Page 12 of 15 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 149

Thread: Examples of Doublethink

  1. #111
    Meae Musae Servus Hephaestus's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Guess Who View Post
    I was not trying to suggest that the ice in my analogy was made off the planet and dumped on Earth. Just like an electrically operated ice making machine operating on Earth, the ice is made using water on Earth and the heat that must be removed to change the state of the water must be ejected somewhere. It would be ejected to the atmosphere and ultimately to space.

    Why are people suggesting that I am invoking a magic ice maker? There are two natural processes that make ice on Earth. They don't need electricity or magic to operate and don't violate any laws of thermodynamics. The two processes are freezing liquid water in bodies of water and snowfall being compacted to make ice. Glaciers are rivers of ice formed via the second process.
    I'm saying for two reasons. One, your ice maker, as you described it, operated as I said: as if ice was being magically added to the system. You ignored the heat exchanger entirely, and the role of that heat exchange in making the temperature cold enough for water to freeze. You argue as if it is ice that is making things cold enough to freeze.

    How exactly is ice on Earth absorbing heat and melting keeping the planet cool?
    The other reason I'm calling it magic ice, is what I'm leaving as a response to this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guess Who View Post
    Warming is just what happens naturally when the rate of ice formation below the rate of ice melting.
    You present the ice pack as the independent variable and the temperature as the dependent.
    People think they understand their own mortality, even when that understanding has just changed.

    --Meditations on Uncertainty Vol ξ(x)

  2. #112
    Senior Member
    Type
    intp
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,605
    Quote Originally Posted by Guess Who View Post
    Quoting me as you did is somewhat unfair because it was taken out of context
    I don't have time to properly read what you're saying. But I'm sure my interpretation is correct.

  3. #113
    Senior Member Guess Who's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    1,530
    Quote Originally Posted by Hephaestus View Post
    I'm saying for two reasons. One, your ice maker, as you described it, operated as I said: as if ice was being magically added to the system. You ignored the heat exchanger entirely, and the role of that heat exchange in making the temperature cold enough for water to freeze. You argue as if it is ice that is making things cold enough to freeze.
    My ice maker analogy was intended to convey a simple point - that increasing the rate of snowfall to be above the rate of snow melt would cause glaciers to advance and decreasing the rate of snowfall to be below the rate of snow melt would cause glaciers to retreat. I left out some of the details of how the ice making machine works and can see now that it wasn't clear. The ice making machine in the analogy just refers to the natural processes that cause snow to fall.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hephaestus View Post
    The other reason I'm calling it magic ice, is what I'm leaving as a response to this.
    Many people are concerned about what they term global warming and point to a reduction in the amount of ice as evidence that global warming is happening. What you are saying sounds like disappearing ice means that we should be instead concerned about global cooling.

    You are right that putting land ice in water would have a tendency to lower the temperature of the water because the heat required to melt the ice would come from the water. This is exactly the reason why we put ice cubes into drinks. However, the heat from the oceans that was used to melt the ice can be replenished by the heat absorbed by sunlight. If you put a drink containing ice cubes in strong direct sunlight, the drink won't stay cool for long.

    I can see where you are coming from, but I believe that you are wrong in this case. As I said, in the context of the global warming debate, "global warming" means an increase in the amount of heat coming in as sunlight or a decrease in the amount of heat leaving as radiation.

    @Sistamatic's analogy of an insulated ice chest was making the point that the Earth is an open system. She was suggesting that we can place an imaginary sphere around the Earth that is the system boundary and consider how much energy is coming into and how much is leaving the system. If the amount of energy coming in exceeds the amount going out, the planet is said to be warming.

    I agree with her that the Earth can be analysed as an open system. However, a block of ice with a uniform temperature in an insulated ice chest is a very simplistic model of the Earth's climate that leads to a very simple view of global warming. Things other than the amount of sunlight coming in and the amount of heat retained due to greenhouse gases can affect how much heat is absorbed by the Earth. Continental drift could affect the flow of ocean currents and change how rapidly sea ice is melted. Changes in the magnetic field of the Earth or sun could affect the number of charged particles from the sun reaching the Earth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hephaestus View Post
    You present the ice pack as the independent variable and the temperature as the dependent.
    Yes. It seems counter-intuitive at first but I believe that it is the correct way to understand global cooling and warming. The key to understanding global warming, in my opinion, is to view it as the reverse of going into an ice age and understanding what causes ice ages.
    Love displaces fear

  4. #114
    Senior Member jyng1's Avatar
    Type
    intp
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    4,044
    Quote Originally Posted by Guess Who View Post
    My ice maker analogy was intended to convey a simple point - that increasing the rate of snowfall to be above the rate of snow melt would cause glaciers to advance and decreasing the rate of snowfall to be below the rate of snow melt would cause glaciers to retreat.
    And I asked you to explain how this hypothesis fitted the evidence in the Southern Alps where long term precipitation data shows either no change or an increase in precipitation and permanent snow and ice cover has reduced by a third over the last four decades.

  5. #115
    Meae Musae Servus Hephaestus's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Guess Who View Post
    Many people are concerned about what they term global warming and point to a reduction in the amount of ice as evidence that global warming is happening. What you are saying sounds like disappearing ice means that we should be instead concerned about global cooling.
    Those are your words describing the relationship between ice and temperature, not mine. I'm fine with you rebutting your own argument, but don't act like it's my face on it.

    If you put a drink containing ice cubes in strong direct sunlight, the drink won't stay cool for long.
    No shit.

    Edit: Of course, that depends on the ambient temperature, which re-introduces the heat exchanger. The result of the experiment will be different at the equator than Antarctica.

    And then there's the results of putting the glass in a glass bulb flooded with CO2 gas in direct sunlight. At a certain point, it would melt even in Antarctica, and at all it would melt much faster at the equator.

    Yes. It seems counter-intuitive at first but I believe that it is the correct way to understand global cooling and warming. The key to understanding global warming, in my opinion, is to view it as the reverse of going into an ice age and understanding what causes ice ages.
    It's not just "counter intuitive". It's magic ice. It's reverse logic. It's the equivalent of arguing that fever reduction is the natural consequence of lower mercury/alcohol expansion when taking someone's temperature with a thermometer.
    Last edited by Hephaestus; 03-14-2019 at 09:35 PM.
    People think they understand their own mortality, even when that understanding has just changed.

    --Meditations on Uncertainty Vol ξ(x)

  6. #116
    Quote Originally Posted by Guess Who View Post
    My ice maker analogy was intended to convey a simple point - that increasing the rate of snowfall to be above the rate of snow melt would cause glaciers to advance and decreasing the rate of snowfall to be below the rate of snow melt would cause glaciers to retreat. I left out some of the details of how the ice making machine works and can see now that it wasn't clear. The ice making machine in the analogy just refers to the natural processes that cause snow to fall.



    Many people are concerned about what they term global warming and point to a reduction in the amount of ice as evidence that global warming is happening. What you are saying sounds like disappearing ice means that we should be instead concerned about global cooling.

    You are right that putting land ice in water would have a tendency to lower the temperature of the water because the heat required to melt the ice would come from the water. This is exactly the reason why we put ice cubes into drinks. However, the heat from the oceans that was used to melt the ice can be replenished by the heat absorbed by sunlight. If you put a drink containing ice cubes in strong direct sunlight, the drink won't stay cool for long.

    I can see where you are coming from, but I believe that you are wrong in this case. As I said, in the context of the global warming debate, "global warming" means an increase in the amount of heat coming in as sunlight or a decrease in the amount of heat leaving as radiation.

    @Sistamatic's analogy of an insulated ice chest was making the point that the Earth is an open system. She was suggesting that we can place an imaginary sphere around the Earth that is the system boundary and consider how much energy is coming into and how much is leaving the system. If the amount of energy coming in exceeds the amount going out, the planet is said to be warming.

    I agree with her that the Earth can be analysed as an open system. However, a block of ice with a uniform temperature in an insulated ice chest is a very simplistic model of the Earth's climate that leads to a very simple view of global warming. Things other than the amount of sunlight coming in and the amount of heat retained due to greenhouse gases can affect how much heat is absorbed by the Earth. Continental drift could affect the flow of ocean currents and change how rapidly sea ice is melted. Changes in the magnetic field of the Earth or sun could affect the number of charged particles from the sun reaching the Earth.



    Yes. It seems counter-intuitive at first but I believe that it is the correct way to understand global cooling and warming. The key to understanding global warming, in my opinion, is to view it as the reverse of going into an ice age and understanding what causes ice ages.
    When it hits you how you are mangling thermodynamics, you are going to slap your forehead right off your face.
    Insults are effective only where emotion is present. -- Spock, "Who Mourns for Adonais?" Stardate 3468.1.

    It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. -- Aristotle

  7. #117
    Now we know... Asteroids Champion ACow's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,752
    Quote Originally Posted by Guess Who View Post
    I don't mind being a minority of one or ridiculed for my beliefs.

    I am trying to have a debate with reference to well-accepted thermodynamic principles. I am not making reference to God or conspiracies.
    Have you heard the phrase "lying through omission" or "conflict of interest"?

    Sometimes, failing to recognize or mention something is not a sign of your objectivity.

    Indeed, in practice, its often a fundamental principal of double-think.

  8. #118
    Moderator Thoth's Avatar
    Type
    INFP
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    AHJ 2006
    Posts
    985
    Quote Originally Posted by Sistamatic View Post
    When it hits you how you are mangling thermodynamics, you are going to slap your forehead right off your face.
    When you claim to have a degree in applied physics, it's more or less the same thing... Right?

  9. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by Thoth View Post
    When you claim to have a degree in applied physics, it's more or less the same thing... Right?
    At this point, his blindspot on thermodynamics is so big you could sail Lori Laughlin's yacht through it. The best way to argue with him is to let him keep talking.
    Insults are effective only where emotion is present. -- Spock, "Who Mourns for Adonais?" Stardate 3468.1.

    It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. -- Aristotle

  10. #120
    Senior Member Guess Who's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    1,530
    Quote Originally Posted by jyng1 View Post
    And I asked you to explain how this hypothesis fitted the evidence in the Southern Alps where long term precipitation data shows either no change or an increase in precipitation and permanent snow and ice cover has reduced by a third over the last four decades.
    Sorry for not replying earlier.

    The rate of snowfall long ago fell below the massive rate that existed during the last ice age that was required to cause glaciers to advance. Glaciers are always going to melt. As the rate of snowfall decreases, the rate at which glaciers advance will decline, stop and eventually reverse. Having a large portion of the Earth covered with ice and snow during an ice age means that a lot of the sun's incoming heat is reflected back into space (albedo effect) resulting in a net outflow of heat and a gradual cooling of the Earth's oceans (a massive heat sink). When the rate of snow decreases enough to be below the rate of snow melt and glaciers start to retreat, there is less ice and snow cover so less of the sun's heat reflected back into space and the sun is able to gradually warm up the oceans again. The warming of the Earth will take a considerable time because the oceans contain so much water. In the early stages of coming out of an ice age, the rate of snow and ice melt will be low because a significant portion of the sun's heat will be reflected into space and because the planet is so cold. Over time, the rate at which snow and ice melt will increase because the net heat inflow increases from a reduced albedo effect, the planet is warmer and because a reduction in ice volume means an increase in the surface area to volume ratio of ice.

    The short answer is that glaciers are retreating more rapidly now because the rate of snow and ice melt has increased and continues to increase. Less snow and ice cover = a warming Earth = a rate of snow and ice melt that increases with time. The rate of snow and ice melt is not constant. It depends on the Earth's temperature and the amount of sunlight that is absorbed, which in turn depend on the amount of snow and ice cover according to the albedo effect.
    Love displaces fear

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •