Greenland ice melt off to record early start

[Deleted]

Jet fuel can't melt Greenland ice... Wait, I might have gotten that wrong.

[Gheld]

This is sarcasm right?

Ice has 90% the density of water. So if you put an ice cube in the water it will displace 90% of it's volume. 10% of the ice cube will be above the water line, which is exactly equal to the volume the ice will lose when it melts. So when the ice that's floating in water melts there will be no change in volume.

[Malachi256]

Really, you think its the size of the area that is the issue here? This is why I said to not bother commenting if you don't understand. Its not the size, its the significance of an area so far north having such a huge change.

Heh, you're cute how you keep pointing out how you're really too bright to be commenting, but you keep doing it...

And you keep using logic that works just as well for my argument. "It's the significance of an area so far south having such a record cold" that "proves" the next ice age is coming or some such nonsense.

The U.S. has experienced multiple "polar vortex" weather events where cold air comes far down from the north, chilling us to unnatural lows - it's actually quite reasonable that some areas far north (like Greenland) would likewise experience unnaturally warm air, a "temperate front" or whatever you want to call it.

Climate change is about global-level trends and averages (so yes, the "size of the area" is extremely important), not local phenomena. The OP is using the same flawed logic that many climate-change skeptics use.

But keep defending it, this is fun.

[Gheld]

Heh, you're cute how you keep pointing out how you're really too bright to be commenting, but you keep doing it...

And you keep using logic that works just as well for my argument. "It's the significance of an area so far south having such a record cold" that "proves" the next ice age is coming.

The U.S. has experienced multiple "polar vortex" weather events where cold air comes far down from the north, chilling us to unnatural lows - it's actually quite reasonable that some areas far north (like Greenland) would likewise experience unnaturally warm air, a "temperate front" or whatever you want to call it.

Climate change is about global-level trends and averages, not local phenomena. The OP is using the same flawed logic that many climate-change skeptics use.

But keep defending it, this is fun.

It's always amusing when people use the same logical fallacies as they bitch about their opponents using if the fallaciously applied information supports their own biases.

[Alcomo]

It's always amusing when people use the same logical fallacies as they bitch about their opponents using if the fallaciously applied information supports their own biases.

Its even more amusing when the whole point and significance here is flying over both your heads. Almost sad really.

[Gheld]

Its even more amusing when the whole point and significance here is flying over both your heads. Almost sad really.

What's the whole point and significance?

[Alcomo]

What's the whole point and significance?

Not sure if you're actually this ignorant? I want to believe a fellow Canadian can't be this simple, but I am losing hope. Do I need to relink the article to you again? Or are you one of those special snowflakes who don't believe in the significance of whats happening in the north?

Infracted- Keep it Civil

[Deleted]

I just think it's funny when people point out singular events as evidence that it is "obviously" happening. If you don't like what I quoted, you shouldn't like what the OP quoted either.

But... You do realize that your "record cold" article is another "singular event" that can be used as evidence of climate change. Right? Record warmth, record cold, it's all climate change. You do understand this, right? You're not seriously thinking that cold events "negate" warm events, and that only warm events are climate change? Because that would be some kindergarten-level thinking right there.

[Ghâzh]

Why are you guys arguing when you could be filling all your pottery with the excess sea water?

[Gheld]

Not sure if you're actually this ignorant? I want to believe a fellow Canadian can't be this simple, but I am losing hope. Do I need to relink the article to you again? Or are you one of those special snowflakes who don't believe in the significance of whats happening in the north?

I'm looking for insight into your reasoning. I want to see that you understand the issue and aren't just regurgitating information and opinions that you picked up from somebody else. Judging by your sudden hostility, and the fact that you are making it personal I'm just going to assume that you're just cranky because Derp TV pulled it's honey booboo reruns.

[Malachi256]

But... You do realize that your "record cold" article is another "singular event" that can be used as evidence of climate change. Right? Record warmth, record cold, it's all climate change. You do understand this, right? You're not seriously thinking that cold events "negate" warm events, and that only warm events are climate change? Because that would be some kindergarten-level thinking right there.

That's certainly possible, but you also realize that since we have been recording this kind of information there have been places on earth experiencing records of some sort every month, every year. If you want to take every record cold, record hot, record snowfall, record drought, record rainfall as evidence of climate change, then you have to understand why people won't take you seriously.

Again, this is only significant for the climate change debate when it's taken along with a whole body of evidence and data - on it's own it's just an interesting event.

[Gheld]

But... You do realize that your "record cold" article is another "singular event" that can be used as evidence of climate change. Right? Record warmth, record cold, it's all climate change. You do understand this, right? You're not seriously thinking that cold events "negate" warm events, and that only warm events are climate change? Because that would be some kindergarten-level thinking right there.

Actually when you're talking about a thermodynamic system you have one of two options:

Either internal energy increased. Or internal energy decreased. The earth is a pretty big system, and it's impossible to measure every possible indicator. Most indicators would suggest that internal energy has increased recently. But to suggest that "blah blah blah CHANGE. NOT WARMING." is a legitimate argument is pretty much pissing on the laws of thermodynamics.

Either the earth as a whole has gotten warmer, or it hasn't. Heat is thermal energy, and cold is the absence thereof. The only reason people hold on to this nonsense idea is because they are terrible at debating and require this fallacious line of reasoning in order to support their use of extreme 'warm' weather events to support their argument while being able to incorrectly dismiss extreme 'cold' weather events as supporting the opposite argument.

The fact is, neither one is useful in determining anything. Current temperature anomaly is what? +0.4 degrees K Which is equivalent to an energy increase of about 0.3%. To suggest that you know what a 0.3% increase in glacial melting or a 0.3% stronger hurricane looks like would be fucking absurd, considering how much variance there are in those factors.

[Alcomo]

I'm looking for insight into your reasoning. I want to see that you understand the issue and aren't just regurgitating information and opinions that you picked up from somebody else. Judging by your sudden hostility, and the fact that you are making it personal I'm just going to assume that you're just cranky because Derp TV pulled it's honey booboo reruns.

Sounds more like you're diverting so you don't make yourself sound even more foolish than you already have. So far all you have accomplished is insults, diversion because you know how foolish you will sound and "u mad bro" comments like a typical, uneducated child. Congrats on proving your profound ignorance. I don't need to explain something that the majority of people with half a brain already know. Go google polar ice caps, rising sea levels and climate change. If you don't already understand the significance of an area so far north having record melts and heat, then you're as much of a lost cause as I suspected. Maybe you should go do something else before you hurt yourself.

[Deleted]

this is only significant

Yeah OK whatever buddy. The thing is, though, that it's not you who decides what is significant in the scientific world. It's the scientific consensus that makes that determination. You can keep your personal opinion. We all know where the scientific consensus stands.

Or is this some kind of a case where if a news article isn't posted by you or your buddy Genn (when or why you latched on to him I have no idea) then it's not significant? Whatever. I don't care. Get on the list.

[Gheld]

Sounds more like you're diverting so you don't make yourself sound even more foolish than you already have. So far all you have accomplished is insults, diversion because you know how foolish you will sound and "u mad bro" comments like a typical, uneducated child. Congrats on proving your profound ignorance. I don't need to explain something that the majority of people with half a brain already know. Go google polar ice caps, rising sea levels and climate change. If you don't already understand the significance of an area so far north having record melts and heat, then you're as much of a lost cause as I suspected. Maybe you should go do something else before you hurt yourself.

I'm not arguing whether or not the climate has changed or whether or not it's anthropocentric. I'm arguing against the use of fallacious logic to support one's own personal biases on the topic.

[Deleted]

Either the earth as a whole has gotten warmer, or it hasn't.

And it has. And it also causes record cold events in places that didn't use to get them. It will also cause record wet events in places that didn't use to have them. It will also cause record dry events in places that didn't use to have them.

It's not some "thermodynamic system" that you can just look at via the lens of physics. It's planetary climate.

[Gheld]

scientific consensus

Flawed understanding of science is flawed.

That's not how empiricism works. It's not a democratic election.

Prior "consensus" means jack shit towards subsequent research. Each piece of research stands on it's own merits regardless of "consensus". So to automatically dismiss counter-arguments by saying "scientific consensus" means you have no fucking idea what the word science actually means.

[Malachi256]

Sounds more like you're diverting so you don't make yourself sound even more foolish than you already have. So far all you have accomplished is insults, diversion because you know how foolish you will sound and "u mad bro" comments like a typical, uneducated child. Congrats on proving your profound ignorance. I don't need to explain something that the majority of people with half a brain already know. Go google polar ice caps, rising sea levels and climate change. If you don't already understand the significance of an area so far north having record melts and heat, then you're as much of a lost cause as I suspected. Maybe you should go do something else before you hurt yourself.

Yeah OK whatever buddy. The thing is, though, that it's not you who decides what is significant in the scientific world. It's the scientific consensus that makes that determination. You can keep your personal opinion. We all know where the scientific consensus stands.

Or is this some kind of a case where if a news article isn't posted by you or your buddy Genn (when or why you latched on to him I have no idea) then it's not significant? Whatever. I don't care. Get on the list.

The two of you have really gone off the rails. Work on your critical thinking skills.

Gheld has effectively elaborated on the point I was trying to make.

[Gheld]

And it has. And it also causes record cold events in places that didn't use to get them. It will also cause record wet events in places that didn't use to have them. It will also cause record dry events in places that didn't use to have them.

It's not some "thermodynamic system" that you can just look at via the lens of physics. It's planetary climate.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

What the fuck?

You're essentially dismissing physics, in order to defend the use of fallacious logic.

[Deleted]

Prior "consensus" means jack shit towards subsequent research.

Yeah, and every single time when credible subsequent research ends up giving results, it shows that climate change is real, climate change is caused by humans, and it's getting worse and worse at an increasing pace. Those are the facts.

What the fuck?

Exactly what I said. But anyway, I'm done arguing with kindergartners and that includes you. You're well over due getting on my ignore list anyway.