- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: #flatearthers please check in. NYPost editorial shits all over climate change
Posted on 9/15/14 at 7:36 pm to Taxing Authority
Posted on 9/15/14 at 7:36 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:Well we can start with this:
What are your specific criticism of the piece (not the person)?
quote:This is a dumb argument. Maybe it's a dumb argument because the guy is a partisan and trying to score points. Maybe it's a dumb argument because he has emeritus disease. Maybe he's actually dumb (dumb physicists do exist).
Satellites also show that a greater area of Antarctic sea ice exists now than any time since space-based measurements began in 1979. In other words, the ice caps aren’t melting.
But that's beside the point: This argument is dumb for a very obvious and straightforward reason: Antarctic sea ice is not "the ice caps." It's not even "the Antarctic ice caps." If you put Antarctic sea ice gains up against Arctic sea ice losses, it's no contest. If you put Antarctic sea ice gains up against Antarctic land ice losses, it's also no contest. And it's even been predicted by climate models as old as grunge. It's not exactly some devastating paradox. It's what happens when you get melt runoff from a big-arse continent covered in ice sheets. Or to fancy it up: owing to the intensification of the near-surface halocline caused by the increased supply of water at the oceanic surface, the convective mixing of cold near-surface water with warmer, underlying water becomes less frequent, resulting in the increase of sea ice and slight reduction of sea surface temperature.
So there's a specific criticism of the piece. If you would like to defend the thesis that Antarctic sea ice gains prove the health of the polar ice caps, go ahead. But I'm not going to engage some other "look a squirrel" about how Al Gore said a Dumb Thing in 2009, or What's the Ideal Temperature, or Why I Hate Freedom, because none of those things have to do with the premise of the argument. Which, again, is hella dumb. Anyone who uses "Antarctic Sea Ice ++" as a talking point is basically marking themselves as Nega-Gore (or Nega-Tuba in the context of this forum), someone who will say anything to hate on AGW regardless of factual merit.
This post was edited on 9/15/14 at 7:39 pm
Posted on 9/15/14 at 7:43 pm to Iosh
quote:How much sea ice loss did the Arctic experience this year as compared to last? How about last year compared to the previous year?
sea ice gains up against Arctic sea ice losses
Now then, since you're attempting to tie extent of arctic ice with anthropogenic influence, what would that extent be without man's influence?
Posted on 9/15/14 at 10:44 pm to Iosh
quote:Thank you Iosh. Ice isn't my area of specialty. Curious, where is the Ozone hole fit into all of this? Also what proxies are used for the historic (ie pre-satellite) proxies for area measurements?
Well we can start with this:
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News