 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Nobby
Board - Admin
Joined: 16 Sep 2002
Posts: 4903
Location: Missouri
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 7:05 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Hi Pondering, your top Link does not work! It will not fill out It's to long its stretching the page way out! Makes it hard to read! 
Nobby
PS: The previous page! I mean!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pondering wrote: | | P1234567890 wrote: | | Pondering wrote: |
Actually, sea rise is consistent with sea rise over the past several centuries...
|
No, it isn't. Go ahead and prove me wrong by citing a credible source. |
"Based on tide gauge data, the rate of global mean sea level rise during the 20th century is in the range 1.0 to 2.0 mm/yr. No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected."
IPCC
|
Oh, so now suddenly you think the IPCC report is credible? You're pretty inconsistent; I hope you know that. When the IPCC says something that disagrees with what you want to believe, then it's a cheap document which was put together by political hacks. But when it says something that agrees with what you want to believe, then suddenly you're all too happy to cite it.
In any case, that particular statement in it is wrong. Here's the latest science:
http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/author_archive/church_white/GRL_Church_White_2006_024826.pdf
| Pondering wrote: |
First, basic physics...any ice melt in free floating ice or ice suspended over water will not raise ocean levels at all...ice cubes in your drinking glass don't cause the glass to overflow as they melt... |
Again, you're being pretty inconsistent. I hope you realize that. When an inductive experiment such as ice melting in a glass of water agrees with what you want to believe, then you're more than happy to run with it. But when I make an inductive argument, telling you to set up a bunch of greenhouses, each with a different level of CO2 in it, and measure the temperature differences, then you're all, 'The Earth's climate is a very complex thing.'
You're going to have to try to be more consistent.
| Pondering wrote: |
Second, most of the ice melt has not occurred among ice over land...that could cause sea levels to rise, but would have to be significant melting...we'll get more flooding from tsunami's and undersea volcanoes than we will from (ant)artic ice melt. |
The land-based ice on Greenland is melting faster than ever before, and this is continuing to accelerate.
The ice-shelf buffers around Antarctica are melting, and then the land-based ice there is next.
You have absolutely no idea how bad this is all going to be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6661
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 4:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P123.. wrote: | Again, you're being pretty inconsistent. I hope you realize that. When an inductive experiment such as ice melting in a glass of water agrees with what you want to believe, then you're more than happy to run with it. But when I make an inductive argument, telling you to set up a bunch of greenhouses, each with a different level of CO2 in it, and measure the temperature differences, then you're all, 'The Earth's climate is a very complex thing.'
You're going to have to try to be more consistent. |
I don't see the inconsistency, could you better explain how the assertion of a scientific fact is inconsistent with the opposition to a poorly derived conclusion based on an experiment?
| Quote: | Question - does melting ice raise the water level?
------------------------------------------------
If the ice is floating on the top of the water, no.
If the ice is held underneath the water level, melting it will actually lower the water level.
And, of course, if the ice is held above the water surface and the meltwater drains into the water, yes, melting it will raise the water level.
Richard E. Barrans Jr., Ph.D.
Assistant Director
PG Research Foundation, Darien, Illinois |
I think Pondering was entirely clear and entirely correct in his assertions about ice location in combination with melting equaling rising sea levels.
While your greenhouse 'experiment' eliminates so many variables that it would logically, and scientifically be inconclusive in demonstrating a global effect.
| Quote: | | The land-based ice on Greenland is melting faster than ever before, and this is continuing to accelerate. |
and you somehow think the land based ice in Greenland will significantly raise sea levels globally? Not likely considering the volume involved.
| Quote: | | The ice-shelf buffers around Antarctica are melting, and then the land-based ice there is next. |
An opinion not based on any scientific evidence - perhaps you are a prophet?
Last edited by RevJP on Sat Mar 29, 2008 7:19 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | I don't see the inconsistency, could you better explain how the assertion of a scientific fact is inconsistent with the opposition to a poorly derived conclusion based on an experiment? |
The 'multiple-greenhouse' experiment establishes the FACT that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and furthermore establishes that only small increases in CO2 can create a relatively large increase in temperature.
Can you explain what is so magical about the Earth's atmosphere that increasing CO2 levels in a bottle or greenhouse will increase temperatures, but increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere will not?
Exactly how does this work?
| RevJP wrote: |
I think Pondering was entirely clear and entirely correct in his assertions about ice location in combination with melting equaling rising sea levels.
While your greenhouse 'experiment' eliminates so many variables that it would logically, and scientifically be inconclusive in demonstrating a global effect.
|
1. A glass of water has uniform pressure and temperature. The oceans do not.
2. The oceans contain *very* complex currents, and a glass of water does not.
3. The oceans contain thermal layers, and a glass of water does not.
4. The oceans are a big sphere, with one side in the dark and the other side being heated by the sun. A glass is cylindrical, so the surface area to volume ratios are entirely different.
5. The ice on the Earth is kilometers thick and white, which reflects sunlight. Ice in a glass is small and transparent. So if the Arctic sea ice melts, then suddenly more heat energy will be absorbed by the oceans rather than reflected. Water expands when it is heated, which will make sea levels go up.
When you talk about 'eliminating variables', do you mean variables like this?
You guys aren't experts in fluid dynamics, oceanography, and climatology. You've got no idea if the ice melting in a glass result can be inductively generalized to the scale of an entire planet with complex ocean systems. You can only go by what the experts say.
That's the only point here that I'm making. For some reason you trust the experts about the water in the glass, but you DON'T trust the experts with the greenhouse experiments, even though in BOTH cases it's experts who know what they're talking about who are making the claims.
You guys are extremely inconsistent in your reasoning. When experts say things that agree with your preconceived notions against global warming, then you believe them. When experts say things which disagree with your preconceived notions against global warming, then you choose to not believe them.
Do you understand why this is bad?
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: | | The land-based ice on Greenland is melting faster than ever before, and this is continuing to accelerate. |
and you somehow think the land based ice in Greenland will significantly raise sea levels globally? Not likely considering the volume involved.
|
The Greenland ice shelf contains something like 10% of all the world's fresh water. It most certainly DOES contain enough water to raise sea levels.
But luckily for us, it's not just the land-based Greenland ice shelf that is melting. Once the sea-ice buffers in Antarctica are out of the way (and they're well on their way to being out of the way), then the land-based Antarctic ice shelves will also melt.
Stock tip: Invest in cement companies in New York State.
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: | | The ice-shelf buffers around Antarctica are melting, and then the land-based ice there is next. |
An opinion not based on any scientific evidence - perhaps you are a prophet? |
It's based on plenty of scientific evidence: We've OBSERVED several of the sea-based ice buffers in Antarctica melt, and they're the only thing standing between the land-based ice and the ocean. We know that the global temperature is increasing (also good science) and that the increase is amplified in the polar regions (also good science). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pondering
Lion King
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1264
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 6:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: |
Oh, so now suddenly you think the IPCC report is credible? You're pretty inconsistent; I hope you know that. When the IPCC says something that disagrees with what you want to believe, then it's a cheap document which was put together by political hacks. But when it says something that agrees with what you want to believe, then suddenly you're all too happy to cite it.
In any case, that particular statement in it is wrong. |
Lol...ok...I think this is a pot calling the kettle black...but it seems that we should be able to agree that we both think the report is flawed...now it's just a matter of determining which flaws are valid.
| P1234567890 wrote: |
Again, you're being pretty inconsistent. I hope you realize that. When an inductive experiment such as ice melting in a glass of water agrees with what you want to believe, then you're more than happy to run with it. But when I make an inductive argument, telling you to set up a bunch of greenhouses, each with a different level of CO2 in it, and measure the temperature differences, then you're all, 'The Earth's climate is a very complex thing.' |
No, it's because the glass of ice water is a good analogy to the oceans...the analogy of the glass greenhouse doesn't equate sufficiently to the earth's atmosphere to make a good model.
| P1234567890 wrote: |
The land-based ice on Greenland is melting faster than ever before, and this is continuing to accelerate. |
you keep saying that, but other studies show contrary data...somebody is lying or postulating based on insufficient data.
| P1234567890 wrote: |
You have absolutely no idea how bad this is all going to be. |
possibly....I definately know how bad it'll be if we follow through with any of the suggestions of the GW activists though...given those two choices, I put my money on the planet and not the politicians. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6661
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So P123... you completely sidestepped everything I've stated. Nice job.
Physics are physics. are you trying to tell me that the same volume of H20 in frozen form will increase in volume if it melts? In order for frozen ice to increase the level of the oceans then indeed this is must be what occurs.
If land ice melts, absolutely it will increase the level of the oceans. The only problem is that there is not sufficient volume of land ice to significantly increase ocean levels.
Ice that is on or in the oceans already cannot and will not increase water levels if it melts.
| Quote: |
The 'multiple-greenhouse' experiment establishes the FACT that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and furthermore establishes that only small increases in CO2 can create a relatively large increase in temperature. |
Fantastic. So science has established that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. So what? Science has also established that increased CO2 in a controlled environment can create an increase in ambient temperature. Again, so what?
Has science been able to duplicate the global environment to see if their 'models' will work according to plan? Obviously not, since the reality of the data in global climatology does not currently support the predictions of those models.
If I burn sulfur in a closet, will the air in that closet become significantly foul? Absolutely. If I burn that same sulfur in the middle of a field on a windy day, will that same effect from the closet be significantly measurable? Not at all.
| Quote: | | You guys aren't experts in fluid dynamics, oceanography, and climatology. You've got no idea if the ice melting in a glass result can be inductively generalized to the scale of an entire planet with complex ocean systems. |
and most certainly, neither are you.
| Quote: |
You can only go by what the experts say. |
Same for you my friend. The difference is that I, and most likely, Pondering, listen to ALL of the experts, unlike you who only listens to the ones who are riding in your cherished bandwagon.
| Quote: | You guys are extremely inconsistent in your reasoning. When experts say things that agree with your preconceived notions against global warming, then you believe them. When experts say things which disagree with your preconceived notions against global warming, then you choose to not believe them.
Do you understand why this is bad? |
Do you have any sense of self whatsoever? I swear by all that is right that you must stare into a mirror when you write this stuff and delude yourself into thinking someone else is staring back at you.
| Quote: | | We've OBSERVED several of the sea-based ice buffers in Antarctica melt, and they're the only thing standing between the land-based ice and the ocean. We know that the global temperature is increasing (also good science) and that the increase is amplified in the polar regions (also good science). |
It is also good science that the slippery slope you are sliding on is a fallacy of logic. It is also good science that the melting ice buffers can be the result of a cyclical climatic change that has put this planet into varying stages of climates from immoderate to temperate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | So P123... you completely sidestepped everything I've stated. Nice job. |
Wow, how did I know that you were going to say that?
| RevJP wrote: |
Physics are physics.
|
Don't say things that you don't believe. The micro-greenhouse argument doesn't seem to register with you, and that's a perfectly valid inductive scientific argument.
| RevJP wrote: |
are you trying to tell me that the same volume of H20 in frozen form will increase in volume if it melts?
|
Not in a glass, but if we're talking about the sea-based ice in the arctic and the Earth's sea levels, then the answer is probably yes. If the sea ice melts, then suddenly there's a MASSIVE patch of dark blue where there used to be a massive patch of reflective white. This means that the oceans will absorb A LOT more of the Sun's energy which was previously being reflected back into space. This will warm up the water. When water warms up, it expands. When an ocean-full of water expands even a tiny bit, then the sea levels go up.
| RevJP wrote: |
If land ice melts, absolutely it will increase the level of the oceans. The only problem is that there is not sufficient volume of land ice to significantly increase ocean levels.
|
Wow, you're really showing how little you know about this topic. If the land-based ice on Greenland melts, then the sea level will go up by more than 23 feet.
If both the Greenland and Antarctic land-based ice melts, then the sea level will go up by something like 180 - 200 feet.
Don't take my word for it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet
Relevant passage:
| Quote: | Positioned in the Arctic, the Greenland Ice Sheet is especially vulnerable to global warming. Arctic climate is now warming rapidly and much larger Arctic shrinkage changes are projected.[4] The Greenland Ice Sheet has experienced record melting in recent years and is likely to contribute substantially to sea level rise as well as to possible changes in ocean circulation in the future. The area of the sheet that experiences melting has increased about 16% from 1979 (when measurements started) to 2002 (most recent data). The area of melting in 2002 broke all previous records[4]. The number of glacial earthquakes at Helheim and the northwest Greenland glaciers increased substantially between 1993 and 2005.[5]In 2006, estimated monthly changes in the mass of Greenland's ice sheet suggest that it is melting at a rate of about 239 cubic kilometres (57.3 cubic miles) per year. These measurements came from the US space agency's Grace (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) satellite, launched in 2002, as reported by BBC[6].
If the entire 2.85 million km³ of ice were to melt, global sea levels would rise 7.2 m (23.6 ft.)[2]. Recently, fears have grown that continued global warming will make the Greenland Ice Sheet cross a threshold where long-term melting of the ice sheet is inevitable. Climate models project that local warming in Greenland will exceed 3 degrees Celsius during this century. Ice sheet models project that such a warming would initiate the long-term melting of the ice sheet, leading to a complete melting of the ice sheet (over centuries), resulting in a global sea level rise of about seven meters[4]. Such a rise would inundate almost every major coastal city in the world. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: | | We've OBSERVED several of the sea-based ice buffers in Antarctica melt, and they're the only thing standing between the land-based ice and the ocean. We know that the global temperature is increasing (also good science) and that the increase is amplified in the polar regions (also good science). |
It is also good science that the slippery slope you are sliding on is a fallacy of logic. |
I'm going to call you on this one. You see, I know a little bit about logic, and I claim that I am not committing ANY logical fallacies above.
By all means point out what they are if you can. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6661
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 8:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
It is very simple P, you assert that something is happening and that by extension, something else will happen, and that by extension if that other something does happen then something else will happen.
Here, let me give you the textbook definition:
In debate or rhetoric, the slippery slope is an argument for the likelihood of one event or trend given another. It suggests that an action will initiate a chain of events culminating in an undesirable event later. The argument is sometimes referred to as the thin end of the wedge or the camel's nose. The slippery slope can be valid or fallacious. The term "slippery slope" is often used synonymically with continuum fallacy, in that it assumes there is no gray area and there must be a definite transition at a certain point from category A to category B.
In one form, the proposer suggests that by making a move in a particular direction, we start down a "slippery slope". Having started down the metaphorical slope, it appears likely that we will continue in the same direction (the arguer usually sees the direction as a negative direction; hence the "sliding downwards" metaphor).
Now then, I know your assertion will be that according to 'good science' (which thus far remains, and continues to remain, scientifically debatable) tells us that global warming is occuring and is melting the ice, so it is perfectly logical and scientifically sound to assume that since the water ice is melting, the land ice will also melt.
I refer you to the most prime example of this fallacy that you are egregiously committing:
Viet Nam. It was stated in no uncertain terms that if we (the democratic world) were to allow communism to spread in southeast asia it would spread like a cancer throughout the world, overtaking us and our way of life.
Our battles in Viet Nam failed, and failed to stop communism from taking hold in southeast asia, as a result of this foothold in turns out that communism failed to spread as direly predicted by the slippery slope, and for the most part died off in many of the places it previously was ensconced.
Your ice melting predictions of doom are exactly the same thing. A dictionary example of the slippery slope fallacy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: |
Your ice melting predictions of doom are exactly the same thing. A dictionary example of the slippery slope fallacy. |
This is may be the worst example of trying to shoehorn a good, scientific argument into the definition of fallacy I have ever seen.
The ice melting predictions are SCIENTIFIC. All of the following are facts which support this prediction:
1. Several major sea-based ice shelves in Antarctica have already collapsed, and several land-based glaciers on Greenland are now sliding straight into the sea. This is OBSERVED.
2. The sea-based ice is the only thing keeping the land-based ice in check (from sliding into the sea). It acts like a doorstop. This isn't anything controversial; it is just gravity. Everyone knows that glaciers flow from high ground to low ground over time due to gravity. In the middle of the ice shelves, the ice is kilometers thick, and at the edges it's at sea level. So there is a definite high ground and low ground. The sea ice acts like a giant weight at the end of the glacier holding it back. Once it's gone, the glacier's speed increases towards the sea.
These are FACTS, and they STRONGLY support the 'ice melting doom and gloom' predictions.
Your accusation of me using a fallacious slippery slope argument is therefore a complete misuse.
You have to make a distinction between a valid set of extensions and an *invalid* set of extensions. For example, here is an example of an *invalid* slippery slope:
The number 1 is close to the number 2. 2 is close to 3. 3 is close to 4.... 999,999,999 is close to 1,000,000,000. Therefore 1 is close to a billion. Each step seems plausible, but leads to a false conclusion.
Contrast this with 1 < 2 and 2 < 3 and 3 < 4 and .... and 999,999,999 < 1,000,000,000. Therefore 1 < a billion. This is an extension which is clearly true.
The issue is that 'close to' and '<' don't work in the same way.
The same thing is true when talking about real world slippery slopes. The fact of the matter is that some physical events DO lead to others. Sea-based ice melting really does lead to an acceleration of land-based ice entering the sea, which in turn leads to an acceleration of its melting. This is just gravity and the flow of glaciers to a low point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
