Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sdgla who wrote (865290)	6/14/2015 11:46:37 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576610

Over my head? Possibly. But whoever made the image did it at a very low resolution. When expanded all the characters are greeked. Since you posted it, it isn't worth putting much effort into it. Probably not... Since you haven't managed to figure out anything I've posted to you to date. Oh, I have understood most of what you post. It is just that it is nonsense. Antarctic Sea Ice Did The Exact Opposite Of What Models Predicted Case in point. The problem is that sea ice, especially for Antarctic sea ice, is a low-information metric. See, the ice there is unbounded, and mostly melts during the local summer. And Antarctic sea ice extent is not very well correlated with temperature. Once the proper temperatures are reached, the amount of the extent is determined by winds. Winds agitate the thin, weak ice, remember this is first year ice only a couple of meters thick at most, causing polynyas to form. The exposed water then freezes. The more wind, the greater the sea ice extent. Guess what? Measured winds in the Southern Ocean have been higher than in the past. Higher winds = greater sea ice extent. Arctic ice is different, it is bounded almost totally by continental land masses. It doesn't totally melt during the summer. It does totally fill the spaces inside the continental bounding with surface ice in the winter, so winds are not as much of a factor. Yet it still has thinned considerably over the past few decades. Translation: there is a smaller volume of ice since it has been dominated by thicker, multi-year ice. A more important point is that sea ice, by definition, floats. It cannot contribute to sea level rise because it is already displacing the mass of the ice. For example, place an ice cube in a glass of water. Mark the level. Wait for it to melt and you will notice the uncomfortable fact that the level doesn't change. See Archimedes Principle, although he wasn't working with ice. Same principle, though. So there is no way that sea ice extent can have an influence on sea level, whether or not it melts. Given that the article you link to mis-represents this very fundamental and well known principle, the rest has to be suspect. It is like analysing the effects of gravity and stating that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects. That pretty much blows the whole article out the window. It is amusing that you don't understand much of the science you have chosen to doubt. Without an understanding of the basic science involved, you are in no position to evaluate the data out there. Which leads to your denial, because you don't have the slightest clue about what you are talking out, despite your delusions of being clueful. Translation: Dunning-Kruger in action. Congrats. I am assuming this is either the link you were waving about, or the link you had in mind is similar. So we will mark this down as "epic fail". I don't expect you to man up and apologize for your ad hominem attacks when it is provable you were wrong. You just don't have it in you for that. None of your tribe does.