Question for Algore supporters (those who believe CO2 affects Earth climate change)

Why does one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic

1. have 9 times the ice of the other (the Arctic)
2. is on average 50 F colder than the other
3. calves or puts 9 times the ice into the oceans, some 46 times the molecular H20 dumped into the Gulf by the Mississippi

?????????????????????????????????????????????

What is truly hilarious is that the parrots who support Algore cannot answer the above, and if you post the above question on HuffPo, it gets DELETED and your account gets SHUT DOWN...

LOL!!!


People who claim to support SCIENCE should have the COURAGE to ANSWER the above. None will...

 

Jeopardy! music still playing...


Global Warming supporters here still scrambling - where is a tippy toppiest "top climate scientist" I can parrot here....?????


Hint - they don't like the question, which is why it gets DELETED instead of answered on HuffPo...

 

I hear crickets

 

I don’t see the point. Antarctica is colder mainly because it’s much higher and more land/ice mass away from the sea. The other points are probably a consequence of the temperature and height differences. I’ve no idea what this has to do with climate change though.

 

Thanks for asking, Joe. Let's put it this way...

Earth ice is

90% on land mass Antarctica
7% on land mass Greenland

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

So maybe LAND NEAR AN EARTH POLE MATTERS FOR ICE ON EARTH...


Try this one on for size. Land moves, very slowly, but it moves tectonically. During Jurassic, Earth had two polar oceans. How much ice did it have relative to today if it had no land near an Earth pole???

 

I just don't see any point to what you are saying.

The Antarctic is different than the Arctic. It has more high elevation. And, it has winds that circle the earth unimpeded that appear to be preventing mixing of polar air with air from lower latitudes - which may well be a temporary phenomena.

Remember that the ozone layer has been in worse shape in southern polar latitudes for decades.


Here's another point:

Suggesting that lay persons should answer questions such as these makes no sense. There's no reason to believe these are important questions. There is no reason that anyone concerned about warming would know the answers to these particular questions.

We as lay persons need to be referring to experts. Obviously, we still need to make up our minds and obviously it would be great if we all had the time and inclination to become climatologists (we don't), so what we need to be good at is listening to experts.


Here's another hint for you: Al Gore isn't a scientist!! He's a politician/evangelist who has worked to get people to look at what is going on with our climate. Judging climatological sciences by reference to Gore is just plain STUPID - or, purely political.

Here's another hing: good for HuffPo. Posts that take your direction SHOULD be deleted if the site objective is to have a rational discussion. Here, people don't care if the discussion is rational. So, your nonsense is tolerated.

 

"We as lay persons need to be referring to experts. "


Translation

THOU SHALT ONLY PARROT, NEVER THINK....


"Hide the decline" - don't parrot that!!!


"if the site objective is to have a rational discussion."

Why have any discussion if every time there is a discussion, you shout it down with

THOU SHALT ONLY PARROT

???????????????????????

 

You could always put is a way that explains what it has to do with climate change because at the moment, the answer is "very little".

I'm sure that would be a factor and would certainly account for much of the distribution but general global climate would be more significant.

I don't know. It was a very long period which was generally warmer than today (though IIRC there might have been a mini ice-age at some point). I think it'd be safe to assume there was less ice for much of the Jurassic period compared to today though.

 

Honest Joe,

You missed the most important part. Let's try this again. Antarctica is land. The Arctic is mostly water. Hence, the Antarctic has 9-10 times the ice of the Arctic, because most ice is on land nearest to an Earth Pole.

If you cut out the Arctic Circle and replaced it with a copy of the Antarctic Circle, all of Canada would be covered in ice, as it was 1 million years ago. THAT is the point. Land near an Earth pole = lots of ice. Without land near an Earth pole, there is no significant ice at all = Jurassic = warm Earth parameter.

Think of Earth's climate as a room, and the polar circles as air conditioning units, each one with settings 0 - off and 10 - max cool. Right now, Earth climate is dictated by the Arctic AC being set at 1 and the Antarctic AC set at 9. Both cool the planet, but the Antarctic cools Earth much more. Air going over the Antarctic cools 50 degrees more than the Arctic. The Antarctic sends 46 Mississippi Rivers worth of ice into the oceans, while the Arctic sends 5.

If you had two polar oceans, there would be NO ICE, Earth would be 25 degrees warmer, its atmosphere would be thicker, the oceans higher, the canes stronger, and it would rain almost all the time.

If you had two polar continents - two Antarcticas - you'd have twice the ice, Earth would be 20 or so degrees colder, the atmosphere would be thinner, and the oceans would be lower.

THAT IS THE CLIMATE CHANGE - where the land is. It has NOTHING to do with minor fluctuations of trace gasses in the atmosphere - NOTHING.

The whole CO2 causes climate change is 100% fraud.

 

Gore Rule invoked in the title. Whoever brings up Gore forfeits the thread for their own side, being that only the most brainwashed cultists talk about politicians instead of talking about science.

Now, it is good to see that LaDairis has finally grasped some the basics of climate that the rest of us learned decades ago. Sadly, he proceeds from there to fail at logic.

Yes, the current configuratoin of the poles results in a cooler earth.

However, the poles have been like they are for millions of years. The climate has been stable for thousands of years. It's only recently that the climate suddenly spun into fast heating. The poles being where they are can't explain that, because the poles were the same way when the climate wasn't warming.

That is, he's babbling a red herring. We were being kind to him by politely ignoring his nonsense, but since he's gotten so belligerent about it, it forces us to point out how badly he's failed here.

 

" the poles have been like they are for millions of years. "


Um, just in the past million years, North America thawed while Greenland froze, all at the same time on the same planet with the same atmosphere with the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, ruling out CO2 as a cause. Need to see those links again???

 

It was warmer 1000 years ago. Unless you believe in the "hockey stick" which comes from two of the worst scientific papers (and peer reviewed) of the last century. The IPCC whose objective was to somehow find a temperature reconstruction that got rid of the MWP which has been documented in thousands of research papers which Mann et. al. supplied. Instead of employing the scientific method and working to falsify the Mann reconstruction which was basically an hypothesis which "denied" the MWP they instead did nothing but produce papers that supported the straight shaft of the hockey stick. Why do this ?? Financial gain and a value system that places the environment above human life based on the false belief that anything which changes the environment does harm to the globe (notice that there is no concern with the benefits to humans of changing the environment).

I personally see no belligerence.

But the statement that the climate has been stable for thousands of years is absurd.

 

Yes, that's the interglacial pattern. The earth rapidly warms up coming out of the ice age, then slowly cools into the next ice age. The rapid warmup ended about 6000 - 8000 years ago. The natural cycle would have had the earth continuing to slowly cool into the next ice age, in around 25k - 50k years. But instead of following the natural cycle, things suddenly did a full one-eighty and went from slow cooling into fast warming.

Hence, we know the current warming isn't natural, from that and from other reasons. The observed stratospheric cooling is inconsistent with natural warming. Increased backradiation is inconsistent with natural warming. A decrease in outgoing long wave radiation in the GHG bands is inconsistent with natural warming.

The null hypothesis, that the current warming is natural, has been conclusively disproved. Thus, the burden of proof now falls on deniers. Science accepts the theory that best explains all of the observed data, and that would be Global Warming Theory. If deniers want to be taken seriously, they have to provide real science instead of conspiracy theories, and put forth their own theory that better explains all of the observed data. So far, they haven't even tried, so they're not taken seriously.

 

So what. It was warmer 1000 years ago than it is today. The climate sensitivity to CO2 is ~ 1.3 deg C but as CO2 has steadily increased the global temperature has risen, fallen, and stayed the same. CO2 contributes to the warming but again so what ?? There are net positive human benefits to increasing temperature and there are certainly net positive human benefits resulting from all humans having access to a level of electrical power consistent with an acceptable standard of living (currently ~ 1.3 billion people have no access to electricity). The alarmists "alarm" is with regard to the environment and not to raising the standard of living of global citizens. And a significant contributor to this is the availability of inexpensive available electric power. The entire progress of human societal development is based on changing the environment as well as adapting to the environment. Climate variability has been the main killer of humans but the availability of inexpensive and available electric power has reduced the "casualty rate" of humans to floods, hurricanes, droughts, ... etc. We need more inexpensive power available to third world countries and not the imposition of "global warming" policies which increase the price of electrical energy and the availability of it.

 

Your numbers are off.

The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report stated: Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence).

If you want to use one number go with 3 C

 

My numbers are based on real world data and the IPCC A1B CO2 scenario. The IPCC 5th assessment is based on computer models which cannot predict the past. The terms "high confidence" and "medium confidence" are jokes. It's a subjective term which has no statistical meaning and is based on the "feelings" of the politicians who write the Summary for Policy Makers report (which is the fifth assessment). Why is the SPM released before all the technical working group reports ?? Shouldn't it be the other way around ?? And why is their a SPM in the first place ?? Shouldn't the technical reports be inputs to the various governments as input for their respective policy decisions ??

 

More like 3.0C. And yes, increased aerosol pollution kept temperature down at first as CO2 increased, but the CO2 increase eventually overwhelmed the dimming effect. Nobody ever said CO2 was the only factor affecting climate.

And much larger net negatives.

The fallacy there is assuming fossil fuels are the only way to that goal.

 

Belief in models that cannot predict the past history again ?? The real world data from 1880 shows a climate sensitivity of ~ 1.3. The problem with the aerosol argument is that it cannot be used to explain the dirty northern and clean southern hemisphere temperature data.

Net positive means that the positives are greater than the negatives. A warmer climate is a better climate for many different reasons.

There is no fallacy in the economics of fossil fuels vs. the current batch of wind and solar. Fossil fuels are inexpensive, concentrated, and readily available. The problem with global warming alarmism is that decisions are made to go with economically unjustified versions of solar and wind which can only compete with gov subsidies (taxpayer dollars spent inefficiently with respect to market forces). This actually acts to slow down progress on economically efficient forms of alternate energy by fixing prematurely on unoptimized technology.

 

So you would favor ending the gigantic tax breaks for fossil fuel development?

Or, are you just suggesting that we subsidize fossil fuels and not other forms?

 

Depends on how many years we are talking. Antarctica used to be somewhere else. It is why they find dinosaur fossils on it periodically.

 

And this has been observed and been correlated by how many people again?
It's in written history at least,right?
NO.
No.Simply not.

 

What gigantic tax breaks are those ?? Are you referring to expensing exploratory equipment and oil field depletion allowances ?? The first affects mostly small oil companies and is really not a tax break but a tax payment rescheduling. The later acknowledges that an oil field has a finite supply. But sure get rid of them - they only amount to ~ $5B per year and will be passed on to consumers who are tax payers but will not receive any tax cuts themselves. Total US oil and gas company revenues are ~ $230B.

 

As you have been told....your numbers are way off according to real scientists. Try more than doubling them

 

To bad the "real" scientists can't predict the past using their climate models. And if the science is settled why is there a range of 3 to 9 deg C temperature increase in the global temperature increase predicted by these models in the year 2100 ?? What reality are these scientists operating in ??

 

It is not 3 to 9 deg C according to the IPCC. Again your numbers are way off