Weather station in Antarctica records high of 65, the continent's hottest temperature ever

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by MrTLegal, Feb 10, 2020.

  1. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh, you are talking about the Permafrost melting? Yes, that is definitely still because of humans. There is a reason why "climate change" and the IPCC report on climate change shows up repeatedly throughout the article you used.

    It is the height of idiocy to claim that a hair dryer to the region is the only way for humans to be responsible for the melting permafrost.

    I explicitly supported the notion that the global warming is accelerating, both with current surface temperature measurements and with historic ice core data.

    Again, none of those scientific groups depend on AGW. Even if AGW were proven to be solely based on an as yet undiscovered source of warming, all of those scientists and scientific groups would just shift to studying that new found source.
     
  2. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,451
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you?
     
  3. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,451
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So casually lazy, it begs credulity. Did it ever occur to you that since the last real ice age that a vast swath of the northern continents were permafrost until very recently, and that the remainder are still a product of that last age? Of course the millions of square miles of now non permanently frozen ground had no effect, did it? Did it ever occur to you to actually think before you post something so ridiculous?
     
  4. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just answer.

    No, that is the claim from gfm. It is also why I kept asking him to provide a citation or a discussion of his personal credentials.
     
  5. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yep.
    1- And today the CO2 concentration is 200 ppm
    2- And it's may 1st.
    3- the average earth temperature is 58 degrees.
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2020
  6. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And the CO2 and other methane emissions from the last ice age is already built into the upper atmosphere. That is why those concentrations were approximately flat from 1750 to 1950. And then it rose dramatically.

    It is also why we can track CO2 concentrations across tens of thousands of years through ice core data. The last time that the CO2 concentration rose by 80 points after the last ice age, it took about 7500 years. That is also the amount it rose from 1900 to 2000.
     
  7. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,451
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So, you're answer is no? Cool. a denier... So much fun.
     
  8. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wait...you think I am a denier because I believe that AGW does not violate the Laws of Thermodynamics?

    Are you just trying to troll now? Do you believe that AGW violates the Laws of Thermodynamics?
     
  9. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,451
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Laughable. Clearly, the permafrost contains more CO2 and methane which is also residual of the last age. Your ability to pivot seems in jeapordy...As a function of data science, you really cannot provide any real data from pre 1865, so why try? Ice cores don't describe the permafrost, do they? Since the cores themselves only potentially illustrate a local condition to the ice where it was laid, the cores themselves cannot illustrate the potential locked in residual permafrost, can they? And again, when PPM rates are evaluated why do you suppose that starting from a point of relative scarcity is the answer?
     
  10. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So the CO2 molecule heats the surface? (in other words, heat flows from cold to hot)?

    Now you're in a paradox:
    [1] The atmosphere is a lid that traps the flow of thermal energy ("heat").
    [2] The atmosphere allows for the flow of thermal energy ("heat") to flow through it.

    Also, how does heat flow in space?

    A temperature is not a climate.

    Can you show me the valid data set where this number is derived from?

    What is the source for the data? What is the methodology regarding how the data was collected? What was the collection period of said data? What is the reliability of the data collection apparatus? Is this raw data? Was it selected by randN? Was it normalized by paired randR? Was a variance declared and justified? Was a margin of error calculated using the declared variance?
     
  11. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    While we are here. How much does it cool off. Back down to the temperature in space?
     
  12. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,451
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In the absence of direct solar energy, would you expect anything else? Perhaps you can help us understand why it's -50 in the arctic right now...... Isn't there still a blanket of ever heating CO2 (~400 ppm) concentrated over those parts of the globe as we speak??? Golly, the arctic should be down right balmy because of that... no?
     
    gfm7175 likes this.
  13. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No. It only heats the surface when the surface is cooler. Most likely it heats another molecule in the atmosphere. It's a crap shoot.

    The atmosphere can do both. absorb some energy and lose some to space.

    We are doing an experiment here. I can make the current temperature what ever I want. You are going to demonstrate why more CO2 doesn't increase temperature.
    We could make this a lab experiment if you like. There have been several examples given already.
     
  14. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Because the sun is low on the horizon at the poles, so the direct heating is lower.
     
  15. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,451
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Or, in this case, non existent.... But sure.. so proximity to solar radiation does actually have an effect you previously were unaware of. More schooling. Free of charge.... you're welcome.

    Which still doesn't explain why if the global average is ~54F why it's possible for there to be over a 100F differential given the nature of the CO2 distribution.... why ignore this part? Solar radiation is the ONLY method of or potential to create actual heat on our planet. And a veritable basketful of other variables then interact that then creates the potential in the local environment. Have you ever noticed that when you're in Dubai, and it's 50C if you travel about a mile out into the gulf, it's more like 38C? Same solar radiation, not the same results... But who cares? Right?
     
    gfm7175 likes this.
  16. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wait...you think I am a denier because I believe that AGW does not violate the Laws of Thermodynamics?

    Are you just trying to troll now? Do you believe that AGW violates the Laws of Thermodynamics?
     
  17. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You repeatedly act like you are educating individuals on facts for which they explicitly referenced and illustrated a robust understanding. That is type of trollish behavior that makes you worthy of an ignore status.
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2020
  18. BestViewedWithCable

    BestViewedWithCable Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    48,288
    Likes Received:
    6,966
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ive proven it.
     
  19. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    re: my post #845, specifically explaining the logical framework behind science and religion and how they both work.
    Which parts? Why is that?

    Claiming that my argumentation is "a load of bull" without providing any counterargumentation is referred to in logic as an Argument of the Stone Fallacy. It takes the logical form A->B, !A. It is equivalent to a child sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "nanananana I can't hear you".

    Yes there is. They are all initial circular arguments with additional argumentation stemming from them. We don't have an accessible, practical, quantifiable, specific way of testing the null hypothesis of those theories, so they remain religious beliefs.

    Void Argument Fallacy.

    Define "null hypothesis". Define "the bull". Define "science".

    Yes they do. Until a theory can be tested, one can only have faith with regard to that theory.

    Let's take the Theory of Evolution for example. Let's say that I come up with this theory that all modern life is the result of mutations from more primitive life. Great. I think it did because it did. That's circular. Now, let me throw a bunch of supporting evidence at it. Evolution occurs all the time today, and in recent history, so why not in much more ancient history as well? Here's some fossil records. Here's this, here's that. Does that somehow magickally prove this theory to be true?? No, it doesn't.

    The way to move beyond a circular argument is to test a theory against its null hypothesis. For this theory, we would have to go back in time to "the beginning" to see what actually happened. Did the most primitive of life forms REALLY mutate into more complex life forms, or did more complex life forms already exist alongside these more primitive life forms? Can we falsifiy this theory? The answer is no. We have no way to test it out. We do not have a time machine to examine this past unobserved event. Thus, it remains a religion. It remains a religious belief. It remains a circular argument. It remains a faith.

    That is an example of a circular argument A->A becoming a circular argument fallacy (A->A)->A. The argument has moved from "the bible is true" to "the bible's truth proves that the bible is true.

    How do you suppose that the set gets compiled? Science quite literally is a set of falsifiable theories.

    Falsifiable does not mean false.

    ...and that occurs via the survival of attempts to falsify the currently standing theories of science.
     
    drluggit likes this.
  20. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,451
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Trying to change the subject from the objective of the discussion to identify why CO2 cannot uniformly effect the local condition isn't going to help you here... So why try? Given your comment, it does, clearly indicate that you are a denier of thermodynamics....
     
  21. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Obviously, we are done here.
     
  22. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Water has a higher specific heat so it takes more energy to raise it's temperature by the same amount.
    I care. Honest I do. :)
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2020
  23. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Only if the sun were to go completely dark or if Earth were removed from the sun.
     
  24. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ...which is never. Glad we got that settled.

    Okay.

    Yup. So can the surface.

    Already did.
     
  25. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is a false choice to act like CO2 must either uniformly affect the local condition or to pretend that CO2 does not affect the local condition at all.

    Once again, I ask you directly, do you believe that AGW violates the laws of thermodynamics? It is not a change to the subject. There are multiple people discussing that on this page of the thread.
     

Share This Page