I’m sick of global warming, especially when morons link it to stupid things like marriage break-up rates …
Seriously, there’s a PM undercurrent about me … I feel validated now … thank you all the silent followers, I’m totally encouraged now to continue exactly the way I’ve been.
Silent followers are cowards. I’ll come right out and say that I love your posts.
As a long-time FXM fan (like, before it was cool), it’s adorable that y’all are all up on watchwolf49 now.
It’s like watching new boy bands come along with all their screaming, panty-tossing fans. I’ll stick with Backtreet, thanksverymuch.
.
You are missing the point, the meaning of a counter example. something very common in the warming war. You used arctic sea ice as an example of a prediction for human caused climate change. When somebody points out “this happened before, and it certainly wasn’t human caused”, the argument seems obvious. If events occur naturally, and have happened before, it’s very hard to prove humans caused the event. This does not mean the latest event was not human caused, but it does lead to skepticism of attributing the event to humans.
No, just as forest fires don’t go away, because they happened before. Using that example, if somebody claims humans caused a huge forest fire (which they certainly have before), and they also claim huge fires have never happened before, most people would be very skeptical. Because we know lightning starts fires, and historic records show vast fires occurred, with no human cause. So it’s not bad reasoning to counter claims with “it happened before”, since it’s an obvious problem for somebody claiming something.
Your response is also the kind of “reasoning” we encounter. You handwave away something, because you can’t understand the meaning of it. Another example, and it’s a good one.
If somebody points at a melting glacier in Alaska, and says it’s evidence of human climate change “it warming, like never before”, and we find old forests that were buried by the glacier, forests which took a thousand years to grow, and were buried 500 years ago by advancing ice, it presents a real problem for the claim “this never happen before”.
See? This happens all over, in many ways. Saying it doesn’t mean anything, is not a counter to these facts. It’s not like somebody made something up to debunk global warming. It’s that evidence and reasons lead to skeptical views of claims. Emotional appeals also do not further your cause.
See? Even if Greenland as melting away (and it certainly is not), an emotional appeal won’t matter.
You need evidence, science and reasons, to at least have a chance at arguing.
That’s quite unfair, since there are valid reasons for not joining a Pit thread, or sending a supportive PM. I follow some threads here that I would never post in, and I certainly don’t do it out of fear.
The number or kind of people reading an internet discussion, and what “side” they are on, won’t change reality at all.
It is a much easier life, mining rubies, gold, uranium, instead of hunting dangerous game. maybe you should ask the Inuit if they prefer a 21st Century lifestyle, instead of a 5th century (BC) one?
That’s what the climatologists on NPR (referenced above) are saying as well, there’s no specific event tied to AGW, rather AGW effects long term treads … and I would add AGW increases the probability of more energetic events. For a simple example if a hurricane would have been category 2 with 250 ppmv CO[sub]2[/sub], then it could be a category 3 with 400 ppmv.
Whoa, that sounds more like educated insight than “parroting”. You’ve managed to comply with all three Laws of Thermodynamics here, well done !!! Enthalpy of fusion is also called “latent heat of fusion” in some older textbooks. The critical understanding here is that while the energy is being used to melt the ice, it does not increase the temperature. We can have a ∆T = 0 and still say the globe is warming.
1] As ralph124c mentioned, not all the effects of global warming are bad for humans, there will be benefits. I believe that on balance there will be more good than bad that comes of this. Far more dangerous is the extraction and transportation of theses fossil fuels, we have railroad tanker cars full of oil and hotels full of natural gas blowing up and killing people today, what kind of inhuman monster would think glaciers disappearing in a hundred years is a more critical problem that human body parts flying through the air?
2] The rate of change is a very big unanswered question. This is where we get the Alarmist screaming about “hockey sticks”. If we look at the ice core data, we don’t see any of this rapid rise in temperature. So predicting something that has never occurred before runs very very thin without rigid quantitative analysis. If someone predicts a +5ºC increase in 100 years, I’m the first to ask to see the math.
3] Climate change … oh boy … sure, some places will see a change in climate, but certainly not all places. The polar regions are a great example, they are deserts and this fact has absolutely nothing to do with temperature or CO[sub]2[/sub] concentrations … it’s strictly about geographic location. We can melt every last ice crystal in Antarctic and it would still be dry, rarely raining or snowing. In 30 million years when Antarctic moves off the pole and into the temperate regions, then we’ll start to see the rains and snows there again, like 30 million years ago.
Atlanta’s climate is completely dominated by the Gulf of Mexico, as long as the Gulf exists, it will be hot and rainy in Atlanta during summers … no matter any rise in temperature.
For the last time, Peter Sagal is not a climatologist!
(Interestingly enough, however, Tom Bodett is a meteorologist, and both PJ O’Rourke and Paula Poundstone are oceanographers.)
(Less interesting, but still a fun fact: I dated Bobcat Goldthwait’s ex-wife in high school. Great girl, kinda crazy.)
.
Ladies, please, I appreciate y’all buying new panties to throw at me, but please take them out of the packaging first. There’s cardboard and crap in there and it really hurts when I’m being pelted.
That’s an amazing point. Why do we think primitive people enjoy being primitive?
Or that they enjoy the cold?
Exactly. Everyone should want to be just like us. USA! USA!
(And I can officially no longer tell who is sincere and who is joking in this thread. Which at least makes it more enjoyable.)
The Kalapuya Nation would have enjoyed being primitive right now if they weren’t all mostly dead.
Is this a thread where real questions can be asked? 
What portion of the Earth’s excess of solar insolation is spent melting ice? (I suppose I could figure this out myself with Googling and arithmetic, but I’m probabnly missing something basic.)
You’re joking, right? Have you read more than one post?
Here’s what you’ll get: watchwolf49 will make up some numbers with no basis in reality. FXM will provide a wall of links and data about weather that, while impressive, don’t actually answer the question. Ralph124c will tell you something like the excess insolation was used up by the Vikings 1000 years ago. You still have a few people with half a brain like Try2B Comprehensive who might try to answer, but serious posters who look at this from a scientific standpoint quickly give up on facts. This thread is about trolling.
Ask in GQ and you’ll actually get a decent answer.
Yes, but some real experts do browse this thread. I’ll ask in GQ if I don’t get an answer here, but am not sure if it’s worth its own GQ thread. (If the portion of heat spent melting ice is very significant, as my back-of-envelope suggests, it might lead to interesting discussion but I want to get the first fact right.)
FWIW, I think you’ve mischaracterized the trolls somewhat.
FXM does have some basic knowledge of AGW, I think, but has gone off into some lunacy of sarcasm. He’s got some emotional investment in this trolling persona now – I just set him to Ignore; no sense trying to separate the chaff from the wheat, if any.
watchwolf49 reminds me of deltasigma, who stopped posting two years ago, tired of being insulted for his pretentious ignorances. Both watchwolf49 and deltasigma have a decent sophomoric understanding of science, may have good technical employment, can make OK contributions, but suffer from the Dunning–Kruger effect immensely. watchwolf49 had a laughably-flawed understanding of Milankovitch cycles and pretentiously insulted anyone who tried to correct him. He seems sincerely interested in the science and has probably read some Wikipedia articles on the topic by now. Pro-tip: Do the Freshman reading, then spout off like a sophomore; not the reverse.
I didn’t notice that Ralph124c had opinions about AGW. I’ve not actually set him to Ignore, but I think by now my brain ignores him automatically.
You’re right, you have a more nuanced (and more accurate) view of the frequent posters here. I shouldn’t oversimplify their complex and delightful personalities. (Although you might be giving watchwolf too much credit - take a look at his ideas about conservation of energy in the atmosphere.)
But I’m mostly chiming in again because I realized I left out some important words in my post above: I meant to say “…a few people with more than half a brain like Try2B Comprehensive…” The way I wrote it made it sounds like I was suggesting T2BC has half a brain, which was not my intent at all. Apologies to T2BC.
Very poor trolling; he puts far too much work into it. This is mental illness.
I’ll take a swing at this, what could possibly go wrong?
It depends on how much ice is melting, and I’ve not come upon those numbers. So, yeah, googling and arithmetic … and it looks like some trig too … it would be complicated, the sun doesn’t even shine there for parts of the year.
Keep in mind that only some of the energy received by the ice is used to melt it into water. Think of this as only one pathway for the energy. Some energy is used to sublimate the ice, converting it directly to water vapor in the atmosphere. The important pathway is still here too, the ice simply re-radiates the energy back towards space, and that’s the energy that drives the greenhouse effect. So there’s another complicated calculation you’d have to do. Meh, if you asked in General Questions you might be able to get all this information from GIGObuster.
That was one hell of a great call, septimus, I did indeed complete sophomore meteorology with some junior level mathematics … just enough knowledge to be dangerous … (where can I lawfully buy U[sup]235[/sup], this Americium I got ain’t going to work.) I’m surprised you think Milankovitch cycles are the only orbital perimeter. From Wikipedia “Milanković mathematically theorized that variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth’s orbit determined climatic patterns on Earth through orbital forcing.” He did not include orbital perturbations. Remember, it’s not the square of the difference, but the difference of the squares.
Anyway, I may have answered my own question. The Earth receives a net heat input of about 10 zettajoules per year (that’s 10 billion terajoules or 10^22 for those who like everyday units ). One (high?) estimate of glacier and ice-pack decline is half a trillion tonnes per year. That works out, I think, to 2% of the excess heat spent on the water phase change. A minor amount, I guess, as such things go.
No, nobody can figure it out, because it’s a nonsense question, based on a nonsensical idea, that something exists called “excess of solar insolation”. You must be thinking of something else, like an increased greenhouse effect, which is a valid question. An increase in energy from an enhanced greenhouse effect is the root cause of the global warming theory, and figuring out how much energy goes into melting existing ice, rather than increasing surface or ocean temperatures is a very good question.
The same could be asked about how much energy goes into increasing the hydrological cycle, a question I brought up back in 2010, since I wanted to know.