Arctic hits record low

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by sawyer, Mar 8, 2017.

  1. Maximatic

    Maximatic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    3,876
    Likes Received:
    113
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I just don't know what the **** you're talking about, and I don't think anyone else does either. The only thing I can distill is that you don't think any of this can be known. If that's your point, I just don't agree.
     
  2. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    2,684
    Likes Received:
    55
    Trophy Points:
    48
    If any of this means parameters of the given chart you understood me correctly. It cannot be know for any applicable purpose.
    If I understand correctly, you just don't agree but you will not tell what is your reasoning beyond the disagreement, because all you have is just a blind religious belief.
    Am I correct?
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2017
  3. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    2,684
    Likes Received:
    55
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I agree with both points, and apologize for being meticulous. The only one thing I strongly disagree is "the excess energy is temporarily stored in." I don't know what is the excess energy, and I know that according the main, the central physical law heat cannot be stored.
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2017
  4. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    2,684
    Likes Received:
    55
    Trophy Points:
    48
    They are not based on any related data gathered by proper instrumentation, less they are based on any related observation while building a hypothesis puts them beyond any reasonable doubt exactly where I said - outside of the reality of the experimental philosophy aka physics aka natural sciences.
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2017
  5. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    It is fine to clarify things,and you have been civil the whole time doing it.

    I was saying that the energy gained from the Sun takes some times for it to go up into the atmosphere. El-Nino events accelerate the rate of energy leaving the Ocean waters,thus cooling it down a little. When it is La-Nina events,it is the opposite.

    El-Nino: Waters cooling down,Atmosphere warming up.

    La-Nina:Waters warming up,Atmosphere cooling down.
     
  6. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    2,684
    Likes Received:
    55
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I am not quite familiar with El-Nino and doubt there are not other factors, but it is my pleasure to see that somebody understands the main, the central physical law which states that if something is warming it means something is cooling in a spontaneous process. I have no objection to any word you said.
     
  7. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    6,173
    Likes Received:
    1,213
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    But if heat is continuously being added to the system it warms. If I start up my furnace the whole house warms faster than it cools...to a point.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2017
  8. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    2,684
    Likes Received:
    55
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Is it a question? If you want me to explain the 2nd law for you I will, if you want to argue with it, live in peace.
     
  9. Maximatic

    Maximatic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    3,876
    Likes Received:
    113
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    No
     
  10. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    2,684
    Likes Received:
    55
    Trophy Points:
    48
    What is incorrect?
     
  11. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    It get dark when the sun goes down,no solar energy input then. Ocean ALWAYS losing some energy all the time. But sometimes it loses energy faster when certain weather events create conditions for El-Nino events to greatly increase the pool size of warm water on the surface.Here is a description of the phenomenon:

    From Scripps Institute of Oceanography

    So What is an El Niño, Anyway?

    "What causes it?

    • Usually, the wind blows strongly from east to west along the equator in the Pacific. This actually piles up water (about half a meter's worth) in the western part of the Pacific. In the eastern part, deeper water (which is colder than the sun-warmed surface water) gets pulled up from below to replace the water pushed west. So, the normal situation is warm water (about 30 C) in the west, cold (about 22 C) in the east.

      In an El Niño, the winds pushing that water around get weaker. As a result, some of the warm water piled up in the west slumps back down to the east, and not as much cold water gets pulled up from below. Both these tend to make the water in the eastern Pacific warmer, which is one of the hallmarks of an El Niño.

      But it doesn't stop there. The warmer ocean then affects the winds--it makes the winds weaker! So if the winds get weaker, then the ocean gets warmer, which makes the winds get weaker, which makes the ocean get warmer ... this is called a positive feedback, and is what makes an El Niño grow."

      LINK

      Back to top
     
  12. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    2,684
    Likes Received:
    55
    Trophy Points:
    48
    It was about furnace and I don't think politicalcenter was looking for any explanations
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2017
  13. Maximatic

    Maximatic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    3,876
    Likes Received:
    113
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Your assumptions about my beliefs are incorrect. I'm actually skeptical about the extent to which past conditions, such as those reflected in the chart I posted, can be known. Sometimes, though, it can be helpful to grant propositions that one does not necessarily affirm to show that an opponent's contention would still be false even if a disputed premise were true. In this debate, even if everything the AGW crowd says about the science were true, it is still false that any government should try to do anything about it.
     
  14. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    6,173
    Likes Received:
    1,213
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If it gets dark on one side of the world it gets light on the other side. So...energy is still being pumped into the system. The furnace is always on. With CO2 trapping heat the world continues to warm. The only solutions that make sense to me is storing the carbon in the soil and plants. Farmers are catching on. They are beginning to realize carbon drives farm profit.
     
  15. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    2,684
    Likes Received:
    55
    Trophy Points:
    48

    Hello Max,

    You said you disagreed; now it may look like you rather agree. Let me make my position more clear, so you would be able really disagree:

    1. About the chart. So-called proxy data or reconstructed data, all of it, with no exclusion is nothing more than fake science and belongs to garbage. There should be a reason why thousands of “studies” attempting to use these “data” in practice, all with no exclusion, have led either to failed predictions or to more unresolved problems requiring more money and “studies”. There should be a reason for rapid development of science after Newton’s scientific revolution which established the rules dividing natural science from personal philosophy. The reason is that the scientific method taught in schools in universities for last decades has turned all science to pre-Newtonian, Medieval times.


    2. AGW. I am not even talking about AWG. I am talking about GW. GW is not even a fake science. It is pure, no science, politics, ideology. The terms GW and CC are self-serving and they appeal not to any physical process or rational or phenomena or knowledge, but to feelings of uneducated and indoctrinated. Find one, just one participant, who is for GW, who is against it, but who would know that warming is not an increase in temperature and is not measured in degrees, and who would associate the word warming with the equation dQ=dU+dA; or who when hears the word Climate immediately associates it with terms continental, tropical, subtropical, wet, dry, etc. and who knows that climate is applied to geographical regions only, while the made up from nowhere term Global climate or earth climate is just moronic. GW is less real than Flying Spaghetti Monster.


    Do you agree?
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2017
  16. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Political Center writes:

    "With CO2 trapping heat the world continues to warm. The only solutions that make sense to me is storing the carbon in the soil and plants. Farmers are catching on. They are beginning to realize carbon drives farm profit."

    CO2 doesn't trap anything,it absorbs and release IR at the speed of light, CO2 is not a molecular cage to absorb and hold a photon,it is wrong to say it traps when it has no such set up built in it.

    CO2 is a trace gas with a trace IR absorption capability,which make it a negligible player in the heat budget. Most of the IR spectrum is Transparent to the CO2 molecule, thus most of the outgoing IR photons never gets touched by CO2 at all.

    C is an atom,which is not CO2 at all, it is irrational to deprive ecosystem the needed additional CO2, as the current atmosphere is historically low in CO2. CO2 is a critical molecule for the Photosynthesis process, more of it in the atmosphere would help farmer grow healthier stronger crops on less water.

    CO2 is not driving climate change and is IMPOSSIBLE to cause warming trends.
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2017
  17. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    6,173
    Likes Received:
    1,213
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Every reputable science organization on the planet would disagree with you. Carbon does much more good being stored in soil as organic matter and humus than in the air as a so called fertilizer.
     
  18. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    2,684
    Likes Received:
    55
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Spoke as a true believer.
     
  19. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh dear, try reading what I wrote again, since you still have a problem understanding the difference between CO2 and C.

    Plus your consensus statement doesn't address what I said at all,since I explained you the simple obvious difference between an atom and a molecule. Consensus Pablum are part of the political process,Science runs on reproducible research.

    CO2 IS A TRACE gas, as this make clear, .04% of the gases on the atmosphere. It is also VITAL to life as it is involved in the Photosynthesis process,which make possible for plants to exist. More of it in the atmosphere will improve planet health and promote additional bio-ta growth.

    There is a large list of published science papers showing plant growth is much improved with much higher levels of CO2 in the air.Why do you think mass plant growers use CO2 generators in their large greenhouse?

    Here is an example: The Interactive Effects of Elevated CO2 and Temperature on Cotton LINK
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2017
  20. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    He is another one who doesn't realize how consensus errors have killed people in the past. It is a pernicious belief that popularity is all you need in science,when actually it doesn't answer a single science question. It is silly and irrational,but many still use it anyway/
     

Share This Page