Arctic Warming - Is The Science Really Settled?

[doubledeluxe]

By feedback loop do you mean a runaway reaction? If we get that far we're screwed but I was under the impression it would require much more methane to be released into the atmosphere.

 

[bradly1101]

Ok, how about we list some things I think we can all agree are settled about warming?

1. Is there warming taking place? -yes
2. Are humans to some degree a contributing factor to said warming? -yes
3. Would too much of said warming have bad effects for humans? -yes
4. Should humans reduce carbon emissions in an attempt to decrease the warming? -yes
4a. Will reducing carbon have a positive effect? -maybe
4b. Will reducing carbon have a negative effect? -highly unlikely
4c. Will reducing carbon have no effect? -possibly
5. Is the environment good or bad? -good
6. Should we shit where we eat? -not recommended

Anyone disagree?

No. And I hope we're all doing our part by combining trips and driving less, and conserving wherever we can, including not overclocking!

 

[Paratus]

According to this research, it's released, but a different rate for liquid water than frozen water or even land mass.

No, energy =/= heat. This is freshmen level shit, man.

Of course heat = energy. Since we are talking about raising the temperature of water how much heat does it take


heat = mass × specific heat × temperature change

Let's do a simple problem! How much heat energy is required to warm some water:

The specific heat of water is 1.0 cal/g°C. How much energy is required to raise the temperature of 25.1 g of water by 72.0 degree Celsius?


heat = (25.1 g)(1.0 cal/g°C)(72.0°C)
Heat = 1807.2cal
Holy shit! Heat is measured in units of Energy!

You sure you have an engineering degree? This is freshman level shit man!

 

[xBiffx]

Of course heat = energy. Since we are talking about raising the temperature of water how much heat does it take


heat = mass × specific heat × temperature change

Let's do a simple problem! How much heat energy is required to warm some water:

The specific heat of water is 1.0 cal/g°C. How much energy is required to raise the temperature of 25.1 g of water by 72.0 degree Celsius?


heat = (25.1 g)(1.0 cal/g°C)(72.0°C)
Heat = 1807.2cal
Holy shit! Heat is measured in units of Energy!

You sure you have an engineering degree? This is freshman level shit man!

You need to reread what you posted. Here, I'll help.

If more energy is stored in the ocean because there is more liquid water from ice melting is their more energy contained in the Earth?

If the Earth contains more energy is it warmer over all?

Where do you say heat? Of course heat is a type of energy. Problem is, there are many types of energy and you've decided to erect a strawman by changing your argument from energy to heat, which you never said.

Again, energy =/= heat. What you said was retarded. Just because something contains more energy doesn't means that its warmer.

Good to see you agree this is freshmen level shit. Thanks (but no thanks) for the refresher.

 

[Paratus]

You need to reread what you posted. Here, I'll help.



Where do you say heat? Of course heat is a type of energy. Problem is, there are many types of energy and you've decided to erect a strawman by changing your argument from energy to heat, which you never said.

Again, energy =/= heat. What you said was retarded. Just because something contains more energy doesn't means that its warmer.

Good to see you agree this is freshmen level shit. Thanks (but no thanks) for the refresher.

The lady doth protest to much I think. You've said something stupid there's no need for you to double down er triple down on stupid.

Since global warming is confusing to you, it is basically a study of how heat energy moves through the climate system based on conservation of energy, which heat is a type of.

You also seem to be confused that basically every energy transformation ends up as heat eventually in this system. You may want to read up on thermodynamics. That's a sophomore level class.

Don't worry though biff I'll keep helping you out. ()

 

[xBiffx]

The lady doth protest to much I think. You've said something stupid there's no need for you to double down er triple down on stupid.

Since global warming is confusing to you, it is basically a study of how heat energy moves through the climate system based on conservation of energy, which heat is a type of.

You also seem to be confused that basically every energy transformation ends up as heat eventually in this system. You may want to read up on thermodynamics. That's a sophomore level class.

Don't worry though biff I'll keep helping you out. ()

And I'm the one doubling down? ROFL. Keeping strawmaning away.

 

[OverVolt]

Haven't the iceaps been much lower before in the past? The ocean is still here

 

[Paratus]

Haven't the iceaps been much lower before in the past? The ocean is still here

Were you expecting there to be less ocean with less ice caps.

 

[Paratus]

And I'm the one doubling down? ROFL. Keeping strawmaning away.

So much so even this guy went DAMMNNN!!!111

 

[xBiffx]

So much so even this guy went DAMMNNN!!!111

Thank man, now I'm hungry.

 

[Paratus]

Thank man, now I'm hungry.

Did you see this one from Korea:

 

[OverVolt]

Were you expecting there to be less ocean with less ice caps.

You guys are claiming runaway greenhouse effect turning us into Venus. They've been lower before, so its FUD.

 

[Paratus]

You guys are claiming runaway greenhouse effect turning us into Venus. They've been lower before, so its FUD.

I've never said we're turning into Venus. However Antartic ice cores show that when CO2 was increasing quickly in the past it was 10's of PPMs in centuries. We've gone up over 100 PPM in the last century.

So if you have some data that shows these exact conditions have existed before and the environment it created won't have a negative impact on our civilization today I'd love to see it.

 

[Thebobo]

Atmospheric pressure is the problem with Venus. That's why Mars can be 96% CO2 and isn't a Greenhouse.

Ok but that text was just a preface that Netflix offers as episode info, probably should not of posted it because thats not really what the core of the episode is about, MMGW. Have you seen it or able to watch it?

Its Episode 12 of Cosmos. As I said I believe anyone who has a genuine open mind and views this will come to the same conclusions that MMGW is real.

 

[Darwin333]

Oh, this thread again. Here's to another few decades of climate change folks having this happen to them politically:

Perhaps politically but not scientifically...

 

[Darwin333]

You guys are claiming runaway greenhouse effect turning us into Venus. They've been lower before, so its FUD.

No, they are claiming that runaway greenhouse effect turned old kinda groovy Venus into new really motherfucking hot can't even land a prove without it melting Venus.

 

[Darwin333]

Haven't the iceaps been much lower before in the past? The ocean is still here

Lol, its kind of like the "save the Earth" bumper stickers. The earth and oceans will be here, its a question of how our existence will be.

Considering that the majority of humans live near coasts, the ocean "still being there" could potentially be a very big problem.

 

[GaiaHunter]

I keep on waiting for evidence to disprove man made global warming, and despite all the efforts by those that don't believe they can't provide that evidence.

And what evidence would that be?

Would record high world sea ice extent due to record high Antarctica sea ice extent be evidence?

Would satellite record showing warming since the 1970's no higher than that of the 50 years before be evidence?

Would 18 years of satellite record showing no warming evidence?

 

[NeoV]

Gaia you should probably stop talking about this, as each of the 'facts' you just listed are complete and total BS.

Watts up with that is not a good source.

 

[Paratus]

And what evidence would that be?

Would record high world sea ice extent due to record high Antarctica sea ice extent be evidence?

Would satellite record showing warming since the 1970's no higher than that of the 50 years before be evidence?

Would 18 years of satellite record showing no warming evidence?

Sea ice extent measures the area of the ice. The volume has changed. The ice has melted and spread. In fact enough ice has melted to change the gravity around the south pole so much we can detect it. So no, increasing area but decreasing volume of ice is evidence of warming.

As for the satellite temperature record of the atmosphere, well once you combine the heat energy, (just for you xbiffx () ), with the massive increase in ocean heat energy, the total heat energy of the planet has continued increasing un-abated. So nope that's evidence of warming too.

Gaia you should probably stop talking about this, as each of the 'facts' you just listed are complete and total BS.

Watts up with that is not a good source.

Yes those "facts" are.

Another example of how a poor science education can easily lead people astray.

 

[dphantom]

As for the satellite temperature record of the atmosphere, well once you combine the heat energy, (just for you xbiffx ), with the massive increase in ocean heat energy, the total heat energy of the planet has continued increasing un-abated. So nope that's evidence of warming too.

Which brings up several interesting questions.

Why has satellite temperature records shown a pause over the last 18 years or so
What has changed to cause oceans to absorb energy instead of showing up as temperature increases at the rate modeled
Why has the significant increase in man emitted CO2 over the last 20 years not shown up in the temperature record when all models show that it should
What causes - the triggering mechanism - oceans to release energy
Can the ocean intake and release of energy be "the" significant factor in surface temperature changes

This is such a fascinating area of study with so much still unknown in terms of the complex interactions between variables that make up our climate.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Gaia you should probably stop talking about this, as each of the 'facts' you just listed are complete and total BS.

Watts up with that is not a good source.

You mean sources like NASA?

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum/#.VFqrufmsX3M

On Sept. 19, 2014, the five-day average of Antarctic sea ice extent exceeded 20 million square kilometers for the first time since 1979, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. The red line shows the average maximum extent from 1979-2014.
Image Credit: NASA's Scientific Visualization Studio/Cindy Starr

“There hasn’t been one explanation yet that I’d say has become a consensus, where people say, ‘We’ve nailed it, this is why it’s happening,’” Parkinson said. “Our models are improving, but they’re far from perfect. One by one, scientists are figuring out that particular variables are more important than we thought years ago, and one by one those variables are getting incorporated into the models."

Or sources like the skepticalscience?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

Or the met office Hadley Centre Central England Temperature (HadCET) dataset?

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

Stop denying reality.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Sea ice extent measures the area of the ice. The volume has changed. The ice has melted and spread. In fact enough ice has melted to change the gravity around the south pole so much we can detect it. So no, increasing area but decreasing volume of ice is evidence of warming.

As for the satellite temperature record of the atmosphere, well once you combine the heat energy, (just for you xbiffx () ), with the massive increase in ocean heat energy, the total heat energy of the planet has continued increasing un-abated. So nope that's evidence of warming too.




Yes those "facts" are.

Another example of how a poor science education can easily lead people astray.

Where are those superb records of ice volume and ocean heat content?

No where. What a laugh.

You can't even calculate ice volume or ocean temperature today to any degree of scientific certainty much less have a record long enough to reach any conclusion.

Likewise for ocean temperature.

The Argo floats exists for less than a decade and its 3000 buoys in the entire ocean, moving with waves.

Do you think anyone knows what is the average temperature of the oceans surface today? Or at 700m? Or 2000m?

And that they can actually detect 0.001*C changes?

Do you also think anyone can measure the energy that the earth release to space?

You can measure the energy the earth gets from the sun because you can reduce the sun to a spot, but you can't do the same for earth.

More, the energy imbalance talked about is smaller than the actual error bar of the satellite equipment. It is like saying you are 0.01g heavier today using a scale that has grams as the smallest division.

Are any of you engineers?

 

[GaiaHunter]

I would still like to know exactly what is the kind of evidence that will prove that climate change is natural instead of man made.

 

[dphantom]

Are any of you engineers?

No but they slept at a Holiday Inn last night