Antarctic Ice Sheet Collapse

[BasketCase]

I hope you realize you just said absolutely nothing of value.

On the contrary, LC--I proved that extensive environmental damage (total destruction, actually) can happen with no change in planetary average temperature.

Moderate climate is something we humans crave. But if the planet's average temp stays the same, then a more moderate climate must cause a larger percentage of the planet to rise above freezing--causing more melting. On the flip side, more extreme climate(assuming the same planetary average temperature) means colder winters. Meaning more ice. Meaning the oceans go down.

Further: this demonstrates that the planet's average temp doesn't tell us very much--what's important is where the energy is going. It's entirely possible that the Earth is heating up and that the planet's total ice mass is growing (yes, both at the same time), and I can explain how very simply: if the heat is being stored in human cities. Cities are known to be warmer than surrounding areas--this has been confirmed in the field.

I have a theory, and real-world evidence to back it up.


Crap. I got sucked in full-time again. I can't help it, these threads are like crack to me.

 

[FriendlyFire]

more extreme climate(assuming the same planetary average temperature) means colder winters. Meaning more ice. Meaning the oceans go down.

Unless tha atlantic converyer shuts down then we would have expanded ice as heat would remain trapped around the equater. As colder winters leading to hotter summers produces a net total negative.

 

[brennan]

The total Antarctic Ice mass is decreasing.
Glaciers are in fast retreat across the globe.
Severe weather events are increasing.
Sea levels are rising at an increasing rate.
Global average temperatures are rising.
CO2 levels are far higher than they have been for 100s of thousands of years and still rising.
Rainforests are disappearing at an alarming rate.
...
"yeah but it's cold here..."...

Pathetic.

 

[BasketCase]

Unless tha atlantic converyer shuts down

That might not have any effect at all.

If the Atlantic--wait, why the hell is it named after the belt at the counter in the grocery store??? Bah, never mind. If said Atlantic current shuts down, this simply takes the same heat and moves it elsewhere.

It's a question of where. Spreading it all evenly around the planet can be bad. In fact, if the current evens out temperatures over a large area, the EXISTENCE of the conveyor could be bad for the planet (though probably good for New York and England).

 

[brennan]

Have you considered a name change? 'Mr. Non-Sequitur' for example?

 

[BasketCase]

Weak, dude. My mother can come up with better snipes than that. And she can't even get the microwave to work.

When the bathtub is too cold, you do what? You turn on the hot water, then stir the tub around. What does that do? It evens out the temperaure over the entire tub.

What does the Atlantic Conveyor thingy do? It stirs the water.


By the way, thanks for participating in this thread. Now I've seen that you use the same cheesy debate tactics against EVERYBODY. Proves that the problem isn't on my end.

 

[FriendlyFire]

That might not have any effect at all.

If the Atlantic--wait, why the hell is it named after the belt at the counter in the grocery store??? Bah, never mind. If said Atlantic current shuts down, this simply takes the same heat and moves it elsewhere.

It's a question of where. Spreading it all evenly around the planet can be bad. In fact, if the current evens out temperatures over a large area, the EXISTENCE of the conveyor could be bad for the planet (though probably good for New York and England).

The problem here is that the ocean are the earths LUNGS with extreme tempatures in the equator (more red algea out breaks) and with the north frozen you would get a net effect just there.

Then theres the weather pattern which only occurs when extreme tempatures are present such as droughts killing large areas of vegatation on the land and the sea.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Bask, pour cool water in the tub on one side, warm on the other, then stir it around while continue to pour water. Does it still even out the temp over the entire tub? Or are there still differences?

Now stir it another way. Any other irregular way. This time with slightly warmer water on both sides then before (1 degree). You'll find places in the tub where it got warmer and places where it got colder. But overall, the temperatur is 1 degree warmer.

 

[brennan]

See, BC I completely fail to see why you said what you did. What possible conclusions can you come to based upon your rather tedious statement of the obvious? If all the world was at the average temperature all the ice would melt. No **** sherlock. But it ain't ever gonna happen. It can't; energy does not arrive everywhere on earth at the same rate, therefore it will move about, but it can never be the same everywhere.

So what the hell did you say it for? What conclusion are you arriving at? your 'theory' is utterly worthless. As usual.

 

[BasketCase]

I already spelled it out from beginning to end. The specific demonstrates the general: a more moderate climate, with smaller variations between hot and cold, results in less ice.

 

[brennan]

So What?

890

 

[Abaddon]

I think he is trying to say that we are losing ice,not due to warming, but due to a more relaxed climate.

 

[brennan]

Oh, so he's ignoring the fact that global average temparatures have been increasing for decades then?

 

[Abaddon]

Think so. TBH unsure

 

[BasketCase]

Yep. For once brennan got something right.

But let's tend to that. If global average temperatures ARE going up (key word being "if").....then.......what?

Tell ya what, bren-meister: how about you go find a book titled "How To Lie With Statistics" and do some reading up on the problems with averages. Might be a little difficult, because the book was written in 1954. But all the statistics scams that book describes are still in use today, and I find it a delicious irony that a sixty-year-old book still has extremely valuable information for the modern world.

I already showed how to flood the entire planet without raising the average temperature at all. I re-iterate: it's not enough to know the amount of heat stored on the planet--you have to know where it is and what it's doing.

 

[FriendlyFire]

I already showed how to flood the entire planet without raising the average temperature at all. I re-iterate: it's not enough to know the amount of heat stored on the planet--you have to know where it is and what it's doing.

Hear hear.
If the waters raise by 4meters that is NOT a result of globel warming. Or if temps raise by 6 degrees huge methan thunderstorm ravage the earth in an orgy of mass destruction that is NOT a result of globel warming. In fact nothing could be futher from the truth

seriously thou lets not panic mankind will survive (a few billion will probably perish) But worse case senario human species will continue. somehow.

 

[BasketCase]

Hear hear.
If the waters raise by 4meters that is NOT a result of globel warming.

Could be a result of ocean currents circulating too much heat too far towards the poles. When you've got warm water near the equator and cold water up north, and you have an intercontinental ocean current (say, the Atlantic Conveyor) that stirs the water around, the result is what.....?

Work it out.

 

[Truronian]

Basketcase:

We know average temperature has been rising and we know that the temperature has been rising at the poles. Is that not enough for concern?

 

[BasketCase]

If it was, I wouldn't be skeptical of the theory, now, would I?

And why do you keep trumpeting average temperature AGAIN?? You're just gonna keep getting the same answer. Averages can deceive (or people like you could use them to lie).

Now, the part about temperature going up at the poles--that's a start. But the usual statistical problems pop up. How many measurements are needed for statistical significance? And if the temp is going up at the poles, is it a trend or a fluke? We've already had a forty-year cooling trend which turned out to be a fluke. (or was it?) So we know it can happen.

Edit: Yeah, yeah, I know: "we've got to act on the currently available information". Well, guess what. Our currently available information is that we've made a lot of screw-ups in the past by acting on the information available at the time. Our efforts to clean up pollution in the 70's for example--that just ended up making global warming worse (well, probably--that's just a theory, but it's a pretty solid one).

Re-edit: Here's another. Everybody's all aggro about planting trees in order to slow down global warming, right? And of course activists have been planting trees for years. Hell, I myself have planted more trees in my lifetime than any three Greenpeace activists. Surprise--somebody theorized that trees in temperate zones may ACCELERATE global warming rather than stop it! Surprised? So was I. Lemme see if I can find a link.

Re-re-edit: This might be it. Not sure though, it doesn't look like the right one.

 

[Truronian]

If it was, I wouldn't be skeptical of the theory, now, would I?

It can be concering, even if you think there is nothing we can do about it.

And why do you keep trumpeting average temperature AGAIN?? You're just gonna keep getting the same answer. Averages can deceive (or people like you could use them to lie).

I need no convincing that statistics can be easily misused. This is a valid use however... I'm merely showing that localised rises are not wholly caused by temperature redistribution.

Now, the part about temperature going up at the poles--that's a start. But the usual statistical problems pop up. How many measurements are needed for statistical significance? And if the temp is going up at the poles, is it a trend or a fluke? We've already had a forty-year cooling trend which turned out to be a fluke. (or was it?) So we know it can happen.

We already know there is a warming trend, the question your asking is "will it continue?" To answer that we need to know what causes the warming trends, and the most plausible answer I've seen is "Us". But then that's besides my point.

Edit: Yeah, yeah, I know: "we've got to act on the currently available information". Well, guess what. Our currently available information is that we've made a lot of screw-ups in the past by acting on the information available at the time. Our efforts to clean up pollution in the 70's for example--that just ended up making global warming worse (well, probably--that's just a theory, but it's a pretty solid one).

That's silly. Most people learn when they're five that failure is not a good reason to give up.

Re-edit: Here's another. Everybody's all aggro about planting trees in order to slow down global warming? Somebody theorized that trees in temperate zones may ACCELERATE global warming rather than stop it! Surprised? So was I. Lemme see if I can find a link.

So you agree humans can have an effect on global warming?