Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[Anaxogoras]

Check the first part of that argument you made a few pages back.  You'll see that since that you think is A is wrong, that you think that B is right even without evidence, premise unfounded, point unfounded, argument moot.

-Penguin

You really need to cite what you think is a false dichotomy.  I've seen too much flaming in this thread to be able to pick it out as well as you can.

[Sundowner]

Interesting new info on the melting Himalayan glaciers debacle. Does this mean now that the IPCC will have to give back the Nobel Peace Prize won by this report?

Sun


UN climate change expert: there could be more errors in report

The Indian head of the UN climate change panel defended his position yesterday even as further errors were identified in the panel's assessment of Himalayan glaciers.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri dismissed calls for him to resign over the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change’s retraction of a prediction that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.

But he admitted that there may have been other errors in the same section of the report, and said that he was considering whether to take action against those responsible.......

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999051.ece

[Anaxogoras]

The glacier fiasco is a nice example of the citation fetish of Academia, where throwing as many citations as possible into a paper is recommended for "good scholarship."

[Bodhi]

I have told you repeatedly how it is wrong.

The same principle that keeps ships afloat.  Or an aircraft that crash lands in water, until that water enters its' hull.  Or an aircraft that lands in oil... or ice.

Until the hollow parts of it are filled, it is less dense than the surroundings. Besides the fact ice is already a solid and resists, and cannot fill those hollow parts....

  I'll make it in crayon for you.
(Image removed from quote.)

Anax, wherever you are... please explain to this gentleman.

You are assuming that the 38 was buoyant enough to float.  The weight of the aircraft alone ensures that it is not.  Look in the ditching procedures where it very clearly tells you that the aircraft will submerge, immediately. 
Weights will sink in ice.  That is part of why GG was at 260ish feet.  Add to that snow turning to ice, and there is the depth. 


Back to the original portion of the discussion.  Care to keep spinning away? 

Back to the issue that you refuse to address...  Man made global warming is not happening.  Proof of that is in the fact that the CRU (whose data supports UN studies and US amongst other countries data) was modifying their numbers to support climate change that was not actually happening.  Those following along and colluding to cover this up are all perpetrators of one the biggest attempts to scam the public in history.  It is all about money and control.  Plain and simply another way to extort more money from the populace and another way to control them.  Your support is just another hand raised up without any facts to back it up other than citing differences in the natural heating and cooling of the planet.

[Penguin]

You are assuming that the 38 was buoyant enough to float.  The weight of the aircraft alone ensures that it is not.  Look in the ditching procedures where it very clearly tells you that the aircraft will submerge, immediately. 
Weights will sink in ice.  That is part of why GG was at 260ish feet.  Add to that snow turning to ice, and there is the depth. 


Back to the original portion of the discussion.  Care to keep spinning away? 

Back to the issue that you refuse to address...  Man made global warming is not happening.  Proof of that is in the fact that the CRU (whose data supports UN studies and US amongst other countries data) was modifying their numbers to support climate change that was not actually happening.  Those following along and colluding to cover this up are all perpetrators of one the biggest attempts to scam the public in history.  It is all about money and control.  Plain and simply another way to extort more money from the populace and another way to control them.  Your support is just another hand raised up without any facts to back it up other than citing differences in the natural heating and cooling of the planet.

There's not much of a point, all I see is a contradiction.

all I know about those planes is this one thought.......... how much of the glacier was lost due to digging a large enough hole 260+ feet deep to excavate an airplane

perhaps all this drilling and testing and unnatural traffic with equipment and machinery nonstop around the world on our glaciers is whats actually doing the harm

if increasing the exposed surface area causes ice to melt faster......... then isnt drilling ice cores actually destorying the ice?

not to mention any fractures that may occur in the ice as a result of the core being removed

maybe its the alarmists themselves that are causing the global warming

The increase in surface area is negligible.  It would be like tapping an icecube with a pediatric hypodermic needle.

You really need to cite what you think is a false dichotomy.  I've seen too much flaming in this thread to be able to pick it out as well as you can.

That argument seems to be a non-sequitur, the amount of flaming doesn't affect whether a piece of logic works or not.  I might be wrong, so please elaborate so that I can understand.

-Penguin

-Penguin

[CAP1]

Your argument is a false dichotomy, therefore, your point is null.  You've proved (to yourself) that A isn't true, and therefore it must be B.  You have not proven your first premise at all, therefore all subsequent (assuming no non sequitur fallacies) are unfounded.  Prove your premise!

Just for all ye laymen out there (No offense. Just trying to avoid confusion) a fallacy is a logic error, not a falsehood.

-Penguin

-Penguin

-Penguin

dude.......trying to simply tell someone they're wrong, with no real context won't get ya anywhere.

[Anaxogoras]

dude.......trying to simply tell someone they're wrong, with no real context won't get ya anywhere.

Exactly.

And Penguin, obviously flaming is not argument.  I was simply pointing out that flaming makes it difficult to follow an argument, if there is one there to follow.

[MORAY37]

You are assuming that the 38 was buoyant enough to float.  The weight of the aircraft alone ensures that it is not.  Look in the ditching procedures where it very clearly tells you that the aircraft will submerge, immediately.  
Weights will sink in ice.  That is part of why GG was at 260ish feet.  Add to that snow turning to ice, and there is the depth.  

The weight of this ensures it will sink. 


It doesn't. 

Weight has absolutely nothing to do with what you are talking about.

An object cannot sink through any medium until its' density becomes higher than the medium it rests in.  Pure simple science.

[CAP1]

The weight of this ensures it will sink. 
(Image removed from quote.)

It doesn't. 

Weight has absolutely nothing to do with what you are talking about.

An object cannot sink through any medium until its' density becomes higher than the medium it rests in.  Pure simple science.

it's a different design.

boats are designed to float. airplanes aren't.

 for all intents and purposes, that ship you pictured, is merely a shell, and it never really breaks the surface tension of the water.
 aircraft are not designed this way.

 in all actuality, though, i didn't really think that the lost squadron sunk.....i honestly thought it was precipitation causing a buildup of snow and then ice.
 i could be wrong though.

but once again, my point is/was, that if the temp were raising so significantly, then that ice would never have been able to form.
 assuming these aircraft sunk.......then if it were raising, then there would've been no ice for them to sink into, as it would've melted, or at very least, decreased to the point that they'd have still been closer to the surface.

 

[Anaxogoras]

for all intents and purposes, that ship you pictured, is merely a shell, and it never really breaks the surface tension of the water.

Yes it does.  Boats do not float on water like paperclips.

[MORAY37]

it's a different design.

boats are designed to float. airplanes aren't.

 for all intents and purposes, that ship you pictured, is merely a shell, and it never really breaks the surface tension of the water.
 aircraft are not designed this way.

 in all actuality, though, i didn't really think that the lost squadron sunk.....i honestly thought it was precipitation causing a buildup of snow and then ice.
 i could be wrong though.

but once again, my point is/was, that if the temp were raising so significantly, then that ice would never have been able to form.
 assuming these aircraft sunk.......then if it were raising, then there would've been no ice for them to sink into, as it would've melted, or at very least, decreased to the point that they'd have still been closer to the surface.

 

Throws hands up in the air and walks away.  

Without a mutual understanding of basic science, how can a meaningful discourse related to as complex subject as climate change go anywhere?


Many objects not designed to... but floating.  

Secondarily, ice is a solid.

The reason a nut sinks into ice is due to heating of the nut, which melts into the ice.  The nut has higher density than the liquid water, and sinks.  Once the albedo is equalized and the nut no longer gets heated from the sun, it freezes in place.  (Usually, about an inch)

(If a surface is perfectly absorbing, none of the sunlight is reflected, it looks black, and the albedo is 0.     If a surface is perfectly reflecting, it reflects all the sunlight, it looks white and has an albedo of 1.  Melting snow has an albedo of .70 meaning 70% of energy is reflected.   Iron and steel are considerably lower, and absorb incoming radiation)

Put the nut and ice in the freezer.  It stops sinking.  

To think any meaningful solar radiation would penetrate and heat any object encased in ice, past the freezing point after more than even a few feet is absolutely ludicrous, and defies logical scientific reasoning.

Let alone, down to 268 feet.

[MORAY37]

So here's NASA GISS average for the past ten years, which came out on the 21st.




Obviously, it shows the degree anomaly in Celsius versus the previous 30 years.  

Data Details

To conduct its analysis, GISS uses publicly available data from three sources: weather data from more than a thousand meteorological stations around the world; satellite observations of sea surface temperature; and Antarctic research station measurements. These three data sets are loaded into a computer program, which is available for public download from the GISS website. The program calculates trends in temperature anomalies — not absolute temperatures — but changes relative to the average temperature for the same month during the period of 1951-1980.

Other research groups also track global temperature trends but use different analysis techniques. The Met Office Hadley Centre, based in the United Kingdom, uses similar input measurements as GISS, for example, but it omits large areas of the Arctic and Antarctic, where monitoring stations are sparse.

In contrast, the GISS analysis extrapolates data in those regions using information from the nearest available monitoring stations, and thus has more complete coverage of the polar areas. If GISS didn't extrapolate in this manner, the software that performs the analysis would assume that areas without monitoring stations warm at the same rate as the global mean, an assumption that doesn't line up with changes that satellites have observed in Arctic sea ice, Schmidt explained. Although the two methods produce slightly different results in the annual rankings, the decade-long trends in the two records are essentially identical.

[Penguin]

Oops, yeah, I forgot to quote, my bad.

But how is an attack on logic "flaming"?  If his foundation is not solid that is where one must strike!  It's the logic of maximum strength against weakest point.  The attack was at CAP1, not Moray (not trying to have friendly fire).

-Penguin

[MORAY37]

Oops, yeah, I forgot to quote, my bad.

But how is an attack on logic "flaming"?  If his foundation is not solid that is where one must strike!  It's the logic of maximum strength against weakest point.  The attack was at CAP1, not Moray (not trying to have friendly fire).

-Penguin

Penguin,

It's a discussion not an attack, even though at times it may seem as a brawl.

Besides, you countered his null with your own null.  Neither one of you provided a single ounce of justification for your point.  If you have a debate point, you must find evidence from good source matter, and use it.  I'm sure you notice, I've barely ever posted without something to reinforce my statement.

The bottom line, is all you can hope to do is get someone to think about a subject, not change his or her mind.  They will do that on their own.  If someone like CAP1 is respectful (and CAP is very respectful), there is absolutely no reason to treat him in any way but respectfully.  People can disagree and debate, it is the nature of the species. 

The second you lose respect for your opponent, you have lost, in whatever endeavor you choose.  In Bodhi's case, he's already formed an opinion of me based on what little he knows of me.  He probably doesn't even realize we winged up five or six times in the past month in game. 

C' est l'vie.

[CAP1]

Oops, yeah, I forgot to quote, my bad.

But how is an attack on logic "flaming"?  If his foundation is not solid that is where one must strike!  It's the logic of maximum strength against weakest point.  The attack was at CAP1, not Moray (not trying to have friendly fire).

-Penguin

you should be studying, rather than trying to attack. there should be no attacks in here as it is..........