Why are the glaciers melting?

[happyjack27]

It's a conspiracy that contemporary human nature is such that politics generally go hand in hand with corruption? GW hasn't been a textbook case of this trend? If you say so..

Here we see an example of what you describe as conspiracy thinking:

the standard conspiracy-theory argument conservatives make for any facts that they don't want to accept. doesn't it ever get old?

Do you deny this looks like double standard?

oh it is definitely a textbook case. not only of corruption, but the gullibility of the human mind and the utter intellectual laziness and lack of crtical thinking of the general public. it's just shocking how many people are systematically misinformed, and by their own doing. and even if you try to inform them you can't, they won't let themselves get informed! really astounding. really disgusting, actually. it makes the picture of corruption look like a monet painting.

[Betruger]

I don't know about disgusting.. It sure makes getting into it a chore, and makes it futile to debate it with lots of people, but I don't find it any different from other instances of fundie nonsense.

I don't think it's worth getting cynical over.

[D Tibbets]

Rember that the Earth serves as a large buffer for solar radiation. Things do not happen fast. A solar cycle is 11 years (actually this is a half cycle, but that is another topic). Changes might show up or lag the solar output by a few years or more. The average Solar output is averaged over a cycle so it is perfectly reasonable to use this as a time frame. Certainly there are more than a few time scales you can choose to use depending on what you are trying to argue. The low Sunspot counts during several Solar cycles during the little ice age, are remarkable and I have seen no other hypothesis for the cooling then. Also, don't forget that the Earths orbit around the Sun is not circular. As the Earth precedes around the Sun, this will effect the Solar heating of the N. and S. hemisphere differently as the seasons change. I don't have any idea of the magnitude of this effect.

Dan Tibbets

[MSimon]

Rember that the Earth serves as a large buffer for solar radiation. Things do not happen fast. A solar cycle is 11 years (actually this is a half cycle, but that is another topic). Changes might show up or lag the solar output by a few years or more. The average Solar output is averaged over a cycle so it is perfectly reasonable to use this as a time frame. Certainly there are more than a few time scales you can choose to use depending on what you are trying to argue. The low Sunspot counts during several Solar cycles during the little ice age, are remarkable and I have seen no other hypothesis for the cooling then. Also, don't forget that the Earths orbit around the Sun is not circular. As the Earth precedes around the Sun, this will effect the Solar heating of the N. and S. hemisphere differently as the seasons change. I don't have any idea of the magnitude of this effect.

Dan Tibbets

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/18/n ... sed-again/

[MSimon]

firstly, the second law of thermodynamics works across surfaces not volumes,

I'd really like to see a cite on that. Really.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/17/s ... p-in-2010/

BTW it appears the oceans are cooling. According to ARGO buoys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_equation

firstly, the second law of thermodynamics works across surfaces not volumes,

Uh. I looked at the link and in fact it says no such thing. Perhaps you have something better. Until then I will assume you have nothing and are just pulling stuff from.....

The reason I asked the question is that thermo (which I have studied in rather great detail) says no such thing. Other wise there would be no heading called:

Three-dimensional problem

in your link.

Now snow/ice accretion may be a two dimensional problem. But the second law? I don't think so.

[MSimon]

i don't really consider that second picture from a reliable source. and i can tell that you didn't read the data in my references.

Fine, why not?
But as to your source, I know beyond a reasonable doubt that the wikipedia articles on global warming have been hijacked by the pro-AGW crowd, so they are tainted too.

lol. the standard conspiracy-theory argument conservatives make for any facts that they don't want to accept. doesn't it ever get old?

Do you know ANYTHING about Wm. Conally (sp?) and his editing of GW articles on the Wiki? He is notorious.

Another argumentum ad ignorantium from you.

[MSimon]

KitemanSA,

"Don't consider"

LULZ

[MSimon]

Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).

Temperature after C.R. Scotese http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
CO2 after R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III)

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Refer ... Berner.pdf

Compare Oxygen (O2) concentrations.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/CO2_Temp_O2.html

See an estimate of CO2 concentrations over the past 15,000 years, based on plant stomata.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carbo ... imate.html

[happyjack27]

I'd really like to see a cite on that. Really.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/17/s ... p-in-2010/

BTW it appears the oceans are cooling. According to ARGO buoys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_equation

firstly, the second law of thermodynamics works across surfaces not volumes,

Uh. I looked at the link and in fact it says no such thing. Perhaps you have something better. Until then I will assume you have nothing and are just pulling stuff from.....

The reason I asked the question is that thermo (which I have studied in rather great detail) says no such thing. Other wise there would be no heading called:

Three-dimensional problem

in your link.

Now snow/ice accretion may be a two dimensional problem. But the second law? I don't think so.

i don't think you're understanding me correctly. i'm talking more like green's theorem. i'm saying that the_flux_ of heat energy is through a surface. thus, for instance, the instantaneous rate that ice melts is proportional not so much to its volume but to the surface area of the interface. and i gave irrefutable physical evidence with the bag of ice example.

the amount that the final temperature will change after its totally melted is proportional to its volume, yes, but that's an entirely different thing.

so please don't make a straw man of what i'm saying. it's pretty clear and it's easy to see how you'd apply it to glaciers and global temperature. to get a fair reading you have to consider that crushed ice melts at a different rate than whole ice, and why that is.

[happyjack27]

It's a conspiracy that contemporary human nature is such that politics generally go hand in hand with corruption? GW hasn't been a textbook case of this trend? If you say so..

Here we see an example of what you describe as conspiracy thinking:

the standard conspiracy-theory argument conservatives make for any facts that they don't want to accept. doesn't it ever get old?

Do you deny this looks like double standard?

oh it is definitely a textbook case. not only of corruption, but the gullibility of the human mind and the utter intellectual laziness and lack of crtical thinking of the general public. it's just shocking how many people are systematically misinformed, and by their own doing. and even if you try to inform them you can't, they won't let themselves get informed! really astounding. really disgusting, actually. it makes the picture of corruption look like a monet painting.

it seems like i accidently quoted the wrong post here.

do i deny this looks like a double standard? well "looks" is a matter of perspective. i don't know how the lens is shaped so i can't say. but i can certainly say it isn't a double standard because for that it would have to first at least be a standard. which it is not. secondly there would have to be some kind of double-ness to it; i'd apply a different standard for the same thing to something else. clearly that is lacking as well. which is a bit absurd anyways since like i said i haven't postulated any standard in the first place.

am i implying conservatives use this kind of ad hominem fallacy to ignore information that might otherwise cause them to alter their beliefs much more often than liberals do? yes. and might i add the difference is quite egregious. (i know this both from _plenty_ (as in my god make it stop!) of anecdotal evidence and from numerous statistical and psychological studies i've read.) but here you see there is no "standard", i am just relating the empirical proportions of two things.

so in conclusion, there is no double standard here.

[MSimon]

i don't think you're understanding me correctly.

I don't think you understand the second law. And straw man? You brought it up.

As to the rest - well it is quite complicated. A liquid, gas, solid interface makes it difficult to tease out the predominating factors. Throw in some radiation, gravity and other influences and it gets difficult indeed to see exactly what is going on.

In any case a Little Ice Age (or worse a Big One) is going to throw the "CO2 forces climate" theory into a cocked hat. With Rs holding the House we now have two more years to see which way the wind blows. Before the nation does anything stupid. For California? It is already too late.

But suppose you are right and China doesn't care to participate in our efforts to raise the cost of electricity and heat. Whoooooosh. The sucking sound you just heard is China sucking more jobs out of the US Economy.

Your only hope? Find some low cost (lower than current costs) of producing electricity and heat without burning stuff. Got any ideas?

[happyjack27]

i don't think you're understanding me correctly.

I don't think you understand the second law. And straw man? You brought it up.

As to the rest - well it is quite complicated. A liquid, gas, solid interface makes it difficult to tease out the predominating factors. Throw in some radiation, gravity and other influences and it gets difficult indeed to see exactly what is going on.

In any case a Little Ice Age (or worse a Big One) is going to throw the "CO2 forces climate" theory into a cocked hat. With Rs holding the House we now have two more years to see which way the wind blows. Before the nation does anything stupid. For California? It is already too late.

But suppose you are right and China doesn't care to participate in our efforts to raise the cost of electricity and heat. Whoooooosh. The sucking sound you just heard is China sucking more jobs out of the US Economy.

Your only hope? Find some low cost (lower than current costs) of producing electricity and heat without burning stuff. Got any ideas?

dude, i have a literally genius level spatial i.q. i understand something as trivial as the heat equation, i can assure you of that. randomly insulting people's intelligence is not a good idea. for many reasons.

i don't think you understand straw man. your implication that who brings something up has any bearing on whether or not something is a straw man argument is a pretty clear indication that you don't. (in addition to you continuing to not understand what i'm saying -- something that you'd reevaluate if you knew what straw man meant -- evidenced by you thinking i don't understand something as trivial as a second order pde.)

so lets take this back to a civil level, shall we?

[MSimon]

Unhappy,

Critical thinking? Let me tell you about my GW history.

Until 1998 or so I was a sceptic. From then until about 2002 I was in the GW is caused by CO2 camp. Then I learned more and decided the whole thing was a scam.

"Facts are against us? The worse for the facts" - Stalin

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" J. M. Keynes

[Betruger]

[...]
am i implying conservatives use this kind of ad hominem fallacy to ignore information that might otherwise cause them to alter their beliefs much more often than liberals do? yes. and might i add the difference is quite egregious. (i know this both from _plenty_ (as in my god make it stop!) of anecdotal evidence and from numerous statistical and psychological studies i've read.) but here you see there is no "standard", i am just relating the empirical proportions of two things.

so in conclusion, there is no double standard here.

The curious thing is that if I changed your name to a conservative's, and swapped "conservative" and "liberal" in your post, you'd sound just like conservatives. Funny symmetry.

dude, i have a literally genius level spatial i.q.

[MSimon]

Unhappy,

OK. I'll buy it. You brought a straw man to the argument (the second law) and I corrected you. Fair enough?