geology! :D Image It happens all the time. People think as if its only human activity causes the climate to change and that the earth is getting hotter and hotter and hotter and will never cool down. When it indeed does cool down and heat up time and time again! During the Mesezoic era it was a lot hotter than the present and lasted for a few hundred million years. Then after the dinosaurs died out the latest ice age occured for a couple million years off and on. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/cause-ice-age.html


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList