This should give FirstAscent a stroke...

[ElectricMucus]

Are you in or out with regard to the lump of deniers I'm creating who support what myrkul said? I'd like to know.

Actually I am sceptical at both camps. So I would describe myself a sceptic not a denier, but I couldn't resist the temptation of attributing me to that group since the term is so ridiculous. 

Seriously guys lets evaluate the method used in the paper to arrive at these conclusions.

If the method is flawed maybe we will find it and if we can reproduce the results we can verify it. It may be that doing this exceeds out abilities but at least it will be educational in contrast to firing insults at each other from our viewpoints.

Are you supporting myrkul with regard to his statement or not?

I don't think so, but then I haven't followed your debate long enough.

[FirstAscent]

Are you in or out with regard to the lump of deniers I'm creating who support what myrkul said? I'd like to know.

Actually I am sceptical at both camps. So I would describe myself a sceptic not a denier, but I couldn't resist the temptation of attributing me to that group since the term is so ridiculous.

I'm not asking you if you're skeptical of climate science or not. I'm asking if you support myrkul's statement. Say 'yes' or say 'no' or admit you don't you know enough about the science.

[myrkul]

Now, let me ask you: Let's assume this heat energy is directly or indirectly added by human action. What do you propose to do about it?

So you're going to defend your statement? I think that's great. Keep it up.

Are you going to answer my question?

And explain why melting ice doesn't absorb heat in your fantasy land?

[ElectricMucus]

Are you in or out with regard to the lump of deniers I'm creating who support what myrkul said? I'd like to know.

Actually I am sceptical at both camps. So I would describe myself a sceptic not a denier, but I couldn't resist the temptation of attributing me to that group since the term is so ridiculous.

I'm not asking you if you're skeptical of climate science or not. I'm asking if you support myrkul's statement. Say 'yes' or say 'no' or admit you don't you know enough about the science.

Well, if the surrounding air heats up around an ice water mixture the mixture will stay at the freezing point of water while it doesn't make any statement about the temperature of the air. But if you measure the decay of the ice of the mixture you can extrapolate the temperature of the surrounding air.

Is that your point?

[FirstAscent]

Are you in or out with regard to the lump of deniers I'm creating who support what myrkul said? I'd like to know.

Actually I am sceptical at both camps. So I would describe myself a sceptic not a denier, but I couldn't resist the temptation of attributing me to that group since the term is so ridiculous.

I'm not asking you if you're skeptical of climate science or not. I'm asking if you support myrkul's statement. Say 'yes' or say 'no' or admit you don't you know enough about the science.

Well, if the surrounding air heats up around an ice water mixture the mixture will stay at the freezing point of water while it doesn't make any statement about the temperature of the air. But if you measure the decay of the ice of the mixture you can extrapolate the temperature of the surrounding air.

Is that your point?

Myrkul made a specific statement. It is typical of his methods of argumentation. Do you support his statement or not? Yes or no.

[ElectricMucus]

 

So what did he state?
He just hinted at some of his derived conclusions and did not refute your argument. But you are guilty of the same tactic.

[myrkul]

Well, if the surrounding air heats up around an ice water mixture the mixture will stay at the freezing point of water while it doesn't make any statement about the temperature of the air.

Actually, it does. When the air melts the ice, it transfers heat energy from the air to the ice/water mixture. What do we call it when heat is transferred out of something?

Additionally, what does that say about the temperature of the air/ice/water system?

[FirstAscent]

So what did he state?

He said this:

Arctic ice melting actually supports a steady temperature model, because of the phase change cooling. All the water in a glass of icewater stays at 32° until all the ice has melted.

Do you support his statement? I'm not seeing a lot of confidence from you. Try to answer: yes or no.

[ElectricMucus]

Well, if the surrounding air heats up around an ice water mixture the mixture will stay at the freezing point of water while it doesn't make any statement about the temperature of the air.

Actually, it does. When the air melts the ice, it transfers heat energy from the air to the ice/water mixture. What do we call it when heat is transferred out of something?

Of course, it all depends on the amount of air and water there is in the system. Since neither of you run computational models of the earth you both have it on. 

[ElectricMucus]

Arctic ice melting actually supports a steady temperature model, because of the phase change cooling. All the water in a glass of icewater stays at 32° until all the ice has melted.

Do you support his statement? I'm not seeing a lot of confidence from you. Try to answer: yes or no.

No.
The latter sentence however is a fact.

[FirstAscent]

Arctic ice melting actually supports a steady temperature model, because of the phase change cooling. All the water in a glass of icewater stays at 32° until all the ice has melted.

Do you support his statement? I'm not seeing a lot of confidence from you. Try to answer: yes or no.

No.
The latter sentence however is a fact.

I'm happy for you. You will not be put on the list. So far, only myrkul is on the list.

[myrkul]

Arctic ice melting actually supports a steady temperature model, because of the phase change cooling. All the water in a glass of icewater stays at 32° until all the ice has melted.

Do you support his statement? I'm not seeing a lot of confidence from you. Try to answer: yes or no.

No.
The latter sentence however is a fact.

I'm happy for you. You will not be put on the list. So far, only myrkul is on the list.

Oh no! THE LIST.

 

[ElectricMucus]

 

[FirstAscent]

Arctic ice melting actually supports a steady temperature model, because of the phase change cooling. All the water in a glass of icewater stays at 32° until all the ice has melted.

Do you support his statement? I'm not seeing a lot of confidence from you. Try to answer: yes or no.

No.
The latter sentence however is a fact.

I'm happy for you. You will not be put on the list. So far, only myrkul is on the list.

Oh no! THE LIST.

 

Sucks that he didn't it support your statement, doesn't it? Will anyone? Let's find out.

[ElectricMucus]

Wouldn't a list imply multiple subjects?

[FirstAscent]

Wouldn't a list imply multiple subjects?

We're building the list right now. It may be that in reality, nobody wants to admit to being so stupid as to agree with his statement, in which case, the list will only contain him. Time will tell.

[ElectricMucus]

I may be wasting my time here but did both of you actually read the whole paper? (I admit it I haven't)

If so how about you both post one specific quote from it of which you think is accurate/fallacious?

[myrkul]

Well, if the surrounding air heats up around an ice water mixture the mixture will stay at the freezing point of water while it doesn't make any statement about the temperature of the air.

Actually, it does. When the air melts the ice, it transfers heat energy from the air to the ice/water mixture. What do we call it when heat is transferred out of something?

Of course, it all depends on the amount of air and water there is in the system. Since neither of you run computational models of the earth you both have it on. 

That's a fair point, and if new heat energy were added to the system faster than the phase change was absorbing it, the temperature of the entire system would increase.

[FirstAscent]

I may be wasting my time here but did both of you actually read the whole paper? (I admit it I haven't)

If so how about you both post one specific quote from it of which you think is accurate/fallacious?

Honestly, there are thousands and thousands of papers on climate change. Not to mention excellent summaries on global warming written by very knowledgeable authors. Read some good books on the subject, and keep abreast of general reporting on the subject. You'll never be in a position to evaluate climate change effectively by looking at one paper. Just because myrkul posted it doesn't make me interested in it.

But I do find his posts interesting, as in the one I've pointed out. If he can't get that right, then it makes one wonder why he even said it. We'll see if we can find even one person who supports it.

[ElectricMucus]

I may be wasting my time here but did both of you actually read the whole paper? (I admit it I haven't)

If so how about you both post one specific quote from it of which you think is accurate/fallacious?

Honestly, there are thousands and thousands of papers on climate change. Not to mention excellent summaries on global warming written by very knowledgeable authors. Read some good books on the subject, and keep abreast of general reporting on the subject. You'll never be in a position to evaluate climate change effectively by looking at one paper. Just because myrkul posted doesn't make me interested in it.

But I do find his posts interesting, as in the one I've pointed out. If he can't get that right, then it makes on wonder why he even said it. We'll see if we can find even one person who supports it.

If the topic is as controversial I try to stay in a state of agnosticism. It's better for my mental health.
I don't think we have enough data to form a valid conclusion on the effects of greenhouse gases in relation to temperature. Quite simply I think that the signal to noise ratio is too high for something done so far to be called a measurement.

Nevertheless I am against being affected by legislations imposed because of a consensus inside the most influential group.
So I am against carbon credits. And I am highly against the way it is popularized by television an print media.