Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

I've just looked at the falsified officially data: miniTAX, how did you manage that the most coldest period ever in Le Bourget (1879/80) didn't get in your excellent graphics? And what about 1949?

georgeob1 wrote:

I don't know if what we view as the universe is finite or not. I can accept that it can scientifically be shown to be so. But no science here can yet say what lies beyond what we call the universe either. We know only an immeasurably tiny amount of all there is to know.

I'm not sure if you're implying this, but the finiteness of spacetime does not necessarily mean that there is a beyond. Since it's hard to imagine the curvation of the four-dimensional spacetime we live in, here is a three-dimensional analogy. The question, "if spacetime is finite, what lies beyond?", is much like a four-dimensional version of asking, "if the surface of the Earth is finite, what lies beyond its edge?". And the question, "what happened before the Big Bang?", is much like a four-dimensional version of asking "what lies north of the North Pole?"

I don't know if that's what you had in mind with "what lies beyond what we call the universe". But if it was, you probably have mistaken notions of spacetime geometry (as we all do unless we pay a hell of a lot of attention).

P.S. BTW, here is the annual temperature of le Bourget

Indeed it is. At least 80°F of global warming will be necessary to make it suitable for human settlement. Unfortunately the anti-global warming crowd will obstruct every effort to make Antarctica's climate safe.

Foxfyre wrote:

I recall from highschool chemistry class that freezing water releases heat while melting ice absorbs heat and thus cools the environment around it. So couldn't it follow that a colder Anarctica, i.e. freezing water/ice, would temporarily warm the perimeter a bit? Or would it all get colder simultaneously, in which case where is the heat going?

Sorry fox but the last time I was in freezing arctic water, my perimeter was not warmed one bit. (Its true that heat can be generated or absorbed when a substance changes state. But heat and temperature are not the same as you know or would do if you had being paying attention all those years ago :wink: )

Fox,
You are ignoring the fact that the graphic isn't showing heat. It is showing temperature trends. They are 2 completely different things.

Your argument also ignores the observed loss of ice that directly contradicts your claim that the heat is coming from ice being created.

My point is that there is zero ability to prove IF or WHETHER there is anything beyond the known universe, and it would be as ludicrous to say that science KNOWS there is nothing beyond as it would be for me (or anybody else) to say that I or anybody knows what is or isn't out there. All this was within the context of my heartfelt and reasonable assertion that we humans know only a miniscule amount of all there is to know.

You are referring to this one, aren't you?
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2541633#2541633

It clearly says, "Temperature Trends " below it as the guide to the red and blue shading on it.

If there is another one, could you direct me to it?

Fox,
You are ignoring the fact that the graphic isn't showing heat. It is showing temperature trends. They are 2 completely different things.

Your argument also ignores the observed loss of ice that directly contradicts your claim that the heat is coming from ice being created.

I attacked you?
Wow.. I happen to point out your argument is based on a non existent photo and that makes me the bad guy that can't "keep up."

You say you want a discussion about your "reasonable" alternative but when I point out some problems you think it is an attack? You don't want a discussion. You want to be agreed with or else you consider it an attack.

Some other problems with your argument. Ice forms on the top of water. As more ice forms it would release the majority of the heat from that change into the water below the ice. The graphic only measures temperature change at the very surface of the ice to the air. It would not measure any heat given off as water turns to ice.

One could easily point to a simple cycle of heat on the edge of the continent evaporates moisture which then cools as it changes back and become precipitation. This would account for a difference in temperature from the edge to the center of the continent. What it does not account for is the increase in temperature on the edge and the cooling in the center. If we assume that evaporation/precipitation are a zero sum game when it comes to heat then it becomes easy to see that an increase in temperature on the edge would decrease the temperature in the center. That however is too simplistic in its approach. This is not a closed system.
Nor does it explain the increase in temperature at the edges of the ocean.

We have some givens...
1. As water changes to ice it gives off heat.
2. The heat warms the surrounding areas, water or air.
3. As more ice forms more heat is given off.

But that leads to a real problem with your speculation. Ice formation is directly related to temperature. The colder the temperature the more ice that will form. the warmer the temperature, the less ice that will form. In a closed system ice formation will eventually lead to an equilibrium in which the temperature won't allow any more ice formation. That means there must be some outside force creating the increase in temperature. It can't be simply from the formation of ice.

Anarctica is a very large mass, however, and I still wonder if photography that enhances areas of heat and cold would show the temporary heat released by enormous amounts of ice that is releasing heat and thus becoming colder. And such 'visible' heat would likely be around the perimeter.

I don't know this is the case. I'm just wondering.

Foxfyre wrote:

Anarctica is a very large mass, however, and I still wonder if photography that enhances areas of heat and cold would show the temporary heat released by enormous amounts of ice that is releasing heat and thus becoming colder. And such 'visible' heat would likely be around the perimeter.

I don't know this is the case. I'm just wondering.

Are you also wondering if photography that enhances areas of heat and cold would show the temporary cold temperatures released by enormous amounts of ice that is melting? I mean, if such 'visible' cold can be seen in center of the continent, aren't you wondering whether the center might be melting, and therefore releasing cold temperatures?


Your argument (pardon, "theory")(no, pardon, "theoretical question") goes along the lines of "the center is fine, it's getting colder there, and the perimeter is fine, it's showing warmer temperatures there, which might be a sign that it's really getting colder there, too"...

I don't know. Is that your theory? And does that explain the warming of the perimeter? I'm surprised you are giving any consideration to the question at all with me being such a liar and all.