|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Coltronator
Joined: 04 Dec 2013
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 11:20 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Is this the report that stated that the eastern side was growing by x however the western side was shrinking by 2x and so overall it was still shrinking? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fallacy
Joined: 29 Jun 2015
Location: ex-ROK
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Coltronator wrote: |
| Is this the report that stated that the eastern side was growing by x however the western side was shrinking by 2x and so overall it was still shrinking? |
This, except phrased as affirmative answer instead of question. "If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years." Here is a NASA link for TheUrbanMyth to reference, as requested:
| Quote: |
| https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses |
Last edited by Fallacy on Sat Nov 07, 2015 1:08 am; edited 4 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 11:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Coltronator wrote: |
| Is this the report that stated that the eastern side was growing by x however the western side was shrinking by 2x and so overall it was still shrinking? |
Since 2012 the Arctic sea ice extent has gained close to 3 million square kilometers. (I am using the NSIDC/NASA figures). I would suggest that something is off. Perhaps if one of you gentlemen would be so kind as to post the link to said report? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallacy
Joined: 29 Jun 2015
Location: ex-ROK
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2015 12:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
From the NSIDC website, title on front page:
| Quote: |
| Powerful winds ablate Antarctica’s snow surface in a previously unrecognized way |
Also, click "News" then "Current Conditions - Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis." The first report of this phenomenon is found here from 2 years ago:
| Quote: |
| http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/09/17/stronger-winds-explain-puzzling-growth-of-sea-ice-in-antarctica/ |
"A new modeling study to be published in the Journal of Climate shows that stronger polar winds lead to an increase in Antarctic sea ice, even in a warming climate. The research was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF). [Regarding] the possible link between winds and Antarctic sea ice expansion before, this is the first study that confirms this link through a model experiment. A previous study by Zhang showed that changes in water density could explain the remaining increase."
| Quote: |
| http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.php |
Just in case the data from USA is not enough, consider this: Isdække i Arktis (Danish) - Ocean and Ice Services in Denmark - graphic showing Arctic Sea Ice Extent. Finally, consider this as bleeding edge information in support of a possible "more ice" thesis:
| Quote: |
| ZWALLY, H. Jay; et. al. "Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses." Journal of Glaciology, Vol. 61, No. 230, (2015). pages 1019~1036. PI is from NASA. Accepted for publication in revised form on September 19th, 2015. Appeared in print or became available online on October 29th, 2015. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2015 8:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Is this the report that stated that the eastern side was growing by x however the western side was shrinking by 2x and so overall it was still shrinking? |
It was the above quote that puzzled me since the data clearly shows that both caps are (currently) experiencing greater sea ice extent.
And as for the shrinking...that is only a possibility...a hypothesis if you will.
So that then takes us full circle back to my original claim on page 1 (the OP) wherein I stated
| Quote: |
Remember the sensationalist claims about the ice caps melting?
Not only is that NOT happening but the reserve is actually occurring. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adam Carolla
Joined: 26 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2015 11:55 am Post subject: Re: Global Warming part deux |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Since the original thread is over 50 pages in length, I figured I'd start a new one since there is new data to discuss (from this year in fact). Remember the sensationalist claims about the ice caps melting?
Not only is that NOT happening but the reserve is actually occurring.
| Quote: |
The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend. As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s...
...In late 2012, however, polar ice dramatically rebounded and quickly surpassed the post-1979 average. Ever since, the polar ice caps have been at a greater average extent than the post-1979 mean.
Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average. |
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/
So why are global warming alarmists still banging this drum?
This might shed some light
http://wichitaliberty.org/environment/global-warming-alarmism-the-money-motive/
| Quote: |
Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist and co-chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Working Group III on Mitigation of Climate Change (say that twice), told the Neue Zurcher Zeitung last week: “The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War.” After all, redistributing global wealth is no small matter.
Edenhofer let the environmental cat out of the bag when he said “climate policy is redistributing the world’s wealth” and that “it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. |
|
So, first, that Forbes article is written by a guy from The Heartland Institute. Here's a little about what wikipedia has to say about that organization.
| Quote: |
| The Heartland Institute is the primary American supporter of climate change denial.[2][3][4][5] It rejects the scientific consensus that global warming poses a significant danger to the planet[6] and that human activity is driving it,[7] and says that policies to fight it would be damaging to the economy. |
Another tidbit:
| Quote: |
| In the 1990s, Heartland worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question serious cancer risks to secondhand smoke, and to lobby against government public-health regulations. Starting in 2008, Heartland has organized conferences to criticize the scientific opinion of global warming. |
Sounds like quite a reputable institution.
But, the real kicker, is that the guy is flat out lying. He claims that "polar" ice levels really aren't changing, but for proof of this, he links to a jpeg chart that says, RIGHT IN THE TITLE "Global Sea Ice Area."
He then bases his statistics for POLAR ice area on a chart that doesn't provide any data on polar ice.
So, either he's an idiot, or a liar. But have a look for yourself.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adam Carolla
Joined: 26 Feb 2010
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adam Carolla
Joined: 26 Feb 2010
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallacy
Joined: 29 Jun 2015
Location: ex-ROK
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2015 3:33 pm Post subject: RE: Global Warming part deux |
|
|
| The research shows that both the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps are still melting, so the "reverse" cannot be claimed. What can be claimed is that there are multiple contributing factors to melting, and rates of melting are dynamic. Specific to the Antarctic, the 18 page article by Zwally [the primary investigator, who acknowledges that "this research was supported by NASA’s Project Science funding"] clearly states that on one side of it there is "measurable gains in mass," but on the other, there is still "catastrophic collapse." Conclusion: "The mass-balance distribution is mostly positive in EA and WA2, and mostly negative in the AP and WA1" [the codes refer to specific sectors]. Given the data presented, use of the directional word "reverse" is therefore problematic. All melt across the entire ice cap has not stopped. However, any sensationalist claims that only man-made artificial factors contribute to melting are false, according to this article alone, as are claims that melt is universally accelerating. Basically, taking extreme positions on this issue, and arguing the other side is wrong from these "polar" opposite positions, is just political sport. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallacy
Joined: 29 Jun 2015
Location: ex-ROK
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2015 4:39 pm Post subject: RE: Global Warming part deux |
|
|
From the October 12, 2015 NSDIC news report:
| Quote: |
| Powerful winds are vaporizing and removing massive amounts of snow from Antarctica, according to a new study published today in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. The finding could shift estimates of how much the ice-covered continent is contributing to sea level rise. |
Have a look at the 8 page article recently published and referenced in that NSDIC news report:
| Quote: |
| Das, I., et al. (2015), Extreme wind-ice interaction over Recovery Ice Stream, East Antarctica, Geophysical Research Letters, 42 [Accepted September 2, 2015 - Acknowledgments: Funding for this work was provided by NASA grants and the Netherlands Polar Program]. |
From the abstract:
| Quote: |
| Surface snow accumulation over East Antarctica is an important climate indicator but a difficult parameter to constrain. Surface mass ablation dominates over persistent wind-scour zones as near-surface katabatic winds accelerate over locally steeper ice surface topography, and sublimate and redistribute snow. Here we quantify ablation rates and downwind redeposition of snow over wind-scour zones. |
From the discussion:
| Quote: |
| In all three profiles, we observe significant fading of the internal layers in the ablation zones . . . due to intense firn recrystallization and density changes as accumulation drops and the surface is potentially exposed to intense seasonal thermal cycling. A secondary cause of reduced layer reflections is the presence of some narrow crevassing and firn-cracking on the steeper slopes of the wind scoured area. |
Excessive wind. Could be an investment opportunity to construct windmills for power generation. Could be a reason to blame climate change on nature and not mankind. Could be an invitation to see whatever one wants for political sport. Good literal and figurative description: so much wind.
| Quote: |
| The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) is part of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado Boulder. |
Well, that is code for "liberal" and any "conservative" will be invited to reject that sight unseen, while "alarmists" will be tempted to accept this as support for earth doomsday predictions sight unseen, so extremists can declare themselves winners without even reading if they wish. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2015 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
Cigarette smoking is self-evidently bad for one's health. It's basic common sense that such a thing would have destructive impacts. Sure you had some paid/quack doctors who claimed it wasn't bad back in the 50s, but people weren't that dumb.
Man-made pollution having destructive effects on the planet is as self-evident as smoking and the "science" against it is about as believable as "4 out of 5 doctors recommend Chesterfields". |
From my OP
| Quote: |
| Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average |
Guess NASA is just on a par with those "paid/quack doctors" then. 
Instead of spouting off the trendy sound bites on global warming how about giving me something based on science? I've given you the latest NASA backed evidence that supports my point...you got anything from a source as least as credible and as recent? |
For goodness sakes, I could come out with a chart showing more people smoking from 1940-1950 and people also living longer, doesn't mean smoking is safe.
There are 4 possibilities
1. Global Warming is false and we act on it- some money wasted, however in the balance some new technologies are gained and certainly some new efficiencies are developed that while they may not cover the cost of global warming measures, certainly do mitigate them.
2. Global Warming is false and we do nothing about it- Life goes on.
3. Global Warming is real and we act on it- Potentially prevent the extinction or near-extinction of the human species (most likely through indirect means, like warfare), certainly improve the quality of life if such dire scenarios aren't in the cards.
4. Global Warming is real and we don't act on it- war, famine, catastrophe, near-extinction, dramatic upheaval.
Given that the potential costs of not acting on global warming if it is real are so catastrophic compared to the potential costs of acting on global warming if it is false, the logical course of action would be to purse the path which limits the potential for disaster. The greenhouse effect is real. We can observe it on the planet Venus. Temperature fluctuations are real. We should attempt to mitigate their effects through careful regulation. While there may be a chance that such temperature fluctuations are not caused by man, and there may be no way to prove things one way or the other, the costs of regulation are rather small. Certainly nothing that would lead to wars or dramatic planetary upheaval. Nothing that is irreplaceable for humankind will be lost. However, if we do nothing and it turns out that indeed man-made climate change exists, then that means that our planet would be damaged, potentially beyond short to medium-term repair. There is no second planet. There are no do-overs. There is no need to risk everything, when any easy and relatively low-cost alternative exists. It is basic logic and game theory.
It seems that many people who don't believe in man-made climate change, do so simply because they don't want to for some alternative reason- political/ideological differences, loss of profit, fears of increased regulation, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2015 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
Cigarette smoking is self-evidently bad for one's health. It's basic common sense that such a thing would have destructive impacts. Sure you had some paid/quack doctors who claimed it wasn't bad back in the 50s, but people weren't that dumb.
Man-made pollution having destructive effects on the planet is as self-evident as smoking and the "science" against it is about as believable as "4 out of 5 doctors recommend Chesterfields". |
From my OP
| Quote: |
| Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average |
Guess NASA is just on a par with those "paid/quack doctors" then.
Instead of spouting off the trendy sound bites on global warming how about giving me something based on science? I've given you the latest NASA backed evidence that supports my point...you got anything from a source as least as credible and as recent? |
For goodness sakes, I could come out with a chart showing more people smoking from 1940-1950 and people also living longer, doesn't mean smoking is safe.
There are 4 possibilities
1. Global Warming is false and we act on it- some money wasted, however in the balance some new technologies are gained and certainly some new efficiencies are developed that while they may not cover the cost of global warming measures, certainly do mitigate them.
2. Global Warming is false and we do nothing about it- Life goes on.
3. Global Warming is real and we act on it- Potentially prevent the extinction or near-extinction of the human species (most likely through indirect means, like warfare), certainly improve the quality of life if such dire scenarios aren't in the cards.
4. Global Warming is real and we don't act on it- war, famine, catastrophe, near-extinction, dramatic upheaval.
Given that the potential costs of not acting on global warming if it is real are so catastrophic compared to the potential costs of acting on global warming if it is false, the logical course of action would be to purse the path which limits the potential for disaster. The greenhouse effect is real. We can observe it on the planet Venus. Temperature fluctuations are real. We should attempt to mitigate their effects through careful regulation. While there may be a chance that such temperature fluctuations are not caused by man, and there may be no way to prove things one way or the other, the costs of regulation are rather small. Certainly nothing that would lead to wars or dramatic planetary upheaval. Nothing that is irreplaceable for humankind will be lost. However, if we do nothing and it turns out that indeed man-made climate change exists, then that means that our planet would be damaged, potentially beyond short to medium-term repair. There is no second planet. There are no do-overs. There is no need to risk everything, when any easy and relatively low-cost alternative exists. It is basic logic and game theory.
It seems that many people who don't believe in man-made climate change, do so simply because they don't want to for some alternative reason- political/ideological differences, loss of profit, fears of increased regulation, etc. |
But we don't act on it for the same reason you haven't quit smoking: don't do today what you could put off until tomorrow. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallacy
Joined: 29 Jun 2015
Location: ex-ROK
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2015 7:16 pm Post subject: RE: Global Warming part deux |
|
|
| Add two more to the list: 5. Global Warming is oxymoronic and we act/do not act accordingly; 6. Global Warming is proxymoronic and we act/do not act accordingly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2015 6:58 am Post subject: Re: RE: Global Warming part deux |
|
|
| Fallacy wrote: |
| The research shows that both the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps are still melting, so the "reverse" cannot be claimed. . |
Indeed? I could have sworn that the majority of the links posted by the two of us had the research showing that both the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps are experiencing greater sea ice extent.
The ice caps may be melting...but if gains exceed losses as they seem to be doing I'd say that's cause for celebration ( as I said before) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallacy
Joined: 29 Jun 2015
Location: ex-ROK
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2015 7:19 am Post subject: RE: The politics vs. the science of climate change |
|
|
| Fallacy wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| The fact that they ARE growing should be cause for rejoicing not for saying "well they still aren't back to par." |
Absolutely. Carry on. |
Agreed. Posted, now reposted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
