North Pole temperature above freezing - December 30, 2015

[HiLo]

In an ocean, having liquid water below zero is not possible.

Oh really!? We are talking about SALT water, you know.

My bad...road salt hasn't been used in my area yet this winter: I didn't get my annual refresher on the freezing point of a saline solution.

[B208]

Which it will be again, which is exactly the point. The Earth has been warming and cooling in a cyclical nature over its entire history, most likely due to carbon trapping in plant life.

Whenever someone claims the worldwide scientific community doesn't know what they're talking about it begs the question - what makes you right and them wrong?

Actually, if you do your research you'll find that there is great diversity of opinion WRT this issue within the scientific community. I know you're under educated when it come to the sciences, so I will give you a précis; Pretty much everyone agrees that increased levels of carbon dioxide leads to greater absorption of IR, (specifically IR re-radiated by the earth). As we all know from our basic physics, increase absorption or radiation leads to increased temperature. That part is "settled", or as settled as things get in the sciences.
Where things start to get interesting is how much and how fast this temperature rise with be. As was stated before, there are numerous models and predictions. Kind of like there were numerous interpretations of the Bible in early Chrisindom. The media and the politicos, (much like their kindred spirits in the early church), have picked up on the models that serve them best and have suppress disent. So, congratulations Rockie; not only have you channelled the spirt of Joe MacCarthy is a previous thread, you are also showing the best characteristics of a religious zealot. You're batting 1000 you paragon of liberalism you!

[Rockie]

Antarctica has always been much much colder than the North Pole, and has always held the record for the continent with the coldest place.

So the Arctic's not supposed to be cold then?

The North Pole is covered in ocean, and water - ice is still water - makes a great heat sink keeping the annual temperature variations there quite small and the winters relatively mild.

Mild winter's at the North Pole? Interesting....

I'm still waiting for the reason you guys think you're smarter than 97% of the world's scientific community.

Actually, if you do your research you'll find that there is great diversity of opinion WRT this issue within the scientific community.

No there isn't, 97% of the planet's scientific community is in agreement. 3% are the crackpots and most mathematicians would agree that 97 is a much larger number than 3.

[HiLo]

Which it will be again, which is exactly the point. The Earth has been warming and cooling in a cyclical nature over its entire history, most likely due to carbon trapping in plant life.

Whenever someone claims the worldwide scientific community doesn't know what they're talking about it begs the question - what makes you right and them wrong?

Actually, if you do your research you'll find that there is great diversity of opinion WRT this issue within the scientific community. I know you're under educated when it come to the sciences, so I will give you a précis; Pretty much everyone agrees that increased levels of carbon dioxide leads to greater absorption of IR, (specifically IR re-radiated by the earth). As we all know from our basic physics, increase absorption or radiation leads to increased temperature. That part is "settled", or as settled as things get in the sciences.
Where things start to get interesting is how much and how fast this temperature rise with be. As was stated before, there are numerous models and predictions. Kind of like there were numerous interpretations of the Bible in early Chrisindom. The media and the politicos, (much like their kindred spirits in the early church), have picked up on the models that serve them best and have suppress disent. So, congratulations Rockie; not only have you channelled the spirt of Joe MacCarthy is a previous thread, you are also showing the best characteristics of a religious zealot. You're batting 1000 you paragon of liberalism you!

Find me a credible climate model that claims climate change is not likely to have devastating consequences for humans.

Also: feel free to take it from the pillar of liberalism that is the US government: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

[B208]

In an ocean, having liquid water below zero is not possible.

For your own sake, after that statement, just stop talking. You'd profit more from spending your time reviewing grade 9 science. Start with freezing point depression.

[NunavutPA-12]

So the Arctic's not supposed to be cold then?

Well, all things are relative, I suppose.

What should the temperature of the arctic be, do you think?

[Rockie]

So the Arctic's not supposed to be cold then?

Well, all things are relative, I suppose.

What should the temperature of the arctic be, do you think?

According to the people who keep records and actually know this stuff - about 50 degrees colder than it was on December 30th.

[HiLo]

In an ocean, having liquid water below zero is not possible.

For your own sake, after that statement, just stop talking. You'd profit more from spending your time reviewing grade 9 science. Start with freezing point depression.

Personal attacks, I see. I'm sorry if I was reading about pollution and ice in the Great Lakes for the past two hours and am dog tired, and made a mistake. I'm not going to presume anything about your scientific education, but mine is not insignificant.

[HiLo]

So the Arctic's not supposed to be cold then?

Well, all things are relative, I suppose.

What should the temperature of the arctic be, do you think?

According to the people who keep records and actually know this stuff - about 50 degrees colder than it was on December 30th.

+1. +2 for giving me a good laugh.

[HiLo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffjIyms1BX4

[NunavutPA-12]

According to the people who keep records and actually know this stuff - about 50 degrees colder than it was on December 30th.

Not sure if you mean the entire arctic or just the north pole, but I can tell you that at the north pole the "normal" temperature at this time of the year is between -20 and -30C. About the same as where I live - 1,500 miles south of the pole. So I'm not sure where you're getting your "50 degrees colder" figure.

[HiLo]

According to the people who keep records and actually know this stuff - about 50 degrees colder than it was on December 30th.

Not sure if you mean the entire arctic or just the north pole, but I can tell you that at the north pole the "normal" temperature at this time of the year is between -20 and -30C. About the same as where I live - 1,500 miles south of the pole. So I'm not sure where you're getting your "50 degrees colder" figure.

50 Fahrenheit, it's an American article.

[Rockie]

The media and the politicos, (much like their kindred spirits in the early church), have picked up on the models that serve them best and have suppress disent. So, congratulations Rockie; not only have you channelled the spirt of Joe MacCarthy is a previous thread, you are also showing the best characteristics of a religious zealot.

The real battle has been in getting the "politico's" to do something about this problem by enacting policies and regulation which has been almost impossible - even among the liberals. Remember Chretien's dismal record?

And I'm still waiting for compelling proof that you're right and 97% of the world's scientific community is wrong.

[JMACK]

Oops sorry HiLo,

Disregard all below.


Freezing point of seawater
28 °F
Seawater is denser than both fresh water and pure water (density 1.0 g/ml at 4 °C (39 °F)) because the dissolved salts increase the mass by a larger proportion than the volume. The freezing point of seawater decreases as salt concentration increases. At typical salinity, it freezes at about −2 °C (28 °F).

[Confliction]

Ok HiLo made a mistake about the salt water freezing point thing(and mentioned it already)

Time to move on....

PS - I'm still waiting for 'cultural Marxism' to be somehow brought up again. (Haha)

[Rookie50]

[/quote]

Are you saying that the 97% of scientists think that a man-made increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere is causing significant and devastating climate change are wrong?

Scientists agree that Earth will easily survive any climate change we throw at it, just that we won't.[/quote]

You can't get 90% of folks to agree they like ice cream.

Not hard to get 97% of anyone to agree on something, when the unspoken threat is clear -- agree with the party line publicly --- or have your research funding cut off --

Any subject, and there are several these days, where dissenting opinions are not tolerated / mocked / threatened -- well that's a problem in today's "free and open" society -- comrade. One look at Ontarios policies and leadership --- should make that abundantly clear. Dissent with the government -- and you're all racists and homophobes.

Just saying -- without expressing a firm opinion on the subject.

[HiLo]

Are you saying that the 97% of scientists think that a man-made increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere is causing significant and devastating climate change are wrong?

Scientists agree that Earth will easily survive any climate change we throw at it, just that we won't.[/quote]

You can't get 90% of folks to agree they like ice cream.

Not hard to get 97% of anyone to agree on something, when the unspoken threat is clear -- agree with the party line publicly --- or have your research funding cut off --

Any subject, and there are several these days, where dissenting opinions are not tolerated / mocked / threatened -- well that's a problem in today's "free and open" society -- comrade. One look at Ontarios policies and leadership --- should make that abundantly clear. Dissent with the government -- and you're all racists and homophobes.

Just saying -- without expressing a firm opinion on the subject.

And for those of you convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt this is a man made issue, why are you contributing to it by working in aviation?

Sorry just had to ask that.[/quote]

This is not 97% of scientists funded by the Feds, but 97% of scientists worldwide.

Aviation is a necessity for modern society. Many working in it have positive environmental effects: from engineers making more fuel efficient aircraft to controllers moving aircraft more efficiently to chemists making lead free AvGas and biomass based JetA.

[Rockie]

Not hard to get 97% of anyone to agree on something, when the unspoken threat is clear -- agree with the party line publicly --- or have your research funding cut off -

This isn't 97% of the unwashed masses sitting in front of their TV absorbing whatever Kardashian/Survivor/big brother drivel is fed to them. These are scientists whose day job expertise from many different directions is all pointing to the same conclusion.

You're posting on this forum thanks to science. You drive a car and fly an airplane thanks to science. You talk on your phone, heat up your dinner, take a shower, stay healthy, prevent your girlfriend from becoming pregnant, listen to news, make a margarita, vacuum your floor, feed your dog...all thanks to science.

Whatever for do some people abandon science now in favour of baseless ideology?

And by the way, on what basis do you claim scientific research will be cut off if scientists don't adhere to some dogma that human induced climate change is real? Who is this all-powerful organization extorting the entire worldwide scientific community that controls all scientific funding, and why would they be doing this?

If you're going to refer to quacky conspiracies you better have something to show.

[Meatservo]

I love it when this shit turns political. You'd think there would be people of either political stripe who would be willing to gather empirical evidence and follow scientific process in order to determine if, and to what extent, anything unusual is happening. I'm sure someone must be. It's hard to figure out who that person is.

[Rockie]

You'd think there would be people of either political stripe who would be willing to gather empirical evidence and follow scientific process in order to determine if, and to what extent, anything unusual is happening.

Personally speaking, growing up and spending a great deal of time outdoors in the mountains I've watched glaciers disappear without knowing why they were receding so much. Turns out now science knows why. I don't argue with science.

I don't expect scientists on my airplane to question my considered opinion on operational matters for which they have no expertise, and I don't question theirs. By their nature they do enough of that on their own, so when 97% of them render an opinion I'm inclined to believe it especially when throughout my life I've seen physical evidence to support it.

[Rookie50]

Not hard to get 97% of anyone to agree on something, when the unspoken threat is clear -- agree with the party line publicly --- or have your research funding cut off -

This isn't 97% of the unwashed masses sitting in front of their TV absorbing whatever Kardashian/Survivor/big brother drivel is fed to them. These are scientists whose day job expertise from many different directions is all pointing to the same conclusion.

You're posting on this forum thanks to science. You drive a car and fly an airplane thanks to science. You talk on your phone, heat up your dinner, take a shower, stay healthy, prevent your girlfriend from becoming pregnant, listen to news, make a margarita, vacuum your floor, feed your dog...all thanks to science.

Whatever for do some people abandon science now in favour of baseless ideology?

And by the way, on what basis do you claim scientific research will be cut off if scientists don't adhere to some dogma that human induced climate change is real? Who is this all-powerful organization extorting the entire worldwide scientific community that controls all scientific funding, and why would they be doing this?

If you're going to refer to quacky conspiracies you better have something to show.

2 seconds to find this link:

What does it say when the U.S. government wants to charge dissenters criminally with RICO violations?

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinio ... 64432.html

http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/climate-chan ... al-offence

If you are a scientist living and breathing on your funding, why go against that kind of tide?

And -- if the evidence is so clear -- why the muzzling and threats?

Are these not reasonable questions?

Where does the US -- or Ontario goverments green energy policies --- come into this? (Like the extra $37 billion of taxpayer dollars spent on energy over market)

What about lush tax credits to the rich to buy supercar Tesla's? That make sense too? How much will a handful of $100K plus Tesla's reverse climate change? No money for food stamps for the poor, or fix the horrible public schools in some states. Loads of money for Tesla tax credits.

This is the PC climate we live in. Dissension not tolerated.

Sorry if I question arguments that are are only widely accepted under compulsion and threats.

I haven't expressed an opinion. I'm only asking questions.

But my point is -- everyone has an agenda. And I question if it's pure science.

[Rockie]

This is the PC climate we live in. Dissension not tolerated.

False. Scientific dissension is not only tolerated but is the very basis of scientific discovery. The difference is that the dissension has to have a scientific foundation - not an ideological one.

Your dissension is ideological, which as time goes on is increasingly being discredited to the point where you have nothing left to hang that dissension on. You might as well deny evolution as a crackpot theory...

[B208]

Actually, if you do your research you'll find that there is great diversity of opinion WRT this issue within the scientific community.

No there isn't, 97% of the planet's scientific community is in agreement. 3% are the crackpots and most mathematicians would agree that 97 is a much larger number than 3.

Carried out the poll yourself, did you?

How does that quote go, "There's lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Let me inject a little precision into your speech.

What Rockie meant to say:

97% of scientists polled by climate change activists agreed that we should do what the climate change activists wanted.

Now, even with that caveat added, I would still lend Mr Gore and his gang some credibility if their plan involved something other than massive tax hikes on things we need everyday and diverting that money to developing nations, (some of whom have space and nuclear weapons programs), whilst excusing said developing nations from reducing their own emissions.

In short, I'm quite willing to work towards reduced GHG emissions but I'm not going let a bunch of alarmists herd me into an abiotoir set up by a bunch of opportunists. It's reallly quite ironic; the global warming crowd hates Trump's fans, (I'm going to go ahead and coin the term 'Trumplings'), but in essence they are the same. They're both ignorant of the facts and are being manipulated by fear.

[Rookie50]

This is the PC climate we live in. Dissension not tolerated.

False. Scientific dissension is not only tolerated but is the very basis of scientific discovery. The difference is that the dissension has to have a scientific foundation - not an ideological one.

Your dissension is ideological, which as time goes on is increasingly being discredited to the point where you have nothing left to hang that dissension on. You might as well deny evolution as a crackpot theory...

Actually -- I haven't dissented at all. I lean towards human influences on climate change.

I will though, emphatically dissent against those who attempt to squash dissension through intimidation and threats.

Strong cases presented do not fear dissenting voices, but welcome them, give them a seat at the table.

On any subject. Squashing dissenting voices from the government level ....scary business.

[B208]

This is the PC climate we live in. Dissension not tolerated.

False. Scientific dissension is not only tolerated but is the very basis of scientific discovery. The difference is that the dissension has to have a scientific foundation - not an ideological one

So, Rockie, how would you model the specific heat capacity of the Earth as a whole? Or, how about the increased carbon sink capabilities of the oceans due to biological carbon capture? Do you know how many models there out there for these things and the assumptions that some of them are based on? You seem to have a handle on this science stuff, based on your lectures here. Could you do me a small favour? It's been a while since I studied black body radiation, could you give me a quick refresher on it?