Share this.Keanehan Pada Setiap Agen Judi Bola Online Saat Ini – Di kesempatan berikut kami akan membicarakan perihal Artikel Agen Judi Bandar Bola Online yg dapat jadi topic ulasan yg serius menarik, tentunya untuk sejumlah pencinta judi semua tak asing dengan ulasan bandar bola pasti langsung akan terpikirkan perihal bandar darat yg seharusnya yakni bandar judi yg mewah dan kaya. Jadi seorang bandar darat pula sesungguhnya tak enteng, bukan sekedar mesti siaga kepada pihak berwajib karena perjudian yakni perihal yg ilegal mereka harus siaga dengan pemain. First of all the CO2 GHE does not directly influence sea ice extend. That is an indirect effect of increased overall heat content.Next, if the amount of money in your bank account increases, then there is no single cause for that. It could be your wage, you won the lottery or someone just gifted you the money.If the sea ice extent decreases that is probably caused by an increase in temperature and that can have many causes, too.So, what Kenneth says is a pretty strange argument. It’s the same as saying that you are wrong in that you said your account balance increased because of a win in the lottery, because that wasn’t the case in the past, there it was always the wage. See the problem?.

1. Periode Jam Kerja Berikut Tidak Dapat Ditambahkan 1
2. Periode Jam Kerja Berikut Tidak Dapat Ditambahkan Indonesia

So, what Kenneth says is a pretty strange argument. It’s the same as saying that you are wrong in that you said your account balance increased because of a win in the lotteryNo, a bank account and causal mechanisms for polar sea ice are not “the same”.But considering you believe it’s “strange” to not accept that humans are the cause of the current decline, what’s the cause of the?, with. The Canadian Arctic hasn’t even warmed in the last 150 years (“Although biological production increased in the last 150 yr, the reconstructed temperatures do not indicate a warming during this time.” – ).Considering these trends, does this anthropogenic causal mechanism you speak of only work in certain decades, or in one hemisphere and not the other? If so, explain how causal mechanisms turn on and off, depending on the decade and hemisphere.

Please use scientific papers to support your positions.Can we assume you don’t agree with scientists who find that natural variability can explain the warming in the Arctic in recent decades?—“Here we show that the recent warming in this region northeastern Canada and Greenland is strongly associated with a negative trend in the North Atlantic Oscillation, which is a response to anomalous Rossby wave-train activity planetary waves related to the Earth’s rotation originating in the tropical Pacific. This suggests that a substantial portion of recent warming in the northeastern Canada and Greenland sector of the Arctic arises from unforced natural variability.”—“Since the decadal variation of the AO is recognized as the natural variability of the global atmosphere, it is shown that both of decadal variabilities before and after 1989 in the Arctic cooling, then warming can be mostly explained by the natural variability of the AO Arctic Oscillation not by the external response due to the human activity.”. But considering you believe it’s “strange” to not accept that humans are the cause of the current decline, what’s the cause of the?, with. The Canadian Arctic hasn’t even warmed in the last 150 years (“Although biological production increased in the last 150 yr, the reconstructed temperatures do not indicate a warming during this time.” – ).Considering these trends, does this anthropogenic causal mechanism you speak of only work in certain decades, or in one hemisphere and not the other?

If so, explain how causal mechanisms turn on and off, depending on the decade and hemisphere. Please use scientific papers to support your positions.Can we assume you don’t agree with scientists who find that natural variability can explain the warming in the Arctic in recent decades?—“Here we show that the recent warming in this region northeastern Canada and Greenland is strongly associated with a negative trend in the North Atlantic Oscillation, which is a response to anomalous Rossby wave-train activity planetary waves related to the Earth’s rotation originating in the tropical Pacific. This suggests that a substantial portion of recent warming in the northeastern Canada and Greenland sector of the Arctic arises from unforced natural variability.”—“Since the decadal variation of the AO is recognized as the natural variability of the global atmosphere, it is shown that both of decadal variabilities before and after 1989 in the Arctic cooling, then warming can be mostly explained by the natural variability of the AO Arctic Oscillation not by the external response due to the human activity.”. But considering you believe it’s “strange” to not accept that humans are the cause of the current declineRead carefully and you’ll see that what I called strange is your argument (a logical fallacy), not “not accepting that humans are the cause of the current decline”.I also find it strange that you feel the need to repeat thisConsidering these trends, does this anthropogenic causal mechanism you speak of only work in certain decades, or in one hemisphere and not the other? If so, explain how causal mechanisms turn on and off, depending on the decade and hemisphere. Please use scientific papers to support your positions.Can we assume you don’t agree with scientists who find that natural variability can explain the warming in the Arctic in recent decades?Maybe you haven’t seen that this comment of mine is part of a thread where you already posted this? Or is this another attempt of you constructing a situation where you can claim that I would evade your questions?Remember, I just pointed out that your logic is flawed.

Correct it, ignore it, I don’t care. But don’t derail the thread the way you always do please. Thank you 😉P.S.: How humans influence climate is well documented. The difference in hemispheres (namely the polar regions) is also well documented.

You don’t need me to repeat it to you in my own words if you haven’t understood this until now. And yes, I disagree with scientists, as apparently you do too. What was your point again? Mine was that your quoted argument (see first comment in this thread) is not logical.

Remember, I just pointed out that your logic is flawed. Correct itPlease specify the “logic” that is flawed here.don’t derail the thread the way you always do please.So by writing about the lack of a link between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and polar sea ice trends in the comment thread of an article about, wait for it, the lack of a link between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and polar sea ice trendsI am being accused of “derailing” the thread? It would appear to me that you would just prefer not to have to respond to the weakness and inconsistencies of your own beliefs about human control of polar sea ice in recent decades.How humans influence climate is well documented. The difference in hemispheres (namely the polar regions) is also well documented.Considering the Northern Hemisphere’s sea ice grew from the 1940s to the 1980s due to cooling temperatures, and the Southern Hemisphere’s sea ice grew from the 1980s to present due to cooling temperatures, in what way is there an identifiable causal link between the rising anthropogenic CO2 emissions during the multi-decade sea ice expansion for both hemispheres?

Please support your answer with real scientific documentationsince, as you say, this is “well documented”. Please specify the “logic” that is flawed here.You wrote:“Considering climate models are predicated on the presumption that the higher the CO2 concentration, the greater the loss of sea ice, these long-term trends strongly suggest that CO2 concentration changes are not the modulators of polar sea ice changes they are claimed to be.”That is the flawed logic. And I repeat myself:“Saying A can not be the cause of B, because in the past C caused B is a fallacy and is called – i had to google it – “Denying the antecedent”.”.

Denying the antecedent?And I replied to this “challenge” previously by writing this:You’ve stated that it’s “strange” to not accept that humans are the cause of the current decline in Arctic sea ice. So if I were to accept that humans caused the Arctic sea ice decline, I’m left with some troubling inconsistenciesSebastianH, what’s the mechanistic cause of the?, with.The Canadian Arctic hasn’t even warmed in the last 150 years (“Although biological production increased in the last 150 yr, the reconstructed temperatures do not indicate a warming during this time.” – ).Considering these trends, does this anthropogenic causal mechanism you speak of only work in certain decades, or in one hemisphere and not the other? If so, explain how causal mechanisms turn on and off, depending on the decade and hemisphere. Please use scientific papers to support your positions.Can we assume you don’t agree with scientists who find that natural variability can explain the warming in the Arctic in recent decades?—“Here we show that the recent warming in this region northeastern Canada and Greenland is strongly associated with a negative trend in the North Atlantic Oscillation, which is a response to anomalous Rossby wave-train activity planetary waves related to the Earth’s rotation originating in the tropical Pacific. This suggests that a substantial portion of recent warming in the northeastern Canada and Greenland sector of the Arctic arises from unforced natural variability.”—“Since the decadal variation of the AO is recognized as the natural variability of the global atmosphere, it is shown that both of decadal variabilities before and after 1989 in the Arctic cooling, then warming can be mostly explained by the natural variability of the AO Arctic Oscillation not by the external response due to the human activity.”.

I prefer to just repeat what I actually wrote“Considering climate models are predicated on the presumption that the higher the CO2 concentration, the greater the loss of sea ice, these long-term trends sea ice both declining and rising without any significant change in CO2 concentration strongly suggest that CO2 concentration changes are not the modulators of polar sea ice changes they are claimed to be.”Sea ice growth occurs concurrently with CO2 concentrations risingor staying the same. Sea ice decline occurs concurrently with CO2 risingor staying the same.

This lack of correlation strongly suggests that CO2 concentration changes are not the modulators of sea ice growth or decline they are claimed to be.Where the Ps and Qs fit into the above is convoluted. SebastianH is just attempting to hurl a baseless accusation that the above observationally-based statement is illogical. He’s grasping at straws. He cannot explain why the Southern Hemisphere’s sea ice has been increasing since 1979 while consistently maintaining that increases in CO2 concentration are currently what causes sea ice to decline. So that’s why he refuses to address this inconsistency and just repeats this baseless accusation of a logical fallacy.That’s what’s going on here. “If P, then Q.Not P.Therefore, not Q.”P = CO2 concentration is highQ = sea ice is meltingConsidering climate models are predicated on the presumption that the higher the CO2 concentration, the greater the loss of sea ice,That’s this part.these long-term trends sea ice both declining and rising without any significant change in CO2 concentration strongly suggest that CO2 concentration changes are not the modulators of polar sea ice changes they are claimed to be.This is “No P, but Q”. With the result that Kenneth claims it can’t be P that causes Q, which is flawed logic.Where the Ps and Qs fit into the above is convoluted.Nope.He’s grasping at straws.

He cannot explain why the Southern Hemisphere’s sea ice has been increasing since 1979You are. You are making a simple observation about your way to argue, about me not answering a non-related question.

This thread was about the flawed (or strange) logic you employ.So that’s why he refuses to address this inconsistency and just repeats this baseless accusation of a logical fallacy.Not baseless and I am refusing to answer unrelated questions (that have been answered by others, I don’t know why you think this is inconsistent). These long-term trends sea ice both declining and rising without any significant change in CO2 concentration strongly suggest that CO2 concentration changes are not the modulators of polar sea ice changes they are claimed to be.This is “No P, but Q”.As I’ve now specified both in the article and in my comment, it can’t be a “No P, but Q” thing because, as I have pointed out, both increases and decreases in sea ice concentrations are coincident with both increases in CO2 concentrations and no-change in CO2 concentrations. In other words, there is no consistent long-term correlation or connection between variabilities in sea ice concentration and changes in CO2 concentration. Arctic sea ice declines while CO2 increases. Antarctic sea ice grows while CO2 increases. Since there is no obvious if-then directionality to the connection between CO2 and sea ice, then there can be no axiomatic statement about the if-then consequences of increasing CO2 concentrations. This is not consistent with IPCC claims, as they do claim there is a clear if-then connection and direction with CO2 and sea ice.

Scientific observations do not support the IPCC’s claims about a clear if-then connection and direction. The article spells this out rather clearly.Once again, this is just another example of SebastianH trying to concoct a straw man argument.I am refusing to answer unrelated questionsI fail to understand why the Southern Hemisphere increase in sea ice, or the more rapid decline in Arctic sea ice when CO2 concentrations were loweris unrelated to an article about.increases and decreases in sea ice concentrations having no obvious connection to CO2 concentrations both in the short term or long term. But I do understand why you have made up another weak excuse for failing to respond to the question.

Once again, this is just another example of SebastianH trying to concoct a straw man argument.One more time, when you say that A can not cause B because B changes even when A doesn’t change, then your logic is flawed. That’s all this thread (at least my part) was about It’s like saying winning the lottery won’t change your bank account balance because the balance changed all the time from other things before, when there was no lottery win. Deeply flawed logic.Also, I don’t see where anyone made the claim that a CO2 increase directly causes ice to melt. Increasing temperatures melt ice. An increase in CO2 concentration causes warming, but not uniformly everywhere. But still, ice mass in Antartica is decreasing as far as the data shows.I fail to understand why the Southern Hemisphere increase in sea ice, or the more rapid decline in Arctic sea ice when CO2 concentrations were loweris unrelated to an article about It’s unrelated to me pointing out a flawed logic.But I do understand why you have made up another weak excuse for failing to respond to the question.Lol? Do you feel this strategy of yours is effective?

Asking an opponent unrelated questions and then demanding those questions to be answered in following replies or else? Why does it always have to be about homework assignments with you?Please don’t make me repeat why your logic is flawed another time by explaining how ice extent changes without corresponding CO2 concentration changes and claiming that this doesn’t support IPCC claims. One more time, when you say that A can not cause B because B changes even when A doesn’t changeOne more time, I DID NOT WRITE THAT A CAN NOT CAUSE B. One more time, I instead wrote that there is no consistent directional connection from CO2 concentration to sea ice. Sea ice grows when CO2 increases (see 1950s to 1980s in the NH, 1979-present in the SH).

Sea ice declines when CO2 increases (see 1920s to 1950s and 1980s to present in the NH, and 1950s to 1980s in the SH). Sea ice declines when CO2 is constant (see the Medieval Warm Period). Sea ice grows when CO2 is constant (see the Little Ice Age). So, for the th time now, I did not write what you falsely claim I did.

I pointed out that the more CO2–less sea ice conceptualization espoused by the IPCC is not consistent with the compilation of evidence. Your “denying the antecedent” charge is made up and nonsensical given what I actually wrote.

No doubt, you will keep on making these false claims anyway. Free online games download gta vice city. It’s all you have. Anything to avoid answering questions as to why sea ice trends don’t match well with CO2 trends. I pointed out that the more CO2–less sea ice conceptualization espoused by the IPCC is not consistent with the compilation of evidence.That is “A can’t be the cause of B”.Anything to avoid answering questions as to why sea ice trends don’t match well with CO2 trends.I’ll cite myself, since you likely just ignored this passage:Also, I don’t see where anyone made the claim that a CO2 increase directly causes ice to melt.

Increasing temperatures melt ice. An increase in CO2 concentration causes warming, but not uniformly everywhere.

But still, ice mass in Antartica is decreasing as far as the data shows. @Kenneth,My point was that Slippery Seb’s “logic” makes no sense.Actually I didn’t state it correctly, myself. But I’ll fix that here.Drawing a “Truth Table” would better illustrate why you made no logical error, but that Slippery Sideshow Seb is, as usual, wrong.P = high CO2Q = melting iceIf both are “true” then P=Q is “true.”BUTIf P is “true” and Q is “false,” as you are pointing out it sometimes is, then P=Q is “false.”Note that for you to have committed the logical fallacy that he is accusing you of, you would have to be saying that growing ice proved that P was “false,” I.e., that CO2 wasn’t elevated. You are clearly not saying that, nor would you.I hope that’s a bit clearer. Dear AndyG55,it’s good that you seem to be able to understand that the unit of work is not Joule, but Watt. To warm something up however, you need to add Joules and you do that by performing work for a time X. Sitting down on a chair makes to chair perform work exactly once, there is no continuous output of X Watt that could add to the heat content of anything.That’s why I am asking you how much work a chair is performing in 1h vs.

There is no difference. And I don’t think you are getting that. This means whatever heating happens when you sit on the chair, it’s not going to last.Back to the atmosphere: your claim is that a continous compression is responsible for the incoming side of the heat content (unit Joule) equation, not the radiative properties of the atmosphere (“CO2 DOES NOT effect any temperatures, in any way what-so-ever”). For this to happen the compression would have to perform work (unit Watt) continously over time to provide Joules (work X time) for the heat content. But that is not the case.

Otherwise you could demonstrate to us that there is a difference in the work output between sitting on a chair for 1h vs. 2h.In case you are not trolling and really mean that sitting down on a chair is a one time thing, but the warming from that event causes a constant temperature increase, please explain why the Joules added by this one time event don’t radiate/convect/evaporate away the same way all other Joules added to the heat content do?Or are you trolling us? Since you seem to also believe that one time warming events like an El Nino could cause step jumps in temperatures. “Back to the atmosphere:”You still haven’t got the intelligence to grasp basic physics of structures, how are you going to comprehend basic physics of gasses?The increase in lower atmosphere temperatures comes from static gravitational compression of that atmosphere as predicted by the ideal gas law itself.The low altitude molecules have decreased mean free path, higher collision rate, thus higher kinetic energy is registered, thus increased temperature.The units of kinetic energy are. Guess what, seb.

JOULES, same as the work done by “strain energy”All this is very obviously WAY BEYOND YOU.No wonder you are SO GULLIBLE as to believe the fallacy of CO2 warming despite the TOTAL LACK of any sort of evidence. Oh there was a reply, but still no answer to the question.The units of kinetic energy are. Guess what, seb. JOULES, same as the work done by “strain energy”Guess what, the released energy from a detonation also has the unit Joules. Do those Joules cause an increase in temperature that lasts? Why?Compression of a gas to a certain point is also a one time event.

Periode Jam Kerja Berikut Tidak Dapat Ditambahkan 1

The gas gets warmer during the compression and then the heat dissipates. There is no ongoing compression that causes a higher than expected surface temperature. Or can you forecast the date when sea level pressure will not be 1015 mb, but 1500 mb?. “In The Canadian Arctic, Temperatures May Have Reached 6°C Warmer Than Now, With 4 Months More Open Water (No Ice) Than Present”The OPPORTUNITIES for this open Arctic would be enormous.!!As opposed to the Arctic Ocean being a “no travel” zone for large proportions of the year.Unfortunately, the RECOVERY from the EXTREME extents of the late 1970s seems to have come to an end, and with the AMO turning, Arctic sea ice is likely to start increasing again.SO MUCH ARCTIC SEA ICE!!We are VERY MUCH in a COOLER period of the current interglacial, a minor bump above THE COLDEST PERIOD IN 10,000 years. “Throughout Much Of The Holocene, The Arctic Ocean Periodically Became Ice Free”My guess is that they know the cyclical nature of climate, and we’re expecting temps to go up and ice to melt.

Periode Jam Kerja Berikut Tidak Dapat Ditambahkan Indonesia

If that had had happened they could claim their theory predicted it, and if they had been successful at putting their fascist policies in place, they could have claimed they had averted a catastrophe of global proportions wh n the cycle reversed. Sadly for them, but fortunately for us, many experts have been able to use the net to expose their scam.