Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1. The AGW crowd says the Arctic Ice is diminishing.
2. The other side points out that the Antarctic ice fields are increasing.
3. The AGW crowd then accuses the other side of using just one area of the world to make their point.
Follow the money. The alarmists fall into two camps; Those that are making a fortune from the hoax and those who are too dumb to make a fortune from the hoax.
Good summary!
It was kind of amusing at first, but now I find the alarmists to be irritating. Especially when they say we have to "control" or "stop" climate change/global warming within 10 years or it will be "too late." Do they really believe that? Well, I guess they do!
No, I'm asking you to show me the science.....If you can.
A simple word explanation of the science.
Reduced salinity surface water in the North Atlantic reduces heat transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere.
Two mechanisms.
One it tends to push the currents further south.
Two it floats on top of the denser higher salinity sea water and reduces heat transfer that way. The denser higher salinity water being warmer having come from the equator.
Okay, what on Earth makes you think it's a good idea when every serious scientific study on the matter says it isn't?
I'm not disagreeing with what they say will happen if it gets warmer. I've just taken a look at what may very well happen if it gets cooler. And in the absence of AGW we would still be in the little ice age. As it turned into the big ice age.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spot
Is this the new pro-oil talking point?
No, it is the new AGW talking point you are just not up to speed on it yet. Or rather it is the old one revisited.
Reduced salinity surface water in the North Atlantic reduces heat transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere.
Two mechanisms.
One it tends to push the currents further south.
Two it floats on top of the denser higher salinity sea water and reduces heat transfer that way. The denser higher salinity water being warmer having come from the equator.
Do you realise that this adds to the already existing evidence that clouds produce a net positive warming effect and that positive feedback amplification from clouds could be slightly underestimated in climate models?
Here is another recent paper published in Nature last year supporting this:
Climate science 'skeptics' like Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen continue to claim that clouds produce a net negative (cooling) feedback despite the fact that the evidence has already shown them to be wrong. The evidence against this 'skeptic' claim has been stacking up for some time now.
1.5 deg to 5 deg C. That is quite a range. And here is the kicker. If you get an increase in run off into the North Atlantic that is significantly higher than modeled, then you could well drop the lower limit on global warming prediction to be negative. That is the increase in sea ice from the increase in run off completely offsetting the reduction in heat loss from the added CO2.
And is it this that tells you the melting Greenhouse ice sheet will cause a glaciation period?
That was the mechanism that would explain a Younger Dryas type event. The Younger Dryas event occurred in an otherwise warming environment. What we have now is an overall cooling environment aside from AGW.
Thank you for the very useful links. This time I will put them where I can find them again because this is an unreliable place to leave useful information as it gets lost.
Now that answers it for us. The fact that we are under 20 feet of water is not changed by the fact that the shore line has not changed in 100 years. You can't look a the evidence, it's more complicated than that.
See what they are saying is that the relative level of water change is 1~2 inches or so. Speed up a current a bit or slow it down a bit and that will be more powerful of a signal than the average rise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AL84
I still want to know when the Ice Age that started in the 1970's ended. It's hard to tell these things.
It didn't stop. We are still inside of the swings that have been going on for the last 8,000 years of gradual cooling. Or not that far above them, yet. The 1970's was when it was identified and published not when it started.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
