Global Warming...Fact or Fiction?

[MessiahMaitreya]

Global Warming is just like human body trying to overdo exercise.
When you try to running or carrying something big & heavy, first it will be easy, but later your body will tell you that stop, if not then your body part will get damaged.
Same as Global Warming, humans are working and creating too much toxic artificial chemicals => will lead to earthquake, volcano eruption in near future !

[Outstndngguy]

Signed up just to answer in this topic.
GW would be a problem but not for our generation.
Check this list of myths and facts about GW

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

[tbm3fan]

Let's see, who could possibly tell me none of this current trend is true. That it is just a mis-interpretation of data and the conclusion is completely and totally wrong. Just look at who issued the report. It was those flakes at the U.N. 'nuff said.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07/world...wxc/index.html

[Monash]

Ok. I'll move on because obviously in your 'world' the last paragraph of every article or book you've ever read is always what the story is about.

[Wooglin]

All right I'll try one more time. To clarify - the article is expressing concern about the loss of ice cover on the Greenland Sea. That is the topic or if you prefer the theme of the story not rising sea levels. The authors are expressing concern about this topic because the climate research upon which the story is based indicates that a loss of sea ice in that part of the arctic ocean will in turn cause an increase in the rate at which Greenland's ice cover melts. It is this melting which they assert leads to an increase in sea levels and that only gets a mention in the very last paragraph of the story.

In other words the equation or theme of the story is not as you imply: melting sea ice = a rise in sea levels.

Instead the equation is: melting sea ice = increased Greenland ice melt = rise in sea level. (So Archimedes still gets to sleep quietly in his grave).

To repeat, the main topic of the article is the melting of the sea ice and its effect upon Greenland. The the authors did not 'change the topic' of the article as you put it, they stuck to their theme. Your original post however did change the theme by leaping from the beginning of the story to the end without bothering about the bit in the middle.

Wow. Do you know the author? Because you're introducing a lot of facts not actually established in the story. You even seem to be in the mind of the authors and know what they're real concerns were. Ok Kreskin. If you say so.

The entire article is about coastal sea ice. But you want me to believe, that at the very last sentence when they are discussing attribution, and without actually referencing anything other than this region of sea ice, they're suddenly talking about something else. Because they mentioned this melting is part of a larger trend doesn't mean the entire article was actually about some other trend that was never actually discussed in the article. You read one line and ignored the entire article. You don't write an entire article about coastal sea ice and then, at the end when it comes time to answer why this is happening, suddenly switch to something else that was never actually discussed in article.

Seriously, the lengths you're going to to stretch this into something else... to try to convince me what they really meant without actually discussing it... it's just gotten silly. Move on already.

[Monash]

You should have read more carefully. The subject of the article is sea ice on the Greenland coast. They do not specify that they have changed the subject to land based ice in that sentence, or the next. You just assume it. Regardless, even if that sentence was referring to Greenlands landmass, there's no indication the last sentence had changed subjects either.

All we have is a misinterpretation of what the article was saying on your part. Really, you should probably read the subject matter and get your facts right before commenting.

All right I'll try one more time. To clarify - the article is expressing concern about the loss of ice cover on the Greenland Sea. That is the topic or if you prefer the theme of the story not rising sea levels. The authors are expressing concern about this topic because the climate research upon which the story is based indicates that a loss of sea ice in that part of the arctic ocean will in turn cause an increase in the rate at which Greenland's ice cover melts. It is this melting which they assert leads to an increase in sea levels and that only gets a mention in the very last paragraph of the story.

In other words the equation or theme of the story is not as you imply: melting sea ice = a rise in sea levels.

Instead the equation is: melting sea ice = increased Greenland ice melt = rise in sea level. (So Archimedes still gets to sleep quietly in his grave).

To repeat, the main topic of the article is the melting of the sea ice and its effect upon Greenland. The the authors did not 'change the topic' of the article as you put it, they stuck to their theme. Your original post however did change the theme by leaping from the beginning of the story to the end without bothering about the bit in the middle.

[Wooglin]

It seems that Monash is talking about this part of the article:

Which is talking about sea ice so.....????

While you are critical of this point of the article regarding your point about the Archimedes principle:

No. If I was criticizing one passage I would have highlighted the passage. I am critical of the whole article discussing sea ice and then saying it's raising sea levels. It's just incredibly misleading.

The problem with many science pieces in mainstream media is that it skips a lot of the relevant details involved with the findings for the sake of brevity. In this case you are both right, the Archimedes principle states plainly that melted sea ice would not have a direct increasing effect on sea levels. And the way the article presents the information, it is easy to make this false interpretation.

The problem with many science pieces is that the author often has no idea what they are talking about because they studied some environment related discipline that didn't touch upon the hard sciences at all, or science at all for that matter, like climate communications. And let's be honest, some of them have a narrative to stick to.

However Monash's point about the loss of albeido provided by melted sea ice is also relevant to the article, as it discusses one feedback mechanism that manifests when sea ice is lost--namely the loss of matter that lessens the heating effect of incoming solar radiation. The melted sea ice may not itself contribute to rising sea levels, but its loss will result in more solar radiation being absorbed into the sea--resulting in more rapid warming which eventually leads to further melting inland. This is what the scientists appear to be most concerned about, not any presumed direct impact on sea level.

I got what Monash was talking about the first time. I'm not sure why you think it's necessary to repeat it and state that it's relevant, then admit it's not really relevant to direct impact on sea level, which is what I and the seemingly the article are talking about... not sure what the point was, but ok.

Furthermore, it would appear that the scientists did in fact take the Archimedes Principle into account. According to the article, they initially seemed to believe that the sea ice barrier would endure.

Um....what? What does mass displacement have to due with enduring? I don't follow the logic.

Anyway, I put the word scientists in quotes for a reason. I doubt the source for the quote that leads people to believe melting sea ice is directly responsible for sea level rise came from an actual scientist.

[Red Team]

You should have read more carefully. The subject of the article is sea ice on the Greenland coast. They do not specify that they have changed the subject to land based ice in that sentence, or the next. You just assume it. Regardless, even if that sentence was referring to Greenlands landmass, there's no indication the last sentence had changed subjects either.

All we have is a misinterpretation of what the article was saying on your part. Really, you should probably read the subject matter and get your facts right before commenting.

It seems that Monash is talking about this part of the article:

The geography of the area usually helps to pack the ice and keep it from melting. The ice smashes up against Greenland's coast, at times piling 70 feet high, CNN reports.

The trend is so strong that the region has commonly been called "the last ice area," The Guardian reports.

"This was the area that was seen as the last bastion," Walt Meier, a research scientist with the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center, told CNN. Even as Arctic ice melting increases, scientists thought the region would remain stable longer than anywhere else, he said.

While you are critical of this point of the article regarding your point about the Archimedes principle:

The unusual melt is another example of a concerning trend in Greenland: Between 1995 and 2017, about 4,000 gigatons of ice in Greenland has been lost. That's about as much water as there is in Lake Michigan.

Scientists say sunnier summer days have contributed to the large ice melt, which is helping to raise sea levels worldwide.

The problem with many science pieces in mainstream media is that it skips a lot of the relevant details involved with the findings for the sake of brevity. In this case you are both right, the Archimedes principle states plainly that melted sea ice would not have a direct increasing effect on sea levels. And the way the article presents the information, it is easy to make this false interpretation.

However Monash's point about the loss of albeido provided by melted sea ice is also relevant to the article, as it discusses one feedback mechanism that manifests when sea ice is lost--namely the loss of matter that lessens the heating effect of incoming solar radiation. The melted sea ice may not itself contribute to rising sea levels, but its loss will result in more solar radiation being absorbed into the sea--resulting in more rapid warming which eventually leads to further melting inland. This is what the scientists appear to be most concerned about, not any presumed direct impact on sea level.


Furthermore, it would appear that the scientists did in fact take the Archimedes Principle into account. According to the article, they initially seemed to believe that the sea ice barrier would endure.

"This was the area that was seen as the last bastion," Walt Meier, a research scientist with the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center, told CNN. Even as Arctic ice melting increases, scientists thought the region would remain stable longer than anywhere else, he said.

[Wooglin]

OK, I went back and read the (brief) article in USA Today you referred to in your original post which BTW did not mention the albedo effect. Unfortunately for your argument it also doesn't link melting sea ice in any way to a rise in sea levels. What is does say in part is -

"The unusual melt is another example of a concerning trend in Greenland: Between 1995 and 2017, about 4,000 gigatons of ice in Greenland has been lost. That's about as much water as there is in Lake Michigan."

And in that section it is specifically talking about the island of Greenland itself (as in the land mass not the sea around it) where large volumes of meting ice would be expected to lead to a rise in sea levels. In other words where a thick layer pack ice formerly acted as a buffer/insulator blocking runoff from the landmass and keeping it cooler in summer there is now open sea water which has the opposite effect. So again Archimedes principal is not relevant to the story and the authors haven't made any mistake in their article.

All we have is (a presumably innocent) misinterpretation of what the article was saying on your part. And FYI I was not trying to be 'smart', just correcting an unfair/inaccurate criticism posted in the thread. As I said previously by all means debate the science around AGW but everyone on both sides of the discussion should at least try to have their facts right first.

You should have read more carefully. The subject of the article is sea ice on the Greenland coast. They do not specify that they have changed the subject to land based ice in that sentence, or the next. You just assume it. Regardless, even if that sentence was referring to Greenlands landmass, there's no indication the last sentence had changed subjects either.

All we have is a misinterpretation of what the article was saying on your part. Really, you should probably read the subject matter and get your facts right before commenting.

[Monash]

How could I have made an error regarding albedo and feedback loops when I, and the article I was discussing, mentioned none of those things? Please show me where this is discussed in the article I was commenting on. You've made the error of trying to sound smart while not actually addressing the pertinent point.

OK, I went back and read the (brief) article in USA Today you referred to in your original post which BTW did not mention the albedo effect. Unfortunately for your argument it also doesn't link melting sea ice in any way to a rise in sea levels. What is does say in part is -

"The unusual melt is another example of a concerning trend in Greenland: Between 1995 and 2017, about 4,000 gigatons of ice in Greenland has been lost. That's about as much water as there is in Lake Michigan."

And in that section it is specifically talking about the island of Greenland itself (as in the land mass not the sea around it) where large volumes of meting ice would be expected to lead to a rise in sea levels. In other words where a thick layer pack ice formerly acted as a buffer/insulator blocking runoff from the landmass and keeping it cooler in summer there is now open sea water which has the opposite effect. So again Archimedes principal is not relevant to the story and the authors haven't made any mistake in their article.

All we have is (a presumably innocent) misinterpretation of what the article was saying on your part. And FYI I was not trying to be 'smart', just correcting an unfair/inaccurate criticism posted in the thread. As I said previously by all means debate the science around AGW but everyone on both sides of the discussion should at least try to have their facts right first.

[Wooglin]

I'm quite sure they're aware of the Archimedes Principal but you've made a basic scientific error yourself. Look up the term Albedo which is a measurement of a surfaces ability to reflect radiation (including sunlight). Sea ice, indeed any ice has a very high albedo and so a large proportion of the light/heat that strikes it is reflected back into space without heating the Earths surface. Sea water has a low albedo which means it absorbs solar radiation much more effectively than ice does and as a result tends to warm up faster. It also stores that heat fairly effectively and then circulates it around and under any ice floating on its surface as well as warming the air above it.

Like in most issues around climate change there are multiple complex feedback loops in play. This is just one of them. By all means criticize the science but a least get your science right first.

How could I have made an error regarding albedo and feedback loops when I, and the article I was discussing, mentioned none of those things? Please show me where this is discussed in the article I was commenting on. You've made the error of trying to sound smart while not actually addressing the pertinent point.

If you want to make an argument about feedback loops then I suggest you write to the media not making that argument and explain to THEM their basic scientific error. That's kind of the point. In the meantime, the article I'm discussing draws a direct causal relationship between sea ice melting to sea level that contradicts Archimedes Principle (and it's hardly the only one I've seen doing so). It leaves people to believe there's no difference between land ice and sea ice. It leaves them misinformed.

If you want to talk about positive feedback loops that the article didn't discuss, but is somehow my fault, then that's another discussion.

[Monash]

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...arbonemissions

Since we have already reached the tipping point for a global runaway greenhouse effect 21 months ago, I guess we can do whatever we want now. Ain't nothin's gonna stop it now.

Venus has a 'runaway green house' atmosphere, the Earth doesn't. To the best of my knowledge no scientist has suggested we are going down that path. There may be some alarmist, propaganda driven Greenies saying this but if so that just reflects the yawning gulf of their ignorance.

What the scientific literature I have read seems to be saying is that we are fast approached (or have already passed the point) where there will be an inescapable rise in average surface temperatures of 2 to 3C. Such a rise is problematic, even in some cases critical for the developing nations of the world but unlike Venus on Earth lead will not be melting on the surface of the planet until such time as the sun goes nova.

[Monash]

USA today article from today [bold mine]



I guess those "scientists" never heard of Archimides Principle. It's SEA ICE. All of it can melt and not raise sea levels by a millimeter.

This is why people are so fucking ignorant about GW. Stop reading USA Today, CNN, and especially the Guardian and pick up a 6th grade science book instead.

I'm quite sure they're aware of the Archimedes Principal but you've made a basic scientific error yourself. Look up the term Albedo which is a measurement of a surfaces ability to reflect radiation (including sunlight). Sea ice, indeed any ice has a very high albedo and so a large proportion of the light/heat that strikes it is reflected back into space without heating the Earths surface. Sea water has a low albedo which means it absorbs solar radiation much more effectively than ice does and as a result tends to warm up faster. It also stores the heat it absorbs fairly effectively and circulates that heat under/around any ice floating on it's surface as well as warming the air above it.

Like in most issues around climate change there are multiple complex feedback loops in play. This is just one of them. By all means criticize the science but a least get your science right first.

[Monash]

USA today article from today [bold mine]



I guess those "scientists" never heard of Archimides Principle. It's SEA ICE. All of it can melt and not raise sea levels by a millimeter.

This is why people are so fucking ignorant about GW. Stop reading USA Today, CNN, and especially the Guardian and pick up a 6th grade science book instead.

I'm quite sure they're aware of the Archimedes Principal but you've made a basic scientific error yourself. Look up the term Albedo which is a measurement of a surfaces ability to reflect radiation (including sunlight). Sea ice, indeed any ice has a very high albedo and so a large proportion of the light/heat that strikes it is reflected back into space without heating the Earths surface. Sea water has a low albedo which means it absorbs solar radiation much more effectively than ice does and as a result tends to warm up faster. It also stores that heat fairly effectively and then circulates it around and under any ice floating on its surface as well as warming the air above it.

Like in most issues around climate change there are multiple complex feedback loops in play. This is just one of them. By all means criticize the science but a least get your science right first.

[gunnut]

But wait....

Prince Charles extends climate doomsday deadline by 33 years

By Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times - Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Prince Charles is warning that there are only 35 years left to save the planet from climate disaster, which represents a 33-year extension of his previous deadline.

In March 2009, the heir to the British throne predicted that the world had 100 months “before we risk catastrophic climate change,” as pointed out by Climate Depot’s Marc Morano.

“Prince Charles gives world reprieve: Extends ‘100-Month’ climate ‘tipping point’ to 35 more years,” says the Tuesday headline on the Climate Depot website.

The British blog Not A Lot of People Know That announced in a July 19 post, “Charlie Gives Us a Reprieve!”

Prince Charles, who updated his forecast in a July 18 interview with the Western [U.K.] Morning News prior to his visit to the Westcountry, began issuing warnings six years ago about imminent ecological disaster driven by climate change.

“The best projections tell us that we have less than 100 months to alter our behaviour before we risk catastrophic climate change,” the Prince of Wales said in a speech in Rio de Janeiro, as reported by the [U.K.] Telegraph.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...sday-deadline/

Whew, His Royal Highness Prince Charles of Wales has decreed that the climate shall take longer to change and thus we have more time to stop it from changing.

What a relief!