Climate Questions - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By LaDexter
#14929291
1. The Antarctic Circle has 9 times the ice vs. the Arctic, is on average 50F colder than the Arctic, and calves/puts 9 times the ice into the oceans vs. the Arctic, some 46 times the molecular H2O put into the Gulf by the Mississippi River. Hence, the Antarctic Circle cools Earth much more than the Arctic. Why?

2. 1 million years ago, North America was covered with "ice age" glacier down to Indiana, while Greenland was entirely green. Hence, during the past million years, Greenland froze while North America thawed, all at the same time on the same planet with the same atmosphere with the same amount of Co2 in the atmosphere. So what did Co2 have to do with either event?

3. If you have two and only two measures of the same thing, and both measures return highly correlated data, should you accept the data, or fudge both one way with uncorrelated "corrections" to support your cause?
User avatar
By One Degree
#14929296
The Antarctic is surrounded by water, so it heats and cools slower than the Arctic.
User avatar
By LaDexter
#14929297
Zero for 1....

Try this one...

90% of Earth ice is on LAND MASS ANTARCTICA
7% of Earth ice is on LAND MASS GREENLAND

So 97% of Earth ice is on the two land masses closest to an Earth pole.... and land MOVES...
User avatar
By One Degree
#14929299
LaDexter wrote:Zero for 1....

Try this one...

90% of Earth ice is on LAND MASS ANTARCTICA
7% of Earth ice is on LAND MASS GREENLAND

So 97% of Earth ice is on the two land masses closest to an Earth pole.... and land MOVES...


Yes, it was apparent your questions were not intended to get answers. I just decided to give you an opportunity to tell us all your answers. I am disappointed, all I got was another test and no answers.
Please proceed.
User avatar
By Zamuel
#14929303
One Degree wrote:The Antarctic is surrounded by water, so it heats and cools slower than the Arctic.

No cigar, but you're thinking in the right direction. The Antarctic is a land mass, with the emphasis on -MASS- there's a lot more of it that has to be heated and / or cooled. So naturally, it takes longer and changes last longer.

What exactly was it that you taught ?

Zam - ;)
User avatar
By One Degree
#14929308
Zamuel wrote:No cigar, but you're thinking in the right direction. The Antarctic is a land mass, with the emphasis on -MASS- there's a lot more of it that has to be heated and / or cooled. So naturally, it takes longer and changes last longer.

What exactly was it that you taught ?

Zam - ;)


Obviously, I knew it was a land mass or I would not have said it is surrounded by water. :) My answer addressed part of his questions correctly. The water does prevent it thawing faster.
User avatar
By Zamuel
#14929338
One Degree wrote:Obviously, I knew it was a land mass or I would not have said it is surrounded by water. :) My answer addressed part of his questions correctly. The water does prevent it thawing faster.


No. the water is the main agency heating or cooling the mass. The actual land is mostly insulated from solar radiation by snow and ice.

You were really "once upon a time" an educator ?

Zam :roll:
User avatar
By One Degree
#14929340
Zamuel wrote:No. the water is the main agency heating or cooling the mass. The actual land is mostly insulated from solar radiation by snow and ice.

You were really "once upon a time" an educator ?

Zam :roll:


You seem to be making a distinction without a difference. You realize the thawing mainly occurs on the edges? If the edges were land, it would thaw faster than it does now.
User avatar
By Zamuel
#14929343
One Degree wrote:You seem to be making a distinction without a difference. You realize the thawing mainly occurs on the edges? If the edges were land, it would thaw faster than it does now.

Give it up … you obviously have no comprehension of thermo-dynamics.

Zam
User avatar
By One Degree
#14929344
Zamuel wrote:Give it up … you obviously have no comprehension of thermo-dynamics.

Zam


Translation: Your aspersions on my knowledge backfired and you have nothing left? :)
I only made the one comment to see what he had to say. I was curious since I was not aware our scientist are fully aware of what is happening.
User avatar
By Zamuel
#14929373
One Degree wrote:Translation: Your aspersions on my knowledge backfired and you have nothing left? :).

I have a simple rule, never argue with children who don't know what they're talking about.

Zam :eh:
User avatar
By LaDexter
#14929598
OK, let's try this one again.

97% of Earth ice is on the two land masses closest to an Earth pole. In the past million years, Greenland froze while North America thawed. That is the data, and it totally refutes that Co2 is any form of significant variable to the climate.

Earth climate is like a big room with two AC units, Antarctic and Arctic, with settings 0 = off and 10 = maxCool. Right now, the Antarctic AC is set at 9 and the Arctic AC is set at 1...

The concept of an "ice age" is all wrong. Ice ages are CONTINENT SPECIFIC, as Greenland and North America proved during the past million years. As the Atlantic Ocean grew, Greenland was pushed NW by the angle of the fault in the center of the Atlantic. As it moved closer and closer to the North Pole, its summers got shorter and colder, and finally it reached a point where its winter snow cover failed to fully melt, causing ice/snow to start to STACK. That is the start of an "ice age." Antarctica has 70 million year old dinosaur fossils on it. Those dinos didn't live on top of 2 miles of ice at -70F. Antarctica was not on the South Pole 70 million years ago. It moved there.

Hence the climate dynamic. Earth's climate is controlled by how much land is near enough to an Earth pole to start the ice stacking function. Run that function for a million years and you get Greenland. Run it for 40 million years and you get Antarctica.
User avatar
By LaDexter
#14929602
Question #3 is all about what the climate "scientists" did with the ATMOSPHERIC TEMP DATA....

In 2005, the warmers had a big problem. The two and only two measures of atmospheric temps, satellites and balloons, showed precisely NO WARMING in the atmosphere despite rising Co2. Both series were HIGHLY CORRELATED, indicating that "warmest year on record 1998" was actually cooler than normal in the atmosphere. So if you are a taxpayer funded left wing fudgebaking liar, and the data completely refutes your bogus "theory," what do you do?

A: FUDGE


http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8917093/ns/te ... zp71tU3nGI


"satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling."

Really, it was more of a flat line that went up and down a bit, the claim of "cooling" was not statistically significant.


"Scientists were left with two choices: either the atmosphere wasn't warming up, or something was wrong with the data."


welcome to climate "science," when the data refutes you, you simply fudge it, keep on lying, and bilking the #### out of the taxpayer...
#14929679
LaDexter wrote:1. The Antarctic Circle has 9 times the ice vs. the Arctic, is on average 50F colder than the Arctic, and calves/puts 9 times the ice into the oceans vs. the Arctic, some 46 times the molecular H2O put into the Gulf by the Mississippi River. Hence, the Antarctic Circle cools Earth much more than the Arctic. Why?

2. 1 million years ago, North America was covered with "ice age" glacier down to Indiana, while Greenland was entirely green. Hence, during the past million years, Greenland froze while North America thawed, all at the same time on the same planet with the same atmosphere with the same amount of Co2 in the atmosphere. So what did Co2 have to do with either event?

3. If you have two and only two measures of the same thing, and both measures return highly correlated data, should you accept the data, or fudge both one way with uncorrelated "corrections" to support your cause?

From the Wicipedia article "Greenland ice sheet", GENERAL ---
The presence of ice-rafted sediments in deep-sea cores recovered from northeast Greenland, in the Fram Strait, and south of Greenland indicated the more or less continuous presence of either an ice sheet or ice sheets covering significant parts of Greenland for the last 18 million years. From about 11 million years ago to 10 million years ago, the Greenland Ice Sheet was greatly reduced in size. The Greenland Ice Sheet formed in the middle Miocene by coalescence of ice caps and glaciers. There was an intensification of glaciation during the Late Pliocene.[3] Ice sheet formation occurred in connection to uplift of the West Greenland and East Greenland uplands. The Western and Eastern Greenland mountains constitute passive continental margins that were uplifted in two phases, 10 and 5 million years ago, in the Miocene epoch.[A] Computer modelling shows that the uplift would have enabled glaciation by producing increased orographic precipitation and cooling the surface temperatures.[4] The oldest known ice in the current ice sheet is as old as 1,000,000 years old.[5]

It says that your 2nd point is not correct. Where could you find such BS?
Yes, it says the oldest ice is only 1M yr. old. But ice flows so that is not surprising.
It says the ice sheet is about 18M yr. old.
Without this point your whole argument fails completely.
You need to save your point somehow, or slink away.

Also, Greenland moves about 1" per year as its plate moves.
At this rate in 1M yr. it would move a whole 16 miles.
I do not think 16 miles matters in this context.
#14930367
One Degree wrote:The Antarctic is surrounded by water, so it heats and cools slower than the Arctic.

It would be clearer to say that the Southern Hemisphere, being 90% ocean, heats and cools slower than the Northern, which is almost half land.
#14930462
Truth To Power wrote:It would be clearer to say that the Southern Hemisphere, being 90% ocean, heats and cools slower than the Northern, which is almost half land.

To elaborate on what One Degree and Zanuek said most of the ice in the Arctic was floating on water while almost all the ice on Antarctica is sitting on the ground. Ice melts from the top, sides and bottom [the outside surface], so if the bottom is on sot of warm water it will melt there compared if the bottom is on the sub-zero frozen ground. The Arctic sea ice will all melt this summer, almost for sure. And I think the Greenland ice sheet is melting faster than the Antarctic ice sheet.

But then, his whole argument is based on the incorrect 'fact' that 1M yrs ago there was no ice on Greenland. It was green. ??
#14930631
Steve_American wrote:The Arctic sea ice will all melt this summer, almost for sure.

I'll take all your money on that one.
And I think the Greenland ice sheet is melting faster than the Antarctic ice sheet.

Neither is melting significantly.
But then, his whole argument is based on the incorrect 'fact' that 1M yrs ago there was no ice on Greenland. It was green. ??

He was off by an order of magnitude. But Greenland was warmer during the Medieval Warm Period.
User avatar
By LaDexter
#14930649
The issue of the age of the Greenland ice sheet is from actual science....

https://www.livescience.com/7331-ancien ... green.html

"The oldest ever recovered DNA samples have been collected from under more than a mile of Greenland ice,"

"The DNA is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest "



In other words, scientists dug through the thickest portion of the Greenland ice sheet, scooped up some pine cones etc. and carbon dated... under 1 million years old.

I pay no attention to the use of "ice age" by idiots who do not understand what one is. Greenland has been moving NW for 120 million years. It didn't fluctuate between frozen and un-frozen. It moved north unfrozen, and then it froze. Period. That is the data. That is why those pine cones dated to under 1 million years old.

Greenland was a Global COOLING talking point in the 1970s, because the vikings were still farming there until about 1400, when the permafrost from the glaciers made farming impossible.
User avatar
By LaDexter
#14930650
Steve American also questions whether a few feet this way or that way makes much of a difference.

The point is that there is a point where the snow/ice from winter ceases to fully melt. There are other variables. Every once in a while the remnants of a hurricane blow onto Greenland. Such warm and moist air could trigger a quick rain and wipe out small accumulations.

But the same thing is true for North America, where 1 million years ago Canada was all under mile plus thick ice age glacier and the glaciers were in southern INDIANA.

Bottom line, Steve, the "Earth glacier manufacturing system" is either "on" or "off" and which year it starts can be influenced by "alternative" issues like runaway hurricanes.

The data is that Greenland was completely green until the last million years, and the "warmers" have ZERO evidence that Greenland was frozen more than a million years ago - ZERO.

Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib said she “loves the […]

Why I am a Materialist Christian

This post was inspired... It was inspired by wat[…]

Nike, Kaepernick and Arizona...

“Moving the goalposts” means that the person has […]

Sexual assaults against young men by a homosexual[…]